DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Gray Ribbon clarification
On Tue, 2024-10-01 at 22:01 -0500, Kiako via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal (updated a very weirdly phrased part of
> the comment, no actual mechanical change):
>
> //
> Title: Gray Ribbon clarification
> Adoption Index: 3.0
> Author: kiako
> Co-authors: Janet
>
>
> [This is the only rule where "unless e has done so earlier in the month"
> is used instead of "Once per month".
>
> This proposal has two consequences:
> - Pending a CFJ (or precedent), the Herald may be able to award two
> Gray Ribbons in the month this is adopted.
> - In a month where the Herald changes to a new player, e will likely
> be unable to award a Gray Ribbon if the prior Herald had done so that
> month, where the previous version may have allowed it.
> Seeing as Gray ribbons aren't exactly a hot commodity right now, I think
> the simplicity is better than the potential extra award.]
>
> Amend Rule 2438 ("Ribbons")by replacing
> {
> The Tailor CAN award a Gray Ribbon by announcement, unless e has done
> so earlier in the month.
> }
> with
> {
> Once per month the Tailor CAN award a Gray Ribbon by announcement.
> }
> //
Another proofreading comment, sorry: you refer to the Herald rather than
the Tailor in several places.
~qenya
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Balancing creation and destruction
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 4:23 PM 4st nomic via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Also rule creation doesn't come with IDs until the rulekeepor assigns them, > so I don't think it'd even work? > > -- > 4st > putting jesters cap back on, it fell off while mobile > Crystals encourage rule change and destruction, so why not creation as well? New rules seems healthier than repeals right now anyways. Also, the rule change would still work, just in a more interesting way than normal. :) -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Balancing creation and destruction
Also rule creation doesn't come with IDs until the rulekeepor assigns them,
so I don't think it'd even work?
--
4st
putting jesters cap back on, it fell off while mobile
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024, 2:21 PM 4st nomic <4st.no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Against! The purpose of crystals is to encourage rule destruction, rule
> creation is heretical!!
> --
> 4st
> putting jesters cap back on, it fell off while mobile
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2024, 1:55 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> {{{
>> Title: Creation Crystals
>> Adoption Index: 1.0
>> Author: snail
>> Co-authors:
>>
>> Amend Rule 2685 (Crystals) by replacing "If a proposal amends or repeals a
>> rule" with "If a proposal enacts, amends, or repeals a rule".
>>
>> [Currently you get crystals for repealing rules but not for enacting them.
>> It feels like both should be rewarded.]
>>
>> }}}
>> --
>> snail
>> Steampunk Hat
>>
>
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Balancing creation and destruction
Against! The purpose of crystals is to encourage rule destruction, rule
creation is heretical!!
--
4st
putting jesters cap back on, it fell off while mobile
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024, 1:55 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {{{
> Title: Creation Crystals
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: snail
> Co-authors:
>
> Amend Rule 2685 (Crystals) by replacing "If a proposal amends or repeals a
> rule" with "If a proposal enacts, amends, or repeals a rule".
>
> [Currently you get crystals for repealing rules but not for enacting them.
> It feels like both should be rewarded.]
>
> }}}
> --
> snail
> Steampunk Hat
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Adjusting the Money Supply
On 8/29/24 6:10 PM, Oliver Nguyen via agora-discussion wrote: If crystal liquidation fails and this passes, that would not be good I assume most voting against crystal liquidation would vote against this too. Or maybe folks want a tighter money supply -- Mischief Collector Hat: steampunk hat Vitality: alive Bang holdings: 1
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Adjusting the Money Supply
If crystal liquidation fails and this passes, that would not be good On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 21:42, Mischief via agora-business <[agora-busin...@agoranomic.org](mailto:On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 21:42, Mischief via agora-business < wrote: > I submit the following proposal: > > "Adjusting the Money Supply" (AI=1) > > [Giving folks the option to also adjust the base monthly income in light > of the crystals-for-spendies proposal.] > > Amend Rule 2690 (Spendies) by replacing "20 Spendies" with "15 Spendies" > > -- > Mischief > Collector > Hat: steampunk hat > Vitality: alive > Bang holdings: 1
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Crystal liquidation
That is true. Should it be applied together with the other balancing change or
should the new change replace the old change?
- oliver.n
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 15:55, 4st nomic via agora-discussion
<[agora-discussion@agoranomic.org](mailto:On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 15:55, 4st
nomic via agora-discussion < wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 12:55 AM Oliver Nguyen via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Amend Rule 2685 "Crystals" by inserting the following text after the end
>> of the rule:
>>
>> {
>>
>> Once per week, a player CAN liquidate a specified crystal that e owns by
>> announcement. Doing so grants that player spendies equal to the half the
>> size of the crystal, rounded down, then destroys the crystal.
>>
>> }
>>
>
> An alternative way to balance a crystal might be to grant spendies equal to
> the size minus the instability. Large crystals are only valuable if they
> are stable, after all.
>
> --
> 4ˢᵗ
> wearing Jester's Cap
> Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Crystal liquidation
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 12:55 AM Oliver Nguyen via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I perform these actions, in this order:
>
> * I withdraw the proposal "Crystal liquidation".
>
> * I submit the following proposal:
>
> {{{
>
> Title: Crystal liquidation
>
> Adoption index: 1.0
>
> Author: oliver.n
>
> Co-author(s): 4st
>
> Amend Rule 2685 "Crystals" by inserting the following text after the end
> of the rule:
>
> {
>
> Once per week, a player CAN liquidate a specified crystal that e owns by
> announcement. Doing so grants that player spendies equal to the half the
> size of the crystal, rounded down, then destroys the crystal.
>
> }
>
> }}}
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 08:51, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <[
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org](mailto:On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 08:51,
> Janet Cobb via agora-discussion < wrote:
>
> > "a specified crystal that e owns", please.
An alternative way to balance a crystal might be to grant spendies equal to
the size minus the instability. Large crystals are only valuable if they
are stable, after all.
--
4ˢᵗ
wearing Jester's Cap
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Crystal liquidation
On 8/29/24 03:49, Oliver Nguyen via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {{{
>
> Title: Crystal liquidation
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: oliver.n
> Co-author(s): 4st
>
> Amend Rule 2685 "Crystals" by inserting the following text after the end of
> the rule:
>
> {
> Once per week, a player CAN liquidate a specified crystal that they own by
> announcement. Doing so grants that player spendies equal to half the size of
> the crystal, rounded down, then destroys the crystal.
> }
>
> }}}
>
> [ah yes, NttPF]
>
> - oliver.n
"a specified crystal that e owns", please.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Crystal liquidation
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Crystal liquidation
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: oliver.n
Co-author(s): 4st
Amend Rule 2685 "Crystals" by inserting the following text after the end of the
rule:
{
Once per week, a player CAN liquidate a specified crystal that they own by
announcement. Doing so grants that player spendies equal to half the size of
the crystal, rounded down, then destroys the crystal.
}
- oliver.n
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 08:24, Oliver Nguyen via agora-business
<[agora-busin...@agoranomic.org](mailto:On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 08:24, Oliver
Nguyen via agora-business < wrote:
> I withdraw this proposal.
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 23:37, Oliver Nguyen via agora-business
> <[agora-busin...@agoranomic.org](mailto:On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 23:37, Oliver
> Nguyen via agora-business < wrote:
>
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> Title: Crystal liquidation
>> Adoption index: 1.0
>> Author: oliver.n
>> Co-author(s): 4st
>>
>>
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Crystal liquidation
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 5:37 PM Oliver Nguyen via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Crystal liquidation
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: oliver.n
> Co-author(s): 4st
>
> Amend Rule 2685 "Crystals" by inserting the following text after the end
> of the rule:
>
> {
> Once per week, a player CAN liquidate a specified crystal by announcement.
> Doing so grants that player spendies equal to the size of the crystal, then
> destroys the crystal.
> }
>
> - oliver.n
>
This seems very unbalanced. There are large crystals that would give over
10 spendies, even with the (once per week) limiter. Maybe this would work
if it was Half the size of the crystal, rounded down, but even then it's
still a way to stockpile spendies between months.
This also allows the liquidation of other players' crystals, so I suggest
you withdraw this proposal as it will probably be voted down in its current
state. I think I'd be FOR a fixed version with One Third the size as the
amount of spendies granted.
--
snail
(Alive, 2 Bangs)
Steampunk Hat
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Erosion in Geological Rhyme
On Sat, 2024-08-24 at 15:04 +0100, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > I petition the Arbitor to republish this proposal with intent to > qualify for a Baccalaureate of Nomic Art. NttPF. However, if you had actually petitioned as intended, I would respond as follows: I'm flattered you think that highly of it! I think it would be inappropriate if the proposal doesn't actually pass, but if it does I'll certainly consider it. Thank you. ~qenya
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Erosion in Geological Rhyme
> On Aug 21, 2024, at 1:06 PM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-business > wrote: > > > Title: Erosion in Geological Rhyme > Adoption Index: 2.0 > Author: Kate > Co-authors: > > Consider each player with one or more stones; > Take the sum of the Costs of the stones that e owns. > And then, to compense for lost ius utendi, > That number of times, grant that player a Spendie. > > Now, for each person who, from 2020, > Has owned any stones (even one would be plenty), > In light of the long tradition Stones had > Grant em this Patent Title: "Stone Badge". > > And whereas this Proposal seeks to insist > On the notion that stones will no longer exist, > Repeal (in order) the following list. > That's Rules 2640 and 2641, > 2642, 2644 (43's already gone), > And then 2645, the last to be done. > > COMMENTS: > > I doubt this proposal will pass now and here, > But I hope to rhetorically make my point clear. > The stone rules' complexity's always been high; > Few players to learn have been willing to try. > > The most obvious problem's the tracking vocation: > We simply can't seem to retain a Stonemason. > Janet once held it, for quite a long time, > But felt that the load was too high and resigned. > > Relying on em was unfair, e expressed. > 'Twas frustrating that others showed no interest. > (E already does too much work, I suggest.) > E doubted another'd take over, and lo! > Another report did not therefrom follow. > And in the months since, not a one did up-show. > > Without a Stonemason, complexity's worse. > Work multiplies like a terrible curse. > Now, as well as the rules, we must also know what > The Stonemason should track, but right now does not. > > We selected a victim by random sortition, > But e failed to manage, despite a petition. > To be clear, e tried! I don't allocate blame. > But now e's resigned too, the position's the same. > > If none of us can the records sustain, > Then I think it would be a mistake to retain > A system that's such a great chore to maintain. > So unless the subgame can be fixed at its bones > I plead with you all to take heed of my moans > And bring to a close the Era of Stones. > > I petition the Arbitor to republish this proposal with intent to qualify for a Baccalaureate of Nomic Art. Gaelan
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] A bit too complex
... Okay, perhaps
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024, 2:31 am Janet Cobb via agora-business, <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Simplification, ironically
>
> Adoption index: 1.0
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coauthors:
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 1681 ("The Logical Rulesets") by deleting the text from "The
> Readable Logical Ruleset (RLR)" (inclusive) to the end of the rule.
