Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] An Agoran Standoff
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 12:34 AM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2024-05-14 at 06:55 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > A ghostly player CAN incarnate by announcement, which means > > to flip eir Vitality to Invulnerable, provided there are only > > Invulnerable or Ghostly players. > [snip] > > When the match is reset, each player is set to Ghostly, all bangs are > > destroyed, and then each player gains 1 bang. > > > > When 3 days have passed since the match is reset, all Invulnerable > > players have eir Vitality set to Alive. > > The timing here is incredibly tight given Agora's typical pace of > play – not only is it faster than the "once per week" cadence at which > many players seem to be paying attention, it's even faster than the 4- > day without-objection timer. > > This makes it likely that only players who are continuously paying > attention will end up joining the match, and could arguably be > considered a scam, or at least biased proposal-writing in favour of the > continuously active. > This is a great point, so I'll extend it to 7 days. > > > Each corporeal player SHOULD list eir Vitality and Bang Balance in > > all eir messages. > > This one is also a problem, seeing as it includes things like official > reports (and even the SLR/FLR) – although some means is needed to track > things, and I think officer-less subgames are an experiment worth > trying, "every message" seems like too high a frequency for this. > I think this is actually fine: it's only a few words to be added to your signature at the end of the report, and since it's a SHOULD it will be easy to figure out if it's annoying or immersive (as i intend it to be). I'll be putting it in all my reports at least :3 -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] An Agoran Standoff
> > The eliminated player has no obvious use for the granted bang, as it > will be destroyed before they next become alive. Is this intended to > give em something to trade with? > I believe so too, and I think that it's a good design because it gives (dead) players something to keep playing the game with. It also encourages more Eliminating and moving the game forwards, with the Bang surplus.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No Overpowered Deputizations
On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 9:08 PM Jaff via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I will point out that there are multiple ways to take actions of an office > without holding it which this wouldn't cover, such as delegation. I think a > safer fix would be preventing a player who holds an office from taking > actions corresponding to another office such that holding both would make > them Overpowered. > Being able to take actions as another officer without holding the office is useful, though, especially in some edge cases. Being unable to resolve proposals because you're the promotor seems more dangerous than allowing it only by temporary deputization, which already has some strict requirements. Delegation may need another look, though, since it can be done with just the consent of the delegating office and 1 other party, but it also has the safeguard of being overwritten with agoran consent. Offices can also in general be impeached with 2 Agoran consent, in case anyone abuses delegation or deputization. This at least prevents becoming overpowered by deputization, which most likely would happen by accident and could cause other problems. -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: yes, yes, I got the memo
> On Mar 25, 2024, at 8:53 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion > wrote: > > I suggest "un-noted" to prevent all instances of noting 1 infraction > multiple times. That doesn’t fix the original issue, as an infraction can be investigated without being noted. And I don’t really think duplicate notes are an issue, as investigating it discharges all the obligations at once. Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: yes, yes, I got the memo
> On Mar 25, 2024, at 8:06 PM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
> On 25/03/2024 19:13, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
>> Amend rule 2478 (“Justice”) by replacing: {
>> A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
>> committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
>> incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
>> it has one).
>> } with {
>> A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
>> committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
>> incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
>> it has one); but a player CANNOT note an infraction that has
>> already been investigated.
>> }
>
> Could this not more succinctly just be "...an unforgiven, uninvestigated
> infraction"? The rule is already quite long and hard to parse.
>
> -Kate
Possibly - I started there, but wasn’t confident “uninvestigated”
was usable without a definition, and defining it would just make
things worse.
Could certainly be convinced otherwise; I don’t like this wording
either.
Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: yes, yes, I got the memo
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 3:07 PM Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 25/03/2024 19:13, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
> > Amend rule 2478 (“Justice”) by replacing: {
> > A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
> > committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
> > incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
> > it has one).
> > } with {
> > A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
> > committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
> > incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
> > it has one); but a player CANNOT note an infraction that has
> > already been investigated.
> > }
>
> Could this not more succinctly just be "...an unforgiven, uninvestigated
> infraction"? The rule is already quite long and hard to parse.
>
> -Kate
I suggest "un-noted" to prevent all instances of noting 1 infraction
multiple times.
--
snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: one from the archives
On 24/03/2024 12:44, Gaealn Steele via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Mar 24, 2024, at 12:21 PM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion >> wrote: >> hmm... the "Optionally" removes any obligation, but does mean that if >> there are any documents the Archivist deems worthy of archival (even >> non-Agoran documents!) but doesn't include, the option has not been >> taken and any documents the Archivist does include are not part of the >> report even if they may happen to be part of the same message >> >> which I don't think affects anything because the report doesn't >> self-ratify but feels untidy > > Ah, yeah, good catch - starting to see the appeal of your suggested > wording (“chooses and deems…”)! > > Probably worth patching afterwards, but not worth withdrawing the > proposal over? Agree - could even be part of the same distribution conditional on the rule existing -Kate
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: one from the archives
> On Mar 24, 2024, at 12:21 PM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On 24/03/2024 09:16, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:> * > Optionally, any other documents the Archivist deems worthy >> of archival. > > hmm... the "Optionally" removes any obligation, but does mean that if > there are any documents the Archivist deems worthy of archival (even > non-Agoran documents!) but doesn't include, the option has not been > taken and any documents the Archivist does include are not part of the > report even if they may happen to be part of the same message > > which I don't think affects anything because the report doesn't > self-ratify but feels untidy > > -Kate Ah, yeah, good catch - starting to see the appeal of your suggested wording (“chooses and deems…”)! Probably worth patching afterwards, but not worth withdrawing the proposal over? Gaealn
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Vacations
On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 2:10 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 1/28/24 14:04, nix via agora-business wrote: > > A player CAN flip the Delegate switch of a specified office to > > emself with Agoran Consent. If the Delegate switch of an office is > > set to "None", the holder of that office CAN flip the Delegate > > switch of that office to a specified player with notice. > > > I reread the discussion from when this was first proposed (in May of > last year!). Back then, the concern was striking a balance between > insuring someone would fill the role, not creating "dynasties" where the > current holder chose their successor, and making this all timely so it > wasn't a hassle. I hope this method is a good balance. The officer can > just choose someone if there is nobody, but a simple Consent decision > can always assign someone. If people don't agree with the officer's > choice, it's over-rideable. > > -- > nix > I think there needs to be some kind of change so that an unwilling delegate stop being one. As is, someone else would have to volunteer, since you can only make the delegate *yourself* with Agoran consent. I don't like that someone with a bunch of offices could burden someone else with all the office work for 30 days, who'd be forced to go inactive if they can't comply or can't get someone else to volunteer. Also what would happen if a delegate "resigns"? I think it'd be a good idea to have it be defined, and could fix this issue. Maybe throw in a clause about deputizing when there's no delegate and an officer is on vacation, the deputizer becomes the new delegate. -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Registration restrictions
On 1/5/24 01:42, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-01-05 at 01:40 -0500, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> * Inserting the following paragraph after the paragraph:
>>
>> {
>>
>> The basis of a person is the set of all persons that are (recursively)
>> part of em, in addition to emself. Rules to the contrary
>> notwithstanding, a person CANNOT become Registered if eir basis overlaps
>> with that of any current player
>>
>> }
> I suspect this won't have the effect you want on the rule, because you
> didn't specify which paragraph to insert it after. (There's also a
> missing full stop.)
>
Caught the first one, but I'll also fix the full stop. Thanks!
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Long forgotten fix
On 11/19/23 18:44, Goren Barak via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2023-11-19 16:24, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: >> I submit the following proposal: >> >> // >> Title: A simple fix >> Adoption index: 1.0 >> Author: snail >> Co-authors: nix >> >> >> [We tried to fix this back in April but it got wrapped up in a bigger stamp >> rework proposal, which failed.] >> >> Amend R2659 (Stamps) by replacing: >> >> Any player CAN win by paying N Stamps >> >> with: >> >> Any active player CAN win by paying N Stamps >> >> // >> -- >> snail > I vote FOR on this proposal. This fails for going to DIS. Also, it's much easier for me if you vote in the distribution thread (and you can vote on all of the other proposals as well in one message). -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The Button
Which is why you press the button every 144 hours that are reliable to you:
or setup scheduled emails. I feel like also this is similar to apathy but
now you have to track it: anyone can block as long as they press the button
fre. 2. jun. 2023, 12:29 p.m. skrev ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org>:
> On Fri, 2023-06-02 at 14:18 -0300, Juan F. Meleiro via agora-business
> wrote:
> > I create the following proposal, entitled “Game Theory”:
> >
> > {
> > Create a Power 1.0 rule called “The Button” with text:
>
> This isn't really game theory, but "who has the most reliable Internet
> connection / is best at being online at the right time of day". The
> optimal play is to press the button 144 hours after a previous press,
> unless someone else does so first. In practice, the "unless someone
> else does so first" is going to be impossible to check for due to email
> communication delay, so we're going to have to come up with some rule
> to decide who pressed the send button first (which is likely to be
> practically impossible to determine, given the 1 second granularity of
> most email servers' timestamping – if two people seriously try for this
> then their emails will have the same timestamps on them).
>
> It would be possible to attempt to ruin other people's attempts to win
> by sending an email just before the 144-hour limit, but doing so would
> give up on your own chance to win, so it doesn't really make much sense
> (and you won't know whose attempts you are trying to ruin, because
> nothing's forcing players to try to win 144 hours after the *first*
> press – waiting for the later ones is just as good as winning at aiming
> for an earlier one).
>
> "Be awake at a specific time of day, chosen by the Assessor" is also
> the sort of gameplay that can unfairly disadvantage some players
> compared to others (depending on where they live compared to the
> Assessor's timezone, and/or at what times of day they are busy and thus
> unable to send email).
>
> Incidentally, the original Button that this was referencing had, IIRC,
> a 1.5-second grace period, which would remove the simultaneous-timing
> issues but lead to the win condition probably being too easy
> (especially if the grace period were scaled up to "1.5/60th of a week"
> rather than being left at its original length).
>
> --
> ais523
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Rice rewrite
On 5/22/23 14:33, juan via agora-discussion wrote: > Janet Cobb via agora-business [2023-05-21 01:28]: >> Changes: >> - Generally cleaned up wording >> - Handle rice at Lost and Found >> - Harvesting a plan now grants rice before revoking (handling the case >> where a person is in both the up and down sets) >> - Use "CAN" for enabling >> - Use a by announcement action or contract for signatures, rather than >> "consent" >> - Added a clarity requirement for contract-based signatures >> - Removed Fancy Caps > I like the consent! It's fun to be able to use, e.g., contracts without > them being referenced in the rule. Possibly, other forms of consent > could work. This is an experiment in interactionless gameplay, do note. The consent standard lacks any clarity requirement for contracts other than "unambiguously". This is not sufficient when an officer has to be able to evaluate every possible condition. Similarly, "reasonably clear" is too vague for an officer potentially having to evaluate players * rice plans conditions. Promises would work with the new by announcement action (and it isn't clear that it's possible for the execution of a promise to give consent now, so this is a strict improvement from that perspective), and note that they aren't mentioned in the new text. I see no virtue in not mentioning contracts in the rule if they're a part of intended gameplay. > > I should note as well: the rules mention consent elsewhere than > just R2519, and not only in reference to actions. For example, R869, > incidentally another Power 3.0 rule: > >> The Rules CANNOT otherwise bind a person to abide by any agreement > without that person's willful consent. (R869, ¶6) > > Could we understand a Rice Plan as an agreement? > In this case the consent can be evaluated with respect to the action of "becoming bound to the agreement". Note that the clause is not enabling at all, and Rice Plans clearly aren't agreements anyway. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
ais523 wrote: On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 21:32 +0100, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 13:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: I informally risk being guilty of favoritism 7 days from now, by saying that the combination of CFJ calling and parenthetical reminder that it may fail is enough disclaimer to avoid no faking. I'll also note that Janet pointed out CFJ 1881 which asked if R2029 created a duty to dance, and in fact Judge omd of that case found that R2029 *does* apply penalties to the Marvy (if there were any Marvy), and CFJ 2589 which raised the matter again/independently. So it's not 100% cut-and-dried that R2029's exhortation to dance has no legal effect. And I'd forgotten at least one of those cases myself, so I wouldn't expect 4st to know about them. Are there any Marvy at the moment? IIRC the definition was something along the lines of "a player who has increased voting power but is not an officer", but I can't properly remember it (it was over a decade ago at this point). Just happened to notice this: On Tue, 2023-05-16 at 15:21 -0500, nix via agora-official wrote: Marvy:4st, ais523, CreateSource, cuddlybanana, duck, G., Janet, juan, Murphy, R. Lee, snail, Trigon, Vitor Gonçalves Marvy is a patent title that's currently in use. I suspect that this has no impact on rule 2029 for much the same reason that a player named "Marvy" wouldn't, but it feels like a relevant data point. IIRC, that Patent Title was awarded by proposal, then after its adoption the author claimed that R2029 penalized those players, but it was indeed shot down for much the same reason as a player named "Marvy" would have.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Promise anti-escalation
This has been the best possible outcome
lør. 20. mai 2023, 11:07 p.m. skrev Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org>:
> On 5/21/23 01:59, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote:
> > I counter by instead submitting the following proposal:
> >
> > {Adoption index = 3
> >
> > [Stop making small changes to fix things. This security issue happens all
> > the time.]
