Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@treasuror, @promotor) [proposal] basic scoring
On 1/24/2022 1:38 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > > >> On Jan 24, 2022, at 9:34 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion >> wrote: >> >> Further, if it's trying to take into account past-only but forcing the >> assessor to calculate "instantaneous" results (e.g. the assessor has to >> calculate whether something would pass at every given moment) seems like a >> textbook case of "unreasonable effort" also making it too ambiguous to >> succeed? > > This is the interpretation I intended; you might be right about the > unreasonable effort. Ignoring that, there's a counter-strategy by setting up actual conditional votes early on, such that those conditional votes cause your conditional action to evaluate the wrong way. Example: 2 unconditional FOR votes cast first. Conditional vote cast second: "If Gaelan has voted unconditionally AGAINST, then AGAINST, otherwise FOR." (conditional not evaluated until the end). Gaelan then does: "If it would pass right now even if I voted AGAINST, then I cast an unconditional AGAINST, otherwise an unconditional FOR." (conditional evaluated at time of message). When Gaelan's vote is evaluated at the time of casting, there's 3 votes FOR, and Galean would be 1 AGAINST, so that resolves as Gaelan voting unconditionally AGAINST and it "would" succeed. But then at the time of actual evaluation, Gaelan's unconditional AGAINST flips the conditional ballot to a 2/2 tie and the proposal fails. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@treasuror, @promotor) [proposal] basic scoring
> On Jan 24, 2022, at 9:34 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Further, if it's trying to take into account past-only but forcing the > assessor to calculate "instantaneous" results (e.g. the assessor has to > calculate whether something would pass at every given moment) seems like a > textbook case of "unreasonable effort" also making it too ambiguous to > succeed? This is the interpretation I intended; you might be right about the unreasonable effort.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@treasuror, @promotor) [proposal] basic scoring
On 1/24/2022 1:20 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Jan 23, 2022, at 10:02 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion >> wrote: >> >> Yup, and if more than one person have that idea and all change at about >> the same time, the proposal might fail - that's part of the fun of it... >> (at least, that strategy was by design in my mind, it's possible of course >> that it wouldn't end up being fun). > > The “safe” strategy is to use a conditional: > > I perform the following action if, if proposal was resolved immediately > before or after this action, it would have the same outcome: > I change my vote on proposal to AGAINST. > > (Note that this isn’t a conditional vote: it’s a normal change of vote, as a > normal conditional action.) I think there's pretty strong precedents that outside of the explicitly-legislated conditional votes, conditionals have to be resolvable with information available at the time of the conditional message - no future conditionals allowed (i.e. depending on future conditionals just makes it an ambiguous announcement). Further, if it's trying to take into account past-only but forcing the assessor to calculate "instantaneous" results (e.g. the assessor has to calculate whether something would pass at every given moment) seems like a textbook case of "unreasonable effort" also making it too ambiguous to succeed? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@treasuror, @promotor) [proposal] basic scoring
> On Jan 23, 2022, at 10:02 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Yup, and if more than one person have that idea and all change at about > the same time, the proposal might fail - that's part of the fun of it... > (at least, that strategy was by design in my mind, it's possible of course > that it wouldn't end up being fun). The “safe” strategy is to use a conditional: I perform the following action if, if proposal was resolved immediately before or after this action, it would have the same outcome: I change my vote on proposal to AGAINST. (Note that this isn’t a conditional vote: it’s a normal change of vote, as a normal conditional action.) Of course, the endgame this converges on is every player sending that message soon before the proposal resolves, but before too many others send similar messages. Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@treasuror, @promotor) [proposal] basic scoring
On 1/23/2022 1:56 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 1/23/22 16:53, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Sun, 2022-01-23 at 13:49 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >>> * Having submitted an unconditional ballot AGAINST a referendum to >>> adopt a sponsored proposal, provided that the ballot is valid at >>> the time the referendum is assessed, and provided that the outcome >>> of that assessment is ADOPTED: points equal to the voting >>> player's voting strength on the referendum (Assessor). >> This is inherently prone to timing scams – it gives an incentive to >> change your vote to AGAINST at the very last moment, as long as the >> proposal would still pass regardless. >> > > (Joke) solution: the proposal says "change that player's score by the > indicated amount of points", not "increment that player's score", so > I'll use my discretion in the direction of change to punish people who > do that. > lol, I wrestled back in forth on whether I needed to say "positive unless included otherwise" but then decided that a cfj would likely find "change N by X" to be addition (and the sign of X is positive if not explicitly negative of course). I suppose I should have used "add" which would have had the same effect and been more explicit. On 1/23/2022 1:53 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > This is inherently prone to timing scams – it gives an incentive to > change your vote to AGAINST at the very last moment, as long as the > proposal would still pass regardless. Yup, and if more than one person have that idea and all change at about the same time, the proposal might fail - that's part of the fun of it... (at least, that strategy was by design in my mind, it's possible of course that it wouldn't end up being fun). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@treasuror, @promotor) [proposal] basic scoring
On 1/23/22 16:53, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, 2022-01-23 at 13:49 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >> * Having submitted an unconditional ballot AGAINST a referendum to >> adopt a sponsored proposal, provided that the ballot is valid at >> the time the referendum is assessed, and provided that the outcome >> of that assessment is ADOPTED: points equal to the voting >> player's voting strength on the referendum (Assessor). > This is inherently prone to timing scams – it gives an incentive to > change your vote to AGAINST at the very last moment, as long as the > proposal would still pass regardless. > (Joke) solution: the proposal says "change that player's score by the indicated amount of points", not "increment that player's score", so I'll use my discretion in the direction of change to punish people who do that. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: (@treasuror, @promotor) [proposal] basic scoring
On Sun, 2022-01-23 at 13:49 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > * Having submitted an unconditional ballot AGAINST a referendum to > adopt a sponsored proposal, provided that the ballot is valid at > the time the referendum is assessed, and provided that the outcome > of that assessment is ADOPTED: points equal to the voting > player's voting strength on the referendum (Assessor). This is inherently prone to timing scams – it gives an incentive to change your vote to AGAINST at the very last moment, as long as the proposal would still pass regardless. -- ais523
