DIS: Re: BUS: Voting is confusing (@Arbitor)

[Mischief via agora-discussion]

On 9/8/24 6:08 PM, Paul McDowell via agora-business wrote:

I CFJ on the statement "I owe Janet and Mischief one spendie each."
I bar Janet from this CFJ due to eir obvious conflict of interest (I would
bar Mischief as well, but I can only bar one person...)


Something worth pointing out to the eventual judge... notions like "does 
this ballot help candidate X win" aren't reliable here, since IRV fails 
the participation criterion (e.g., 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participation_criterion#Ranked-Choice_Voting 
).


--
Mischief
Collector
Hat: steampunk hat
Vitality: ghostly
Bang holdings: 0

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting CFJs

[ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk]

On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 10:13 -0500, Jacob Arduino wrote:
> Indeed I retract

You need to post the retraction to a public forum (typically agora-
business). Actions in agora-discussion don't work.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting CFJs

[Jacob Arduino]

Indeed I retract

On Nov 27, 2018 09:48, "Kerim Aydin"  wrote:



You may wish to retract these CFJs: if everyone agrees you were right
(well-spotted, btw) and Gaelan has changed eir votes so the issue is
moot, no need to litigate.


On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote:
> CFJ: Gaelan's second ballot on Proposal 8136 is invalid.
> Supporting statement: Rule 683/25 requires that "6. The voter has no other
> valid ballots on the same decision." This condition is not met, since
> Gaelan already submitted a ballot for Proposal 8136.
>
> CFJ: Gaelan's ballot on Proposal 8138 is invalid.
> Supporting statement: Rule 683/25 requires that "4. The ballot clearly
> identifies a *valid* vote, as determined by the voting method" (emphasis
> mine). However, Gaelan has endorsed "two" on Proposal 8138, and there was
> no player named "two" at the beginning of the voting period.
>
> By Rule 991/29, I bar Gaelan from judging both/either of these CFJs, for
> obvious reasons.
>
> - Jacob Arduino
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting CFJs

[Kerim Aydin]

You may wish to retract these CFJs: if everyone agrees you were right
(well-spotted, btw) and Gaelan has changed eir votes so the issue is
moot, no need to litigate.

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote:
> CFJ: Gaelan's second ballot on Proposal 8136 is invalid.
> Supporting statement: Rule 683/25 requires that "6. The voter has no other
> valid ballots on the same decision." This condition is not met, since
> Gaelan already submitted a ballot for Proposal 8136.
> 
> CFJ: Gaelan's ballot on Proposal 8138 is invalid.
> Supporting statement: Rule 683/25 requires that "4. The ballot clearly
> identifies a *valid* vote, as determined by the voting method" (emphasis
> mine). However, Gaelan has endorsed "two" on Proposal 8138, and there was
> no player named "two" at the beginning of the voting period.
> 
> By Rule 991/29, I bar Gaelan from judging both/either of these CFJs, for
> obvious reasons.
> 
> - Jacob Arduino
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting CFJs

[Kerim Aydin]

No, it's standard to fail second ballots when people forget to retract
their first one.  That's why the last sentence of R683 defines "changing"
a vote, so voters can use that term as a shorthand - but you still have
to use it explicitly.

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote:
> My second CFJ states re: 8138, not 8136. These might be too nitpicky, but
> I'd rather deal with it now than see you disenfranchised for something
> silly.
> 
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:26 AM Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> 
> > Bah, do we need to explicitly retract votes? For clarity: I retract any
> > previous votes on 8136, then I ENDORSE whoever would otherwise be the last
> > person to vote FOR on 8136.
> >
> > And not sure what you mean by endorsing “two”—my record of the original
> > message I sent contains “ENDORSE V.J. Rada”.
> >
> > Gaelan
> >
> > > On Nov 26, 2018, at 8:34 PM, Jacob Arduino 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > CFJ: Gaelan's second ballot on Proposal 8136 is invalid.
> > > Supporting statement: Rule 683/25 requires that "6. The voter has no
> > other
> > > valid ballots on the same decision." This condition is not met, since
> > > Gaelan already submitted a ballot for Proposal 8136.
> > >
> > > CFJ: Gaelan's ballot on Proposal 8138 is invalid.
> > > Supporting statement: Rule 683/25 requires that "4. The ballot clearly
> > > identifies a *valid* vote, as determined by the voting method" (emphasis
> > > mine). However, Gaelan has endorsed "two" on Proposal 8138, and there was
> > > no player named "two" at the beginning of the voting period.
> > >
> > > By Rule 991/29, I bar Gaelan from judging both/either of these CFJs, for
> > > obvious reasons.
> > >
> > > - Jacob Arduino
> >
> >
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting CFJs

[Jacob Arduino]

My second CFJ states re: 8138, not 8136. These might be too nitpicky, but
I'd rather deal with it now than see you disenfranchised for something
silly.

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:26 AM Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> Bah, do we need to explicitly retract votes? For clarity: I retract any
> previous votes on 8136, then I ENDORSE whoever would otherwise be the last
> person to vote FOR on 8136.
>
> And not sure what you mean by endorsing “two”—my record of the original
> message I sent contains “ENDORSE V.J. Rada”.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Nov 26, 2018, at 8:34 PM, Jacob Arduino 
> wrote:
> >
> > CFJ: Gaelan's second ballot on Proposal 8136 is invalid.
> > Supporting statement: Rule 683/25 requires that "6. The voter has no
> other
> > valid ballots on the same decision." This condition is not met, since
> > Gaelan already submitted a ballot for Proposal 8136.
> >
> > CFJ: Gaelan's ballot on Proposal 8138 is invalid.
> > Supporting statement: Rule 683/25 requires that "4. The ballot clearly
> > identifies a *valid* vote, as determined by the voting method" (emphasis
> > mine). However, Gaelan has endorsed "two" on Proposal 8138, and there was
> > no player named "two" at the beginning of the voting period.
> >
> > By Rule 991/29, I bar Gaelan from judging both/either of these CFJs, for
> > obvious reasons.
> >
> > - Jacob Arduino
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:


Per Rule 879, failing to state quorum is illegal but does not invalidate
the decision.


Although failing to state quorum is not quite the same thing as stating it 
incorrectly, so I'm not sure Rule 879 actually _says_ that it's not 
invalidated. However, I didn't find anything that says it _is_ invalidated 
either.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

[ATMunn]

I thought it was something like that. It seems I did vote for it.

On 4/29/2018 5:06 PM, Ned Strange wrote:

If you voted for G's recent proposal you are eligible

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:45 AM, ATMunn  wrote:

I know, I was referring to what the proposal/scam was.


On 4/29/2018 2:33 PM, Corona wrote:


Nothing in particular is specified in the rule, in practice it's for
scamming/passing a proposal to that effect.

~Corona

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 8:17 PM, ATMunn  wrote:


Alright. Am I eligible for one of those by the way? I forget what thing
let people get them.

On 4/29/2018 12:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:




I vote ATMunn for Tailor.

ATMunn - you can deputize for the job.  I'm about 99% sure that the only
ribbons since the Feb report were this week's black ones.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote:


I vote for myself, obviously.

[also I guess I better get working on that Python script I talked
about...]

On 4/29/2018 3:08 AM, Edward Murphy wrote:


Per Rule 2154, I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of
the
Tailor election. The vote collector is the ADoP, the valid options are
ATMunn and Corona and anyone else who becomes a candidate, and the
voting method is instant runoff.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

[Ned Strange]

If you voted for G's recent proposal you are eligible

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:45 AM, ATMunn  wrote:
> I know, I was referring to what the proposal/scam was.
>
>
> On 4/29/2018 2:33 PM, Corona wrote:
>>
>> Nothing in particular is specified in the rule, in practice it's for
>> scamming/passing a proposal to that effect.
>>
>> ~Corona
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 8:17 PM, ATMunn  wrote:
>>
>>> Alright. Am I eligible for one of those by the way? I forget what thing
>>> let people get them.
>>>
>>> On 4/29/2018 12:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>>


 I vote ATMunn for Tailor.

