Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:55 AM nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > Ok I think these are the newest and current versions of these proposals in the > pool, minus Vote Manipulation. Apologies if I make comments that are redundant > with discussion, the comments on these have gotten a bit sprawling. My fault for not keeping things more organized. :) > On Thursday, June 4, 2020 1:00:56 AM CDT Aris Merchant via agora-business > wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 9:19 PM Aris Merchant > > > > --- > > Title: Properly Prioritized Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: G. > > > > > > [I've gone with making this an "honest" popularity system, not affected > > by manipulatable mechanics such as proposal strength.] > > > > Amend the rule entitled "Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege" > > by changing it to read in full: > > > > For an Agoran decision on whether to adopt a proposal, let F be the total > > number of valid ballots resolving to FOR, A be the same for AGAINST, > > and T be the total number of valid ballots. The decision's popularity > > is equal to (F - A)/T. The Assessor SHOULD publish the popularity of each > > decision when resolving it. > > Minor nitpick: I'd rather the variables were named differently, to clearly > distinguish them from the variables in 955. Agoran convention is that this type of variable is a single capital letter and I think deviating from that convention would be more confusing than this. I also think that picking any other letter would be more confusing than this. So I can't think of a way of swapping out the variables that doesn't actually make things more confusing? > > The player who proposed the adopted proposal such that the decision on > > whether to adopt it had the greatest popularity, among all such decisions > > assessed in the last 7 days CAN once earn one Legislative Card by > > announcement, provided that no decision on whether to adopt any proposal > > distributed in the same message remains unresolved. If there is a tie, all > > authors of the tied proposals can do so once each. > > Overall I like this fix. One weird consequence: There will be a smaller and > delayed window to claim the card in certain circumstances. If the last two > assessments were less than 7 days apart, and the second most recent had a > proposal more popular than the most recent, then the proposer of the most > popular in the most recent will have to wait until it's been 7 days since the > first assessment. I don't know if there's a clean way to fix this edge case, > so > we should just be aware of it. > > Assessment is hard to write good rules about. I noticed this. There's a pretty simple fix, but it relies on Agoran confidence in the Promotor. Specifically, we could do it by distribution message, making it one proposal per distribution that gets the Privilege. I'm inclined to leave that for a future proposal though. > > Title: Referenda > > Adoption index: 3.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: > > I didn't spot any issues with this one. Always a fan of shortening language, > and referendum is a reasonably intuitive term of art. Thanks! -Aris
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
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
> [ > 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... > ] After reading this, I think I'll try to be more liberal about assigning negative karma for silly reasons, to try to keep it light. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On 6/4/2020 12:20 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: >> And besides, we already criminalize intent. We do that by making it illegal >> to intentionally lie to mislead. > > That doesn't help much, because that one was also in large part my fault. I like the reform direction R. Lee proposed, but somehow I don't have as much a problem with some penalty for telling outright falsehoods. I've got more of a concern about ascribing motives and intent to actual game actions (with an exception for Officers' duties). If I vote AGAINST a proposal without giving a reason, I don't want to have to defend myself if people say "why did e vote against that seemingly-good proposal? E must be gaming it". Likewise, my issue with DatDA was more the part that punishes proposing and voting (and sorry, I misread some intent language in there - though that surely comes into the setting-the-punishment bit). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On Thursday, 4 June 2020, 16:06:12 GMT+1, nch wrote: > I've noticed this dichotomy too. I was originally planning to award a victory > card to the person with highest honor every week but I got the impression some > people would be against gamifying honor so I backed down on it. Honour only really works if it has no game effect; otherwise, people will treat the honour-granting action as an economic asset to be traded, rather than basing it on people's behaviour. As a side note, at one time, the honour system was defined by a contract rather than being in the rules, precisely because it didn't need to have any game effect. Maybe it'd be worth going back to that, in order to simplify the rules a bit. (I don't fully remember why it was moved into the rules, but it might have been a method of keeping it around when contracts were repealed.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On Thursday, June 4, 2020 9:18:52 AM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > [ > 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... > ] I've noticed this dichotomy too. I was originally planning to award a victory card to the person with highest honor every week but I got the impression some people would be against gamifying honor so I backed down on it. -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On 6/4/2020 3:20 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:14 AM Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:24 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business 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. -Aris Everyone's been too snippy recently. Oh, I was also snippy, wasn't I? Whoops. Sorry about that, G. I was trying to sound very mildly annoyed and it doesn't appear to have gone very well. I just thought it was funny
