Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday

[Tanner Swett]

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 00:48 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> > Per Rule 2166 (“Assets”), I indent, without objection, to destroy
>> > Agora, no sooner than August 20th 2017, 01:00, Eastern time.
>>
>> Just to make sure, I object. (We have several protections against
>> actions that make the game nonexistent or unplayable, so it's likely
>> that this couldn't succeed. It's possible, though, that destroying
>> Agora has an effect that doesn't make the nomic we're playing
>> unplayable. What does it mean to destroy a nomic anyway?)
>
> Well, by common definition, if a nomic by its own rules was "destroyed",
> I'd say that instance of it would "cease to exist" and it would
> basically say "this nomic has ended, game over."

Well, that depends on what "destroy" means. Destruction doesn't imply
that something ceases to exist; it just implies that the object is no
longer capable of serving its purpose as intended. You can destroy a
car by crashing it at high speed, but the car still exists after you
have done so.

So I'd say that destroying Agora by announcement would be ineffective
due to ambiguity, since it doesn't specify the nature of the damage
done to Agora which renders it destroyed.

--whatever my nickname is these days

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 12:57 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 09:50 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > > Elevating R1698 sounds like a good idea though.  One question is which
> > > > of 1698, 1030, and 1551 should be highest - do their global protections
> > > > interact in odd ways that mean we should be careful about their order?
> > > 
> > > I've believed for a while that 1698 should be higher than 1030. 1030's
> > > current 3.2 is probably correct, meaning that 1698 should be 3.3 (or 4
> > > if we have concerns over the Town Fountain somehow being used to end
> > > the game).
> > 
> > Of course remembering that by amending R1030 you can completely flip the
> > precedence order anyway :).  
> 
> My concern's more about accidental breakage than intentional breakage.
> In other words, "what's the most likely mistake that could break Agora,
> and what consequences would it have?".
> 
> If it's intentional breakage you're worried about, all powers from 3
> upwards are equally secure or equally insecure, because a carefully
> crafted power-3 rule can do anything (by design; it's only the powers
> below 3 that are intended to act as sandboxes against malicious rules).

No I know that, I was mainly thinking through what could break (unintentionally)
R1030 such that having R1698 higher versus lower would make any difference,
and thinking it didn't matter because if R1030 "broke", it would break by
changing the precedence order - because that's what it does - so the order
wouldn't matter.

But I suppose it could break by somehow re-ordering rules of the same power
so as to break the proposal system, so we'd want R1698 higher as you said.
(ID numbers are a weak point, given their explicit role in R1030 coupled
with how weakly they're currently defined - a power-1 Rule could make a
new system for assigning ID numbers that could mess things up, though
re-assigning is protected at power-3 by R2141).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 12:57 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 09:50 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > Elevating R1698 sounds like a good idea though.  One question is which
> > > of 1698, 1030, and 1551 should be highest - do their global protections
> > > interact in odd ways that mean we should be careful about their order?
> > 
> > I've believed for a while that 1698 should be higher than 1030. 1030's
> > current 3.2 is probably correct, meaning that 1698 should be 3.3 (or 4
> > if we have concerns over the Town Fountain somehow being used to end
> > the game).
> 
> Of course remembering that by amending R1030 you can completely flip the
> precedence order anyway :).  

My concern's more about accidental breakage than intentional breakage.
In other words, "what's the most likely mistake that could break Agora,
and what consequences would it have?".

If it's intentional breakage you're worried about, all powers from 3
upwards are equally secure or equally insecure, because a carefully
crafted power-3 rule can do anything (by design; it's only the powers
below 3 that are intended to act as sandboxes against malicious rules).

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> It has some mechanical protections. The most important one is that it
> defines the game: "Agora is a game of Nomic, wherein Persons, acting
> in accordance with the Rules, communicate their game Actions and/or
> results of these actions via Fora in order to play the game."

Oh, fun fact:

This sentence was specifically written to model the "Four causes" of
Aristotelian causality:

Fora:Material Cause.
Actions: Efficient Cause.
Rules:   Formal Cause.
Persons: Final Cause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 09:50 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Elevating R1698 sounds like a good idea though.  One question is which
> > of 1698, 1030, and 1551 should be highest - do their global protections
> > interact in odd ways that mean we should be careful about their order?
> 
> I've believed for a while that 1698 should be higher than 1030. 1030's
> current 3.2 is probably correct, meaning that 1698 should be 3.3 (or 4
> if we have concerns over the Town Fountain somehow being used to end
> the game).

Of course remembering that by amending R1030 you can completely flip the
precedence order anyway :).  

Although if R1030 were changed to affect precedence order (e.g. reversing
it so lower-powered rules have precedence), there would be hard-to-figure
out conflicts with R2140.  

(Which might make things broken enough that R1698 would block the change
from happening - so yes having R1698 higher would be good - but it's
also potentially messy as it drags R2140 into the mix).

