Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] It takes two, and Ammo Store
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 4:04 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I don't think that requiring 2 Bangs to kill someone will necessarily slow > down the game once the match starts. We've seen that players (others and > myself) can easily use Contracts to prepare beforehand to set up automation > which can lead to very fast wins. > > Perhaps a player could only shoot once per X hours (72?), and it takes two > shots to kill someone? > Part of the reason it went so fast is that a small number of players was able to eliminate enough players immediately, and this makes it take twice as many resources to do that. I was also thinking about changing the game to eliminate all the timing nonsense, and letting players commit to eliminations and reveal them the next week. This would reduce rapid-fire combos and make things more fair for people who aren't as active. 72 hours would still have some of those issues, but if everyone eliminates at once it should be better. -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: Hold it!
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 10:13 PM Matt Smyth via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I incarnate. > -- > juniper > This fails. To "incarnate" is to flip one's Vitality to Invulnerable. A ghostly player CAN incarnate by announcement, provided there are only Invulnerable or Ghostly players. As I was alive at the time, there are not only Invulnerable or Ghostly players, so you can't incarnate. -- snail (Alive, 0 Bangs)
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] Billboard Rock Chart - 3 June 2024 (Corrected)
On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 9:58 PM 4st nomic via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 3:47 PM Jaff via agora-official < > agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > THE BILLBOARD ROCK CHART (STONEMASON'S WEEKLY REPORT) > > > > StoneOwnerLast Wielded Stone Cost Immune? > > --- --- -- --- > > PowerNix 2024-04-01 5 > > Soul snail2024-04-21 5 > > Sabotage Agora2023-10-25 6 > > MintyMatt Smyth 2024-04-28 7 > > Protection Nix 2024-04-01 3 Protection > > RecursionNix 2024-04-01 5 Protection > > Hot Potato Agora2024-04-28 5 > > BlankAgora2024-04-01 2 > > Anti-Equatorial Agora2024-05-05 2 > > Radiance snail2024-05-06 8 > > Loud Agora 5 > > > > CoE: At least one stone cost is incorrect: The Minty stone was transferred > last week to Juniper via the Soul Stone, setting it's cost to the default, > and then this week, the Minty Stone should now have cost 9. (Or... am I > missing something?) > (And the Soul stone was also transferred as part of its ability) > > -- > 4ˢᵗ > wearing Jester's Cap > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator > Stone cost only changes at the end of the week, decreasing by 1 if it wasnt transferred, or increasing by 1 if it was transferred at least twice. The minty stone cost 7 last week and was transferred twice, so it should cost 8 spendies now. (So you're both mistaken :3) -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Salaries
On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 5:04 PM Matt Smyth via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Hey, did this proposal count as invalid or something?? > > > juniper :) > > > Ah The subject line didn't contain the usual "[Proposal]" or mention the promotor so i missed it. Typically you could just CoE the Promotor's report to prevent the proposals from ratifying away, but I'll do that and distribute your two proposals i missed (the other is the short ruleset proposal). -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] An Agoran Standoff
On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 5:24 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I withdraw my latest Proposal too, the one about Weapons. I was too > excited, and sloppy. Although I still like the idea and would enjoy > expanding the Bang game. > I think it's a great idea, though! We should try it out later (though I did want to see how the "base game" plays out first). Reviving players is a genius mechanic if we do it right, I bet. Necromancy nomic. (But not zombies) -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] An Agoran Standoff
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 12:34 AM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2024-05-14 at 06:55 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > A ghostly player CAN incarnate by announcement, which means > > to flip eir Vitality to Invulnerable, provided there are only > > Invulnerable or Ghostly players. > [snip] > > When the match is reset, each player is set to Ghostly, all bangs are > > destroyed, and then each player gains 1 bang. > > > > When 3 days have passed since the match is reset, all Invulnerable > > players have eir Vitality set to Alive. > > The timing here is incredibly tight given Agora's typical pace of > play – not only is it faster than the "once per week" cadence at which > many players seem to be paying attention, it's even faster than the 4- > day without-objection timer. > > This makes it likely that only players who are continuously paying > attention will end up joining the match, and could arguably be > considered a scam, or at least biased proposal-writing in favour of the > continuously active. > This is a great point, so I'll extend it to 7 days. > > > Each corporeal player SHOULD list eir Vitality and Bang Balance in > > all eir messages. > > This one is also a problem, seeing as it includes things like official > reports (and even the SLR/FLR) – although some means is needed to track > things, and I think officer-less subgames are an experiment worth > trying, "every message" seems like too high a frequency for this. > I think this is actually fine: it's only a few words to be added to your signature at the end of the report, and since it's a SHOULD it will be easy to figure out if it's annoying or immersive (as i intend it to be). I'll be putting it in all my reports at least :3 -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No Overpowered Deputizations
On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 9:08 PM Jaff via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I will point out that there are multiple ways to take actions of an office > without holding it which this wouldn't cover, such as delegation. I think a > safer fix would be preventing a player who holds an office from taking > actions corresponding to another office such that holding both would make > them Overpowered. > Being able to take actions as another officer without holding the office is useful, though, especially in some edge cases. Being unable to resolve proposals because you're the promotor seems more dangerous than allowing it only by temporary deputization, which already has some strict requirements. Delegation may need another look, though, since it can be done with just the consent of the delegating office and 1 other party, but it also has the safeguard of being overwritten with agoran consent. Offices can also in general be impeached with 2 Agoran consent, in case anyone abuses delegation or deputization. This at least prevents becoming overpowered by deputization, which most likely would happen by accident and could cause other problems. -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9096-9101
On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 9:10 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 4/21/24 18:04, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 3:12 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > >>> 9099~ snail 2.0 Quantum Superstone > >> AGAINST > >> > >> > >>> 9100~ snail 2.0 Spending Stone > >> AGAINST > >> > >> > >>> 9101~ snail 2.0 Unstable Stone > >> AGAINST > >> > >> -- > >> Janet Cobb > >> > >> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > >> > > Why no stones? > > -- > > snail > > > Quantum Superstone: A nightmare to track. > It wouldn't be THAT bad i think, but alright. > > Unstable Stone: I remain opposed to crystals and extending them into > other areas of the game. > > Spending Stone: As the Stonemason, I don't want to incentivize massive > numbers of wieldings in the same message because that increases my > workload. > This one doesn't make sense, the stones would probably be wielded anyways, and this would just make it more likely it'd be done in the same message instead of seperate ones, which seems like less or equal work. -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Collector] (@Illuminator) Stamp Raffle Results (THE GREAT STAMP HEIST)
On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 7:41 PM Matt Smyth via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > And at what point in the rules does it say when you are able to close > registration for the raffle? The emails seem to show that you started, > registered, then closed the raffle within about ten minutes. Surely there's > something to prevent this from happening? > > On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, 10:37 am secretsnail9 via agora-discussion, < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 7:06 PM Matt Smyth via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, 10:04 am secretsnail9 via agora-business, < > > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > I temporarily deputize as Collector to publish the following Raffle > > > Result. > > > > > > > > Raffle Participants: > > > > snail > > > > > > > > Raffle Winner: > > > > snail > > > > -- > > > > snail > > > > > > > So you collected your own stamp? > > > ___ > > > Juniper > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I got every stamp owned by Agora, which is a lot more than just 1 stamp i > > think. Getting together the collector's report now (just gonna deputize > > again). > > -- > > snail > > > Here's the full Rule: Rule 2687/0 (Power=1.0) The Stamp Raffle Once per week, each player CAN enter the raffle by paying a fee of 1 stamp of eir own type to Agora. Once each week, the Collector CAN and SHALL publish a Raffle Result by announcement, containing a list of players that entered the raffle in the previous week (the participants of the raffle) and the selection of a random player from that list (the winner of the raffle) if it is not empty. When a Raffle Result is published, each stamp that was owned by Agora at the start of the current week is transferred to the winner of the raffle (if there is one), and each participant of the raffle gains 1 radiance. The key here is that raffle results went unpublished, leaving stamps in the possession of Agora. Murphy, ais523, wunst, and Quadrantal all entered the raffle one week, and then the next week there was no raffle result, so the stamps they paid rolled over to the next raffle. Since i was the only participant last week, I could claim all the prizes this week, since all the stamps were technically owned by Agora at the start of this week. -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Collector] (@Illuminator) Stamp Raffle Results (THE GREAT STAMP HEIST)
On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 7:06 PM Matt Smyth via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, 10:04 am secretsnail9 via agora-business, < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I temporarily deputize as Collector to publish the following Raffle > Result. > > > > Raffle Participants: > > snail > > > > Raffle Winner: > > snail > > -- > > snail > > > So you collected your own stamp? > ___ > Juniper > > > > I got every stamp owned by Agora, which is a lot more than just 1 stamp i think. Getting together the collector's report now (just gonna deputize again). -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: An Overpowering Proposal
On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 6:41 PM Matt Smyth via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {{{
> Title: An Overpowering Proposal
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: juniper
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 2472 (Office Incompatibilities) by appending
>
> {
> If, three days after becoming Overpowered, a player is still Overpowered,
> and e was Overpowered for all of those three days, then the player can
> declare a Dictatorship, and declare emself a Dictator.
> }
>
This doesn't have a method for becoming dictator (by announcement, for
example) and only allows it at a single instant, exactly 3 days after being
overpowered.
>
> }}}
>
>
> I submit the following proposal, enacted only if An Overpowering Proposal
> is enacted:
>
> {{{
> Title: Dictator Takes the Quorum
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: juniper
> Co-authors:
>
> Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by appending
>
> {
> If there is currently a player who is a Dictator, eir vote counts as one
> less than the current Quorum.
> }
>
> }}}
> --
> Juniper
>
how does ones vote count as... 6... 6 what? we have voting strength, that
could work. it's default of 3, though, so this isnt too powerful.
--
snail
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9096-9101
On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 3:12 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > 9099~ snail 2.0 Quantum Superstone > > AGAINST > > > > 9100~ snail 2.0 Spending Stone > > AGAINST > > > > 9101~ snail 2.0 Unstable Stone > > AGAINST > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > Why no stones? -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9087-9095
> 9094~ snail, R. Lee 1.0 More instability with a hyphen > PRESENT, but I'm quite peeved - it would have been polite to let me know > about the error so I could correct it instead of submitting your own > proposal and getting the crystal benefits therefrom. The trouble with this is i'm the promotor, and i'd also like proposals to be distributed quickly to keep the game moving. So if I pointed out the error, i'd still have to distribute the proposal anyways, plus then it'd be another week until the next distribution (unless i did it immediately which would be rude to the Assessor). I'll try and message people on discord first if this situation comes up again, though, since then there's a chance for a quick fix. And it likely will since i usually read the proposals deeply only when i distribute them. Should probably change that too... -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: @Notary @ADoP Delegating for tailor
On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 1:35 AM Ben Matthies via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Let's try again... > > With support from ais523 and Janet, and without objections, I become > delegate for Tailor. > > I take the promise "Tailor Delegation 2024-04-04" by Murphy from the > Library and cash it > > @Murphy Have a nice vacation > > I award myself the Cyan Ribbon. > > On 04.04.24 18:40, wunst via agora-business wrote: > > I intend, with Agoran Consent, to > > > > 1) become delegate for tailor > > > > 2) take the promise "Tailor Delegation 2024-04-04" by Murphy from the > > Library and cash it > > > Oh no. This fails, since the promise tries to take a vacation by announcement, but it needs to be done with 7 days notice. Funnily enough, this would still work if Murphy made an intent at least 7 days ago, as only intents need to be tabled by acting as oneself, and not resolving them. -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly report
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 11:17 AM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 3/25/24 11:09, juan via agora-official wrote: > > - cuddlybanana 2021-03-16 2024-02-12 rose.stron...@gmail.com > > > - blob 2023-05-18 2024-02-12 cearguinzo...@gmail.com > > > - Anneke-Constantine 2023-05-23 2024-02-12 agora.quarent...@gmail.com > > > - Zipzap 2023-10-04 2024-02-12 itszip...@gmail.com > > > - Crystalizedmire2023-11-10 2024-02-12 awwel...@gmail.com > > > - Goren Barak2023-11-18 2024-02-12 gore...@riseup.net > > Am I correct in that all of these players are eligible to be > deregistered currently? > > -- > nix > Arbitor > > No, it's only been 42 days since they were made inactive. -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: [@Notary] Rent-Seeking Street Food Vendor
On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 4:33 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I grant the following promise to the Library: {
> Conditions: the bearer has transferred me, in the same message, 7 radiance.
>
> I wield the Hot Potato Stone, specifying the bearer.
> }
>
> Gaelan
>
I don't think this promise is cashable, since radiance cant be transferred
(it's a switch).
--
snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: yes, yes, I got the memo
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 3:07 PM Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 25/03/2024 19:13, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
> > Amend rule 2478 (“Justice”) by replacing: {
> > A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
> > committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
> > incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
> > it has one).
> > } with {
> > A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
> > committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
> > incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
> > it has one); but a player CANNOT note an infraction that has
> > already been investigated.
> > }
>
> Could this not more succinctly just be "...an unforgiven, uninvestigated
> infraction"? The rule is already quite long and hard to parse.
>
> -Kate
I suggest "un-noted" to prevent all instances of noting 1 infraction
multiple times.
--
snail
Re: DIS: Request for Feedback: What's the Method Anyway?
> On Mar 12, 2024, at 5:49 PM, nix via agora-discussion > wrote: > > This is related to CFJ 4072, but you don't need to be familiar with all > of the arguments there. > > I just want everyone's reading on one (crucial) element. R105 requires > an "unambiguous and clear specification of the method to be used for > changing the rule". For rule changes in proposals, what would you say is > "the method", according to the rules? What would be a 1 sentence > "unambiguous and clear specification" of that method? > > -- > nix The method for changing the rules seems to be "by proposal", shorthand for "by the proposal process". A sentence to specify this... "This is a proposal, which, if adopted, will take effect." -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] New Arbitor in Town @kiako @Kate @Yachay @ais523 @Janet @Murphy
On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 6:03 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 3/10/24 19:01, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 5:45 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
> > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 2024-03-10 at 15:38 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion
> >> wrote:
> >>> If so, and if Kate indeed gained five Ribbons on 2023-08-31, and no
> >>> one else gained as many, then:
> >>>* Only Kate's vote counted on any proposal resolved after 230.
> >>>* Only Kate's support counted on any tabled action resolved after
> >>> 230.
> >>> which should have been enough for eir dictatorship to become
> >>> effective.
> >> What was quorum? If it ever got low enough for that to work, then there
> >> is something badly broken with the quorum rules and we need to revise
> >> them.
> >>
> >> --
> >> ais523
> >>
> > from Rule 2481 (Festival Restrictions) Power 3.1:
> >
> > {
> > While Agora's Festivity is nonzero, the following apply:
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. Quorum for Agoran Decisions is equal to half the number of
> > Festive players, rounded up;
> >
> > }
> >
> > Quorum was 1 if Festivity was 5, since Kate would be the only Festive
> > player. Except!
> >
> > Rule 879/40 (Power=3)
> > Quorum
> >
> > Each Agoran decision has a quorum. This is a number set when the
> > decision is created, and thereafter cannot be changed. When a
> > person initiates an Agoran decision, that person SHALL state the
> > quorum of that decision. However, incorrectly stating the quorum
> > of a decision does not invalidate the initiation, nor does it
> > actually change the quorum of the decision.
> >
> > The quorum that an Agoran decision gains as it is created can be
> > defined by other rules of power 2 or greater. If no other rule
> > defines the quorum of an Agoran decision, the quorum for that
> > decision is equal to 2/3 of the number of voters on the referendum
> > that had been most recently resolved at the time of that
> > decision's initiation, the whole rounded to the nearest integer.
> >
> > As an exception to the previous paragraph, the minimum quorum of
> > an Agoran decision is 2, or 1 if there are fewer than 2 players in
> > the game. If the rules would attempt to set the quorum of an
> > Agoran decision to less than the minimum quorum, it is set to the
> > minimum instead.