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:48 AM Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > > I create this proposal > > Title: This is not unlike defamation law > AI 1 > Chamber: Justice > Text: Amend rule 2471 "No Faking" so that it states > A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that (1) is a statement of pure > and verifiable fact about the game state of Agora and I like this change because it's more clear than the current text. > (2) is false at the > time the statement is made and I'm interested in how this would interact with ratification and confusion around that, but if we resolve that, I generally like it. Additionally, this removes the possibility of someone believing that they are making a false statement when it is in fact true. I think we should keep that as illegal because that way we don't always have to determine the exact accuracy of a statement at a time, which unfortunately can be very complicated. > (3) is likely, at the time the statement is > made, to induce game actions by other persons that would not be taken if a > true statement was substituted for the false one. This seems like an overly restrictive test. As the person who will likely have to make this assessment, I would prefer if we either went for much more specific or keep a more vague standard. I also don't like the removal of the intent and knowledge clause because this could force us to punish people for simply being wrong. > Making such a statement > is the Class-2 crime of Faking. > > Statements of formal intent never constitute Faking. > I don't like this final clause because it allows ratification of things without a specific statement of any changes. Preventing this increases transparency and is therefore good for the game. I would also like to keep the following text because it provides some helpful safeguards and avoids disputes: Merely quoting a statement does not constitute making it for the purposes of this rule. Any disclaimer, conditional clause, or other qualifier attached to a statement constitutes part of the statement for the purposes of this rule; the truth or falsity of the whole is what is significant.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 3:13 AM Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:24 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business > > 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. > > > > -Aris > > > Everyone's been too snippy recently. > > And besides, we already criminalize intent. We do that by making it illegal > to intentionally lie to mislead. > > -- > From R. Lee While I agree and think we should all work on this, I also think that we should give each other a bit of a break given the state of the world and the increased stress that everyone is likely experiencing.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:14 AM Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:24 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business > > 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. > > > > -Aris > > > Everyone's been too snippy recently. Oh, I was also snippy, wasn't I? Whoops. Sorry about that, G. I was trying to sound very mildly annoyed and it doesn't appear to have gone very well. > And besides, we already criminalize intent. We do that by making it illegal > to intentionally lie to mislead. That doesn't help much, because that one was also in large part my fault. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On 6/3/2020 10:36 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 10:04 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> On 6/3/2020 9:19 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:03 PM Aris Merchant wrote: >> >>> proposal when resolving it. Players SHOULD NOT attempt to game popularity. >>> >> >> Can we be a bit less moralistic about trying to game, well, a game? > > Did you read the comment? I just don't want to get into another > situation like the one with the Comptroller. Does anyone think it's > actually fun to have everyone putting conditional boilerplate in all > their votes? To me, that just seems like an annoying distraction. > Scams can be fun, but only when there's some cleverness involved. I read it, and respectfully disagree. This isn't a scam or a major proposal-affecting power play like the Comptrollor, it's just a bit of prisoners dilemma voting or something, you know, like classic nomic. > Options: > - Change to a SHALL (with presumably a more precise definition) > - Make only unconditional votes count (this unnecessarily penalizes > endorsements and the like) > - Split this bit out into a different proposal (probably a good idea > in any case) - Take out the SHOULD and just let it be a game.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 10:36 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 10:04 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > > > On 6/3/2020 9:19 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:03 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > > >> > > > > > proposal when resolving it. Players SHOULD NOT attempt to game > > > popularity. > > > > > > > Can we be a bit less moralistic about trying to game, well, a game? > > Did you read the comment? I just don't want to get into another > situation like the one with the Comptroller. Does anyone think it's > actually fun to have everyone putting conditional boilerplate in all > their votes? To me, that just seems like an annoying distraction. > Scams can be fun, but only when there's some cleverness involved. > > Options: > - Change to a SHALL (with presumably a more precise definition) > - Make only unconditional votes count (this unnecessarily penalizes > endorsements and the like) > - Split this bit out into a different proposal (probably a good idea > in any case) Okay, I did the first and last ones. This way people can vote their conscience on each part. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 10:04 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 6/3/2020 9:19 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:03 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > >> > > > proposal when resolving it. Players SHOULD NOT attempt to game popularity. > > > > Can we be a bit less moralistic about trying to game, well, a game? Did you read the comment? I just don't want to get into another situation like the one with the Comptroller. Does anyone think it's actually fun to have everyone putting conditional boilerplate in all their votes? To me, that just seems like an annoying distraction. Scams can be fun, but only when there's some cleverness involved. Options: - Change to a SHALL (with presumably a more precise definition) - Make only unconditional votes count (this unnecessarily penalizes endorsements and the like) - Split this bit out into a different proposal (probably a good idea in any case) -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 3:04 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/3/2020 9:19 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:03 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > >> > > > proposal when resolving it. Players SHOULD NOT attempt to game > popularity. > > > > Can we be a bit less moralistic about trying to game, well, a game? > > I personally certainly intend to game it, if it is possible. -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:27 