>
> Repeal Rule 2693 ("The Simplifior").
>
>
> [We have yet to see a report from this office and nobody has pointed
> this out or expressed interest in deputising, suggesting that the report
> is infeasible and/or not useful.]
>
> }
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor
>
>
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Another double resolution proposal
On Sun, 2024-08-11 at 16:36 -0400, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > I submit the following proposal: > [snip] > > * With T notice: that intent is ripe, was created at least T ago, e is a > sponsor of it. There's a missing "and" here. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Pragmatic quarters
On 7/14/24 16:24, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: > Proposal: Pragmatic quarters > (AI = 2, co-author = Mischief) > > Amend Rule 2555 (Blots) by replacing this text: > >At the beginning of each quarter, half (rounded down) of each >fugitive's blots are destroyed. > > with this text: > >Once a quarter, the Referee CAN and SHALL publish a Notice of >Clemency, upon which half (rounded down) of each fugitive's blots >are destroyed. > > Amend Rule 2685 (Crystals) by replacing this text: > >At the beginning of each quarter, each crystal whose identity is >not equal to the ID of any rule in the current ruleset has its >size increased by 3. > > with this text: > >Once a quarter, the Geologist CAN and SHALL publish a Notice of >Crystal Growth, upon which each crystal whose identity is not >equal to the ID of any rule in the current ruleset has its size >increased by 3. > > Amend Rule 2656 (Radiance) by replacing this text: > >At the start of every quarter, all radiance switches are set to >half their current value rounded down. > > with this text: > >Once a quarter, the Illuminator CAN and SHALL publish a Notice of >Diminution, upon which all radiance switches are set to half their >current value rounded down. These should probably have a "in the first week of each quarter" clause. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Potential Further Absurdity (@Notary)
On 7/8/24 16:46, Mischief via agora-business wrote,:
> On 7/8/24 9:01 AM, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
>
>> Please increase the complexity of the office to 1, if there is ever a
>> redraft. Otherwise, I'll petition the ADoP later, so its ok.
> I didn't include it in the proposal because complexity is secured at power 2.
>
>
> I grant the following promise ("Absurdor Complexity") to juan:
>
> Cashing conditions: 1) it is before the expiration date of October 1, 2024;
> 2)
> the "Potential Further Absurdity" proposal I submitted prior to issuing this
> promise has passed; 3) there is a tabled intent to set the complexity of the
> Absurdor to 1
>
> Text: I support the tabled intent to set the complexity of the Absurdor to 1.
>
>
Acting on behalf to support/object is impossible. (R2124 para 1, "act on
eir own behalf".)
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Potential Further Absurdity
Mischief via agora-business [2024-07-07 10:35]:
>
> I submit the following proposal ("Potential Further Absurdity" AI=1
> coauthor=Janet):
>
> Create a rule entitled "The Veblen" with power 0.5 reading:
>
> The Veblen is a unique indestructible fixed asset.
>
> Ownership of the Veblen is entirely restricted to Agora and
> players. If the Veblen is owned by the Lost and Found Department
> or in abeyance, it is immediately transferred to Agora.
>
> The Veblen Cost is a secured singleton switch with values of
> positive integers and a default of 1.
>
> Any player CAN pay a fee of X Spendies to transfer the Veblen to
> to emself, where X is a value greater than or equal to the
> current Veblen Cost. Upon doing so, e gains ownership of the
> Veblen, and the Veblen Cost is set to X+1.
>
> The Veblen Cost and the ownership of the Veblen are tracked by
> the Absurdor.
>
> The owner of the Veblen SHOULD conspicuously show off eir
> ownership of it from time to time.
Please increase the complexity of the office to 1, if there is ever a
redraft. Otherwise, I'll petition the ADoP later, so its ok.
--
juan
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] It takes two, and Ammo Store
On 6/28/24 03:10, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
> {{{
> Title: Ammo Store
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: snail
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Enact a new Rule with title "Ammo Store" and the following text:
>
> {
> Each player CAN grant emself 1 bang by paying a fee of 13 spendies.
> }
Why isn't this just appending it to the existing rule? I'd prefer not to
have to create a category for Bangs if I can avoid.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] It takes two, and Ammo Store
how about a dodging mechanic? give everyone a speed value, or perhaps they can buy bulletproof vests? On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 at 19:33, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 4:04 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I don't think that requiring 2 Bangs to kill someone will necessarily slow > > down the game once the match starts. We've seen that players (others and > > myself) can easily use Contracts to prepare beforehand to set up automation > > which can lead to very fast wins. > > > > Perhaps a player could only shoot once per X hours (72?), and it takes two > > shots to kill someone? > > > > Part of the reason it went so fast is that a small number of players was > able to eliminate enough players immediately, and this makes it take twice > as many resources to do that. > > I was also thinking about changing the game to eliminate all the timing > nonsense, and letting players commit to eliminations and reveal them the > next week. This would reduce rapid-fire combos and make things more fair > for people who aren't as active. 72 hours would still have some of those > issues, but if everyone eliminates at once it should be better. > > -- > snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] It takes two, and Ammo Store
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 4:04 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I don't think that requiring 2 Bangs to kill someone will necessarily slow > down the game once the match starts. We've seen that players (others and > myself) can easily use Contracts to prepare beforehand to set up automation > which can lead to very fast wins. > > Perhaps a player could only shoot once per X hours (72?), and it takes two > shots to kill someone? > Part of the reason it went so fast is that a small number of players was able to eliminate enough players immediately, and this makes it take twice as many resources to do that. I was also thinking about changing the game to eliminate all the timing nonsense, and letting players commit to eliminations and reveal them the next week. This would reduce rapid-fire combos and make things more fair for people who aren't as active. 72 hours would still have some of those issues, but if everyone eliminates at once it should be better. -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] It takes two, and Ammo Store
I don't think that requiring 2 Bangs to kill someone will necessarily slow
down the game once the match starts. We've seen that players (others and
myself) can easily use Contracts to prepare beforehand to set up automation
which can lead to very fast wins.
Perhaps a player could only shoot once per X hours (72?), and it takes two
shots to kill someone?
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 9:12 AM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 9:45 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > In any case, this has demonstrated that a 1 Bang = 1 elimination ratio
> > is probably not enough to handle high levels of trading – possibly
> > players should start with half a Bang rather than a whole one. (Because
> > the way you eliminate a player is, in effect, to transfer a Bang to
> > them, there will always be enough to finish the game unless players
> > start hoarding.)
> >
> > --
> > ais523
> >
>
>
> I submit the following proposal:
> {{{
> Title: It takes two
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: snail
> Co-authors: ais523
>
> [Adjusts the number of bangs needed to eliminate a player to two. This
> should encourage trading and slow down rounds.]
>
> Amend the rule with title "Bang!" by replacing "by paying a fee of 1 bang."
> with "by paying a fee of 2 bangs."
>
>
> }}}
>
> I submit the following proposal:
> {{{
> Title: Ammo Store
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: snail
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Enact a new Rule with title "Ammo Store" and the following text:
>
> {
> Each player CAN grant emself 1 bang by paying a fee of 13 spendies.
> }
>
>
> }}}
>
>
> --
> snail
> (Alive, 0 Bangs)
> (steampunk hat: creating new game mechanics)
>
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] An Agoran Standoff
On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 5:24 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I withdraw my latest Proposal too, the one about Weapons. I was too > excited, and sloppy. Although I still like the idea and would enjoy > expanding the Bang game. > I think it's a great idea, though! We should try it out later (though I did want to see how the "base game" plays out first). Reviving players is a genius mechanic if we do it right, I bet. Necromancy nomic. (But not zombies) -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] An Agoran Standoff
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 12:34 AM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2024-05-14 at 06:55 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > A ghostly player CAN incarnate by announcement, which means > > to flip eir Vitality to Invulnerable, provided there are only > > Invulnerable or Ghostly players. > [snip] > > When the match is reset, each player is set to Ghostly, all bangs are > > destroyed, and then each player gains 1 bang. > > > > When 3 days have passed since the match is reset, all Invulnerable > > players have eir Vitality set to Alive. > > The timing here is incredibly tight given Agora's typical pace of > play – not only is it faster than the "once per week" cadence at which > many players seem to be paying attention, it's even faster than the 4- > day without-objection timer. > > This makes it likely that only players who are continuously paying > attention will end up joining the match, and could arguably be > considered a scam, or at least biased proposal-writing in favour of the > continuously active. > This is a great point, so I'll extend it to 7 days. > > > Each corporeal player SHOULD list eir Vitality and Bang Balance in > > all eir messages. > > This one is also a problem, seeing as it includes things like official > reports (and even the SLR/FLR) – although some means is needed to track > things, and I think officer-less subgames are an experiment worth > trying, "every message" seems like too high a frequency for this. > I think this is actually fine: it's only a few words to be added to your signature at the end of the report, and since it's a SHOULD it will be easy to figure out if it's annoying or immersive (as i intend it to be). I'll be putting it in all my reports at least :3 -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] An Agoran Standoff
> > The eliminated player has no obvious use for the granted bang, as it > will be destroyed before they next become alive. Is this intended to > give em something to trade with? > I believe so too, and I think that it's a good design because it gives (dead) players something to keep playing the game with. It also encourages more Eliminating and moving the game forwards, with the Bang surplus.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] An Agoran Standoff
On Tue, 2024-05-14 at 06:55 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > A ghostly player CAN incarnate by announcement, which means > to flip eir Vitality to Invulnerable, provided there are only > Invulnerable or Ghostly players. [snip] > When the match is reset, each player is set to Ghostly, all bangs are > destroyed, and then each player gains 1 bang. > > When 3 days have passed since the match is reset, all Invulnerable > players have eir Vitality set to Alive. The timing here is incredibly tight given Agora's typical pace of play – not only is it faster than the "once per week" cadence at which many players seem to be paying attention, it's even faster than the 4- day without-objection timer. This makes it likely that only players who are continuously paying attention will end up joining the match, and could arguably be considered a scam, or at least biased proposal-writing in favour of the continuously active. > Each corporeal player SHOULD list eir Vitality and Bang Balance in > all eir messages. This one is also a problem, seeing as it includes things like official reports (and even the SLR/FLR) – although some means is needed to track things, and I think officer-less subgames are an experiment worth trying, "every message" seems like too high a frequency for this. > Eliminating a player makes em Unalive, and then grants em 1 bang. The eliminated player has no obvious use for the granted bang, as it will be destroyed before they next become alive. Is this intended to give em something to trade with? -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] An Agoran Standoff
I like it.