 ATMunn - you can deputize for the job.  I'm about 99% sure that the only
 ribbons since the Feb report were this week's black ones.

 On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote:

> I vote for myself, obviously.
>
> [also I guess I better get working on that Python script I talked
> about...]
>
> On 4/29/2018 3:08 AM, Edward Murphy wrote:
>
>> Per Rule 2154, I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of
>> the
>> Tailor election. The vote collector is the ADoP, the valid options are
>> ATMunn and Corona and anyone else who becomes a candidate, and the
>> voting method is instant runoff.
>>
>>
>

>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

[ATMunn]

I know, I was referring to what the proposal/scam was.

On 4/29/2018 2:33 PM, Corona wrote:

​Nothing in particular is​ specified in the rule, in practice it's for
scamming/passing a proposal to that effect.

~Corona

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 8:17 PM, ATMunn  wrote:


Alright. Am I eligible for one of those by the way? I forget what thing
let people get them.

On 4/29/2018 12:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:




I vote ATMunn for Tailor.

ATMunn - you can deputize for the job.  I'm about 99% sure that the only
ribbons since the Feb report were this week's black ones.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote:


I vote for myself, obviously.

[also I guess I better get working on that Python script I talked
about...]

On 4/29/2018 3:08 AM, Edward Murphy wrote:


Per Rule 2154, I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the
Tailor election. The vote collector is the ADoP, the valid options are
ATMunn and Corona and anyone else who becomes a candidate, and the
voting method is instant runoff.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

[Alex Smith]

On Sun, 2018-04-29 at 20:33 +0200, Corona wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 8:17 PM, ATMunn 
> wrote:
> > Alright. Am I eligible for one of those by the way? I forget what
> > thing let people get them.
>
> Nothing in particular is specified in the rule, in practice it's for
> scamming/passing a proposal to that effect.

Right, it's intended to be gotten either via scam, or via bribing
people to vote for your proposal to give you one.

G. somehow managed both at the same time recently.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

[Corona]

​Nothing in particular is​ specified in the rule, in practice it's for
scamming/passing a proposal to that effect.

~Corona

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 8:17 PM, ATMunn  wrote:

> Alright. Am I eligible for one of those by the way? I forget what thing
> let people get them.
>
> On 4/29/2018 12:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I vote ATMunn for Tailor.
>>
>> ATMunn - you can deputize for the job.  I'm about 99% sure that the only
>> ribbons since the Feb report were this week's black ones.
>>
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote:
>>
>>> I vote for myself, obviously.
>>>
>>> [also I guess I better get working on that Python script I talked
>>> about...]
>>>
>>> On 4/29/2018 3:08 AM, Edward Murphy wrote:
>>>
 Per Rule 2154, I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the
 Tailor election. The vote collector is the ADoP, the valid options are
 ATMunn and Corona and anyone else who becomes a candidate, and the
 voting method is instant runoff.


>>>
>>

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

[ATMunn]

Alright. Am I eligible for one of those by the way? I forget what thing 
let people get them.


On 4/29/2018 12:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:



I vote ATMunn for Tailor.

ATMunn - you can deputize for the job.  I'm about 99% sure that the only
ribbons since the Feb report were this week's black ones.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote:

I vote for myself, obviously.

[also I guess I better get working on that Python script I talked about...]

On 4/29/2018 3:08 AM, Edward Murphy wrote:

Per Rule 2154, I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the
Tailor election. The vote collector is the ADoP, the valid options are
ATMunn and Corona and anyone else who becomes a candidate, and the
voting method is instant runoff.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

[ATMunn]

Yeah I did that when I was ADoP. It's an easy mistake to make.

On 4/29/2018 4:23 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:

Per Rule 879, failing to state quorum is illegal but does not invalidate
the decision.

-Aris

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 1:15 AM Ned Strange 
wrote:


Also you forgot to state the quorum, so this is no Agoran Decision at all.

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:15 PM, Ned Strange 
wrote:

Vote ATMunn

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 5:08 PM, Edward Murphy 

wrote:

Per Rule 2154, I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the
Tailor election. The vote collector is the ADoP, the valid options are
ATMunn and Corona and anyone else who becomes a candidate, and the
voting method is instant runoff.





--
 From V.J. Rada




--
 From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

[Ned Strange]

Sorry! I'm still traumatized by the brief period where I had to
initiate Agoran Decisions.

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> Per Rule 879, failing to state quorum is illegal but does not invalidate
> the decision.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 1:15 AM Ned Strange 
> wrote:
>
>> Also you forgot to state the quorum, so this is no Agoran Decision at all.
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:15 PM, Ned Strange 
>> wrote:
>> > Vote ATMunn
>> >
>> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 5:08 PM, Edward Murphy 
>> wrote:
>> >> Per Rule 2154, I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the
>> >> Tailor election. The vote collector is the ADoP, the valid options are
>> >> ATMunn and Corona and anyone else who becomes a candidate, and the
>> >> voting method is instant runoff.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > From V.J. Rada
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

[Aris Merchant]

Per Rule 879, failing to state quorum is illegal but does not invalidate
the decision.

-Aris

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 1:15 AM Ned Strange 
wrote:

> Also you forgot to state the quorum, so this is no Agoran Decision at all.
>
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:15 PM, Ned Strange 
> wrote:
> > Vote ATMunn
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 5:08 PM, Edward Murphy 
> wrote:
> >> Per Rule 2154, I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the
> >> Tailor election. The vote collector is the ADoP, the valid options are
> >> ATMunn and Corona and anyone else who becomes a candidate, and the
> >> voting method is instant runoff.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > From V.J. Rada
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on a lot of things

[Madeline]

On 2017-10-30 15:16, Aris Merchant wrote:
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 9:13 PM Telnaior > wrote:


I vote:

FOR 7931
FOR 7932 (this is way cooler than a victory election)
FOR 7933
AGAINST 7934 (why are we turning into a literature club I'm awful
at poems)
FOR 7935 (but you might want to make the revision limit switch
secured)
FOR 7936
FOR 7937 (though every other week might be better still)
FOR 7938
AGAINST 7939
FOR 7940
FOR 7941
AGAINST 7942
FOR 7943
FOR 7944
FOR 7945 (this shouldn't be that hard to track, yeah? E's already
tracking who has voted, so seeing who hasn't voted is pretty easy)
FOR 7946
AGAINST 7947

For the Rulekeepor election, I vote [Trigon, Alexis].

For the Surveyor election, I vote FOR o's Campaign Proposal.

For the Agronomist election, I vote [VJ Rada, o]. I vote FOR VJ Rada's
Campaign Proposal, and AGAINST o's Campaign Proposal.

Have I missed anything?


Per Alexis' CoE, none of these decisions actually exist.

-Aris


...welp.

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on a lot of things

[Aris Merchant]

On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 9:13 PM Telnaior  wrote:

> I vote:
>
> FOR 7931
> FOR 7932 (this is way cooler than a victory election)
> FOR 7933
> AGAINST 7934 (why are we turning into a literature club I'm awful at poems)
> FOR 7935 (but you might want to make the revision limit switch secured)
> FOR 7936
> FOR 7937 (though every other week might be better still)
> FOR 7938
> AGAINST 7939
> FOR 7940
> FOR 7941
> AGAINST 7942
> FOR 7943
> FOR 7944
> FOR 7945 (this shouldn't be that hard to track, yeah? E's already
> tracking who has voted, so seeing who hasn't voted is pretty easy)
> FOR 7946
> AGAINST 7947
>
> For the Rulekeepor election, I vote [Trigon, Alexis].
>
> For the Surveyor election, I vote FOR o's Campaign Proposal.
>
> For the Agronomist election, I vote [VJ Rada, o]. I vote FOR VJ Rada's
> Campaign Proposal, and AGAINST o's Campaign Proposal.
>
> Have I missed anything?