> >
> >
> > It seems like because of Rule 879, Rule 2481 attempts to set quorum as 1,
> > but then it is set to 2 instead. This means if festivity was 5, all
> > distributions initiated would fail quorum.
> >
> > --
> > snail
>
>
> A voter is voting strength 0 still counts for quorum purposes.
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>
Oh. Well that's silly, scammable, and we should probably change it. Players
"voting" but having no effect on the decisions besides quorum doesn't
really seem right. In real agora this could lead to just 1 person having a
say whether a proposal passes or fails.
--
snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] New Arbitor in Town @kiako @Kate @Yachay @ais523 @Janet @Murphy
On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 5:45 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2024-03-10 at 15:38 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > If so, and if Kate indeed gained five Ribbons on 2023-08-31, and no
> > one else gained as many, then:
> >* Only Kate's vote counted on any proposal resolved after 230.
> >* Only Kate's support counted on any tabled action resolved after
> > 230.
> > which should have been enough for eir dictatorship to become
> > effective.
>
> What was quorum? If it ever got low enough for that to work, then there
> is something badly broken with the quorum rules and we need to revise
> them.
>
> --
> ais523
>
from Rule 2481 (Festival Restrictions) Power 3.1:
{
While Agora's Festivity is nonzero, the following apply:
2. Quorum for Agoran Decisions is equal to half the number of
Festive players, rounded up;
}
Quorum was 1 if Festivity was 5, since Kate would be the only Festive
player. Except!
Rule 879/40 (Power=3)
Quorum
Each Agoran decision has a quorum. This is a number set when the
decision is created, and thereafter cannot be changed. When a
person initiates an Agoran decision, that person SHALL state the
quorum of that decision. However, incorrectly stating the quorum
of a decision does not invalidate the initiation, nor does it
actually change the quorum of the decision.
The quorum that an Agoran decision gains as it is created can be
defined by other rules of power 2 or greater. If no other rule
defines the quorum of an Agoran decision, the quorum for that
decision is equal to 2/3 of the number of voters on the referendum
that had been most recently resolved at the time of that
decision's initiation, the whole rounded to the nearest integer.
As an exception to the previous paragraph, the minimum quorum of
an Agoran decision is 2, or 1 if there are fewer than 2 players in
the game. If the rules would attempt to set the quorum of an
Agoran decision to less than the minimum quorum, it is set to the
minimum instead.
It seems like because of Rule 879, Rule 2481 attempts to set quorum as 1,
but then it is set to 2 instead. This means if festivity was 5, all
distributions initiated would fail quorum.
--
snail
DIS: Re: BUS: @Promotor Submission of Proposal
> On Feb 11, 2024, at 8:13 PM, Maloney Agora via agora-business > wrote: > > I'm leaving the other one up. Fuck you. I propose the following proposal. > > Name: Ambiguity Amendment > Author: Maloney > ID: 3 Dearest Maloney, as the Promotor It's my duty to distribute all proposals that are submitted. I wish I'd seen the potential ambiguity of the Radiance Day proposal and warned you beforehand of agora's strict tendencies, but what's done is done. We'll have to discuss if it worked or not (it seems like it didn't because it's such a ridiculously high standard for rule changes) but what I can say for certain is that these last two proposals wouldn't have the effect you want, because you list "ID: 3" instead of "AI: 3" (Adoption Index). So I humbly request you withdraw the proposals, as to reduce my workload and the bloating of the archives. But a more serious issue: "Ambiguity which would reasonably alter the function of a rule change or cause reasonable doubt that a rule change is being made causes that change to be void and without effect." is the new text you desire, but it would still prevent the original proposal you made from taking effect. The issue is that there could be reasonable doubt that a rule change would have been made, as rules are not the only thing that could be enacted. Aris has proposed an even lighter standard: "if it would be clear to any reasonable player, it is not ambiguous." This would let your original proposal work, so i think it's a more appropriate fix. If you'd like to propose a different fix because you see another issue, please do! but please withdraw the current proposals in either case since they wont work, and specify the adoption index as 3 so it will have enough Power to work in any new proposals that affect Power 3 rules. Agora is cool and all but you first have to get past the hurdle of knowing and using the language, which is tough to do. It sucks messing up and seeing other people mess up, although sometimes it causes interesting meases. But if we want good gameplay we have to know how to ease the learning process. Personally, whenever i want to do any action, i just copy exactly what the ruleset says. (Unless it's something unimportant like pushing the boulder). If you use the words the rules do, it'd be pretty hard for anything to be ambiguous. Plus then you'll actually be reading the rules which can help in understanding strategies, and loopholes. I'm sorry you had to have the rug pulled out from under you. It sucks when it happens, and it happens every so often here, but it gets easier to avoid mistakes as you play and learn. So please keep trying! I look forward to seeing more proposals from you and (hopefully) helping you if i see any issues or improvements to be made. :D (and i'm sure others will try and do the same, because i really dont want to distribute proposals that don't do anything agora >;) -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9053-9057
> On Jan 30, 2024, at 8:43 PM, nix via agora-discussion > wrote: > On 1/30/24 16:54, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: >> AGAINST (allows for officers to put officework on other players without >> their consent, also might be broken) > > The first is fixable after it passes. What do you mean by "might be broken"? > > -- > nix > "While the holder of an office is On Vacation, the Delegate of that office can act as if e is the holder of the Office." I'm not sure if this would actually work as intended. If say, Janet had delegated 4st to be the rulekeeper's delegate, this would mean "4st can act as if e is Janet". I think we could do with different wording, like deputization has. (The requirement that the action be possible for em to do also seems important.) I'm not convinced this wording would prevent The Prime Minister from colluding with their delegate to get double the cabinet orders. and also i think the "can" should be "CAN" instead. We probably shouldn't let it pass even if it's "fixable" since the fix could be easily blocked at AI 3. -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Vacations
On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 2:10 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 1/28/24 14:04, nix via agora-business wrote: > > A player CAN flip the Delegate switch of a specified office to > > emself with Agoran Consent. If the Delegate switch of an office is > > set to "None", the holder of that office CAN flip the Delegate > > switch of that office to a specified player with notice. > > > I reread the discussion from when this was first proposed (in May of > last year!). Back then, the concern was striking a balance between > insuring someone would fill the role, not creating "dynasties" where the > current holder chose their successor, and making this all timely so it > wasn't a hassle. I hope this method is a good balance. The officer can > just choose someone if there is nobody, but a simple Consent decision > can always assign someone. If people don't agree with the officer's > choice, it's over-rideable. > > -- > nix > I think there needs to be some kind of change so that an unwilling delegate stop being one. As is, someone else would have to volunteer, since you can only make the delegate *yourself* with Agoran consent. I don't like that someone with a bunch of offices could burden someone else with all the office work for 30 days, who'd be forced to go inactive if they can't comply or can't get someone else to volunteer. Also what would happen if a delegate "resigns"? I think it'd be a good idea to have it be defined, and could fix this issue. Maybe throw in a clause about deputizing when there's no delegate and an officer is on vacation, the deputizer becomes the new delegate. -- snail
Re: DIS: Working out the process
On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 10:13 PM Mercury via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 1/14, I reached for the Hot Potato Stone and the Sabotage Stone, both of > which were owned by Agora. That same day, snail also reached for the second > stone. The Stonemason had just filed eir report, and neither snail nor I > are listed so I assume we both have Rockiness = 0. Stones would have been > transferred at the beginning of the week - so, would I be correct to just > assume I'm holding both of the stones I reached for? > > -- > Mercury Rule 2642 reads "Once a week each player CAN "reach" for a specified stone owned by Agora by announcement." So only your first reach for a stone owned by Agora worked, the second one failed. You have the hot potato stone, and I have the sabotage stone. -- snail
Re: DIS: Battle of generations (just a question)
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 7:57 AM juan via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > So, > > Some people tag officers using “Attn”, and some using a “@”. What > is your opinion on this? It seems “Attn” is a more traditional way > of calling someone's attention on email, while “@” probably comes > from social midia websites. Does it have any aesthetic consequences? Does > one of the options have more benefits? > > -- > juan > Personally i think either is fine, both seem accepted. @ is faster though, and more compact, so I prefer it. Agora likes it's ability to be inconsistent, though, so I doubt we'll get uniformity (it's part of the fun to do things weirdly and differently). But might as well try :D -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Proposal] Objecting to Objections
> On Dec 21, 2023, at 8:41 AM, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
> This seems dangerous.
>
>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 4:46 AM secretsnail9 via agora-official <
>> agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>>
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> {{{
>> Title: Objection Security
>> Adoption Index: 2.0
>> Author: snail
>> Co-authors:
>>
>> Amend Rule 2645 (The Stones) by appending the following:
>>
>> {
>> - Objection Stone (Quarterly, 3): When wielded, a specified player
>>is walled from a specified tabled intent. A player CANNOT
>>object or support an intent e is walled from.
>> }
>>
>>
>> }}}
>> --
>> snail
>>
It's not actually that dangerous: this would only affect intents of power 2 and
lower, since preventing support/objection is secured at the power of the
enabling rule. Having the stone be quarterly is also a safety measure.
--
snail
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Illuminator, @Stonemason, @Murphy) Toss
On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 4:38 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > snail wrote: > > > I wield the Hot Potato stone, specifying Murphy. (It is transferred to > em, > > and I gain 8 radiance.) > > I wield the Hot Potato stone, specifying Liz. (It is transferred to em, > and I gain 8 radiance.) > This fails, The Hot Potato stone was returned to Agora in the latest collection notice. :( -- snail
Re: DIS: Proto: A new economy
On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 10:50 AM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Here are some thoughts about a new economy that I've been thinking > about. These would ideally work in tandem with existing subgames / > other subgames that other players might propose / other economies that > other players might propose, rather than being a replacement. > > This is just a sketch, so it doesn't contain enactment language, > Powers, etc.. yet (what would be a good power for the rules in > question? is this the correct spelling of Jeweller in Agoran English?) > > I've tried to choose the timings of the various Gem awards to be easy > for the officers in question (generally the timings are set up so that > they could be performed at the same as the time at which the officer > would be performing actions anyway). It is possible that this is too > slow in some cases (e.g. potentially having to wait a month for the > Tailor's report to gain Achievement Gems). > > I'd be interested on feedback both on the general concept and on the > details. The basic idea is to award Gems in various categories for > various different aspects of Agoran gameplay, which are used to buy > Purchase Packs whose prices vary randomly each month, meaning that > different aspects of the game randomly become more relevant from month > to month. Gems are sort-of grindable over time, but decay slowly if not > used, and can be converted to fast-decaying Score Stars, or non- > decaying Stamps, or various other things. Some Purchase Packs are more > valuable than others, but each can only be bought once per player per > month. > > > Gems > > The Jeweller is an office, and the recordkeepor of each type of Gem. > Gems are a category of assets ownable by players and contracts. Each > type of Gem is a currency, and has an associated office; the following > list specifies the types of Gem, their associated offices, and one or > more mechanisms for gaining each type of Gem (but other rules may > specify additional methods to gain Gems). > > * Duty Gem (ADoP): As part of eir weekly duties, the ADoP SHALL, and > CAN by announcement, grant each player a number of gems equal to twice > the total complexity of the offices e holds. > > * Decision Gem (Arbitor): As part of eir weekly duties, the Arbitor > SHALL, and CAN by announcement, grant a number of Decision Gems to each > player equal to 4 times the number of CFJs that player judged in the > previous week (except that e NEED NOT grant gems for a CFJ if the judge > exceeded the time limit to judge it). > A simple improvement would be to make this (4 if e did judge a cfj) instead of (4 for each cfj judged) so cfjs dont get spammed. Also deals with the issue of linked cfjs. > > * Democracy Gem (Assessor): As part of eir weekly duties, the Assessor > SHALL, and CAN by announcement, award 3 Change Gems to each player who > voted FOR on at least half the referenda that were resolved that week; > and SHALL NOT resolve referenda for the rest of the week after doing > so. > This should be based on votes at the end of the voting period (automatic), instead of votes at the resolution (manual), to avoid any assessor tomfoolery (though i trust our current assessor would never do such a thing) > > * Trade Gem (Collector): Trade Participation is an untracked negative > boolean player switch. When a player pays a Stamp of another player's > type to perform an action defined in the rule "Stamps", eir Trade > Participation becomes True. As part of eir weekly duties, the Collector > SHALL, and CAN by announcement, grant each player whose Trade > Participation is True 3 Trade Gems; such a grant causes the player's > Trade Participation to become False. > > * Vision Gem (Dream Keeper): As part of eir weekly duties, the Dream > Keepor SHALL, and CAN by announcement, award 5 Vision Gems to each > Mining Dreamer. [With rule 2675 amended to add the new Dream.] > > * Triumph Gem (Herald): Whenever a player wins the game, the Herald CAN > once by announcement, and SHALL within one month, grant em 25 Triumph > Gems. Whenever a player gains a Patent Title other than Champion, the > Herald CAN once by announcement, and SHALL within one month, grant em > 10 Triumph Gems. > > * Conspire Gem (Notary): As part of eir monthly duties, the Notary > SHALL, and CAN by announcement, grant 35 Conspire Gems to each Group > which has, or is tied for, the most, second-most or third-most parties. > [With the rules amended to define a Group, which is a special case of a > contract, designed so that each player can only be part of one Group at > a time.] > That's a lot of gems. 105 a month? > > * Idea Gem (Promotor): Proposal Participation is an untracked negative > boolean player switch. Whenever the Promotor distributes a proposal, > the Proposal Participation of its author and coauthors becomes True. At > the end of each week, the Proposal Participation of all players becomes > False. When a player's Proposal
Re: DIS: What're Ya Playin?
On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 12:46 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Brainstorming subgame ideas and I realized I should just ask people - > what have you been playing, or wanting to play recently? Can be as > specific or general as you want. Might be helpful to generate ideas for > what people might want to do. > > Personally, lately I've been really into roguelikes of all types, > especially rougelike deckbuilders. I'm also replaying Mass Effect. > > -- > nix > > I tend to hyperfixate on certain games, and currently I'm playing far too much neon white (Ranked 118 globally). Don't think a speedrunning game can lend much to Agora, though. I've been playing Enter the Gungeon, Your Only Move is Hustle, and Signalis as well. Some of my favorite games: Hades, Hollow Knight, Return of the Obra Dinn, Ultrakill, Overboard!, The Witness, Portal 1&2, Baba is You, Danganronpa, Stardew Valley I also like to play chess. -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9011-9019
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 5:11 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 10/20/23 17:09, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 4:46 PM ais523 via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 2023-10-20 at 16:37 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-business > >> wrote: > >>> I deny this CoE. The proposals were not submitted. You said "I submit > the > >>> following 3 proposals" and proceeded to list 4 proposals, so the action > >> was > >>> not clearly and unambiguously specified as required for by-announcement > >>> actions. > >> > >> Doesn't "following 3" unambiguously specify the next 3 proposals to > >> appear in the message? > >> > >> The main ambiguity is as to whether the fourth proposal was also > >> submitted via specifying it in the message, without a speech action > >> specifically saying so. > >> > >> -- > >> ais523 > >> > > > > There's 4 following proposals, though, and it doesn't specify which 3 of > > them are to be submitted. CFJ time? > > -- > > snail > > "The following three" would seem to me to be the immediate three following. > > -- > nix > > This seems about the same as changing a rule by saying "Add the following sentence: Things are a currency. Things are tracked by the Thinger." Which would fail to do anything because "any ambiguity" is present (I think this has been held before). There's the same ambiguity here. -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9011-9019
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 4:46 PM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2023-10-20 at 16:37 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-business > wrote: > > I deny this CoE. The proposals were not submitted. You said "I submit the > > following 3 proposals" and proceeded to list 4 proposals, so the action > was > > not clearly and unambiguously specified as required for by-announcement > > actions. > > Doesn't "following 3" unambiguously specify the next 3 proposals to > appear in the message? > > The main ambiguity is as to whether the fourth proposal was also > submitted via specifying it in the message, without a speech action > specifically saying so. > > -- > ais523 > There's 4 following proposals, though, and it doesn't specify which 3 of them are to be submitted. CFJ time? -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)
> On Jul 25, 2023, at 3:14 PM, Battadia via agora-discussion > wrote: > > I express my desire to register! > Once the registration process is complete, I award myself a Welcome Package. > >> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 at 00:55, juan via agora-discussion < >> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> >> Battadia via agora-business [2023-07-25 20:08]: >>> I award myself a Welcome Package. >> >> I don't know if this is enough to register. Someone may know more, but >> as far as I understand, you must clearly put forth intent to register. >> >> -- >> juan >> Registrar >> Unfortunately this registration attempt didn't work since you sent the message to agora-discussion@agoranomic.org instead of agora-busin...@agoranomic.org. The discussion list is for discussion so game actions don't work there. The business list is where you should take almost all game actions except official reports, which go in report lists. We do have some backup lists that are also public (which means game actions work, there unlike discussion fora) but you don't need to worry about those. Let's hope the next attempt works! Registration often has hiccups since new players don't know how the game works (and old players like messing around with ambiguous or weird registrations). I also suggest the more concrete "I grant myself a welcome package." instead of tying it to a timing which is a bit weird since time doesn't really pass normally in a message and stuff like "in 1 second, I do X" doesn't work. Although you can do things like "If I have a snail stamp, I destroy it" since it's an instantaneous condition. -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Herald) Smaller thesis that is hopefully easier to get a smaller degree for and easier to resubmit
The idea behind this thesis is solid, but the execution leaves some holes where
i'd expect more to be. I assign this REVISE AND RESUBMIT, and think it will be
worthy of a degree once the criticisms of myself and others are addressed.
