DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister [attn: Registrar]

[Sarah S. via agora-discussion]

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 12:44 AM D. Wet via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I deregister as a player because Trapdoorspyder explicitly claimed a
> welcome package in his registering message.
> --
> D. Wet
> www.nomica.nl
>
what? why?
--
R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Gaelan Steele]

Will do. FYI: the summaries are in rules/sectionannotations, and are parsed as 
Markdown. Anybody should feel free to edit those annotations to keep them up to 
date and/or make them more useful.

Gaelan
> On Aug 28, 2017, at 6:23 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> I agree with K. Really great work, and much appreciated.
> 
> Gaelan, could you link the sentences in the summaries to the specific rule 
> from which they’re drawn, for ease of reference? If not, I might have a crack 
> at it, but I’m not going to have a ton of free time for a couple of weeks - 
> I’m in Vancouver visiting family.
> 
> -o
> 
>> On Aug 24, 2017, at 8:16 PM, Kyle Anderson > > wrote:
>> 
>> Incredibly useful. While the information contained in those descriptions 
>> can, of course, be gleaned from the rules themselves, they catch the eye and 
>> simplify the language in a way that promotes quick understanding.
>> 
>> -K
>> 
>> On Aug 24, 2017 9:02 PM, "Gaelan Steele" > > wrote:
>> I’ve added some annotations to each section of the online ruleset 
>> (agoranomic.org/ruleset ). They try to give a 
>> quick summary of each section, and mention which sections are important to 
>> understand at the beginning. Thoughts?
>> 
>> Gaelan
>>> On Aug 24, 2017, at 7:21 PM, Kyle Anderson >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> That separation between "core" and "subsytems" would be extremely helpful. 
>>> The sheer volume of information that makes up the current ruleset is not 
>>> necessarily a problem, except for when someone is trying to sort through it 
>>> and put together the pieces for the first time. I think that a main draw of 
>>> the game is its complexity (or perceived complexity). I would rather 
>>> reorganize the ruleset than get rid of that complexity.
>>> Another "bar on the door" for me has already been brought up, I can't 
>>> remember by who. There is no guidance on the form in which the game should 
>>> be played, other than precedence (which can prove difficult to navigate) 
>>> and trial and error. Perhaps that is all well, but it is a bit intimidating.
>>> 
>>> On Aug 24, 2017 7:38 PM, "Nic Evans" >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 08/24/17 20:15, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> > On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 19:53 -0500, Nic Evans wrote:
>>> >> * We have too many subsystems. It's hard to admit because nearly all of
>>> >> them are neat and well designed, but it's just too much in one game at
>>> >> once. Do we need three different binding agreements (agencies, pledges,
>>> >> organizations)? Probably not. We should either combine them or remove
>>> >> the least popular two. What about all of our winning conditions?
>>> > On the contrary, I think the relative lack of activity in Agora is that
>>> > there isn't actually anything to /do/. Much of what you list (like the
>>> > winning conditions) is harmless. On that subject, I don't think we have
>>> > nearly enough win conditions (most of the ones we do have are either
>>> > scam release valves, or very long term goals). It used to be that you
>>> > could win Agora every couple of months by outplaying people on the
>>> > economy and on regular gameplay. That's no longer the case, and I don't
>>> > think there have been any non-scam wins for a very long time (maybe a
>>> > historically long time?).
>>> >
>>> > The thing about Agoran complexity is that there are two sorts: the
>>> > rules you have to know about, and the rules that are only relevant when
>>> > you interact with them. (Perhaps these should actually be in separate
>>> > rulesets, at least presentationally? Most real-life rulesets work like
>>> > that, after all.) If you don't know what a Trust Token is, it's
>>> > unlikely ever to bother you. If you do, you can keep track of them and
>>> > try to make progress in that direction (although with the mechanic
>>> > unpopular, it's unlikely it'll ever result in a win).
>>> 
>>> We actually largely agree here, I think I was just poorly worded. It's
>>> not that there's too much to do, it's that, from the perspective of a
>>> new player looking at rules, it looks like there's too much to do and
>>> that makes it really hard to see how everything fits together. A new
>>> player doesn't know they don't need to worry about Trust Tokens, or that
>>> the 7 rules about Organizations and 8 about Punishments are largely
>>> irrelevant to them. In that regard I agree having a separation between
>>> 'Core' and 'Subsystems' in the rules would be nice. But I also think
>>> that we should seriously consider scaling back and simplifying the
>>> underutilized systems, at least for now. Add back the complexity as needed.
>>> 
>>> >
>>> > Likewise, the fix for SHALLs is probably to make them only apply to
>>> > officers, and have a neat list of all the relevant SHALLs in the 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Owen Jacobson]

I agree with K. Really great work, and much appreciated.

Gaelan, could you link the sentences in the summaries to the specific rule from 
which they’re drawn, for ease of reference? If not, I might have a crack at it, 
but I’m not going to have a ton of free time for a couple of weeks - I’m in 
Vancouver visiting family.