" A ghostly player CAN incarnate by announcement, which means to flip eir
Vitality to Invulnerable"
I'd remove "means" from there and just use phrasing that already exists in
other rules, because I have the suspicion that it's very dangerous (or at
least, prone to bugs) to redefine the *mean*-ing of things.
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 1:56 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> It seems like Agora could use some more gameplay right now, so I present
> this subgame that got drafted a while ago. It experiments with an
> officerless tracking system, where players should report their status in
> all their messages. For example (Alive, 3 Bangs) after a signature would
> suffice.
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {{{
> Title: A friendly game
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: snail
> Co-author(s): juan
>
> Enact the following rule with title "Bang!" and the following text:
>
> {
> Bangs are a fungible asset.
>
> Vitality is an untracked player Switch with possible values of
> Invulnerable, Alive, Unalive, or Ghostly (default). A player with a
> Vitality that is not Ghostly is called “corporeal”, else e is called
> "ghostly".
>
> A ghostly player CAN incarnate by announcement, which means
> to flip eir Vitality to Invulnerable, provided there are only
> Invulnerable or Ghostly players.
>
> Each corporeal player SHOULD list eir Vitality and Bang Balance in all eir
> messages.
>
> Any player CAN publish a report of all Bang Balances and Vitalities. Such a
> purported report is self-ratifying, and SHOULD be made as needed.
>
> Each Alive player CAN eliminate another specified Alive player by paying a
> fee of 1 bang. Eliminating a player makes em Unalive, and then grants em 1
> bang.
>
> Any Alive player CAN Stand Alone by announcement, if there are no other
> players that are Alive, and no person has won the game by doing so in the
> past 7 days. When a player Stands Alone, e wins the game. If a player won
> the game in this manner 4 days ago, then the match is reset.
>
> When the match is reset, each player is set to Ghostly, all bangs are
> destroyed, and then each player gains 1 bang.
>
> When 3 days have passed since the match is reset, all Invulnerable
> players have eir Vitality set to Alive.
>
> When 14 days have passed since a player was last eliminated, the match
> resets, and then each player that was alive immediately before the match
> reset gains 1 bang.
> }
>
> The match is hereby reset.
> }}}
> --
> snail
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No Overpowered Deputizations
On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 9:08 PM Jaff via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I will point out that there are multiple ways to take actions of an office > without holding it which this wouldn't cover, such as delegation. I think a > safer fix would be preventing a player who holds an office from taking > actions corresponding to another office such that holding both would make > them Overpowered. > Being able to take actions as another officer without holding the office is useful, though, especially in some edge cases. Being unable to resolve proposals because you're the promotor seems more dangerous than allowing it only by temporary deputization, which already has some strict requirements. Delegation may need another look, though, since it can be done with just the consent of the delegating office and 1 other party, but it also has the safeguard of being overwritten with agoran consent. Offices can also in general be impeached with 2 Agoran consent, in case anyone abuses delegation or deputization. This at least prevents becoming overpowered by deputization, which most likely would happen by accident and could cause other problems. -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No Overpowered Deputizations
I will point out that there are multiple ways to take actions of an office
without holding it which this wouldn't cover, such as delegation. I think a
safer fix would be preventing a player who holds an office from taking
actions corresponding to another office such that holding both would make
them Overpowered.
- Jaff
On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 9:50 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {{{
> Title: No Overpowered Deputizations
> Adoption Index: 3.0
> Author: snail
> Co-authors: Janet, Murphy, Juniper
>
> Amend Rule 2160 (Deputisation) by replacing
>
> {
> When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the
> holder of that office, unless the deputisation is temporary,
> and/or the action being performed would already install someone
> into that office.
> }
>
> with
>
> {
> When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the holder
> of that office, unless the deputisation is temporary, doing so would make
> em Overpowered, and/or the action being performed would already install
> someone into that office.
> }
>
> }}}
> --
> snail
>
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Spendor definition
On 4/10/24 10:06, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > The Officeholder of Spendor is hereby flipped to nix. > > } For bystander context, I consented to this. -- nix Arbitor
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: yes, yes, I got the memo
Huh. You cannot officially require the referee to investigate a non-player
via noting.
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024, 12:14 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I create the following proposal:
>
> ---
> Title: yes, yes, I got the memo
> Author: Gaelan
> AI: 1.7
>
> Amend rule 2478 (“Justice”) by replacing: {
> A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
> committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
> incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
> it has one).
> } with {
> A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
> committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
> incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
> it has one); but a player CANNOT note an infraction that has
> already been investigated.
> }
>
> [Currently, if an infraction is noted after it is investigated,
> the Investigator SHALL but CANNOT investigate it. This would be
> automatically forgiven by 2531, so it’s not an issue in practice,
> but let’s fix it properly.]
> ---
>
> Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: yes, yes, I got the memo
> On Mar 25, 2024, at 8:53 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion > wrote: > > I suggest "un-noted" to prevent all instances of noting 1 infraction > multiple times. That doesn’t fix the original issue, as an infraction can be investigated without being noted. And I don’t really think duplicate notes are an issue, as investigating it discharges all the obligations at once. Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: yes, yes, I got the memo
> On Mar 25, 2024, at 8:06 PM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
> On 25/03/2024 19:13, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
>> Amend rule 2478 (“Justice”) by replacing: {
>> A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
>> committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
>> incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
>> it has one).
>> } with {
>> A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
>> committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
>> incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
>> it has one); but a player CANNOT note an infraction that has
>> already been investigated.
>> }
>
> Could this not more succinctly just be "...an unforgiven, uninvestigated
> infraction"? The rule is already quite long and hard to parse.
>
> -Kate
Possibly - I started there, but wasn’t confident “uninvestigated”
was usable without a definition, and defining it would just make
things worse.
Could certainly be convinced otherwise; I don’t like this wording
either.
Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: yes, yes, I got the memo
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 3:07 PM Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 25/03/2024 19:13, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
> > Amend rule 2478 (“Justice”) by replacing: {
> > A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
> > committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
> > incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
> > it has one).
> > } with {
> > A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
> > committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
> > incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
> > it has one); but a player CANNOT note an infraction that has
> > already been investigated.
> > }
>
> Could this not more succinctly just be "...an unforgiven, uninvestigated
> infraction"? The rule is already quite long and hard to parse.
>
> -Kate
I suggest "un-noted" to prevent all instances of noting 1 infraction
multiple times.
--
snail
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: yes, yes, I got the memo
On 25/03/2024 19:13, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
> Amend rule 2478 (“Justice”) by replacing: {
> A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
> committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
> incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
> it has one).
> } with {
> A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
> committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
> incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
> it has one); but a player CANNOT note an infraction that has
> already been investigated.
> }
Could this not more succinctly just be "...an unforgiven, uninvestigated
infraction"? The rule is already quite long and hard to parse.
-Kate
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: one from the archives
On 24/03/2024 12:44, Gaealn Steele via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Mar 24, 2024, at 12:21 PM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion >> wrote: >> hmm... the "Optionally" removes any obligation, but does mean that if >> there are any documents the Archivist deems worthy of archival (even >> non-Agoran documents!) but doesn't include, the option has not been >> taken and any documents the Archivist does include are not part of the >> report even if they may happen to be part of the same message >> >> which I don't think affects anything because the report doesn't >> self-ratify but feels untidy > > Ah, yeah, good catch - starting to see the appeal of your suggested > wording (“chooses and deems…”)! > > Probably worth patching afterwards, but not worth withdrawing the > proposal over? Agree - could even be part of the same distribution conditional on the rule existing -Kate
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: one from the archives
> On Mar 24, 2024, at 12:21 PM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On 24/03/2024 09:16, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:> * > Optionally, any other documents the Archivist deems worthy >> of archival. > > hmm... the "Optionally" removes any obligation, but does mean that if > there are any documents the Archivist deems worthy of archival (even > non-Agoran documents!) but doesn't include, the option has not been > taken and any documents the Archivist does include are not part of the > report even if they may happen to be part of the same message > > which I don't think affects anything because the report doesn't > self-ratify but feels untidy > > -Kate Ah, yeah, good catch - starting to see the appeal of your suggested wording (“chooses and deems…”)! Probably worth patching afterwards, but not worth withdrawing the proposal over? Gaealn
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: one from the archives
On 24/03/2024 09:16, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:> * Optionally, any other documents the Archivist deems worthy > of archival. hmm... the "Optionally" removes any obligation, but does mean that if there are any documents the Archivist deems worthy of archival (even non-Agoran documents!) but doesn't include, the option has not been taken and any documents the Archivist does include are not part of the report even if they may happen to be part of the same message which I don't think affects anything because the report doesn't self-ratify but feels untidy -Kate
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] FUNgibility
On 3/17/24 15:08, nix via agora-business wrote: > [Right now, sentences like "Blank are an asset ownable by..." is > interpreted to adding to a default within R2576. This seems unintuitive. > This proposal makes that default only apply if there's no mention of > ownership.] That doesn't belong there. But I'm leaving it anyway. -- nix Arbitor
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Vacations
On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 2:10 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 1/28/24 14:04, nix via agora-business wrote: > > A player CAN flip the Delegate switch of a specified office to > > emself with Agoran Consent. If the Delegate switch of an office is > > set to "None", the holder of that office CAN flip the Delegate > > switch of that office to a specified player with notice. > > > I reread the discussion from when this was first proposed (in May of > last year!). Back then, the concern was striking a balance between > insuring someone would fill the role, not creating "dynasties" where the > current holder chose their successor, and making this all timely so it > wasn't a hassle. I hope this method is a good balance. The officer can > just choose someone if there is nobody, but a simple Consent decision > can always assign someone. If people don't agree with the officer's > choice, it's over-rideable. > > -- > nix > I think there needs to be some kind of change so that an unwilling delegate stop being one. As is, someone else would have to volunteer, since you can only make the delegate *yourself* with Agoran consent. I don't like that someone with a bunch of offices could burden someone else with all the office work for 30 days, who'd be forced to go inactive if they can't comply or can't get someone else to volunteer. Also what would happen if a delegate "resigns"? I think it'd be a good idea to have it be defined, and could fix this issue. Maybe throw in a clause about deputizing when there's no delegate and an officer is on vacation, the deputizer becomes the new delegate. -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Vacations
On 1/28/24 14:04, nix via agora-business wrote: > A player CAN flip the Delegate switch of a specified office to > emself with Agoran Consent. If the Delegate switch of an office is > set to "None", the holder of that office CAN flip the Delegate > switch of that office to a specified player with notice. I reread the discussion from when this was first proposed (in May of last year!). Back then, the concern was striking a balance between insuring someone would fill the role, not creating "dynasties" where the current holder chose their successor, and making this all timely so it wasn't a hassle. I hope this method is a good balance. The officer can just choose someone if there is nobody, but a simple Consent decision can always assign someone. If people don't agree with the officer's choice, it's over-rideable. -- nix
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Registration restrictions
On 1/5/24 01:42, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-01-05 at 01:40 -0500, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> * Inserting the following paragraph after the paragraph:
>>
>> {
>>
>> The basis of a person is the set of all persons that are (recursively)
>> part of em, in addition to emself. Rules to the contrary
>> notwithstanding, a person CANNOT become Registered if eir basis overlaps
>> with that of any current player
>>
>> }
> I suspect this won't have the effect you want on the rule, because you
> didn't specify which paragraph to insert it after. (There's also a
> missing full stop.)