> On Jun 9, 2023, at 7:27 PM, Forest Sweeney via agora-business
> wrote:
>
> I submit another thesis, shorter, more to the point, more organised, and
> more fact based. Hopefully this makes it easy enough to edit when it
> ultimately and inevitably is given "REVISE AND RESUBMIT".
>
> {Agoran Sources of Fun:
> Shoving things into boxes.
>
> 0) Introduction
> I'm writing an entirely different thesis, again. Hopefully this one is
> focused and precise, and is easy-to-modify when, inevitably, (rightfully
> due) criticism arrives.
It feels like this part shouldn't be in a finished thesis :P.
> This thesis comes from a place where I do feel that
> something exists that I want to address, but I haven't adequately or
> scientifically done so, so I will try to base everything on external
> sources/fact, then relate Agora to those sources, and keep all that
> separate from my (valid) feelings about it all.
Instead of this, just say what you actually want to address! I'm still not sure
what that is.
>
>
> 1) Sources
> a) Atomic Dissections
> [0] https://users.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/pubs/MDA.pdf
> The Mechanics, Dynamics, and Aesthetics framework of game design, along
> with a sample breakdown of aesthetics you might examine.
> [1]
> https://gamedesignconcepts.wordpress.com/2009/07/23/level-8-kinds-of-fun-kinds-of-players/
> The 8 kinds of fun (aesthetic) in detail identified in [1].
> (Sensation, Fantasy, Narrative, Challenge, Fellowship, Discovery,
> Expression, and Submission)
> [2]
> https://www.gamified.uk/2013/06/05/gamification-user-types-and-the-4-keys-2-fun/
> Lazarro's 4 kinds of fun: Friendship, Novelty, Challenge, and Meaning.
> Along with Marczewski's 4 kinds of fun : Relatedness, Autonomy, Mastery,
> and Purpose.
> (Purpose and meaning seem to go together, as do Challenge and Mastery.
> Friendship is slightly different than Relatedness, because competition
> isn't necessarily super friendly, but also fellowship from the 8 kinds of
> fun)
> [3] https://lushdesignsblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/07/anatomy-of-fun/
> A listing of more taxonomies of fun. (just shows that there's no one
> "correct" taxonomy)
> [4]
> https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/bartle-s-player-types-for-gamification
> Bartle's taxonomy is a framework to think about the players and how to
> improve the engagement from that standpoint. (seems he later expanded this
> into 8 types, but didn't go looking for it.)
> Player types: Killer, Achiever, Socializer, Explorer.
> [5] https://www.gamified.uk/user-types/
> a different player taxonomy that builds directly off of Lazarro's with
> another axis.
> Player types:
> Socialiser, Free Spirit, Philanthropist, and Achiever
> Player (subtypes are) Self-seeker, Consumer, Networker, Exploiter
> Disruptor (subtypes are) Griefer, Destroyer, Improver, Influencer
The use of these sources is unclear until further into the thesis, so they
should instead be introduced as needed.
>
> 2) Relating To Agora
> a) Classifying Things Into Player and Fun Taxonomies
> Firstly, lets begin with (1a). An overview of this is that Agora is the
> Dynamic play of modifying Mechanics[0]. The Aesthetic appeal of this, at a
> high level then, is that all of the Aesthetics can, and do, apply. Using
> many of the taxonomies provided, Agora can fill nearly any requirement. So
> why bother?
> In the context of Agora, I feel that the most helpful taxonomies are the
> ones that reduce options to the least number of choices: for example
> Bartle's Taxonomy[4], Marczewski’s Hexad [5], or Lazarro's 4 keys to fun
> [2]. I say this because of what Agora is at its heart: a game of changing
> the mechanics of itself. That and due to the relatively low amount of
> players at any given time, a taxonomy will not be too helpful unless it can
> capture larger swaths of the population. I think the point in bothering is
> the similarities of the taxonomies, even if we don't have the exact right
> complexities trapped within them.
>
> That being said, given what Agora is at it's core, a game of nomic, of
> self-amendment and change, then what are the core mechanics of Agora? I
> would say that it would be getting players to agree to the game and changes
> thereof.
> That means, we have a few core mechanics:
> Proposals, Judgement, Offices, Rules, Assets (Points
> by any other name), Voting, Blots (punishment by any other name), Degrees,
> Subgames, and Contracts
>
> Relating these mechanics to the few main taxonomies (Marczewski's fun and
> player types[2,5], Lazarro's fun types[2], and Bartle's player types[4]),
> then, we have the following:
> The proposal system generally maps to expression, novelty,
> fellowship/relatedness, discovery, meaning, autonomy, and
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] High Scores
On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 7:17 PM 4st nomic via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I thought the number of active players was 15? half of that, rounded down, > is 7? > Sorry, what is the right number of active players at the time that dream of > sharing gave you radiance? > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 12:25 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > CoE: My and murphy's radiances are wrong. > > The values from the last report ratified, and the values for sharing here > > are double what they're supposed to be. It should be half the active > > players. > > > > > On Jun 13, 2023, at 4:18 PM, Forest Sweeney via agora-official < > > agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > Radiances as of 13 June 2023: > > > > > > IN FIRST, we have murphy with 51 Radiance. > > > IN SECOND, we have snail with 42 Radiance. > > > > > > TIED FOR THIRD, we have these players with 29 radiance: > > > 4st, Aspen, G., Janet, Murphy, Yachay > > > Wayllukuq, ais523, beokirby, blob, cuddlybanana, > > > inalienableWright, juan, Anneke-Constantine. > > > > > > IN LAST PLACE, we have everyone else, who all have 0 radiance. > > > > > > Events since last report: > > > > > > snail/murphy Dream of Sharing (+7) > > > snail wielded the Radiance stone. (+3) > > > murphy Dream of Sharing (+15) (week of June 5th was missed, sorry) > > > > > > -- > > > 4st > > > Deputy (AKA FAKE) Herald > > > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator > > > I think you forgot the initial halving. - Sharing: Immediately after a wandering, each Sharing Dreamer has eir points increased by X / Y, rounded down, *where X is half the number of active players*, rounded up, and Y is the number of Sharing Dreamers. X is 8, Y is 2, so we each gained 4 radiance. This combined with the last radiance report, and my wielding of the radiance stone, means our radiances should be Snail: 39 Murphy: 33 4st, Aspen, G., Janet, Murphy, Yachay Wayllukuq, ais523, beokirby, blob, cuddlybanana, inalienableWright, juan, Anneke-Constantine: 29 -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: [@Collector, @snail] Appreciation
I appreciate this appreciation! It's been tough to get reports out with my new real life schedule, so this was really nice. > On Jun 5, 2023, at 5:36 AM, Juan F. Meleiro via agora-business > wrote: > > I transfer one juan stamp to snail, just in appreciation of eir job thid > week. > -- > juan -- snail
Re: DIS: (Draft) Bounty Hunting 2.0
> On Jun 14, 2023, at 11:37 PM, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion > wrote: > > I really liked bounty hunting from before, but there would be too many > bounties to track, and specifying exactly where the bounty is is difficult. > So I've made it so you just specify a rule by commitment, instead of a > section, and so if the rule changes, you get the points. > > Balance wise, 100 seemed good: 15 active players, means 15 points per week > maximum, if a player can predict, solely, a rule that will change in the > coming weeks, which is about two months. However, given other players, this > would be about 7 points a week (generously saying only 1 other person > predicts as you have), and this is also if they predict accurately, so > maybe around 4 months. (This might be better tracked by just shoving it at > the radiance-tracker instead of a new point system...) > > With regard to officer load... An officer would track the omens created and > date, the player's integer switches, and the groups of the accurate > predictions. > > > The Prognosticor is an office that tracks omens, prophecies, and auguries. > Once per week, each player CAN, by commitment, foretell an omen whose > document references one single rule. It is ILLEGAL to attempt to foretell > more than once per week. > > Each omen can be distant, foreboding, upon us, past, or hindsight and are > by default, distant. > Each week, in order: > - all past omens are now hindsight omens. > - all upon us omens become past omens. > - all foreboding omens become upon us omens. > - all distant omens become foreboding omens. > > It is OPTIONAL to track hindsight omens. > > Prophecies are an integer player switch. > > A player CAN, once for each omen by announcement, reveal the document for > that omen. When e does so, if the rule referenced by that omen's document > changed when the omen was upon us or past, that player is added to the > augury for that rule. An augury is a list, and can be abyssal, sinister, or > blessed, and is by default, abyssal. > > Each week, the following happen in order: > - for each blessed augury, grant each player of that augury X/Y prophecies, > rounded down, where X is the number of active players, and Y is the number > of players in that augury. Then, remove all players from that augury, and > it is now an abyssal augury. > - for each sinister augury, it is now a blessed augury. > - for each abyssal augury, if it has any players, it is now a sinister > augury. > > It is OPTIONAL to track abyssal auguries. > > It is ILLEGAL to reveal a document that references zero rules or more than > one rule. > > When a player has 100 or more prophecies, e can, by announcement, soothsay > a vaticination of eir own victory. When e does so, e wins the game, and set > eir prophecies to 0. > > -- > 4st > Deputy (AKA FAKE) Herald > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator This seems too complicated for what it does, you don't need 5 classes of omens and 3 classes of auguries. I took a stab at making it simpler and still functioning about the same, except making it so you compete overall instead of for each rule separately. I'd be FOR something like this. An omen is a document that references a single rule. Once per week, each player CAN foretell an omen, by commitment. A player CAN, once for each omen e foretold, reveal that omen by announcement, correctly specifying its plaintext. When e does so, if the rule referenced by the omen was amended or repealed at least once between 14 and 28 days ago, e Prophecises. At the beginning of each week, each player that Prophecised in the previous week gains X/Y Radiance, rounded down, where X is the number of active players, and Y is the number of players that Prophecised last week. -- snail
DIS: (@Everyone) A question about gameplay
What kind of gameplay do you want to see in Agora? Personally I just want more of it, though less timing-based gameplay. I think some sort of creativity-based gameplay could be interesting, or hidden info games, though any kind of new social game would be fine by me. I think there's a lot of unexplored territory we could uncover. How does everyone else feel about this? -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The Button
On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 12:19 PM Juan F. Meleiro via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I create the following proposal, entitled “Game Theory”:
>
> {
> Create a Power 1.0 rule called “The Button” with text:
> {
> The Buttonmastor is an office.
>
> The Button is a singleton switch tracked by the Buttonmastor with instants
> in time as possible values, defaulting to the instant this rule was created.
>
> Buttonclass is a player switch traxked by the Buttonmastor with possible
> values Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet or None, defaulting
> to None.
>
> A player CAN, by announcement, press the button.
>
> When a player presses the button, two things happen:
>
> 1. The Button is flipped to the instant e did it.
>
> 2. That player's Buttonclass is flipped to a value depending on the amount
> of hours passed between the previous value of The Button and the current
> one, as specified below:
>
> * Less than 24: Red;
> * 24 or more, but less than 48: Orange;
> * 48 or more, but less than 72: Yellow;
> * 72 or more, but less than 96: Green;
> * 96 or more, but less than 120: Blue;
> * 120 or more, but less than 144: Indigo;
> * 144 or more: Violet.
>
> If a player announces correctly thay eir Buttonclass is Violet, they win
> the game.
>
> If value of The Button is more than 168 hours in the past, this rule
> repeals itself.
> }
> }
> --
> Juan
>
As is, this doesn't seem too interesting. A suggestion: different rewards
for each of the different colors. Maybe some kind of mechanic to limit
pressing the button.
--
snail
DIS: [Proto-Proposal] Bang!
I came up with this idea for a simple officerless subgame: would anyone be
interested in playing it? If not, what modifications would make it
interesting?
{{{
Title: A friendly game
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: snail
Co-author(s):
Enact the following rule with title "Bang!" and the following text:
{
Bangs are a currency.
Vitality is an untracked player Switch with possible values of Alive or
Unalive (default).
Each player SHOULD list eir Vitality and Bang Balance in all eir messages.
Any player CAN publish a report of all Bang Balances and Vitalities. Such a
purported report is self-ratifying, and SHOULD be made as needed.
Each Alive player CAN eliminate another specified player by paying a fee of
1 bang. Eliminating a player makes em Unalive, and grants em 1 bang.
Any Alive player CAN Capture the Flag by announcement, if there are no
other players that are Alive. When a player Captures the Flag, e wins the
game. If a player won the game in this manner 4 days ago, then the match is
reset.
When the match is reset, each player is set to Alive, all bangs are
destroyed, and then each player gains 1 bang.
When 14 days have passed since a player was last eliminated, the match
resets, and then each player that was alive immediately before the match
reset gains 1 bang.
}
Amend Rule 2499 (Welcome Packages) to read in full:
{
A Welcome Package is a set of assets containing:
* 1 Stamp of eir own type
* 1 Bang, if e is Unalive
Any player CAN, by announcement, grant a Welcome Package to any
player if the grantee has neither received one since e last
registered nor in the last 30 days.
}
The match is hereby reset.