-o

> On Aug 24, 2017, at 8:16 PM, Kyle Anderson  wrote:
> 
> Incredibly useful. While the information contained in those descriptions can, 
> of course, be gleaned from the rules themselves, they catch the eye and 
> simplify the language in a way that promotes quick understanding.
> 
> -K
> 
> On Aug 24, 2017 9:02 PM, "Gaelan Steele"  > wrote:
> I’ve added some annotations to each section of the online ruleset 
> (agoranomic.org/ruleset ). They try to give a 
> quick summary of each section, and mention which sections are important to 
> understand at the beginning. Thoughts?
> 
> Gaelan
>> On Aug 24, 2017, at 7:21 PM, Kyle Anderson > > wrote:
>> 
>> That separation between "core" and "subsytems" would be extremely helpful. 
>> The sheer volume of information that makes up the current ruleset is not 
>> necessarily a problem, except for when someone is trying to sort through it 
>> and put together the pieces for the first time. I think that a main draw of 
>> the game is its complexity (or perceived complexity). I would rather 
>> reorganize the ruleset than get rid of that complexity.
>> Another "bar on the door" for me has already been brought up, I can't 
>> remember by who. There is no guidance on the form in which the game should 
>> be played, other than precedence (which can prove difficult to navigate) and 
>> trial and error. Perhaps that is all well, but it is a bit intimidating.
>> 
>> On Aug 24, 2017 7:38 PM, "Nic Evans" > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 08/24/17 20:15, Alex Smith wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 19:53 -0500, Nic Evans wrote:
>> >> * We have too many subsystems. It's hard to admit because nearly all of
>> >> them are neat and well designed, but it's just too much in one game at
>> >> once. Do we need three different binding agreements (agencies, pledges,
>> >> organizations)? Probably not. We should either combine them or remove
>> >> the least popular two. What about all of our winning conditions?
>> > On the contrary, I think the relative lack of activity in Agora is that
>> > there isn't actually anything to /do/. Much of what you list (like the
>> > winning conditions) is harmless. On that subject, I don't think we have
>> > nearly enough win conditions (most of the ones we do have are either
>> > scam release valves, or very long term goals). It used to be that you
>> > could win Agora every couple of months by outplaying people on the
>> > economy and on regular gameplay. That's no longer the case, and I don't
>> > think there have been any non-scam wins for a very long time (maybe a
>> > historically long time?).
>> >
>> > The thing about Agoran complexity is that there are two sorts: the
>> > rules you have to know about, and the rules that are only relevant when
>> > you interact with them. (Perhaps these should actually be in separate
>> > rulesets, at least presentationally? Most real-life rulesets work like
>> > that, after all.) If you don't know what a Trust Token is, it's
>> > unlikely ever to bother you. If you do, you can keep track of them and
>> > try to make progress in that direction (although with the mechanic
>> > unpopular, it's unlikely it'll ever result in a win).
>> 
>> We actually largely agree here, I think I was just poorly worded. It's
>> not that there's too much to do, it's that, from the perspective of a
>> new player looking at rules, it looks like there's too much to do and
>> that makes it really hard to see how everything fits together. A new
>> player doesn't know they don't need to worry about Trust Tokens, or that
>> the 7 rules about Organizations and 8 about Punishments are largely
>> irrelevant to them. In that regard I agree having a separation between
>> 'Core' and 'Subsystems' in the rules would be nice. But I also think
>> that we should seriously consider scaling back and simplifying the
>> underutilized systems, at least for now. Add back the complexity as needed.
>> 
>> >
>> > Likewise, the fix for SHALLs is probably to make them only apply to
>> > officers, and have a neat list of all the relevant SHALLs in the rule
>> > defining the office. They serve an important role in preventing the
>> > game breaking, but they're the kind of thing that can easily trip up a
>> > new player if they apply to everyone.
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Aug 24, 2017, at 5:53 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> 
>> # Repeal Organizations
>> 
>> They’re moribund, really. No organization presently has more than one active 
>> member.
> 
> This is hard for me because I really want multilateral entities to exist
> within an economy, but I do see the point here. At the very least we
> should probably scale back the expenditure and bankruptcy mechanics. I
> love them but they seem to be mostly unused.

Yeah. They’re one of the things that drew me here in the first place, but in 
the year-plus I’ve been playing, the most interesting Organization has been one 
that largely exists to test the bounds of comprehension as a constraint (fx: 
nods to 天火狐).

I like Organizations, but they might have to go on the shelf for a while until 
we get bored of Shinies and Agencies.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Gaelan Steele]

> On Aug 24, 2017, at 8:35 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 20:02 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> I’ve added some annotations to each section of the online ruleset
>> (agoranomic.org/ruleset ). They try to
>> give a quick summary of each section, and mention which sections are
>> important to understand at the beginning. Thoughts?
> 
> "Miscellaneous" (one of the section headings) is misspelled.

Bah. I’ll do a batch of ruleset fixes tomorrow.

> 
> It strikes me that things that aren't immediately relevant to a new
> player should be sent down to the bottom. This includes both things
> like Festivals (which are an emergency mechanism that's unlikely to get
> used except for counterscamming, or possibly regular scamming;
> important to have, unimportant to use 99% of the time),

So that’s what festivals are for.

> and things that
> are fundamental to the game (like rule precedence) but that only come
> in relevant when shooting down particularly tortured arguments about
> what the rules say. The definitions section, despite being moderately
> important in the SLR and FLR (it's historically been somewhere in the
> middle, IIRC), could safely be sent near the bottom of the HLR because
> of how the links work (unless there's some technical reason to have all
> the rulesets in the same order).

Currently, the ordering of the rules is defined in one file (rules/index) and 
used in the generation of all three rulesets. That could change, at the cost of 
me needing to change things in 2 places when adding rules, etc. While I’m fine 
with putting festivals at the bottom, I’m not sure how I feel about putting the 
“fundamental but unimportant” bits at the bottom. While I guess it makes sense 
for reading the ruleset, it feels rather weird from a logical perspective.

> 
> Some of the section summaries make me think that the current division
> into sections isn't as useful as it could be. Ribbons and Patent Titles
> go together from the point of view of an experienced player, for
> example, but for a new player it doesn't really make sense. (I'd be
> inclined to create a "history" section containing the First Speaker
> rule, the Agora's Birthday rule, the Reportor, and the Patent Title
> rules; these reflect history in different ways but have a similar
> purpose. It's no coincidence that the Herald's report is the report
> that's historically been most likely to have a history lesson on the
> earlier days of Agora. Meanwhile, Ribbons would go along with Trust
> Tokens, Apathy, and the like.) There are likely other sections that
> could plausibly be split up the same way.

Yeah, the section split leaves some things to be desired. I’m not sure about 
the “history” section; the proposed rules seem only tangentially related, and I 
don’t think I’d expect to find any of those rules under a “History” section. 
One of my main goals when organizing the sections at the start of my career was 
making it easy to guess which section a rule would be under; maybe that’s not 
as important with ctrl-F.
> 
> -- 
> ais523



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Gaelan Steele]

> On Aug 24, 2017, at 8:38 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 2017-08-25 at 04:35 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 20:02 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>> I’ve added some annotations to each section of the online ruleset
> (agoranomic.org/ruleset ). They try to
>>> give a quick summary of each section, and mention which sections are
>>> important to understand at the beginning. Thoughts?
> 
> A further thought: back when I did my "ruleset for new players" thesis
> (which isn't so useful nowadays as the ruleset has changed considerably
> since), I either considered making, or actually did make, a section for
> rules that can be broken by accident/ignorance. Having something
> similar in the HLR (and maybe other ruleset formats?), trumping any
> other categorisation, strikes me as being very useful for new players.

I tried to cover everything that could be broken by accident/ignorance in the 
new section annotations. Also, I’m not sure about the idea of rearranging the 
HLR to be more useful for new players; while the HLR is more useful than other 
formats for new players, it is also designed to be a useful tool for 
experienced Agorans. I, for example, do all of my rule lookups via the HLR. 
Also, the organization of rules is currently defined in one place and used to 
generate all three formats, but that could change.

> And something I forgot to mention in my previous email: a lot more
> emphasis needs to be made on acting by announcement. It's a very easy
> concept to miss, and yet it's fundamental to basically everything we do
> here. (Actually, this is making me wonder if we should change that rule
> somewhat just to mix things up. It's been years and years since it was
> meaningfully amended, and the CFJ space surrounding it is likely pretty
> comprehensively mined out by now. There were some fun CFJs, though!)

Interestingly, I avoid the term “by announcement” at all in the annotations, 
instead saying things like “by sending an email to agora-business.” I’m not 
sure if that’s a good thing; it makes the summaries simpler to understand, but 
also doesn’t help the new player when they need to move beyond the summaries.

