Re: Discussion of Honor (was Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process)
On 6/4/2020 12:13 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 7:20 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On 6/3/2020 11:23 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: On 6/3/2020 11:00 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > A player SHALL NOT cast a ballot or induce another person to do so >> in a > way primarily intended to affect popularity. Doing so is the Class-2 > Crime of Vote Manipulation. Notice of honour -1 Aris, for starting us down the road to criminalizing intent with that awful forbidden arts thing, and continuing the criminalization of intent by proposing penalties for the basic free act of voting. +1 D. Margaux, for being a generally good person. >>> >>> I retract Vote Manipulation. >>> >>> The forbidden arts thing doesn't even consider intent! Grumbles. This >>> one *does* consider intent though, and that's a fair argument against >>> it. I maintain that requiring people to at least *hide* what they're >>> doing could make it more interesting. Still, since it's you, and you >>> care this much, I'll retract the proposal. Next time maybe ask before >>> taking the honor? "Aris, I *really* think this is a bad idea", coming >>> from you, would have had the same effect. >> >> You're absolutely right. I've been too snippy lately. Maybe a little >> triggered this week with thoughts about "criminalization" of stuff. No >> excuse, you were clearly working in good faith there, I'm sorry Aris. >> >> And don't worry, your tone came across as mildly annoyed. :) >> >> [ >> As a side note, I've noticed recently there's a bit of divergence about >> how people treat the importance of Notices of Honour. I've mostly thought >> of NoHs as "expressing mild annoyance" rather than anything more serious >> (though sometimes I mis-judge the tone in the justification). But the >> term "Honour" makes it sound like something more worth defending and >> fighting about so it comes across as "escalation" rather than "let's >> diffuse things by blowing off steam in a silly honour fight"? Not sure >> it's anything that needs "fixing" but I'll keep that in mind, definitely... >> ] > > > Personally, I take honor not as something that needs to be defended but as > a measure of whether I'm doing the right thing or not. If someone is > decreasing my honor for X, that's a sign I shouldn't do X. If they're > increasing my honor for X, I should do more X. The reason I got mildly > peeved here is that I felt like I was just throwing around ideas. So it was > like... if my ideas are bad, just tell me that they're bad? It doesn't feel > like the sort of action that it makes sense to encourage or discourage. > > It is in fair part my fault for using proposals rather than protos for > ideas. Ideally, a proposal should signify "this is ready for voting" and a > proto should signify "this is an idea that is ready for discussion". I've > been basically ignoring that convention without communicating it, so shame > on me for that. On the other hand, is it even a good idea to discourage > people from producing unpopular or inadvisable proposals? A proposal, is, > at the end of the day, an option, and can always be voted down. If it helps, the context (my mindset) at the time of that Notice of Honour was "I just said to em that I don't think the SHOULD NOT belongs there, and e responded by upping it to a SHALL NOT, putting it in a proposal (not a proto), and saying it's up to the voters now." That seemed (in the moment) as you saying "I've listened to you but I'm doubling down on wanting to punish this" rather than "I'm still open to a suggestion of non-punishment". So the NoH was about the overall context and conversation not just the proposal? (with the intent that the NoH come across as minor irritation, though I failed at that part!) -G.
Re: Discussion of Honor (was Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process)
On 6/4/2020 12:13 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On the other hand, is it even a good idea to discourage > people from producing unpopular or inadvisable proposals? A proposal, is, > at the end of the day, an option, and can always be voted down. Exactly! So we're agreed that submitting forbidden proposals shouldn't be penalized? :)
Re: Discussion of Honor (was Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process)
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 3:13 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 7:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > On 6/3/2020 11:23 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> On 6/3/2020 11:00 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > >>> A player SHALL NOT cast a ballot or induce another person to do so > > in a > > >>> way primarily intended to affect popularity. Doing so is the Class-2 > > >>> Crime of Vote Manipulation. > > >> > > >> Notice of honour > > >> -1 Aris, for starting us down the road to criminalizing intent with that > > >> awful forbidden arts thing, and continuing the criminalization of intent > > >> by proposing penalties for the basic free act of voting. > > >> +1 D. Margaux, for being a generally good person. > > > > > > I retract Vote Manipulation. > > > > > > The forbidden arts thing doesn't even consider intent! Grumbles. This > > > one *does* consider intent though, and that's a fair argument against > > > it. I maintain that requiring people to at least *hide* what they're > > > doing could make it more interesting. Still, since it's you, and you > > > care this much, I'll retract the proposal. Next time maybe ask before > > > taking the honor? "Aris, I *really* think this is a bad idea", coming > > > from you, would have had the same effect. > > > > You're absolutely right. I've been too snippy lately. Maybe a little > > triggered this week with thoughts about "criminalization" of stuff. No > > excuse, you were clearly working in good faith there, I'm sorry Aris. > > > > And don't worry, your tone came across as mildly annoyed. :) > > > > [ > > As a side note, I've noticed recently there's a bit of divergence about > > how people treat the