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:02 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business > wrote: > > > > I submit the following proposals. > > > > -Aris > > --- > > Title: Order-Independent Resolutions > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: > > > > Amend the rule entitled "Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege" > > by changing it to read in full: > > > > The player who proposed the proposal with the greatest F/A, as > > defined in rule 955, among all proposals assessed in the last 7 > > days CAN once earn one Legislative Card by announcement, provided that > > no decision on whether to adopt any proposal distributed in the same > > message remains open. If there is a tie, all authors of the tied > proposals > > may do so once each. > > > > --- > > Title: Why Track Pendency? > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: > > > > [Currently, Sets would make me track proposals forever. The simplest > > fix is just to make the Pended switch untracked. It'll end up getting > > effectively tracked anyway, since it determines whether a proposal must > > be distributed.] > > > > Amend the rule entitled "Pending Proposals" by changing the text "Pended > is a > > negative boolean proposal switch tracked by the Promotor." to read > > "Pended is an untracked negative boolean proposal switch." > > --- > > Title: Ministerial Reshuffling > > Adoption index: 2.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: > > > > > > Amend Rule 2605, "Ministries", by changing the lettered list to read: > > > > A. Ministry of Economy: regulate the economy > > B. Ministry of Efficiency: maximize official efficiency > > C. Ministry of Justice: serve justice > > D. Ministry of Legislation: effectuate legislation > > E. Ministry of Participation: encourage participation > > > > --- > > Title: Proposal Recycling Initiative > > Adoption index: 3.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: > > > > > > [This helps for any proposals that either were distributed before the new > > regime and failed quorum, or any proposals that are accidentally > distributed > > and failed quorum. While I'm at it, there's no reason this needs to be at > > power 3.0.] > > > > Amend Rule 2350, "Proposals", by deleting the text: > > If a decision of whether to adopt a proposal was resolved as > > FAILED QUORUM in the last seven days, the Promotor CAN once add > > the proposal back to the Proposal Pool by announcement. > > > > Enact a new rule entitled "Proposal Recycling", with the following text: > > > > Would you like to specify the power of this rule? Default 1.0 seemed fine? > > > > > If a decision of whether to adopt a proposal was resolved as > > FAILED QUORUM in the last seven days, the Promotor CAN once recycle > > the proposal by announcement, adding it to the Proposal Pool and > causing > > it to become pended. > > > > --- > > Title: Referenda > > Adoption index: 3.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: > > > > > > Amend Rule 1607, "Distribution", by replacing: > > > > Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For > > this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the adoption > > index is initially the adoption index of the proposal, or 1.0 if > > the proposal does not have one, and the text, author, coauthors, > > class and (if applicable) chamber of the proposal are essential > > parameters. Initiating such a decision is known as distribution, > > and removes the proposal from the Proposal Pool. > > > > with: > > > > A referendum is the Agoran decision to determine whether to adopt a > proposal. > > For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the adoption > index is > > initially the adoption index of the proposal, or 1.0 if the proposal > does not > > have one, and the text, author, coauthors, class and (if applicable) > chamber > > of the proposal are essential parameters. Initiating a referendum is > known > > as distribution, and removes the proposal from the Proposal Pool. > > > > > > Amend Rule 2350, "Proposals", by changing the text "If a decision of > whether to > > adopt a proposal was resolved as FAILED QUORUM in the last seven days" > > to read "If a referendum on a proposal was resolved as FAILED QUORUM in > the > > last seven days". > > > > Amend Rule 2606, "Proposal Classes", by changing the text "Agoran > decision on > > its adoption" to read "referendum on it". > > > > Amend Rule 2607, "Proposal Chambers", by changing the text "Agoran > decision on > > its adoption" to read "referendum on it". > > > > Amend Rule 106, "Adopting Proposals", by changing the text "a decision > about > > whether to adopt a proposal" to read "a referendum on a proposal". > > > > Amend Rule 879, "Quorum", by changing the text "the Agoran decision on > whether > > to adopt a proposal" to read "the referendum". > > > > Amend Rule 2168, "Extending the voting period", by changing the text > > "whether to
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:24 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 6/3/2020 1:02 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > The player who proposed the proposal with the greatest F/A, as > > defined in rule 955, > > Can I just comment that I think our unofficial style guide should avoid > rules referring to other rules by number? (except maybe for one-off > temporary games and stuff like that). > > I was just wondering if that was too small of a nit to pick, but in typing > that, I just realized that for their importance in determining precedence, > Rule ID numbers seem very weakly regulated, in particular, here in R2141: > > > Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor. > > [snip] > > > However, rules to the contrary > > notwithstanding, the Rulekeepor CAN set rule aspects as described > > elsewhere in this rule. > > seems to suggest that the rulekeepor can just assign a new number to 955 > and break the relationship? (maybe not, I dunno). > > -G. > I think that fixing this would be good, but I think R1586 might resolve that specific risk: A rule, contract, or regulation that refers to an entity by name refers to the entity that had that name when the rule first came to include that reference, even if the entity's name has since changed.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:24 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/3/2020 1:02 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > The player who proposed the proposal with the greatest F/A, as > > defined in rule 955, > > Can I just comment that I think our unofficial style guide should avoid > rules referring to other rules by number? (except maybe for one-off > temporary games and stuff like that). > I 100% agree. That was just something I was copying over, so I didn't think about it. I'll rephrase it to eliminate that. -Aris > >