> 
> -- 
> ais523



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2017-08-25 at 04:35 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 20:02 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > I’ve added some annotations to each section of the online ruleset
> > > > (agoranomic.org/ruleset ). They try to
> > give a quick summary of each section, and mention which sections are
> > important to understand at the beginning. Thoughts?

A further thought: back when I did my "ruleset for new players" thesis
(which isn't so useful nowadays as the ruleset has changed considerably
since), I either considered making, or actually did make, a section for
rules that can be broken by accident/ignorance. Having something
similar in the HLR (and maybe other ruleset formats?), trumping any
other categorisation, strikes me as being very useful for new players.

And something I forgot to mention in my previous email: a lot more
emphasis needs to be made on acting by announcement. It's a very easy
concept to miss, and yet it's fundamental to basically everything we do
here. (Actually, this is making me wonder if we should change that rule
somewhat just to mix things up. It's been years and years since it was
meaningfully amended, and the CFJ space surrounding it is likely pretty
comprehensively mined out by now. There were some fun CFJs, though!)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 20:02 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I’ve added some annotations to each section of the online ruleset
> (agoranomic.org/ruleset ). They try to
> give a quick summary of each section, and mention which sections are
> important to understand at the beginning. Thoughts?

"Miscellaneous" (one of the section headings) is misspelled.

It strikes me that things that aren't immediately relevant to a new
player should be sent down to the bottom. This includes both things
like Festivals (which are an emergency mechanism that's unlikely to get
used except for counterscamming, or possibly regular scamming;
important to have, unimportant to use 99% of the time), and things that
are fundamental to the game (like rule precedence) but that only come
in relevant when shooting down particularly tortured arguments about
what the rules say. The definitions section, despite being moderately
important in the SLR and FLR (it's historically been somewhere in the
middle, IIRC), could safely be sent near the bottom of the HLR because
of how the links work (unless there's some technical reason to have all
the rulesets in the same order).

Some of the section summaries make me think that the current division
into sections isn't as useful as it could be. Ribbons and Patent Titles
go together from the point of view of an experienced player, for
example, but for a new player it doesn't really make sense. (I'd be
inclined to create a "history" section containing the First Speaker
rule, the Agora's Birthday rule, the Reportor, and the Patent Title
rules; these reflect history in different ways but have a similar
purpose. It's no coincidence that the Herald's report is the report
that's historically been most likely to have a history lesson on the
earlier days of Agora. Meanwhile, Ribbons would go along with Trust
Tokens, Apathy, and the like.) There are likely other sections that
could plausibly be split up the same way.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I’ve added some annotations to each section of the online ruleset 
> (agoranomic.org/ruleset). 
> They try to give a quick summary of each section, and mention which sections 
> are important to
> understand at the beginning. Thoughts?
> Gaelan

I haven't read all of them closely but the look is very nice.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Kyle Anderson]

Incredibly useful. While the information contained in those descriptions
can, of course, be gleaned from the rules themselves, they catch the eye
and simplify the language in a way that promotes quick understanding.

-K

On Aug 24, 2017 9:02 PM, "Gaelan Steele"  wrote:

> I’ve added some annotations to each section of the online ruleset (
> agoranomic.org/ruleset). They try to give a quick summary of each
> section, and mention which sections are important to understand at the
> beginning. Thoughts?
>
> Gaelan
>
> On Aug 24, 2017, at 7:21 PM, Kyle Anderson  wrote:
>
> That separation between "core" and "subsytems" would be extremely helpful.
> The sheer volume of information that makes up the current ruleset is not
> necessarily a problem, except for when someone is trying to sort through it
> and put together the pieces for the first time. I think that a main draw of
> the game is its complexity (or perceived complexity). I would rather
> reorganize the ruleset than get rid of that complexity.
> Another "bar on the door" for me has already been brought up, I can't
> remember by who. There is no guidance on the form in which the game should
> be played, other than precedence (which can prove difficult to navigate)
> and trial and error. Perhaps that is all well, but it is a bit intimidating.
>
> On Aug 24, 2017 7:38 PM, "Nic Evans"  wrote:
>
>
>
> On 08/24/17 20:15, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 19:53 -0500, Nic Evans wrote:
> >> * We have too many subsystems. It's hard to admit because nearly all of
> >> them are neat and well designed, but it's just too much in one game at
> >> once. Do we need three different binding agreements (agencies, pledges,
> >> organizations)? Probably not. We should either combine them or remove
> >> the least popular two. What about all of our winning conditions?
> > On the contrary, I think the relative lack of activity in Agora is that
> > there isn't actually anything to /do/. Much of what you list (like the
> > winning conditions) is harmless. On that subject, I don't think we have
> > nearly enough win conditions (most of the ones we do have are either
> > scam release valves, or very long term goals). It used to be that you
> > could win Agora every couple of months by outplaying people on the
> > economy and on regular gameplay. That's no longer the case, and I don't
> > think there have been any non-scam wins for a very long time (maybe a
> > historically long time?).
> >
> > The thing about Agoran complexity is that there are two sorts: the
> > rules you have to know about, and the rules that are only relevant when
> > you interact with them. (Perhaps these should actually be in separate
> > rulesets, at least presentationally? Most real-life rulesets work like
> > that, after all.) If you don't know what a Trust Token is, it's
> > unlikely ever to bother you. If you do, you can keep track of them and
> > try to make progress in that direction (although with the mechanic
> > unpopular, it's unlikely it'll ever result in a win).
>
> We actually largely agree here, I think I was just poorly worded. It's
> not that there's too much to do, it's that, from the perspective of a
> new player looking at rules, it looks like there's too much to do and
> that makes it really hard to see how everything fits together. A new
> player doesn't know they don't need to worry about Trust Tokens, or that
> the 7 rules about Organizations and 8 about Punishments are largely
> irrelevant to them. In that regard I agree having a separation between
> 'Core' and 'Subsystems' in the rules would be nice. But I also think
> that we should seriously consider scaling back and simplifying the
> underutilized systems, at least for now. Add back the complexity as needed.
>
> >
> > Likewise, the fix for SHALLs is probably to make them only apply to
> > officers, and have a neat list of all the relevant SHALLs in the rule
> > defining the office. They serve an important role in preventing the
> > game breaking, but they're the kind of thing that can easily trip up a
> > new player if they apply to everyone.
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Gaelan Steele]

I’ve added some annotations to each section of the online ruleset 
(agoranomic.org/ruleset ). They try to give a 
quick summary of each section, and mention which sections are important to 
understand at the beginning. Thoughts?

