Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Warranty
Alexis wrote: > Two questions: > > First, twg, are you satisfied with the draft as it is? There do not seem to > have been any substantive comments from peer review so I believe we could > proceed with the award soon. Yes, a few days ago I mentioned I was thinking of making some minor additions, but tbh I think it stands well enough on its own. And I like the sense of authenticity lent by the whole thing having been written in a single draft. By all means proceed with the proceedings. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Warranty
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 15:36, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 1/25/2020 12:23 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > > if anyone has any other arguments or opinions between A.N. and B.N., I > > would appreciate hearing them. If I do not, I will likely make intents > for > > both B.N. and A.N. and resolve the stronger one. > > I've seen too few comparisons between B.N. and A.N. to opine, personally. > B.N. is oldest - I'm trying to remember if we added A.N. when you did yours > Alexis, because you already had a B.N.? So the A.N. was like a "minor" for > someone who had B.N. already? Though that doesn't fit the pattern for my > degree (I just vaguely recall some sort of conversation like that, I don't > truly remember why we introduced the A.N. given that B.N.'s were never huge > effort). > > -G. > It predates my registration by years: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg00046.html It looks like you were the first honoree: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08113.html I also was reminded while researching this that my A.N. was awarded for a judgment (possibly the first ever such thesis?). Ah, looks like I missed out on J.N. then ;) -Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Warranty
On 1/25/2020 12:23 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > if anyone has any other arguments or opinions between A.N. and B.N., I > would appreciate hearing them. If I do not, I will likely make intents for > both B.N. and A.N. and resolve the stronger one. I've seen too few comparisons between B.N. and A.N. to opine, personally. B.N. is oldest - I'm trying to remember if we added A.N. when you did yours Alexis, because you already had a B.N.? So the A.N. was like a "minor" for someone who had B.N. already? Though that doesn't fit the pattern for my degree (I just vaguely recall some sort of conversation like that, I don't truly remember why we introduced the A.N. given that B.N.'s were never huge effort). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Warranty
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 13:41, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 1/20/2020 1:30 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: > > ...nd, maybe, if it please m'lud, to request that at least the > > degree intent, if not also the separate title, be delayed for a further, > > oh, say, four to five days? For purely self-serving reasons, I admit. > > Since this is "undergoing peer-review", I won't make any awards until you > say either "I'm happy with the published draft" or "here's a new draft". > Note that the Herald may change hands in the meantime. > > >> Oh, and on peer-review: having read it, I can think of no edits. This > is a > >> gem. Well done. > > > > Not even to suggest pointing out the Town Fountain and Royal Parade in > > the part where I talk about honouring interesting/memorable scams? I'm > > kicking myself for forgetting to mention them, as basically the most > > prominent memorials of gameplay past. Ah well. > > Your writing focused on "recent scams", and of course the style of gameplay > preferred is a function of current and not past players, it didn't even > occur to me that it was missing! > > That said, this reminded me of pers. comm/memory that supports your case. > For both the Town Fountain and the Royal Parade, the scam perpetrator > (myself and Alexis respectively), a while after each scam (a year or so > after IIRC), submitted proposals to repeal said rules. The proposals > failed, and I remember being told in no uncertain terms (by a couple of the > most fervent anti-scammers on the actual scam, no less) that it was part of > our history now and should stay. Good evidence that people might get > annoyed > in the heat of the moment, but after the dust and emotions have settled > it's > an accepted and appreciated part of the game. > > -G. > Two questions: First, twg, are you satisfied with the draft as it is? There do not seem to have been any substantive comments from peer review so I believe we could proceed with the award soon. Second, does anyone else have any opinion as the appropriateness of which degree to award? It seems that the agruments so far can be summarized as follows: A.N.: ~ This is most suitable by default (Alexis) J.N.: + This thesis relates to the practice of law (Alexis) ~ Expanding the scope of the degree to relate to the practice of law is possible but it's not the current scope (G.) - Most theses are about legal/historical matters; this is public policy and not rule intepretation (Aris) - The degree was originally intended only for draft judgments, which this is not (Aris, twg) B.N.: ~ A nonspecialized degree (such as a bachelor's?) might be appropriate (Aris) ~ twg should choose between J.N. and B.N., with no reasoning specified as for why B.N. and not another degree (G.) - The thesis is insufficiently academic or scholarly in character to be awarded a B.N. In particular, while the consensus seems to be against J.N. being appropriate, only three people have expressed an opinion between B.N and A.N., with two in favour of B.N. but without any reasoning. Thus, if anyone feels strongly that J.N. is appropriate who has not already voiced this, or if anyone has any other arguments or opinions between A.N. and B.N., I would appreciate hearing them. If I do not, I will likely make intents for both B.N. and A.N. and resolve the stronger one. -Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Warranty