>
>
> Exactly what non-small change would you want here? Your proposal is
> "small", too. This is really getting annoying.
>
>
> > Enact the following rule:"By default and unless otherwise specified,
> > assets, switches, and eir properties are secured at the power level of
> the
> > rule that defines them."}
>
>
> First, NttPF.
>
> Second, you've put the "adoption index" inside the text of the proposal.
>
> Third, why is this in a new rule? There's a perfectly good rule this can
> go into (R1688).
>
> Fourth, there are likely to be breakages, and I find it unlikely you
> audited the entire ruleset for things that might break.
>
> Fifth, when things inevitably do break, how would they be fixed? In all
> likelihood, more small proposals, fixing them piecewise as they're
> found. This isn't preventing "small changes" at all.
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Promise anti-escalation
On 5/21/23 01:59, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote:
> I counter by instead submitting the following proposal:
>
> {Adoption index = 3
>
> [Stop making small changes to fix things. This security issue happens all
> the time.]
Exactly what non-small change would you want here? Your proposal is
"small", too. This is really getting annoying.
> Enact the following rule:"By default and unless otherwise specified,
> assets, switches, and eir properties are secured at the power level of the
> rule that defines them."}
First, NttPF.
Second, you've put the "adoption index" inside the text of the proposal.
Third, why is this in a new rule? There's a perfectly good rule this can
go into (R1688).
Fourth, there are likely to be breakages, and I find it unlikely you
audited the entire ruleset for things that might break.
Fifth, when things inevitably do break, how would they be fixed? In all
likelihood, more small proposals, fixing them piecewise as they're
found. This isn't preventing "small changes" at all.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 21:32 +0100, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 13:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: > > I informally risk being guilty of favoritism 7 days from now, by > > saying that the combination of CFJ calling and parenthetical reminder > > that it may fail is enough disclaimer to avoid no faking. I'll also > > note that Janet pointed out CFJ 1881 which asked if R2029 created a > > duty to dance, and in fact Judge omd of that case found that R2029 > > *does* apply penalties to the Marvy (if there were any Marvy), and > > CFJ 2589 which raised the matter again/independently. So it's not > > 100% cut-and-dried that R2029's exhortation to dance has no legal > > effect. And I'd forgotten at least one of those cases myself, so I > > wouldn't expect 4st to know about them. > > Are there any Marvy at the moment? IIRC the definition was something > along the lines of "a player who has increased voting power but is not > an officer", but I can't properly remember it (it was over a decade ago > at this point). Just happened to notice this: On Tue, 2023-05-16 at 15:21 -0500, nix via agora-official wrote: > Marvy:4st, ais523, CreateSource, > cuddlybanana, duck, G., Janet, > juan, Murphy, R. Lee, snail, > Trigon, Vitor Gonçalves Marvy is a patent title that's currently in use. I suspect that this has no impact on rule 2029 for much the same reason that a player named "Marvy" wouldn't, but it feels like a relevant data point. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 2:29 PM ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > Or perhaps this is just a case of "the ais523 who has been following > Agora for over 15 years spots things that the ais523 who had been there > for only one year didn't". Lol, I meant to add myself that the rules underlying may have been different at each point (I was thinking R1586 specifically, but definitely R217). And arguing against your past judicial self is a fine Agoran tradition, no real shade intended. > So we may just have to leave the precedent there. That's why past precedents are an "augmenting "not "definitive" factor (amongst other factors) in the current R217, of course...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 14:01 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 1:32 PM ais523 via agora-discussion > wrote: > > That said, I suspect the word in R2029 is currently undefined: I don't > > think "a definition that was in place at the time the rule was adopted" > > is one of the things that we can legally use to interpret the rules. > > (In fact, given that rules of lower power can't outright define terms > > in higher-power rules – just clarify them – it may be very hard to > > define a term in a power-4 rule at all if it has no common meaning, and > > after this much time, I doubt it has a common meaning.) > > It was CFJ 2585, and you (Judge ais523) found the exact opposite of > what you just said above. In > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2585, Judge ais523 > wrote: > > > However, by the implicit mention in CFJ 1881, > > and the explicit precedent of CFJ 1534 (that in a rule of historical > > significance such as 104 or 2029, terms used in the rule have the > > meaning they had when the rule was created), not to mention rule 1586, I > > can only conclude that "marvy" in rule 2029 has the meaning it did when > > the Fountain was created. This is a nomic, and rules change over time! I think my ruling in CFJ 2585, based as it was primarily on CFJ 1534, missed that the precedent of CFJ 1534 was probably no longer relevant (and suspect that it may be incorrect). The judge of CFJ 1881 may have made the same mistake. At the time of CFJ 1534, rule 217 looked like this: All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however, if the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the Statement to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider game custom, commonsense, past Judgements, and the best interests of the game before applying other standards. This is much more permissive than the current rule 217: in addition to applying only to judgements, it explicitly mentions "other standards" which can be used in cases where none of the four main tests work. At the time of CFJ 1881, it looked like this, somewhat more similar to the current version: When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. but I'm not sure whether the judge noticed that the change might potentially cause the precedent of CFJ 1534 to no longer apply. Additionally, CFJ 1534 was itself a judgement based on rule 217 tests, specifically the best interests of the game: that ruling that Michael Norrish had *continuously* been the Speaker since the start of Agora would break everything (the office of the Speaker used to be *much* more important to the functioning of Agora than it is nowadays), and thus in cases where rules were unclear, it was better to rule that transferrence of the Speaker worked correctly. This means that the precedent might not apply to cases where the the rule 217 tests leaned in a different direction. There's also the factor of "this fits too perfectly to not mention": the rules in place at the time of the Town Fountain's construction were repealed at the time of CFJ 1881, but by the time of CFJ 2585, the underlying rules had been re-enacted in pretty much the same form as they had originally. As such, the old definition of "marvy" was possible to apply to the rules at the time more or less directly. I suspect that the me of 15 years ago would have been so excited that the precedent *could* be applied in this way, that I didn't stop to consider whether I *should*; in fact I suspect that I read the relevant old judgements from the FLR annotations rather than actually reading the judgement itself to see if it were still relevant. (My argument to rule 1586 seems wrong, given that "marvy" wasn't rules-defined at the time.) Or perhaps this is just a case of "the ais523 who has been following Agora for over 15 years spots things that the ais523 who had been there for only one year didn't". Apparently I can still in theory appeal the CFJ, but would require 728 support to do so, which might be hard to obtain in the current gamestate. So we may just have to leave the precedent there. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 1:32 PM ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 13:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: > > I informally risk being guilty of favoritism 7 days from now, by > > saying that the combination of CFJ calling and parenthetical reminder > > that it may fail is enough disclaimer to avoid no faking. I'll also > > note that Janet pointed out CFJ 1881 which asked if R2029 created a > > duty to dance, and in fact Judge omd of that case found that R2029 > > *does* apply penalties to the Marvy (if there were any Marvy), and > > CFJ 2589 which raised the matter again/independently. So it's not > > 100% cut-and-dried that R2029's exhortation to dance has no legal > > effect. And I'd forgotten at least one of those cases myself, so I > > wouldn't expect 4st to know about them. > > Are there any Marvy at the moment? IIRC the definition was something > along the lines of "a player who has increased voting power but is not > an officer", but I can't properly remember it (it was over a decade ago > at this point). > > That said, I suspect the word in R2029 is currently undefined: I don't > think "a definition that was in place at the time the rule was adopted" > is one of the things that we can legally use to interpret the rules. > (In fact, given that rules of lower power can't outright define terms > in higher-power rules – just clarify them – it may be very hard to > define a term in a power-4 rule at all if it has no common meaning, and > after this much time, I doubt it has a common meaning.) It was CFJ 2585, and you (Judge ais523) found the exact opposite of what you just said above. In https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2585, Judge ais523 wrote: > However, by the implicit mention in CFJ 1881, > and the explicit precedent of CFJ 1534 (that in a rule of historical > significance such as 104 or 2029, terms used in the rule have the > meaning they had when the rule was created), not to mention rule 1586, I > can only conclude that "marvy" in rule 2029 has the meaning it did when > the Fountain was created. Recently, Judge 4st found, in CFJ 3989, that there just wasn't sufficient evidence to find anyone guilty of this, explicitly refuting CFJ 2585 (unfortunately the evidence/context was left out of this case record): https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3989. In refuting CFJ 2585, Judge 4st also specifically refuted CFJ 1534, which dealt with continuity of the "First Speaker" term, which you cited/upheld in CFJ 2585: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1534 Those 4 cases form the complete set of relevant cases that turn up search the CFJ github for Marvy/Marvies (1881, 2585, 2589 and 3989) plus CFJ 1534 for the more general finding that concerned old terms of art like "First Speaker": -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
On 5/18/23 16:08, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/18/23 15:03, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: >> I did call a CFJ on whether it created infractions, so I don't believe I >> violated no faking as I had included sufficient carefulness. :3 > Sufficient carefulness would be not investigating until the CFJ was > resolved, or your timer was almost up, at the very least. > Whether it was sufficiently "misleading" and whether it met the "highest possible standard of care" standard for automatic forgiveness are different issues. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
On 5/18/23 15:03, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: I did call a CFJ on whether it created infractions, so I don't believe I violated no faking as I had included sufficient carefulness. :3 Sufficient carefulness would be not investigating until the CFJ was resolved, or your timer was almost up, at the very least. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] now you don't see it
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 8:03 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > Having such an unwieldy amount of arcana puts a lot of power in being able > to give out 'hedonistic' Judgements; ones that are heavily based on "well > this is best for the game"/"this makes it playable"/etc, especially ones > that have to be that way because of ambiguity. Because we don't know for > sure everything that has even happened until now, and even then, we're > likely to have more disagreements the more arcana that we have to consider > in order to compute the current gamestate. > > It's probably not so bad then, because the longer back you go, the harder > it is to be sure of it, and the easier it seems that a hedonistic Judgement > will just overwrite it. Arcana *generally* doesn't have that strong an impact - an old CFJ can always be revisited, even if cited, and new CFJs have often said "that old one doesn't apply". And believe me, current judges are *very* ready to overturn or just ignore precedent that's somewhat old, that happens regularly. The reason this one is relevant is because voters, in the modern time, last week, voted FOR this Rules text, and so it's become current rules text. As I said, I can't speak for other voters' reasoning - no deals were made etc. - but there's all sorts of ways to go wrong in the rules by voting for unwise text, whether than unwise text is drawn from an ancient source or entirely new. Knowing about the old CFJs gives a *minor* advantage, in that when something comes up that's happened before, I can say "hey - here's a ready-to-go argument for the situation I don't need to re-argue first principles". But it still has to persuade the current judge (and any potential appealers) all over again. People do feel a "weight of history" a bit, in the sense of saying that this is a long-running game and it would be a shame to destroy it on a whim of a single judgement, but that applies to entirely new arguments/issues just as much as "old" ones. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] now you don't see it
Having such an unwieldy amount of arcana puts a lot of power in being able to give out 'hedonistic' Judgements; ones that are heavily based on "well this is best for the game"/"this makes it playable"/etc, especially ones that have to be that way because of ambiguity. Because we don't know for sure everything that has even happened until now, and even then, we're likely to have more disagreements the more arcana that we have to consider in order to compute the current gamestate. It's probably not so bad then, because the longer back you go, the harder it is to be sure of it, and the easier it seems that a hedonistic Judgement will just overwrite it. On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 4:47 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/12/23 06:59, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > > - Why would we make a special case just for Invisibilitating > specifically? > > What about other ancient things that may affect how other*current* > things > > of the game work too? > > There might be. There's nothing that prevents us from looking back, nor > any game custom that says not to. In fact it's encouraged. Less of a > look-back, but see also Janet recently noticing various proposal issues > from the last two years. We try to curb these things by having stuff > ratify, but it doesn't catch everything (and blindly ratify everything > has its own drawbacks). > > > - Are we even sure that the secret Invisibilitating instrument still > exists > > or works as intended? > > Probably not. > > > - It takes agency away from newer players and puts more into older ones > > which are more familiar with this obscure ancient arcana which has now > > supposedly been made relevant, which feels terrible. > > It's a game with a continuous 30 year history, the history is going to > impact that game and having more experience and knowledge about a thing > will give you advantage on the thing. There wasn't some explicit goal of > hurting new players. G. rediscovered some old arcana (which anyone could > do if they wanted to look through old archives, it's how I know anything > from before my time), and wanted to toy around with it. To my knowledge > it's not deeper than that. > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Expedited Proposals
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 1:31 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/12/23 01:37, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > > And about "voting strength games", any player could reactivate voting > > strength on the proposal if they would vote against it. Voting strength > > only matters when there's disagreement anyways, and if there is any, > it'll > > get turned back to ordinary by whichever side wants the voting strength > to > > be in effect. Or by any player who agrees with the "SHOULD". If everyone > > agrees to gamify it, then why not? There's really not more danger than a > > normal proposal, anyways, since this is just streamlining the process to > > what it can already be at a minimum. Even if you can come up with an > > example of how the expedited proposal could be abused, you could also > > probably just spot it and turn it ordinary. > > > This just becomes a timing race for setting the class immediately before > the voting period ends. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > Once it's turned ordinary during the voting period, it can't be turned back. "Each player CAN, with 2 support, flip an ordinary proposal's class to expedited, **provided it is in the Proposal Pool** and e has not done so yet this week." -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Expedited Proposals