Per Alexis' CoE, none of these decisions actually exist.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting in other elections

[VJ Rada]

Sorry, I was much more on top oif it last week than this week. All of
that is noted.

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> Another note:
>
> It used to be that you had to officially "change" your vote (R683), or
> retract first, or later ballots didn't count.  I'm not sure there's a
> precedent that just saying "I vote..." works if you've already cast a
> vote, although in this case maybe the parenthetical gives enough context...?
>
> (this is just "in theory", as already mentioned these votes were late).
>
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> Before I resolve them, I will vote in the elections for Rulekeepor,
>> Surveyor, Referee, Tailor, Superintendent, Promotor and Arbitor. For
>> all of the above except Tailor, I vote for the incumbent. For Tailor I
>> vote Quazie.
>>
>> (Originally I endorsed G in all of these, but e didn't vote)
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting in other elections

[VJ Rada]

You're still the arbitor, obviously.

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 4:51 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> Sorry, I was much more on top oif it last week than this week. All of
> that is noted.
>
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Another note:
>>
>> It used to be that you had to officially "change" your vote (R683), or
>> retract first, or later ballots didn't count.  I'm not sure there's a
>> precedent that just saying "I vote..." works if you've already cast a
>> vote, although in this case maybe the parenthetical gives enough context...?
>>
>> (this is just "in theory", as already mentioned these votes were late).
>>
>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>>> Before I resolve them, I will vote in the elections for Rulekeepor,
>>> Surveyor, Referee, Tailor, Superintendent, Promotor and Arbitor. For
>>> all of the above except Tailor, I vote for the incumbent. For Tailor I
>>> vote Quazie.
>>>
>>> (Originally I endorsed G in all of these, but e didn't vote)
>>>
>>> --
>>> From V.J. Rada
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting in other elections

[Kerim Aydin]

Another note:

It used to be that you had to officially "change" your vote (R683), or 
retract first, or later ballots didn't count.  I'm not sure there's a
precedent that just saying "I vote..." works if you've already cast a
vote, although in this case maybe the parenthetical gives enough context...?

(this is just "in theory", as already mentioned these votes were late).

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Before I resolve them, I will vote in the elections for Rulekeepor,
> Surveyor, Referee, Tailor, Superintendent, Promotor and Arbitor. For
> all of the above except Tailor, I vote for the incumbent. For Tailor I
> vote Quazie.
> 
> (Originally I endorsed G in all of these, but e didn't vote)
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting in other elections

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Before I resolve them, I will vote in the elections for Rulekeepor,
> Surveyor, Referee, Tailor, Superintendent, Promotor and Arbitor. For
> all of the above except Tailor, I vote for the incumbent. For Tailor I
> vote Quazie.
> 
> (Originally I endorsed G in all of these, but e didn't vote)

I voted here:

https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-September/035962.html

-G.

DIS: Re: BUS: voting and status

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2014-10-24 at 12:03 -0500, Chester Mealer wrote:
> I deregister and vote yes on all matters which I am able.
> Chester Mealer
> 
Were you a player /before/ doing that?

If not, this is hilarious.

If yes, this is also hilarious, but for a different reason.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

[Alex Smith]

On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 11:02 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Had to go back and refresh my memory again!
> 
> There was no official thing as concurrent, automatic trades.  I'd 
> say 99% was done on a handshake deal. I personally don't have any 
> memory of anyone breaking a handshake deal on purpose, and if done 
> on accident then the breaker almost always tried to make it right.

It's interesting to compare that with my observations of behaviour more
recently. I've never seen anyone break a handshake deal at any period
where I've been playing personally. On the other hand, there were
several instances where people voluntarily made rules-enforced deals,
then reneged on them.

(Of course, part of the reason for this pattern may be that people would
be more likely to try to rules-enforce a deal if they felt that the
other party was untrustworthy.)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2013, Charles Walker wrote:
> > On 24 Jun 2013, at 18:37, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > > This sort of three-fold action/house concept (Proposals, Voting, and
> > > Justice) with separate currencies was carried over into Cards, but
> > > I think over time, the paid systems have become more about buying
> > > general specific actions without organizing them into categories.
> > 
> > Wow! More complicated than I imagined. Thanks for writing that all out.
> > 
> > There's a nice symmetry between the three things players want to spend 
> > money on (proposal submission, expunging blots/rests, voting) and the three 
> > things we want to reward them for (proposal adoption, judging, 
> > recordkeeping). I dunno if there's something in that.
> > 
> > If I may ask another question, what facilitated all the trading? Contracts, 
> > or an auction/ trade offer system?
> 
> Had to go back and refresh my memory again!
> 
> There was no official thing as concurrent, automatic trades.

While I'm on it (blah blah blah), I'll add that the currencies at the 
time were ruthlessly pragmatic, on purpose.  Currency was never created 
nor transferred automatically or triggered by event.  Automatic events 
could create *debts*, but some person would always have to explicitly
transfer currency to cover those debts.

Also, pay a fee (transfer currency to the bank) to perform an action, but 
the action doesn't work?  Too bad, you still transferred the currency 
(though you could re-claim the currency and the bank officer would have 
to give it back).  Conditional transfers?  Nope, didn't work - not 
sufficiently and clearly specified.  "I transfer all my currency to X" 
didn't work, either, because "all" wasn't sufficiently specific as to an 
amount.

tl;dr we've gotten slack.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013, Charles Walker wrote:
> On 24 Jun 2013, at 18:37, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > This sort of three-fold action/house concept (Proposals, Voting, and
> > Justice) with separate currencies was carried over into Cards, but
> > I think over time, the paid systems have become more about buying
> > general specific actions without organizing them into categories.
> 
> Wow! More complicated than I imagined. Thanks for writing that all out.
> 
> There's a nice symmetry between the three things players want to spend money 
> on (proposal submission, expunging blots/rests, voting) and the three things 
> we want to reward them for (proposal adoption, judging, recordkeeping). I 
> dunno if there's something in that.
> 
> If I may ask another question, what facilitated all the trading? Contracts, 
> or an auction/ trade offer system?

Had to go back and refresh my memory again!

There was no official thing as concurrent, automatic trades.  I'd 
say 99% was done on a handshake deal. I personally don't have any 
memory of anyone breaking a handshake deal on purpose, and if done 
on accident then the breaker almost always tried to make it right.

For more complex things, we had a basic equity system that a judge
could enforce (Rule 1742, quoted below).  So someone could say (even 
in private) "I agree, with the intention it be binding, that if you 
do X I'll do Y." with the other party just saying "I agree and do X"
and if the first party didn't do Y, a judge could enforce it.  This 
probably helped a few folks with paranoia, but I don't 
remember many court cases and it certainly wasn't like the big era
of contracts!

Finally, Lindrum set up a wholly independent trading company.  In fact, 
e stated outright that eir intent was to see if e could set up a system 
to trade currencies that would be wholly independent of Agoran Law.  E 
had a website listing trading prices, and had eir own currency as an 
exchange medium.  The Agoran currencies came from investors.  But by 
Agoran law, e held the currencies personally and the only thing e was 
trading on was eir good name (and e was transparent and honest, and it 
worked).  Of course, that meant eir company's assets were subject to
being taxes as if held personally by Lindrum - e became quite an active
anti-tax lobbyist!

Interestingly, Lindrum had to leave fairly abruptly for RL reasons, and
left a few outstanding trades.  Despite all Lindrum's claims that the
trading company wasn't subject to Agoran Law, CFJ 1325 found that it
was clearly by common definition an Agreement, so that R1742 could be
used for a judge to satisfy Lindrum's remaining debts.

-G.