Gaelan
> On Aug 24, 2017, at 7:21 PM, Kyle Anderson  wrote:
> 
> That separation between "core" and "subsytems" would be extremely helpful. 
> The sheer volume of information that makes up the current ruleset is not 
> necessarily a problem, except for when someone is trying to sort through it 
> and put together the pieces for the first time. I think that a main draw of 
> the game is its complexity (or perceived complexity). I would rather 
> reorganize the ruleset than get rid of that complexity.
> Another "bar on the door" for me has already been brought up, I can't 
> remember by who. There is no guidance on the form in which the game should be 
> played, other than precedence (which can prove difficult to navigate) and 
> trial and error. Perhaps that is all well, but it is a bit intimidating.
> 
> On Aug 24, 2017 7:38 PM, "Nic Evans"  > wrote:
> 
> 
> On 08/24/17 20:15, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 19:53 -0500, Nic Evans wrote:
> >> * We have too many subsystems. It's hard to admit because nearly all of
> >> them are neat and well designed, but it's just too much in one game at
> >> once. Do we need three different binding agreements (agencies, pledges,
> >> organizations)? Probably not. We should either combine them or remove
> >> the least popular two. What about all of our winning conditions?
> > On the contrary, I think the relative lack of activity in Agora is that
> > there isn't actually anything to /do/. Much of what you list (like the
> > winning conditions) is harmless. On that subject, I don't think we have
> > nearly enough win conditions (most of the ones we do have are either
> > scam release valves, or very long term goals). It used to be that you
> > could win Agora every couple of months by outplaying people on the
> > economy and on regular gameplay. That's no longer the case, and I don't
> > think there have been any non-scam wins for a very long time (maybe a
> > historically long time?).
> >
> > The thing about Agoran complexity is that there are two sorts: the
> > rules you have to know about, and the rules that are only relevant when
> > you interact with them. (Perhaps these should actually be in separate
> > rulesets, at least presentationally? Most real-life rulesets work like
> > that, after all.) If you don't know what a Trust Token is, it's
> > unlikely ever to bother you. If you do, you can keep track of them and
> > try to make progress in that direction (although with the mechanic
> > unpopular, it's unlikely it'll ever result in a win).
> 
> We actually largely agree here, I think I was just poorly worded. It's
> not that there's too much to do, it's that, from the perspective of a
> new player looking at rules, it looks like there's too much to do and
> that makes it really hard to see how everything fits together. A new
> player doesn't know they don't need to worry about Trust Tokens, or that
> the 7 rules about Organizations and 8 about Punishments are largely
> irrelevant to them. In that regard I agree having a separation between
> 'Core' and 'Subsystems' in the rules would be nice. But I also think
> that we should seriously consider scaling back and simplifying the
> underutilized systems, at least for now. Add back the complexity as needed.
> 
> >
> > Likewise, the fix for SHALLs is probably to make them only apply to
> > officers, and have a neat list of all the relevant SHALLs in the rule
> > defining the office. They serve an important role in preventing the
> > game breaking, but they're the kind of thing that can easily trip up a
> > new player if they apply to everyone.
> >
> 
> 
> 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 19:48 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> My personal opinion on this whole business is that we should get rid of
> organizations (no one uses them), but shouldn't eliminate cards.

I know the main reason I'm not using them more is that I'm finding it
very hard to word Organization charters in a way that actually works;
it's much harder than I thought it would be when I wrote the rule.
That's probably one of the best arguments for, if we don't repeal
Organizations, at least changing the way they work somewhat.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Aris Merchant]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:20 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > Likewise, the fix for SHALLs is probably to make them only apply to
> > officers, and have a neat list of all the relevant SHALLs in the rule
> > defining the office. They serve an important role in preventing the
> > game breaking, but they're the kind of thing that can easily trip up a
> > new player if they apply to everyone.
>
> And also, the only really effective use of Cards currently IMO is if
> someone needs to be removed from office.
>
> I think Card punishments short of this extreme should be turned into
> Shiny fines.
>

My personal opinion on this whole business is that we should get rid of
organizations (no one uses them), but shouldn't eliminate cards. Getting
rid of all or most SHALLs/SHALL NOTs is also overkill. Our card system is
pretty simple and rational at the moment. I would support the addition of
discretionary fines with cards, and/or the addition of a card type whose
sole penalty was a fine.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> In that regard I agree having a separation between
> 'Core' and 'Subsystems' in the rules would be nice.

I made a few attempts, while rulekeepor, to try "core and subsystem"
re-arrangements.  The issue I kept running into was within each
individual rule.  A single rule is written:

[Main point (two sentences)]

[Edge case Edge case Edge case Edge case (5 paragraphs)]

This made it hard to re-write cleanly into "core" and "sub".  I wrote
out a few rules with labels:

Rule:  (main point)
Legalese:  (edge cases)

with the idea that there could be a version that only had the Main
Point, and Legalese that could expand (in non plaintext versions).
It was a lot of work and I didn't finish.

That's not to say someone else couldn't/shouldn't experiment with
alternate LR arrangements as they're currently written, that was 
just my  experience.

Another thought is that, when I first joined, there were a lot more
rules, but they were a lot shorter, just because of the style of
the time which has gradually changed.  Not sure if it would be
clearer to break up some rules, just an observation.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Kyle Anderson]

That separation between "core" and "subsytems" would be extremely helpful.
The sheer volume of information that makes up the current ruleset is not
necessarily a problem, except for when someone is trying to sort through it
and put together the pieces for the first time. I think that a main draw of
the game is its complexity (or perceived complexity). I would rather
reorganize the ruleset than get rid of that complexity.
Another "bar on the door" for me has already been brought up, I can't
remember by who. There is no guidance on the form in which the game should
be played, other than precedence (which can prove difficult to navigate)
and trial and error. Perhaps that is all well, but it is a bit intimidating.

On Aug 24, 2017 7:38 PM, "Nic Evans"  wrote:



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

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

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Nic Evans]

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

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

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




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Josh T]

I feel that I would rather get a Yellow Card than get Shiny fines since I
currently lack a consistent way to earn Shiny. But I support the idea to
get something going well, and sideline everything else until it needs to
get addressed. I have a few ideas bouncing around, and maybe I should get
around to writing my first proposal.

天火狐

On 24 August 2017 at 21:20, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > Likewise, the fix for SHALLs is probably to make them only apply to
> > officers, and have a neat list of all the relevant SHALLs in the rule
> > defining the office. They serve an important role in preventing the
> > game breaking, but they're the kind of thing that can easily trip up a
> > new player if they apply to everyone.
>
> And also, the only really effective use of Cards currently IMO is if
> someone needs to be removed from office.
>
> I think Card punishments short of this extreme should be turned into
> Shiny fines.
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> This is hard for me because I really want multilateral entities to exist
> within an economy, but I do see the point here. At the very least we
> should probably scale back the expenditure and bankruptcy mechanics. I
> love them but they seem to be mostly unused.