On 5/12/23 01:37, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > And about "voting strength games", any player could reactivate voting > strength on the proposal if they would vote against it. Voting strength > only matters when there's disagreement anyways, and if there is any, it'll > get turned back to ordinary by whichever side wants the voting strength to > be in effect. Or by any player who agrees with the "SHOULD". If everyone > agrees to gamify it, then why not? There's really not more danger than a > normal proposal, anyways, since this is just streamlining the process to > what it can already be at a minimum. Even if you can come up with an > example of how the expedited proposal could be abused, you could also > probably just spot it and turn it ordinary. This just becomes a timing race for setting the class immediately before the voting period ends. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Expedited Proposals
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 12:08 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/12/23 01:02, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > Each player CAN, with 2 support, flip an ordinary proposal's class > to > > expedited, provided it is in the Proposal Pool and e has not done so yet > > this week. Each player CAN, by announcement, flip an expedited proposal's > > class to ordinary, but SHOULD only do so if the proposal is not a bugfix, > > emergency, or time-sensitive issue, or if e sees an issue with the > proposal. > > > What's to stop two groups from just fighting over whether something is a > bugfix? > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > If there's any disagreement, it would be useless to attempt an expedited proposal, since it could be made ordinary by announcement. Any fight would just return to the normal proposal system, though distributed early as it received 2 support. And about "voting strength games", any player could reactivate voting strength on the proposal if they would vote against it. Voting strength only matters when there's disagreement anyways, and if there is any, it'll get turned back to ordinary by whichever side wants the voting strength to be in effect. Or by any player who agrees with the "SHOULD". If everyone agrees to gamify it, then why not? There's really not more danger than a normal proposal, anyways, since this is just streamlining the process to what it can already be at a minimum. Even if you can come up with an example of how the expedited proposal could be abused, you could also probably just spot it and turn it ordinary. -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Plan B
On 5/8/23 03:39, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > - It's very easy to find trades that are net beneficial for the traders. > Most people seem to agree that trading Stamps 1-for-1 is generally > reasonable and a good trade. Just have the same person do that enough times > with different people and they'll end up winning fairly unimpeded. > - The economy, in ideal conditions, produces enough 'raw materials' for two > people to win /every week/ (everyone sets their Dream to Wealth and then > two people are given one of each Stamp and use it to win with the 'pay many > different Stamps as active players' wincon). We're a good distance away > from those conditions, but we might need to throttle how much 'win raw > materials' is being pumped into us per week. The massive stockpiles of > Stamps are an issue too. > - Apathy. A lot of people didn't seem to be as engaged as I am with Stamps, > so I just didn't have to worry about certain things. First point and last point are the same reason. In a more competitive economy people do not trade 1-to-1. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Plan B
On Mon, 2023-05-08 at 13:55 +0100, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > my current thoughts are along the lines of "add Radiance for > participation actions like proposing / officiating / judging / even > voting And to clarify: by this I mean voting *at all*, not specifically for contrary votes (which are clearly trouble). -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
nix wrote: On 5/1/23 15:05, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: When you do a job manually for a while, you start to use shortcuts, get faster, streamline, then maybe join a couple of steps using a bit of code… there’s really no sharp line between “automation” and plain old “experience” - the two naturally go hand in hand. Yea, that's why I was thinking "doable". I did Stamps with a script, but I think snail is doing it by hand. It doesn't need a script, but it's nice to simplify. A good spot IMO would be for a weekly report to take *at most* 60-90m for a busy week to do by hand, and automation might bring it down to 15-30. If something takes longer than that to do by hand, it basically requires automation for anyone to do it regularly. I think I could do the bare minimum of an ADoP report within 60-90m per week by hand. Automation mainly adds some nice-to-haves that aren't required by the rules (report content, as well as making it vastly simpler to compile recap data for periodic awards).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] 8639 rerun [CFJ]
On 5/7/23 16:46, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: I agree, it's not surplusage. A finding that "amend" can include changes other than those explicitly described in Rule 105 would render it surplus. I guess this is the last time I try to write compromise text, if it's going to be used to twist my meaning. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] 8639 rerun [CFJ]
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:17 AM Aspen via agora-business wrote: > > On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:01 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > On 5/2/23 01:01, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:38 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < > > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > >> [Proposal 8639 > > >> failed to make this change because it used "amend" for a power change. > > > > > > If everyone involved including you knew what it meant at the time so as to > > > miss the “error” entirely, how could it possibly have been unclear, even > > > by > > > r105 standards? > > > I maintain that “amend a rule’s power” is a clear synonym for “change a > > > rules power” and is obviously not amending a rule’s text. > > > > > > Well, past me is an idiot and I disavow everything they've said. > > > > I've been consistent (or tried to be) in saying that "amend a rule's > > title" doesn't work, and AFAIK there have been no legal challenges to > > that (and it was suggested in Discord to legislate a different rule > > rather than that my reading is wrong). > > > > My reading is that R105 makes "amend" in the context of a rule mean only > > and exactly changing the text of the rule, and any other usage is > > inherently ambiguous. > > > > -- > > Janet Cobb > > > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > > > I CFJ 'Rule 879, "Quorum", has power 3.0.' I bar Janet. (I'd bar G. > too if I could - neither of them is biased, but I'm hoping for a third > opinion here.) Context can be found in the thread above. While you didn't file with the referee (won't be offended if you decide to withdraw and go with referee), I'll be sure to choose a judge that's not me (and without known-to-me biases on this). In fact, ITT this is a particularly good for a "newer" judge, as long standing "we've always read it that way" quibbles that resolve around exact text interpretation can benefit from a fresh reading by people not solidified in the game culture of the issue. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] 8639 rerun
On 5/2/23 01:01, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:38 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> [Proposal 8639 >> failed to make this change because it used "amend" for a power change. > > If everyone involved including you knew what it meant at the time so as to > miss the “error” entirely, how could it possibly have been unclear, even by > r105 standards? > I maintain that “amend a rule’s power” is a clear synonym for “change a > rules power” and is obviously not amending a rule’s text. Well, past me is an idiot and I disavow everything they've said. I've been consistent (or tried to be) in saying that "amend a rule's title" doesn't work, and AFAIK there have been no legal challenges to that (and it was suggested in Discord to legislate a different rule rather than that my reading is wrong). My reading is that R105 makes "amend" in the context of a rule mean only and exactly changing the text of the rule, and any other usage is inherently ambiguous. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion [2023-05-01 11:46]: > Maybe making the delegation subject to a public volunteer process - so it’s > treated differently if more than one person want the job, so the > hand-picking potential is more limited? I suggest we treat this the same way as the list of judges and peer-reviewers (perhaps more of the latter). Which means: some discretion on behalf of the ADoP (obvious officer choice), but using some ad-hoc publicly known method to distribute delegations. So, in this case, every player would have ample time before-hand to express which offices they'd be interested in experimenting, and we can collectively ensure a fair selection. Plus: this also would gauge the potential for officer change. -- juan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 14:46, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > While I was supportive of the delegation idea on discord, I’m coming around > to Yachay’s position. I’ve “taken breaks” from arbitor regularly - snail > and Jason both did the job for a bit last year - but when it was > technically resigning without the expectation of getting the job back I > think it felt a bit healthier for the game than this would. That said, > there’s a difference between jobs that will find temporary takers and ones > almost no one will take on for a short time (rulekeepor is like that, or at > least has been historically) > > Maybe making the delegation subject to a public volunteer process - so it’s > treated differently if more than one person want the job, so the > hand-picking potential is more limited? I think it would be actively bad to promote high turnover for Rulekeepor in particular (and, if CotC was official, it as well). Doing it requires knowing a lot of specifics, it's error-prone (god I made so many errors starting off), and having consistent records is very important (the current data format dates back to Alexis, even if the program itself has been rewritten several times). -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 15:05, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > When you do a job manually for a while, you start to use shortcuts, get > faster, streamline, then maybe join a couple of steps using a bit of code… > there’s really no sharp line between “automation” and plain old > “experience” - the two naturally go hand in hand. Yea, that's why I was thinking "doable". I did Stamps with a script, but I think snail is doing it by hand. It doesn't need a script, but it's nice to simplify. A good spot IMO would be for a weekly report to take *at most* 60-90m for a busy week to do by hand, and automation might bring it down to 15-30. If something takes longer than that to do by hand, it basically requires automation for anyone to do it regularly. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 12:37 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/1/23 14:36, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > Ideally, I think, everything is doable with automation. In practice tho, > > I'm not sure what that looks like. > > Crucial typo. I think ideally everything is doable *without* automation. When you do a job manually for a while, you start to use shortcuts, get faster, streamline, then maybe join a couple of steps using a bit of code… there’s really no sharp line between “automation” and plain old “experience” - the two naturally go hand in hand.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 14:49, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > I was actually about to post the same thing about #2 in an election getting > the bench lol. It seems like the most effort-economic way to do it. > > And yeah, I think it could work as per-office. I'd prefer just trusting the officer's discretion here. Reducing ceremony for this is good, and a person willing to have done it in the election might not be willing to do it now. Most officers probably would just say "anyone want it?" as nix suggested. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 14:18, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > The other part of this is: Janet is Rulekeepor purely because no one has > bothered to try to take the position properly. The Elections are meant to > encourage shakeups, but without sufficient platforms for change, then we > shalln't have the change, since Agora does not like change, despite being > open to it. :) That's why I originally took it and didn't drop it immediately, but it's not why I'm still doing it now. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
Hrm, now that you mention it I think that would be better, yeah. On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 9:38 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/1/23 14:36, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > Ideally, I think, everything is doable with automation. In practice tho, > > I'm not sure what that looks like. > > Crucial typo. I think ideally everything is doable *without* automation. > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 14:36, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > Ideally, I think, everything is doable with automation. In practice tho, > I'm not sure what that looks like. Crucial typo. I think ideally everything is doable *without* automation. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 14:28, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > Oh, I see now, that's very good. > > Hm. I wonder if there was a way to make offices significantly easier so > that we didn't need to rely on these things or the apparent elitism that > some offices require. This will be case-by-case for each and every office. There's often things we can do, like simplifying formulas, or given officers more discretion (which is not intended to be elitism, it's intended to streamline things because impartial processes that give everyone input take time by definition), splitting offices into multiple parts, etc. Ideally, I think, everything is doable with automation. In practice tho, I'm not sure what that looks like. Managing the rules, for instance, is pretty complex. I'm not really sure what can be done to simplify that besides automation, or at least revision control to trace mistakes. I don't suspect google sheets will solve that either. I guess the other option there is literally simplifying the rules collectively so there's less to manage. Bots and external tools have been discussed many times, they have pros and cons. For a bot, someone has to maintain it, and update it every time we update the rules it interacts with (so possibly weekly). That's maybe less work for me and you, but not less work for its maintainer. Solutions need to be certain they're actually reducing work and not just shuffling it around/hiding it. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
Oh, I see now, that's very good. Hm. I wonder if there was a way to make offices significantly easier so that we didn't need to rely on these things or the apparent elitism that some offices require. But besides resorting to just having everyone play on Google Sheets in parallel to the regular mailing lists, I'm pretty stumped. Maybe a mailbot that you can access through the fora like a command prompt? On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 9:17 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/1/23 14:04, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > That seems to alludes that officers prefer to keep their tools to > > themselves or they don't design them to be easily shared in the first > > place, which I don't think is the best practice for Agora overall. > > > > Maybe we can encourage officers to make/use public tools and tutorials > that > > anyone can contribute to and build upon. (Maybe there can be an office > > solely for maintaining and making such tools for the benefit of > everyone?) > > On the contrary most officers keep public repositories on github [0] of > their tools. But teaching someone how to use a script you wrote, > regardless of whether it's public, takes time. > > [0] https://github.com/AgoraNomic > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 14:04, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > That seems to alludes that officers prefer to keep their tools to > themselves or they don't design them to be easily shared in the first > place, which I don't think is the best practice for Agora overall. > > Maybe we can encourage officers to make/use public tools and tutorials that > anyone can contribute to and build upon. (Maybe there can be an office > solely for maintaining and making such tools for the benefit of everyone?) On the contrary most officers keep public repositories on github [0] of their tools. But teaching someone how to use a script you wrote, regardless of whether it's public, takes time. [0] https://github.com/AgoraNomic -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