}}}
--
snail
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay
On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 12:35 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > This is my Judgement for CFJ 4030, which asks: > > Per Rule 2680, a player can anoint a ritual number multiple times > for a single instance of a ritual act. > > This is also my first Judgement. I hope I did alright. > > Guidance in Rule 217 states: > > 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. > > However, the text of the rule isn't clear, such text being: > > When a ritual act is performed, any player CAN, within 7 days, by > announcement anoint a ritual number, specifying the ritual act and > the new ritual number. > > The text of the rule can be understood to mean either that you can anoint > once, or that you can anoint multiple times. > > Arguments in favor of being able to anoint several times has been Agoran > custom, custom which I am personally not very familiar with, but evidence > from G. and a lack of counterarguments to this seems reasonable enough to > permit it as evidence for this case: > > I wholly agree that the "whole deck" interpretation is Agoran current > custom > and that, barring minor technical issues, this win was obtained > totally fairly > under that assumption. > > However, there are also arguments in favor that you shouldn't be able to > anoint several times, for example, from Caller nix, which seems to me to > allude to what would be "in the best interests of the game": > > To me, the intuitive reading of "When [event] happens, a player CAN > [verb]" is that a player can do the verb one time per event. This is > the > way I would mean this is plain speech, and it's the way the rules of > pretty much any board game are written. "When [event] happens, draw a > card" doesn't usually mean you can draw more than one card. Nothing > in > the rules (that I see) seems to suggest any reason that Agora would > interpret this differently than plain speech or analogous situations > in > other games. > I thought I should add my voice to this. I actually do see a suggestion of the "whole deck" interpretation in the text of the rules. The rules text in question uses "CAN", which is defined as follows: "Attempts to perform the described action are successful." Note that "attempts" is plural. This suggests that by default, a CAN allows multiple instances of the same action to succeed. This definition of CAN is very permissive-feeling, so I think you judged correctly in not restricting the CAN to only allowing a single action. -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: Fair rice planning [attn. Ricemastor]
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 11:55 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I create and consent to each of the following rice plans: > > 1. As follows: > > * Rice Up: The empty set. > > * Rice Down: The empty set. > > 2. As follows: > > * Rice Up: The set of active players. > > * Rice Down: The empty set. > > 3. As follows: > > * Rice Up: The empty set. > > * Rice Down: The set of active players. > > 4. As follows: > > * Rice Up: The set of active players. > > * Rice Down: The set of active players. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > These all fail, since you already created a Rice Plan this week. -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8980-8984
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 9:56 PM nix via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/18/23 21:41, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote: > > ID Author(s) AITitle > > > --- > > 8980~ Yachay 1.0 Riding with training wheels > > AGAINST; not because I'm entirely against the idea but I'm really > unclear on this implementation. Sorry if I missed some discussion, but > it sounds like I have to explicitly invoke something, which makes it > invocable, and then someone else can do the action for me? This doesn't > sound very accessible to new users. Am I misunderstanding? > > > 8981~ Janet, nix 2.0 Stone fixes > > FOR > > > 8982~ snail 2.0 Reward the Speaker! > > AGAINST; petition the ADoP to increase speaker complexity instead. > This would make the speaker bonus useless for someone with 3 complexity in offices already, which doesn't sound as fun. -- snail
DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report - Officers are CRIMINALS!
On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 1:24 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I expunge 1 blot from the Herald. Officers UNITE! > This fails since nix gained a blot recently. -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: The Brillant Murphy Bean (attn Collector, Herald)
On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 6:03 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I pay 8 stamps (of types ais523, juan, Madrid, Murphy, nix, R. Lee, > snail, and Yachay) to gain (8^2)-8 = 56 radiance. > > I pay 5 Murphy stamps to gain (5-1)*2 = 8 radiance. > > I have 37 + 56 + 8 = 101 radiance, and thus win. > Oof. Your score was 18 before this message was sent, not 37. Yachay won and halved all radiances since the last report. So now you have 82 radiance and 2 Murphy stamps left, and didn't win. -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Expedited Proposals
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 1:31 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/12/23 01:37, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > > And about "voting strength games", any player could reactivate voting > > strength on the proposal if they would vote against it. Voting strength > > only matters when there's disagreement anyways, and if there is any, > it'll > > get turned back to ordinary by whichever side wants the voting strength > to > > be in effect. Or by any player who agrees with the "SHOULD". If everyone > > agrees to gamify it, then why not? There's really not more danger than a > > normal proposal, anyways, since this is just streamlining the process to > > what it can already be at a minimum. Even if you can come up with an > > example of how the expedited proposal could be abused, you could also > > probably just spot it and turn it ordinary. > > > This just becomes a timing race for setting the class immediately before > the voting period ends. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > Once it's turned ordinary during the voting period, it can't be turned back. "Each player CAN, with 2 support, flip an ordinary proposal's class to expedited, **provided it is in the Proposal Pool** and e has not done so yet this week." -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Expedited Proposals
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 12:08 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/12/23 01:02, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > Each player CAN, with 2 support, flip an ordinary proposal's class > to > > expedited, provided it is in the Proposal Pool and e has not done so yet > > this week. Each player CAN, by announcement, flip an expedited proposal's > > class to ordinary, but SHOULD only do so if the proposal is not a bugfix, > > emergency, or time-sensitive issue, or if e sees an issue with the > proposal. > > > What's to stop two groups from just fighting over whether something is a > bugfix? > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > If there's any disagreement, it would be useless to attempt an expedited proposal, since it could be made ordinary by announcement. Any fight would just return to the normal proposal system, though distributed early as it received 2 support. And about "voting strength games", any player could reactivate voting strength on the proposal if they would vote against it. Voting strength only matters when there's disagreement anyways, and if there is any, it'll get turned back to ordinary by whichever side wants the voting strength to be in effect. Or by any player who agrees with the "SHOULD". If everyone agrees to gamify it, then why not? There's really not more danger than a normal proposal, anyways, since this is just streamlining the process to what it can already be at a minimum. Even if you can come up with an example of how the expedited proposal could be abused, you could also probably just spot it and turn it ordinary. -- snail
DIS: [Draft Proposal] You can't just call points radiance and not have them do
{{{
Title: cool shiny things!
Adoption Index: 2.0
Author: snail
Co-author(s):
[First let's change how radiance resets work. This should reduce the timing
woes of the current system, and encourage spending stamps:]
Amend Rule 2656 (Radiance) to read, in full:
{
A player's Radiance is an integer player switch defaulting to 0,
tracked by the Herald. When a player is "granted" or "gains" a
specified amount of radiance, eir radiance is increased by that
amount.
Brights are a currency, tracked by the Herald. When a player wins the
game, e gains 1 Bright. A player with a radiance of 50 or more CAN, by
announcement, gain 1 bright, thereby decreasing eir radiance by 50.
At the start of each quarter, the player(s) with the highest radiance
each gain 5 brights, and then each player gains X/50 brights, rounded down,
where X is eir radiance. Then, all radiance switches are set to
0, and all unsealed stamps are destroyed.
If a player would gain radiance in the 7 days before the beginning of a
Quarter, e instead gains 1/(7-X) times that amount, rounded down, where X
is the number of full days before the beginning of the Quarter.
}
[So you get brights when the quarter ends, if you have enough radiance.
What can you do with them? Lots of things!]
Enact a new rule titled "Bright Abilities" at power 2, with the following
text:
{
A player CAN, by paying a fee of 1 bright, increase eir Base Rockiness by 1.
A player CAN, by paying a fee of 1 bright, grant a specified pure player 3
blots.
A player CAN, by paying a fee of 1 bright, seal up to 5 specified stamps.
A player CAN, by paying a fee of 2 brights, transfer a specified asset from
the Lost and Found Department to emself.
A player CAN, by paying a fee of 2 brights, increase eir voting strength on
ordinary referenda by 2 for a period of 7 days, provided eir voting
strength is not currently increased this way.
A player CAN, by paying a fee of 2 brights, increase the radiance of 5
different specified players by 10 each.
A player CAN, by paying a fee of 2 brights, expunge up to 3 blots from a
specified player.
A player CAN, by paying a fee of 3 brights, wield a specified stone, rules
to the contrary notwithstanding.
A player CAN, by paying a fee of 5 brights, turn a specified rule Radiant.
A radiant rule CANNOT be repealed. The player that turned a rule Radiant
CAN, by announcement, make it cease being Radiant.
A player CAN, by paying a fee of 10 brights, win the game. When a player
wins the game this way, all brights are destroyed, and then each player is
granted 1 bright.
A player CAN, by paying a fee of 20 brights, Outshine the Sun. The voting
strength of a player on ordinary referenda is increased by 1 if e has ever
Outshined the Sun. This bonus SHOULD be compensated if repealed.
}
[What's this about sealed stamps? You can protect your stamps from the
quarterly reset by paying brights or radiance, in exchange for only being
able to use them for the non-radiance wincon.]
Amend Rule 2659 (Stamps) to read, in full:
{
Stamps are a category of asset ownable by players . The
Collector is an office. The Collector tracks Stamps in eir weekly
report.
For each person there is a corresponding type of stamp.
Sealed is a negative boolean Stamp switch, tracked by the Collector.
To "seal" a stamp is to make it Sealed. To "unseal" a stamp is to make it
not Sealed (syn. unsealed).
A player with at least 20 radiance CAN, by announcement, seal a specified
stamp e owns, thereby decreasing eir radiance by 20.
Any player CAN, once per week, pay X unsealed Stamps, where each
specified
Stamp is a different type, to gain (X^2)-X radiance.
Any player CAN, once per week, pay X unsealed Stamps, where each
Stamp is
the same type, to gain (X-1)*2 radiance.
Any player CAN win by paying N Stamps, where N is the current
number of active players and each specified Stamp is of a
different type.
}
[I hope you like this idea! Please let me know your thoughts, especially
about the Bright Abilities. This system could easily be added to, with
alternate ways to gain radiance! Or if someone comes up with one really
good radiance gaining game, this would work with it.]
}}}
--
snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Collector, @Herald) Stamps for Radiance 2
On Sun, May 7, 2023 at 7:08 PM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2023-05-08 at 02:01 +0200, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business > wrote: > > I pay 5 different Stamps (ais523, nix, snail, Yachay, murphy) to gain > > 20 radiance ( 5^2 - 5 = 20 ) > > I pay 5 of the same Stamp (ais523) to gain 8 radiance ( (5-1)*2 = 8 ) > > > > I announce that I have 100 radiance. I therefore win the game. > > Congratulations! > > -- > ais523 > Congrats Yachay! This is a pretty quick win. Normally wins are marked with [DoV] in the subject (Date of Victory) btw. -- snail
DIS: [Draft Proposal] Expedited Proposals
Here's a proposal to make expedited proposals, for when we want bugfixes or
need an emergency fix, or just don't want to wait up to 21 days for a
proposal to pass that everyone agrees on, for instance if gameplay is just
broken and people want to play quickly:
{{{
Title: Expedited Proposals
Adoption Index: 2.0
Author: snail
Co-author(s):
Amend Rule 2606 (Proposal Classes) to read in full:
{
Proposals created since the enactment of this rule have a secured
untracked Class switch with possible values ordinary (the default),
expedited, and democratic.
When a proposal with an adoption index greater than or equal to
3.0 is created, its class becomes democratic.
Each player CAN, with 2 Agoran consent, flip an ordinary proposal's
class to democratic, provided it is in the Proposal Pool or
that there is a referendum on it whose voting period has not yet
ended.
Each player CAN, with 2 support, flip an ordinary proposal's class to
expedited, provided it is in the Proposal Pool and e has not done so yet
this week. Each player CAN, by announcement, flip an expedited proposal's
class to ordinary, but SHOULD only do so if the proposal is not a bugfix,
emergency, or time-sensitive issue, or if e sees an issue with the proposal.
Each player CAN distribute an expedited proposal, by announcement.
Each player CAN act on behalf of the Assessor to resolve an unresolved
referendum on an expedited proposal, provided that referendum has no valid
AGAINST ballots cast on it.
}
[Note that democratic (AI 3+) proposals can't be expedited.]
}}}
--
snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Awards Month (@Promotor, @Arbitor, @Tailor, @ADoP)
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 11:29 AM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 4/30/23 17:47, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: > > I intend to award Employee of the Year to either Janet or snail, > > subject to discussion. > I'm not convinced this works as an official intent (I'm not even sure if > it was meant to be one vs just a statement of what you plan to do). But > I also would support giving this to either person. I can make the intent > when/if you decide on a particular one. > > Very hard to choose between the two. Maybe other factors shouldn't > count, but since neither has ever won any yearly award, and snail > already looks like a lock for the Golden Glove, I'd personally lean > towards Janet for this one. > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald > > Funnily, this was the award I thought I was most in the running for. I've put a lot of effort into running all the offices I've had, though I'm not sure how it would compare to Janet's effort, and if effort is even very important to consider (Janet probably runs eir offices more efficiently, since most of mine aren't automated). I'm really surprised Janet hasn't gotten this award already (I thought e had it already so I had more of a chance!), so if it comes down to the two of us e definitely deserves it more. But I thought I should mention we could both get it, if people think our efforts are of similar magnitude for the last year: "Each indicated Officer SHOULD award these titles to 1-2 persons each year". I've held 10 different offices after all, many of which were important for gameplay (Promotor, Arbitor, Notary, Registrar, and Notably Treasuror, after Trigon left (Treasuror is probably the one that took most of my time, despite being automated).) (Although dream keeper/ dreamor are the same lol) I also made the spreadsheet for assessments, which it seems like at least some people get use out of. (Thanks to nix for helping improve that!) I spent a good chunk of my lifespan on doing officework, and plan on continuing to do so (although it bordered on detrimental sometimes last year, I should probably offload some of my offices). Anyways I think we should both get it, but if not Janet should be chosen over me, and I'll support such an intent from the Herald. -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Race stuff (attn Horsened)
On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 7:03 PM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, 2023-04-23 at 16:52 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-business > wrote: > > I pay 3 hooves to increase Alexia's Race Position by 2. (R2672) > > > > I transfer Baxter to snail. > > Out of interest, when did you decide to do this (and what did snail > trade for it)? The time window to come to an agreement about this was > pretty small. > > -- > ais523 > When Murphy and I teamed up for a stone win, we decided that whoever got the stone win would help the other win a horse race. The last motivation just happened to make it so I could win the race with Murphy's help, which i then informed em of. -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8946-8951
> On Apr 10, 2023, at 1:57 PM, juan via agora-business > wrote: > > secretsnail9 via agora-official [2023-04-09 18:37]: >> PROMOTOR'S REPORT AS OF RIGHT NOW >> >> […] >> >> ID Author(s) AITitle >> --- >> 8946~ 4st 2.0 Horses Can Dream/Horse Virus >> 8947~ Janet 1.0 Stamp win removal >> 8948~ G. 2.0 Undo Burden >> 8949* Janet 3.0 Might as well ask? >> 8950~ nix 2.0 Major Stamp Reform >> 8951~ nix, 4st, Janet 2.0 Gathering Stone Power v3 >> >> >> The proposal pool contains the following proposals: >> >> ID Author(s) AITitle >> --- > > CoE: there are two proposals missing here. > > - https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg44368.html > - https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg44323.html > > I mean. Am I doing something wrong? Sure, I haven't tagged one of the > messages, but it's been like the fourth or fifth proposal I created that > went to the void. > > -- > juan I recommend tagging your proposals with "[Proposal]". I almost missed G.'s proposal because it wasn't tagged, and once I got it I thought I had them all, but apparently not. It's my bad for missing (@Promotor) though, even if [Proposal] is more appropriate. I'll distribute them later today. -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8940-8945
>> 8945~ snail 2.0 Going up > AGAINST - what a horribly overpowered idea, rule power shouldn't be > gamefied by ephemera. It's fine if it's overpowered, it's quarterly! (Glances at the recursion stone) But seriously, power just BEGS to be gameified, that's my immediate thought when looking at it, up until the power 3 things. I think playing around at power 2 and less should be fine. Has anything like this been tried before? -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Horsened] The Horses Rundown (26 Mar 2023)
On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 7:00 PM ais523 via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2023-03-27 at 00:59 +0100, ais523 wrote: > > On Sun, 2023-03-26 at 18:52 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-official > > wrote: > > > The Horsened's Weekly Report > > > The Horses Rundown > > > 26 Mar 2023 > > > > > > DOLLARIES AND HOOVES (self- > > > ratifies) > > > === > > > == > > CoE: I bet 3 on Baxter earlier today. > > > > If that somehow failed, I pay 1 hoof to get a jersey for Cannon. > > > If I still haven't taken a weekly race action, I pay 1 hoof to get a > helmet for Cannon. > > -- > ais523 > The helmet-getting succeeds: you already had a jersey for cannon, plus failed to specify the horse to be added to cannon's pulls. -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor/Proposal)
I suggest withdrawing this proposal.
You get 10 dollaries when the race starts, not 20. 10 would be a more
reasonable number. Otherwise new players would just have a decided
advantage, enough to practically secure a win. And if they joined, then the
race started anew, and then they got a welcome package, they'd have 30
while everyone else has 10. So it's just a bad idea. Though thank you for
pointing out your grievances with horses! It still needs fixing, just not
this.