Counter-proposal:  Put Organizations "on ice" by making the reporting monthly,
and focus on getting "one good game" (buying shiny stuff?) running really
smoothly rather than focusing on repeals.  If the "good game" is running
transparently (and the Rulekeepor puts the rules for it near the top of the
ruleset), we can give Organizations a little more time without detracting.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 19:53 -0500, Nic Evans wrote:
> * We have too many subsystems. It's hard to admit because nearly all of
> them are neat and well designed, but it's just too much in one game at
> once. Do we need three different binding agreements (agencies, pledges,
> organizations)? Probably not. We should either combine them or remove
> the least popular two. What about all of our winning conditions?

On the contrary, I think the relative lack of activity in Agora is that
there isn't actually anything to /do/. Much of what you list (like the
winning conditions) is harmless. On that subject, I don't think we have
nearly enough win conditions (most of the ones we do have are either
scam release valves, or very long term goals). It used to be that you
could win Agora every couple of months by outplaying people on the
economy and on regular gameplay. That's no longer the case, and I don't
think there have been any non-scam wins for a very long time (maybe a
historically long time?).

The thing about Agoran complexity is that there are two sorts: the
rules you have to know about, and the rules that are only relevant when
you interact with them. (Perhaps these should actually be in separate
rulesets, at least presentationally? Most real-life rulesets work like
that, after all.) If you don't know what a Trust Token is, it's
unlikely ever to bother you. If you do, you can keep track of them and
try to make progress in that direction (although with the mechanic
unpopular, it's unlikely it'll ever result in a win).

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

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Nic Evans]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> -o
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

However, I see that as fair because everyone had to go through that at some 
point.

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



> On Aug 24, 2017, at 12:54 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> In the end, Agora is an attention distribution machine. A game of attention 
> economy. If we didn't need attention from other people, we would be playing 
> nomic alone.
> 
> And in the end everyone wants their own things to gain the most attention, 
> whether it be rules for others to use, obscure history you care about, your 
> scams, etc.
> 
> I feel like there just isn't enough attention to go around for the attention 
> demands that we create for others. There are more attention-requiring things 
> than the average player can give.
> 
> And we demand an unfair amount of attention from newcomers, I feel. They have 
> to give attention to our coolio clubhouse unwritten house rules and vast 
> obscure history, or listen to us talk about that vast obscure history and 
> written rules, in order to play the game at all. It's a huge tax.



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

NttPF.

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



> On Aug 24, 2017, at 12:15 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> ...American Online?
> 
> wut lol
> 
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:11 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > This has been a problem for me too, the game is very gerontocratic. Not 
> > rule or rights-wise, but socially, in unwritten things.
> >
> > I thought that it was only an issue for me because I throttle too hard on 
> > weird, fringe stuff but it's disheartening to find that it's a barrier for 
> > more people.
> >
> > Maybe I could do something (eventually). Anyway, I register.
> 
> Oh, and also:  AOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I support these and would be happy to assist with implementation. Additionally, 
I would be interested in repealing agencies and replacing them with 
non-rule-based entities for some interesting CFJs.

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



> On Aug 23, 2017, at 11:46 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Aug 23, 2017, at 11:37 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>> 
>> like playing I Want To Be The Guy
> 
> Steady on!
> 
> Actually, I broadly agree with your overall thesis. Precedent and history are 
> _important_, and I think it’s worth understanding why things are the way they 
> are before tearing them down or rebuilding them another way - but the way 
> things are is fairly knob-heavy, and I cannot in the slightest blame K for 
> deregistering out of concern for comprehension.
> 
> My personal coping strategy has been to ignore the mechanics that don’t 
> immediately interest me, more or less, and to focus intently on the ones that 
> do. However, that’s a coping strategy, not a solution: I’m surely missing 
> interesting opportunities by mostly-disregarding ribbons and patent titles, 
> or by not trying terribly hard to win.
> 
> As a sketch, I’d like to draft two broad proposals:
> 
> # Repeal the Referee
> 
> * Convert SHALL NOT et al into something equivalent to CANNOT or IMPOSSIBLE
> * Modify SHALLs to allow any player to fulfil them if the obliged party does 
> not do so
> * Destroy the office of Referee entirely, as well as the associated card rules
> 
> We can always reinvent it, but punishment is probably the wrong paradigm for 
> Agora as it is today, on the whole. A much more narrowly-scoped punishment 
> system for dealing with specific malfeasance might be a practical 
> replacement, and clearing the ground will make it easier to re-draft.
> 
> # Repeal Organizations
> 
> They’re moribund, really. No organization presently has more than one active 
> member.
> 
> -o
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Once K’s estate is processed, there will be money to pay you.

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



> On Aug 23, 2017, at 11:38 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Aug 23, 2017, at 11:32 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>> 
>> This has been a problem for me too, the game is very gerontocratic. Not rule 
>> or rights-wise, but socially, in unwritten things.
>> 
>> I thought that it was only an issue for me because I throttle too hard on 
>> weird, fringe stuff but it's disheartening to find that it's a barrier for 
>> more people.
>> 
>> Maybe I could do something (eventually). Anyway, I register.
> 
> Welcome back!
> 
> I’d cause you to receive a welcome package, but Agora’s broke. Probably. I 
> think you might enjoy looking closely at the implementation of proposal 7867. 
> Your knack for finding alternate interpretations of the rules might be handy 
> - I think it’s possible we actually had two completely independent kinds of 
> Shinies in play briefly, and that I mishandled them by conflating old-Shinies 
> with new-Shinies.
> 
> -o
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

NttPF.

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



> On Aug 23, 2017, at 11:32 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> This has been a problem for me too, the game is very gerontocratic. Not rule 
> or rights-wise, but socially, in unwritten things.
> 
> I thought that it was only an issue for me because I throttle too hard on 
> weird, fringe stuff but it's disheartening to find that it's a barrier for 
> more people.
> 
> Maybe I could do something (eventually). Anyway, I register.
> 
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Kyle Anderson  wrote:
> It has become apparent that I require more time for research and observation 
> before I can begin to grasp all that is going on and what I should be doing. 
> Unfortunately, I don't feel as though I have the requisite time to play the 
> game to it's fullest. I will, however, remain on the lists, and continue to 
> ask questions in discussion if it's not too much of a bother.
> 
> -K
> 
> On Aug 23, 2017 9:10 PM, "Aris Merchant"  
> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Kyle Anderson  wrote:
> > I hereby deregister myself as a player for a minimum period of 30 days, in
> > accordance with Rule 869.
> >
> > -K
> 
> I'm sorry to see you go. Could you explain why you wanted to leave?
> 
> -Aris
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Not necessarily, because registration by announcement is time-limited, but 
there is no limit on other forms of registration.