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Kerim Aydin  
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 00:48 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> >> >> > Per Rule 2166 (“Assets”), I indent, without objection, to destroy
> >> >> > Agora, no sooner than August 20th 2017, 01:00, Eastern time.
> >> >>
> >> >> Just to make sure, I object. (We have several protections against
> >> >> actions that make the game nonexistent or unplayable, so it's likely
> >> >> that this couldn't succeed. It's possible, though, that destroying
> >> >> Agora has an effect that doesn't make the nomic we're playing
> >> >> unplayable. What does it mean to destroy a nomic anyway?)
> >> >
> >> > Well, by common definition, if a nomic by its own rules was "destroyed",
> >> > I'd say that instance of it would "cease to exist" and it would
> >> > basically say "this nomic has ended, game over."
> >> >
> >>
> >> True. Rules 101 and 1698 prevent it, in this case, and you'd have to
> >> repeal both to make it work (or pass a rule of greater power). Would
> >> anyone object to raising them to power 4, or 3.9, or something, just
> >> to prevent this from accidentally happening?
> >
> > R101 has gone through major changes to reflect the flavor of the current
> > game, "the game may be won, but the game never ends" to me is more about
> > flavor than protection (like "please treat Agora Right Good Forever").
> > R1698 (and maybe R2449) have more mechanical protections IMO.  So I'd
> > leave R101 at power-3, personally.
> >
> 
> It has some mechanical protections. The most important one is that it
> defines the game: "Agora is a game of Nomic, wherein Persons, acting
> in accordance with the Rules, communicate their game Actions and/or
> results of these actions via Fora in order to play the game." Rule
> 1698 provides that no rule change can cause the game to cease to
> exist, but it doesn't say that it does exist. Therefore, IMO, 101 is
> on the same level as 1698.

It only defined the game from 2013 onward though, so the game didn't need that
to function.

>From 2006-2013, it indirectly implied that Agora was a game and a society,
and didn't define Agora explicitly:

   WHEREAS Agora, since its inception, has functioned not only as a
   game but as a society, and WHEREAS a society, to function, must
   balance its Rules with the natural rights of its participants,
   [Therefore Agorans have this list of Rights].


In the 2005-2006 period, it was wholly the Regulation Regulations rule:

   Any player is permitted to perform an action which is not
   regulated.  An action is regulated if:

   [List of what makes something regulated, nearly identical to R2125]

   A player besides the Speaker is always permitted to deregister
   rather than continue to play.  Please treat Agora right good
   forever.


Before that (1993-2005) it was very close to the original Nomic.  Note
that this means around 2005 we repealed the explicit requirement to
obey the rules!

Rule 101/1 (Power=3)
Obey the Rules

   All Players must always abide by all the Rules currently in
   effect, in the form in which they are currently in effect.
   However, a Player besides the Speaker may always deregister
   rather than continue to play.

   Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by the Rules is
   permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing
   the Rules, which is permitted only when the Rules explicitly or
   implicitly permit it.  Any change to the game state which would
   make it impossible to make arbitrary modifications to the Rules
   by any combination of actions by Players does not occur, any
   Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.

   The Rules in the Initial Set are in effect at the beginning of
   the first game.  The Initial Set consists of Rules 101-116
   (Immutable) and 201-219 (Mutable).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday

[Aris Merchant]

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> > On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 00:48 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> >> > Per Rule 2166 (“Assets”), I indent, without objection, to destroy
>> >> > Agora, no sooner than August 20th 2017, 01:00, Eastern time.
>> >>
>> >> Just to make sure, I object. (We have several protections against
>> >> actions that make the game nonexistent or unplayable, so it's likely
>> >> that this couldn't succeed. It's possible, though, that destroying
>> >> Agora has an effect that doesn't make the nomic we're playing
>> >> unplayable. What does it mean to destroy a nomic anyway?)
>> >
>> > Well, by common definition, if a nomic by its own rules was "destroyed",
>> > I'd say that instance of it would "cease to exist" and it would
>> > basically say "this nomic has ended, game over."
>> >
>>
>> True. Rules 101 and 1698 prevent it, in this case, and you'd have to
>> repeal both to make it work (or pass a rule of greater power). Would
>> anyone object to raising them to power 4, or 3.9, or something, just
>> to prevent this from accidentally happening?
>
> R101 has gone through major changes to reflect the flavor of the current
> game, "the game may be won, but the game never ends" to me is more about
> flavor than protection (like "please treat Agora Right Good Forever").
> R1698 (and maybe R2449) have more mechanical protections IMO.  So I'd
> leave R101 at power-3, personally.
>

It has some mechanical protections. The most important one is that it
defines the game: "Agora is a game of Nomic, wherein Persons, acting
in accordance with the Rules, communicate their game Actions and/or
results of these actions via Fora in order to play the game." Rule
1698 provides that no rule change can cause the game to cease to
exist, but it doesn't say that it does exist. Therefore, IMO, 101 is
on the same level as 1698.