importance of Notices of Honour. I've mostly thought > > of NoHs as "expressing mild annoyance" rather than anything more serious > > (though sometimes I mis-judge the tone in the justification). But the > > term "Honour" makes it sound like something more worth defending and > > fighting about so it comes across as "escalation" rather than "let's > > diffuse things by blowing off steam in a silly honour fight"? Not sure > > it's anything that needs "fixing" but I'll keep that in mind, definitely... > > ] > > > Personally, I take honor not as something that needs to be defended but as > a measure of whether I'm doing the right thing or not. If someone is > decreasing my honor for X, that's a sign I shouldn't do X. If they're > increasing my honor for X, I should do more X. The reason I got mildly > peeved here is that I felt like I was just throwing around ideas. So it was > like... if my ideas are bad, just tell me that they're bad? It doesn't feel > like the sort of action that it makes sense to encourage or discourage. > > It is in fair part my fault for using proposals rather than protos for > ideas. Ideally, a proposal should signify "this is ready for voting" and a > proto should signify "this is an idea that is ready for discussion". I've > been basically ignoring that convention without communicating it, so shame > on me for that. On the other hand, is it even a good idea to discourage > people from producing unpopular or inadvisable proposals? A proposal, is, > at the end of the day, an option, and can always be voted down. > > -Aris I think that as long as people aren't creating excessive proposals, there's no reason to discourage the production of unpopular proposals. I also have been thinking about the use of protos recently because it seems that proposals get much more attention, and therefore seem to be more effective as drafts.
Re: Discussion of Honor (was Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process)
On Thursday, June 4, 2020 2:13:33 PM CDT Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > It is in fair part my fault for using proposals rather than protos for > ideas. Ideally, a proposal should signify "this is ready for voting" and a > proto should signify "this is an idea that is ready for discussion". I've > been basically ignoring that convention without communicating it, so shame > on me for that. On the other hand, is it even a good idea to discourage > people from producing unpopular or inadvisable proposals? A proposal, is, > at the end of the day, an option, and can always be voted down. Re: Making Premature Proposals. I'm exactly as guilty of this as you, and I can see both sides. I think it's reasonable to subtract honor for someone making proposals without getting them properly vetted in discussion, or making and retracting many versions in a short window. On the other hand, making something a proposal instead of a proto makes it much more likely to get vetted at all. -- nch
Discussion of Honor (was Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process)
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 7:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/3/2020 11:23 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 6/3/2020 11:00 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > >>> A player SHALL NOT cast a ballot or induce another person to do so > in a > >>> way primarily intended to affect popularity. Doing so is the Class-2 > >>> Crime of Vote Manipulation. > >> > >> Notice of honour > >> -1 Aris, for starting us down the road to criminalizing intent with that > >> awful forbidden arts thing, and continuing the criminalization of intent > >> by proposing penalties for the basic free act of voting. > >> +1 D. Margaux, for being a generally good person. > > > > I retract Vote Manipulation. > > > > The forbidden arts thing doesn't even consider intent! Grumbles. This > > one *does* consider intent though, and that's a fair argument against > > it. I maintain that requiring people to at least *hide* what they're > > doing could make it more interesting. Still, since it's you, and you > > care this much, I'll retract the proposal. Next time maybe ask before > > taking the honor? "Aris, I *really* think this is a bad idea", coming > > from you, would have had the same effect. > > You're absolutely right. I've been too snippy lately. Maybe a little > triggered this week with thoughts about "criminalization" of stuff. No > excuse, you were clearly working in good faith there, I'm sorry Aris. > > And don't worry, your tone came across as mildly annoyed. :) > > [ > As a side note, I've noticed recently there's a bit of divergence about > how people treat the importance of Notices of Honour. I've mostly thought > of NoHs as "expressing mild annoyance" rather than anything more serious > (though sometimes I mis-judge the tone in the justification). But the > term "Honour" makes it sound like something more worth defending and > fighting about so it comes across as "escalation" rather than "let's > diffuse things by blowing off steam in a silly honour fight"? Not sure > it's anything that needs "fixing" but I'll keep that in mind, definitely... > ] Personally, I take honor not as something that needs to be defended but as a measure of whether I'm doing the right thing or not. If someone is decreasing my honor for X, that's a sign I shouldn't do X. If they're increasing my honor for X, I should do more X. The reason I got mildly peeved here is that I felt like I was just throwing around ideas. So it was like... if my ideas are bad, just tell me that they're bad? It doesn't feel like the sort of action that it makes sense to encourage or discourage. It is in fair part my fault for using proposals rather than protos for ideas. Ideally, a proposal should signify "this is ready for voting" and a proto should signify "this is an idea that is ready for discussion". I've been basically ignoring that convention without communicating it, so shame on me for that. On the other hand, is it even a good idea to discourage people from producing unpopular or inadvisable proposals? A proposal, is, at the end of the day, an option, and can always be voted down. -Aris