Rule 1742/2 (Power=1)
Agreements between Players

   Players may make agreements among themselves with the intention
   that such agreements will be binding under the Rules. If such
   an agreement is subsequently broken, any Player party to that
   agreement may then call a CFJ alleging that the agreement has
   been broken. If the Judge of such a CFJ finds that the
   agreement was entered into with the intention that the
   agreement be binding under the Rules and that the agreement has
   in fact been broken, e may Order the breaching party to:
   (1) transfer Property to the other party or parties to remedy
   the damages from the breach,
   (2) perform according to the agreement, or
   (3) perform such other substitute acts as would fairly serve
   the interests of the agreement.
   E may further Order the other parties of the agreement to
   perform such acts as may be necessary to preserve fairness and
   justice.

   Nothing in this Rule shall be construed so as to impair the
   enforcement of an agreement which requires a Player to violate
   another agreement.

   A CFJ alleging that an agreement has been broken called by
   anyone who is not party to that agreement lacks standing and
   shall be dismissed.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

[Charles Walker]

On 24 Jun 2013, at 18:37, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> In Feb 2001 Agora was Slashdotted (just via high-placed comment).  I think
> it doubled in two weeks, and peaked a little while later in the 30+ players 
> (IIRC, maybe I'm exaggerating).  The new players (like me) as a cohort 
> basically jumped into the economy rather than going straight for ruleset 
> changes.

Agora needs better advertising.

-- Walker

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

[Charles Walker]

On 24 Jun 2013, at 18:37, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> This sort of three-fold action/house concept (Proposals, Voting, and
> Justice) with separate currencies was carried over into Cards, but
> I think over time, the paid systems have become more about buying
> general specific actions without organizing them into categories.

Wow! More complicated than I imagined. Thanks for writing that all out.

There's a nice symmetry between the three things players want to spend money on 
(proposal submission, expunging blots/rests, voting) and the three things we 
want to reward them for (proposal adoption, judging, recordkeeping). I dunno if 
there's something in that.

If I may ask another question, what facilitated all the trading? Contracts, or 
an auction/ trade offer system?

-- Walker

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013, Charles Walker wrote:
> I'm amazed the game could support many different currencies and the 
> secondary (never mind tertiary and quartenary) markets. I think that 
> modern day Agora isn't active enough for that, but maybe if you build it, 
> they will come.

In Feb 2001 Agora was Slashdotted (just via high-placed comment).  I think
it doubled in two weeks, and peaked a little while later in the 30+ players 
(IIRC, maybe I'm exaggerating).  The new players (like me) as a cohort 
basically jumped into the economy rather than going straight for ruleset 
changes.

> What were the currencies based on? Was it something like "you can spend X 
> to submit a proposal, Y to increase your votes", or "you get X for being an 
> officer and Y for being a judge"? Or something else?

Ok, you asked for the long dissertation (maybe this should make a thesis).

- Stems were a fixed currency for basic awards, similar scale to Yaks for 
all salaries but fixed and untradeable.  Regular taxes.

- Three different non-fixed currencies, Papyrus, VEs, and Indulgences.
The only way to get these currencies into supply was (about monthly)
the recordkeepor for the currency would decide to auction some off, the
auctions were the only way to spend Stems.  So three recordkeepors, 3
types of auctions.  Each recordkeepor could decide within a range how
many to auction and thus regulate the supply.

- Papyrus were used to make proposals Distributable.  Only way.  This
was sort of the bread-and-butter trading currency (high turnover, constant
basic value).

- Indulgences were used to expunge blots (blots were the measure of rules-
breaking; having blots was a losing conditions, and too many blots lowered
your Voting Power).  These turned out to be highly speculative, and
fluctuated a lot in value (especially as blots could happen in patches,
like if a bunch of players try a scam).

- VEs were basically permanent +1 to your VVLDP per VE (up to max VVLDP
of 5).  Control strictly limited to 1 per player; when a new player
joined, e was given 0.5 of the resulting VE, and the remaining 0.5
was auctioned off.  Rare, valuable auctions!  Took people 2+ years
to slowly build up to the max 5.

- Each currency could be taxed by its recordkeepor every so often, but
   rates within a range at recordkeepor's discretion.  Tax rates were
   major campaign issue a couple times.

So, these three tradeable currencies with supply governed in part by
discretion of multiple officers conducting active auctions and in part
by players' activities (are there a flurry of competing proposals
coming?  sell your papyri high!).  Not bad.

Later built-up included formal Debt handling, Bonds, a private trading
company with investors.

The main reason it fell apart, though, was exactly what you'd expect.
Typical attrition with no new slashdotting brought us down to a more
typical player participation-and-interest level, and the weight of this 
machinery with far lower use kinda crashed inward/decayed until it was 
removed.

This sort of three-fold action/house concept (Proposals, Voting, and
Justice) with separate currencies was carried over into Cards, but
I think over time, the paid systems have become more about buying
general specific actions without organizing them into categories.

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

[Charles Walker]

On 24 Jun 2013, at 16:24, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2013, Charles Walker wrote:
>> On 19 June 2013 22:05, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>> 3.  Massive Economic System (1999-2002);
>> 
>> What was this like? In particular, what made it so massive compared to
>> more recent economies that I've seen?
> 
> Heh, I think I'll defer this one to Steve...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, enough deference.  Short answer: stable unified system for 3+ 
> years with multiyear investments on 4 interlinked currencies (with much
> active speculation), money supply and tax issues permeated elections 
> (prices depended on balance of 4 officers' decisions), pretty much 
> everyone played (couldn't be involved without it), spawned some very large 
> scale deals (at least one where everyone was involved in a massive trade/
> bidding coalition battle to corner a currency), spawned both secondary 
> trading markets and tertiary investments (bonds on debts) and even 
> (arguably) quartenary ones (obligations to create bonds or debts).
> 
> Key to the last points were that they evolved more or less "naturally" 
> (i.e. different people over time because it was sensible) not just for
> the sake of it ("hey, I'm going to make a debt for a debt for a debt just 
> because I can").
> 
> Of course, I could probably summarize any 3 years of Agora like this
> and it would sound exciting in a compressed form... I dunno.  Michael,
> Chuck, Steve am I just wearing rose-colored glasses here...
> 
> -Goethe

It does sound exciting, but I guess we'll see what the other ancients think.

I'm amazed the game could support many different currencies and the secondary 
(never mind tertiary and quartenary) markets. I think that modern day Agora 
isn't active enough for that, but maybe if you build it, they will come.

What were the currencies based on? Was it something like "you can spend X to 
submit a proposal, Y to increase your votes", or "you get X for being an 
officer and Y for being a judge"? Or something else?

Money supply and tax issues in elections are a good idea; we have the kernel of 
that with Budgets. It seems like making it impossible not to join in is the 
most important thing, not just because it 'forces' players to, but because it 
makes the economy interesting and worth playing if it permeates all aspects of 
the game.

-- Walker

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013, Charles Walker wrote:
> On 19 June 2013 22:05, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > 3.  Massive Economic System (1999-2002);
> 
> What was this like? In particular, what made it so massive compared to
> more recent economies that I've seen?

Heh, I think I'll defer this one to Steve...



Okay, enough deference.  Short answer: stable unified system for 3+ 
years with multiyear investments on 4 interlinked currencies (with much
active speculation), money supply and tax issues permeated elections 
(prices depended on balance of 4 officers' decisions), pretty much 
everyone played (couldn't be involved without it), spawned some very large 
scale deals (at least one where everyone was involved in a massive trade/
bidding coalition battle to corner a currency), spawned both secondary 
trading markets and tertiary investments (bonds on debts) and even 
(arguably) quartenary ones (obligations to create bonds or debts).

Key to the last points were that they evolved more or less "naturally" 
(i.e. different people over time because it was sensible) not just for
the sake of it ("hey, I'm going to make a debt for a debt for a debt just 
because I can").

Of course, I could probably summarize any 3 years of Agora like this
and it would sound exciting in a compressed form... I dunno.  Michael,
Chuck, Steve am I just wearing rose-colored glasses here...