>
Caught the first one, but I'll also fix the full stop. Thanks!
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Registration restrictions
On Fri, 2024-01-05 at 01:40 -0500, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> * Inserting the following paragraph after the paragraph:
>
> {
>
> The basis of a person is the set of all persons that are (recursively)
> part of em, in addition to emself. Rules to the contrary
> notwithstanding, a person CANNOT become Registered if eir basis overlaps
> with that of any current player
>
> }
I suspect this won't have the effect you want on the rule, because you
didn't specify which paragraph to insert it after. (There's also a
missing full stop.)
--
ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Long forgotten fix
On 2023-11-19 19:11, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote: > oh wait. Maybe this did work. This proposal IS up for vote. Lol! > > On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 4:09 PM 4st nomic <4st.no...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> That's lovely! Unfortunately, due to the arcane beaurocracy presented by >> the Law of Agora, >> this proposal is not up for vote yet! >> The process currently in place is basically: >> Submit proposal (that's what snail did here) -> Promotor Distributes -> >> Players vote -> Assessor resolves the decision >> >> On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 4:07 PM Goren Barak via agora-business < >> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> >>> On 2023-11-19 16:24, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: >>> > I submit the following proposal: >>> > >>> > // >>> > Title: A simple fix >>> > Adoption index: 1.0 >>> > Author: snail >>> > Co-authors: nix >>> > >>> > >>> > [We tried to fix this back in April but it got wrapped up in a bigger >>> stamp >>> > rework proposal, which failed.] >>> > >>> > Amend R2659 (Stamps) by replacing: >>> > >>> > Any player CAN win by paying N Stamps >>> > >>> > with: >>> > >>> > Any active player CAN win by paying N Stamps >>> > >>> > // >>> > -- >>> > snail >>> >>> I vote FOR on this proppsal. >>> >> >> >> -- >> 4ˢᵗ >> >> Uncertified Bad Idea Generator >> Well, I guess I did vote FOR!
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Long forgotten fix
On 2023-11-19 19:09, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote: > That's lovely! Unfortunately, due to the arcane beaurocracy presented by > the Law of Agora, > this proposal is not up for vote yet! > The process currently in place is basically: > Submit proposal (that's what snail did here) -> Promotor Distributes -> > Players vote -> Assessor resolves the decision > > On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 4:07 PM Goren Barak via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On 2023-11-19 16:24, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: >> > I submit the following proposal: >> > >> > // >> > Title: A simple fix >> > Adoption index: 1.0 >> > Author: snail >> > Co-authors: nix >> > >> > >> > [We tried to fix this back in April but it got wrapped up in a bigger >> stamp >> > rework proposal, which failed.] >> > >> > Amend R2659 (Stamps) by replacing: >> > >> > Any player CAN win by paying N Stamps >> > >> > with: >> > >> > Any active player CAN win by paying N Stamps >> > >> > // >> > -- >> > snail >> >> I vote FOR on this proppsal. >> Well, I'm planning to vote FOR.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Long forgotten fix
On 11/19/23 18:44, Goren Barak via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2023-11-19 16:24, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: >> I submit the following proposal: >> >> // >> Title: A simple fix >> Adoption index: 1.0 >> Author: snail >> Co-authors: nix >> >> >> [We tried to fix this back in April but it got wrapped up in a bigger stamp >> rework proposal, which failed.] >> >> Amend R2659 (Stamps) by replacing: >> >> Any player CAN win by paying N Stamps >> >> with: >> >> Any active player CAN win by paying N Stamps >> >> // >> -- >> snail > I vote FOR on this proposal. This fails for going to DIS. Also, it's much easier for me if you vote in the distribution thread (and you can vote on all of the other proposals as well in one message). -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Long forgotten fix
On 2023-11-19 16:24, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > I submit the following proposal: > > // > Title: A simple fix > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: snail > Co-authors: nix > > > [We tried to fix this back in April but it got wrapped up in a bigger stamp > rework proposal, which failed.] > > Amend R2659 (Stamps) by replacing: > > Any player CAN win by paying N Stamps > > with: > > Any active player CAN win by paying N Stamps > > // > -- > snail I vote FOR on this proposal.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal Submission - Stone Repeal
I think the proper way to repeal anything is to tweak and break it so subtly it's finally scammed, then you repeal it. That seems to be the way things go. Or at least the fun way. Maybe we just need new stones, after all! On Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 7:52 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I retract the Proposal named "Stone Repeal" and I submit the following > Proposal: > > Name: Stone Repeal > AI: 2 > Author: Yachay > Co-authors: None > > Repeal Rules 2640, 2641, 2642, 2643, 2644, and 2645 in ascending numerical > order by ID > > // Comment: This November, this rule will have existed for three years. > Tragically, I haven't seen or experienced any interesting gameplay from it. > I believe it's time to move on. > > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 2:32 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 10/31/23 05:19, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > > > I submit the following Proposal: > > > > > > Name: Stone Repeal > > > AI: 2 > > > Author: Yachay > > > Co-authors: None > > > > > > Repeal Rule 2640, 2641, 2642, 2643, 2644, 2645 > > > > > > /* Comment: This November, this rule will have existed for three years. > > > Tragically, I haven't seen or experienced any interesting gameplay from > > it. > > > I believe it's time to move on. > > > > > > It's the only gameplay we have right now. > > > > Also, these proposals usually include "in order" or "in ascending > > numerical order by ID" to avoid the rule changes accidentally being > > simultaneous. > > > > -- > > Janet Cobb > > > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Forum restoration
On 16/10/2023 17:37, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:> Adoption index:
>
> {
>
> The instance of the publicity switch possessed by the forum that can be
> sent to at "agoranomic at groups.io" is hereby flipped to Public.
>
> }
That's not a valid adoption index, and also you didn't give the proposal
any text
-Kate
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The Button
On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 12:19 PM Juan F. Meleiro via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I create the following proposal, entitled “Game Theory”:
>
> {
> Create a Power 1.0 rule called “The Button” with text:
> {
> The Buttonmastor is an office.
>
> The Button is a singleton switch tracked by the Buttonmastor with instants
> in time as possible values, defaulting to the instant this rule was created.
>
> Buttonclass is a player switch traxked by the Buttonmastor with possible
> values Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet or None, defaulting
> to None.
>
> A player CAN, by announcement, press the button.
>
> When a player presses the button, two things happen:
>
> 1. The Button is flipped to the instant e did it.
>
> 2. That player's Buttonclass is flipped to a value depending on the amount
> of hours passed between the previous value of The Button and the current
> one, as specified below:
>
> * Less than 24: Red;
> * 24 or more, but less than 48: Orange;
> * 48 or more, but less than 72: Yellow;
> * 72 or more, but less than 96: Green;
> * 96 or more, but less than 120: Blue;
> * 120 or more, but less than 144: Indigo;
> * 144 or more: Violet.
>
> If a player announces correctly thay eir Buttonclass is Violet, they win
> the game.
>
> If value of The Button is more than 168 hours in the past, this rule
> repeals itself.
> }
> }
> --
> Juan
>
As is, this doesn't seem too interesting. A suggestion: different rewards
for each of the different colors. Maybe some kind of mechanic to limit
pressing the button.
--
snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The Button
Which is why you press the button every 144 hours that are reliable to you:
or setup scheduled emails. I feel like also this is similar to apathy but
now you have to track it: anyone can block as long as they press the button
fre. 2. jun. 2023, 12:29 p.m. skrev ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org>:
> On Fri, 2023-06-02 at 14:18 -0300, Juan F. Meleiro via agora-business
> wrote:
> > I create the following proposal, entitled “Game Theory”:
> >
> > {
> > Create a Power 1.0 rule called “The Button” with text:
>
> This isn't really game theory, but "who has the most reliable Internet
> connection / is best at being online at the right time of day". The
> optimal play is to press the button 144 hours after a previous press,
> unless someone else does so first. In practice, the "unless someone
> else does so first" is going to be impossible to check for due to email
> communication delay, so we're going to have to come up with some rule
> to decide who pressed the send button first (which is likely to be
> practically impossible to determine, given the 1 second granularity of
> most email servers' timestamping – if two people seriously try for this
> then their emails will have the same timestamps on them).
>
> It would be possible to attempt to ruin other people's attempts to win
> by sending an email just before the 144-hour limit, but doing so would
> give up on your own chance to win, so it doesn't really make much sense
> (and you won't know whose attempts you are trying to ruin, because
> nothing's forcing players to try to win 144 hours after the *first*
> press – waiting for the later ones is just as good as winning at aiming
> for an earlier one).
>
> "Be awake at a specific time of day, chosen by the Assessor" is also
> the sort of gameplay that can unfairly disadvantage some players
> compared to others (depending on where they live compared to the
> Assessor's timezone, and/or at what times of day they are busy and thus
> unable to send email).
>
> Incidentally, the original Button that this was referencing had, IIRC,
> a 1.5-second grace period, which would remove the simultaneous-timing
> issues but lead to the win condition probably being too easy
> (especially if the grace period were scaled up to "1.5/60th of a week"
> rather than being left at its original length).
>
> --
> ais523
>
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The Button
On Fri, 2023-06-02 at 14:18 -0300, Juan F. Meleiro via agora-business
wrote:
> I create the following proposal, entitled “Game Theory”:
>
> {
> Create a Power 1.0 rule called “The Button” with text:
This isn't really game theory, but "who has the most reliable Internet
connection / is best at being online at the right time of day". The
optimal play is to press the button 144 hours after a previous press,
unless someone else does so first. In practice, the "unless someone
else does so first" is going to be impossible to check for due to email
communication delay, so we're going to have to come up with some rule
to decide who pressed the send button first (which is likely to be
practically impossible to determine, given the 1 second granularity of
most email servers' timestamping – if two people seriously try for this
then their emails will have the same timestamps on them).