-Aris

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 09:50 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Elevating R1698 sounds like a good idea though.  One question is which
> of 1698, 1030, and 1551 should be highest - do their global protections
> interact in odd ways that mean we should be careful about their order?

I've believed for a while that 1698 should be higher than 1030. 1030's
current 3.2 is probably correct, meaning that 1698 should be 3.3 (or 4
if we have concerns over the Town Fountain somehow being used to end
the game).

1551 should be below 1698 and 1030 but higher than everything else
(again, with the Town Fountain being a special case). Putting 1551
above 1698 might make it possible to ratify ourselves into an ossified
gamestate, which a) is not completely implausible and b) would clearly
be much worse than the alternative. Putting 1551 above 1030 would make
it possible to ratify inconsistent precedence relationships into the
ruleset, and AFAICT have no other impact compared to the reverse
relationship. In both these cases, it's clearly better to have a
playable game (even if it takes some research to work out how) than it
is to have certainty about the gamestate (even if it's unplayable).

Note that the above-3 power of 1551 is correct; when it was only power
3, it frequently broke accidentally from "you can't do this"
requirements in other rules. So my suggestion is 3.1 for 1551, 3.2 for
1030, and 3.3 or 4 for 1698.

As for rule 101, it clearly functions correctly at any power in the 3-4 
range. I know that there were failed attempts to increase it to power 4
in the past, but it failed (mostly because it was a lot more complex
and the interaction with other rules was unclear). It might be time to
try again, mostly a) for symbolic reasons and b) because there's
probably a clever scam involving it somehow, which might be interesting
to see (note: I'm not currently aware of such a scam).

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 00:48 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> >> > Per Rule 2166 (“Assets”), I indent, without objection, to destroy
> >> > Agora, no sooner than August 20th 2017, 01:00, Eastern time.
> >>
> >> Just to make sure, I object. (We have several protections against
> >> actions that make the game nonexistent or unplayable, so it's likely
> >> that this couldn't succeed. It's possible, though, that destroying
> >> Agora has an effect that doesn't make the nomic we're playing
> >> unplayable. What does it mean to destroy a nomic anyway?)
> >
> > Well, by common definition, if a nomic by its own rules was "destroyed",
> > I'd say that instance of it would "cease to exist" and it would
> > basically say "this nomic has ended, game over."
> >
> 
> True. Rules 101 and 1698 prevent it, in this case, and you'd have to
> repeal both to make it work (or pass a rule of greater power). Would
> anyone object to raising them to power 4, or 3.9, or something, just
> to prevent this from accidentally happening?

R101 has gone through major changes to reflect the flavor of the current
game, "the game may be won, but the game never ends" to me is more about
flavor than protection (like "please treat Agora Right Good Forever").  
R1698 (and maybe R2449) have more mechanical protections IMO.  So I'd
leave R101 at power-3, personally.

Elevating R1698 sounds like a good idea though.  One question is which
of 1698, 1030, and 1551 should be highest - do their global protections
interact in odd ways that mean we should be careful about their order?

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday

[Aris Merchant]

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 00:48 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> > Per Rule 2166 (“Assets”), I indent, without objection, to destroy
>> > Agora, no sooner than August 20th 2017, 01:00, Eastern time.
>>
>> Just to make sure, I object. (We have several protections against
>> actions that make the game nonexistent or unplayable, so it's likely
>> that this couldn't succeed. It's possible, though, that destroying
>> Agora has an effect that doesn't make the nomic we're playing
>> unplayable. What does it mean to destroy a nomic anyway?)
>
> Well, by common definition, if a nomic by its own rules was "destroyed",
> I'd say that instance of it would "cease to exist" and it would
> basically say "this nomic has ended, game over."
>

True. Rules 101 and 1698 prevent it, in this case, and you'd have to
repeal both to make it work (or pass a rule of greater power). Would
anyone object to raising them to power 4, or 3.9, or something, just
to prevent this from accidentally happening?

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday

[Roger Hicks]

I actually find it quite interesting to have partnerships as Shareholders.
I'd hate to see that go away due to a rule change.

On 5/13/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


BobTHJ wrote:

 Being that Primo Corporation is not a partnership, I don't believe it
 would exist as a player under this new rule. As CEO, I am gravely
 concerned by this language...

It assigns rights and obligations to all partners, therefore it's a
partnership even if it doesn't call itself one.  I will likely have
HP2 and SSE withdraw from it, though, to avoid ambiguity.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday

[Ed Murphy]

Zefram wrote:


Ed Murphy wrote:

 If a partnership contains exactly the same members as
 another registered partnership, then it is prohibited
 from registering.


You haven't constructed such a situation, so this limitation is
insufficient.  You need to determine the ultimate subject of obligations,
which is a set of natural players.


In combination with the explicit definition of person as excluding
multi-tier arrangements, it should be sufficient.

While I find it interesting to have other partnerships participate
in Primo, there are limits to the number of levels that I wish to
untangle.  I also want to avoid boring repeats of the HPn scam,
which No Free Votes II would also accomplish.