Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Nerf Zombies

[Corona]

​*emself; e, sorry​.

~Corona

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Corona  wrote:

> Doesn't G. have 5 votes by himself? He is PM and has 3 zombies.
>
> ~Corona
>
> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 1:47 AM, Ned Strange 
> wrote:
>
>> I think G and I with our 6 votes between us can block anything, or at
>> least anything with more than 1 AI. Funny.
>>
>> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Aris Merchant
>>  wrote:
>> > Alright. You can consider it weakened in the way I suggested. However,
>> > I need to see which of these changes has has consensus. Anyone else
>> > have an opinion on the matter? I'll save this for next week's
>> > distribution, given that your basic nerf is probably sufficient in the
>> > near term.
>> >
>> > -Aris
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Kerim Aydin 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Most of them at this point.  There's a few that are worse than others,
>> some
>> >> especially bad for returning zombies (forcing a returning zombie to
>> >> deregister?  what's that about?).  But the version I proposed is what
>> >> I'll personally vote for in this next proposal batch, nothing further.
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> >>> Which provision most bothers you? I might be willing to drop the one
>> zombie
>> >>> limit if it strikes you as reasonable, it's probably unneeded with the
>> >>> dependent actions change. I'd even consider extending the expiration
>> to 90
>> >>> days, although having one just seems like common sense to me. Those
>> are as
>> >>> far as I can tell the only actual restrictions I've added?
>> >>>
>> >>> -Aris
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Nerf Zombies

[Corona]

Doesn't G. have 5 votes by himself? He is PM and has 3 zombies.

~Corona

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 1:47 AM, Ned Strange 
wrote:

> I think G and I with our 6 votes between us can block anything, or at
> least anything with more than 1 AI. Funny.
>
> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> > Alright. You can consider it weakened in the way I suggested. However,
> > I need to see which of these changes has has consensus. Anyone else
> > have an opinion on the matter? I'll save this for next week's
> > distribution, given that your basic nerf is probably sufficient in the
> > near term.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Most of them at this point.  There's a few that are worse than others,
> some
> >> especially bad for returning zombies (forcing a returning zombie to
> >> deregister?  what's that about?).  But the version I proposed is what
> >> I'll personally vote for in this next proposal batch, nothing further.
> >>
> >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >>> Which provision most bothers you? I might be willing to drop the one
> zombie
> >>> limit if it strikes you as reasonable, it's probably unneeded with the
> >>> dependent actions change. I'd even consider extending the expiration
> to 90
> >>> days, although having one just seems like common sense to me. Those
> are as
> >>> far as I can tell the only actual restrictions I've added?
> >>>
> >>> -Aris
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Nerf Zombies

[Aris Merchant]

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-04-30 at 16:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Ribbon ownership really isn't a good method of protection - I noticed
>> that when we thought about a festival during Gaelan's April Fools
>> joke.
>
> Well, it was intended to protect against non-Agorans, possibly via
> recruiting former Agorans to help out.
>
> Zombies kind-of flip that round via /being/ an invasion of former
> Agorans. From the rules' point of view, when it comes to a battle
> between new players and zombies, the zombies "should" win. The invalid
> assumption is probably that if a player is registered and taking
> actions, they're still actively playing.

This is the invalid assumption that zombies were designed to break,
unfortunately. It's what makes weakening them without making them no
fun so difficult.

-Aris

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Nerf Zombies

[Alex Smith]

On Mon, 2018-04-30 at 16:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Ribbon ownership really isn't a good method of protection - I noticed
> that when we thought about a festival during Gaelan's April Fools
> joke.

Well, it was intended to protect against non-Agorans, possibly via
recruiting former Agorans to help out.

Zombies kind-of flip that round via /being/ an invasion of former
Agorans. From the rules' point of view, when it comes to a battle
between new players and zombies, the zombies "should" win. The invalid
assumption is probably that if a player is registered and taking
actions, they're still actively playing.