That seems to alludes that officers prefer to keep their tools to themselves or they don't design them to be easily shared in the first place, which I don't think is the best practice for Agora overall. Maybe we can encourage officers to make/use public tools and tutorials that anyone can contribute to and build upon. (Maybe there can be an office solely for maintaining and making such tools for the benefit of everyone?) On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:56 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/1/23 13:49, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > I was actually about to post the same thing about #2 in an election > getting > > the bench lol. It seems like the most effort-economic way to do it. > > > > And yeah, I think it could work as per-office. > > My main concern is still the time this adds. Instead of an officer > informally coming to an agreement with someone, a bench system means > each person on the bench needs time to decide whether they want to do > it. Then if there's automation or information that needs to be > exchanged, that needs to happen. I'm worried this process makes taking a > vacation too difficult to be worth it. > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 13:49, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > I was actually about to post the same thing about #2 in an election getting > the bench lol. It seems like the most effort-economic way to do it. > > And yeah, I think it could work as per-office. My main concern is still the time this adds. Instead of an officer informally coming to an agreement with someone, a bench system means each person on the bench needs time to decide whether they want to do it. Then if there's automation or information that needs to be exchanged, that needs to happen. I'm worried this process makes taking a vacation too difficult to be worth it. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
I was actually about to post the same thing about #2 in an election getting the bench lol. It seems like the most effort-economic way to do it. And yeah, I think it could work as per-office. On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:45 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/1/23 13:38, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > Perhaps a "bench" system like in team sports, where there is a main > > officer, but if they can't do their roles, or want to take a vacation, > the > > person on the bench takes the spot until they come back. > > > > The bench positions are elected or otherwise offered to everyone equally > > somehow. > > One bench for each office? Or one bench total. We could automatically > fill the benches from the election results. Whoever got 2nd place gets > first option to the office, then 3rd gets second option. When you run > out, then the officer can just pick someone. > > Thoughts? > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
While I was supportive of the delegation idea on discord, I’m coming around to Yachay’s position. I’ve “taken breaks” from arbitor regularly - snail and Jason both did the job for a bit last year - but when it was technically resigning without the expectation of getting the job back I think it felt a bit healthier for the game than this would. That said, there’s a difference between jobs that will find temporary takers and ones almost no one will take on for a short time (rulekeepor is like that, or at least has been historically) Maybe making the delegation subject to a public volunteer process - so it’s treated differently if more than one person want the job, so the hand-picking potential is more limited? On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 11:32 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I'm not sure if my main point is coming across that the problem would be > the "dynasty" thing, where the veteran gets to hand-pick themselves how the > office continues rather than having a process that is more impartial. > > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:24 PM nix via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 5/1/23 13:20, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 5/1/23 12:59, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > >> I'm sure that this is well-intended but I feel like this strongly > > >> encourages "dynasties" of officers where the veterans are de facto > > heads of > > >> who will get the privilege of choose who get to be the next Delegate > or > > >> not. Having been Delegate seem like major boon to have towards > actually > > >> getting the office eventually, perhaps it eventually becomes an > > unwritten > > >> requirement for it. > > >> > > >> It's just more power to the older, more established players, and it > > bothers > > >> me. > > >> > > >> I'm not sure if this is healthier for the game than the free-for-all > > >> deputization/elections as we currently have it. > > > > > > With due respect, this is a newer player perspective. Some roles > (mostly > > > rulekeepor, assessor, arbitor) tend to stay with the same player for > > > several years. And then that player burns out/gets buys/moves on, and > > > suddenly there's nobody that knows how to do them. This is meant to > > > *lessen* the chokehold that established players have on the mechanisms > > > of the game but preventing that from happening. > > > > > > > And the "free-for-all" doesn't exist right now. It takes a lot of work > > to take over certain roles, so what happens is that nobody does, or > > someone does and immediately realizes they were unprepared for the work. > > > > And since experienced players know those are the most likely outcomes, > > they feel obligated to continue to run their office, some players have > > put out reports for multiple years without breaks. It's not healthy; the > > current system is clearly insufficient. > > > > -- > > nix > > Prime Minister, Herald > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 13:38, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > Perhaps a "bench" system like in team sports, where there is a main > officer, but if they can't do their roles, or want to take a vacation, the > person on the bench takes the spot until they come back. > > The bench positions are elected or otherwise offered to everyone equally > somehow. One bench for each office? Or one bench total. We could automatically fill the benches from the election results. Whoever got 2nd place gets first option to the office, then 3rd gets second option. When you run out, then the officer can just pick someone. Thoughts? -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
Perhaps a "bench" system like in team sports, where there is a main officer, but if they can't do their roles, or want to take a vacation, the person on the bench takes the spot until they come back. The bench positions are elected or otherwise offered to everyone equally somehow. On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:35 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/1/23 13:32, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > I'm not sure if my main point is coming across that the problem would be > > the "dynasty" thing, where the veteran gets to hand-pick themselves how > the > > office continues rather than having a process that is more impartial. > > Oh I see. The reason for picking the delegate was intended to allow the > officer to feel assured there was someone going to do it. Having to do > some sort of mini-election before they leave seems stressful. I was > imagining that in practice most officers would just go "anyone willing > to do this for a month?" and choose whoever said yes. > > What alternative would you suggest? > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
Well... I'd like to see Janet take a break and we'll find out how this process works anyways. It's all part of perfecting these processes I don't imagine anyone would willingly volunteer to be a delegate, considering that few even opted to become candidates in the recent elections. On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 11:33 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I'm not sure if my main point is coming across that the problem would be > the "dynasty" thing, where the veteran gets to hand-pick themselves how the > office continues rather than having a process that is more impartial. > > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:24 PM nix via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 5/1/23 13:20, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 5/1/23 12:59, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > >> I'm sure that this is well-intended but I feel like this strongly > > >> encourages "dynasties" of officers where the veterans are de facto > > heads of > > >> who will get the privilege of choose who get to be the next Delegate > or > > >> not. Having been Delegate seem like major boon to have towards > actually > > >> getting the office eventually, perhaps it eventually becomes an > > unwritten > > >> requirement for it. > > >> > > >> It's just more power to the older, more established players, and it > > bothers > > >> me. > > >> > > >> I'm not sure if this is healthier for the game than the free-for-all > > >> deputization/elections as we currently have it. > > > > > > With due respect, this is a newer player perspective. Some roles > (mostly > > > rulekeepor, assessor, arbitor) tend to stay with the same player for > > > several years. And then that player burns out/gets buys/moves on, and > > > suddenly there's nobody that knows how to do them. This is meant to > > > *lessen* the chokehold that established players have on the mechanisms > > > of the game but preventing that from happening. > > > > > > > And the "free-for-all" doesn't exist right now. It takes a lot of work > > to take over certain roles, so what happens is that nobody does, or > > someone does and immediately realizes they were unprepared for the work. > > > > And since experienced players know those are the most likely outcomes, > > they feel obligated to continue to run their office, some players have > > put out reports for multiple years without breaks. It's not healthy; the > > current system is clearly insufficient. > > > > -- > > nix > > Prime Minister, Herald > > > > > -- 4st Referee Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 13:32, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > I'm not sure if my main point is coming across that the problem would be > the "dynasty" thing, where the veteran gets to hand-pick themselves how the > office continues rather than having a process that is more impartial. Oh I see. The reason for picking the delegate was intended to allow the officer to feel assured there was someone going to do it. Having to do some sort of mini-election before they leave seems stressful. I was imagining that in practice most officers would just go "anyone willing to do this for a month?" and choose whoever said yes. What alternative would you suggest? -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
I'm not sure if my main point is coming across that the problem would be the "dynasty" thing, where the veteran gets to hand-pick themselves how the office continues rather than having a process that is more impartial. On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:24 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/1/23 13:20, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 5/1/23 12:59, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > >> I'm sure that this is well-intended but I feel like this strongly > >> encourages "dynasties" of officers where the veterans are de facto > heads of > >> who will get the privilege of choose who get to be the next Delegate or > >> not. Having been Delegate seem like major boon to have towards actually > >> getting the office eventually, perhaps it eventually becomes an > unwritten > >> requirement for it. > >> > >> It's just more power to the older, more established players, and it > bothers > >> me. > >> > >> I'm not sure if this is healthier for the game than the free-for-all > >> deputization/elections as we currently have it. > > > > With due respect, this is a newer player perspective. Some roles (mostly > > rulekeepor, assessor, arbitor) tend to stay with the same player for > > several years. And then that player burns out/gets buys/moves on, and > > suddenly there's nobody that knows how to do them. This is meant to > > *lessen* the chokehold that established players have on the mechanisms > > of the game but preventing that from happening. > > > > And the "free-for-all" doesn't exist right now. It takes a lot of work > to take over certain roles, so what happens is that nobody does, or > someone does and immediately realizes they were unprepared for the work. > > And since experienced players know those are the most likely outcomes, > they feel obligated to continue to run their office, some players have > put out reports for multiple years without breaks. It's not healthy; the > current system is clearly insufficient. > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 13:20, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/1/23 12:59, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: >> I'm sure that this is well-intended but I feel like this strongly >> encourages "dynasties" of officers where the veterans are de facto heads of >> who will get the privilege of choose who get to be the next Delegate or >> not. Having been Delegate seem like major boon to have towards actually >> getting the office eventually, perhaps it eventually becomes an unwritten >> requirement for it. >> >> It's just more power to the older, more established players, and it bothers >> me. >> >> I'm not sure if this is healthier for the game than the free-for-all >> deputization/elections as we currently have it. > > With due respect, this is a newer player perspective. Some roles (mostly > rulekeepor, assessor, arbitor) tend to stay with the same player for > several years. And then that player burns out/gets buys/moves on, and > suddenly there's nobody that knows how to do them. This is meant to > *lessen* the chokehold that established players have on the mechanisms > of the game but preventing that from happening. > And the "free-for-all" doesn't exist right now. It takes a lot of work to take over certain roles, so what happens is that nobody does, or someone does and immediately realizes they were unprepared for the work. And since experienced players know those are the most likely outcomes, they feel obligated to continue to run their office, some players have put out reports for multiple years without breaks. It's not healthy; the current system is clearly insufficient. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 12:59, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > I'm sure that this is well-intended but I feel like this strongly > encourages "dynasties" of officers where the veterans are de facto heads of > who will get the privilege of choose who get to be the next Delegate or > not. Having been Delegate seem like major boon to have towards actually > getting the office eventually, perhaps it eventually becomes an unwritten > requirement for it. > > It's just more power to the older, more established players, and it bothers > me. > > I'm not sure if this is healthier for the game than the free-for-all > deputization/elections as we currently have it. With due respect, this is a newer player perspective. Some roles (mostly rulekeepor, assessor, arbitor) tend to stay with the same player for several years. And then that player burns out/gets buys/moves on, and suddenly there's nobody that knows how to do them. This is meant to *lessen* the chokehold that established players have on the mechanisms of the game but preventing that from happening. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
It's actually the opposite: right now we HAVE dynasties of players who just
have had these roles forever, and they've never taken a break. Encouraging
them to take a break, and specifying a different player, forces more
change-ups than we have currently, because we trust so much currently in
the incumbents.
Essentially, it would be more of a "hey do you want to try this role, see
if you would be any good at it? I need a break from being the
Rulekeepor/Assessor/etc for since FOREVER."
I can see where that meaning comes across... but the part that really comes
across in this rule is the "SHOULD" take a vacation. (EG Janet has had eir
roles for a long long time, and the prior rulekeepor had had it for like 8
years or something, so this encourages shakeup.)
The other part of this is: Janet is Rulekeepor purely because no one has
bothered to try to take the position properly. The Elections are meant to
encourage shakeups, but without sufficient platforms for change, then we
shalln't have the change, since Agora does not like change, despite being
open to it. :)
This just means that a player can now just "screw off" for their vacation
and not worry about eir role when they come back. And if the delegate does
a good enough job, that puts them in an even stronger position to overthrow
the incumbent.
On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 11:01 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> Wow, I did some major word soup there, I hope my point came across anyways
> lol
>
> On Monday, May 1, 2023, Yachay Wayllukuq
> wrote:
>
> > I'm sure that this is well-intended but I feel like this strongly
> > encourages "dynasties" of officers where the veterans are de facto heads
> of
> > who will get the privilege of choose who get to be the next Delegate or
> > not. Having been Delegate seem like major boon to have towards actually
> > getting the office eventually, perhaps it eventually becomes an unwritten
> > requirement for it.
> >
> > It's just more power to the older, more established players, and it
> > bothers me.
> >
> > I'm not sure if this is healthier for the game than the free-for-all
> > deputization/elections as we currently have it.
> >
> > On Monday, May 1, 2023, nix via agora-business <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I submit the following proposal:
> >>
> >> {
> >> Title: Delegation
> >> AI: 3
> >> Author: nix
> >> Co-Author(s): Janet
> >>
> >> [This proposal adds Vacations and Delegation, which encourage officers
> >> to take time off and give the responsibility to someone else for a
> >> while. Not only is this intended to reduce burnout for officers, but it
> >> is also intended to be an opportunity for other players to learn an
> >> office without fully committing to it.]
> >>
> >> Amend R2438 by replacing "Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an
> >> office" with "Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an office or is
> >> delegated an office"
> >>
> >> Enact a new Power=3 rule titled "Vacations & Delegation" with the
> >> following text:
> >>
> >> An officer CAN and SHOULD take a Vacation from a specified office e
> >> has continuously held for over 6 months with 7 day notice, if e has
> >> not done so in the last year. When e does so, e can optionally
> >> specify a player to be eir Delegate.