It would be possible to attempt to ruin other people's attempts to win
by sending an email just before the 144-hour limit, but doing so would
give up on your own chance to win, so it doesn't really make much sense
(and you won't know whose attempts you are trying to ruin, because
nothing's forcing players to try to win 144 hours after the *first*
press – waiting for the later ones is just as good as winning at aiming
for an earlier one).
"Be awake at a specific time of day, chosen by the Assessor" is also
the sort of gameplay that can unfairly disadvantage some players
compared to others (depending on where they live compared to the
Assessor's timezone, and/or at what times of day they are busy and thus
unable to send email).
Incidentally, the original Button that this was referencing had, IIRC,
a 1.5-second grace period, which would remove the simultaneous-timing
issues but lead to the win condition probably being too easy
(especially if the grace period were scaled up to "1.5/60th of a week"
rather than being left at its original length).
--
ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] A Bright Future
On 5/23/23 03:09, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > A player CAN, by paying a fee of 5 brights, turn a specified rule Radiant, > provided its power is less than 2. Each referenda on a proposal that would > amend or repeal a Radiant rule has its Adoption Index increased to 2, if it > is ever less than 2. The player that turned a rule Radiant CAN, by > announcement, make it cease being Radiant. Again, please do not make me track this. Also, it is a dangerous game to attempt to evaluate what proposals would do prospectively. Proposals can have conditionals that can't be correctly evaluated until they take effect. > A player CAN, by paying a fee of 5 brights, start a new cascade. A player > CAN, by paying a fee of 3 brights, end a specified cascade. If a cascade > was started 7 days ago and has not been ended, all brights are destroyed. Having things happen automatically risks everyone forgetting. This should require an announcement to make it take effect. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Rice rewrite
On 5/22/23 14:33, juan via agora-discussion wrote: > Janet Cobb via agora-business [2023-05-21 01:28]: >> Changes: >> - Generally cleaned up wording >> - Handle rice at Lost and Found >> - Harvesting a plan now grants rice before revoking (handling the case >> where a person is in both the up and down sets) >> - Use "CAN" for enabling >> - Use a by announcement action or contract for signatures, rather than >> "consent" >> - Added a clarity requirement for contract-based signatures >> - Removed Fancy Caps > I like the consent! It's fun to be able to use, e.g., contracts without > them being referenced in the rule. Possibly, other forms of consent > could work. This is an experiment in interactionless gameplay, do note. The consent standard lacks any clarity requirement for contracts other than "unambiguously". This is not sufficient when an officer has to be able to evaluate every possible condition. Similarly, "reasonably clear" is too vague for an officer potentially having to evaluate players * rice plans conditions. Promises would work with the new by announcement action (and it isn't clear that it's possible for the execution of a promise to give consent now, so this is a strict improvement from that perspective), and note that they aren't mentioned in the new text. I see no virtue in not mentioning contracts in the rule if they're a part of intended gameplay. > > I should note as well: the rules mention consent elsewhere than > just R2519, and not only in reference to actions. For example, R869, > incidentally another Power 3.0 rule: > >> The Rules CANNOT otherwise bind a person to abide by any agreement > without that person's willful consent. (R869, ¶6) > > Could we understand a Rice Plan as an agreement? > In this case the consent can be evaluated with respect to the action of "becoming bound to the agreement". Note that the clause is not enabling at all, and Rice Plans clearly aren't agreements anyway. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Rice rewrite
Janet Cobb via agora-business [2023-05-21 01:28]: > Changes: > - Generally cleaned up wording > - Handle rice at Lost and Found > - Harvesting a plan now grants rice before revoking (handling the case > where a person is in both the up and down sets) > - Use "CAN" for enabling > - Use a by announcement action or contract for signatures, rather than > "consent" > - Added a clarity requirement for contract-based signatures > - Removed Fancy Caps I like the consent! It's fun to be able to use, e.g., contracts without them being referenced in the rule. Possibly, other forms of consent could work. This is an experiment in interactionless gameplay, do note. I should note as well: the rules mention consent elsewhere than just R2519, and not only in reference to actions. For example, R869, incidentally another Power 3.0 rule: > The Rules CANNOT otherwise bind a person to abide by any agreement without that person's willful consent. (R869, ¶6) Could we understand a Rice Plan as an agreement? -- juan
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Rice disarmament
I think the main time-consuming activity in the Rice Game would be
navigating its particularly challenging endgame (how do you get that last
Rice? diplomacy? scam?), rather than grinding for large amounts of Rice.
Even if we do end up going with this, and you end up getting 4 Rice, that
last fifth Rice (or sixth/seventh/etc, if needed) seems like it's going to
be a lot harder to obtain than the previous 4 combined.
On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 7:38 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Rice disarmament
>
> Adoption index: 1.0
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coauthors:
>
> {
>
> Amend the rule entitled "The Rice Game" by replacing "at least 2 rice"
> with "at least 5 rice".
>
> [Ensure each round takes at least a month. This works under both the
> original rule and the rewrite.]
>
> }
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
ais523 wrote: On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 21:32 +0100, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 13:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: I informally risk being guilty of favoritism 7 days from now, by saying that the combination of CFJ calling and parenthetical reminder that it may fail is enough disclaimer to avoid no faking. I'll also note that Janet pointed out CFJ 1881 which asked if R2029 created a duty to dance, and in fact Judge omd of that case found that R2029 *does* apply penalties to the Marvy (if there were any Marvy), and CFJ 2589 which raised the matter again/independently. So it's not 100% cut-and-dried that R2029's exhortation to dance has no legal effect. And I'd forgotten at least one of those cases myself, so I wouldn't expect 4st to know about them. Are there any Marvy at the moment? IIRC the definition was something along the lines of "a player who has increased voting power but is not an officer", but I can't properly remember it (it was over a decade ago at this point). Just happened to notice this: On Tue, 2023-05-16 at 15:21 -0500, nix via agora-official wrote: Marvy:4st, ais523, CreateSource, cuddlybanana, duck, G., Janet, juan, Murphy, R. Lee, snail, Trigon, Vitor Gonçalves Marvy is a patent title that's currently in use. I suspect that this has no impact on rule 2029 for much the same reason that a player named "Marvy" wouldn't, but it feels like a relevant data point. IIRC, that Patent Title was awarded by proposal, then after its adoption the author claimed that R2029 penalized those players, but it was indeed shot down for much the same reason as a player named "Marvy" would have.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Promise anti-escalation
This has been the best possible outcome
lør. 20. mai 2023, 11:07 p.m. skrev Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org>:
> On 5/21/23 01:59, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote:
> > I counter by instead submitting the following proposal:
> >
> > {Adoption index = 3
> >
> > [Stop making small changes to fix things. This security issue happens all
> > the time.]
>
>
> Exactly what non-small change would you want here? Your proposal is
> "small", too. This is really getting annoying.
>
>
> > Enact the following rule:"By default and unless otherwise specified,
> > assets, switches, and eir properties are secured at the power level of
> the
> > rule that defines them."}
>
>
> First, NttPF.
>
> Second, you've put the "adoption index" inside the text of the proposal.
>
> Third, why is this in a new rule? There's a perfectly good rule this can
> go into (R1688).
>
> Fourth, there are likely to be breakages, and I find it unlikely you
> audited the entire ruleset for things that might break.
>
> Fifth, when things inevitably do break, how would they be fixed? In all
> likelihood, more small proposals, fixing them piecewise as they're
> found. This isn't preventing "small changes" at all.
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Promise anti-escalation
On 5/21/23 01:59, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote:
> I counter by instead submitting the following proposal:
>
> {Adoption index = 3
>
> [Stop making small changes to fix things. This security issue happens all
> the time.]
Exactly what non-small change would you want here? Your proposal is
"small", too. This is really getting annoying.
> Enact the following rule:"By default and unless otherwise specified,
> assets, switches, and eir properties are secured at the power level of the
> rule that defines them."}
First, NttPF.
Second, you've put the "adoption index" inside the text of the proposal.
Third, why is this in a new rule? There's a perfectly good rule this can
go into (R1688).
Fourth, there are likely to be breakages, and I find it unlikely you
audited the entire ruleset for things that might break.
Fifth, when things inevitably do break, how would they be fixed? In all
likelihood, more small proposals, fixing them piecewise as they're
found. This isn't preventing "small changes" at all.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Promise anti-escalation
I counter by instead submitting the following proposal:
{Adoption index = 3
[Stop making small changes to fix things. This security issue happens all
the time.]