On 1/20/2020 1:30 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: > ...nd, maybe, if it please m'lud, to request that at least the > degree intent, if not also the separate title, be delayed for a further, > oh, say, four to five days? For purely self-serving reasons, I admit. Since this is "undergoing peer-review", I won't make any awards until you say either "I'm happy with the published draft" or "here's a new draft". Note that the Herald may change hands in the meantime. >> Oh, and on peer-review: having read it, I can think of no edits. This is a >> gem. Well done. > > Not even to suggest pointing out the Town Fountain and Royal Parade in > the part where I talk about honouring interesting/memorable scams? I'm > kicking myself for forgetting to mention them, as basically the most > prominent memorials of gameplay past. Ah well. Your writing focused on "recent scams", and of course the style of gameplay preferred is a function of current and not past players, it didn't even occur to me that it was missing! That said, this reminded me of pers. comm/memory that supports your case. For both the Town Fountain and the Royal Parade, the scam perpetrator (myself and Alexis respectively), a while after each scam (a year or so after IIRC), submitted proposals to repeal said rules. The proposals failed, and I remember being told in no uncertain terms (by a couple of the most fervent anti-scammers on the actual scam, no less) that it was part of our history now and should stay. Good evidence that people might get annoyed in the heat of the moment, but after the dust and emotions have settled it's an accepted and appreciated part of the game. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Warranty
Gosh! This is all a much more positive reaction than I was expecting. Aris wrote: > However, you have convinced me to vote on your proposals on their > merits until the loopholes within them are actually located. Thank you. I hope you won't regret your decision. > I assure you that I will be looking through them at some point and > trying to find those loopholes, which I believe almost certainly > exist, myself. Perhaps I'm pushing my luck here, but supposing you _did_ come across such a thing and were willing to disclose it to me privately instead of publicising it, I'm sure some sort of compensation could be arranged... (Sorry. I'll stop with the Bond villain antics for now.) > I apologize for the capitalization error and will make an effort to be > more diligent in the future. Please don't worry too much about it! It's an incredibly small thing, which you had no way of knowing in the first place anyway. I was divided about whether to even mention it. G. wrote: > To me it reads, not like a careful legal analysis, but likw an impassioned > but reasoned plea to a jury of 12 on behalf of the accused, a rare thing > given that our judicial system is not an adversarial one. But it is > definitely a skill very much in keeping with the practice of the law. > > I think I'd defer to twg (choice of J.N or Bachelors) but would support > either. I'm with Aris on this one: the J.N. was supposed to be for seminal CFJ judgements that double as theses, so I don't think it would be appropriate here. Beyond that, I feel it would be uncouth to engage further in the discussion, except to express gratitude for your praise and the titles proffered. ... ...nd, maybe, if it please m'lud, to request that at least the degree intent, if not also the separate title, be delayed for a further, oh, say, four to five days? For purely self-serving reasons, I admit. > Oh, and on peer-review: having read it, I can think of no edits. This is a > gem. Well done. Not even to suggest pointing out the Town Fountain and Royal Parade in the part where I talk about honouring interesting/memorable scams? I'm kicking myself for forgetting to mention them, as basically the most prominent memorials of gameplay past. Ah well. ais523 wrote: > > I trusted (and still trust) em not to unnecessarily wreak havoc on > > Agora if and when e is successful at perpetrating one. > > I'm intrigued at the suggestion that there may be times when wreaking > havoc on Agora is necessary. Mostly I included the qualifier on the basis that, without it, some pedant would undoubtedly have complained about the hypothetical existence of such a scenario. I guess I can't win :P -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: Warranty
On Mon, 2020-01-20 at 01:42 +, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business wrote: > I trusted (and still trust) em not to unnecessarily wreak havoc on > Agora if and when e is successful at perpetrating one. I'm intrigued at the suggestion that there may be times when wreaking havoc on Agora is necessary. (I know there are a couple of occasions in the past when we passed rules with random effects that were perceived as likely to cause damage to the ruleset, as a method of shaking things up a little or just giving us something else to talk about. Perhaps that counts?) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Warranty
On 1/19/2020 7:09 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > The vast majority of thesis publications I’ve seen are either legal or > historical. If anything, this is exactly the sort of thing that shouldn’t > qualify for a J.N. IMO, it’s about public policy, not rule interpretation. To me it reads, not like a careful legal analysis, but likw an impassioned but reasoned plea to a jury of 12 on behalf of the accused, a rare thing given that our judicial system is not an adversarial one. But it is definitely a skill very much in keeping with the practice of the law. I think I'd defer to twg (choice of J.N or Bachelors) but would support either. Oh, and on peer-review: having read it, I can think of no edits. This is a gem. Well done. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Warranty
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 22:13, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I was about to re-reply to say, I don't mind expanding the scope of J.D. at > all! just that it might warrant some discussion first and it was worth > mentioning the original intent. > I would be living a very different life if Agora could award a J.D. ;)
DIS: Re: BUS: Warranty
On 1/19/2020 7:05 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote: > Ahh, in this case I'll withdraw the intent for now so it can be further > discussed. But the thinking I had was that the degree is analagous to the > Juris Doctor conferred to law school graduates who can subsequently go into > practice. and so it should be focused on things that are particularly > relevant to the practice of nomic, as opposed to purely academic/scholarly > interest. We would have thought that an "academic" degree (Bachelor or > anything listed below) should be reserved for more academic publications. I was about to re-reply to say, I don't mind expanding the scope of J.D. at all! just that it might warrant some discussion first and it was worth mentioning the original intent.