> >>
> >> An officer is On Vacation from a specified office if e has taken a
> >> Vacation from that office in the last 30 days. The ADoP SHALL
> >> include which officers are On Vacation in weekly report.
> >>
> >> If an officer specified a Delegate when taking a Vacation, and the
> >> Delegate has publicly consented, then the Delegate can act as if e
> >> is the holder of the Office while the officer is On Vacation.
> >>
> >> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, while an officer is On
> >> Vacation that officer NEED NOT comply with any duties of that
> >> office, and the delegate, if any, SHALL comply with all duties of
> >> the office as if e held the office.
> >> }
> >> --
> >> nix
> >> Prime Minister, Herald
> >>
> >
>
--
4st
Referee and Deputy(AKA FAKE) webmastor
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal - Unradiance
On 4/15/23 09:59, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
I think the other forms to gain radiance seem alright, actually. This just
removes the "radiance conditions", of the which I'm not a huge fan of
(gaining radiance from proposals, mostly)
On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 6:31 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
lør. 15. apr. 2023, 6:20 a.m. skrev Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org>:
I create and submit the following Proposal:
Title: Unradiance
AI: 1.0
Author: Yachay
Co-Authors: None
{
Repeal Rule 2657
}
I dislike this mostly because this isn't clean. There are many many
lingering references to radiance after just repealing only one rule.
Also, i think players should be winning more often, not less, so having
less ways to win is not so good.
Oooh, so this IS a clean cut, I didn't look closely. Oh, I do like
repealing things. I'm conflicted now. I like to repeal, but I also like
encouraging proposals. Mmmm I'll vote FOR probably, then. Just because :)
--
4st
Referee and Deputy(AKA FAKE) webmastor
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal - Unradiance
I think the other forms to gain radiance seem alright, actually. This just
removes the "radiance conditions", of the which I'm not a huge fan of
(gaining radiance from proposals, mostly)
On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 6:31 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> lør. 15. apr. 2023, 6:20 a.m. skrev Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org>:
>
> > I create and submit the following Proposal:
> >
> > Title: Unradiance
> > AI: 1.0
> > Author: Yachay
> > Co-Authors: None
> >
> > {
> >
> > Repeal Rule 2657
> >
> > }
> >
>
> I dislike this mostly because this isn't clean. There are many many
> lingering references to radiance after just repealing only one rule.
>
> Also, i think players should be winning more often, not less, so having
> less ways to win is not so good.
>
> >
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Standardizing language
On 4/10/23 14:57, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: (Also, it might be better to include context rather than just "first instance of 'may'".) Why? Eliminates any chance of accidentally changing the wrong thing due to a concurrent proposal, and is clearer for the reader on what's being changed. For instance, I couldn't tell you what the first instance of "may" is in either of those rules. I'd rather not have to crossreference the proposal with the rule. This is why I always do something like "replace [sentence or clause] with [sentence or clause]" even if one or two words are all that's changing. The only exception for me is when something is getting renamed, such as "replace all instances of 'Whatsit' with 'Whosit'" where the surrounding context is irrelevant. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald, Collector
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Standardizing language
On 4/10/23 15:51, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
> Janet Cobb via agora-business [2023-04-10 15:41]:
>> On 4/10/23 15:38, juan via agora-business wrote:
>>> I create and submit the following proposal:
>>>
>>> {
>>> Title: Standardizing CANs
>>> Author: juan
>>> A.I.: 3.0
>>>
>>> Ammend Rule 478 by replacing its first instance of “may”
>>> with “CAN”.
>>>
>>> Ammend Rule 1789 by replacing its first instance of “may”
>>> with “CAN”.
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>> I (unconfidently) don't think the second change is necessary? A person
>> has a natural ability to submit documents, and that doesn't need to be
>> enabled with a CAN.
> 1. It might not be necessary, but its about standartization. Also:
I'm additionally worried that this would make it impossible to submit
(since no method is explicitly given in "CAN submit to the Registrar").
> 2. Does that ability really exist? To “submit” is not to publish. Is
>to do so under a specific intent to perform some task during some
>procedure defined by rules. That's my reading, anyway. It sure works,
>but isn't it clearer to make that action part of the rule's conceptual
>world? Or else we should say “publish” instead of “submit”.
Submission is done by sending a message, which we have held is
unregulated and can be done naturally, e.g. in CFJ3896.
>> (Also, it might be better to include context rather than just "first
>> instance of 'may'".)
> Why?
Eliminates any chance of accidentally changing the wrong thing due to a
concurrent proposal, and is clearer for the reader on what's being changed.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal Submission - Asceticism
On 3/27/23 16:49, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: >> An Ascetic cannot gain Radiance. Once per week, an Ascetic can Meditate by >> announcement. Doing so grants them 1 Stamp of their own Type, plus 1 more >> if the current period they have been an Ascetic for is more than 1 month in >> length. > This is trickier. This current version fails due to precedence. A > continuous reset probably works better: "If an Ascetic's radiance > differs from what eir radiance was when e most recently became an > Ascetic, it is immediately set to that value." Oops, this should say "is greater than", not "differs". -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal Submission - Asceticism
This Proposal wouldn't remove the ability to do so to those who would like to play that way. So, you could still do that if you want. On Monday, March 27, 2023, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > man. 27. mar. 2023 kl. 08:53 skrev Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org>: > > > I don't think it would be possible for me to earn Radiance faster than > the > > Radiance treadmill pushes me back, so earning Radiance feels empty to > me. I > > suggest an alternative way to play. > > > > > Through a lot of effort, you too can declare additional ritual numbers, > and slowly but surely get 1 radiance for you and those in the behind. > > -- > 4st > Deputy(AKA FAKE) referee, Deputy(AKA FAKE) webmastor > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Limited tracking
On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 3:19 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I would not like to be considered a coauthor on this one, as IIRC my only > contribution was to speak against the cfj changes which you kept, so I > don’t endorse that. I think having switches that turn on and off on > tracking like that have the potential to create some significant level of > confusion with self-ratification eg if a switch is left off the list, then > ceases to be tracked invisibly, does it self ratify as an open case and > kick off the judge? Or since it’s a single switch type, it’s also not clear > to me that a “allegedly complete list” of the tracked ones wouldn’t ratify > the untracked ones to the default state. Just raises a whole can of worms > that could affect the status of ancient cases in a way we really might not > want. > > -G. > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 1:04 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > Proposal: Limited tracking > > (AI = 3, co-authors = Janet, G.) > This proposal would also create unnecessary reports. The assessor would have to report the AI of each proposal weekly, including if there are no unresolved Agoran decisions. (Rule 2379: No News Is Some News). -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Slightly less self-interested proposal
Janet wrote: On 1/22/2023 1:55 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: On 1/22/23 12:42, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: Janet wrote: [Currently, I'm effectively locked out of owning any actually useful stone without setting a Dream, which isn't really fair. If I attempt to Is this actually true? I thought that had something to do with auctions, which were repealed about a month ago, and any rule or regulation actually putting the Stonemason on different footing may have been repealed earlier than that (I spot-checked about four months back but didn't spot anything relevant). The Mason's stone both does nothing and will generally be owned by me, and thus count towards the 30-day lockout for getting actually useful stones. Seems like just repealing it would fix both issues. Does being the Stonemason give any advantage on the 30-day thing? Again, I suspect it was originally enacted to solve some problem that no longer exists. It would theoretically give the Stonemason first dibs after collection notices. How about just disallowing transfers within 24 hours after a collection notice, or something like that?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Slightly less self-interested proposal
On 1/22/23 12:42, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: > Janet wrote: > [Currently, I'm effectively locked out of owning any actually useful stone without setting a Dream, which isn't really fair. If I attempt to >>> Is this actually true? I thought that had something to do with auctions, >>> which were repealed about a month ago, and any rule or regulation >>> actually putting the Stonemason on different footing may have been >>> repealed earlier than that (I spot-checked about four months back but >>> didn't spot anything relevant). >> The Mason's stone both does nothing and will generally be owned by me, >> and thus count towards the 30-day lockout for getting actually useful >> stones. > Seems like just repealing it would fix both issues. Does being the > Stonemason give any advantage on the 30-day thing? Again, I suspect > it was originally enacted to solve some problem that no longer exists. It would theoretically give the Stonemason first dibs after collection notices. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Slightly less self-interested proposal
Janet wrote: [Currently, I'm effectively locked out of owning any actually useful stone without setting a Dream, which isn't really fair. If I attempt to Is this actually true? I thought that had something to do with auctions, which were repealed about a month ago, and any rule or regulation actually putting the Stonemason on different footing may have been repealed earlier than that (I spot-checked about four months back but didn't spot anything relevant). The Mason's stone both does nothing and will generally be owned by me, and thus count towards the 30-day lockout for getting actually useful stones. Seems like just repealing it would fix both issues. Does being the Stonemason give any advantage on the 30-day thing? Again, I suspect it was originally enacted to solve some problem that no longer exists.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Slightly less self-interested proposal
On 1/15/23 15:47, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: > Janet wrote: > >> [Currently, I'm effectively locked out of owning any actually useful >> stone without setting a Dream, which isn't really fair. If I attempt to > Is this actually true? I thought that had something to do with auctions, > which were repealed about a month ago, and any rule or regulation > actually putting the Stonemason on different footing may have been > repealed earlier than that (I spot-checked about four months back but > didn't spot anything relevant). The Mason's stone both does nothing and will generally be owned by me, and thus count towards the 30-day lockout for getting actually useful stones. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The Cheepening
> On Aug 20, 2022, at 12:11 AM, Madrid via agora-discussion > wrote: > > I don't think this helps much because the game is still mostly limited to > those in the upper half or so of money ranking fmpov because it's still a > money-fuelled competitive game. juan had 11 players ahead of em in the last treasuror report, yet has still been playing birds. You don't need to put many coins in to get much out of birds, but this proposal would hopefully lower the coin barrier even more. There's also the fact you can get help from any player with lots of coins by striking a deal. The proposal would change the coins you need to get a bird win from 60 boatloads to 36, which most players have or are close to. It also means you can get a single bird for just 3 boatloads of coins instead of 5, which may very well be worth it for a chance at a good bird power. In any case i think it's worth trying to make it cheaper, essentially just making the powers a better bang for your buck, which should hopefully make it more competitive. -- secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] let's B safe out there
Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion [2022-08-18 09:23]: > > On 8/18/2022 9:07 AM, juan via agora-discussion wrote: > > Kerim Aydin via agora-business [2022-08-18 07:51]: > >> I submit the following Proposal: > >> Title: "Time B Safe" > >> AI: 4 > >> co-authors: Jason, Murphy. > >> - > >> > >> Amend Rule 1698 (Agora Is A Nomic) by replacing: > >> adopted within a four-week period. > >> with: > >> adopted within a real-world (UTC) four-week period. > >> > >> [ > >> In discord, a Power-5 Rule was suggested: "Rules to the contrary > >> notwithstanding, this rule CANNOT be changed in January or February of > >> 2023". > >> > >> Up until the time a proposal to change this rule could take effect before > >> January 2023, Agora would not be ossified. But then you cross a time > >> boundary and Agora would become ossified. One *possible* interpretation of > >> > >>> If any other single change or inseparable group of changes to the > >>> gamestate would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause > >>> Agora to cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules > >>> to the contrary notwithstanding. > >> > >> is that the "cancelled change" would be time passing! With the conclusion > >> that time had (as a legal fiction) stopped, with no way of getting it > >> started again. So this proposal puts an extra protection on time by making > >> it clear that only "real world" time is relevant. The title a reference B > >> nomic, an established nomic some years back that was killed when they > >> accidentally stopped time or at least couldn't get it started again. > >> ] > > > > I'm not sure this couldn't be circumvented. First of all, because the > > rules don't define the notion of time in any way. The only reasonable > > interpretation is that it refers to time-the-physical-concept, whatever > > that is. So several issues come about. > > So just to be clear, this isn't intended to be a block against a malicious > attack. If someone got the ability to pass an AI=3 rule change they could > always purposefully get around this. The purpose here to make it > painfully clear in the definition that "for these purposes, we're defining > real-world time, we can't use R1698 to accidentally infer a kind of "game > time" that stops. > > The *possibility* of accidentally stopping time (that is, for "real time" > deviating from "game time" due to a logical argument and rules text) was > suggested as a potential unexpected outcome in CFJ 3580, although it was > all very hypothetical: > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3580 > > Overall, there may be other interpretations of an ossification situation > that get us out of any such mess; this proposal is meant to make it just a > wee bit harder/less plausible for a judge to make a convincing "time has > stopped" argument. > > > * I can't think of something that could be reasonably called an *action* > > that causes the event of “being in january”. In any case, that > > transition only happens at a single point in time. > > It's not "actions" that are blocked by R1698 but "changes": > > If any other single change [would ossify the game] > > it is cancelled and does not occur > > And "time changing" is arguably a change. However, it's quite possible > that "time ticking forward" is not a change per se but what happens in the > absence of change (i.e. in common language we speak of "changing clocks" > when we make them deviate from ticking forward, not when they tick forward > normally). So maybe I'm worrying about nothing here. > > > * Time keeps ticking forward. When March would come, all would be > > resolved anyway. > > I don't think that matters for R1698 on January 1 when you're entering the > ossification state. If we create the legal fiction that time can't > progress into Jan 1 without temporary ossification, we'd never get to March. > > > * Can one perform actions without time? We don't know, because the rules > > don't define it. So we should use our common-sense, which says that > > no, you can't. So *that* would ossify Agora and thus not be allowed. > > The minimal set of changes would have to be that the rule was never > > created in the first place. > > > > * It is in the best interest of the game to interpret all of this in a > > way that makes gameplay still possible. > > Yes it's quite likely that this is protecting against something that's > common sense anyway - but again we've got enough history of legal fictions > (like the abovementioned CFJ) that it might be a good precaution anyway? > > > In the end, my particular arguments don't matter too much. I'm just > > saying I think there are enough of them for us to deal with such a rule. This is interesting. Its a nuanced discussion. But I do have a beef with the CFJ you mention. I am by no means a platonist, nor act as one. There are other philosphical standings compatible with Agorans'