Enact the following rule:"By default and unless otherwise specified,
assets, switches, and eir properties are secured at the power level of the
rule that defines them."}
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 21:32 +0100, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 13:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: > > I informally risk being guilty of favoritism 7 days from now, by > > saying that the combination of CFJ calling and parenthetical reminder > > that it may fail is enough disclaimer to avoid no faking. I'll also > > note that Janet pointed out CFJ 1881 which asked if R2029 created a > > duty to dance, and in fact Judge omd of that case found that R2029 > > *does* apply penalties to the Marvy (if there were any Marvy), and > > CFJ 2589 which raised the matter again/independently. So it's not > > 100% cut-and-dried that R2029's exhortation to dance has no legal > > effect. And I'd forgotten at least one of those cases myself, so I > > wouldn't expect 4st to know about them. > > Are there any Marvy at the moment? IIRC the definition was something > along the lines of "a player who has increased voting power but is not > an officer", but I can't properly remember it (it was over a decade ago > at this point). Just happened to notice this: On Tue, 2023-05-16 at 15:21 -0500, nix via agora-official wrote: > Marvy:4st, ais523, CreateSource, > cuddlybanana, duck, G., Janet, > juan, Murphy, R. Lee, snail, > Trigon, Vitor Gonçalves Marvy is a patent title that's currently in use. I suspect that this has no impact on rule 2029 for much the same reason that a player named "Marvy" wouldn't, but it feels like a relevant data point. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 2:29 PM ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > Or perhaps this is just a case of "the ais523 who has been following > Agora for over 15 years spots things that the ais523 who had been there > for only one year didn't". Lol, I meant to add myself that the rules underlying may have been different at each point (I was thinking R1586 specifically, but definitely R217). And arguing against your past judicial self is a fine Agoran tradition, no real shade intended. > So we may just have to leave the precedent there. That's why past precedents are an "augmenting "not "definitive" factor (amongst other factors) in the current R217, of course...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 14:01 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 1:32 PM ais523 via agora-discussion > wrote: > > That said, I suspect the word in R2029 is currently undefined: I don't > > think "a definition that was in place at the time the rule was adopted" > > is one of the things that we can legally use to interpret the rules. > > (In fact, given that rules of lower power can't outright define terms > > in higher-power rules – just clarify them – it may be very hard to > > define a term in a power-4 rule at all if it has no common meaning, and > > after this much time, I doubt it has a common meaning.) > > It was CFJ 2585, and you (Judge ais523) found the exact opposite of > what you just said above. In > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2585, Judge ais523 > wrote: > > > However, by the implicit mention in CFJ 1881, > > and the explicit precedent of CFJ 1534 (that in a rule of historical > > significance such as 104 or 2029, terms used in the rule have the > > meaning they had when the rule was created), not to mention rule 1586, I > > can only conclude that "marvy" in rule 2029 has the meaning it did when > > the Fountain was created. This is a nomic, and rules change over time! I think my ruling in CFJ 2585, based as it was primarily on CFJ 1534, missed that the precedent of CFJ 1534 was probably no longer relevant (and suspect that it may be incorrect). The judge of CFJ 1881 may have made the same mistake. At the time of CFJ 1534, rule 217 looked like this: All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however, if the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the Statement to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider game custom, commonsense, past Judgements, and the best interests of the game before applying other standards. This is much more permissive than the current rule 217: in addition to applying only to judgements, it explicitly mentions "other standards" which can be used in cases where none of the four main tests work. At the time of CFJ 1881, it looked like this, somewhat more similar to the current version: When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. but I'm not sure whether the judge noticed that the change might potentially cause the precedent of CFJ 1534 to no longer apply. Additionally, CFJ 1534 was itself a judgement based on rule 217 tests, specifically the best interests of the game: that ruling that Michael Norrish had *continuously* been the Speaker since the start of Agora would break everything (the office of the Speaker used to be *much* more important to the functioning of Agora than it is nowadays), and thus in cases where rules were unclear, it was better to rule that transferrence of the Speaker worked correctly. This means that the precedent might not apply to cases where the the rule 217 tests leaned in a different direction. There's also the factor of "this fits too perfectly to not mention": the rules in place at the time of the Town Fountain's construction were repealed at the time of CFJ 1881, but by the time of CFJ 2585, the underlying rules had been re-enacted in pretty much the same form as they had originally. As such, the old definition of "marvy" was possible to apply to the rules at the time more or less directly. I suspect that the me of 15 years ago would have been so excited that the precedent *could* be applied in this way, that I didn't stop to consider whether I *should*; in fact I suspect that I read the relevant old judgements from the FLR annotations rather than actually reading the judgement itself to see if it were still relevant. (My argument to rule 1586 seems wrong, given that "marvy" wasn't rules-defined at the time.) Or perhaps this is just a case of "the ais523 who has been following Agora for over 15 years spots things that the ais523 who had been there for only one year didn't". Apparently I can still in theory appeal the CFJ, but would require 728 support to do so, which might be hard to obtain in the current gamestate. So we may just have to leave the precedent there. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 1:32 PM ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 13:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: > > I informally risk being guilty of favoritism 7 days from now, by > > saying that the combination of CFJ calling and parenthetical reminder > > that it may fail is enough disclaimer to avoid no faking. I'll also > > note that Janet pointed out CFJ 1881 which asked if R2029 created a > > duty to dance, and in fact Judge omd of that case found that R2029 > > *does* apply penalties to the Marvy (if there were any Marvy), and > > CFJ 2589 which raised the matter again/independently. So it's not > > 100% cut-and-dried that R2029's exhortation to dance has no legal > > effect. And I'd forgotten at least one of those cases myself, so I > > wouldn't expect 4st to know about them. > > Are there any Marvy at the moment? IIRC the definition was something > along the lines of "a player who has increased voting power but is not > an officer", but I can't properly remember it (it was over a decade ago > at this point). > > That said, I suspect the word in R2029 is currently undefined: I don't > think "a definition that was in place at the time the rule was adopted" > is one of the things that we can legally use to interpret the rules. > (In fact, given that rules of lower power can't outright define terms > in higher-power rules – just clarify them – it may be very hard to > define a term in a power-4 rule at all if it has no common meaning, and > after this much time, I doubt it has a common meaning.) It was CFJ 2585, and you (Judge ais523) found the exact opposite of what you just said above. In https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2585, Judge ais523 wrote: > However, by the implicit mention in CFJ 1881, > and the explicit precedent of CFJ 1534 (that in a rule of historical > significance such as 104 or 2029, terms used in the rule have the > meaning they had when the rule was created), not to mention rule 1586, I > can only conclude that "marvy" in rule 2029 has the meaning it did when > the Fountain was created. Recently, Judge 4st found, in CFJ 3989, that there just wasn't sufficient evidence to find anyone guilty of this, explicitly refuting CFJ 2585 (unfortunately the evidence/context was left out of this case record): https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3989. In refuting CFJ 2585, Judge 4st also specifically refuted CFJ 1534, which dealt with continuity of the "First Speaker" term, which you cited/upheld in CFJ 2585: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1534 Those 4 cases form the complete set of relevant cases that turn up search the CFJ github for Marvy/Marvies (1881, 2585, 2589 and 3989) plus CFJ 1534 for the more general finding that concerned old terms of art like "First Speaker": -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
Kerim Aydin via agora-business [2023-05-18 13:16]:
> On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 12:51 PM nix via agora-business
> wrote:
> >
> > On 5/18/23 14:43, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote:
> > > CFJ: This violates Rule 2029 ("Town Fountain").
> > > I note and investigate the infraction to be 2 blots. (and as we know, this
> > > investigation only occurs if it does indeed violate the rule).
By the way, I'd really love for more knowledgeable players to share
any lore on the origins of the town fountain and other remnants of
Agora's past.
--
juan
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 13:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > I informally risk being guilty of favoritism 7 days from now, by > saying that the combination of CFJ calling and parenthetical reminder > that it may fail is enough disclaimer to avoid no faking. I'll also > note that Janet pointed out CFJ 1881 which asked if R2029 created a > duty to dance, and in fact Judge omd of that case found that R2029 > *does* apply penalties to the Marvy (if there were any Marvy), and > CFJ 2589 which raised the matter again/independently. So it's not > 100% cut-and-dried that R2029's exhortation to dance has no legal > effect. And I'd forgotten at least one of those cases myself, so I > wouldn't expect 4st to know about them. Are there any Marvy at the moment? IIRC the definition was something along the lines of "a player who has increased voting power but is not an officer", but I can't properly remember it (it was over a decade ago at this point). That said, I suspect the word in R2029 is currently undefined: I don't think "a definition that was in place at the time the rule was adopted" is one of the things that we can legally use to interpret the rules. (In fact, given that rules of lower power can't outright define terms in higher-power rules – just clarify them – it may be very hard to define a term in a power-4 rule at all if it has no common meaning, and after this much time, I doubt it has a common meaning.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
On 5/18/23 16:08, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/18/23 15:03, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: >> I did call a CFJ on whether it created infractions, so I don't believe I >> violated no faking as I had included sufficient carefulness. :3 > Sufficient carefulness would be not investigating until the CFJ was > resolved, or your timer was almost up, at the very least. > Whether it was sufficiently "misleading" and whether it met the "highest possible standard of care" standard for automatic forgiveness are different issues. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
On 5/18/23 15:03, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: I did call a CFJ on whether it created infractions, so I don't believe I violated no faking as I had included sufficient carefulness. :3 Sufficient carefulness would be not investigating until the CFJ was resolved, or your timer was almost up, at the very least. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
I did call a CFJ on whether it created infractions, so I don't believe I
violated no faking as I had included sufficient carefulness. :3
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 12:52 PM nix via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 5/18/23 14:43, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote:
> > CFJ: This violates Rule 2029 ("Town Fountain").
> > I note and investigate the infraction to be 2 blots. (and as we know,
> this
> > investigation only occurs if it does indeed violate the rule).
> >
> > Arguments FOR: Ritual Paper Dance enables dancing. Rule 2029 asks us to
> > always dance a powerful dance. Thus, if it were repealed, we could no
> > longer dance. Thus, proposing to repeal it is a crime.
> I note the infraction of No Faking by 4st here. E should know as Arbitor
> that 2029 does not include anything that creates infractions, as it
> contains nothing that creates rule violations. This is both falsy and
> misleading.
>
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Herald
>
>
--
4st
Referee
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
On 5/18/23 14:51, nix via agora-business wrote:
On 5/18/23 14:43, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote:
CFJ: This violates Rule 2029 ("Town Fountain").
I note and investigate the infraction to be 2 blots. (and as we know,
this
investigation only occurs if it does indeed violate the rule).
Arguments FOR: Ritual Paper Dance enables dancing. Rule 2029 asks us to
always dance a powerful dance. Thus, if it were repealed, we could no
longer dance. Thus, proposing to repeal it is a crime.
I note the infraction of No Faking by 4st here. E should know as
Arbitor that 2029 does not include anything that creates infractions,
as it contains nothing that creates rule violations. This is both
falsy and misleading.
*Referee, not Arbitor.
