DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Player VLDP EVLOP VVLOP VCs (* = Gray) root 1 6 1111* 1B You haven't applied the end-of-week change that copies VVLOP to EVLOP. Thanks, fixed it in the draft copy.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Player (* = inactive)VLDP EVLOP VVLOP VCs eekeeP is not listed. I expect CFJ 1724 to be judged FALSE. [When ties for determining Party were broken by alphabetical order, Quazie's Party was Blue. Now that they are broken by order of VC gain, eir Party is indeterminate.] No such change has occurred, it's only been proposed. Fixed in next draft. This problem seems like a good reason to not make such a change. Can be solved by retaining alphabetical order as a secondary tiebreaker to cover such cases. (Can't assign them to the Gray Party, as it would break the "lose a VC of a color you don't have -> lose a VC of your Party's color instead" clause.)
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
Zefram wrote: Player (* = inactive)VLDP EVLOP VVLOP VCs -- *Manu 1 4 41W Pavitra1 5 5 *Quazie1 4 4 1R 1B Manu and Quazie were deregistered. Pavitra is inactive. The 10/20 report listed the deregistrations, but not the inactivity (that'll be in the next draft).
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
On 10/28/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ed Murphy wrote: > >Assessor's Voting Limits and Credits Report > > There should be some violet VCs floating around due to patent title > awards. And, presuming that that win on points actually occurred, a > violet VC loss for whoever lost the PT of Minister Without Portfolio. > (Having MWP as a PT was bad design, I reckon.) Correlating VCs with patent titles was the bad design, in my opinion. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Assessor's Voting Limits and Credits Report There should be some violet VCs floating around due to patent title awards. And, presuming that that win on points actually occurred, a violet VC loss for whoever lost the PT of Minister Without Portfolio. I'll work out the details later and fix this for the next report. (Having MWP as a PT was bad design, I reckon.) Why?
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
Zefram wrote: > PTs were designed, and work best, as mostly-permanent titles of > distinction that have very little influence on the game. They've never > been satisfactory for tracking frequently-changed state. Umm, except for the wholly effective and relatively bug-free ephemera, a fairly smooth system of Patent Titles that served very well as a "currency" in the interim between the Great Economy and cards. Worked better and more simply than either its predecessor or successor. (I distrust statements like "never" and "but it was designed for X, it can't possibly be adapted for Y!") -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
Zefram wrote: > I wasn't around then. I'll take your word that it worked. Did the > possession of ephemera affect game actions day to day, or were they > collected up and only occasionally used to influence other game state? Semi-volatile. During a quarter, you accumulated Boons for doing Good Things and Albatrosses for doing Bad Things. These Patent Titles were colorfully named (e.g. Boon of Wisdom for judging) but otherwise not too different then current colors. Except you didn't spend them immediately (hence semi-volatile). At the end of each quarter, you got action points for the next quarter based on you net good-bad titles from the previous quarter, and all titles were revoked. Action points were then spent in the quarter to actually Do Things (increase voting power, etc.) It was *relatively* bug-free (this being Agora, not completely bug-free). We implemented it this way because we wanted something simple based on known mechanics (Patent Titles) after the Great Economy collapsed under its own byzantine weight. I think we only scrapped it because we wanted to go byzantine again with cards (which were fun, but *those* were ultimately impossible in the email medium). -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Sat 3 Nov 17:35:00 pikhq -1B Proposal 5269 rejected (no R to lose) As previously noted, proposal 5269 was not submitted by pikhq. It was in fact never submitted at all, but was a corruption of a proposal that pikhq submitted (and later withdrew). Proposal 5269 would have substantially different effect, if adopted, from pikhq's actual proposal. Per CFJs 1655 and 1688, pikhq is not the author of proposal 5269, and should not be penalised for its failure. Does this mean that you are the author of Proposal 5269?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
On 8/21/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I expect CFJ 1724 to be judged FALSE. You do? Perhaps you should have put in some arguments. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
Ed Murphy wrote: >>(Having MWP as a PT was bad design, I reckon.) > >Why? PTs were designed, and work best, as mostly-permanent titles of distinction that have very little influence on the game. They've never been satisfactory for tracking frequently-changed state. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