--
snail
On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 1:09 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
> {
> Title: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: 4st
> Co-author:
>
> Uh oh, gotta submit something!
> Gotta get those proposal points CA-CHING!
> (Never let the proposal pool be bare,
> lest me be no worse than a simple chair.)
>
> Amend "Welcome Packages" (Rule 2499) by appending
> {
> - 20 dollaries
> }
> to the list of assets.
>
> (I remember joining in the middle of a race and decided not to
> play for this race, which... is still the current race.
> I also would like everyone to consider repealing racing in general,
> as I don't see many players taking weekly race actions other
> than ais523 and snail...
> but that is a separate story.)
> }
>
> --
> 4st
> Deputy(AKA FAKE) referee, Deputy(AKA FAKE) webmastor
> Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
>
Re: DIS: Horses
On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 3:51 PM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, 2023-03-26 at 13:18 -0700, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora- > discussion wrote: > > On Sunday, March 26, 2023, Forest Sweeney via agora-business < > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > (I remember joining in the middle of a race and decided not to > > > play for this race, which... is still the current race. > > > I also would like everyone to consider repealing racing in general, > > > as I don't see many players taking weekly race actions other > > > than ais523 and snail... > > > but that is a separate story.) > > > } > > > > I'd be in favor of repealing horses. > > I've thought for a while (since it was originally being proposed!) that > the horse minigame doesn't really work. Hooves are more relevant now > than they were originally, but still don't have much effect in practice > – they serve as a limit on grinding dollaries but that's about it. > There aren't very many possible strategies and some are clearly better > than others. And when a player falls behind, it's fairly clear that > they have no chance to win and no real reason to continue competing > (dollaries, hooves, helmets, jerseys etc. are pretty much worthless if > you have no chance to win the current race). > > The entire racing system seems to have originally been balanced around > the "increase or decrease a specified Running horse's Race Position by > 2, by paying 3 hooves" action (in the original version of the rule, > this was the only time at which hooves became relevant at all). > However, players have been reluctant to take that action at all – a > major reason seems to be that the action is inefficient in terms of > benefiting the player performing it, so the only reason to take it is > if some other player is paying you to take it. And the problem with > *that* is that the reward for winning the horse minigame is small > enough that there's very little reason to spend assets, favours, etc. > that might be useful elsewhere in the game on winning the horse > minigame. (A horse race takes ages – several months – and the rewards > for winning it are pretty small.) > I tried to combat this by increasing the reward, and there were also discussions of making the races faster when we were talking about introducing weird horses on the discord. If there were more people playing the subgame, it might be easier to see exactly where it is lacking, but right now I'm not sure there's any way to know which parts exactly need to change. I think I'd rather see an upheaval of the core concepts of the horse rules than just repealing it. Maybe remove hooves. I was thinking there would be a lot more use for them, as players not actively participating in the subgame could use them to help or hinder horses since they build up over time, and you'd want to cash they in somehow before the race ends and destroys them. But it seems like that kind of teamwork isn't happening, which makes sense given agora's inclination for individual strategies over collusion. So hooves are just a technicality right now, with niche uses. R. Lee mentioned it was "the best minigame" e'd ever seen, so i'm wondering what that's about. Maybe the mechanics seem more interesting than they actually are. Maybe it fails because the timescale makes it hard to get invested, and that's hard to see from just reading the rules. As this is a nomic, though, I'd really like to see the game fixed. Potential proposal ideas: [ Reduce the race position requirement to cross the finish line from 16 to 10. This may be too low, but i think it's better to find out faster. A quicker subgame means less time where there are players that feel like they can't win it. Get rid of the weekly gain of hooves. This would make getting jerseys and helmets a more deliberate choice, as you'd need to invest a weekly action into getting a hoof. This gets rid of the slow gaining of hooves for everyone, which is fine since nobody was really using them. Change the welcome package to include "10 dollaries if the race has not started anew since the grantee last registered", and no hooves if the automatic hoof gain is removed. Make it award a win (or 100/N radiance, rounded down, in the case of an N-way tie). This would give the game a lot more weight, and hopefully encourage players to care more about the game and its inner workings, so we can refine it more. ] These may not be enough to fix the subgame, and I encourage those that care to suggest changes they think would work. Or reasons why the above changes wouldn't work. And i'm not above just abandoning the subgame if people just don't like it, I'd rather play a game people enjoy. :) Also I feel like there's a lot of empty space in Agora right now where more gameplay could go. Stamps, Dreams, Horses, and Stones all feel like little snacks that get refreshed at the end of every week, I feel like we could have 10 of those and still be able to
DIS: Re: BUS: Loophole attempt - Poor man's Radiance
> On Mar 20, 2023, at 12:33 PM, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business
> wrote:
>
> I do the action stated in Rule 2659 that is in its third paragraph ("Any
> player CAN
> , once per week
> , pay X Stamps, where each
> specified Stamp is a different type, to gain (X^2)-X radiance.") paying 0
> Stamps to gain 1 Radiance.
>
> 0^0 - 0 = 1
>
> I need to be able to destroy the asset in order to do the fee-based action
> (Rule 2579), and all attempts to destroy no assets, so zero assets, are
> successful (Rule 2577).
This would be 0^2 - 0 which definitely equals 0.
Although i think 0^0 is undefined and wouldn't have worked anyways. Good try
though! There's bound to be a bug somewhere in the ruleset you can use, though
Agora runs a tight ship.
--
snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [DoV] (@Collector, @Herald, @Stonemason) Score shenanigans
> On Feb 27, 2023, at 3:02 PM, nix via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On 2/19/23 18:03, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: >> I wield the score stone. (Increases my score by 3.) > > I was mistaken earlier. Janet had the score stone at this point, as > reaching was not working. > > -- > nix > Herald, Collector I did have the score stone at this point, a few minutes after the week beginning transferred it to me, as reaching worked at the time, as it still works now. Unless i'm mistaken, the only part of reaching that wasn't implemented is the increase of base rockiness from the dream of gardens, which the rest of reaching functions without. I will note i did an unsuccessfully wield here, where i had forgotten i'd already done it that week: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg44074.html But i had the score stone the whole week, and still have it, as far as i can tell. Janet only had it for a moment, on sunday the 19th. Hopefully everything should be cleared up now, as it's been quite confusing. -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Note on Application of Proposals 8891-8899
On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 9:16 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Gratuitous: > CFJ 3778 found that list items could have whole line breaks inserted > between them and removed because they were not significant. This is > not true with paragraphs. If the section of text with ' - Gardens" is > taken to begin a paragraph, and is followed by additional list items > where the whitespace could be removed, the replaced paragraph would > include all of those line items. Or at least it is unclear where the > paragraph ends. > Looking at this CFJ (3778), it seems to say the opposite about line breaks within a paragraph: CFJ 3452 ruled that paragraph boundaries should be determined based mainly on grammatical structure rather than layout. Following its reasoning, "A" above would all be considered a single paragraph, since it's a single grammatical sentence; therefore, there are no "paragraph breaks" to contend with and the changes *[inserting whole line breaks within a paragraph]* are definitely insignificant. Grammatically, each list item looks to be its own paragraph. The list items following the "- Gardens" list item are not able to have all of their whitespace removed, as this would contradict CFJ 3778: "[there is] a prohibition on merging or splitting paragraphs". If there was any ambiguity of whether the list items are all part of one paragraph, or each their own paragraph, the proposal resolves that ambiguity by referring to one of the list items as a paragraph. -- snail
Re: (@Horsened, @Arbitor) BUS: Re: DIS: Re: [Motivation] The horses Gallop!
On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 10:27 PM ais523 via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Another possibility is that all that matters is that the *selection* is > by a random process, and the *action itself* merely has to make use of > the selected random numbers (if it occurs), but not necessarily in an > unbiased/equiprobable way. (The Horsened has been taking other actions > in between the random rolls and the motivation action, in a way which > causes the motivation action to become more favourable for em, so e is > also biasing the result of the motivation action in this sense.) > The actions I take before the rolls have the same effect as if i had taken them after the roll, because the motivation only has an effect at the start of the week. Whether I take the action before or after the publication of the random choice action doesn't seem relevant here, but it may be in a different case, such as a collection notice. -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Limited tracking
On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 3:19 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I would not like to be considered a coauthor on this one, as IIRC my only > contribution was to speak against the cfj changes which you kept, so I > don’t endorse that. I think having switches that turn on and off on > tracking like that have the potential to create some significant level of > confusion with self-ratification eg if a switch is left off the list, then > ceases to be tracked invisibly, does it self ratify as an open case and > kick off the judge? Or since it’s a single switch type, it’s also not clear > to me that a “allegedly complete list” of the tracked ones wouldn’t ratify > the untracked ones to the default state. Just raises a whole can of worms > that could affect the status of ancient cases in a way we really might not > want. > > -G. > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 1:04 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > Proposal: Limited tracking > > (AI = 3, co-authors = Janet, G.) > This proposal would also create unnecessary reports. The assessor would have to report the AI of each proposal weekly, including if there are no unresolved Agoran decisions. (Rule 2379: No News Is Some News). -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Herald, @Stonemason) Hello stone(s)?
I have the dream of gardens, which allows me to "by announcement, transfer the mossiest stone (if there is a tie, then a specified stone tied for mossiest) Agora owns to emself." -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Slightly less self-interested proposal
On Sun, Jan 8, 2023 at 4:25 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Nerfed Mason's Stone buff
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coauthors:
>
> Adoption index: 2.0
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2645 ("The Stones") by replacing the list item beginning
> "Mason's Stone" with the following:
>
> {
>
> - Mason's Stone (Monthly, 0): If the Mason's Stone is owned by the
> Stonemason, its Mossiness is continuously set to 0. If the Mason's Stone
> is owned by Agora, it is transferred to the Stonemason. When wielded, the
> mossiest stone owned by Agora (or, if there is a tie, a specified stone
> tied
> for the same) is transferred to the wielder.
>
> }
>
> [Currently, I'm effectively locked out of owning any actually useful
> stone without setting a Dream, which isn't really fair. If I attempt to
> get rid of the Mason's stone, it can be forcibly transferred back to me
> or will eventually be automatically transferred back to me, resetting
> the 30 day time limit again. I can't pawn it off on an inactive player,
> since only active players can hold stones, and if I transfer it to an
> active player I reset their stone delay, likely angering them and
> probably just getting it transferred back. This change would allow me to
> actually participate in the part of the stone game that allows doing
> things with stones.]
>
> }
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>
I think I'd rather the mason's stone just be repealed. What's the point of
having it, anyways?
--
snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8878-8884
On Sun, Jan 1, 2023 at 6:38 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 1/1/23 19:33, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > 8879~ Janet 2.0 Mason's Stone buff > > AGAINST > > > > > > Could I ask what you think might be a reasonable effect? At the moment > I'm kind of just stuck out of the stone game entirely. > You're only out of the stone game as much as anyone with a stone is. The issue is you can't start the 30 day timer to get a stone of your choice without transferring the mason stone to another player. But transferring the stone to someone is itself a power: you reset eir 30-day timer. Though, I recommend picking someone to pawn the stone onto, who wants it, so it stays out of your hands. I'm not really sure what power, if any, I would vote FOR on, but this one gives the stonemason access to stones nobody else could reasonably get, which doesn't seem fair. Maybe the stone should be removed and the stonemason's power should be dealt with some other way. -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: A piece of the action (attn Horsened)
On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 3:49 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Weekly race action: I pay 8 dollaries to transfer Destructor to myself. > > Destructor's power: I decrease Cannon's Race Position by 1, twice. > > This fails. I already own Destructor, and horses must owned by Agora to be bought. -- snail
DIS: Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] Experiment 00055 - Intent to Invent
On Sun, Oct 9, 2022 at 6:05 PM Jason Cobb via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> MAD ENGINEER'S WEEKLY REPORT
>
> The Device is off.
>
>
> EXPERIMENT 00055 INTENT TO INVENT
>
> I intend, with Agoran consent, to cause Rule 2655 to amend the Rule "The
> Device" by appending the following a a list item to the "When the device
> is on:" list:
>
> {
>
> A public message purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is a
> self-ratifying attestation that
>
> 1. such a decision existed,
>
> 2. it had the number of voters indicated,
>
> 3. it was resolved as indicated, and
>
> 4. (if the indicated outcome was to adopt a proposal) such a proposal
> existed, was adopted, and, if it had not previously taken effect, took
> effect.
>
> }
>
>
this doesn't have the word device in it
--
secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3992 assigned to Secretsnail9
Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 12, 2022, at 10:14 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On 9/12/22 22:31, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: >>> On Sep 12, 2022, at 9:12 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion >>> wrote: >>> On 9/12/22 20:31, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: >>>> There's also the clause in Rule 2630 "The Administrative State": "An >>>> officer SHALL NOT violate eir office's administrative regulations in the >>>> discharge of eir office." It's not too relevant to this case, but there may >>>> be an issue when violating a regulation, as violations are a regulated >>>> action that can be performed only using the methods explicitly specified in >>>> the Rules (not regulations) for performing the given action. Rule 2545 >>>> (Auctions) handles this nicely: "SHALL NOT violate requirements that >>>> auction's method that are clearly intended to be punishable as rules >>>> violations", the typo aside. >>> >>> SHALL (NOT)s do not create regulated actions anymore. >>> >>> -- >>> Jason Cobb >>> >>> Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason >>> >> But breaking a SHALL (NOT) is a regulated action, a violation, yes? After >> all, if it wasn't, we would be proscribing an unregulated action. I'm >> confused what you mean. >> >> -- >> secretsnail > > > No. It's perfectly fine to proscribe unregulated actions. For instance, > lying to the public forum is both unregulated and proscribed, and > pledges can proscribe non-game actions. > > -- > Jason Cobb > > Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > But The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions. I don't get it. -- secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3992 assigned to Secretsnail9
On Sep 12, 2022, at 9:12 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 9/12/22 20:31, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: >> There's also the clause in Rule 2630 "The Administrative State": "An >> officer SHALL NOT violate eir office's administrative regulations in the >> discharge of eir office." It's not too relevant to this case, but there may >> be an issue when violating a regulation, as violations are a regulated >> action that can be performed only using the methods explicitly specified in >> the Rules (not regulations) for performing the given action. Rule 2545 >> (Auctions) handles this nicely: "SHALL NOT violate requirements that >> auction's method that are clearly intended to be punishable as rules >> violations", the typo aside. > > > SHALL (NOT)s do not create regulated actions anymore. > > -- > Jason Cobb > > Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > But breaking a SHALL (NOT) is a regulated action, a violation, yes? After all, if it wasn't, we would be proscribing an unregulated action. I'm confused what you mean. -- secretsnail
DIS: Re: BUS: Buy horsie @horsened
On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 7:02 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I pay a fee of 4 dollaries and buy sugar. > This may not succeed since "buying" a horse isn't defined in the rules, should probably make that a synonym. Also you said pay a fee of 4 dollaries AND buy sugar, where that might be construed as you trying to take 2 separate actions, not one fee-based action. -- secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The Cheepening
> On Aug 20, 2022, at 12:11 AM, Madrid via agora-discussion > wrote: > > I don't think this helps much because the game is still mostly limited to > those in the upper half or so of money ranking fmpov because it's still a > money-fuelled competitive game. juan had 11 players ahead of em in the last treasuror report, yet has still been playing birds. You don't need to put many coins in to get much out of birds, but this proposal would hopefully lower the coin barrier even more. There's also the fact you can get help from any player with lots of coins by striking a deal. The proposal would change the coins you need to get a bird win from 60 boatloads to 36, which most players have or are close to. It also means you can get a single bird for just 3 boatloads of coins instead of 5, which may very well be worth it for a chance at a good bird power. In any case i think it's worth trying to make it cheaper, essentially just making the powers a better bang for your buck, which should hopefully make it more competitive. -- secretsnail
DIS: Re: (@Promotor) BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8822-8828
On Sun, Aug 7, 2022 at 3:34 AM ais523 via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > 8822~ secretsnail, Murphy 1.0 Horse Racing > AGAINST. Optimal gameplay in this doesn't seem that interesting – > there's very little incentive to spending dollaries early, I don't get why you think this: buying horses early on can get you quite a leg up with their powers, and betting can only be done 3 dollaries per week so betting early on is needed to build up large bets. > whereas > hooves are almost redundnant (they're the cost for performing an action > which is limited to once weekly, and you get one per week, so removing > the cost has almost the same effect). There's a large difference in weekly actions and the hoof system. Firstly, you can save up hooves over time which makes it so if you miss some weeks you still have resources to use to play. Second, the weekly actions each take different numbers of hooves to use, requiring saving up hooves in order to make the moves you want. Getting rid of the hooves would mean losing that additional level of strategy. But maybe there's a better system, this is just one I thought could be fun to try since it's cooler than a normal weekly action system. > It's likely to turn into a > subgaame played by only one or two people, and doesn't seem fun in that > context. > I don't really see that being the case: this is a subgame you can play for free, which should hopefully encourage more players than birds or stones, for instance. Plus, even if you don't play, you'd be gaining hooves over time which you could decide to use to play later. I think we'd just have to see what happens. It probably has some issues, but they could be fixed as we play. -- secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Assessor, Promotor) Re: BUS: CFJ 3978, CFJ 3979 assigned to ais523
On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 3:57 PM Edward Murphy via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > In any case, the differences of opinion seem intractable at this point; > best to just legislate something acceptable to all sides, and move on > from there. > I think my proposal codifying the invisible requirement would help somewhat, but it still doesn't get rid of this issue of "coloring". We shouldn't have to reexamine every new way of saying you take an action in worry of it not working for some entirely subjective reason, but I'm not sure if we can legislate that away. It's not very elegant to just codify in the rules "'I submit the following proposal X times:' doesn't work." and neither is it to codify that it does work. Is there any general clarification that would fix this? Maybe something like "If there is an ambiguity in an attempt to take an action, where it could either mean an attempt to take a possible action or an attempt to take an impossible action, it is instead an unambiguous attempt to take the possible action." -- secretsnail
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal?] It came to me in a dream
On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 2:49 AM ais523 via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-07-19 at 02:46 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-business
> wrote:
> > I do not create the following thing, which may be a proposal:
> >
> > {
> > Title: What is this
> > Adoption index: 1.0
> > Author: secretsnail
> > Co-author(s):
> >
> > If this is a proposal, each player that has a valid vote FOR its
> > adoption is granted 5 boatloads of coins.