--
nix
Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] now you don't see it
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 8:03 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > Having such an unwieldy amount of arcana puts a lot of power in being able > to give out 'hedonistic' Judgements; ones that are heavily based on "well > this is best for the game"/"this makes it playable"/etc, especially ones > that have to be that way because of ambiguity. Because we don't know for > sure everything that has even happened until now, and even then, we're > likely to have more disagreements the more arcana that we have to consider > in order to compute the current gamestate. > > It's probably not so bad then, because the longer back you go, the harder > it is to be sure of it, and the easier it seems that a hedonistic Judgement > will just overwrite it. Arcana *generally* doesn't have that strong an impact - an old CFJ can always be revisited, even if cited, and new CFJs have often said "that old one doesn't apply". And believe me, current judges are *very* ready to overturn or just ignore precedent that's somewhat old, that happens regularly. The reason this one is relevant is because voters, in the modern time, last week, voted FOR this Rules text, and so it's become current rules text. As I said, I can't speak for other voters' reasoning - no deals were made etc. - but there's all sorts of ways to go wrong in the rules by voting for unwise text, whether than unwise text is drawn from an ancient source or entirely new. Knowing about the old CFJs gives a *minor* advantage, in that when something comes up that's happened before, I can say "hey - here's a ready-to-go argument for the situation I don't need to re-argue first principles". But it still has to persuade the current judge (and any potential appealers) all over again. People do feel a "weight of history" a bit, in the sense of saying that this is a long-running game and it would be a shame to destroy it on a whim of a single judgement, but that applies to entirely new arguments/issues just as much as "old" ones. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] now you don't see it
Having such an unwieldy amount of arcana puts a lot of power in being able to give out 'hedonistic' Judgements; ones that are heavily based on "well this is best for the game"/"this makes it playable"/etc, especially ones that have to be that way because of ambiguity. Because we don't know for sure everything that has even happened until now, and even then, we're likely to have more disagreements the more arcana that we have to consider in order to compute the current gamestate. It's probably not so bad then, because the longer back you go, the harder it is to be sure of it, and the easier it seems that a hedonistic Judgement will just overwrite it. On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 4:47 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/12/23 06:59, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > > - Why would we make a special case just for Invisibilitating > specifically? > > What about other ancient things that may affect how other*current* > things > > of the game work too? > > There might be. There's nothing that prevents us from looking back, nor > any game custom that says not to. In fact it's encouraged. Less of a > look-back, but see also Janet recently noticing various proposal issues > from the last two years. We try to curb these things by having stuff > ratify, but it doesn't catch everything (and blindly ratify everything > has its own drawbacks). > > > - Are we even sure that the secret Invisibilitating instrument still > exists > > or works as intended? > > Probably not. > > > - It takes agency away from newer players and puts more into older ones > > which are more familiar with this obscure ancient arcana which has now > > supposedly been made relevant, which feels terrible. > > It's a game with a continuous 30 year history, the history is going to > impact that game and having more experience and knowledge about a thing > will give you advantage on the thing. There wasn't some explicit goal of > hurting new players. G. rediscovered some old arcana (which anyone could > do if they wanted to look through old archives, it's how I know anything > from before my time), and wanted to toy around with it. To my knowledge > it's not deeper than that. > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald > >
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] now you don't see it
On 5/12/23 06:59, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: - Why would we make a special case just for Invisibilitating specifically? What about other ancient things that may affect how other*current* things of the game work too? There might be. There's nothing that prevents us from looking back, nor any game custom that says not to. In fact it's encouraged. Less of a look-back, but see also Janet recently noticing various proposal issues from the last two years. We try to curb these things by having stuff ratify, but it doesn't catch everything (and blindly ratify everything has its own drawbacks). - Are we even sure that the secret Invisibilitating instrument still exists or works as intended? Probably not. - It takes agency away from newer players and puts more into older ones which are more familiar with this obscure ancient arcana which has now supposedly been made relevant, which feels terrible. It's a game with a continuous 30 year history, the history is going to impact that game and having more experience and knowledge about a thing will give you advantage on the thing. There wasn't some explicit goal of hurting new players. G. rediscovered some old arcana (which anyone could do if they wanted to look through old archives, it's how I know anything from before my time), and wanted to toy around with it. To my knowledge it's not deeper than that. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] now you don't see it
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 5:00 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > > - It takes agency away from newer players and puts more into older ones > which are more familiar with this obscure ancient arcana which has now > supposedly been made relevant, which feels terrible. > Just on this note, I wanted to say that this was all me, not an "old person conspiracy", so I apologize it felt that way - I didn't reveal the text outside putting the reference in the proposal and referring to it indirectly, and was intending to reveal it right after the voting regardless, so people (old and new) were drawing their own conclusions during the voting. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Expedited Proposals
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 1:31 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/12/23 01:37, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > > And about "voting strength games", any player could reactivate voting > > strength on the proposal if they would vote against it. Voting strength > > only matters when there's disagreement anyways, and if there is any, > it'll > > get turned back to ordinary by whichever side wants the voting strength > to > > be in effect. Or by any player who agrees with the "SHOULD". If everyone > > agrees to gamify it, then why not? There's really not more danger than a > > normal proposal, anyways, since this is just streamlining the process to > > what it can already be at a minimum. Even if you can come up with an > > example of how the expedited proposal could be abused, you could also > > probably just spot it and turn it ordinary. > > > This just becomes a timing race for setting the class immediately before > the voting period ends. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > Once it's turned ordinary during the voting period, it can't be turned back. "Each player CAN, with 2 support, flip an ordinary proposal's class to expedited, **provided it is in the Proposal Pool** and e has not done so yet this week." -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Expedited Proposals
On 5/12/23 01:37, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > And about "voting strength games", any player could reactivate voting > strength on the proposal if they would vote against it. Voting strength > only matters when there's disagreement anyways, and if there is any, it'll > get turned back to ordinary by whichever side wants the voting strength to > be in effect. Or by any player who agrees with the "SHOULD". If everyone > agrees to gamify it, then why not? There's really not more danger than a > normal proposal, anyways, since this is just streamlining the process to > what it can already be at a minimum. Even if you can come up with an > example of how the expedited proposal could be abused, you could also > probably just spot it and turn it ordinary. This just becomes a timing race for setting the class immediately before the voting period ends. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Expedited Proposals
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 12:08 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/12/23 01:02, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > Each player CAN, with 2 support, flip an ordinary proposal's class > to > > expedited, provided it is in the Proposal Pool and e has not done so yet > > this week. Each player CAN, by announcement, flip an expedited proposal's > > class to ordinary, but SHOULD only do so if the proposal is not a bugfix, > > emergency, or time-sensitive issue, or if e sees an issue with the > proposal. > > > What's to stop two groups from just fighting over whether something is a > bugfix? > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > If there's any disagreement, it would be useless to attempt an expedited proposal, since it could be made ordinary by announcement. Any fight would just return to the normal proposal system, though distributed early as it received 2 support. And about "voting strength games", any player could reactivate voting strength on the proposal if they would vote against it. Voting strength only matters when there's disagreement anyways, and if there is any, it'll get turned back to ordinary by whichever side wants the voting strength to be in effect. Or by any player who agrees with the "SHOULD". If everyone agrees to gamify it, then why not? There's really not more danger than a normal proposal, anyways, since this is just streamlining the process to what it can already be at a minimum. Even if you can come up with an example of how the expedited proposal could be abused, you could also probably just spot it and turn it ordinary. -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Expedited Proposals
On 5/12/23 01:02, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > Proposals created since the enactment of this rule have a secured > untracked Class switch with possible values ordinary (the default), > expedited, and democratic. Also, this opens up new voting strength games, since expedited proposals wouldn't have most voting strength modifications applied. A mere SHOULD might not be enough to stop that. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Expedited Proposals
On 5/12/23 01:02, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > Each player CAN, with 2 support, flip an ordinary proposal's class to > expedited, provided it is in the Proposal Pool and e has not done so yet > this week. Each player CAN, by announcement, flip an expedited proposal's > class to ordinary, but SHOULD only do so if the proposal is not a bugfix, > emergency, or time-sensitive issue, or if e sees an issue with the proposal. What's to stop two groups from just fighting over whether something is a bugfix? -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Plan B
On 5/8/23 03:39, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > - It's very easy to find trades that are net beneficial for the traders. > Most people seem to agree that trading Stamps 1-for-1 is generally > reasonable and a good trade. Just have the same person do that enough times > with different people and they'll end up winning fairly unimpeded. > - The economy, in ideal conditions, produces enough 'raw materials' for two > people to win /every week/ (everyone sets their Dream to Wealth and then > two people are given one of each Stamp and use it to win with the 'pay many > different Stamps as active players' wincon). We're a good distance away > from those conditions, but we might need to throttle how much 'win raw > materials' is being pumped into us per week. The massive stockpiles of > Stamps are an issue too. > - Apathy. A lot of people didn't seem to be as engaged as I am with Stamps, > so I just didn't have to worry about certain things. First point and last point are the same reason. In a more competitive economy people do not trade 1-to-1. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Plan B
On Mon, 2023-05-08 at 13:55 +0100, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > my current thoughts are along the lines of "add Radiance for > participation actions like proposing / officiating / judging / even > voting And to clarify: by this I mean voting *at all*, not specifically for contrary votes (which are clearly trouble). -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Plan B
On Mon, 2023-05-08 at 01:24 -0400, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > Given a new player winning within a month and a half by stamps by > simply trading, something needs to change I disagree with this part of your statement – I don't think that there's anything inherently wrong with a new player being able to win within a month and a half by trading: * The fact that Yachay is new gave em something valuable to trade, Yachay stamps. The stamps system is inherently designed so that players who haven't previously engaged with it have an advantage, so we should expect new players to be able to take advantage of that. This sort of win can't easily be repeated by Yachay in the future: in order to pull it off, e's created a situation in which a) almost everyone who's economically active owns a Yachay stamp and thus b) not only are they hard to trade, they're also hard to create (with Dream of Wealth losing much of its power). Along similar lines, most established players would have difficulty doing the same thing, so it isn't like this is an overly easy route to victory. * Agora is probably making its victory conditions too hard nowadays: one and a half months historically seems to have been about right for a victory, for someone who's trying hard to get it. My first win of Agora was likewise around a month and a half after registering (April 28 2008 to June 17 2008). Likewise with Alexis (March 7 2009 to April 27 2009). Bucky has won Agora four times despite never being a player at all. I was once able to keep up the pace of winning every 1½ months for an entire year (a sequence of 8 wins starting after Agora's Birthday 2008 and with the last on Agora's Birthday 2009). * Yachay's victory was beneficial for several players, such as me: I'm a long way behind, e.g., Murphy or snail in the Radiance race. A Radiance reset has effectively no negative impact on me, and yet it makes it harder for players to challenge attempts by me to Radiance win in the future. With wins by new players, it's often the case that more established players could stop the win, but choose not to (e.g. I could have stopped this win by reacting to the timing scam and winning first – I realised what was going on at the time – and I noticed the scam that Alexis used for eir first win at the time but likewise chose to stay silent). * In addition to devaluing eir stamps, Yachay also had to sacrifice in other parts of the game to make the win work: in particular, e was locked out of most of the Dreams due to eir need to print stamps. This means that aiming for this win gave em less influence in other parts of the game, such as the proposals system. This would be a more relevant drawback if more of the Dreams did something useful, but in general it does make sense that there's a tradeoff here. All in all, I don't think there's a bug related to this in particular to be fixed. Repealing almost all the ways to gain Radiance does need fixing, of course; but I don't think that repealing the others is a good way to do it. After thinking things over during the revision process for my thesis, my current thoughts are along the lines of "add Radiance for participation actions like proposing / officiating / judging / even voting, remove the reset on Radiance wins, and increase the amount of Radiance that's required to win in order to reduce the rate of wins obtainable purely by grinding"; when I find time to finish off my thesis I'll try to formulate the argument for that more clearly. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Plan B
I believe that a few things contributed to me winning:
- It's very easy to find trades that are net beneficial for the traders.