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] let's B safe out there
On 8/18/2022 9:07 AM, juan via agora-discussion wrote: > Kerim Aydin via agora-business [2022-08-18 07:51]: >> I submit the following Proposal: >> Title: "Time B Safe" >> AI: 4 >> co-authors: Jason, Murphy. >> - >> >> Amend Rule 1698 (Agora Is A Nomic) by replacing: >> adopted within a four-week period. >> with: >> adopted within a real-world (UTC) four-week period. >> >> [ >> In discord, a Power-5 Rule was suggested: "Rules to the contrary >> notwithstanding, this rule CANNOT be changed in January or February of >> 2023". >> >> Up until the time a proposal to change this rule could take effect before >> January 2023, Agora would not be ossified. But then you cross a time >> boundary and Agora would become ossified. One *possible* interpretation of >> >>> If any other single change or inseparable group of changes to the >>> gamestate would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause >>> Agora to cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules >>> to the contrary notwithstanding. >> >> is that the "cancelled change" would be time passing! With the conclusion >> that time had (as a legal fiction) stopped, with no way of getting it >> started again. So this proposal puts an extra protection on time by making >> it clear that only "real world" time is relevant. The title a reference B >> nomic, an established nomic some years back that was killed when they >> accidentally stopped time or at least couldn't get it started again. >> ] > > I'm not sure this couldn't be circumvented. First of all, because the > rules don't define the notion of time in any way. The only reasonable > interpretation is that it refers to time-the-physical-concept, whatever > that is. So several issues come about. So just to be clear, this isn't intended to be a block against a malicious attack. If someone got the ability to pass an AI=3 rule change they could always purposefully get around this. The purpose here to make it painfully clear in the definition that "for these purposes, we're defining real-world time, we can't use R1698 to accidentally infer a kind of "game time" that stops. The *possibility* of accidentally stopping time (that is, for "real time" deviating from "game time" due to a logical argument and rules text) was suggested as a potential unexpected outcome in CFJ 3580, although it was all very hypothetical: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3580 Overall, there may be other interpretations of an ossification situation that get us out of any such mess; this proposal is meant to make it just a wee bit harder/less plausible for a judge to make a convincing "time has stopped" argument. > * I can't think of something that could be reasonably called an *action* > that causes the event of “being in january”. In any case, that > transition only happens at a single point in time. It's not "actions" that are blocked by R1698 but "changes": > If any other single change [would ossify the game] > it is cancelled and does not occur And "time changing" is arguably a change. However, it's quite possible that "time ticking forward" is not a change per se but what happens in the absence of change (i.e. in common language we speak of "changing clocks" when we make them deviate from ticking forward, not when they tick forward normally). So maybe I'm worrying about nothing here. > * Time keeps ticking forward. When March would come, all would be > resolved anyway. I don't think that matters for R1698 on January 1 when you're entering the ossification state. If we create the legal fiction that time can't progress into Jan 1 without temporary ossification, we'd never get to March. > * Can one perform actions without time? We don't know, because the rules > don't define it. So we should use our common-sense, which says that > no, you can't. So *that* would ossify Agora and thus not be allowed. > The minimal set of changes would have to be that the rule was never > created in the first place. > > * It is in the best interest of the game to interpret all of this in a > way that makes gameplay still possible. Yes it's quite likely that this is protecting against something that's common sense anyway - but again we've got enough history of legal fictions (like the abovementioned CFJ) that it might be a good precaution anyway? > In the end, my particular arguments don't matter too much. I'm just > saying I think there are enough of them for us to deal with such a rule. >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Spivak Standardization Act
On 8/15/22 22:39, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > Nitpicks: > >> The Spivak pronouns (e/em/eir) are hereby recognized as the standard >> third-person singular personal pronouns in Agora. In official contexts, >> players SHOULD use them when referring to non-specific persons or, in >> the absence of a clear statement of another preference, when referring >> to a specific other person. The use of singular they when referring to >> persons is DISCOURAGED in official contexts, except upon specific >> request by that person. > Singling out the singular they here feels a little weird - maybe just “the > use of other pronouns”? Good point. > >> A player CAN, with 2 support, cause this rule to amend a specified other >> rule of power less than 4, specifying the new text of the rule, such >> that the new text rewords and rephrases the existing text in order to >> use Spivak pronouns in place of singular they, provided that such >> amendment would not result in the meaning or interpretation of that rule >> changing in any way. > > I can’t imagine this is scammable, but I’d nevertheless prefer it to be > consent or objections instead of support - the potential for a 3-person cabal > to make unilateral rule changes is scary. > > Gaelan That's fair, and actually has the benefit of preventing accidental violations of the four days rule. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Speaker Appointment Clarification
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 2:48 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > ... > If 90+ is true, the last 90 is also true. > oh... my... goodness! -mindblown- how did I not see that
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Speaker Appointment Clarification
On 6/22/2022 2:46 PM, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 2:41 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> Amend Rule 103 (The Speaker) by replacing "held continuously by the same >> person for 90+ days" with "held continuously by the same person for the >> last 90 days". >> > 90+ seems important, not only 90. If 90+ is true, the last 90 is also true.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Decriminalizing Lateness
On 5/8/22 17:44, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: A good start, but has room for improvement. Suggested revision: 4. For filled offices with a weekly report, the number of weeks in scope, and the number and percent of those weeks during which the officeholder published its weekly report. 5. For filled offices with a monthly report, the number of months in scope, and the number and percent of those months during which the officeholder published its monthly report. For this purpose, the 13 most recent complete weeks and 3 most recent complete months are in scope, but only those for which the officeholder held that office continuously since it started; and percentages of 0/0 are to be reported as n/a. Oh I really like that. Added to the local copy! -- nix Herald, Collector
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Re: endgame
we already know that informal auctions are clearly superior to formal ones so what about informal win conditions? this is the next step in agoran evolution On Sun, May 8, 2022 at 9:19 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 5/8/2022 11:13 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Sun, 2022-05-08 at 11:06 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > >> I withdraw my previous proposal, Endgame. > >> > >> I submit the following proposal, Endgame, AI-1, and pay a pendant to > pend it: > >> > >> --- > >> > >> Create the following power=1 rule, titled Buyout: > >> > >> Any player who has not taken over the economy in the last 30 > >> days CAN pay a fee of N Winsomes to create 500 times N coins > >> in eir possession, provided e does so unconditionally and > >> without disclaimers, acting as emself, in a message body > >> containing no other actions or other action attempts, and > explicitly > >> specifies N in the message (i.e. without indirect references such > >> as "all"). > >> > >> One week after this rule first takes effect, the winds die down. > >> > >> Immediately after Rule 2658 (The Winds Die Down) is repealed, > >> this rule is repealed. > >> > >> - > > > > I'm suddenly really curious about what scam this is trying to prevent. > > > > So, the reason this is "endgame" and not just "trade-in" is of course that > if people start to trade in and there's fewer winsomes in the game, > last-minute wins are quite possible. This is obviously a "move as close > to the deadline as possible" sort of game (if anyone actually tries to win > that way), which are never great in Agora, but any hard end to Sets would > be against a some kind of hard deadline - so I was just trying to make it > as dynamic as possible. > > To that end IMO: > > - Requiring specification of N improves instead of allowing "all" etc. > adds an element of risk to getting it wrong. > > - Conditionals: "If I have enough Winsomes I take over the economy, > otherwise I trade in" greatly reduces the risk of doing stuff last-minute, > making the exercise pretty boring. > > - Disclaimers: You can fake someone out by saying "I trade in 10" if > you've only got 9. But to avoid No Faking, you'd need to include a > disclaimer. This limits that tactic and makes it ILLEGAL to do that kind > of thing. > > - No other actions in the message: You could get around the "explicit > specification of N" by saying "I pay 20, I pay 19, I pay 18..." and having > only the one corresponding with "all" succeed. > > - acting as emself: Unwinding arrangements like the OP is less > interesting if a side-contract is written so one person does it at the > same time on behalf of all the involved parties. > > Will this make an interesting endgame? Dunno. But once I started writing > out the principle of just "all moves must be basic unconditional moves" > there were lots of loopholes to patch - and I'm sure I didn't get them > all... > > -G. > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Re: endgame
On 5/8/2022 11:13 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, 2022-05-08 at 11:06 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >> I withdraw my previous proposal, Endgame. >> >> I submit the following proposal, Endgame, AI-1, and pay a pendant to pend it: >> >> --- >> >> Create the following power=1 rule, titled Buyout: >> >> Any player who has not taken over the economy in the last 30 >> days CAN pay a fee of N Winsomes to create 500 times N coins >> in eir possession, provided e does so unconditionally and >> without disclaimers, acting as emself, in a message body >> containing no other actions or other action attempts, and explicitly >> specifies N in the message (i.e. without indirect references such >> as "all"). >> >> One week after this rule first takes effect, the winds die down. >> >> Immediately after Rule 2658 (The Winds Die Down) is repealed, >> this rule is repealed. >> >> - > > I'm suddenly really curious about what scam this is trying to prevent. > So, the reason this is "endgame" and not just "trade-in" is of course that if people start to trade in and there's fewer winsomes in the game, last-minute wins are quite possible. This is obviously a "move as close to the deadline as possible" sort of game (if anyone actually tries to win that way), which are never great in Agora, but any hard end to Sets would be against a some kind of hard deadline - so I was just trying to make it as dynamic as possible. To that end IMO: - Requiring specification of N improves instead of allowing "all" etc. adds an element of risk to getting it wrong. - Conditionals: "If I have enough Winsomes I take over the economy, otherwise I trade in" greatly reduces the risk of doing stuff last-minute, making the exercise pretty boring. - Disclaimers: You can fake someone out by saying "I trade in 10" if you've only got 9. But to avoid No Faking, you'd need to include a disclaimer. This limits that tactic and makes it ILLEGAL to do that kind of thing. - No other actions in the message: You could get around the "explicit specification of N" by saying "I pay 20, I pay 19, I pay 18..." and having only the one corresponding with "all" succeed. - acting as emself: Unwinding arrangements like the OP is less interesting if a side-contract is written so one person does it at the same time on behalf of all the involved parties. Will this make an interesting endgame? Dunno. But once I started writing out the principle of just "all moves must be basic unconditional moves" there were lots of loopholes to patch - and I'm sure I didn't get them all... -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Decriminalizing Lateness
On 5/7/2022 3:50 PM, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/7/22 16:57, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> I agree with moving to something like this in principle, but I think that >> the metric needs work. >> >> - you can clear your name by resigning and re-deputizing for the office; > > FWIW if someone did do this they'd then have to do their job well > afterwards for it to stick and doing that would be somewhat conspicuous, > so it doesn't seem like a big issue? I'm basing this on the fact that officers did it so often to get a Cyan ribbon (without the conspicuousness costing them anything) that we modified Cyan. I suspect, like Cyan, it's something we'd say when it happened "well that's allowed but undesirable so we should fix it systemically, not impeach or anything." Just trying to save introducing something we'd want to fix? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Decriminalizing Lateness
On 5/7/22 16:57, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: I agree with moving to something like this in principle, but I think that the metric needs work. - you can clear your name by resigning and re-deputizing for the office; FWIW if someone did do this they'd then have to do their job well afterwards for it to stick and doing that would be somewhat conspicuous, so it doesn't seem like a big issue? - there's no notion of forgiving the past without resigning in this manner; - as time goes on in an office, each missed report contributes less %, so it means the longer you hold the office the less the % matters and the less you might care (I have learned this point playing Wordle lol). These both seem like good arguments to perhaps reset it on a time-frame. Quarterly would match with what we've done for blots before. Overall this seems opposite of what we'd want a metric to do - which would be to go lower if you missed a present/recent report, but forgive the more distant past. So I'm concerned this incentivizes what we don't want? -G. -- nix Herald, Collector
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] VP Win clarification
On Mon, 2022-05-02 at 22:43 -0300, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
> secretsnail9 via agora-business [2022-05-02 19:03]:
> > I submit the following proposal, and pend it by paying a fee of 1 pendant.
> > {
> > Amend Rule 2621 (VP Wins) by replacing "If a player has at least 20 more
> > Winsomes than any other player" with "If a player has at least 20 more
> > Winsomes than all other players".
> > }
> Honestly, that doesn't clarify it for me, but makes it more confusing.
> It makes me wonder if I should sum-up the other players' Winsomes. That
> use of “any” is pretty standard, but if you wish for something else,
> perhaps “has the most Winsomes by a margin of at least 20”, or “has at
> least 20 more Winsomes than the second player with the most Winsomes”.
I think the usual unambiguous way to write this is "If a player has at
least 20 more Winsomes than each other player".
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] No finger pointing on behalf
Kind of crossposting from Discord but: Ive played loads of the Sets game (I won once!!) and it was very fun while I was engaged with it. I didn't mind that the part of gathering 4 for a Set was "solveable", because the fun of the game wasn't there, it was in what Ais has pointed out, where you still need to negotiate and tackle with what you got and what others have to make the most of it. It was a very fun but not in the way it was designed to behave. On Friday, April 8, 2022, nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 4/8/22 14:58, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > >> Huh? I don't think Cards are solved at all, and that's part of the > >> reason I find them interesting. We've solved the problem of forming > >> sets using cards from players who are active and willing to trade, but > >> there are lots of cards that players are unwilling to trade, or held by > >> inactive people, and making sets with those is much harder. > > I think the set-cashing part (so, like half the game) is nearly solved by > > the contracts - it's suppressed in-person dealing on discord noticeably, > > when a critical mass of players are just throwing things in a hopper, > > there are fewer opportunities to careful trading 1-by-1 (and the fun of > > guessing what a good deal is to different players etc). > > > Agreed. In the most recent Treasuror's report, all but 1 cash-in in the > last two months were 4 cards. That seems solved. > >> The consequence is that our current economy has really interesting > >> liquidity issues, and in practice players have been known to form > >> suboptimal trades because they need products more quickly than they'd > >> get them by forming a set and distributing the resulting products > >> fairly. > >> > > Both are going on, and I agree the resource-spending side of it isn't > > solved, but I've noticed that the card trading has just slowly tilted > more > > towards the contracts over time. > > The unsolved part in my mind is distribution. I think if you replaced > Cards with straight product rewards you'd get pretty similar play > without the contracts in-between things. > > -- > nix > Herald > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] No finger pointing on behalf
On 4/8/22 14:58, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> Huh? I don't think Cards are solved at all, and that's part of the >> reason I find them interesting. We've solved the problem of forming >> sets using cards from players who are active and willing to trade, but >> there are lots of cards that players are unwilling to trade, or held by >> inactive people, and making sets with those is much harder. > I think the set-cashing part (so, like half the game) is nearly solved by > the contracts - it's suppressed in-person dealing on discord noticeably, > when a critical mass of players are just throwing things in a hopper, > there are fewer opportunities to careful trading 1-by-1 (and the fun of > guessing what a good deal is to different players etc). > Agreed. In the most recent Treasuror's report, all but 1 cash-in in the last two months were 4 cards. That seems solved. >> The consequence is that our current economy has really interesting >> liquidity issues, and in practice players have been known to form >> suboptimal trades because they need products more quickly than they'd >> get them by forming a set and distributing the resulting products >> fairly. >> > Both are going on, and I agree the resource-spending side of it isn't > solved, but I've noticed that the card trading has just slowly tilted more > towards the contracts over time. The unsolved part in my mind is distribution. I think if you replaced Cards with straight product rewards you'd get pretty similar play without the contracts in-between things. -- nix Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] No finger pointing on behalf
On 4/8/2022 12:52 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 19:45 +, nix via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 4/8/22 13:34, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: >>> Also, while timing scams are interesting gameplay, I don't think it's a >>> good idea to change the rules for the sole purpose of making them easier >>> to perform. In this specific situation, the timing element is likely to >>> be repealed soon anyway. >> >> Tangent to this topic: >> >> I feel like there's a recent push for these minmaxing/optimization tools >> (automation, acting on behalf, contracts) etc. The problem is that >> minmaxing/optimization is basically solving a puzzle. And once a puzzle >> is solved it's boring. This is what happened with Cards in Sets, they're >> solved now thanks to contracts. That was a fun exercise that took us a >> while of play. But that was a sub-game. If Agora as a whole becomes >> solve-able, it becomes boring. > > Huh? I don't think Cards are solved at all, and that's part of the > reason I find them interesting. We've solved the problem of forming > sets using cards from players who are active and willing to trade, but > there are lots of cards that players are unwilling to trade, or held by > inactive people, and making sets with those is much harder. I think the set-cashing part (so, like half the game) is nearly solved by the contracts - it's suppressed in-person dealing on discord noticeably, when a critical mass of players are just throwing things in a hopper, there are fewer opportunities to careful trading 1-by-1 (and the fun of guessing what a good deal is to different players etc). > The consequence is that our current economy has really interesting > liquidity issues, and in practice players have been known to form > suboptimal trades because they need products more quickly than they'd > get them by forming a set and distributing the resulting products > fairly. > Both are going on, and I agree the resource-spending side of it isn't solved, but I've noticed that the card trading has just slowly tilted more towards the contracts over time. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] No finger pointing on behalf
On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 19:45 +, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > On 4/8/22 13:34, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > Also, while timing scams are interesting gameplay, I don't think it's a > > good idea to change the rules for the sole purpose of making them easier > > to perform. In this specific situation, the timing element is likely to > > be repealed soon anyway. > > Tangent to this topic: > > I feel like there's a recent push for these minmaxing/optimization tools > (automation, acting on behalf, contracts) etc. The problem is that > minmaxing/optimization is basically solving a puzzle. And once a puzzle > is solved it's boring. This is what happened with Cards in Sets, they're > solved now thanks to contracts. That was a fun exercise that took us a > while of play. But that was a sub-game. If Agora as a whole becomes > solve-able, it becomes boring. Huh? I don't think Cards are solved at all, and that's part of the reason I find them interesting. We've solved the problem of forming sets using cards from players who are active and willing to trade, but there are lots of cards that players are unwilling to trade, or held by inactive people, and making sets with those is much harder. The consequence is that our current economy has really interesting liquidity issues, and in practice players have been known to form suboptimal trades because they need products more quickly than they'd get them by forming a set and distributing the resulting products fairly. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] No finger pointing on behalf
On 4/8/22 13:34, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > Also, while timing scams are interesting gameplay, I don't think it's a > good idea to change the rules for the sole purpose of making them easier > to perform. In this specific situation, the timing element is likely to > be repealed soon anyway. Tangent to this topic: I feel like there's a recent push for these minmaxing/optimization tools (automation, acting on behalf, contracts) etc. The problem is that minmaxing/optimization is basically solving a puzzle. And once a puzzle is solved it's boring. This is what happened with Cards in Sets, they're solved now thanks to contracts. That was a fun exercise that took us a while of play. But that was a sub-game. If Agora as a whole becomes solve-able, it becomes boring. -- nix Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] No finger pointing on behalf
On 4/8/22 14:05, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 13:54 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >> I submit, but do not pend, the following proposal: >> >> Title: No finger pointing on behalf > FWIW, I'd prefer to expand the set of actions-on-behalf rather than > shrinking it (e.g. allowing objections/support to be made on behalf). > > One of the big advantages of being able to act on behalf is that it > takes the guesswork / constant refreshing out of timing scams, as long > as you can bribe the person who sends the message you want to react to. > If you remove that ability, then being able to get the perfect timing > is reliant primarily on how much you can stay online constantly > refreshing your email and/or how good you are at writing bots to > automatically send a message in response to another message. The latter > skill is mildly interesting, but the former skill is something that > it's a bad idea to encourage – it's a bad idea to steer people into > dedicating too much of their life to playing nomic at the expense of > other things, and refreshing your email constantly is one of the ways > you can spend a huge amount of time playing nomic. > > (I kind-of miss the days when it was possible to agree contracts in > secret, and have them gain act-on-behalf ability as soon as they were > made public, even if the consent itself hadn't been made public. > Obviously there are some issues trying to work out the gamestate if > that sort of thing is possible, but it meant that you didn't need to > make the existence of that sort of agreement public in advance and warn > everyone else about what you were up to.) > Things break if we allow acting on behalf for support/objections. For instance, Madrid has made contracts with clauses that allow acting on behalf to object to intents to shred (or would if this were possible). I don't think that's good for the game, and it removes the ability to destroy harmful contracts that only one person actually wants (except by proposal of course). Also, while timing scams are interesting gameplay, I don't think it's a good idea to change the rules for the sole purpose of making them easier to perform. In this specific situation, the timing element is likely to be repealed soon anyway. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] No finger pointing on behalf
Oh, I had in mind to allow people to set up their own bots from their own email and revel in that anyone now has botting power. On Friday, April 8, 2022, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 4/8/22 14:21, Madrid via agora-discussion wrote: > > Ive been looking into mailbots for officerless game tracking. > > > > If Contracts/Acting on Behalf gets repealed I'm up for using the same > tech > > for bots that can replace it. > > > > Actually, they could be useful too for secret "contracts", currently... > > > As I understand our current precedents, allowing someone to send mail > from your email address doesn't change the fact that the email is _from_ > them. What matters is the last entity involved that has free will. > > -- > Jason Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] No finger pointing on behalf
On 4/8/2022 11:05 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 13:54 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >> I submit, but do not pend, the following proposal: >> >> Title: No finger pointing on behalf > > FWIW, I'd prefer to expand the set of actions-on-behalf rather than > shrinking it (e.g. allowing objections/support to be made on behalf). The Referee/Arbitor rules are written so that the accuser is not ever also the judge/jury; I think that it's reasonably important that this separation be maintained. Whether or not automation/contracts are "more fun" and should be increased for most gameplay in general (I'm generally opposed to that, but recognize it's a preference thing for game play), mixing justice with efficiency is concerning to me, at least a bit. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] No finger pointing on behalf
On 4/8/22 14:21, Madrid via agora-discussion wrote: > Ive been looking into mailbots for officerless game tracking. > > If Contracts/Acting on Behalf gets repealed I'm up for using the same tech > for bots that can replace it. > > Actually, they could be useful too for secret "contracts", currently... As I understand our current precedents, allowing someone to send mail from your email address doesn't change the fact that the email is _from_ them. What matters is the last entity involved that has free will. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] No finger pointing on behalf
Ive been looking into mailbots for officerless game tracking. If Contracts/Acting on Behalf gets repealed I'm up for using the same tech for bots that can replace it. Actually, they could be useful too for secret "contracts", currently... On Friday, April 8, 2022, ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 13:54 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > > I submit, but do not pend, the following proposal: > > > > Title: No finger pointing on behalf > > FWIW, I'd prefer to expand the set of actions-on-behalf rather than > shrinking it (e.g. allowing objections/support to be made on behalf). > > One of the big advantages of being able to act on behalf is that it > takes the guesswork / constant refreshing out of timing scams, as long > as you can bribe the person who sends the message you want to react to. > If you remove that ability, then being able to get the perfect timing > is reliant primarily on how much you can stay online constantly > refreshing your email and/or how good you are at writing bots to > automatically send a message in response to another message. The latter > skill is mildly interesting, but the former skill is something that > it's a bad idea to encourage – it's a bad idea to steer people into > dedicating too much of their life to playing nomic at the expense of > other things, and refreshing your email constantly is one of the ways > you can spend a huge amount of time playing nomic. > > (I kind-of miss the days when it was possible to agree contracts in > secret, and have them gain act-on-behalf ability as soon as they were > made public, even if the consent itself hadn't been made public. > Obviously there are some issues trying to work out the gamestate if > that sort of thing is possible, but it meant that you didn't need to > make the existence of that sort of agreement public in advance and warn > everyone else about what you were up to.) > > -- > ais523 > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal](@Treasuror) Birds v2
On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 10:28 AM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > Create a rule with title "Permits", power 1.0, and the following text:
> > {
> >
> >Beast Permitted is a secured negative boolean person switch,
> >tracked by the Avicultor in eir weekly report. A player with a
> >Beast Permitted switch set to True is 'Beast Permitted'.
> >
> >A player CAN buy a beast permit by paying a fee of 50 boatloads
> >of coins. When a player buys a beast permit, eir Beast Permitted
> >switch is set to True.
> >
> >A player CAN relinquish eir beast permit by announcement. When a
> >player relinquishes eir beast permit, eir Beast Permitted switch
> >is set to False.
> >
> >A player CAN renew eir beast permit by paying a fee of 25
> >boatloads of coins.
> >
> >When permits expire, the Avicultor CAN and SHALL review each
> >Beast Permitted player, with notice, in a timely fashion. When a
> >Beast Permitted player is reviewed, if e has niether bought a
> >beast permit nor renewed eir beast permit in the past 30 days,
> >eir Beast Permitted switch is set to False.
> >
> > }
>
This makes this game uninteresting to anyone who joined late or doesn't
> have a large excess of coins. Why pay to play a game you're already
> behind in? I don't know what this really adds to the gameplay either.
>
The bird permits don't prevent anyone from playing, and also don't add so
much to help you as to make the game unwinnable for other players. The game
is plenty interesting without a permit, I think, and the option to expend a
large amount of resources for a bit of an advantage in the game seems like
a fun balance of actual worth and the desire to win. And the notion of
"being behind" in the game is a bit silly to me, because of how exactly the
game works. I think you're underestimating how likely it is for the leading
birdholder to suddenly lose most of their birds, maybe even to someone with
no birds, evening the playing field greatly. The amount of coins needed to
win, and to get a permit, is indeed large, but the main fun of the system
comes from getting even just a single bird, and being able to play with it
and use its power, regardless of if you'll win this subgame specifically.
> Create a rule with title "Bird Migration", power 1.0, and the following
> > text:
> > {
> >
> >A player CAN buy bird food by paying a fee of 5 boatloads of
> >coins.
> >
> >A player CAN release a specified bird e owns, by announcement.
> >When a bird is released, it is transferred to Agora.
> >
> >Once per month, a Beast Permitted Player CAN transfer a
> >specified bird owned by Agora to emself by announcement.
> >
> >Once per month, the Avicultor CAN publish a migration notice by
> >announcement, specifying all necessary information and choices;
> >this constitutes eir monthly report. The Avicultor SHALL publish
> >such a notice in a timely fashion after the beginning of each
> >Agoran month.
> >
> >The number of times each player bought bird food in the previous
> >month is included in the migration notice.
> >
> >A bird not owned by the player(s) who bought bird food the most
> >times during the previous month is a Hungry Bird.
> >
> >For each Hungry Bird, a random choice among all players who
> >bought bird food during the previous month is included alongside
> >that bird in the migration notice.
> >
> >When a migration notice is published, Hungry Birds are
> >transferred to their corresponding randomly chosen players in an
> >order specified by the migration notice.
> >
> >If a bird being transferred to a player would cause that player
> >to have more birds than the number of times e bought bird food
> >during the previous month, that bird is instead transferred to
> >Agora.
> >
> > }
> I like this system in some ways, it's an interesting alternative to
> auctions. However, it's once again only beneficial to rich players. It
> doesn't matter how many birds I have, so if I have 1 or 5 if I pay the
> most for feed, I keep all of them, AND have a chance to gain others.
> There's no scaling cost or risk for accumulation.
>
>
You DON'T have a chance to gain others if you don't buy more bird food than
you have birds. The scaling cost comes from the upkeep of having to stay
the person with the most bird food each month, along with a minimum amount
of bird food each month if you want to have a chance of winning. The
minimum amount of bird food you need to buy in a previous month to win the
game is 10, otherwise you cannot get 10 birds. Risk increases as you get
more birds, too, because players are more likely to go for the most bird
food when you're close to winning. There's also the opportunity
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The End of Sets
On 3/24/22 12:49, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > This should specify the order of the repeals – repealing two rules > without specifying the order doesn't work. (This is an important > mechanic, both for working out the resulting gamestate in cases where > it matters, and for catching accidental breakage that might repeal much > of the ruleset simultaneously.) True, this part is fixed in the upcoming revision thanks to some discord feedback. > I plan to vote against this proposal regardless, though; not only do I > think the Set economy is still functional, I'm very wary of proposals > to repeal the economy without putting a lot of thought into a viable > replacement. Historically, attempts to repeal the economy without > replacing it tend to cause Agora to fall into a multiple-month slump > (and we already just repealed Glitter). I think most people agree with the wariness overall. My thoughts are that this still leaves boatloads and stones, and there's 2 or 3 promising economic proposals floating around on list and in discord. At some point Sets has to move before those things happen. I also have a small economic proposal planned for later. -- nix Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The Hexeract
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 1:29 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > A player CAN swap the locations of two specified spaces by paying a fee
> of
> > 5 Movies.
>
> The grid rule doesn't clearly support this. I think, in general, it
> would be better to avoid modifying the locations of spaces in order to
> avoid questions of what happens when a space's location is set to an
> invalid value.
>
I think it was fine as it was, but it should probably be kept and better
defined because the potential gameplay from it seems worth the trouble.
> Overall this just seems grindy, difficult to track, and not particularly
> fun to play. It also screws over anybody who joins in the middle of the
> round, and it's potentially significantly damaging to miss even a week
> with a free move if other players aren't willing to sell you assets to
> catch up.
>
I adjusted the win condition and how vertokens work to make it more
forgiving for new players. Now a mountain climb only counts towards a win
if you were the most recent person to climb it. Also I changed the tokens
to be liquid and destructible, because why not? This seems like something
that could be easily added to if passed, and I was hoping other people
could suggest changes to make gameplay better.
I've been throwing a lot of ideas around in my head, including:
* making the huge fence much bigger, for example placing a fence on all
spaces with a certain entry for a dimension (but that would be a third of
all spaces and definitely hard to track)
* adding some kind of mines for the products instead of having them come
for payday
* linking the current economy or point system somehow
* adding a way for assets to be stored on spaces
* Making it so only one fence can be on a space at a time and you destroy
fences instead of hopping over them
* Calling the fences gates and making the fee for passing through go to a
player, and have the fee be set by the owner
* Making fences reinforced so they take more to get over
* A way to claim others' fences as your own
I think I also addressed everything else you mentioned in this new draft:
Title: The Hexeract
AI: 1.0
Author: secretsnail
Coauthors:
Create a rule with title "Grids" and the following text:
{
A grid has D dimensions, where D is a positive integer, and where its 1st
through Dth dimensions are defined in the rules. Each finite dimension has
a width of W, where W is a positive integer. A dimension is either wrapping
(syn. wrapped) or non-wrapping (default). A dimension is either infinite or
finite (default).
A location on a grid is a vector with D dimensions, where D is the number
of dimensions the grid has, with each dimension having a value as an entry,
whose Dth entry is a non-negative integer less than the Dth dimension's
width if the Dth dimension is neither infinite nor wrapping. All entries
for a given wrapping dimension are equal modulo that dimension's width. For
example, in a grid with 2 Dimensions of widths 2 then 3, [1,2] would be a
valid location and [2,1] would, if and only if the 1st dimension is
wrapping, also be a valid location.
A grid has exactly one space for each location on that grid.
A space (A) is adjacent to another space in the same grid (B) if it is
possible to once add 1 or once subtract 1 from a single entry in B's
location to get A's location. For example, on a grid with 2 dimensions of
widths 2 then 3, [1,2] would be adjacent to [1,0] if the grid was wrapping,
and not adjacent if it is not wrapping.)
Space A and space B to swap locations is for Space A's location to be
changed to Space B's location, and for Space B's location to be changed to
Space A's location, simultaneously.
}
Create a rule with title "The Hexeract" and the following text:
{
The Hexeract is a grid with 6 dimensions. The 1st-6th dimensions all have a
width of 3.
The Hexor is an office, whose weekly report includes a visual
representation of each of The Hexeract's spaces.
Fence List is a [space on The Hexeract] switch tracked by the Hexor, with
any set of persons as a possible value, and is the empty set by default. A
person "owns a fence on" a space if e is in that space's Fence List. A
space is "fenced" if its Fence List is not the empty set. A space on The
Hexeract can be referred to by its location.
Player Space is a player switch tracked by the Hexor with possible values
from the set on all spaces on The Hexeract, defaulting to [1,1,1,1,1,1].
For a player to move to a space is to change eir Player Space value to that
space. A player is on a space if eir Player Space value is that space.
Fencehops, Fences, and Movies are each a currency, tracked by the Hexor.
Whenever a payday occurs, each active player gains 1 Fencehop, 1 Fence, and
1 Movie.
A player CAN once a month grant 1 Fencehop, 1 Fence, or 1 Movie to a
specified player by announcement.
A player CAN, if e has not already done any of the below this week:
* move to a specified non-fenced space
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Scoring Integer Points
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 6:46 PM Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I knew the meaning from both math and programming, but I still think it > would look and flow better to express it as "rounded down". > > Greetings, > Ørjan. > The ruleset has no floors, walls, or ceilings, so I thought we could start from the ground up. Also "Each time a player fulfills a scoring condition, the officer associated with the condition CAN once by announcement, and SHALL in an officially timely fashion, add to that player's score the associated amount of points, rounded down" just sounds strange to me. -- secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Scoring Integer Points
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Sarah S. via agora-discussion wrote:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:45 PM Aspen via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 1:41 AM Sarah S. via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 6:47 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
I submit the below proposal, and then pay a pendant to pend it:
Title: Scoring Integer Points
Author: secretsnail
Coauthors:
AI : 1.0
{
Amend Rule 2657 (Scoring) by replacing "add to that player's score the
associated amount of points" with "add to that player's score the floor
of
the associated amount of points".
(This would let players score points for proposals with non-integer
AIs.)
}
--
secretsnail
im telling on myself here but idk what 'the floor' means in this
context. i
assume it's mathematical?
"The floor of X" means "X rounded down to the nearest integer". Ceiling is
the same, but rounded up. They pop up in math and computer programming.
-Aspen
i'd prefer it written out like that because i wouldn't really understand
its meaning if i read it in the ruleset. but it has been pended already so
no big deal, it's just me being a word person instead of a numbers person.
obviously its a very necessary bugfix anyway.
I knew the meaning from both math and programming, but I still think it
would look and flow better to express it as "rounded down".
--
R. Lee
Greetings,
Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Scoring Integer Points
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:45 PM Aspen via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 1:41 AM Sarah S. via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 6:47 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I submit the below proposal, and then pay a pendant to pend it:
> > >
> > > Title: Scoring Integer Points
> > > Author: secretsnail
> > > Coauthors:
> > > AI : 1.0
> > >
> > > {
> > >
> > > Amend Rule 2657 (Scoring) by replacing "add to that player's score the
> > > associated amount of points" with "add to that player's score the floor
> > of
> > > the associated amount of points".
> > >
> > > (This would let players score points for proposals with non-integer
> AIs.)
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > > --
> > > secretsnail
> > >
> >
> > im telling on myself here but idk what 'the floor' means in this
> context. i
> > assume it's mathematical?
>
>
> "The floor of X" means "X rounded down to the nearest integer". Ceiling is
> the same, but rounded up. They pop up in math and computer programming.
>
> -Aspen
>
i'd prefer it written out like that because i wouldn't really understand
its meaning if i read it in the ruleset. but it has been pended already so
no big deal, it's just me being a word person instead of a numbers person.
obviously its a very necessary bugfix anyway.
--
R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Scoring Integer Points
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 1:41 AM Sarah S. via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 6:47 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I submit the below proposal, and then pay a pendant to pend it:
> >
> > Title: Scoring Integer Points
> > Author: secretsnail
> > Coauthors:
> > AI : 1.0
> >
> > {
> >
> > Amend Rule 2657 (Scoring) by replacing "add to that player's score the
> > associated amount of points" with "add to that player's score the floor
> of
> > the associated amount of points".
> >
> > (This would let players score points for proposals with non-integer AIs.)
> >
> > }
> >
> > --
> > secretsnail
> >
>
> im telling on myself here but idk what 'the floor' means in this context. i
> assume it's mathematical?
"The floor of X" means "X rounded down to the nearest integer". Ceiling is
the same, but rounded up. They pop up in math and computer programming.
-Aspen
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] quorum fix
On 2/1/2022 2:48 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2/1/22 16:38, Rose Strong via agora-discussion wrote: >> Unless I am completely misunderstanding the CFJ 3938 ruling a quorum can >> never be 1. >> > > That's under the current rules, due to the clause that would be changed > here. There's nothing inherently saying quorum can't be 1, that's just > what R879 says right now. I think it went negative at least once before we had that 2 limit on there.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] quorum fix
On 2/1/22 16:38, Rose Strong via agora-discussion wrote: > Unless I am completely misunderstanding the CFJ 3938 ruling a quorum can > never be 1. > That's under the current rules, due to the clause that would be changed here. There's nothing inherently saying quorum can't be 1, that's just what R879 says right now. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Auction Ratification
On 1/24/22 22:28, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2022, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>
>> I create the following proposal, then pay a fee of one pendant to cause
>> it to become pending.
>>
>> Title: Auction Self-Ratification
>> Adoption index: 3.0
>> Author: Jason
>> Coauthors:
>>
>> Set the power of Rule 2545 to 3.
>>
>> Amend Rule 2545 by appending the following paragraphs:
>> {
>>
>> An public document purporting to state the final results of an action in
>A auction
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
Thanks! Resubmitted.
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] true basics
On 1/19/2022 11:09 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Wed, 2022-01-19 at 07:30 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >> I submit the following proposal, AI=2, called "Points": >> >> >> >> Create the following power=2 rule, Points: >> >> A player's Score, indicated in Points, is an integer player switch >> defaulting to 0, tracked by the Herald. >> >> Upon a correct announcement from a player that one or more players >> have a score of 100+ points, each such player wins the game. If at >> least one player wins the game via such an announcement, all >> players' scores are set to their default. >> >> > > Why power 2? This sort of thing is traditionally done at power 1, and I > can't see an obvious reason why more power would be needed. (Is it just > to make the rule harder to amend?) > I considered both (also 1.5) - went with 2 so the basic win condition to be harder to change and most of the action being in the reward mechanisms, at a lower power. Of course in practice halving all the rewards is the same as doubling the goal, but 2.0 discourages a raw "someone's close, let's vote away the goal" play, especially if scoring methods end up being proposal-based. That said, don't mind it at 1 if that's preferred. Also wondered about 1000 instead of 100 for more granularity, tho 100 admittedly appeals to my originalist tendencies. -G.