-- 
ais523

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Nerf Zombies

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 1 May 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-05-01 at 09:47 +1000, Ned Strange wrote:
> > I think G and I with our 6 votes between us can block anything, or at
> > least anything with more than 1 AI. Funny.
> 
> Hint: How many Ribbons do the zombies have? A zombie apocalypse isn't
> that much different from an invasion of humans.

V.J.'s zombie has 4, mine have 5, 10 and 0.  Zombie Quazie has 7.
Zombie nichdel has 11.

On the flip side, two non-zombies who have expressed desire to weaken/
eliminate zombies have 1 and 0 (ATMunn and Trigon) unless I missed
something (and they could pick up a couple easy ones probably).

Ribbon ownership really isn't a good method of protection - I noticed
that when we thought about a festival during Gaelan's April Fools joke.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Nerf Zombies

[Alex Smith]

On Tue, 2018-05-01 at 09:47 +1000, Ned Strange wrote:
> I think G and I with our 6 votes between us can block anything, or at
> least anything with more than 1 AI. Funny.

Hint: How many Ribbons do the zombies have? A zombie apocalypse isn't
that much different from an invasion of humans.

(Of course, Zombies may well have more Ribbons than the average player!
But at least you could recruit more long-term players – perhaps even
the zombies themselves – to help out.)

-- 
ais523

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Nerf Zombies

[Ned Strange]

I think G and I with our 6 votes between us can block anything, or at
least anything with more than 1 AI. Funny.

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> Alright. You can consider it weakened in the way I suggested. However,
> I need to see which of these changes has has consensus. Anyone else
> have an opinion on the matter? I'll save this for next week's
> distribution, given that your basic nerf is probably sufficient in the
> near term.
>
> -Aris
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Most of them at this point.  There's a few that are worse than others, some
>> especially bad for returning zombies (forcing a returning zombie to
>> deregister?  what's that about?).  But the version I proposed is what
>> I'll personally vote for in this next proposal batch, nothing further.
>>
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>> Which provision most bothers you? I might be willing to drop the one zombie
>>> limit if it strikes you as reasonable, it's probably unneeded with the
>>> dependent actions change. I'd even consider extending the expiration to 90
>>> days, although having one just seems like common sense to me. Those are as
>>> far as I can tell the only actual restrictions I've added?
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>
>>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Nerf Zombies

[Aris Merchant]

Alright. You can consider it weakened in the way I suggested. However,
I need to see which of these changes has has consensus. Anyone else
have an opinion on the matter? I'll save this for next week's
distribution, given that your basic nerf is probably sufficient in the
near term.

-Aris


On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> Most of them at this point.  There's a few that are worse than others, some
> especially bad for returning zombies (forcing a returning zombie to
> deregister?  what's that about?).  But the version I proposed is what
> I'll personally vote for in this next proposal batch, nothing further.
>
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> Which provision most bothers you? I might be willing to drop the one zombie
>> limit if it strikes you as reasonable, it's probably unneeded with the
>> dependent actions change. I'd even consider extending the expiration to 90
>> days, although having one just seems like common sense to me. Those are as
>> far as I can tell the only actual restrictions I've added?
>>
>> -Aris
>
>

Re: DIS: Proto: Nerf Zombies

[Aris Merchant]

The point is that e is required to do it by announcement if possible
(this is only possible for expired zombies). I don't know how to word
that. I was under the impression that we had a cannon of construction
that people were not in general required to try to amend the rules.
Was I wrong about that?

-Aris

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:34 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 1 May 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
>> b) If a dictatorship scam exists in the ruleset, the Registrar is
>> required to use it.
>
> Ooh yah I thought that looked pretty open-ended and hard for an
> officer to obey but didn't connect the dots that far.  yikes.
>
> I was thinking the best way to fix this particular issue might be
> would be to clarify what it means when you require an Officer to
> perform a dependent action.  Maybe like:
>
>If an Officer is REQUIRED to initiate a dependent action, e
>SHALL, at least once, between 4-10 days after the initiation
>(unless the action has been performed in the mean time),
>publicly list the supporters/objectors, and if e CAN perform
>the task at that time, e MUST perform it in the same message.
>
> (then make each specific requirement an initiation requirement
> not an "attempt to perform" requirement).
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Proto: Nerf Zombies

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 1 May 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> b) If a dictatorship scam exists in the ruleset, the Registrar is
> required to use it.