Most people seem to agree that trading Stamps 1-for-1 is generally
reasonable and a good trade. Just have the same person do that enough times
with different people and they'll end up winning fairly unimpeded.
- The economy, in ideal conditions, produces enough 'raw materials' for two
people to win /every week/ (everyone sets their Dream to Wealth and then
two people are given one of each Stamp and use it to win with the 'pay many
different Stamps as active players' wincon). We're a good distance away
from those conditions, but we might need to throttle how much 'win raw
materials' is being pumped into us per week. The massive stockpiles of
Stamps are an issue too.
- Apathy. A lot of people didn't seem to be as engaged as I am with Stamps,
so I just didn't have to worry about certain things.
On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 7:25 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Plan B
>
> Adoption index: 1.0
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coauthors:
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2657 by, as a single amendment, removing the list items and
> bullet points for the list items starting with each of the following:
> "Charity", "Sharing, "Wealth".
>
> Repeal Rule 2499 ("Welcome Packages").
>
> Repeal Rule 2659 ("Stamps").
>
> Repeal Rule 2680 ("Ritual Paper Dance").
>
> Repeal Rule 2656 ("Radiance").
>
>
> [Given a new player winning within a month and a half by stamps by
> simply trading, something needs to change, and with no other radiance
> conditions existing, something needs to change. It doesn't need to be
> this, and I don't necessarily *want* it to be this, but the status quo
> is clearly not working.]
>
> }
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Plan B
On Sun, May 7, 2023 at 10:25 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Plan B
>
> Adoption index: 1.0
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coauthors:
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2657 by, as a single amendment, removing the list items and
> bullet points for the list items starting with each of the following:
> "Charity", "Sharing, "Wealth".
>
> Repeal Rule 2499 ("Welcome Packages").
>
> Repeal Rule 2659 ("Stamps").
>
> Repeal Rule 2680 ("Ritual Paper Dance").
>
> Repeal Rule 2656 ("Radiance").
>
>
> [Given a new player winning within a month and a half by stamps by
> simply trading, something needs to change, and with no other radiance
> conditions existing, something needs to change. It doesn't need to be
> this, and I don't necessarily *want* it to be this, but the status quo
> is clearly not working.]
>
> }
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>
Oh but Juan and I haven't won yet :(
--
4st
Referee
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
nix wrote: On 5/1/23 15:05, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: When you do a job manually for a while, you start to use shortcuts, get faster, streamline, then maybe join a couple of steps using a bit of code… there’s really no sharp line between “automation” and plain old “experience” - the two naturally go hand in hand. Yea, that's why I was thinking "doable". I did Stamps with a script, but I think snail is doing it by hand. It doesn't need a script, but it's nice to simplify. A good spot IMO would be for a weekly report to take *at most* 60-90m for a busy week to do by hand, and automation might bring it down to 15-30. If something takes longer than that to do by hand, it basically requires automation for anyone to do it regularly. I think I could do the bare minimum of an ADoP report within 60-90m per week by hand. Automation mainly adds some nice-to-haves that aren't required by the rules (report content, as well as making it vastly simpler to compile recap data for periodic awards).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] 8639 rerun [CFJ]
On 5/7/23 16:46, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: I agree, it's not surplusage. A finding that "amend" can include changes other than those explicitly described in Rule 105 would render it surplus. I guess this is the last time I try to write compromise text, if it's going to be used to twist my meaning. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Registrar Tracks Birthdays
nix via agora-business [2023-04-29 19:59]: > Title: Registrar Tracks Birthdays Oh no, work! -- juan
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 10:28 AM nix via agora-business wrote: > If an officer specified a Delegate when taking a Vacation, and the > Delegate has publicly consented, then the Delegate can act as if e > is the holder of the Office while the officer is On Vacation. I'm still against this happening with nothing but consent between two parties. I like Juan's idea of making this like the judicial list or the thesis committee lists, maybe just governed by SHOULDs and "relatively fair/equal chances". I think this could help us with both ends of the issue - it would ensure no one person got the best assignments, but there would also some expectation that if you volunteer to be on the delegate list, sometimes you should accept being assigned something that no one really wants to do. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] 8639 rerun [CFJ]
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:17 AM Aspen via agora-business wrote: > > On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:01 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > On 5/2/23 01:01, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:38 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < > > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > >> [Proposal 8639 > > >> failed to make this change because it used "amend" for a power change. > > > > > > If everyone involved including you knew what it meant at the time so as to > > > miss the “error” entirely, how could it possibly have been unclear, even > > > by > > > r105 standards? > > > I maintain that “amend a rule’s power” is a clear synonym for “change a > > > rules power” and is obviously not amending a rule’s text. > > > > > > Well, past me is an idiot and I disavow everything they've said. > > > > I've been consistent (or tried to be) in saying that "amend a rule's > > title" doesn't work, and AFAIK there have been no legal challenges to > > that (and it was suggested in Discord to legislate a different rule > > rather than that my reading is wrong). > > > > My reading is that R105 makes "amend" in the context of a rule mean only > > and exactly changing the text of the rule, and any other usage is > > inherently ambiguous. > > > > -- > > Janet Cobb > > > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > > > I CFJ 'Rule 879, "Quorum", has power 3.0.' I bar Janet. (I'd bar G. > too if I could - neither of them is biased, but I'm hoping for a third > opinion here.) Context can be found in the thread above. While you didn't file with the referee (won't be offended if you decide to withdraw and go with referee), I'll be sure to choose a judge that's not me (and without known-to-me biases on this). In fact, ITT this is a particularly good for a "newer" judge, as long standing "we've always read it that way" quibbles that resolve around exact text interpretation can benefit from a fresh reading by people not solidified in the game culture of the issue. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] 8639 rerun
On 5/2/23 01:01, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:38 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> [Proposal 8639 >> failed to make this change because it used "amend" for a power change. > > If everyone involved including you knew what it meant at the time so as to > miss the “error” entirely, how could it possibly have been unclear, even by > r105 standards? > I maintain that “amend a rule’s power” is a clear synonym for “change a > rules power” and is obviously not amending a rule’s text. Well, past me is an idiot and I disavow everything they've said. I've been consistent (or tried to be) in saying that "amend a rule's title" doesn't work, and AFAIK there have been no legal challenges to that (and it was suggested in Discord to legislate a different rule rather than that my reading is wrong). My reading is that R105 makes "amend" in the context of a rule mean only and exactly changing the text of the rule, and any other usage is inherently ambiguous. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion [2023-05-01 11:46]: > Maybe making the delegation subject to a public volunteer process - so it’s > treated differently if more than one person want the job, so the > hand-picking potential is more limited? I suggest we treat this the same way as the list of judges and peer-reviewers (perhaps more of the latter). Which means: some discretion on behalf of the ADoP (obvious officer choice), but using some ad-hoc publicly known method to distribute delegations. So, in this case, every player would have ample time before-hand to express which offices they'd be interested in experimenting, and we can collectively ensure a fair selection. Plus: this also would gauge the potential for officer change. -- juan
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] 8639 rerun
On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:38 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > [Proposal 8639 > failed to make this change because it used "amend" for a power change. If everyone involved including you knew what it meant at the time so as to miss the “error” entirely, how could it possibly have been unclear, even by r105 standards? I maintain that “amend a rule’s power” is a clear synonym for “change a rules power” and is obviously not amending a rule’s text.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 14:46, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > While I was supportive of the delegation idea on discord, I’m coming around > to Yachay’s position. I’ve “taken breaks” from arbitor regularly - snail > and Jason both did the job for a bit last year - but when it was > technically resigning without the expectation of getting the job back I > think it felt a bit healthier for the game than this would. That said, > there’s a difference between jobs that will find temporary takers and ones > almost no one will take on for a short time (rulekeepor is like that, or at > least has been historically) > > Maybe making the delegation subject to a public volunteer process - so it’s > treated differently if more than one person want the job, so the > hand-picking potential is more limited? I think it would be actively bad to promote high turnover for Rulekeepor in particular (and, if CotC was official, it as well). Doing it requires knowing a lot of specifics, it's error-prone (god I made so many errors starting off), and having consistent records is very important (the current data format dates back to Alexis, even if the program itself has been rewritten several times). -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 15:05, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > When you do a job manually for a while, you start to use shortcuts, get > faster, streamline, then maybe join a couple of steps using a bit of code… > there’s really no sharp line between “automation” and plain old > “experience” - the two naturally go hand in hand. Yea, that's why I was thinking "doable". I did Stamps with a script, but I think snail is doing it by hand. It doesn't need a script, but it's nice to simplify. A good spot IMO would be for a weekly report to take *at most* 60-90m for a busy week to do by hand, and automation might bring it down to 15-30. If something takes longer than that to do by hand, it basically requires automation for anyone to do it regularly. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 12:37 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/1/23 14:36, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > Ideally, I think, everything is doable with automation. In practice tho, > > I'm not sure what that looks like. > > Crucial typo. I think ideally everything is doable *without* automation. When you do a job manually for a while, you start to use shortcuts, get faster, streamline, then maybe join a couple of steps using a bit of code… there’s really no sharp line between “automation” and plain old “experience” - the two naturally go hand in hand.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 14:49, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > I was actually about to post the same thing about #2 in an election getting > the bench lol. It seems like the most effort-economic way to do it. > > And yeah, I think it could work as per-office. I'd prefer just trusting the officer's discretion here. Reducing ceremony for this is good, and a person willing to have done it in the election might not be willing to do it now. Most officers probably would just say "anyone want it?" as nix suggested. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 14:18, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > The other part of this is: Janet is Rulekeepor purely because no one has > bothered to try to take the position properly. The Elections are meant to > encourage shakeups, but without sufficient platforms for change, then we > shalln't have the change, since Agora does not like change, despite being > open to it. :) That's why I originally took it and didn't drop it immediately, but it's not why I'm still doing it now. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 13:28, nix via agora-business wrote: > An officer is On Vacation from a specified office if e has taken a > Vacation from that office in the last 30 days. The ADoP SHALL > include which officers are On Vacation in weekly report. Could just say that the set of officers on vacation is part of eir weekly report? This should work though. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
Hrm, now that you mention it I think that would be better, yeah. On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 9:38 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/1/23 14:36, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > Ideally, I think, everything is doable with automation. In practice tho, > > I'm not sure what that looks like. > > Crucial typo. I think ideally everything is doable *without* automation. > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 14:36, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > Ideally, I think, everything is doable with automation. In practice tho, > I'm not sure what that looks like. Crucial typo. I think ideally everything is doable *without* automation. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