-Goethe

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

[Charles Walker]

On 19 June 2013 22:05, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 3.  Massive Economic System (1999-2002);

What was this like? In particular, what made it so massive compared to
more recent economies that I've seen?

-- Walker

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

[Ed Murphy]

ehird wrote:


On 19 June 2013 20:12, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

Anyone joining before #6 is an old hand I think, I mean, if you
suffered through the contract wars you are my brother... well, except
ehird...


Hah! My plan all along was to destroy the UNDEAD! And it worked!


That's what you fnord think.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
>  Distribution fees suck.

I think distribution fees only "work" if they're high enough 
that people genuinely take time and proto everything, and maybe
reach out to opponents before finalizing, so their final proposal 
is just right.  Low fees are mostly a nuisance.  -G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Alex Smith wrote:
> I'm not sure how typical or atypical I am of Agoran players, but it
> seems reasonable that there are other people with similar mindsets to
> me. I know that economies with no reset buttons and lifetime
> accumulation are often considered unfair, but if an economy isn't of
> that form, players like me are unlikely to participate.

I think you would have liked that old economic system very much - taxes
were there but low (and at the discretion of officers thus subject to
election pressure) and some currencies accumulated over 2+ years without
reset.

For myself (and I think you and I have talked about this before) winning
isn't much.  What I like is having periods of time where I have a "greater
say" in building the game rules - e.g. uneven voting structures, but
ones with enough stability for planning moves.  So I like it when "winning"
confers some advantage, for example Speakership with some real powers.
It's not exactly that I like "power" per se, I just like gameplay that
includes "power dynamics" as the main prize.

Though I'm not so fond of doing it by scam, prefer if the game setup and
the intent of the game is what gets you there.  Also of course, as a 
game, want to keep power turning over and temporary!

Personally, the AAA was one of the most boring periods of play for me;
just couldn't get into it and was basically "out of it" for the length
of time that went on.

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

[Elliott Hird]

On 19 June 2013 20:12, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> Anyone joining before #6 is an old hand I think, I mean, if you
> suffered through the contract wars you are my brother... well, except
> ehird...

Hah! My plan all along was to destroy the UNDEAD! And it worked!

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

[omd]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> I've been meaning to write a big post about this for a while. I'm a bit
> too tired/distracted with other things for a big post right now, but
> here's a small one:

I should write a longer "rebuttal" (not really a rebuttal, but an
explanation of how my preferred type of gameplay is almost the
complete opposite), but here's a very short one:

I don't care about winning, at least the way wins usually work in
Agora.  Most "accumulation" wins (as opposed to wins such as paradoxes
which somewhat cheapen the whole concept) are only achieved after many
months of sustained, slow effort, such that at any particular moment
there doesn't usually feel like much of a competition, and if someone
falls behind they will either have to invest extraordinary effort into
catching up or wait a long time for a reset.  To me this is the
opposite of what makes nomic fun: if there is going to be some sort of
race to a high score, it should happen over 1-2 months so that it
actually feels like a race, or at least there should be periods
towards the end of quick competitive gameplay.  I am also bad at such
slow accumulation - which is part of the reason I don't like it, but
since games are supposed to be fun, the reverse is true too (I'm bad
at it because it's not interesting), leading to a negative feedback
cycle for me.  Ribbons epitomize this for me (plus a lot of them are
fairly random), which is why I haven't bothered to award myself any,
and I similarly disliked Notes for the very long term passive
accumulation.  I was okay with the AAA (albeit mostly too lazy to
play, but I participated in other ways, such as making a bank) because
of the relatively quick and skill-requiring rewards, and the large
amount of related gameplay it inspired by providing a multitude of
useful assets at a time when contracts needed things to trade for, but
I don't remember particularly caring about the ability to win with
them.

In lieu of winning, voting manipulation isn't great, but it's at least
a long-term sort of advantage that sometimes matters, and I liked the
recurring attention requirement and corresponding large short-term
benefit that came with Caste.  Distribution fees suck.  For me, I
would suggest maybe just making wins faster, but then again, I'm
already active, ais523 is not, and that doesn't seem like it would
correspond much to ais523's desired type of gameplay :)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

[omd]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> Meanwhile, VCs all reset whenever anyone's voting limit becomes high
> enough. It /is/ possible to get a win via VCs (although we should
> reintroduce a Clout rule so that it can be done via a method less
> disruptive than knocking everyone else's voting limit down to 0 then
> distributing a dictatorship/win proposal)

We do have a Clout rule:

Rule 2381/1 (Power=1.7)
Win by Clout

  If a single Player has a voting limit on an Agoran Decision that
  has a Chamber, and that voting limit, at the end of the
  Decision's voting period, is greater than the combined voting
  limits of all other entities on that decision, that player
  satisfies the Victory Condition of Clout.

in addition to the DVLOP thing.  However, I don't think it is possible
to increase one's voting limit to >= 12, so it's almost impossible to
achieve.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2013-06-19 at 14:05 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > rather what makes a particular 
> > system stable enough to make it last that long. Does Agora simply create 
> > new 
> > things that interest it and repeal things that bore it, or is there 
> > something 
> > deeper there?
> 
> It's a mystery for me.  I don't know what made the first Cards successful
> and the second one die.  Dunno why some economic system worked and some
> didn't.  Proposal manipulation to more chambers than 1 or 2 seems to always
> flounder.  Dunno why!

I've been meaning to write a big post about this for a while. I'm a bit
too tired/distracted with other things for a big post right now, but
here's a small one:

Basically, what I'm trying to do in Agora is to win. (Mostly, because
Agora's victory conditions are generally designed to make that a fun and
difficult thing to aim for; at times when it isn't, I don't find winning
particularly interesting. More generally, I also don't particularly care
about what in-game awards I might get for winning, although I will use
them to help me win again.)

More specifically, there are times when I'm actively trying to win, and
times when I'm just coasting (like at the moment), hardly paying
attention or responding to things. If I'm actively trying to win, it's
because a) I'm not busy with other things, and b) I've seen a means by
which victory might be reasonably possible, whether it's a scam, or
something purely economic like points accumulation, or something in
between (like my win by Clout).

So in order for an economy to interest me, it has to provide something I
need. Day-to-day benefits like the ability to submit proposals, or extra
votes, aren't something I care about enough to actually use them. (I
pretty much only submit a proposal if I think it'll genuinely help
Agora; sometimes I'll submit one as part of a scam, but almost
exclusively, I believe that the proposal will be genuinely helpful apart
from the fact that it contains a scam. There are only a very few
exceptions to this, such as Open It Up. As a result, I normally don't
care much whether proposals I submit ever get distributed.) The upshot
of this mostly is that I hardly use any currency that might exist, and
accumulate enough of it incidentally that I can pay for anything I'm
actually interested in paying for.

The exception is currencies that a) can be accumulated indefinitely,
with no taxation; b) can be cashed in for a win. I've got several wins
via currencies that work like that, and such currencies give me an
actual reason to play the economy. For other currencies, though, if b)
isn't true, those currencies normally don't help me win in ways I care
about, and if a) isn't true, then I have no incentive to start
accumulating them until I have a use for them in mind.

At the moment, our currencies are Yaks and VCs. Yaks have quarterly
taxation; as such, I'm not going to bother accumulating them unless I
think I'm likely to use them for something this quarter, or maybe next
quarter. And at the moment, I don't think I am. (Especially because
there's nothing much to spend them on right now.)

Meanwhile, VCs all reset whenever anyone's voting limit becomes high
enough. It /is/ possible to get a win via VCs (although we should
reintroduce a Clout rule so that it can be done via a method less
disruptive than knocking everyone else's voting limit down to 0 then
distributing a dictatorship/win proposal), but would require an
implausibly large number of VCs. If they could be accumulated
indefinitely, that would give me an incentive to try to get that many
VCs; notably, I don't think I'd win a race if it came down to a race, so
I wouldn't bother unless other players accomplishing a Clout win wasn't
mutually exclusive with me winning. (In fact, under the current ruleset,
sniping a Clout win, winning alongside the previous victor, is actually
easier than performing one, except in certain combinations involving
dictatorships and a bribed Assessor.) There's also DVLOP wins, but
that's a pure race, and again one that I don't think I can win.
(Remember, again, that I don't particularly care about the side effects;
having a higher voting limit doesn't really appeal to me, and in fact I
rarely vote. It's perhaps for the best that I'm inactive, to avoid
inflating quorum.)