> >
> > }
> >
> > If there is a proposal in this message, I create it.
> >
> > CFJ, barring ais523: I created a proposal in this message.
> >
> > Arguments:
> >
> > I think the "thing" up there isn't a proposal, but instead just a
> > list of attributes, but a recent CFJ makes me doubt this so I just
> > wanna see what happens
>
> Arguments: Creating a proposal is an action by announcement, meaning
> that you can't do it by stating that you aren't doing it. (This was
> different under some previous rulesets, IIRC; there are historical
> examples of proposals being created by mistake, but that can't happen
> under the current rules.)
>
> --
> ais523
>
> Just to be clear, I'm thinking the part that might have created a proposal
was "If there is a proposal in this message, I create it.", not the first
part of the message. The real question that needs to be answered by the CFJ
is what "If there is a proposal in this message" evaluates to. I think it
would be false that a proposal was in the message, since it was just the
attributes, but maybe the conditional doesn't care about that and works off
something else.
--
secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: (@Promotor) Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8805-8810, 8812-8814
On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 7:58 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2022-07-17 at 19:48 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
> > It really just depends on how you define "different". If they are the
> same,
> > they could have just both been denied when I denied the first one. You
> > don't have to exist to be preemptively denied. You could also interpret
> > this as being when the second CoE was issued, it inherited the denial
> from
> > the first one, since they are the same. A weirder issue, though, is if
> they
> > are the same CoE, that CoE may not exist, since a CoE is a doubt, and
> when
> > you deny a doubt, it ceases to be a doubt... so you may not be able to
> > issue it again, since it's no longer a doubt.
>
> They aren't the same CoE (despite having the same content), and I'm
> surprised that there can be any controversy about that.
>
I was surprised too when it happened to the identical proposals I tried to
make. It was mostly just a joke about how I don't understand your logic for
the previous judgement, since this seems very similar, but then you
responded so I tried to actually reason about how they could be "the same
doubt", which makes natural language sense, since it's the same issue you
take with the report. You used shorthand like I did, since "CoE:" basically
expands to "i issue a claim of error with the following explanation". So
this is sort of different, sort of the same. I really don't know anymore, I
just wanted to submit multiple proposals in an obvious way and somehow it's
being interpreted the ridiculous way instead.
I'm not sure what everyone means by "different", "identical", or "the same"
because it doesn't match my perception and doesn't seem to be consistent
across what different people are saying. "Identical entities" and "the same
entity" can sometimes be the same thing, it really just depends on context.
You can reasonably say two separate coins are "the same entity", and that
wouldn't make there only be one coins. It would just be two coins that are
the same. And then there's "instances" which are more specific. "Two
instances of the same entity." I feel like this phrase could apply to the
CoEs you made, and to the proposals I made. Entities that are the same, but
different instances. Instance 1 was created when you made the first CoE,
and instance 2 when you made the second. You created the same thing twice,
but they are separate instances, and thus can be dealt with and owned
separately, like coins. I just created the same thing 81 times.
But these are all just my assumptions of how these words work, and you have
your own. I'm just confused as to how we're to judge anything when these
differences in meaning arise. You assign a random judge to a question like
this and there's a chance they have a completely different interpretation
of these concepts from most players. We're going to disagree, but allowing
that disagreement to interfere with playing the game properly is something
I want to avoid, and it seems like my interpretation has just been denied
even though for a good while there was barely any question about if the
proposals had been created, and there's instances of things that had been
created in that way before, giving a basis for my actions to be interpreted
as "specifying the action and setting forth intent to perform that action,
doing both clearly and unambiguously", as necessary for by announcement
actions. It's hopefully obvious my intent was not to do something
impossible, but the specification can certainly be questioned, except that
the action I took was one taken so many times as proposals have been
created over the course of Agora the exact same way.
"I submit the following proposal: {attributes of proposal}" has been used
over and over again to create proposals with specified attributes in Agora.
I just wanted to take that classic action 81 times, so I added "81 times,"
in front of it. Must I be punished for using the phrasing of so many before
me with such a simple addition?
--
secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: (@Promotor) Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8805-8810, 8812-8814
On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 7:39 PM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, 2022-07-17 at 19:30 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 7:17 PM ais523 via agora-business < > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > CoE: the proposal referred to as "8817" above doesn't exist. Adding > > > a proposal that's already in the proposal pool to the proposal pool > > > has no effect, it doesn't just duplicate the proposal. > > > > > > In order to prevent an infinite loop of CoEs and denials (required from > > > my side to prevent self-ratification of a false statement, and from > > > your side by the requirement to respond to a CoE), I suggest you > > > initiate or cite a CFJ (3978 could be a good option). > > If I cite a cfj then it will forever be doubted, though... > > > > Oh well, I cite CFJ 3978 in response to the quoted CoE. (But I do deny > this > > claim in my head.) > > > > (Insert joke about you creating the same CoE twice) > > They necessarily have to be two different CoEs, despite having the same > wording, because there was a point in time at which the first one was > denied but the second one wasn't. > It really just depends on how you define "different". If they are the same, they could have just both been denied when I denied the first one. You don't have to exist to be preemptively denied. You could also interpret this as being when the second CoE was issued, it inherited the denial from the first one, since they are the same. A weirder issue, though, is if they are the same CoE, that CoE may not exist, since a CoE is a doubt, and when you deny a doubt, it ceases to be a doubt... so you may not be able to issue it again, since it's no longer a doubt. -- secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Assessor, Promotor) Re: BUS: CFJ 3978, CFJ 3979 assigned to ais523
On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 6:16 PM Edward Murphy via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >> Yes, you can create/submit a proposal by announcement. That doesn't mean
> >> you can create *the same* proposal multiple times
> >
> > I'd like a better explanation as to why that is, because it seems like
> the opposite. Because tou can create a proposal by announcement, you can
> create the same proposal multiple times by announcement, but that action
> falls under the umbrella of creating a proposal by announcement.
>
> That's what "the" means in ordinary language, and what the creation and
> existence of entities means in ordinary language (backed up to some
> extent by Definition and Continuity of Entities). You can't create *the
> same* instance of anything more than once (unless perhaps it's repealed
> or something in between, which is n/a here).
>
> If I announced "81 times, I create the coin in my possession", then that
> would be equally problematic (even if there was a rule "Murphy CAN
> create coins in eir possession by announcement").
>
I'd argue this is more problematic just because we don't refer to coins as
"the coin" normally, but we do use "the proposal" a lot more.
It really depends on what entity you're creating, for coins it is strange,
but for promises, for example, it works.
"81 times, I grant myself the promise:
{
I plant potatoes
}."
would be perfectly fine, because we refer to promises that way. The same
goes for proposals. It should be obvious it's not actually one promise
being granted, but multiple instances of the same promise.
An example of this happening just fine:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2022-April/048821.html
If this should work, so should my proposals.
Also we should really look at the difference between "the same proposal"
and "the same instance of a proposal".
>
> >> You can create/submit multiple proposals with identical attributes, but
> >> you need to spell that out explicitly. It's reasonably within ais523's
> >> purview as judge to find that the clash between the verb expecting
> >> multiple objects ("81 times, I submit") and being given only a single
> >> one ("the proposal _") is sufficiently confusing that it doesn't
> >> count as "specifying" the required things.
> >
> > I disagree that the verb expects multiple objects. It makes much more
> sense to expect a single object since i'm attempting the same action 81
> times. It would be unnecessary for me to need to list the attributes of
> every single proposal because, as "81 times" implies, it's going to be the
> same attributes for each action, not multiple different attributes. If
> there's a reason as to why my proposals didn't work, this is not it. If you
> could play with the wealth stone multiple times, and you said "5 times, I
> wield the wealth stone, specifying secretsnail." That would fail under this
> interpretation, because it didn't specify "secretsnail, secretsnail,
> secretsnail, secretsnail, and secretsnail" which I hope is not the case.
>
> Okay, more precisely: The verb is replicated 81 times. Announcing "81
> times, I create _." is accepted as shorthand for announcing
>
> {
>I create _.
>I create _.
>(78 more instances)
>I create _.
> }
>
> (There's precedent pertaining to creating an undue workload for
> officers, but let's not worry about that here.)
>
> If _ were "a proposal with ", then this would
> work fine. But when _ is "*the* proposal with ",
> then the expansion becomes:
>
> {
>I create the proposal with .
>I create the proposal with .
>(78 more instances)
>I create the proposal with .
> }
>
> Now the first of these is worded awkwardly, but still sensible, as long
> as no proposal with that list of attributes already existed. The rest
> are nonsensical; at that point, a proposal with that list of attributes
> *does* already exist, so the remaining statements cannot create *the*
> proposal with that list of attributes.
>
I disagree that the rest are nonsensical. Had they all been in a separate
message, it would have worked fine. They should work fine in the same
message, too. I also think this expansion may be mistaken: as I argued
before, the shorthand can be reasonably interpreted to expand from "the
following proposal" to "a proposal with ", not "the
proposal with ", even though both should work. We
regularly use "the proposal" just to refer to "a proposal", not necessarily
a specific instance of that proposal, because when we identify the proposal
in our messages made of text, we are referring to text, not a proposal.
--
secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Assessor, Promotor) Re: BUS: CFJ 3978, CFJ 3979 assigned to ais523
On Jul 17, 2022, at 4:31 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> secretsnail wrote:
>
>> This is my main issue with the judgement; it seems perfectly fine to create
>> something multiple times in natural language. We do that all the time with
>> coins, which are fungible, we create something that already exists.
>
> No, we create instances of a class of entities, where the class already
> exist but the instances don't.
>
>> But
>> importantly, even if it was against natural language, it's still defined as
>> possible in the rules.
>> Rule 2350 (Proposals)
>> A player CAN create a proposal by announcement,
>> specifying its text and optionally specifying any of the following
>> attributes:
>> So we can't just say you can't do it because of the "plain meaning",
>> especially when that meaning is contested. If I had used the word "create"
>> instead of "submit", I would have expected it to work just the same.
>
> Yes, you can create/submit a proposal by announcement. That doesn't mean
> you can create *the same* proposal multiple times
I'd like a better explanation as to why that is, because it seems like the
opposite. Because tou can create a proposal by announcement, you can create the
same proposal multiple times by announcement, but that action falls under the
umbrella of creating a proposal by announcement.
>
> You can create/submit multiple proposals with identical attributes, but
> you need to spell that out explicitly. It's reasonably within ais523's
> purview as judge to find that the clash between the verb expecting
> multiple objects ("81 times, I submit") and being given only a single
> one ("the proposal _") is sufficiently confusing that it doesn't
> count as "specifying" the required things.
I disagree that the verb expects multiple objects. It makes much more sense to
expect a single object since i'm attempting the same action 81 times. It would
be unnecessary for me to need to list the attributes of every single proposal
because, as "81 times" implies, it's going to be the same attributes for each
action, not multiple different attributes. If there's a reason as to why my
proposals didn't work, this is not it. If you could play with the wealth stone
multiple times, and you said "5 times, I wield the wealth stone, specifying
secretsnail." That would fail under this interpretation, because it didn't
specify "secretsnail, secretsnail, secretsnail, secretsnail, and secretsnail"
which I hope is not the case.
--
secretsnail
DIS: Re: (@Promotor) BUS: [Proposal] Fixing terminology in the proposal system
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 2:57 PM ais523 via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I create a proposal with the title "Proposal terminology fix", an AI of
> 3, and the following text:
> {{{
> Amend rule 2350 by changing "A player CAN create a proposal" to "A
> player CAN create (syn. submit) a proposal".
>
> Amend rule 2350 by changing "The author (syn. proposer) of a proposal
> is the person who submitted it." to "The author (syn. proposer) of a
> proposal is the person who created it.".
>
> [Ensures that "creating" and "submitting" a proposal are synonyms – the
> current rules aren't clear enough on this issue.]
> }}}
>
If you can't create the same entity multiple times, but you can submit the
same entity multiple times, which takes precedence? Would it be "create"
because (submit) is in parentheses? If they're synonyms I feel like that
would make them have equal weight, causing a contradiction.
--
secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Assessor, Promotor) Re: BUS: CFJ 3978, CFJ 3979 assigned to ais523
On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 12:50 AM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > It discusses shorthand which I almost used exactly and discusses what the
> > shorthand could mean,
> No it doesn't. It discusses a couple of possible wordings, but the
> shorthand wording it discusses is specifically "Proposal:",
It discusses one shorthand specifically:
Proposals (including this one), are usually styled as follows
"Title:
Coauthors
AI
Text"
and that's pretty much exactly the shorthand I used. Not "Proposal:" which
I have no idea where you even found. It is this shorthand the judge
discusses.
this case turns on what that shorthand
actually means. It could mean one of two things. "I create a proposal with
the following Title, Coauthors, AI, and Text properties". [Or it means] "I
create a proposal with the following text. I optionally specify an AI. I
optionally specify a Title. I optionally specify coauthors"
Since I did use this shorthand, and it could mean those things, I am
suggesting my shorthand means one of those things, which seems
perfectly fine to me.
> > "I create a proposal with the following Title, Coauthors, AI, and Text
> > properties" being a possibility, just as I argued before.
> That's only a suggestion for what "Proposal:" might mean.
>
Again this is just incorrect, it's one of two possibilities for what the
shorthand what I used could mean, not "Proposal:"
> The judge of CFJ 3744 specifically found that "I
> create this proposal" has a different meaning from "I create a proposal
> with the following attributes and text" (in the case of CFJ 3744, the
> latter wording was used, and the creation failed because it was
> impossible for a proposal to have the stated attributes).