Ooh yah I thought that looked pretty open-ended and hard for an 
officer to obey but didn't connect the dots that far.  yikes.

I was thinking the best way to fix this particular issue might be 
would be to clarify what it means when you require an Officer to
perform a dependent action.  Maybe like:

   If an Officer is REQUIRED to initiate a dependent action, e
   SHALL, at least once, between 4-10 days after the initiation
   (unless the action has been performed in the mean time),
   publicly list the supporters/objectors, and if e CAN perform
   the task at that time, e MUST perform it in the same message.

(then make each specific requirement an initiation requirement 
not an "attempt to perform" requirement).

Re: DIS: Proto: Nerf Zombies

[Alex Smith]

On Sun, 2018-04-29 at 22:41 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> This is an attempt at a significant reduction in zombie power (so we
> don't need to repeal such a fun mechanic). I have attempted to keep
> them usable while at the same time not making them overpowered.

Some fun, possibly unintentional side effects of this proposal:

a) It's capable of forcibly preventing players registered while an
imposed office is imposed on them (this is comparable to how the
Speaker used to work, but fairly weird);

b) If a dictatorship scam exists in the ruleset, the Registrar is
required to use it.

-- 
ais523

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Nerf Zombies

[Kerim Aydin]

Most of them at this point.  There's a few that are worse than others, some 
especially bad for returning zombies (forcing a returning zombie to 
deregister?  what's that about?).  But the version I proposed is what
I'll personally vote for in this next proposal batch, nothing further.

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Which provision most bothers you? I might be willing to drop the one zombie
> limit if it strikes you as reasonable, it's probably unneeded with the
> dependent actions change. I'd even consider extending the expiration to 90
> days, although having one just seems like common sense to me. Those are as
> far as I can tell the only actual restrictions I've added?
> 
> -Aris

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Nerf Zombies

[Aris Merchant]

Which provision most bothers you? I might be willing to drop the one zombie
limit if it strikes you as reasonable, it's probably unneeded with the
dependent actions change. I'd even consider extending the expiration to 90
days, although having one just seems like common sense to me. Those are as
far as I can tell the only actual restrictions I've added?

-Aris

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 7:36 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > This is an attempt at a significant reduction in zombie power (so we
> > don't need to repeal such a fun mechanic). I have attempted to keep
> > them usable while at the same time not making them overpowered. This
> > also creates a standard notion of which players are "active" and
> > formalizes the sacrosanct status of omd, among other reforms. The
> > basic idea is that pro-zombie players will favor this over repeal and
> > anti-zombie players will prefer some regulation over none. Given this
> > and the large number of other fairly urgent proposals currently in
> > flight, I'm delaying this weeks distribution.
>
> Absolutely not.
>
> Personally, I would vote against this - this is a "compromise" that is so
> anti-zombie that we might as well get rid of them, and these changes have
> little to do with basic nerfing.  I would support the minimal change of
> adding the Zombie Restrictions rule (preventing dependent actions).
>
> I submit the following Proposal, Basic Nerf, AI-3, co-author Aris.  I
> pend it with a paper.
>
> ---
> Enact a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Zombie Restrictions", with the
> following text:
>
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a zombie who is being acted
> on behalf of CANNOT initiate, support, object to, or perform a
> dependent
> action.
> ---
>
>
>

DIS: Proto: Nerf Zombies

[Aris Merchant]

This is an attempt at a significant reduction in zombie power (so we
don't need to repeal such a fun mechanic). I have attempted to keep
them usable while at the same time not making them overpowered. This
also creates a standard notion of which players are "active" and
formalizes the sacrosanct status of omd, among other reforms. The
basic idea is that pro-zombie players will favor this over repeal and
anti-zombie players will prefer some regulation over none. Given this
and the large number of other fairly urgent proposals currently in
flight, I'm delaying this weeks distribution.