I'm not sure how typical or atypical I am of Agoran players, but it
seems reasonable that there are other people with similar mindsets to
me. I know that economies with no reset buttons and lifetime
accumulation are often considered unfair, but if an economy isn't of
that form, players like me are unlikely to participate.

(As a nice example: the AAA had lifetime accumulation, no reset upon one
player winning via the AAA (via conversion to points; the points were
rest, but not the AAA assets), and no taxation, so it was pretty much
the perfect example of things that people like me were likely to play.
The result was, perhaps unsurprisingly, that the AAA ended up domina

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> It's a mystery for me.  I don't know what made the first Cards successful
> and the second one die.

Reading omd's comments I'm going to throw out one answer to this one:

When you have a dedicated recordkeepor who keeps on top of (effectively
gamemasters) a new system, including reminding people of possible moves or 
making rewards on their behalf, that's a strong strong plus.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

[omd]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
>> http://agoranomic.org/propgraph/pg.html
>
> Well, yes.  Yes you have.

Incidentally, just fixed that graph to deal with H. Former Promotor
Machiavelli's crazy Unicode subject lines.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
> http://agoranomic.org/propgraph/pg.html

Well, yes.  Yes you have.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Charles Walker wrote:
> On 19 Jun 2013, at 20:12, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > Heh.  Was thinking about it just now, I personally classify players by
> > era:
> > 
> > 1.  Nomic World (to 1993);
> > 2.  Agora but departed pre-2001 (when I joined, maybe Murphy has more
> > eras here);
> 
> Is this era based on your perspective, or did a large number of players leave 
> before 2001?

My perspective entirely.  By the registrar's report, there were many players 
between 1993-2001 that I never knew except by name/rumor, and I can't say if 
there are "eras" in that time period.

> > 3.  Massive Economic System (1999-2002);
> > 4.  Interregnum (2003-2006);
> > 5.  Massive Contract System (2007-2010);
> > 6.  Second Interregnum (2011-present).
> >
> Do you think of an interregnum as characterised by a lack of activity, or 
> just a lack of stability? Or is it just the lack of a 'massive system'?

Mainly lack of a single coherent system that was central to all play for
a long time.  Which also might translate as 'stability', too: there were 
systems during the first interregnum (cards comes to mind) but none lasted 
more than a year or so.  

Some of these started or ended abruptly (e.g. Zephram's CFJs on playerhood
starting the contract era) and some petered out (the 'massive economic
system' just sort of petered out before it was repealed).

> I'd love to hear players' views on what causes these eras (if you don't 
> think they are just arbitrary labels), 

Style of play is one thing.  Check out the transition around Jan 2007 here:
http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/case_count.php
It would be cool to plot enactments/repeals like this... omd have you made
plots like this from your database?

> rather what makes a particular 
> system stable enough to make it last that long. Does Agora simply create new 
> things that interest it and repeal things that bore it, or is there something 
> deeper there?

It's a mystery for me.  I don't know what made the first Cards successful
and the second one die.  Dunno why some economic system worked and some
didn't.  Proposal manipulation to more chambers than 1 or 2 seems to always
flounder.  Dunno why!

> Any ideas, anyone?

High hopes for Yaks!  I'd let it stabilize a bit before adding massively
to it (i.e. maybe add more good things to buy/sell, but not tacking major
major additional systems on yet).

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

[omd]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Charles Walker
 wrote:
> I'd love to hear players' views on what causes these eras (if you don't think 
> they are just arbitrary labels), or rather what makes a particular system 
> stable enough to make it last that long. Does Agora simply create new things 
> that interest it and repeal things that bore it, or is there something deeper 
> there?

There is more variation than those eras suggest.

Two suberas of the "massive contract system" era were sustained, as I
remember it, almost singlehandedly by BobTHJ and his steam-powered
gamestate tracking machine - not that we wouldn't have done some of
the same things without em, but the massive spurt of activity at the
time was promoted by eir willingness to track many fast-moving
quantities.  Both times, I think things subsided around the same time
as his deregistration, although correlation is not causation...

Right now, I think we have a lot of activity compared to several
months ago and some new rules despite not having many fundamental
changes since then.  Why?  Maybe just natural cyclic patterns of
interest: after a break, people are ready for more, and there is a
positive feedback loop.

But enough speculation, here's a pretty graph of proposal count per
month (don't want to use the domain for these incidental purposes, but
qoid.us is temporarily down):

http://agoranomic.org/propgraph/pg.html

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

[Charles Walker]

On 19 Jun 2013, at 20:12, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
 I sometimes think of everyone who registered after me (6 years ago) as
 a newbie.  Of course we have at least one player who played Agora's
 spiritual predecessor and made vaguely precedential posts 15 years
 before that, so...
>>> 
>>> 15 years before nomic world?  I was 6.
>> 
>> Grammar oops - by 'that' I intended to refer to my own registration.
> 
> Heh.  Was thinking about it just now, I personally classify players by
> era:
> 
> 1.  Nomic World (to 1993);
> 2.  Agora but departed pre-2001 (when I joined, maybe Murphy has more
> eras here);

Is this era based on your perspective, or did a large number of players leave 
before 2001?

> 3.  Massive Economic System (1999-2002);
> 4.  Interregnum (2003-2006);
> 5.  Massive Contract System (2007-2010);
> 6.  Second Interregnum (2011-present).
> 
> Anyone joining before #6 is an old hand I think, I mean, if you 
> suffered through the contract wars you are my brother... well, except
> ehird...

Do you think of an interregnum as characterised by a lack of activity, or just 
a lack of stability? Or is it just the lack of a 'massive system'?

For me, this kind of long term perspective is really interesting to read (even 
a short list of eras). In fact, this sort of thing has always been my favourite 
type of post to read on the discussion forum. Despite having first registered 
in April 2009, it seems that I don't have that long term perspective at all 
yet. The idea of a contract system seems more 'obvious' to me, for example. One 
might think that it is the kind of thing that arises fairly naturally out of 
any long running nomic. I'm inclined to think that a contract system is the 
sort of thing we ought to always have around, but older players might feel like 
it's all been done before.

I'd love to hear players' views on what causes these eras (if you don't think 
they are just arbitrary labels), or rather what makes a particular system 
stable enough to make it last that long. Does Agora simply create new things 
that interest it and repeal things that bore it, or is there something deeper 
there?

I look forward to the game becoming interesting again in 2015. Any ideas, 
anyone?

-- Walker

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >> I sometimes think of everyone who registered after me (6 years ago) as
> >> a newbie.  Of course we have at least one player who played Agora's
> >> spiritual predecessor and made vaguely precedential posts 15 years
> >> before that, so...
> >
> > 15 years before nomic world?  I was 6.
> 
> Grammar oops - by 'that' I intended to refer to my own registration.

Heh.  Was thinking about it just now, I personally classify players by
era:

1.  Nomic World (to 1993);
2.  Agora but departed pre-2001 (when I joined, maybe Murphy has more
 eras here);
3.  Massive Economic System (1999-2002);
4.  Interregnum (2003-2006);
5.  Massive Contract System (2007-2010);
6.  Second Interregnum (2011-present).

Anyone joining before #6 is an old hand I think, I mean, if you 
suffered through the contract wars you are my brother... well, except
ehird...

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

[omd]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> I sometimes think of everyone who registered after me (6 years ago) as
>> a newbie.  Of course we have at least one player who played Agora's
>> spiritual predecessor and made vaguely precedential posts 15 years
>> before that, so...
>
> 15 years before nomic world?  I was 6.