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



> On Aug 23, 2017, at 11:08 PM, Kyle Anderson  wrote:
> 
> I hereby deregister myself as a player for a minimum period of 30 days, in 
> accordance with Rule 869.
> 
> -K



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2017-08-23 at 23:06 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I'm not seeing how Organizations are any different though?
> It cloaks things in "appropriate" changes of switches to different
> text values, but that's just amending legal codes just the same...?

It was meant to be a pragmatised but non-subjective enforcement
mechanism based on having penalties that were fixed in advance, as a
method of backing a currency. (Remember that we didn't have an economy
at the time, and contract-based currencies tend to massively inflate
due to not being backed by anything.) In other words, a "breach"
changed a number in a predictable way, and unlike SHALLs (which you
aren't supposed to violate), incurring a penalty on an Organization was
intended to be something you could do intentionally if you wished
without any ethical problems.

I'm not sure it was different enough, though.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-08-23 at 22:34 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say something is
> > "different" than contracts.  If it's a "supplementary legal code", it
> > described a set of usages to follow.  If that's what you call a
> > contract, it's a tautology to say all SLCs are contracts...?  Maybe
> > I'm missing your distinctions here.
> 
> I consider something to be contract-like if it works as an agreement
> between a set of people, enforced via SHALL-like mechanisms (and
> eventually via the courts/Referee). Typically contracts have text and
> often internal state, but those aren't really requirements.
> 
> Something like the first version of Promises (effectively, Agencies
> that posted a fixed message, and for which the ability to sue them
> could be traded) would be an example of an agreement system that's
> clearly different from Contracts; they couldn't meaningfully have
> internal state, they could (but weren't) be used to form the basis of
> an economy, etc..

Ah, I see (I think).  Closest we probably came were Bonds and Bond
issues, which were very similar to the original Promises.

Some of the contests didn't have Shalls, but were "enforced" by
CAN and CANNOTs, with CFJ interpretation of course.

I'm not seeing how Organizations are any different though?
It cloaks things in "appropriate" changes of switches to different
text values, but that's just amending legal codes just the same...?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2017-08-23 at 22:34 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say something is
> "different" than contracts.  If it's a "supplementary legal code", it
> described a set of usages to follow.  If that's what you call a
> contract, it's a tautology to say all SLCs are contracts...?  Maybe
> I'm missing your distinctions here.

I consider something to be contract-like if it works as an agreement
between a set of people, enforced via SHALL-like mechanisms (and
eventually via the courts/Referee). Typically contracts have text and
often internal state, but those aren't really requirements.

Something like the first version of Promises (effectively, Agencies
that posted a fixed message, and for which the ability to sue them
could be traded) would be an example of an agreement system that's
clearly different from Contracts; they couldn't meaningfully have
internal state, they could (but weren't) be used to form the basis of
an economy, etc..

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-08-23 at 22:22 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > > I've discovered that it's basically impossible to force Agorans to use
> > > what were once called "supplementary legal codes" in any way other than
> > > Contracts. If you create a mechanic, either it turns into Contracts, or
> > > else it ends up unused. I know there's a lot of support for doing
> > > things differently, but this doesn't seem to be part of it.
> > 
> > The one exception I think of is Contests (er, Tournaments right now).  A
> > good contest can catch on, without being a contract.  People have to be
> > in the mood to try it though, can be hit-or-miss (as with any new ruleset).
> 
> Are you aware of a period of Agoran history in which Contests worked in
> a way significantly different to typical Contract behaviour? I'd like
> to read up on it; the versions of Contests I'm aware of were very
> Contract-like (having rules for their participants which were generally
> SHALL-enforced, internal gamestate, and the like). The only real
> difference between those and Contracts is that Contests are normally
> allocated assets by the Ruleset to give out as prizes.

I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say something is
"different" than contracts.  If it's a "supplementary legal code", it
described a set of usages to follow.  If that's what you call a
contract, it's a tautology to say all SLCs are contracts...?  Maybe
I'm missing your distinctions here.

We also had (political) Parties and Teams.  These mainly gave shared
bonuses for belonging, without necessarily having contract-like
regulations for using the bonuses, although some did.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2017-08-23 at 22:22 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > I've discovered that it's basically impossible to force Agorans to use
> > what were once called "supplementary legal codes" in any way other than
> > Contracts. If you create a mechanic, either it turns into Contracts, or
> > else it ends up unused. I know there's a lot of support for doing
> > things differently, but this doesn't seem to be part of it.
> 
> The one exception I think of is Contests (er, Tournaments right now).  A
> good contest can catch on, without being a contract.  People have to be
> in the mood to try it though, can be hit-or-miss (as with any new ruleset).

Are you aware of a period of Agoran history in which Contests worked in
a way significantly different to typical Contract behaviour? I'd like
to read up on it; the versions of Contests I'm aware of were very
Contract-like (having rules for their participants which were generally
SHALL-enforced, internal gamestate, and the like). The only real
difference between those and Contracts is that Contests are normally
allocated assets by the Ruleset to give out as prizes.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Gaelan Steele]

Uh oh, I think we might need to fire up there registration CFJ machine again. 

Gaelan

> On Aug 23, 2017, at 9:11 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> This has been a problem for me too, the game is very gerontocratic. Not rule 
>> or rights-wise, but socially, in unwritten things.
>> 
>> I thought that it was only an issue for me because I throttle too hard on 
>> weird, fringe stuff but it's disheartening to find that it's a barrier for 
>> more people.
>> 
>> Maybe I could do something (eventually). Anyway, I register.
> 
> Oh, and also:  AOL.
> 
> 
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Quazie]

Nttpf

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 20:32 Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> This has been a problem for me too, the game is very gerontocratic. Not
> rule or rights-wise, but socially, in unwritten things.
>
> I thought that it was only an issue for me because I throttle too hard on
> weird, fringe stuff but it's disheartening to find that it's a barrier for
> more people.
>
> Maybe I could do something (eventually). Anyway, I register.
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Kyle Anderson 
> wrote:
>
>> It has become apparent that I require more time for research and
>> observation before I can begin to grasp all that is going on and what I
>> should be doing. Unfortunately, I don't feel as though I have the requisite
>> time to play the game to it's fullest. I will, however, remain on the
>> lists, and continue to ask questions in discussion if it's not too much of
>> a bother.
>>
>> -K
>>
>> On Aug 23, 2017 9:10 PM, "Aris Merchant" <
>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Kyle Anderson 
>>> wrote:
>>> > I hereby deregister myself as a player for a minimum period of 30
>>> days, in
>>> > accordance with Rule 869.
>>> >
>>> > -K
>>>
>>> I'm sorry to see you go. Could you explain why you wanted to leave?
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>>
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> I've discovered that it's basically impossible to force Agorans to use
> what were once called "supplementary legal codes" in any way other than
> Contracts. If you create a mechanic, either it turns into Contracts, or
> else it ends up unused. I know there's a lot of support for doing
> things differently, but this doesn't seem to be part of it.