-Aris

---

Title: Nerf Zombies
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors: G.


If Rule 2532, "Zombies", does not exist, the rest of this proposal has no
effect.

Create a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Activity", with the following text:
  Activity is a positive boolean player switch tracked by the Registrar in
  eir weekly report. A player with true activity is considered active
  and one with false activity is considered inactive. Changes to activity
  are secured.

  If a player has not sent a message to a public forum (excluding
  messages explicitly marked as not affecting activity) in the last thirty
  days, any player CAN cause that player to become inactive with 7 days
  notice, and the Registrar SHALL attempt to do so as part of eir monthly
  duties. When a player becomes inactive, e is immediately expelled from
  every elected office that e holds.

  If an inactive player sends a message to a public forum (excluding messages
  explicitly marked as not affecting activity)

Amend Rule 2139 The Registrar, by amending the paragraph beginning "In the
first Eastman week" to read as follows:

  In the first Eastman week of every month the Registrar SHALL
  make a reasonable effort to deregister every inactive player by the
  rule-defined means most likely succeed.


Amend Rule 2532, "Zombies" by doing the following (these changes are
severable, but otherwise occur as a single change): {

  Change the text

"a player CAN always flip eir own master to emself by announcement."
  to read
"a player, acting as emself, CAN always flip eir own master from
any other value to emself by announcement. Immediately after e does so,
before any other actions taken in the same message, e is deregistered
and then reregistered. A player CANNOT gain a zombie if e already owns
one; any action that would cause em to do so is canceled and does
not occur."

[The deregister and reregister is a bit of a hack, but this purges assets,
offices, welcome packages, and anything else I'm not thinking of all in one
go.]

  Change the text

"A zombie's master, if another player, is allowed to act on
behalf of the zombie (i.e. as the zombie's agent) to perform
LEGAL actions."
  to read
"A zombie's master, if another player, CAN act on behalf of the zombie
(i.e. as the zombie's agent) to perform game actions."

Change the third paragraph to read in full:
  If a player is inactive, then any player CAN flip that player's master to
  Agora by announcement. If a player has been a zombie for 60 days, any
  player may deregister that player by announcement. If at any point
  during the time when a player is a zombie e becomes active, eir owner
  switch is immediately set to emself.
}

Enact a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Zombie Restrictions", with the following
text:

  Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a zombie who is being acted
  on behalf of CANNOT initiate, support, object to, or perform a dependent
  action.

Amend Rule 869, "How to Join and Leave Agora", by changing the fifth paragraph
to read:

  If a player is inactive, then any player CAN deregister em with 3 Agoran
  Consent.

Amend Rule 2559, "Paydays", by changing "single player" to "single active
player".

Enact a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Ceremonial Offices", with the following
text:

  A ceremonial office is one that is described as such by its defining rule.
  All ceremonial offices are also inherently imposed. Rules to the contrary
  notwithstanding, the holder of a ceremonial office is always registered
  and never a zombie; any change that would violate these invariants is
  canceled and does no occur. Players are ENCOURAGED to treat ceremonial offices
  with respect and to obey the official pronouncements of their holders
  concerning their duties.

Amend Rule 103, "The Speaker", by replacing "imposed" with "ceremonial".

Enact a new power 2.0 rule, entitled "The Distributor", with the following text:

  The Distributor is a ceremonial office. E is charged with distributing
  messages sent via the Fora to all players who have arranged to received them
  and otherwise maintaining the basic physical and technical infrastructure
  of the game. E SHALL make a reasonable effort to do so, and if e becomes
  unable to continue to serve, e SHALL ensure that e is replaced and
  that eir replacement gains access to all