Kerim Aydin wrote: >Umm, except for the wholly effective and relatively bug-free ephemera, I wasn't around then. I'll take your word that it worked. Did the possession of ephemera affect game actions day to day, or were they collected up and only occasionally used to influence other game state? >(I distrust statements like "never" and "but it was designed for X, >it can't possibly be adapted for Y!") I'm not saying that PTs can't possibly be adapted to serve the role of offices and the like. I'm saying they're not presently suitable for it, and to make them suitable would involve some reworking. In this case I think we're better off using a separate mechanism. I don't think being a PT helps us at all to keep track of the MWPs. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: (Having MWP as a PT was bad design, I reckon.) Why? PTs were designed, and work best, as mostly-permanent titles of distinction that have very little influence on the game. They've never been satisfactory for tracking frequently-changed state. Apart from Goethe's refutation of "patent titles are bad for things that change frequently", MWP changes only slightly more frequently than any other rule-defined patent title (there's a gain and a loss for every gain of the Champion PT). What would you consider good design for MWP (apart from "repeal the durn thing")? Proto-Proposal: More prerogatives Amend Rule 2019 (Prerogatives) by appending this text: e) Wielder of Extra Votes. The Wielder of Extra Votes at the start of an ordinary proposal's voting period has a voting limit on that proposal of 1.4 times what it would be otherwise, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. f) Diplomatic Immunity. A sentence of APOLOGY in a criminal case is inappropriate if the defendant had Diplomatic Immunity at the time of the alleged act, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
On 10/29/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > e) Wielder of Extra Votes. The Wielder of Extra Votes at > the start of an ordinary proposal's voting period has a > voting limit on that proposal of 1.4 times what it would > be otherwise, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. When did proposal voting limits cease to be secure? -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
root wrote: On 10/29/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: e) Wielder of Extra Votes. The Wielder of Extra Votes at the start of an ordinary proposal's voting period has a voting limit on that proposal of 1.4 times what it would be otherwise, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. When did proposal voting limits cease to be secure? Voting limits on ordinary proposals are defined by Rule 2156 (Power 2). The issue here is not with Rule 2019 (which also has Power 2, so could effectively claim precedence over Rule 2156), but with the proto (which, if proposed, would need to request AI >= 2 to be effective).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
Ed Murphy wrote: >Apart from Goethe's refutation of "patent titles are bad for things >that change frequently", Goethe's situation was for patent titles that only rarely have any effect on other game state. MWP identity has direct effect all the time. >What would you consider good design for MWP (apart from "repeal the >durn thing")? I think it would work better as a pure definition: The Ministers Without Portfolio are the four persons who have most recently won the game, with ties broken in favour of those whose most recent registration was earliest. (I like functional programming.) Someone should probably report who the MWPs are, most likely the registrar or the herald, but there's no extra game state involved. When recalculating historical game state, the MWPs don't need to be tracked unless MWP identity directly affects what's being recalculated. >Proto-Proposal: More prerogatives I'd rather not have any more prerogatives. >e) Wielder of Extra Votes. The Wielder of Extra Votes at > the start of an ordinary proposal's voting period has a > voting limit on that proposal of 1.4 times what it would > be otherwise, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. Voting limits should be integers. Otherwise I see no fault in your drafting of these prerogatives. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
Zefram wrote: The Ministers Without Portfolio are the four persons who have most recently won the game, with ties broken in favour of those whose most recent registration was earliest. This would hard-code the number of MWPs. "N persons (where N is the number of prerogatives defined by the rules)" would be elegant, but how far back do we have historical records to support this? Proto-Proposal: More prerogatives I'd rather not have any more prerogatives. You'd rather not have /any/ prerogatives, and so in this respect you're not part of my target audience. e) Wielder of Extra Votes. The Wielder of Extra Votes at the start of an ordinary proposal's voting period has a voting limit on that proposal of 1.4 times what it would be otherwise, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. Voting limits should be integers. Otherwise I see no fault in your drafting of these prerogatives. "1.4 times what it would be otherwise, rounded to an integer, breaking ties toward odd integers". (This is the same method used when rolling VVLOP into EVLOP at the end of the week.) http://wiki.cepheid.org/index.php/14
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
Ed Murphy wrote: >Does this mean that you are the author of Proposal 5269? I believe no one is. That's what I have recorded for it, and for the precedent proposal 4963. -zefram