DIS: Re: BUS: Warranty
The vast majority of thesis publications I’ve seen are either legal or historical. If anything, this is exactly the sort of thing that shouldn’t qualify for a J.N. IMO, it’s about public policy, not rule interpretation. -Aris On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 7:05 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 21:56, Kerim Aydin via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On 1/19/2020 6:21 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote: > > > While peer review should still happen, I think that we should start the > > > process now. I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award twg the Patent > > Title > > > Juris Doctor of Nomic. > > > > I object, for both of the reasons noted by Aris: peer-review time (e.g. > a > > call for comments) and the use of the J.D. > > > > As Alexis may be the next Herald and may be the one to finish the award, > > I'll just remove this objection in a few days personally - the thesis is > > part of the "permanent record" and it's worth giving time for comment and > > possible corrections. > > > > But bad on us! - the recent introduction of the J.D. did not in fact > > document that the purpose (at the time) for introduction of the degree - > to > > give a category to which excellent CFJ judgements (scholarly to the level > > of > > a degree) should be applied. Very bad on us for not noting that in the > > text. > > > > -G. > > > > Ahh, in this case I'll withdraw the intent for now so it can be further > discussed. But the thinking I had was that the degree is analagous to the > Juris Doctor conferred to law school graduates who can subsequently go into > practice. and so it should be focused on things that are particularly > relevant to the practice of nomic, as opposed to purely academic/scholarly > interest. We would have thought that an "academic" degree (Bachelor or > anything listed below) should be reserved for more academic publications. > > -Alexis >
DIS: Re: BUS: Warranty
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 6:21 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 20:42, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > What I will not do, barring sufficiently persuasive arguments to the > > contrary, is make a blanket statement that I am not planning or engaging > > in any scams or exploits. I don't want to end up in a situation where I > > am (or _anybody_ is) totally unable to take part in this part of the > > game, just because it is considered suspicious to not currently be under > > a pledge/warranty forbidding it, and I'm concerned that complying now > > with your request would lead Agora towards a social climate of that > > type. > > > > Hear, hear! > > Notice of Honour: > +1: twg for eir impassioned defence of the core of Nomic gameplay. > -1: Aris for eir persistent opposition to the core of Nomic gameplay. > > I submit the above essay as a thesis titled "Letter to an Anti-Scamster: > > On the Importance of Loopholes in Agoran Culture", with intent to > > qualify for a degree. > > > > -twg > > > > I was considering nominating this for a thesis myself, which indicates > strongly that it deserves one. J.N. is, I believe, appropriate for a thesis > focused on the practice of Nomic law, which this very much is. > > While peer review should still happen, I think that we should start the > process now. I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award twg the Patent Title > Juris Doctor of Nomic. > Wait a sec, the herald hasn’t coordinated the peer review process yet. Also, my understanding was that J.N. was intended for CFJs that doubled as theses; I think a nonspecialized degree (maybe a bachelor’s?) would be more appropriate. -Aris
DIS: Re: BUS: Warranty
Okay, that was astonishingly convincing. I’m not going to change my personal approach to scams (at the very least ones that use my official position; I don’t think I’ve ever stated on record that I’ll never write a scam proposal, though I’ve also scrupulously avoided doing so). However, you have convinced me to vote on your proposals on their merits until the loopholes within them are actually located. I assure you that I will be looking through them at some point and trying to find those loopholes, which I believe almost certainly exist, myself. Re the final matters: I apologize for the capitalization error and will make an effort to be more diligent in the future. It is difficult because my computers are prone to correcting what they perceive as spelling errors on their own; I cannot remember if that is what happened here or not. Your letter seems eminently degree worthy. -Aris On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 5:42 PM Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Aris wrote: > > I warrant and affirm that I am not aware of any exploitable bug or > > loophole in any of the proposals in the current distribution and that > > I do not intend to use any of them as a part of a scam. I further > > warrant and affirm that I am not making this statement in an attempt > > to deflect attention from my other conduct or for any other reason > > than to assure Agorans of the propriety of my actions and persuade > > them to vote in favor of my proposals, given how many proposals have > > been submitted in the current distribution. > > > > Twg, can we have the same warranty (in public, to be clear) from you? > > I phrased it so that it works the same way even with your whole zombie > > thing; so you don't need to change any words at all. :) If you don't, > > I intend to vote against all of your proposals on a "better safe than > > sorry" basis. Apologies for the distrust if you don't in fact have > > anything malicious planned. > > I think your goal is laudable; and since all the proposals I've > submitted would, in fact, all improve the game (in my opinion) if > adopted, I do want on some level to give you the assurance you desire. > But I feel quite strongly on principle that warranties against scams and > loopholes should not be given on a blanket basis. I will set out why I > believe this, in the hope of persuading you to agree. > > Although I understand and respect your personal dislike of scams and > loopholes, I don't think it's possible to deny that they are an > important and enjoyable part of the game for many people. As a general > rule, Agoran society does not shun or ostracise perpetrators of scams, > provided that they act responsibly and non-destructively; in fact, it > honours them, with the patent title Scamster, which has been awarded > several times in the past and indeed is currently singled out > specifically as an "award" in Rule 2581. > > Recent scam attempts, successful or otherwise, have also all been > treated more with interest than with antipathy, especially if they are > novel or witty. Today (19th January), for example, Falsifian presented > an attempt to declare apathy - a traditional target of scams. Nobody > expressed eir disapproval, and indeed when e discovered that e had made > a trivial mistake in eir attempt, and withdrew eir CFJ into the matter, > another player resubmitted the CFJ, correcting the mistake and calling > it "interesting". That player, as you may remember, was you. > > Another recent example I would like to discuss is the case of Proposal > 8285, authored by Alexis, which contained a potential escalator scam > (that might or might not have been intentional) pointed out by Jason > Cobb. As I mentioned during its voting period, I strongly suspected that > it contained a scam, but nevertheless initially voted FOR it because I > couldn't find the scam upon examination. I believed that Alexis's skill > at hiding eir scam, if it existed, was a sufficient achievement that e > deserved its inclusion in the ruleset; and, based on eir behaviour > during eir past successful scams, which turn up impressively frequently > when browsing the mailing list archives, I trusted (and still trust) > em not to unnecessarily wreak havoc on Agora if and when e is successful > at perpetrating one. > > I don't think that my thought process here will be unusual or > unrelatable to many Agorans (although I would be fascinated to find > differently). Agora is built around textual literalism. Why should we > stigmatise cleverly worded texts if they are used responsibly? > > "Responsibility" is perhaps a poorly descriptive term in the context of > the perpetration of a scam, so let me explain what I mean. There are > some parts of the game that I feel should not be considered socially > acceptable targets of scams, for what I hope are obvious reasons. These > include the historical records of ribbons, wins and patent titles, as > well as the general health of Agora. This
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Warranty
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 1/19/2020 3:29 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > Twg, can we have the same warranty (in public, to be clear) from you? > > I phrased it so that it works the same way even with your whole zombie > > thing; so you don't need to change any words at all. :) If you don't, > > I intend to vote against all of your proposals on a "better safe than > > sorry" basis. Apologies for the distrust if you don't in fact have > > anything malicious planned. > > E's trying to earn a lime ribbon. E did this before for that reason, though > not enough of the previous batch succeed for a lime, maybe on their merits. > Whether that's a "scam" or not is up to you. > > (I mean, there *may* be some different reason but this is what e said when I > was suspicious at the same behavior last time). Oh, I'm aware of the lime ribbon thing. That's not a scam in the sense I meant though; I meant like a scam buried in one of one of eir proposals. -Aris
DIS: Re: BUS: Warranty
On 1/19/2020 3:29 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > Twg, can we have the same warranty (in public, to be clear) from you? > I phrased it so that it works the same way even with your whole zombie > thing; so you don't need to change any words at all. :) If you don't, > I intend to vote against all of your proposals on a "better safe than > sorry" basis. Apologies for the distrust if you don't in fact have > anything malicious planned. E's trying to earn a lime ribbon. E did this before for that reason, though not enough of the previous batch succeed for a lime, maybe on their merits. Whether that's a "scam" or not is up to you. (I mean, there *may* be some different reason but this is what e said when I was suspicious at the same behavior last time). -G.