Grammar oops - by 'that' I intended to refer to my own registration.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Charles Walker
>  wrote:
> > On 19 Jun 2013 06:30, "Aaron Goldfein"  wrote:
> >> As an aside, I find it funny that I still think of Roujo as a "new"
> >> player, despite the fact that e has been playing for two and a half years
> >> now and that only two players have last registered longer ago.
> >
> > I still think of myself as a newbie.
> >
> > Agora is old and slow.
> 
> I sometimes think of everyone who registered after me (6 years ago) as
> a newbie.  Of course we have at least one player who played Agora's
> spiritual predecessor and made vaguely precedential posts 15 years
> before that, so...

15 years before nomic world?  I was 6.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

[omd]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Charles Walker
 wrote:
> On 19 Jun 2013 06:30, "Aaron Goldfein"  wrote:
>> As an aside, I find it funny that I still think of Roujo as a "new"
>> player, despite the fact that e has been playing for two and a half years
>> now and that only two players have last registered longer ago.
>
> I still think of myself as a newbie.
>
> Agora is old and slow.

I sometimes think of everyone who registered after me (6 years ago) as
a newbie.  Of course we have at least one player who played Agora's
spiritual predecessor and made vaguely precedential posts 15 years
before that, so...

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

[Charles Walker]

On 19 Jun 2013 06:30, "Aaron Goldfein"  wrote:
> As an aside, I find it funny that I still think of Roujo as a "new"
player, despite the fact that e has been playing for two and a half years
now and that only two players have last registered longer ago.

I still think of myself as a newbie.

Agora is old and slow.

-- Walker

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: voting golems

[omd]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> Ordinary is at least one counterexample that comes to mind.  (In addition to
> the common meaning of ordinary, as least one scam IIRC depended on the
> confusion between "ordinary decision" (correct) and "ordinary proposal"
> (those don't actually exist, but a rule referred to one and turned out to
> be broken because of it).  Turned out "ordinary proposal" wasn't a synonym
> for "ordinary decision to adopt a proposal".

I don't remember which one you're talking about, but I lost a scam
once (2274) because an attempt to make proposal X democratic
successfully made the decision to adopt it democratic.

> I DO agree that it works now due to context and history, but a power-1
> rule would explicitly and clearly override this context and history.

I don't think a higher powered rule using the term would be "clearly
intended to comply with that meaning".

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: voting golems

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > Hm.  I note that the phrase '"First-class player" means a player who is a
> > first-class person.' was deleted from the ruleset (by you I it looks like!)
> > in 2008.  That leaves it only defined by historic use.  It's not even a
> > common definition.  Hmm.  SECURITY HOLE:  A power-1 rule could just say
> > "first class players are golems - all other players are second class."
> > Or hey: "omd is a first-class player, all other players are second class".
> > Since it's an Agora-historic rather than common definition, R754(2) doesn't
> > prevent this.
> 
> I think "an   is " (in lieu of other definitions
> of ) implies " generally refers to a  that
> is ".

Ordinary is at least one counterexample that comes to mind.  (In addition to 
the common meaning of ordinary, as least one scam IIRC depended on the 
confusion between "ordinary decision" (correct) and "ordinary proposal" 
(those don't actually exist, but a rule referred to one and turned out to 
be broken because of it).  Turned out "ordinary proposal" wasn't a synonym 
for "ordinary decision to adopt a proposal".

In general, defining what happens when an adjective is applied to X makes 
a limited contextual statement about what that same adjective means when 
applied to Y.  Even if Y is a subclass of X.

Also, we specifically discount repealed definitions.

I DO agree that it works now due to context and history, but a power-1 
rule would explicitly and clearly override this context and history.

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: voting golems

[omd]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> Hm.  I note that the phrase '"First-class player" means a player who is a
> first-class person.' was deleted from the ruleset (by you I it looks like!)
> in 2008.  That leaves it only defined by historic use.  It's not even a
> common definition.  Hmm.  SECURITY HOLE:  A power-1 rule could just say
> "first class players are golems - all other players are second class."
> Or hey: "omd is a first-class player, all other players are second class".
> Since it's an Agora-historic rather than common definition, R754(2) doesn't
> prevent this.

I think "an   is " (in lieu of other definitions
of ) implies " generally refers to a  that
is ".

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: voting golems

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012, omd wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >       The eligible voters on a decision with an adoption index are
> >       those entities that were active first-class players at the start
> >       of its voting period.  Setting or changing an entity's voting
> >       limit on such a decision, or defining additional types of
> >       eligible voters for such a decision, is secured with a power
> >       threshold of 2 if the decision is Ordinary, or 3 otherwise.
> 
> This is a bit vague - for it to work you have to interpret securing
> something (forbidding change by lower powered rules) as implicitly
> allowing change by other rules.

I thought about this wording for a while, and concluded that the full
phrase "X class are voters, defining additional classes of voters is secured" 
adequately implies that more classes can be added at the given security.
Two reasons:
1.  R1688 puts in the exception explicitly into the security definition,
as something secured is IMPOSSIBLE to change "except as allowed" by an 
instrument with the right power.  So securing something both makes it
impossible for lower-powered rules to change it, but also makes it
explicit that high-enough powered rules CAN change it.
2.  If not, we have an inter-rule conflict, and Cretans says that the
later clause (defining additional entities is secured) has precedence
over the earlier one (first-class players are voters).

> >   A first-class voter for a decision is a first-class player who
> >   is an eligible voter for that decision.  All other eligible voters
> >   for that decision are second-class voters.
> 
> I would cut this paragraph, it's unnecessary.

I used the term "first class voter" elsewhere (in the quorum rules), and it's 
not guaranteed that this means "first class person who is a voter".  Here,
I chose to be more clear!

Hm.  I note that the phrase '"First-class player" means a player who is a 
first-class person.' was deleted from the ruleset (by you I it looks like!) 
in 2008.  That leaves it only defined by historic use.  It's not even a 
common definition.  Hmm.  SECURITY HOLE:  A power-1 rule could just say 
"first class players are golems - all other players are second class."
Or hey: "omd is a first-class player, all other players are second class".
Since it's an Agora-historic rather than common definition, R754(2) doesn't
prevent this.

> >   An Enfranchised golem is an eligible voter on Ordinary proposals,
> >   and has a default voting limit of 1 on such proposals.  Changing
> >   this voting limit is Secured.
> 
> It's already secured.

Here I was purposefully double-securing, more so that it's clear whether
you're reading the voting rule or the golem rule (I hate hunting through
the ruleset for the place that X happens to be secured when it's separate
from the definition).   I suppose that could be aesthetically unpleasing
as a whole!

-G.

DIS: Re: BUS: voting golems

[omd]

On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>       The eligible voters on a decision with an adoption index are
>       those entities that were active first-class players at the start
>       of its voting period.  Setting or changing an entity's voting
>       limit on such a decision, or defining additional types of
>       eligible voters for such a decision, is secured with a power
>       threshold of 2 if the decision is Ordinary, or 3 otherwise.

This is a bit vague - for it to work you have to interpret securing
something (forbidding change by lower powered rules) as implicitly
allowing change by other rules.

>       A first-class voter for a decision is a first-class player who
>       is an eligible voter for that decision.  All other eligible voters
>       for that decision are second-class voters.

I would cut this paragraph, it's unnecessary.

>       An Enfranchised golem is an eligible voter on Ordinary proposals,
>       and has a default voting limit of 1 on such proposals.  Changing
>       this voting limit is Secured.

It's already secured.

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting

[Ed Murphy]

Spitemaster wrote:

> Proposal: Dictatorship Scam
> FOR x 12

In future, please quote the proposal numbers.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting

[Sean Hunt]

Geoffrey Spear wrote:

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Sean Hunt  wrote:

Arguments: Purported resolutions of Agoran decisions are self-ratifying?
What if they are via an act-on-behalf that is platonically uncertain? Do
they still self-ratify, even if the purported resolution could never be
performed?


They're always self-ratifying, specifically to prevent such platonic
ambiguities from having annoying knock-on effects.  In this case, of
course, there was a claim of error which will prevent ratification.

Ignore the act-on-behalf aspect.  What if we discovered a year from
now that Murphy was platonically not the Assessor after all?  If
purported resolutions weren't self-ratifying, we'd have to recalculate
everything based on the idea that none of the proposals e claimed to
resolve took effect.


I agree in the general case, but what ais523is doing here is purporting 
to act on behalf of Murphy to purport to resolve an Agoran decision, and 
my question is whether that is sufficient to trigger the self-ratifying 
effect. Acting on behalf of someone is equivalent to them sending a 
given message, so if ais523 can't act on behalf of Murphy, then the 
message was never really sent, so the resolution was never really purported.


-coppro

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting

[Geoffrey Spear]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Sean Hunt  wrote:
> Arguments: Purported resolutions of Agoran decisions are self-ratifying?
> What if they are via an act-on-behalf that is platonically uncertain? Do
> they still self-ratify, even if the purported resolution could never be
> performed?

They're always self-ratifying, specifically to prevent such platonic
ambiguities from having annoying knock-on effects.  In this case, of
course, there was a claim of error which will prevent ratification.

Ignore the act-on-behalf aspect.  What if we discovered a year from
now that Murphy was platonically not the Assessor after all?  If
purported resolutions weren't self-ratifying, we'd have to recalculate
everything based on the idea that none of the proposals e claimed to
resolve took effect.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting

[ais523]

On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 11:59 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> comex wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM, ais523  
> > wrote:
> >> Thus forcing me to attempt to use a scam before it's been j
> > 
> > remind me to vote on such proposals in the future to avoid these
> > quorum games.  though I probably would have voted AGAINST, as it's not
> > nice to counter by proposal the scam of someone who spends so much
> > time worrying about his scams being countered by proposal.
> 
> I proposed it before the scam, just to cut off any obligations I might
> be racking up from its original round-robin-contestmaster intent.  Using
> it to counter the scam was just a nice bonus (and presumably why ais523
> tried to destroy all my Distrib-u-Matics).

And I was really worried that you might have noticed that it was a scam;
my reaction was just to ignore your messages about it in the hope that
everyone else would too. I would have set the scams in question off
earlier, except that the dependent action borkage happened and I was
afraid that it would interfere. (Then I had to set the scams off in a
hurry so that they could interfere with the proposal's resolution...) In
all, a bad case of coincidental timing that isn't anyone's fault; the
remaining upshot is that if the Points Party exists, then it is a
mousetrap, so at least we've removed one potential ambiguity.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting

[Ed Murphy]

coppro wrote:

> ais523 wrote:
>> On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 16:30 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>>> I vote FOR on the decision on whether to adopt proposal 6514.
>> Thus forcing me to attempt to use a scam before it's been judged whether
>> it worked or not (Murphy could resolve the proposal as ADOPTED right
>> now, AFAICT), which is always a risky proposition. This message is
>> designed to not increase the ambiguity any more than is necessary to
>> maintain the mousetrap if it does indeed exist.
> 
> Wasn't it quorate? I'll let Murphy CoE on this one, but I just want to ask.

According to my records, at the end of the first week, it needed 5
and had only 4.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting

[Ed Murphy]

comex wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM, ais523  wrote:
>> Thus forcing me to attempt to use a scam before it's been j
> 
> remind me to vote on such proposals in the future to avoid these
> quorum games.  though I probably would have voted AGAINST, as it's not
> nice to counter by proposal the scam of someone who spends so much
> time worrying about his scams being countered by proposal.

I proposed it before the scam, just to cut off any obligations I might
be racking up from its original round-robin-contestmaster intent.  Using
it to counter the scam was just a nice bonus (and presumably why ais523
tried to destroy all my Distrib-u-Matics).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting

[ais523]

On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 09:51 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 16:30 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> >> I vote FOR on the decision on whether to adopt proposal 6514.
> > 
> > Thus forcing me to attempt to use a scam before it's been judged whether
> > it worked or not (Murphy could resolve the proposal as ADOPTED right
> > now, AFAICT), which is always a risky proposition. This message is
> > designed to not increase the ambiguity any more than is necessary to
> > maintain the mousetrap if it does indeed exist.
> 
> Wasn't it quorate? I'll let Murphy CoE on this one, but I just want to ask.

AFAICT, it wasn't quorate at the end of the voting period (with 4
voters); with Pavitra's and Tiger's votes, it has 6 voters which I think
is quorum atm. So the voting period was doubled; and now the Assessor
can cut it short by announcement, so I had to try to cut it short first
myself, with the votes in a situation favourable to me. (Of course, none
of this is relevant if the mousetrap doesn't actually exist.)

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting

[Sean Hunt]

ais523 wrote:

On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 16:30 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:

I vote FOR on the decision on whether to adopt proposal 6514.


Thus forcing me to attempt to use a scam before it's been judged whether
it worked or not (Murphy could resolve the proposal as ADOPTED right
now, AFAICT), which is always a risky proposition. This message is
designed to not increase the ambiguity any more than is necessary to
maintain the mousetrap if it does indeed exist.


Wasn't it quorate? I'll let Murphy CoE on this one, but I just want to ask.

-coppro

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting

[comex]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM, ais523  wrote:
> Thus forcing me to attempt to use a scam before it's been j

remind me to vote on such proposals in the future to avoid these
quorum games.  though I probably would have voted AGAINST, as it's not
nice to counter by proposal the scam of someone who spends so much
time worrying about his scams being countered by proposal.

-- 
-c.

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting CFJ

[Benjamin Caplan]

comex wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Aaron Goldfein 
> wrote:
>> I CFJ on the following sentence. I cast a vote in the recent Promotor 
>> election.
> 
> Trivially TRUE, you cast an invalid vote.
> I sit up.  I become Hanging.

I thought it was trivially FALSE at first, but I see what you mean. E
clearly and unambiguously expressed intent to cast a vote; this is
basically equivalent to "I vote for nathoeusnat in the Promotor election."

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting

[ihope]

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Chester Mealer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If possible, I submit the following votes. If one or more votes is not
> possible for me to submit, I submit those votes which are possible.

You know, on ordinary proposals (I believe Zefram's distributions have
a column with Os and Ds in it, for ordinary and democratic), you can
vote a number of times equal to your EVLOD, which is 4 by default.

--Ivan Hope CXXVII, who still has an EVLOD of 4

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting limit

[Josiah Worcester]

On Thursday 22 November 2007 20:04:46 Ed Murphy wrote:
> pikhq wrote:
> 
> > Fine. I spend 2B VCs to create 200B marks. I spend 1K VC to create 100K 
marks.
> 
> These don't work, either.  The Marks rule only allows you to convert
> Marks to VCs voluntarily; to convert VCs to Marks, you have to arrange
> to get dinged for more Marks than you have (though you can make this
> easier by transferring your Marks away first).
> 
> 

And I thought I had a way to hoard VCs. :(

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting limit

[Ed Murphy]

pikhq wrote:


Fine. I spend 2B VCs to create 200B marks. I spend 1K VC to create 100K marks.


These don't work, either.  The Marks rule only allows you to convert
Marks to VCs voluntarily; to convert VCs to Marks, you have to arrange
to get dinged for more Marks than you have (though you can make this
easier by transferring your Marks away first).

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting limit

[Ed Murphy]

pikhq wrote:


I spend 2B and 1K to increase my VVLOP by one.


I'm interpreting "different colors" in Rule 2126 as requiring each VC
in the set to be a different color from any of the others in that set,
so this is ineffective.

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting (4947-4957)

[Zefram]

Levi Stephen wrote:
>4952 4xFOR
>4953 AGAINST
>4957 4xFOR

So the bribery has begun, I see.

-zefram