>
Not exactly that it has a "different meaning" but a more precise meaning:
while "I create this proposal" could be either of the two mentioned
possibilities, "I create a proposal with the following attributes and text"
is definitively one of those possibilities. But this is a special case
because of the incorrect attribute: if it had been correct, both phrases
would have the same effect, as the two possibilities would be essentially
the same.
> > "I create this proposal" and "I submit the following proposal"
> > would be basically the same if create and submit are synonyms, and the
> > judge interterpetted "I create this proposal: {Shorthand}" as having two
> > possible meanings, both of which would mean my creations of proposals
> > succeeded, as they were essentially the same as Jason's.
>
> Neither of those wordings could succeed in creating multiple proposals,
> because they both use language that can only be used to apply to a
> single proposal.
"I create this proposal: {shortand}" actually means "I create a proposal
with the following Title, Coauthors, AI, and Text properties" or the other
similar meaning, which can be used to apply to multiple identical proposals.
> Are you seriously trying to argue that "Twice, I create this proposal:
> {proposal}" is capable of creating two different proposals?
Yes. That's how I read it naturally, and it isn't contradicted by the
rules. The CFJ implies "I create this proposal" can mean it's talking about
the attributes in {proposal}, not an actual proposal entity. So of course,
this would make two proposals, one created slightly after the other, that
are identical. The same proposal created twice, once and then again
slightly after, so there are two of them.
Some further proof that "this proposal" isn't actually a proposal from Rule
1607 (Distribution):
The Promotor's report includes a list of all proposals in the
Proposal Pool, along with their text and attributes.
This suggests the text and attributes posted when creating a proposal are
not the proposal itself.
> (whether two proposals are the same
> entity is important because, e.g., putting a proposal into the proposal
> pool, then putting the same proposal into the proposal pool, won't lead
> to it being in there twice, just like transferring the same nonfungible
> asset to someone twice won't lead to them having two copies of it).
>
The latter example, you could totally do that if you created the
nonfungible asset again first, which is basically what happens when you
create a new proposal to be added to the pool. Then they'd have two copies
of the same entity. (Side note, we really ought to have some kind of vague
definition for an entity, even if it doesn't cover everything, just so we
can have some agreement. There's probably plenty of precedent about the
nature of entities that could be used. This case could be an example.)
--
secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Assessor, Promotor) Re: BUS: CFJ 3978, CFJ 3979 assigned to ais523
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 7:27 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> No it isn't – "the proposal" has a perfectly well-defined meaning in
> English, and it doesn't make sense to interpret it as meaning something
> entirely different.
>
> --
> ais523
>
>
CFJ 3744 suggests "the proposal" was created multiple times, and wasn't
actually a proposal, but the attributes of a proposal:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3744
It discusses shorthand which I almost used exactly and discusses what the
shorthand could mean, "I create a proposal with the following Title,
Coauthors, AI, and Text properties" being a possibility, just as I argued
before. "I create this proposal" and "I submit the following proposal"
would be basically the same if create and submit are synonyms, and the
judge interterpetted "I create this proposal: {Shorthand}" as having two
possible meanings, both of which would mean my creations of proposals
succeeded, as they were essentially the same as Jason's.
--
secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Assessor, Promotor) Re: BUS: CFJ 3978, CFJ 3979 assigned to ais523
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:27 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 7/15/22 22:02, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > > But this is still only one issue you've addressed: you can still totally > > create something that already exists, you just make it exist again, > > duplicating it. Arbitrarily restricting creation to things that don't > exist > > is atextual given it's not any actual rules, and the rules already say > you > > CAN create a proposal if you specify everything so it should work. > > > No? That's not what "creating" something means. If I have a document, > and I make a copy of it, I haven't "created" the original, I've created > a copy. > You've still created the document again, though. It may not be the first time it's been created (the original), but if it's identical, you can still say you created it again, even if it is a copy (that just means it wasn't the first time it was created). Especially in Agora where it is much closer to identical. There is no rule in Agora or life, that something that has been created can not be created again. The creation and thus subsequent recreation (that is, creating but again) of entities is allowed by Agora, explicitly, and to say otherwise based on semantics does not seem right to me. -- secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Assessor, Promotor) Re: BUS: CFJ 3978, CFJ 3979 assigned to ais523
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 7:27 PM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > No it isn't – "the proposal" has a perfectly well-defined meaning in > English, and it doesn't make sense to interpret it as meaning something > entirely different. I'm saying "the proposal" CAN'T mean an actual proposal, because there was no proposal in my message, just the attributes of one. Agora regards the text i sent as entirely separate from the actual proposal, from my understanding. It's just the specifications. It entirely makes sense to interpret it that way because that's how the rules describe it: I was just "specifying its text and optionally specifying any of the following attributes". But this is still only one issue you've addressed: you can still totally create something that already exists, you just make it exist again, duplicating it. Arbitrarily restricting creation to things that don't exist is atextual given it's not any actual rules, and the rules already say you CAN create a proposal if you specify everything so it should work. -- secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Assessor, Promotor) Re: BUS: CFJ 3978, CFJ 3979 assigned to ais523
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 6:32 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-07-15 at 18:17 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > > In order to force this reading, you'd have to write something like
> > > "81
> > > times, I perform the following action: {{{ I submit the following
> > > proposal: … }}}", which is a long way away from what you actually
> > > wrote, and I don't think this is a plausible reading of what you
> > > actually wrote (especially when it has a very clear natural
> > > meaning).
> >
> > This surprises me, I don't see a difference between "81 times, I do
> > X" and "81 times, I perform the following action: I do X" Is it not
> > the same thing? Would it be if it was "81 times: I do X" instead?
>
> It's to do with the size of X. You've written, in effect, "81 times, I
> do X. Y.", so Y only happens once, and in this case Y is specifying
> what "the proposal" refers to. "81 times: I do X. Y." would be
> ambiguous if it were all on one line (and probably fail due to the
> ambiguity). "81 times: {{{ I do X. Y. }}}" unambiguously has 81 Xs
> which each have their own corresponding Y, whereas your version has 81
> Xs which each share the same Y, i.e. they all correspond to the same
> proposal.
>
This logic relies on "the proposal" being something that can't be created
again, when really it's just the specifications of the proposal you're
referring to. It's more like "81 times, I do X. X is done with Y as the
conditions." Just because I only specified the parameters once, doesn't
mean it only applies once. It's as if I specified it each time I did the
action, since "the proposal" is just a shorthand for "a proposal with the
following attributes".
--
secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Assessor, Promotor) Re: BUS: CFJ 3978, CFJ 3979 assigned to ais523
> In order to force this reading, you'd have to write something like "81
> times, I perform the following action: {{{ I submit the following
> proposal: … }}}", which is a long way away from what you actually
> wrote, and I don't think this is a plausible reading of what you
> actually wrote (especially when it has a very clear natural meaning).
This surprises me, I don't see a difference between "81 times, I do X" and "81
times, I perform the following action: I do X" Is it not the same thing? Would
it be if it was "81 times: I do X" instead?
--
secretsnail
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8700-8716
> On Jul 12, 2022, at 10:25 AM, juan via agora-business > wrote: > > secretsnail9 via agora-official [2022-07-03 14:40]: >> PROMOTOR'S REPORT AS OF RIGHT NOW > >> 8700~ 4st 2.0Well, it's not doing anything. > PRESENT > >> 8701~ 4st 2.0Welp, that doesn't do anything > AGAINST > >> 8702~ 4st 2.1Writing on the Blank Stone > AGAINST > >> 8703~ 4st 2.0Ticking Stone > FOR > >> 8704~ 4st 2.0Tasty Stone > AGAINST > >> 8705~ secretsnail 1.0Fixing Unfortunate Timing > Resentfully PRESENT > >> 8706~ secretsnail 1.5Let them have points > FOR > >> 8707~ Jason 3.0No, we really mean it > PRESENT > >> 8708~ nix ... [1] 3.0Has Beens > PRESENT > >> 8709~ secretsnail 2.2Promises Any vs Each > PRESENT > >> 8710~ Jason, secretsnail 3.0Tabled action clarification > PRESENT > >> 8711~ Jason 3.0Tabled action condition ambiguity > PRESENT > >> 8712~ secretsnail 1.0Stacking Stones v1.1 > Resenfully PRESENT > >> 8713~ secretsnail 1.0Pebble Throwing > PRESENT > >> 8714~ Jason 1.0Vote scoring clarification > PRESENT > >> 8715~ Jason 3.0Proposal protection > PRESENT > >> 8716~ 4st ... [2] 1.0Dream of Wandering > PRESENT > > -- > juan I believe these votes don't count? The voting period ended because quorum was met and a week had passed since distribution. (Note G. did vote against everything). -- secretsnail
DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Floating salaries (attn Treasuror)
On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 8:07 PM Edward Murphy via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I think the Unit of Flotation is still 104, in which case these expand > to: >* 5 boatloads of coins -> 520 coins >* 10 boatloads of coins -> 1040 coins >* 15 boatloads of coins -> 1560 coins > The UoF is actually 147, so it should be * 5 boatloads of coins -> 735 coins * 10 boatloads of coins -> 1470 coins * 15 boatloads of coins -> 2205 coins -- secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8717-8811
> On Jul 10, 2022, at 6:13 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Sun, 2022-07-10 at 18:09 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-official > wrote: >> 8724- secretsnail 1.0 It's only one point >> 8804 (all ~ (Ordinary)) (yes these are 81 identical proposals) > > I recommend that everyone withhold voting on these, in order to > increase the chance that they fail quorum. > > -- > ais523 > Quorum is 2 though so I don't think that's going to happen. Sent from my iPhone -- secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3971 assigned to Secretsnail9
On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 11:07 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 7/8/22 00:03, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 10:37 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > >> On 7/7/22 19:58, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > >>> As it has no mentions of the rules, I didn't think it was necessary to > >>> include an interpretation where a tabled action must be rules-defined > as > >> an > >>> action able to be performed with one of those methods. But looking at > >> Rule > >>> 2125 (Regulated Actions), I do see the relevance. > >>> > >>> > >>> A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the > >>> Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the > >>> Rules for performing the given action. > >>> > >>> > >>> You can make the connection that an action "is performed with a method" > >>> means that action "CAN be performed by that method as described by the > >>> rules", but that seems like a bit of a jump given the wording is > >>> significantly different as I argued, "is performed" vs "CAN be > >> performed". > >>> > >>> As the rules don't explicitly say that tabled actions have to be > >>> rules-defined to be intended, we shouldn't just assume that's what the > >>> rules mean. We should consider it, but there's no evidence that > suggests > >> it > >>> to be true. The lack of an explicit requirement to be rules-defined > more > >>> implies that there is no requirement to be rules-defined than there > being > >>> one. > >> > >> The fact that the usages of those methods must be rules-defined is > >> inherent in the fact that, in order for the rules to recognize the uses > >> of those methods, the actions must necessarily be regulated. It is > >> IMPOSSIBLE to take an action with N support if the rules do not permit > >> you to do so. You might have another method to do so if it's > >> unregulated, but that won't be "with N support". > >> > >> > > The action does not necessarily need to be POSSIBLE to be a tabled > action. > > It could be a tabled action that is currently impossible to take. That > > doesn't change that if it was performed "with support", it would be a > > tabled action, even if it currently IMPOSSIBLE to perform the action with > > support. These actions are regulated, yes, but impossible regulated > actions > > can still be tabled actions if they would be performed by a tabled action > > method. > > > > -- > > secretsnail > > > The action of "going shopping at the store" is not "performed by > dropping a penny on the floor", because there's no possible way that the > latter can result in the former. I think it's atextual to read this > clause to consider possible future hypotheticals. The rules must be > interpreted using their current text (or, for a CFJ, the text at the > time of calling), not possible future text. > If you were to go shopping at the store by dropping a penny on the floor, that would be performed by dropping a penny on the floor. It may be impossible currently, but Agora legal fiction can make it possible. The possibility does not determine if an action "is performed" a certain way. The judgement does not rely on future text, but on the current text allowing future actions, or rather, allowing intents for future actions, but not the actual actions to be performed. -- secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3971 assigned to Secretsnail9
On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 10:37 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 7/7/22 19:58, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > > As it has no mentions of the rules, I didn't think it was necessary to > > include an interpretation where a tabled action must be rules-defined as > an > > action able to be performed with one of those methods. But looking at > Rule > > 2125 (Regulated Actions), I do see the relevance. > > > > > > A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the > > Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the > > Rules for performing the given action. > > > > > > You can make the connection that an action "is performed with a method" > > means that action "CAN be performed by that method as described by the > > rules", but that seems like a bit of a jump given the wording is > > significantly different as I argued, "is performed" vs "CAN be > performed". > > > > > > As the rules don't explicitly say that tabled actions have to be > > rules-defined to be intended, we shouldn't just assume that's what the > > rules mean. We should consider it, but there's no evidence that suggests > it > > to be true. The lack of an explicit requirement to be rules-defined more > > implies that there is no requirement to be rules-defined than there being > > one. > > > The fact that the usages of those methods must be rules-defined is > inherent in the fact that, in order for the rules to recognize the uses > of those methods, the actions must necessarily be regulated. It is > IMPOSSIBLE to take an action with N support if the rules do not permit > you to do so. You might have another method to do so if it's > unregulated, but that won't be "with N support". > > The action does not necessarily need to be POSSIBLE to be a tabled action. It could be a tabled action that is currently impossible to take. That doesn't change that if it was performed "with support", it would be a tabled action, even if it currently IMPOSSIBLE to perform the action with support. These actions are regulated, yes, but impossible regulated actions can still be tabled actions if they would be performed by a tabled action method. -- secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3971 assigned to Secretsnail9
On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 5:56 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 7/7/22 01:03, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > That is, fulfilling these requirements in order to take the action by > announcement IS performing the action "with support", making it a tabled > action. The same applies to all tabled action methods. > > So what's left to answer is if ais523 tabled an intent to perform a > tabled action. Can an action that is not defined by the rules as able to be > taken with a tabled action method still be a tabled action? > > We come back to the question of what it means for an action to be > "performed by" a certain method. When is this evaluated? > > Suppose we have an action, X, we CAN take by announcement or CAN take by > another method, let's call it "by floopment". > > Is X performed by announcement? > > The answer is, well, that the question is malformed. The action CAN > certainly be performed by announcement. But IS the action performed by > announcement is an entirely different question. The action could be > performed by announcement, or by floopment, or maybe not performed at all. > Saying the action IS performed by announcement would be a mistake when > there is an alternative, that it ISN'T performed by announcement, that it > HAS NEVER been performed that way but may be at a later date. > > So when we are asked "is this action performed with support" the > interpretation should not be "CAN this action be performed with support" as > that is not what is being asked. What is more reasonable to ask "has this > action been performed through this method?" > > "An action is a Tabled Action if it is performed with one of the > > following methods:" > > This is evaluated when the action is actually performed. Did the action > occur through the method of "with support", or another tabled action > method? Or, you could also ask, would it be? > > It's a simple to realize that if you were to take an action by > announcement, that action would be performed by announcement. That is, > hypothetical actions taken by announcement can be said to be performed by > announcement, when taken. The same reasoning can be applied to tabled > action methods, letting hypothetical tabled actions be intended. > > Suppose the opposite was true: hypothetical actions don't count, as they > haven't been performed yet by that method. That would still break tabled > actions and be harmful for the game, as no actions would be tabled actions > because no actions have been performed by tabled action methods before they > are performed. > > So, hypothetical actions that would be performed by a tabled action > method are tabled actions, whether or not you can actually take them, thus > you can intend to take them even if you actually can't, and ais523's intent > to take a non-rules-defined tabled action succeeded because it would be > performed by a tabled action method is taken. I do not yet judge CFJ 3971 > TRUE. > > > You summarily discard the option of reading the clause as considering > rules-defined authorization to perform it by one of the tabled action > methods without any argument against such a reading, which seems to be a > reasonable reading to me. You merely assert that it's a different > question, but when you argue that it's unclear what the text means, it's > not at all clear to me that it's not even a possible reading. > I'm assuming by "the clause" you mean "An action is a Tabled Action if it is performed with one of the following methods:" As it has no mentions of the rules, I didn't think it was necessary to include an interpretation where a tabled action must be rules-defined as an action able to be performed with one of those methods. But looking at Rule 2125 (Regulated Actions), I do see the relevance. A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules for performing the given action. You can make the connection that an action "is performed with a method" means that action "CAN be performed by that method as described by the rules", but that seems like a bit of a jump given the wording is significantly different as I argued, "is performed" vs "CAN be performed". As the rules don't explicitly say that tabled actions have to be rules-defined to be intended, we shouldn't just assume that's what the rules mean. We should consider it, but there's no evidence that suggests it to be true. The lack of an explicit requirement to be rules-defined more implies that there is no requirement to be rules-defined than there being one. But considering it as an equally valid reading, we should look at the 4 factors from Rule 217. Game custom and previous judgements don't seem too helpful in the current situation as I can't find any good examples for custom and previous judgements would also be out of date with the rule change, though if they did hold that intents to
DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3971 assigned to Secretsnail9
> > In the past, contract-defined dependent/tabled actions have been read to > implicitly function as closely to the rules as possible (treating them > as jargon), but the rules have never before been held to authorize > contract-defined actions as dependent actions themselves, so the game > custom argument doesn't work in this case. I think the judgement works even without the game custom argument, as nothing seems to say or even imply theoretical tabled actions aren't still considered tabled actions, even if they can't actually be taken. > > This also misses some discussion of R2125's implications here, which I > think suggest that only rules-defined tabled actions can have intents > tabled. I don't see this at all; I looked at R2125 when making this judgement and concluded that tabling an intent is obviously a regulated action, even tabling one that isn't defined, because it's done so "using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules for performing the given action". Intending is clearly defined to work for tabled actions, not just rules-defined tabled actions. -- secretsnail
DIS: Re: BUS: Happy birthday, Agora!