The one exception I think of is Contests (er, Tournaments right now).  A
good contest can catch on, without being a contract.  People have to be
in the mood to try it though, can be hit-or-miss (as with any new ruleset).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2017-08-23 at 23:46 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 2017, at 11:37 PM, Cuddle Beam 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > like playing I Want To Be The Guy
> 
> Steady on!
> 
> Actually, I broadly agree with your overall thesis. Precedent and
> history are _important_, and I think it’s worth understanding why
> things are the way they are before tearing them down or rebuilding
> them another way - but the way things are is fairly knob-heavy, and I
> cannot in the slightest blame K for deregistering out of concern for
> comprehension.
> 
> My personal coping strategy has been to ignore the mechanics that
> don’t immediately interest me, more or less, and to focus intently on
> the ones that do. However, that’s a coping strategy, not a solution:
> I’m surely missing interesting opportunities by mostly-disregarding
> ribbons and patent titles, or by not trying terribly hard to win.

The issue with games like Agora is that it's very difficult for a nomic
to contain both a) little enough that it's possible to comprehend the
whole thing at once, and b) enough that there's something to actually
do. Agora tends to go through long periods of inactivity as a
consequence of b); in other words, whenever people decide the rules are
getting too complex, there's mass repeal, then activity peters out and
stops for several months. We still haven't really recovered from the
last mass repeal.

I don't think anyone usually comprehends much of the ruleset (which is
what Read The Ruleset Week is about). Given that having a playable game
and having an understandable game are in conflict, it's usual to just
give up on understanding the whole thing. Many new players conclude
that they're at a disadvantage because they can't keep track of
everything that's going on, but that's not really the case; they might
not be able to do it, but the experienced players can't do it either.
For example, I'm infamous for mostly ignoring the proposal system
except when I have a particularly good idea for a proposal, or feel
strongly enough about a proposal to want to go and vote. (Or am
operating a scam, but really those can touch any part of the rules and
tend to be one-offs that don't leave you interested in the rule's
intended functionality.)

In fact, this is arguably a case for /increasing/ the number of
mechanics involved; if you're going to ignore a large subset of them
anyway, may as well increase the variety so that players can find ones
that they do care about. The key is to design most of the game
mechanics so that players who aren't interested can safely ignore them.

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

SHALLs aren't really about punishment. They're about handling
situations in which the pragmatic reality of the real world (including
the players who play in it) doesn't match the platonic ideality that
the rules want to live in (both by giving the rules a way to handle
"hey, this shouldn't have happened, but it did", and by giving the
players notice to say "hey, the rules tell me do to X to avoid things
breaking, I'd better do X"). There are several cases, in fact, where we
explicitly make something both possible and illegal to indicate that a)
we don't want people to do it, but b) if people do do it, the action
should stand. How would that fit into a system like that?

The punishments are mostly a side show to all that, but it's been
proven over time that we do actually need them; many players aren't
law-abiding enough to do something merely because a rule tells them to.

(Note that there are some things that do fit better into a punishment
system than a pragmatism system; the rule against breaking pledges is
an obvious example. Note that pledges are a special case of what used
to be called Contracts. Interestingly, Organisations were an attempt to
bring an explicit punishment system to Contracts, rather than the old
system which was SHALL-enforced, so what you're making here is actually
two points that contradict each other to some extent.)

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

I've discovered that it's basically impossible to force Agorans to use
what were once called "supplementary legal codes" in any way other than
Contracts. If you create a mechanic, either it turns into Contracts, or
else it ends up unused. I know there's a lot of 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Kerim Aydin]

You're seeing a very small slice of time and making generalizations based
on your very short time here.

Looking back, the majority of game time is when one particular type of play
dominated, with people trying to Win it via "legit" methods.  Sometimes Cards.
Sometimes Contracts.  Sometimes Points.  Sometimes Economies.

You came in-between times.  We were (and are) trying to get an economy
going.  Unfortunately, it suffered a large series of distractions when
some parties decided to Demand Attention without first trying to understand
what was going on, using a series of nonsense scams that distracted everyone
and detracted greatly from putting the "legit" game together.

Interestingly, several other players who joined during the same time period
didn't have the same issues.

That all said, some pruning is needed.  Several of the stubs attempted over
the last year didn't really go anywhere and should be swept up (e.g. 
Organizations).

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> In the end, Agora is an attention distribution machine. A game of attention 
> economy. If we didn't need attention from other people, we would be playing 
> nomic alone.
> 
> And in the end everyone wants their own things to gain the most attention, 
> whether it be rules for others to use, obscure history you care about, your 
> scams, etc.
> 
> I feel like there just isn't enough attention to go around for the attention 
> demands that we create for others. There are more attention-requiring things 
> than 
> the average player can give.
> 
> And we demand an unfair amount of attention from newcomers, I feel. They have 
> to
> give attention to our coolio clubhouse unwritten house rules and vast obscure
> history, or listen to us talk about that vast obscure history and written 
> rules, in
> order to play the game at all. It's a huge tax.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Cuddle Beam]

In the end, Agora is an attention distribution machine. A game of attention
economy. If we didn't need attention from other people, we would be playing
nomic alone.

And in the end everyone wants their own things to gain the most attention,
whether it be rules for others to use, obscure history you care about, your
scams, etc.

I feel like there just isn't enough attention to go around for the
attention demands that we create for others. There are more
attention-requiring things than the average player can give.

And we demand an unfair amount of attention from newcomers, I feel. They
have to give attention to our coolio clubhouse unwritten house rules and
vast obscure history, or listen to us talk about that vast obscure history
and written rules, in order to play the game at all. It's a huge tax.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Aris Merchant]

See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/AOL . Read the whole page.

-Aris

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 9:15 PM Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> ...American Online?
>
> wut lol
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:11 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> > This has been a problem for me too, the game is very gerontocratic. Not
>> rule or rights-wise, but socially, in unwritten things.
>> >
>> > I thought that it was only an issue for me because I throttle too hard
>> on weird, fringe stuff but it's disheartening to find that it's a barrier
>> for more people.
>> >
>> > Maybe I could do something (eventually). Anyway, I register.
>>
>> Oh, and also:  AOL.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Cuddle Beam]

...American Online?

wut lol

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:11 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > This has been a problem for me too, the game is very gerontocratic. Not
> rule or rights-wise, but socially, in unwritten things.
> >
> > I thought that it was only an issue for me because I throttle too hard
> on weird, fringe stuff but it's disheartening to find that it's a barrier
> for more people.
> >
> > Maybe I could do something (eventually). Anyway, I register.
>
> Oh, and also:  AOL.
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> My personal coping strategy has been to ignore the mechanics that don’t 
> immediately interest me, more or less, and to focus intently on the ones 
> that do. However, that’s a coping strategy, not a solution: I’m surely
> missing interesting opportunities by mostly-disregarding ribbons and
> patent titles, or by not trying terribly hard to win.