W it's Agora's birthday Happy birthday Agora! You're pretty cool. I award myself a Magenta ribbon. -- secretsnail
DIS: Re: BUS: A Speaker Experiment
Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 22, 2022, at 3:15 PM, ais523 via agora-business > wrote: > I intend, with support, to appoint ais523 to the office of Speaker. > > [As far as I can tell, although I can't actually resolve this intent, > that doesn't prevent me making the intent. It seems as though it could > potentially be resolved by someone else?] > > -- > ais523 > I don't think you can actually make the intent? It's not a tabled action because it's not an action described in the rules. "any player CAN appoint *another player* to the office with support." And since you didn't do that I don't think it works? Just like you couldn't intend to deactivate someone with notice before it's been 30 days of inactivity. Unless you can idk -- secretsnail
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] June Stone Auction
Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 6, 2022, at 6:18 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business > wrote: > > On 6/5/22 23:21, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: On Jun 5, 2022, at 9:09 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >>> >>> On 6/5/22 19:58, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2022 at 4:43 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > I bid 200 coins on the same. > > -- > Jason Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > I bid 300 on both. -- secretsnail >>> >>> I bid 500 coins on each of the Power and Wealth stones. >>> >>> -- >>> Jason Cobb >>> >>> Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason >>> >> >> As do I, but with 750 coins instead of 500. >> >> -- >> secretsnail > > > I bid 1000 coins on the same. > > -- > Jason Cobb > > Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > I bid 1300 coins on the wealth stone. -- secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Avicultor] Bird Migration (June 2022)
On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 10:00 PM juan via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > secretsnail9 via agora-official [2022-06-07 17:57]: > > I publish the following Migration Notice. > > > > == > > Hungry BirdRandom Choice (New Owner) > > ----- > > Seagulljuan > > Just to clarify: the player specified during play with the Seagull buys > bird food three times. Does that mean he spends 15 boatloads of coins? > Or is the food created for free? > > In the former, why would that be interesting? > > -- > juan > It's the latter. There's two methods to buy bird food currently: paying a fee of 5 BoC, or using the Seagull. "buy bird food" is just the phrasing for the action, no actual spending need be involved, except as specified by the rules. -- secretsnail9
DIS: Re: (@treasuror) Re: BUS: The Agoran Forecast for June 2022
> On Jun 2, 2022, at 12:08 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: > > >> On 5/28/2022 4:30 PM, nix via agora-business wrote: >> June 2nd (Thursday) >> --- >> Jason's 3rd Agoran Birthday (2019) > > Happy Agoran birthday Jason! I grant Jason the X boatload of coins > appropriate for the day as specified in R2585. > > -G. > As do I. Happy birthday! -- secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
"After an election is initiated and until nominations close, any player CAN become a Device by announcement." or "If POSSIBLE per the following paragraph, end the Device immediately." -- secretsnail
DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3964 assigned to G.
My revised, V2 proto-judgement of CFJ 3964 follows. There's a lot to go into here, so I'll go in order of the actions taken. "Without 3 objections, I assign the Device to myself. [This would fail if the Device had an assigned judge.]" This succeeds the first time, according to the tabled action rules, and should also succeed any subsequent times if the device has no assigned judge by those same rules, as ais523 "is a sponsor of a mature ripe intent with less than [3] objectors." But this only applies if the device is off, as that is when the tabled action is allowed. After the first device assignment, "the Device changes, following which each active player gains 1 card of each type and eir grant (if any)". What does it mean for the device to change? We actually have a definition for a device change: "A Device change is any effect that falls into the above classes." but this only applies when the device is on, so the device changing is undefined at this point. The device has multiple properties that could change, including its assigned judge, its value, and potentially other attributes. There is nothing that specifies what is to be changed about the device, and where the text is silent, Rule 217 applies. Common sense seems to indicate the first choice for what a change is is to turn the device from off to on, or vice versa. It seems there is no other indication as to what should change about the device, so if something has to change, which it should for the best interest of the game in order to resolve ambiguity, it would be the device's value, to on. Similar arguments plus a previous judgement apply to the deactivation of the device. When ais523 attempts to assign the device to emself the second time, we need to look with more scrutiny. What happened the first time? If a Device has no judge assigned, then any player eligible to judge that Device CAN assign it to emself without 3 objections. So ais523 assigned the device to emself. Does that mean the device has a judge assigned? ais523 is certainly a judge, as e has judged multiple CFJs. So the device is assigned to a judge. This certainly implies the device has a judge assigned, but that is not explicit, the text is silent and unclear, and Rule 217 applies. The condition is if the device has a judge assigned, but it doesn't specify if the judge is assigned to the device or if the device is assigned to you, which implies it's equating the two. The condition would also always be true if the assignment wasn't symmetrical, when the action is implied to be only supposed to be taken once; being able to take the action multiple times just defies common sense: A device assigned to a judge has a judge assigned. Game custom supports this, as the phrase "has no judge assigned" wasn't explicitly coded in Rule 991 (Calls for Judgement) either, yet we agree it works that way. It is concealed, but unambiguous, because the choice was already previously made to equate the two. So ais523 is the judge assigned, that the device has, and 99 of eir attempts failed, both for the assignments and the deactivations (as the device remained off), so all of eir attempts at cashing in sets of cards failed. As such, e did not have enough winsomes to Take Over the Economy. I proto-judge CFJ 3964 FALSE. With eligibility concerns: "The players eligible to be assigned as judge are all active players except the initiator and the person barred (if any)." This part of Rule 991 (Calls for Judgement) pretty clearly was only meant to apply for CFJs, but the device doesn't care about that. It says: If a Device has no judge assigned, then any player eligible to judge that Device CAN assign it to emself without 3 objections. Using that key word, eligible, which this time, we actually have a definition for. Now what we don't have defined for the device is who the initiator and the person barred are. Again the next is silent, and common sense would say "the initiator" is a single player. For CFJs, it was the initiator of the CFJ, so it makes sense to read this as "the initiator of the device." To "initiate" is defined by Merriam-Webster as 1 *: *to cause or facilitate the beginning of *: *set going initiate a program of reform enzymes that initiate fermentation 2 *: *to induct into membership by or as if by special rites 3 *: *to instruct in the rudiments or principles of something *(syn. introduce)* These definitions lead to at least three different reasonable possibilities I can see: The initiator of the device is the one who started it, or proposed it. (The "special rites" of proposing the device fit nicely here.) The initiator is the one that instructs the device. (This could be the device rule or the Mad Engineer, as both can instruct the device to perform certain actions) The initiator is the one that started the device up, or turned it on. Of these, the first makes the most sense, as CFJs are similarly proposed,
DIS: [Proto] Horse Racing?
Horses are indestructible assets, ownable only by players and Agora. Any horses owned by the lost and found department are immediately transferred to Agora. Alexia, Baxter, Cannon, Destructor, Fargo, Nacho, Rubert, and Sugar are each a horse. These are their names. Dollaries (singular: dollary) are a fixed currency. Hooves (singular: hoof) are a fixed currency. The Horsened is an office and the recordkeepor of dollaries, hooves, and horses. Race Position is a Horse switch with possible values of the integers from 0 (default) to 16, tracked by the Horsened. Race Place is a Horse switch with possible values of first, second, third, and none (default), tracked by the Horsened. A horse is Running if it has a Race Place of none. Otherwise, the horse is Placed. When the race starts anew, each horse's Race Position is set to 0, each horse's Race Place is set to none, all horses are transfered to Agora, all dollaries and hooves are destroyed, and each player receives 10 dollaries. -- The horses Run -- The horses Run at the start of each week, unless the horses were not motivated within the last week. When the horses run, each player gains 1 hoof, movement resolves, and then if any horses have a Race Position of 16 and a Race Place of none, those horses win the race in alphabetical order of their names. When a horse wins the race: * If no horse has a Race Place of first, the horse's Race Place is set to first. * Otherwise, if no horse has a Race Place of second, the horse's Race Place is set to second. * Otherwise, the horse's Race Place is set to third and the race ends. -- The race ends -- When the race ends: * the player that owns the horse with a Race Place of first gains 50 dollaries. * the player that owns the horse with a Race Place of second gains 30 dollaries. * the player that owns the horse with a Race Place of third gains 15 dollaries. * For each horse, each player that got both a jersey and a helmet for that horse since the last time the race started anew gains 5 dollaries. * For each horse, each player gains a number of dollaries equal to that horse's current multiplier * the number of dollaries e bet on that horse since the last time the race started anew. -- Weekly race actions -- Each player CAN take one of the following actions (weekly race actions) if they have not already taken one this week: * bet 1, 2, or 3 dollaries on a specified horse by paying a fee of 1, 2, or 3 dollaries respectively. * get a jersey for a specified horse, also specifying a horse to be added to that horse's pull, by paying 1 hoof. * get a helmet for a specified horse by paying 1 hoof. * transfer a specified horse owned by Agora to emself by paying a fee equal to the horse's cost. * increase or decrease a specified Running horse's Race Position by 1, twice, by paying 3 hooves. * take an action defined as a weekly power of a horse e owns by the rules. * gain 4 dollaries by announcement. A player CANNOT bet on a horse with a Race Position of 12 or higher unless e got a helmet for that horse since the race last started anew. A player CANNOT get a jersey for a horse e has already gotten a jersey for since the race last started anew. A player CANNOT get a helmet for a horse e has already gotten a helmet for since the race last started anew. The Horsened's weekly report includes, since the race last started anew, which horses each player has gotten helmets and jerseys for. -- Motivating horses -- Any player CAN, by announcement if no player has done so yet this week, motivate the horses, specifying a random horse (the galloper) and a random number choice of 1, 2, or 3. When movement resolves, the galloper's Race Position is increased by 1 a number of times equal to the random number choice, and then each of the galloper's pulls have their Race Position increased by 1 in alphabetical order of their names. The horsened SHALL NOT let a week go by without the horses having been motivated. Each horse has an associated non-repeating set of horses, their "pulls", tracked by the Horsened. When the race begins anew, the horse's pulls are set to the following: HORSE PULLS Alexia Nacho Baxter Fargo Cannon Alexia Destructor Baxter Fargo Alexia, Destructor Nacho Baxter, Cannon Rubert Alexia, Cannon Sugar Baxter, Destructor -- Horse Powers -- Each horse has a power which only applies to the player that owns it (the owner), and a cost (in dollaries). They are listed below. HORSE COST (dollaries) Alexia 10 Baxter 10 Cannon 8 Destructor 8 Fargo 6 Nacho 6 Rubert 4 Sugar 4 Alexia's power: Once per month, the owner CAN take a weekly race action, so long as e specifies it's via this power in the same message. Baxter's power: Whenever Baxter moves forward because of being chosen as the galloper,
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3964 assigned to G.
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 6:47 PM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > It's already been found by CFJ (CFJ 3933) that deactivating the device > turns it off. More generally, that CFJ found that words that the rules > define in one context (e.g. activity) don't necessarily use that > definition in another context, if the original definition was specific > to the context. While the spirit of that CFJ is still very relevant, I don't think the specific finding of it is, given how much has been added to the device rule since, creating more possibilities for what "deactivating" the device could mean. The difference: Rule 2654/6 (Power=1) The Device When the device is on: * click - hummm * The week that contains the beginning of Agora's Device, together with the following week, is a Holiday. * A Device CAN activate or deactivate emself by announcement. When the device is off: * whirr - THUNK * By default, a device CAN, with 2 Agoran consent, enact, amend, or repeal a regulation for which e is the Promulgator. * Whenever a Player feels that e has been treated so egregiously by the Agoran Device that e can no longer abide to be a part of it, e may submit a document to the Registrar, clearly labeled a Cantus Cygneus, detailing eir grievances and expressing eir reproach for those who e feels have treated em so badly. VS Rule 2654/32 (Power=1) The Device When the device is on: * click - hummm * The week that contains the beginning of Agora's Device, together with the following week, is a Holiday. * A Device CAN activate or deactivate emself by announcement. * Any player CAN refile a Device without objection, specifying a new title; the Device is retitled to the specified title by this Device. * The Speaker qualifies for a Platinum Device. * The time window of a Device is W days, where W is the value explicitly stated by the Device, or 60 if the Device does not explicitly state a value. A Device ceases to exist at the end of its time window. * Each Agoran Device has a voting method, which must be AI-majority, instant runoff, or first-past-the-post. * The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated Devices. * The voting Device is that specified by the authorizing authority, or first-past-the-post by default. * An entity submits a ballot on an Agoran Device by publishing a notice satisfying the following conditions: 1. The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the Device. 2. The entity casting the ballot (the voter) was, at the initiation of the Device, a player. 3. The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided. 4. The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined by the voting method. 5. The ballot clearly sets forth the voter's intent to place the identified vote. 6. The voter has no other valid ballots on the same Device. * The voting Device of an entity on an Agoran decision is an integer between 0 and 15 inclusive, defined by rules of power 2 or greater. * A Device is an entity with positive Power. * The Treasuror CAN conduct an auction (a "Device auction") if no Device auction is ongoing. * A Device change is any effect that falls into the above classes. * When a Device wins an election, e is installed into the associated office and the election ends. * As this Device is the highest honour that Agora may bestow, a Bearer of this Device OUGHT to be treated right good forever. * Proposals created since the enactment of this rule have a secured untracked Device switch with possible values ordinary (the default) and democratic. When the device is off: * whirr - THUNK * By default, a device CAN, with 2 Agoran consent, enact, amend, or repeal a regulation for which e is the Promulgator. * Whenever a Player feels that e has been treated so egregiously by the Agoran Device that e can no longer abide to be a part of it, e may submit a document to the Registrar, clearly labeled a Cantus Cygneus, detailing eir grievances and expressing eir reproach for those who e feels have treated em so badly. * When e does so, e fulfills any obligations with regards to that device. * Text purportedly about previous instances of the device (e.g. a report's date of last device) is excluded from the device. * If a Device has no judge assigned,