I go through periods of ignoring stuff and getting engaged in gameplay.
One reason I haven't jumped in recently is I haven't gotten too engaged
in the latest, though I'm watching to see if it gets interesting.

> * Convert SHALL NOT et al into something equivalent to CANNOT or IMPOSSIBLE

As long as you have things you want to make illegal to say (e.g. illegal
to reveal secrets, illegal to deceive someone, illegal to attempt etc.)
this can't work, as once someone says something, it's not possible to
pretend the information wasn't revealed.  Looking through, I think that's
many (but not all) of the current SHALL NOTs.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Aug 23, 2017, at 11:37 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> like playing I Want To Be The Guy

Steady on!

Actually, I broadly agree with your overall thesis. Precedent and history are 
_important_, and I think it’s worth understanding why things are the way they 
are before tearing them down or rebuilding them another way - but the way 
things are is fairly knob-heavy, and I cannot in the slightest blame K for 
deregistering out of concern for comprehension.

My personal coping strategy has been to ignore the mechanics that don’t 
immediately interest me, more or less, and to focus intently on the ones that 
do. However, that’s a coping strategy, not a solution: I’m surely missing 
interesting opportunities by mostly-disregarding ribbons and patent titles, or 
by not trying terribly hard to win.

As a sketch, I’d like to draft two broad proposals:

# Repeal the Referee

* Convert SHALL NOT et al into something equivalent to CANNOT or IMPOSSIBLE
* Modify SHALLs to allow any player to fulfil them if the obliged party does 
not do so
* Destroy the office of Referee entirely, as well as the associated card rules

We can always reinvent it, but punishment is probably the wrong paradigm for 
Agora as it is today, on the whole. A much more narrowly-scoped punishment 
system for dealing with specific malfeasance might be a practical replacement, 
and clearing the ground will make it easier to re-draft.

# Repeal Organizations

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

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Aug 23, 2017, at 11:32 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> This has been a problem for me too, the game is very gerontocratic. Not rule 
> or rights-wise, but socially, in unwritten things.
> 
> I thought that it was only an issue for me because I throttle too hard on 
> weird, fringe stuff but it's disheartening to find that it's a barrier for 
> more people.
> 
> Maybe I could do something (eventually). Anyway, I register.

Welcome back!

I’d cause you to receive a welcome package, but Agora’s broke. Probably. I 
think you might enjoy looking closely at the implementation of proposal 7867. 
Your knack for finding alternate interpretations of the rules might be handy - 
I think it’s possible we actually had two completely independent kinds of 
Shinies in play briefly, and that I mishandled them by conflating old-Shinies 
with new-Shinies.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Cuddle Beam]

More on that social gerontocracy issue, it's very similar to the monkey and
ladder experiment. Newcomers trip on unwritten things are just like the new
monkeys who are tripping on the error of going up the ladder. There is no
clear warning for it until you run into it, and it gets frustrating to run
into it repeatedly like playing I Want To Be The Guy.

It's easily solved though. Changing from an implicit culture to an explicit
one (or one that much more actively turns implicit content into explicit).

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 5:32 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> This has been a problem for me too, the game is very gerontocratic. Not
> rule or rights-wise, but socially, in unwritten things.
>
> I thought that it was only an issue for me because I throttle too hard on
> weird, fringe stuff but it's disheartening to find that it's a barrier for
> more people.
>
> Maybe I could do something (eventually). Anyway, I register.
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Kyle Anderson 
> wrote:
>
>> It has become apparent that I require more time for research and
>> observation before I can begin to grasp all that is going on and what I
>> should be doing. Unfortunately, I don't feel as though I have the requisite
>> time to play the game to it's fullest. I will, however, remain on the
>> lists, and continue to ask questions in discussion if it's not too much of
>> a bother.
>>
>> -K
>>
>> On Aug 23, 2017 9:10 PM, "Aris Merchant" > l.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Kyle Anderson 
>>> wrote:
>>> > I hereby deregister myself as a player for a minimum period of 30
>>> days, in
>>> > accordance with Rule 869.
>>> >
>>> > -K
>>>
>>> I'm sorry to see you go. Could you explain why you wanted to leave?
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>>
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Cuddle Beam]

This has been a problem for me too, the game is very gerontocratic. Not
rule or rights-wise, but socially, in unwritten things.

I thought that it was only an issue for me because I throttle too hard on
weird, fringe stuff but it's disheartening to find that it's a barrier for
more people.

Maybe I could do something (eventually). Anyway, I register.

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Kyle Anderson 
wrote:

> It has become apparent that I require more time for research and
> observation before I can begin to grasp all that is going on and what I
> should be doing. Unfortunately, I don't feel as though I have the requisite
> time to play the game to it's fullest. I will, however, remain on the
> lists, and continue to ask questions in discussion if it's not too much of
> a bother.
>
> -K
>
> On Aug 23, 2017 9:10 PM, "Aris Merchant"  gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Kyle Anderson 
>> wrote:
>> > I hereby deregister myself as a player for a minimum period of 30 days,
>> in
>> > accordance with Rule 869.
>> >
>> > -K
>>
>> I'm sorry to see you go. Could you explain why you wanted to leave?
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Kyle Anderson]

It has become apparent that I require more time for research and
observation before I can begin to grasp all that is going on and what I
should be doing. Unfortunately, I don't feel as though I have the requisite
time to play the game to it's fullest. I will, however, remain on the
lists, and continue to ask questions in discussion if it's not too much of
a bother.

-K

On Aug 23, 2017 9:10 PM, "Aris Merchant" 
wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Kyle Anderson 
> wrote:
> > I hereby deregister myself as a player for a minimum period of 30 days,
> in
> > accordance with Rule 869.
> >
> > -K
>
> I'm sorry to see you go. Could you explain why you wanted to leave?
>
> -Aris
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[V.J Rada]

Oh speaking of momentary players, could the Agoraculture proposal
submitted by o be changed to make someone other than babalien the
agoraculturor, given he was around for like two days?

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Kyle Anderson  wrote:
>> I hereby deregister myself as a player for a minimum period of 30 days, in
>> accordance with Rule 869.
>>
>> -K
>
> I'm sorry to see you go. Could you explain why you wanted to leave?
>
> -Aris



-- 
>From V.J Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Aris Merchant]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Kyle Anderson  wrote:
> I hereby deregister myself as a player for a minimum period of 30 days, in
> accordance with Rule 869.
>
> -K

I'm sorry to see you go. Could you explain why you wanted to leave?

-Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: deregister

[Benjamin Schultz]

On Sep 30, 2007, at 7:57 PM, comex wrote:



I submit the following proposal, at power=3:
Repeal rule 1482.


What for?  And what does this have to do with Wooble?
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr