Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On 2020-06-06 10:52, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
On 6/6/2020 9:33 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
On Saturday, June 6, 2020 10:18:59 AM CDT ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
There's absolutely no way this will pass, but I'm going to try it
anyways. Aris, I don't remember exactly when the midweek distribution
deadline is, but don't worry about including this proposal in it.
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Bank Robbery
AI: 1.0
Author: ATMunn
Co-author(s):
Enact a rule entitled "Heists" with the following text:
{
At any time, any player CAN, by announcement, perform a Heist. Upon
doing so, e CAN transfer up to half of the coins owned by Agora, rounded
down, to emself. However, players MAY NOT perform a Heist. Doing so is
the Class 3 Crime of Robbery.
}
G. will very likely have more to say about this but around the early 2000s
there was a system this vaguely reminds me of. Players could become rebels,
which was illegal and therefore earned em blots, but if the rebellion was
strong enough (which was determined by how many rebels there were and some
other factors, like certain holidays) the rebels could revolt.
I think this version might be a little too strong, but in general I like the
idea of there being some intentional misdeeds when we have blots and blot
cards.
Yeah, this is one of those initial conditions problems in an otherwise
fine idea. If Agora had 0 coins right now it would be fine. No incentive
for the Assessor, and coins would build up in Agora and then people could
decide when it's worth it to grab - timing the grab would be fun.
Is there any reason Agora needs 1,976 coins right now? Maybe the real
simple solution is just to add a "Destroy all coins in Agora's possession"
to the proposal before enacting the rule. (or "Destroy all except 50" if
you want a buffer or something, I'm pretty sure the Assessor wouldn't grab
25 coins in exchange for 3 blots).
Maybe a dedicated entity for us to steal from, perhaps called the
"Bank", which receives coins every payday?
--
Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On 6/6/2020 11:16 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > If no one else is interested in preparing a draft for this, I’ll get to it > later this weekend. I think the conversation/proto I was misremembering was the discussion around high crimes and treason, so you're the perfect person...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 18:17, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > If no one else is interested in preparing a draft for this, I’ll get to it > later this weekend. Thanks! - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
If no one else is interested in preparing a draft for this, I’ll get to it later this weekend. > On Jun 6, 2020, at 13:54, James Cook via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 17:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: >> On 6/6/2020 10:28 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > This is great! but I'm likely to vote AGAINST unless we get a > crime/infraction distinction and this becomes an infraction, i.e. not > actually against the rules. Is this something that is currently being proposed, or no? I know there's something related to blots and stuff in the proposal pool currently, but I don't remember what it actually does. If not, I could probably add some form of that to the proposal. >>> >>> No, G. sketched an idea in the thread "Rule Violation Options" but it >>> hasn't been turned into a proposal yet. The idea is that actions >>> defined as "crimes" are rule violations but actions described as >>> "infractions" aren't, but still incur penalties. >> >> Wasn't there a longer proto before that, by someone else? The final draft >> would have to include going through all current SHALLs and SHALL NOTs in >> the rules and classifying them, amending a lot of rules (I definitely >> wasn't leading the drafting on that!) >> >> -G. > > I remember this topic being discussed, but I don't remember an actual > proto. So much has been going on lately that I'll readily believe > there was such a proto. Closest I could find was this by nch (May 27, > subject "Re: DIS: Back-Awarding of Silver Quills") > >> Referee Cards were fun, and there's no reason they couldn't work with an >> asset >> system like the upcoming Sets (except for the confusion of names). You'd just >> make Green and Yellow payable with different amounts of Blot-B-Gones, and Red >> would probably not be payable at all. >> >> In fact, it may be a good idea to have two separate tiers of crimes anyway: >> small infractions that earn you some blots, and serious ones that come with a >> punishment you can't pay off. I think that'd reconcile the ideas of "justice >> as >> a game mechanic" and "justice as a way to deal with bad faith >> actors/actions." > > and then later from you: > >> Sure, that's why you divide things into felonies, misdemeanors, traffic >> fines, civil offenses, etc. But you write that into the law so it's clear >> you don't use the same language for all of those. In a game sense, in this >> iterative social contract (where your "reputation" is part of the >> trade-off) it's good to be clear between "yeah that's part of playing the >> game, we'll give you a blot but we won't be mad" and "we're going to yell >> a lot, consider your victory tainted, and try to hit you with heavy >> penalties". Just so we all get along better, you know? >> >> We don't have that right now - our "Class N" system is really incomplete >> and inconsistent. Previously (when we had differential designations we >> didn't have any violations where we didn't say that it was either a Crime >> or Infraction (that is, every SHALL NOT was paired with whether it was a >> Crime or Infraction). We'd have to go to every SHALL NOT in the rules and >> categorize it to set this up again. >> >> It's especially important if we want to give the Officers any duties that >> involve exploitable powers - want to be clear "we're giving you these >> powers and don't expect you to abuse them, or the subgame is ruined." >> >> -G. > > - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 17:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/6/2020 10:28 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > >>> This is great! but I'm likely to vote AGAINST unless we get a > >>> crime/infraction distinction and this becomes an infraction, i.e. not > >>> actually against the rules. > >> > >> Is this something that is currently being proposed, or no? I know > >> there's something related to blots and stuff in the proposal pool > >> currently, but I don't remember what it actually does. If not, I could > >> probably add some form of that to the proposal. > > > > No, G. sketched an idea in the thread "Rule Violation Options" but it > > hasn't been turned into a proposal yet. The idea is that actions > > defined as "crimes" are rule violations but actions described as > > "infractions" aren't, but still incur penalties. > > Wasn't there a longer proto before that, by someone else? The final draft > would have to include going through all current SHALLs and SHALL NOTs in > the rules and classifying them, amending a lot of rules (I definitely > wasn't leading the drafting on that!) > > -G. I remember this topic being discussed, but I don't remember an actual proto. So much has been going on lately that I'll readily believe there was such a proto. Closest I could find was this by nch (May 27, subject "Re: DIS: Back-Awarding of Silver Quills") > Referee Cards were fun, and there's no reason they couldn't work with an asset > system like the upcoming Sets (except for the confusion of names). You'd just > make Green and Yellow payable with different amounts of Blot-B-Gones, and Red > would probably not be payable at all. > > In fact, it may be a good idea to have two separate tiers of crimes anyway: > small infractions that earn you some blots, and serious ones that come with a > punishment you can't pay off. I think that'd reconcile the ideas of "justice > as > a game mechanic" and "justice as a way to deal with bad faith actors/actions." and then later from you: > Sure, that's why you divide things into felonies, misdemeanors, traffic > fines, civil offenses, etc. But you write that into the law so it's clear > you don't use the same language for all of those. In a game sense, in this > iterative social contract (where your "reputation" is part of the > trade-off) it's good to be clear between "yeah that's part of playing the > game, we'll give you a blot but we won't be mad" and "we're going to yell > a lot, consider your victory tainted, and try to hit you with heavy > penalties". Just so we all get along better, you know? > > We don't have that right now - our "Class N" system is really incomplete > and inconsistent. Previously (when we had differential designations we > didn't have any violations where we didn't say that it was either a Crime > or Infraction (that is, every SHALL NOT was paired with whether it was a > Crime or Infraction). We'd have to go to every SHALL NOT in the rules and > categorize it to set this up again. > > It's especially important if we want to give the Officers any duties that > involve exploitable powers - want to be clear "we're giving you these > powers and don't expect you to abuse them, or the subgame is ruined." > > -G. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On 6/6/2020 10:28 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: >>> This is great! but I'm likely to vote AGAINST unless we get a >>> crime/infraction distinction and this becomes an infraction, i.e. not >>> actually against the rules. >> >> Is this something that is currently being proposed, or no? I know >> there's something related to blots and stuff in the proposal pool >> currently, but I don't remember what it actually does. If not, I could >> probably add some form of that to the proposal. > > No, G. sketched an idea in the thread "Rule Violation Options" but it > hasn't been turned into a proposal yet. The idea is that actions > defined as "crimes" are rule violations but actions described as > "infractions" aren't, but still incur penalties. Wasn't there a longer proto before that, by someone else? The final draft would have to include going through all current SHALLs and SHALL NOTs in the rules and classifying them, amending a lot of rules (I definitely wasn't leading the drafting on that!) -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
> > This is great! but I'm likely to vote AGAINST unless we get a > > crime/infraction distinction and this becomes an infraction, i.e. not > > actually against the rules. > > Is this something that is currently being proposed, or no? I know > there's something related to blots and stuff in the proposal pool > currently, but I don't remember what it actually does. If not, I could > probably add some form of that to the proposal. No, G. sketched an idea in the thread "Rule Violation Options" but it hasn't been turned into a proposal yet. The idea is that actions defined as "crimes" are rule violations but actions described as "infractions" aren't, but still incur penalties. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On 6/6/2020 10:12 AM, ATMunn wrote:
> On 6/6/2020 1:05 PM, James Cook wrote:
>>> Title: Bank Robbery
>>> AI: 1.0
>>> Author: ATMunn
>>> Co-author(s):
>>>
>>> Enact a rule entitled "Heists" with the following text:
>>> {
>>> At any time, any player CAN, by announcement, perform a Heist. Upon
>>> doing so, e CAN transfer up to half of the coins owned by Agora, rounded
>>> down, to emself. However, players MAY NOT perform a Heist. Doing so is
>>> the Class 3 Crime of Robbery.
>>> }
>>
>> I'm not sure whether the second CAN needs a method. Maybe it should be
>> consolidated into one action / one CAN.
>
> Yeah, that's a good idea. I will consolidate it in the next version.
>
>>
>> This is great! but I'm likely to vote AGAINST unless we get a
>> crime/infraction distinction and this becomes an infraction, i.e. not
>> actually against the rules.
>
> Is this something that is currently being proposed, or no? I know
> there's something related to blots and stuff in the proposal pool
> currently, but I don't remember what it actually does. If not, I could
> probably add some form of that to the proposal.
There have been protos circulated and commented on this past month
(including a big reform one?), but nothing in the proposal pool yet.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On 6/6/2020 10:17 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On Saturday, June 6, 2020 12:08:48 PM CDT ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: >> The only other thing I'm wondering about is what class crime Robbery >> should be. I went with 3 because 2 seems too low (it is robbery after >> all), but 4 and above is considered "high crime" and seems to be >> reserved for more serious, game-disrupting actions. Anyone have any input? > > No matter what you set it to, it becomes an optimization problem. Players > have > to decide at which point X>Y, where X is the value they get from the robbery > and Y is the value they lose to the blots. 2 or 3 are best I think. Players > will probably be too hesitant to do 4 until it's very obviously a good deal, > and probably too eager to do 1 even if it's a bad deal. 2 or 3 has some risk > that might make people hesitate, but not too much. Assuming Sets pass, it's impossible to know until there's some more sense of justice card valuation. But in the current system trading off for "3 weeks of blot expunging" feels about right. I'd say either 3 or 4 would be fine using that baseline (I think 2 is a little low). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On 6/6/2020 1:17 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: On Saturday, June 6, 2020 12:08:48 PM CDT ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: The only other thing I'm wondering about is what class crime Robbery should be. I went with 3 because 2 seems too low (it is robbery after all), but 4 and above is considered "high crime" and seems to be reserved for more serious, game-disrupting actions. Anyone have any input? No matter what you set it to, it becomes an optimization problem. Players have to decide at which point X>Y, where X is the value they get from the robbery and Y is the value they lose to the blots. 2 or 3 are best I think. Players will probably be too hesitant to do 4 until it's very obviously a good deal, and probably too eager to do 1 even if it's a bad deal. 2 or 3 has some risk that might make people hesitate, but not too much. Okay. I'll stick with 3 then I think.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On Saturday, June 6, 2020 12:08:48 PM CDT ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > The only other thing I'm wondering about is what class crime Robbery > should be. I went with 3 because 2 seems too low (it is robbery after > all), but 4 and above is considered "high crime" and seems to be > reserved for more serious, game-disrupting actions. Anyone have any input? No matter what you set it to, it becomes an optimization problem. Players have to decide at which point X>Y, where X is the value they get from the robbery and Y is the value they lose to the blots. 2 or 3 are best I think. Players will probably be too hesitant to do 4 until it's very obviously a good deal, and probably too eager to do 1 even if it's a bad deal. 2 or 3 has some risk that might make people hesitate, but not too much. -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On 6/6/2020 1:05 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
Title: Bank Robbery
AI: 1.0
Author: ATMunn
Co-author(s):
Enact a rule entitled "Heists" with the following text:
{
At any time, any player CAN, by announcement, perform a Heist. Upon
doing so, e CAN transfer up to half of the coins owned by Agora, rounded
down, to emself. However, players MAY NOT perform a Heist. Doing so is
the Class 3 Crime of Robbery.
}
I'm not sure whether the second CAN needs a method. Maybe it should be
consolidated into one action / one CAN.
Yeah, that's a good idea. I will consolidate it in the next version.
This is great! but I'm likely to vote AGAINST unless we get a
crime/infraction distinction and this becomes an infraction, i.e. not
actually against the rules.
Is this something that is currently being proposed, or no? I know
there's something related to blots and stuff in the proposal pool
currently, but I don't remember what it actually does. If not, I could
probably add some form of that to the proposal.
- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On 6/6/2020 12:52 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
On 6/6/2020 9:33 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
On Saturday, June 6, 2020 10:18:59 AM CDT ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
There's absolutely no way this will pass, but I'm going to try it
anyways. Aris, I don't remember exactly when the midweek distribution
deadline is, but don't worry about including this proposal in it.
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Bank Robbery
AI: 1.0
Author: ATMunn
Co-author(s):
Enact a rule entitled "Heists" with the following text:
{
At any time, any player CAN, by announcement, perform a Heist. Upon
doing so, e CAN transfer up to half of the coins owned by Agora, rounded
down, to emself. However, players MAY NOT perform a Heist. Doing so is
the Class 3 Crime of Robbery.
}
G. will very likely have more to say about this but around the early 2000s
there was a system this vaguely reminds me of. Players could become rebels,
which was illegal and therefore earned em blots, but if the rebellion was
strong enough (which was determined by how many rebels there were and some
other factors, like certain holidays) the rebels could revolt.
I think this version might be a little too strong, but in general I like the
idea of there being some intentional misdeeds when we have blots and blot
cards.
Yeah, this is one of those initial conditions problems in an otherwise
fine idea. If Agora had 0 coins right now it would be fine. No incentive
for the Assessor, and coins would build up in Agora and then people could
decide when it's worth it to grab - timing the grab would be fun.
Is there any reason Agora needs 1,976 coins right now? Maybe the real
simple solution is just to add a "Destroy all coins in Agora's possession"
to the proposal before enacting the rule. (or "Destroy all except 50" if
you want a buffer or something, I'm pretty sure the Assessor wouldn't grab
25 coins in exchange for 3 blots).
-G.
I think that'll work.
The only other thing I'm wondering about is what class crime Robbery
should be. I went with 3 because 2 seems too low (it is robbery after
all), but 4 and above is considered "high crime" and seems to be
reserved for more serious, game-disrupting actions. Anyone have any input?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On 6/6/2020 9:33 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Saturday, June 6, 2020 10:18:59 AM CDT ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
>> There's absolutely no way this will pass, but I'm going to try it
>> anyways. Aris, I don't remember exactly when the midweek distribution
>> deadline is, but don't worry about including this proposal in it.
>>
>>
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>>
>> Title: Bank Robbery
>> AI: 1.0
>> Author: ATMunn
>> Co-author(s):
>>
>> Enact a rule entitled "Heists" with the following text:
>> {
>> At any time, any player CAN, by announcement, perform a Heist. Upon
>> doing so, e CAN transfer up to half of the coins owned by Agora, rounded
>> down, to emself. However, players MAY NOT perform a Heist. Doing so is
>> the Class 3 Crime of Robbery.
>> }
>
> G. will very likely have more to say about this but around the early 2000s
> there was a system this vaguely reminds me of. Players could become rebels,
> which was illegal and therefore earned em blots, but if the rebellion was
> strong enough (which was determined by how many rebels there were and some
> other factors, like certain holidays) the rebels could revolt.
>
> I think this version might be a little too strong, but in general I like the
> idea of there being some intentional misdeeds when we have blots and blot
> cards.
>
Yeah, this is one of those initial conditions problems in an otherwise
fine idea. If Agora had 0 coins right now it would be fine. No incentive
for the Assessor, and coins would build up in Agora and then people could
decide when it's worth it to grab - timing the grab would be fun.
Is there any reason Agora needs 1,976 coins right now? Maybe the real
simple solution is just to add a "Destroy all coins in Agora's possession"
to the proposal before enacting the rule. (or "Destroy all except 50" if
you want a buffer or something, I'm pretty sure the Assessor wouldn't grab
25 coins in exchange for 3 blots).
-G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 11:53 AM ATMunn via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On 6/6/2020 11:34 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
> agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 11:19 AM ATMunn via agora-business
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> There's absolutely no way this will pass, but I'm going to try it
> >> anyways. Aris, I don't remember exactly when the midweek distribution
> >> deadline is, but don't worry about including this proposal in it.
> >>
> >>
> >> I submit the following proposal:
> >>
> >>
> >> Title: Bank Robbery
> >> AI: 1.0
> >> Author: ATMunn
> >> Co-author(s):
> >>
> >> Enact a rule entitled "Heists" with the following text:
> >> {
> >> At any time, any player CAN, by announcement, perform a Heist. Upon
> >> doing so, e CAN transfer up to half of the coins owned by Agora, rounded
> >> down, to emself. However, players MAY NOT perform a Heist. Doing so is
> >> the Class 3 Crime of Robbery.
> >> }
> >
> > Doesn't this give a huge advantage to the Assessor? I like the general
> > idea and would be interested in experimenting with it, but this gives
> > a significant advantage to the Assessor and actually uses Agora. If we
> > were going to do this, I would prefer that we establish some entity to
> > hold the money separately.
> >
>
> How does it give an advantage to the Assessor? What am I missing?
E will have the first opportunity to do so and could do so as many
times as necessary to cause Agora to have no coins in the same message
in which e resolves the proposal.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On 6/6/2020 11:34 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 11:19 AM ATMunn via agora-business
wrote:
There's absolutely no way this will pass, but I'm going to try it
anyways. Aris, I don't remember exactly when the midweek distribution
deadline is, but don't worry about including this proposal in it.
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Bank Robbery
AI: 1.0
Author: ATMunn
Co-author(s):
Enact a rule entitled "Heists" with the following text:
{
At any time, any player CAN, by announcement, perform a Heist. Upon
doing so, e CAN transfer up to half of the coins owned by Agora, rounded
down, to emself. However, players MAY NOT perform a Heist. Doing so is
the Class 3 Crime of Robbery.
}
Doesn't this give a huge advantage to the Assessor? I like the general
idea and would be interested in experimenting with it, but this gives
a significant advantage to the Assessor and actually uses Agora. If we
were going to do this, I would prefer that we establish some entity to
hold the money separately.
How does it give an advantage to the Assessor? What am I missing?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] DADA Soft Repeal
On 6/6/20 10:20 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Due to deputisation, if the Assessor didn't resolve it it would basically > be "without objection" to not resolve it. Well that's comforting. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] DADA Soft Repeal
On 6/5/2020 9:39 PM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: > On Friday, 5 June 2020, 19:11:36 GMT+1, James Cook via agora-discussion > wrote: >> If a proposal does get enough votes, I think this makes the Assessor >> the one who violates the rule, when e resolves it. I guess Aris's "New >> Defenses" would protect em. Probably not a big deal. > > Gratuitous: in the unlikely event that a proposal that would ossify/end Agora > does end up being voted FOR, I would prefer the Assessor to not resolve it. > If resolving it were illegal, this would give em a good excuse to violate the > rules requiring em to resolve it. > > (For example, if we catch that a proposal has an ossifying effect at some > point after the voting period closes, the Assessor delaying the resolution > would likely be a necessary step in fixing the situation, buying time to, > e.g., pass a proposal to proactively negate the ossifying proposal's effects.) > > Something similar has happened in other nomics: Wooble once "forfeited" > (effectively, deregistered from) B in order to avoid having to resolve a > proposal that would end the game. (It was eventually discovered that due to > some brokenness earlier, the proposal in question had never existed, although > B was dead anyway at that point.) > Due to deputisation, if the Assessor didn't resolve it it would basically be "without objection" to not resolve it.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] DADA Soft Repeal
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 9:49 PM Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 2:40 PM Alex Smith via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Friday, 5 June 2020, 19:11:36 GMT+1, James Cook via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > If a proposal does get enough votes, I think this makes the Assessor > > > the one who violates the rule, when e resolves it. I guess Aris's "New > > > Defenses" would protect em. Probably not a big deal. > > > > Gratuitous: in the unlikely event that a proposal that would ossify/end > > Agora does end up being voted FOR, I would prefer the Assessor to not > > resolve it. If resolving it were illegal, this would give em a good excuse > > to violate the rules requiring em to resolve it. > > > > (For example, if we catch that a proposal has an ossifying effect at some > > point after the voting period closes, the Assessor delaying the resolution > > would likely be a necessary step in fixing the situation, buying time to, > > e.g., pass a proposal to proactively negate the ossifying proposal's > > effects.) > > > > Something similar has happened in other nomics: Wooble once "forfeited" > > (effectively, deregistered from) B in order to avoid having to resolve a > > proposal that would end the game. (It was eventually discovered that due to > > some brokenness earlier, the proposal in question had never existed, > > although B was dead anyway at that point.) > > > > -- > > ais523 > > > > Yes, it is a class 2 ( but really class 1) crime to be Tardy on resolving a > proposal, and it is a class 4 crime to resolve it, ossifying agora. The > correct course of action for an Assessor who is worried about an ossifying > proposal is definitely to call a CFJ and not resolve the proposal, and the > rules encouraging that is not such a bad thing. > Note that my proposal, at written, cares about rule power and not crime class. That's because I didn't want lower power rules to be able to override SHALLs in higher-powered rules. The obvious solution is to move the prohibition into AiaN, so it overpowers everything. I may propose that. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] DADA Soft Repeal
On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 2:40 PM Alex Smith via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Friday, 5 June 2020, 19:11:36 GMT+1, James Cook via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > If a proposal does get enough votes, I think this makes the Assessor > > the one who violates the rule, when e resolves it. I guess Aris's "New > > Defenses" would protect em. Probably not a big deal. > > Gratuitous: in the unlikely event that a proposal that would ossify/end > Agora does end up being voted FOR, I would prefer the Assessor to not > resolve it. If resolving it were illegal, this would give em a good excuse > to violate the rules requiring em to resolve it. > > (For example, if we catch that a proposal has an ossifying effect at some > point after the voting period closes, the Assessor delaying the resolution > would likely be a necessary step in fixing the situation, buying time to, > e.g., pass a proposal to proactively negate the ossifying proposal's > effects.) > > Something similar has happened in other nomics: Wooble once "forfeited" > (effectively, deregistered from) B in order to avoid having to resolve a > proposal that would end the game. (It was eventually discovered that due to > some brokenness earlier, the proposal in question had never existed, > although B was dead anyway at that point.) > > -- > ais523 > Yes, it is a class 2 ( but really class 1) crime to be Tardy on resolving a proposal, and it is a class 4 crime to resolve it, ossifying agora. The correct course of action for an Assessor who is worried about an ossifying proposal is definitely to call a CFJ and not resolve the proposal, and the rules encouraging that is not such a bad thing. -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] DADA Soft Repeal
On Friday, 5 June 2020, 19:11:36 GMT+1, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > If a proposal does get enough votes, I think this makes the Assessor > the one who violates the rule, when e resolves it. I guess Aris's "New > Defenses" would protect em. Probably not a big deal. Gratuitous: in the unlikely event that a proposal that would ossify/end Agora does end up being voted FOR, I would prefer the Assessor to not resolve it. If resolving it were illegal, this would give em a good excuse to violate the rules requiring em to resolve it. (For example, if we catch that a proposal has an ossifying effect at some point after the voting period closes, the Assessor delaying the resolution would likely be a necessary step in fixing the situation, buying time to, e.g., pass a proposal to proactively negate the ossifying proposal's effects.) Something similar has happened in other nomics: Wooble once "forfeited" (effectively, deregistered from) B in order to avoid having to resolve a proposal that would end the game. (It was eventually discovered that due to some brokenness earlier, the proposal in question had never existed, although B was dead anyway at that point.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Identity theft protection act v1.1 (was: Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process)
Oops, I forgot. I think it's now the H. Promotor's second distribution cutoff of 00:00 Friday, so perhaps I should leave it as is. If I'm lucky maybe I'll squeeze another coin out of it, though it was not intentional. If I'm unlucky F/A will turn out to be 3.05 or something. - Falsifian On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 at 02:55, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > > it doesn't need AI 3.1: any proposal with AI 3 can amend any rule of > whatever power (rules are odd) > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 4:20 AM James Cook via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > Title: Identity theft protection act > > > Co-authors: G., P.S.S. > > > AI: 3.1 > > > Text: > > > > > > Amend Rule 2141 by adding the sentence "Once assigned, a rule's ID > > > number CANNOT be changed." to the end of the second paragraph. > > > > > > - Falsifian > > > > I withdraw the above proposal and submit a proposal as follows. > > > > Title: Identity theft protection act v1.1 > > Co-authors: G., P.S.S. > > AI: 3.1 > > Text: > > > > Amend Rule 2141 by replacing the text > > > > Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor. > > > > with > > > > Every rule shall have an ID number, distinct among current and > > former rules, to be assigned once by the Rulekeepor. > > > > [Comment: this version is designed to prevent the Rulekeepor from > > assigning the same ID to two rules in addition to the protection > > against changing IDs.] > > > > - Falsifian > > > > > -- > From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Certifiable Patches
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 5:40 PM nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thursday, June 4, 2020 7:25:03 PM CDT Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > wrote: > > What do y'all think of this proto? > > > > -Aris > > --- > > Title: Certifiable Patches > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-author(s): nch, P.S.S. > > This version looks better, but to be transparent I'll likely vote PRESENT on > any version of this. I get the anxiety around limiting pending but I'd rather > see how it plays for a while, and I'd rather issue more cards if there's not > enough than circumvent then completely. That said, if anything is going to > circumvent then, I'm think bugfixes makes the most sense. Understandable! I agree with you in general; if we're going to have a pend economy, we can't go around creating a quadrillion exceptions. That being said, I *do* think it makes sense to exempt bugfixes. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Certifiable Patches
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 5:40 PM nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thursday, June 4, 2020 7:25:03 PM CDT Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > wrote: > > What do y'all think of this proto? > > > > -Aris > > --- > > Title: Certifiable Patches > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-author(s): nch, P.S.S. > > This version looks better, but to be transparent I'll likely vote PRESENT on > any version of this. I get the anxiety around limiting pending but I'd rather > see how it plays for a while, and I'd rather issue more cards if there's not > enough than circumvent then completely. That said, if anything is going to > circumvent then, I'm think bugfixes makes the most sense. That's understandable. I certainly see why we don't want to create a ton of exceptions to the pending rules - that just takes the fun out of that part of the economy. That being said, I think that bug fixes really are enough of a special case that this makes sense. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Certifiable Patches
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 5:28 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 6/4/20 8:25 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > > Any player CAN, by announcement, certify a specified proposal (as a > > patch), > > causing it to become pended. > > > This would enable pending proposals that were already voted on or are > currently being voted on. Otherwise looks good to me. That won't actually do anything (presuming "Why Track Pendency?" passes) so it's fine. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Certifiable Patches
On Thursday, June 4, 2020 7:25:03 PM CDT Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > What do y'all think of this proto? > > -Aris > --- > Title: Certifiable Patches > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: Aris > Co-author(s): nch, P.S.S. This version looks better, but to be transparent I'll likely vote PRESENT on any version of this. I get the anxiety around limiting pending but I'd rather see how it plays for a while, and I'd rather issue more cards if there's not enough than circumvent then completely. That said, if anything is going to circumvent then, I'm think bugfixes makes the most sense. -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Certifiable Patches
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 8:25 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 8:43 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via > agora-discussion wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:37 AM Rebecca via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 1:35 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via > > > agora-discussion wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:02 AM nch via agora-discussion > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 4, 2020 12:41:14 AM CDT Aris Merchant via > > > > agora-business > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > I submit the following proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > --- > > > > > > Title: Certifiable Patches > > > > > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > > > > > Author: Aris > > > > > > Co-author(s): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enact a new power 1.0 rule, entitled "Certifiable Patches", with the > > > > > > following text: > > > > > > Any player CAN, by announcement, certify a specified proposal (as > > > > > > a > > > > > > patch), causing it to become pended. > > > > > > > > > > > > A player SHALL NOT certify a proposal unless its primary function > > > > > > is to rectify a bug, error, or ambiguity that relates > > > > > > substantially > > > > > > to a) an office e holds; or b) a CFJ, open within the last week, > > > > > > of > > > > > > which e is the judge. Certifying a proposal in violation of this > > > > > > paragraph is the Class-4 Crime of Uncertain Certification. A > > > > > > person > > > > > > certifying a proposal SHOULD explain why doing so does not violate > > > > > > this paragraph. > > > > > > > > > > This seems like it'll cause a lot of CFJs and uncertainty. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > nch > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you elaborate on this? As I see it, there would be no reason for > > > > more CFJs to occur under this rule. > > > > > > > > > > There would be regular CFJs about what relates to rectifying, etc etc. > > > Referee doesn't have full discretion on these things, e can be overruled > > > by > > > CFJ. > > > > > > -- > > > From R. Lee > > > > That makes sense, but my reading of the rules — which, if I recall > > correctly G. has also stated — is that only a fine can be questioned > > by CFJ not a finding of shenanigans. I can say that my general > > standard would be to err on the side of leniency unless it is clear > > that others have strong feelings to the contrary. In general, my > > assumption was that we would be reasonably agreable on these matters. > > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:38 AM nch via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, June 4, 2020 10:34:29 AM CDT you wrote: > > > > Could you elaborate on this? As I see it, there would be no reason for > > > > more CFJs to occur under this rule. > > > > > > How is "primary function" determined? Is G's complete rewrite of the > > > auction > > > rule primarily a bug fix? > > > > > > -- > > > nch > > > > > > > Based off of the phrasing of the rule, I think it would be a bug fix > > because it isn't more specific. I think it might be better if we > > said, "minimally rectify", to make it clear that it only applied to > > the minimal change necessary. > > What do y'all think of this proto? > > -Aris > --- > Title: Certifiable Patches > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: Aris > Co-author(s): nch, P.S.S. > > > [This may be over-clear, but should be CFJ proof.] > This looks good to me. Possibly a bit over-clear, but we probably need that at first and can rectify later if we want.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Certifiable Patches
On 6/4/20 8:25 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > Any player CAN, by announcement, certify a specified proposal (as a patch), > causing it to become pended. This would enable pending proposals that were already voted on or are currently being voted on. Otherwise looks good to me. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Certifiable Patches
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 8:43 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:37 AM Rebecca via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 1:35 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via > > agora-discussion wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:02 AM nch via agora-discussion > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 4, 2020 12:41:14 AM CDT Aris Merchant via > > > agora-business > > > > wrote: > > > > > I submit the following proposal. > > > > > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > --- > > > > > Title: Certifiable Patches > > > > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > > > > Author: Aris > > > > > Co-author(s): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enact a new power 1.0 rule, entitled "Certifiable Patches", with the > > > > > following text: > > > > > Any player CAN, by announcement, certify a specified proposal (as a > > > > > patch), causing it to become pended. > > > > > > > > > > A player SHALL NOT certify a proposal unless its primary function > > > > > is to rectify a bug, error, or ambiguity that relates substantially > > > > > to a) an office e holds; or b) a CFJ, open within the last week, of > > > > > which e is the judge. Certifying a proposal in violation of this > > > > > paragraph is the Class-4 Crime of Uncertain Certification. A person > > > > > certifying a proposal SHOULD explain why doing so does not violate > > > > > this paragraph. > > > > > > > > This seems like it'll cause a lot of CFJs and uncertainty. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > nch > > > > > > > > > > Could you elaborate on this? As I see it, there would be no reason for > > > more CFJs to occur under this rule. > > > > > > > There would be regular CFJs about what relates to rectifying, etc etc. > > Referee doesn't have full discretion on these things, e can be overruled by > > CFJ. > > > > -- > > From R. Lee > > That makes sense, but my reading of the rules — which, if I recall > correctly G. has also stated — is that only a fine can be questioned > by CFJ not a finding of shenanigans. I can say that my general > standard would be to err on the side of leniency unless it is clear > that others have strong feelings to the contrary. In general, my > assumption was that we would be reasonably agreable on these matters. > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:38 AM nch via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > On Thursday, June 4, 2020 10:34:29 AM CDT you wrote: > > > Could you elaborate on this? As I see it, there would be no reason for > > > more CFJs to occur under this rule. > > > > How is "primary function" determined? Is G's complete rewrite of the auction > > rule primarily a bug fix? > > > > -- > > nch > > > > Based off of the phrasing of the rule, I think it would be a bug fix > because it isn't more specific. I think it might be better if we > said, "minimally rectify", to make it clear that it only applied to > the minimal change necessary. What do y'all think of this proto? -Aris --- Title: Certifiable Patches Adoption index: 1.0 Author: Aris Co-author(s): nch, P.S.S. [This may be over-clear, but should be CFJ proof.] Enact a new power 1.0 rule, entitled "Certifiable Patches", with the following text: Any player CAN, by announcement, certify a specified proposal (as a patch), causing it to become pended. A player SHALL NOT certify a proposal unless its sole function is to minimally rectify a bug, error, or ambiguity (a problem) that relates to a) an office e holds; or b) a CFJ, open within the last week, of which e is the judge. Certifying a proposal in violation of this paragraph is the Class-4 Crime of Uncertain Certification. A player certifying a proposal SHOULD explain why doing so does not violate this paragraph. For the purposes of this rule: 1. A bug is a situation in which a rule operates in a way that is clearly contrary to legislative intent or common sense. 2. An error is a change introduced by apparent mistake, such as the self-ratification of an incorrect report or a typo in a rule amendment. 3. An ambiguity is a state of affairs in which reasonable players could disagree about the operation of the rules or the state of a rule defined property. 4. A minimal rectification is one that resolves the problem without doing substantially more than is necessary to resolve it. For instance, rectification that uses more slightly words than necessary to resolve the problem may still be minimal, whereas a rectification that makes rule changes unrelated to fixing the problem would not be. 5. A problem relates to an office if it plausibly affects the area of the game the office is responsible for and relates to a CFJ if it could plausibly be interpreted to affect that CFJ's outcome.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Certifiable Patches
On 6/4/20 8:18 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > I retract this proposal. > > -Aris "I retract this proposal.", said Aris to the discussion forum. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No Punishment For Nominal Crimes
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:20 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/4/2020 12:09 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 3:04 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> On 6/4/2020 11:38 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > >>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 2:32 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 10:24 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 6/4/2020 9:37 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:09 PM Rebecca wrote: > >>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 2:00 AM Kerim Aydinwrote: > I think having the option of a 0 being a regular thing is just > fine, > > given > >>> that the alternative is possibly taking wins away from people when > > certain > >>> officers get pointed at for missing a report, other officers don't > >>> get > >>> pointed at for the same stuff, et cetera. > >> > >> We make those things crimes for a reason. There are processes to > deal > >> with it and there are ways to avoid it; if people want to win, they > >> should do it by following the rules. > > > > One single thing in this is that the majority of our > > platonically-committed crimes is officer report lateness. > (specifically > > thinking of action-free reports, not actions like resolving > decisions). > > Officering is voluntary and can be a bit thankless, and I think > there's > > general acknowledgement that missing weeks here and there shouldn't > be > > punished (or you might lose all your volunteers). > > > > But that penalty is no different in rules text than other breakages, > >>> which > > leads to a weird thing, where we've said that some crimes shouldn't > be > > punished much, compared to others, but we haven't written that > down. So > > of course, when someone says "why is my lying being penalized more > than > > the missed reports, it's treated the same way in the rules" we can't > >>> point > > to anything concrete reason and punishment becomes arbitrary. > > > > SO I think if we formally recognize our leniency in reporting, then > we > >>> can > > be a bit more comfortable strictly penalizing everything else? > > > > In a stint of temporary refereeing last year, I tried stating a > policy > > that "I'd never point a finger for one late report, but I will > always do > > so for 2+ in a row" and that seemed to work well (and led to more > > consistent punishment for habitually 2-week late people). Just a > >>> thought > > as a starting point? > > > I'm for this general idea, I think. We shouldn't have rules we're not > >>> going > to enforce, and that means that if we routinely fail to enforce it, we > >>> have > the wrong rule. > > Two points here: first, I'd make this apply as part of the definition > of > weekly and monthly duties. > > Second, I'm not sure what the right standard is. Our current standard > appears to be "we won't point a finger unless you're late by a week/a > full > reporting period". (I don't know which it is, right off-hand; most > reports > are weekly.) This may sound ridiculously lenient, but it appears to > work > surprisingly in practice? > > -Aris > >>> > >>> What about the following phrasing as a stepping stone while we work on > a > >>> full standard?: > >>> Significant, repeated, negligent, or intentional failure of a > >>> person to perform any duty required of em within the allotted > >>> time is the Class 2 Crime of Tardiness. > >>> > >> > >> I'd rather define it straight-up (shouldn't take too much discussion) > >> without an interim step like that - given differences in our collective > >> perceptions, I don't know that there would be reasonable consensus about > >> what those terms mean. > >> > >> For example, I think monthly reports should be penalized if they're > >> missed, every time. A month is plenty of time to produce a report, and > >> the way the archives are structured it would be good to ensure that we > >> every "month" page of the Official archives has at least one report. So > >> right there, there's different standards for monthly and weekly around > >> (say) the term "negligent". > >> > >> Also, if left up to courts, "negligence" may be different for (say) > Karma > >> that doesn't really affect much actual game decision making, versus the > >> Treasuror's report where a missed couple of weeks means a lot of people > >> are unsure of their holdings. Parsing that all out in CFJs defining > those > >> terms sounds like a mess. > >> > >> As a starting point, how about monthly stays as-is, but the weekly > >> penalties are either (1) missing 2 in a row, or (2) missing 2 out of the > >> last 4? The '2 out of 4' part is to avoid "missing 2 in a row" turning > >> into "everyone just does it every other week". > >> > >> -G. > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No Punishment For Nominal Crimes
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 3:20 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 6/4/2020 12:09 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 3:04 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> On 6/4/2020 11:38 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > >>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 2:32 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 10:24 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 6/4/2020 9:37 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:09 PM Rebecca wrote: > >>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 2:00 AM Kerim Aydinwrote: > I think having the option of a 0 being a regular thing is just fine, > > given > >>> that the alternative is possibly taking wins away from people when > > certain > >>> officers get pointed at for missing a report, other officers don't > >>> get > >>> pointed at for the same stuff, et cetera. > >> > >> We make those things crimes for a reason. There are processes to deal > >> with it and there are ways to avoid it; if people want to win, they > >> should do it by following the rules. > > > > One single thing in this is that the majority of our > > platonically-committed crimes is officer report lateness. (specifically > > thinking of action-free reports, not actions like resolving decisions). > > Officering is voluntary and can be a bit thankless, and I think there's > > general acknowledgement that missing weeks here and there shouldn't be > > punished (or you might lose all your volunteers). > > > > But that penalty is no different in rules text than other breakages, > >>> which > > leads to a weird thing, where we've said that some crimes shouldn't be > > punished much, compared to others, but we haven't written that down. So > > of course, when someone says "why is my lying being penalized more than > > the missed reports, it's treated the same way in the rules" we can't > >>> point > > to anything concrete reason and punishment becomes arbitrary. > > > > SO I think if we formally recognize our leniency in reporting, then we > >>> can > > be a bit more comfortable strictly penalizing everything else? > > > > In a stint of temporary refereeing last year, I tried stating a policy > > that "I'd never point a finger for one late report, but I will always do > > so for 2+ in a row" and that seemed to work well (and led to more > > consistent punishment for habitually 2-week late people). Just a > >>> thought > > as a starting point? > > > I'm for this general idea, I think. We shouldn't have rules we're not > >>> going > to enforce, and that means that if we routinely fail to enforce it, we > >>> have > the wrong rule. > > Two points here: first, I'd make this apply as part of the definition of > weekly and monthly duties. > > Second, I'm not sure what the right standard is. Our current standard > appears to be "we won't point a finger unless you're late by a week/a > full > reporting period". (I don't know which it is, right off-hand; most > reports > are weekly.) This may sound ridiculously lenient, but it appears to work > surprisingly in practice? > > -Aris > >>> > >>> What about the following phrasing as a stepping stone while we work on a > >>> full standard?: > >>> Significant, repeated, negligent, or intentional failure of a > >>> person to perform any duty required of em within the allotted > >>> time is the Class 2 Crime of Tardiness. > >>> > >> > >> I'd rather define it straight-up (shouldn't take too much discussion) > >> without an interim step like that - given differences in our collective > >> perceptions, I don't know that there would be reasonable consensus about > >> what those terms mean. > >> > >> For example, I think monthly reports should be penalized if they're > >> missed, every time. A month is plenty of time to produce a report, and > >> the way the archives are structured it would be good to ensure that we > >> every "month" page of the Official archives has at least one report. So > >> right there, there's different standards for monthly and weekly around > >> (say) the term "negligent". > >> > >> Also, if left up to courts, "negligence" may be different for (say) Karma > >> that doesn't really affect much actual game decision making, versus the > >> Treasuror's report where a missed couple of weeks means a lot of people > >> are unsure of their holdings. Parsing that all out in CFJs defining those > >> terms sounds like a mess. > >> > >> As a starting point, how about monthly stays as-is, but the weekly > >> penalties are either (1) missing 2 in a row, or (2) missing 2 out of the > >> last 4? The '2 out of 4' part is to avoid "missing 2 in a row" turning > >> into "everyone just does it every other week". > >> > >> -G. > > > > I like the general idea, but how would 2 out of 4 pr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No Punishment For Nominal Crimes
On 6/4/2020 12:09 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 3:04 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On 6/4/2020 11:38 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 2:32 PM Aris Merchant wrote: On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 10:24 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 6/4/2020 9:37 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:09 PM Rebecca wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 2:00 AM Kerim Aydinwrote: I think having the option of a 0 being a regular thing is just fine, > given >>> that the alternative is possibly taking wins away from people when > certain >>> officers get pointed at for missing a report, other officers don't >>> get >>> pointed at for the same stuff, et cetera. >> >> We make those things crimes for a reason. There are processes to deal >> with it and there are ways to avoid it; if people want to win, they >> should do it by following the rules. > > One single thing in this is that the majority of our > platonically-committed crimes is officer report lateness. (specifically > thinking of action-free reports, not actions like resolving decisions). > Officering is voluntary and can be a bit thankless, and I think there's > general acknowledgement that missing weeks here and there shouldn't be > punished (or you might lose all your volunteers). > > But that penalty is no different in rules text than other breakages, >>> which > leads to a weird thing, where we've said that some crimes shouldn't be > punished much, compared to others, but we haven't written that down. So > of course, when someone says "why is my lying being penalized more than > the missed reports, it's treated the same way in the rules" we can't >>> point > to anything concrete reason and punishment becomes arbitrary. > > SO I think if we formally recognize our leniency in reporting, then we >>> can > be a bit more comfortable strictly penalizing everything else? > > In a stint of temporary refereeing last year, I tried stating a policy > that "I'd never point a finger for one late report, but I will always do > so for 2+ in a row" and that seemed to work well (and led to more > consistent punishment for habitually 2-week late people). Just a >>> thought > as a starting point? I'm for this general idea, I think. We shouldn't have rules we're not >>> going to enforce, and that means that if we routinely fail to enforce it, we >>> have the wrong rule. Two points here: first, I'd make this apply as part of the definition of weekly and monthly duties. Second, I'm not sure what the right standard is. Our current standard appears to be "we won't point a finger unless you're late by a week/a full reporting period". (I don't know which it is, right off-hand; most reports are weekly.) This may sound ridiculously lenient, but it appears to work surprisingly in practice? -Aris >>> >>> What about the following phrasing as a stepping stone while we work on a >>> full standard?: >>> Significant, repeated, negligent, or intentional failure of a >>> person to perform any duty required of em within the allotted >>> time is the Class 2 Crime of Tardiness. >>> >> >> I'd rather define it straight-up (shouldn't take too much discussion) >> without an interim step like that - given differences in our collective >> perceptions, I don't know that there would be reasonable consensus about >> what those terms mean. >> >> For example, I think monthly reports should be penalized if they're >> missed, every time. A month is plenty of time to produce a report, and >> the way the archives are structured it would be good to ensure that we >> every "month" page of the Official archives has at least one report. So >> right there, there's different standards for monthly and weekly around >> (say) the term "negligent". >> >> Also, if left up to courts, "negligence" may be different for (say) Karma >> that doesn't really affect much actual game decision making, versus the >> Treasuror's report where a missed couple of weeks means a lot of people >> are unsure of their holdings. Parsing that all out in CFJs defining those >> terms sounds like a mess. >> >> As a starting point, how about monthly stays as-is, but the weekly >> penalties are either (1) missing 2 in a row, or (2) missing 2 out of the >> last 4? The '2 out of 4' part is to avoid "missing 2 in a row" turning >> into "everyone just does it every other week". >> >> -G. > > I like the general idea, but how would 2 out of 4 prevent alternating weeks? > I meant "missing 2 out of 4" was a penalty not the minimum acceptable. So if you miss week 1, and publish in week 2, you then can't miss either of weeks 3 or 4. Or maybe that's too fiddly and every-other week is fine? There's another issue in wording -
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No Punishment For Nominal Crimes
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 3:04 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 6/4/2020 11:38 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 2:32 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 10:24 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >>> On 6/4/2020 9:37 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:09 PM Rebecca wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 2:00 AM Kerim Aydinwrote: > >> I think having the option of a 0 being a regular thing is just fine, > >>> given > > that the alternative is possibly taking wins away from people when > >>> certain > > officers get pointed at for missing a report, other officers don't > > get > > pointed at for the same stuff, et cetera. > > We make those things crimes for a reason. There are processes to deal > with it and there are ways to avoid it; if people want to win, they > should do it by following the rules. > >>> > >>> One single thing in this is that the majority of our > >>> platonically-committed crimes is officer report lateness. (specifically > >>> thinking of action-free reports, not actions like resolving decisions). > >>> Officering is voluntary and can be a bit thankless, and I think there's > >>> general acknowledgement that missing weeks here and there shouldn't be > >>> punished (or you might lose all your volunteers). > >>> > >>> But that penalty is no different in rules text than other breakages, > > which > >>> leads to a weird thing, where we've said that some crimes shouldn't be > >>> punished much, compared to others, but we haven't written that down. So > >>> of course, when someone says "why is my lying being penalized more than > >>> the missed reports, it's treated the same way in the rules" we can't > > point > >>> to anything concrete reason and punishment becomes arbitrary. > >>> > >>> SO I think if we formally recognize our leniency in reporting, then we > > can > >>> be a bit more comfortable strictly penalizing everything else? > >>> > >>> In a stint of temporary refereeing last year, I tried stating a policy > >>> that "I'd never point a finger for one late report, but I will always do > >>> so for 2+ in a row" and that seemed to work well (and led to more > >>> consistent punishment for habitually 2-week late people). Just a > > thought > >>> as a starting point? > >> > >> > >> I'm for this general idea, I think. We shouldn't have rules we're not > > going > >> to enforce, and that means that if we routinely fail to enforce it, we > > have > >> the wrong rule. > >> > >> Two points here: first, I'd make this apply as part of the definition of > >> weekly and monthly duties. > >> > >> Second, I'm not sure what the right standard is. Our current standard > >> appears to be "we won't point a finger unless you're late by a week/a full > >> reporting period". (I don't know which it is, right off-hand; most reports > >> are weekly.) This may sound ridiculously lenient, but it appears to work > >> surprisingly in practice? > >> > >> -Aris > > > > What about the following phrasing as a stepping stone while we work on a > > full standard?: > > Significant, repeated, negligent, or intentional failure of a > > person to perform any duty required of em within the allotted > > time is the Class 2 Crime of Tardiness. > > > > I'd rather define it straight-up (shouldn't take too much discussion) > without an interim step like that - given differences in our collective > perceptions, I don't know that there would be reasonable consensus about > what those terms mean. > > For example, I think monthly reports should be penalized if they're > missed, every time. A month is plenty of time to produce a report, and > the way the archives are structured it would be good to ensure that we > every "month" page of the Official archives has at least one report. So > right there, there's different standards for monthly and weekly around > (say) the term "negligent". > > Also, if left up to courts, "negligence" may be different for (say) Karma > that doesn't really affect much actual game decision making, versus the > Treasuror's report where a missed couple of weeks means a lot of people > are unsure of their holdings. Parsing that all out in CFJs defining those > terms sounds like a mess. > > As a starting point, how about monthly stays as-is, but the weekly > penalties are either (1) missing 2 in a row, or (2) missing 2 out of the > last 4? The '2 out of 4' part is to avoid "missing 2 in a row" turning > into "everyone just does it every other week". > > -G. I like the general idea, but how would 2 out of 4 prevent alternating weeks?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No Punishment For Nominal Crimes
On 6/4/2020 11:38 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 2:32 PM Aris Merchant wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 10:24 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> On 6/4/2020 9:37 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:09 PM Rebecca wrote: > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 2:00 AM Kerim Aydinwrote: >> I think having the option of a 0 being a regular thing is just fine, >>> given > that the alternative is possibly taking wins away from people when >>> certain > officers get pointed at for missing a report, other officers don't > get > pointed at for the same stuff, et cetera. We make those things crimes for a reason. There are processes to deal with it and there are ways to avoid it; if people want to win, they should do it by following the rules. >>> >>> One single thing in this is that the majority of our >>> platonically-committed crimes is officer report lateness. (specifically >>> thinking of action-free reports, not actions like resolving decisions). >>> Officering is voluntary and can be a bit thankless, and I think there's >>> general acknowledgement that missing weeks here and there shouldn't be >>> punished (or you might lose all your volunteers). >>> >>> But that penalty is no different in rules text than other breakages, > which >>> leads to a weird thing, where we've said that some crimes shouldn't be >>> punished much, compared to others, but we haven't written that down. So >>> of course, when someone says "why is my lying being penalized more than >>> the missed reports, it's treated the same way in the rules" we can't > point >>> to anything concrete reason and punishment becomes arbitrary. >>> >>> SO I think if we formally recognize our leniency in reporting, then we > can >>> be a bit more comfortable strictly penalizing everything else? >>> >>> In a stint of temporary refereeing last year, I tried stating a policy >>> that "I'd never point a finger for one late report, but I will always do >>> so for 2+ in a row" and that seemed to work well (and led to more >>> consistent punishment for habitually 2-week late people). Just a > thought >>> as a starting point? >> >> >> I'm for this general idea, I think. We shouldn't have rules we're not > going >> to enforce, and that means that if we routinely fail to enforce it, we > have >> the wrong rule. >> >> Two points here: first, I'd make this apply as part of the definition of >> weekly and monthly duties. >> >> Second, I'm not sure what the right standard is. Our current standard >> appears to be "we won't point a finger unless you're late by a week/a full >> reporting period". (I don't know which it is, right off-hand; most reports >> are weekly.) This may sound ridiculously lenient, but it appears to work >> surprisingly in practice? >> >> -Aris > > What about the following phrasing as a stepping stone while we work on a > full standard?: > Significant, repeated, negligent, or intentional failure of a > person to perform any duty required of em within the allotted > time is the Class 2 Crime of Tardiness. > I'd rather define it straight-up (shouldn't take too much discussion) without an interim step like that - given differences in our collective perceptions, I don't know that there would be reasonable consensus about what those terms mean. For example, I think monthly reports should be penalized if they're missed, every time. A month is plenty of time to produce a report, and the way the archives are structured it would be good to ensure that we every "month" page of the Official archives has at least one report. So right there, there's different standards for monthly and weekly around (say) the term "negligent". Also, if left up to courts, "negligence" may be different for (say) Karma that doesn't really affect much actual game decision making, versus the Treasuror's report where a missed couple of weeks means a lot of people are unsure of their holdings. Parsing that all out in CFJs defining those terms sounds like a mess. As a starting point, how about monthly stays as-is, but the weekly penalties are either (1) missing 2 in a row, or (2) missing 2 out of the last 4? The '2 out of 4' part is to avoid "missing 2 in a row" turning into "everyone just does it every other week". -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No Punishment For Nominal Crimes
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:38 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 2:32 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 10:24 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 6/4/2020 9:37 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:09 PM Rebecca wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 2:00 AM Kerim Aydinwrote: > > > >>> I think having the option of a 0 being a regular thing is just > fine, > > > given > > > >> that the alternative is possibly taking wins away from people when > > > certain > > > >> officers get pointed at for missing a report, other officers don't > get > > > >> pointed at for the same stuff, et cetera. > > > > > > > > We make those things crimes for a reason. There are processes to deal > > > > with it and there are ways to avoid it; if people want to win, they > > > > should do it by following the rules. > > > > > > One single thing in this is that the majority of our > > > platonically-committed crimes is officer report lateness. > (specifically > > > thinking of action-free reports, not actions like resolving decisions). > > > Officering is voluntary and can be a bit thankless, and I think there's > > > general acknowledgement that missing weeks here and there shouldn't be > > > punished (or you might lose all your volunteers). > > > > > > But that penalty is no different in rules text than other breakages, > which > > > leads to a weird thing, where we've said that some crimes shouldn't be > > > punished much, compared to others, but we haven't written that down. > So > > > of course, when someone says "why is my lying being penalized more than > > > the missed reports, it's treated the same way in the rules" we can't > point > > > to anything concrete reason and punishment becomes arbitrary. > > > > > > SO I think if we formally recognize our leniency in reporting, then we > can > > > be a bit more comfortable strictly penalizing everything else? > > > > > > In a stint of temporary refereeing last year, I tried stating a policy > > > that "I'd never point a finger for one late report, but I will always > do > > > so for 2+ in a row" and that seemed to work well (and led to more > > > consistent punishment for habitually 2-week late people). Just a > thought > > > as a starting point? > > > > > > I'm for this general idea, I think. We shouldn't have rules we're not > going > > to enforce, and that means that if we routinely fail to enforce it, we > have > > the wrong rule. > > > > Two points here: first, I'd make this apply as part of the definition of > > weekly and monthly duties. > > > > Second, I'm not sure what the right standard is. Our current standard > > appears to be "we won't point a finger unless you're late by a week/a > full > > reporting period". (I don't know which it is, right off-hand; most > reports > > are weekly.) This may sound ridiculously lenient, but it appears to work > > surprisingly in practice? > > > > -Aris > > What about the following phrasing as a stepping stone while we work on a > full standard?: > Significant, repeated, negligent, or intentional failure of a > person to perform any duty required of em within the allotted > time is the Class 2 Crime of Tardiness. > I don't think that helps; that isn't the part that imposes the SHALLs, and something doesn't have to be a crime to be illegal. "Negligent" is too vague; arguably all lateness is either negligent or intentional. I also think that waiting until we have a precise definition, if we're going for one of those, would likely be a better idea. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No Punishment For Nominal Crimes
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 2:32 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 10:24 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > On 6/4/2020 9:37 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:09 PM Rebecca wrote: > > >> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 2:00 AM Kerim Aydinwrote: > > >>> I think having the option of a 0 being a regular thing is just fine, > > given > > >> that the alternative is possibly taking wins away from people when > > certain > > >> officers get pointed at for missing a report, other officers don't get > > >> pointed at for the same stuff, et cetera. > > > > > > We make those things crimes for a reason. There are processes to deal > > > with it and there are ways to avoid it; if people want to win, they > > > should do it by following the rules. > > > > One single thing in this is that the majority of our > > platonically-committed crimes is officer report lateness. (specifically > > thinking of action-free reports, not actions like resolving decisions). > > Officering is voluntary and can be a bit thankless, and I think there's > > general acknowledgement that missing weeks here and there shouldn't be > > punished (or you might lose all your volunteers). > > > > But that penalty is no different in rules text than other breakages, which > > leads to a weird thing, where we've said that some crimes shouldn't be > > punished much, compared to others, but we haven't written that down. So > > of course, when someone says "why is my lying being penalized more than > > the missed reports, it's treated the same way in the rules" we can't point > > to anything concrete reason and punishment becomes arbitrary. > > > > SO I think if we formally recognize our leniency in reporting, then we can > > be a bit more comfortable strictly penalizing everything else? > > > > In a stint of temporary refereeing last year, I tried stating a policy > > that "I'd never point a finger for one late report, but I will always do > > so for 2+ in a row" and that seemed to work well (and led to more > > consistent punishment for habitually 2-week late people). Just a thought > > as a starting point? > > > I'm for this general idea, I think. We shouldn't have rules we're not going > to enforce, and that means that if we routinely fail to enforce it, we have > the wrong rule. > > Two points here: first, I'd make this apply as part of the definition of > weekly and monthly duties. > > Second, I'm not sure what the right standard is. Our current standard > appears to be "we won't point a finger unless you're late by a week/a full > reporting period". (I don't know which it is, right off-hand; most reports > are weekly.) This may sound ridiculously lenient, but it appears to work > surprisingly in practice? > > -Aris What about the following phrasing as a stepping stone while we work on a full standard?: Significant, repeated, negligent, or intentional failure of a person to perform any duty required of em within the allotted time is the Class 2 Crime of Tardiness.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No Punishment For Nominal Crimes
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 10:24 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/4/2020 9:37 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:09 PM Rebecca wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 2:00 AM Kerim Aydinwrote: > >>> I think having the option of a 0 being a regular thing is just fine, > given > >> that the alternative is possibly taking wins away from people when > certain > >> officers get pointed at for missing a report, other officers don't get > >> pointed at for the same stuff, et cetera. > > > > We make those things crimes for a reason. There are processes to deal > > with it and there are ways to avoid it; if people want to win, they > > should do it by following the rules. > > One single thing in this is that the majority of our > platonically-committed crimes is officer report lateness. (specifically > thinking of action-free reports, not actions like resolving decisions). > Officering is voluntary and can be a bit thankless, and I think there's > general acknowledgement that missing weeks here and there shouldn't be > punished (or you might lose all your volunteers). > > But that penalty is no different in rules text than other breakages, which > leads to a weird thing, where we've said that some crimes shouldn't be > punished much, compared to others, but we haven't written that down. So > of course, when someone says "why is my lying being penalized more than > the missed reports, it's treated the same way in the rules" we can't point > to anything concrete reason and punishment becomes arbitrary. > > SO I think if we formally recognize our leniency in reporting, then we can > be a bit more comfortable strictly penalizing everything else? > > In a stint of temporary refereeing last year, I tried stating a policy > that "I'd never point a finger for one late report, but I will always do > so for 2+ in a row" and that seemed to work well (and led to more > consistent punishment for habitually 2-week late people). Just a thought > as a starting point? I'm for this general idea, I think. We shouldn't have rules we're not going to enforce, and that means that if we routinely fail to enforce it, we have the wrong rule. Two points here: first, I'd make this apply as part of the definition of weekly and monthly duties. Second, I'm not sure what the right standard is. Our current standard appears to be "we won't point a finger unless you're late by a week/a full reporting period". (I don't know which it is, right off-hand; most reports are weekly.) This may sound ridiculously lenient, but it appears to work surprisingly in practice? -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No Punishment For Nominal Crimes
On 6/4/2020 9:37 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:09 PM Rebecca wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 2:00 AM Kerim Aydinwrote: >>> I think having the option of a 0 being a regular thing is just fine, given >> that the alternative is possibly taking wins away from people when certain >> officers get pointed at for missing a report, other officers don't get >> pointed at for the same stuff, et cetera. > > We make those things crimes for a reason. There are processes to deal > with it and there are ways to avoid it; if people want to win, they > should do it by following the rules. One single thing in this is that the majority of our platonically-committed crimes is officer report lateness. (specifically thinking of action-free reports, not actions like resolving decisions). Officering is voluntary and can be a bit thankless, and I think there's general acknowledgement that missing weeks here and there shouldn't be punished (or you might lose all your volunteers). But that penalty is no different in rules text than other breakages, which leads to a weird thing, where we've said that some crimes shouldn't be punished much, compared to others, but we haven't written that down. So of course, when someone says "why is my lying being penalized more than the missed reports, it's treated the same way in the rules" we can't point to anything concrete reason and punishment becomes arbitrary. SO I think if we formally recognize our leniency in reporting, then we can be a bit more comfortable strictly penalizing everything else? In a stint of temporary refereeing last year, I tried stating a policy that "I'd never point a finger for one late report, but I will always do so for 2+ in a row" and that seemed to work well (and led to more consistent punishment for habitually 2-week late people). Just a thought as a starting point? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No Punishment For Nominal Crimes
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:36 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 6/4/20 12:24 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Do you know why we set it such that apologies expunge at least 3 > > blots? This has discouraged me from making lesser fines forgivable. > > > > Rule 2557: > > > If the > > investigator does so, the perp CAN, in a timely fashion, expunge P > > blots from emself, where P is the minimum of the value of the fine > > and 3 > > > If you give a fine of 2 blots, min(fine_value, 3) = min(2, 3) = 2, so > why is there an issue? > > -- > Jason Cobb > Thank you, I've been misreading this rule for a good while.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No Punishment For Nominal Crimes
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:09 PM Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 2:00 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > On 6/4/2020 8:47 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:43 AM Rebecca wrote: > > >> > > >> Blots are about to be significantly harder to remove, and the general > > >> Agoran expectation is that certain crime is pretty much constant and > > >> usually no big deal (mainly slightly late officer reports, perhaps > > things > > >> like trivial faking). Why don't we reflect that in our rules? > > >> > > >> I create the following proposal > > >> Title: Slap on the wrist > > >> AI: 2 > > >> Chamber: Justice > > >> Text: Amend rule 2555 "Blots" by replacing the text "To levy a fine of > > N > > >> on a person, where N is a positive integer, is to grant em N blots." > > with > > >> the text "To levy a fine of N on a person, where N is a positive > > integer or > > >> zero, is to grant em N blots" > > >> -- > > >> From R. Lee > > > > > > I'm happy to have this discretion to use, but I also wonder whether it > > > wouldn't be better to either remove the minimum of 3 for expungement > > > with apologies or allow apologies to be considered when determining > > > the fine's amount. > > > > > > > One trouble with the Referee Carding system was that everyone got green > > cards - given the option of "issuing a warning", it became sort of like > > our current discussion of Honour - issuing something above a green card > > could be seen as a major rebuke instead of a minor slap, and cause hurt > > feelings. So in writing the Levy a Fine languauge we purposefully left > > fines of 0 blots off the table and went for the "impose the fine but make > > it forgivable" option instead. > > > > I've thought about bringing 0 fines back a few times when obvious (minor) > > injustices happen, but hopefully with a standard written, such that 0 is > > the exception rather than the rule? > > > > -G. > > > > I think having the option of a 0 being a regular thing is just fine, given > that the alternative is possibly taking wins away from people when certain > officers get pointed at for missing a report, other officers don't get > pointed at for the same stuff, et cetera. We make those things crimes for a reason. There are processes to deal with it and there are ways to avoid it; if people want to win, they should do it by following the rules. > > I think regarding the feelings problem, people should just quit being > offended, genuinely. I have literally never had positive honour, I have > been probably the biggest offender against the justice system over the past > 3 years, one time somebody flagrantly misinterpreted the rules to try to > give me a card that banned me from posting to the public forum for 30 days > (this was overturned by CFJ). I'm not usually offended by this stuff, but > people don't have a leg to stand on getting mad at losing 1 karma or > getting fined a yellow instead of a green. We shouldn't project our emotions, mental state, and morality onto others: if others are offended by a situation, they are entitled to feel that way whether you agree with them or not. > > -- > From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No Punishment For Nominal Crimes
On 6/4/20 12:24 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > Do you know why we set it such that apologies expunge at least 3 > blots? This has discouraged me from making lesser fines forgivable. > Rule 2557: > If the > investigator does so, the perp CAN, in a timely fashion, expunge P > blots from emself, where P is the minimum of the value of the fine > and 3 If you give a fine of 2 blots, min(fine_value, 3) = min(2, 3) = 2, so why is there an issue? -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No Punishment For Nominal Crimes
On Thursday, June 4, 2020 11:09:25 AM CDT Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > > I think having the option of a 0 being a regular thing is just fine, given > > that the alternative is possibly taking wins away from people when certain > officers get pointed at for missing a report, other officers don't get > pointed at for the same stuff, et cetera. > > I think regarding the feelings problem, people should just quit being > offended, genuinely. I have literally never had positive honour, I have > been probably the biggest offender against the justice system over the past > 3 years, one time somebody flagrantly misinterpreted the rules to try to > give me a card that banned me from posting to the public forum for 30 days > (this was overturned by CFJ). I'm not usually offended by this stuff, but > people don't have a leg to stand on getting mad at losing 1 karma or > getting fined a yellow instead of a green. Proto: When any player would receive a blot, R. Lee receives a blot instead. In seriousness I really don't think it'll be that hard to remove blots under the upcoming system. There will be 20 blot cards created when Sets passes, which creates anywhere between 20-50 blots depending on how they get distributed. Then, around 5 more could be made every month, not counting transmutation, so that's a steady stream of 5-11 more a month. According to the Referee's reports, 27 blots total have been given out between January 1st and May 24th of this year. That's a little more than 5 a month. I promise I did the math on these things guys. -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No Punishment For Nominal Crimes
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:00 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 6/4/2020 8:47 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:43 AM Rebecca wrote: > >> > >> Blots are about to be significantly harder to remove, and the general > >> Agoran expectation is that certain crime is pretty much constant and > >> usually no big deal (mainly slightly late officer reports, perhaps things > >> like trivial faking). Why don't we reflect that in our rules? > >> > >> I create the following proposal > >> Title: Slap on the wrist > >> AI: 2 > >> Chamber: Justice > >> Text: Amend rule 2555 "Blots" by replacing the text "To levy a fine of N > >> on a person, where N is a positive integer, is to grant em N blots." with > >> the text "To levy a fine of N on a person, where N is a positive integer or > >> zero, is to grant em N blots" > >> -- > >> From R. Lee > > > > I'm happy to have this discretion to use, but I also wonder whether it > > wouldn't be better to either remove the minimum of 3 for expungement > > with apologies or allow apologies to be considered when determining > > the fine's amount. > > > > One trouble with the Referee Carding system was that everyone got green > cards - given the option of "issuing a warning", it became sort of like > our current discussion of Honour - issuing something above a green card > could be seen as a major rebuke instead of a minor slap, and cause hurt > feelings. So in writing the Levy a Fine languauge we purposefully left > fines of 0 blots off the table and went for the "impose the fine but make > it forgivable" option instead. Do you know why we set it such that apologies expunge at least 3 blots? This has discouraged me from making lesser fines forgivable. > > I've thought about bringing 0 fines back a few times when obvious (minor) > injustices happen, but hopefully with a standard written, such that 0 is > the exception rather than the rule? > > -G. >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No Punishment For Nominal Crimes
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 2:00 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/4/2020 8:47 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:43 AM Rebecca wrote: > >> > >> Blots are about to be significantly harder to remove, and the general > >> Agoran expectation is that certain crime is pretty much constant and > >> usually no big deal (mainly slightly late officer reports, perhaps > things > >> like trivial faking). Why don't we reflect that in our rules? > >> > >> I create the following proposal > >> Title: Slap on the wrist > >> AI: 2 > >> Chamber: Justice > >> Text: Amend rule 2555 "Blots" by replacing the text "To levy a fine of > N > >> on a person, where N is a positive integer, is to grant em N blots." > with > >> the text "To levy a fine of N on a person, where N is a positive > integer or > >> zero, is to grant em N blots" > >> -- > >> From R. Lee > > > > I'm happy to have this discretion to use, but I also wonder whether it > > wouldn't be better to either remove the minimum of 3 for expungement > > with apologies or allow apologies to be considered when determining > > the fine's amount. > > > > One trouble with the Referee Carding system was that everyone got green > cards - given the option of "issuing a warning", it became sort of like > our current discussion of Honour - issuing something above a green card > could be seen as a major rebuke instead of a minor slap, and cause hurt > feelings. So in writing the Levy a Fine languauge we purposefully left > fines of 0 blots off the table and went for the "impose the fine but make > it forgivable" option instead. > > I've thought about bringing 0 fines back a few times when obvious (minor) > injustices happen, but hopefully with a standard written, such that 0 is > the exception rather than the rule? > > -G. > > I think having the option of a 0 being a regular thing is just fine, given that the alternative is possibly taking wins away from people when certain officers get pointed at for missing a report, other officers don't get pointed at for the same stuff, et cetera. I think regarding the feelings problem, people should just quit being offended, genuinely. I have literally never had positive honour, I have been probably the biggest offender against the justice system over the past 3 years, one time somebody flagrantly misinterpreted the rules to try to give me a card that banned me from posting to the public forum for 30 days (this was overturned by CFJ). I'm not usually offended by this stuff, but people don't have a leg to stand on getting mad at losing 1 karma or getting fined a yellow instead of a green. -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No Punishment For Nominal Crimes
On 6/4/2020 8:47 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:43 AM Rebecca wrote: >> >> Blots are about to be significantly harder to remove, and the general >> Agoran expectation is that certain crime is pretty much constant and >> usually no big deal (mainly slightly late officer reports, perhaps things >> like trivial faking). Why don't we reflect that in our rules? >> >> I create the following proposal >> Title: Slap on the wrist >> AI: 2 >> Chamber: Justice >> Text: Amend rule 2555 "Blots" by replacing the text "To levy a fine of N >> on a person, where N is a positive integer, is to grant em N blots." with >> the text "To levy a fine of N on a person, where N is a positive integer or >> zero, is to grant em N blots" >> -- >> From R. Lee > > I'm happy to have this discretion to use, but I also wonder whether it > wouldn't be better to either remove the minimum of 3 for expungement > with apologies or allow apologies to be considered when determining > the fine's amount. > One trouble with the Referee Carding system was that everyone got green cards - given the option of "issuing a warning", it became sort of like our current discussion of Honour - issuing something above a green card could be seen as a major rebuke instead of a minor slap, and cause hurt feelings. So in writing the Levy a Fine languauge we purposefully left fines of 0 blots off the table and went for the "impose the fine but make it forgivable" option instead. I've thought about bringing 0 fines back a few times when obvious (minor) injustices happen, but hopefully with a standard written, such that 0 is the exception rather than the rule? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Certifiable Patches
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:37 AM Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 1:35 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via > agora-discussion wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:02 AM nch via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, June 4, 2020 12:41:14 AM CDT Aris Merchant via > > agora-business > > > wrote: > > > > I submit the following proposal. > > > > > > > > -Aris > > > > --- > > > > Title: Certifiable Patches > > > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > > > Author: Aris > > > > Co-author(s): > > > > > > > > > > > > Enact a new power 1.0 rule, entitled "Certifiable Patches", with the > > > > following text: > > > > Any player CAN, by announcement, certify a specified proposal (as a > > > > patch), causing it to become pended. > > > > > > > > A player SHALL NOT certify a proposal unless its primary function > > > > is to rectify a bug, error, or ambiguity that relates substantially > > > > to a) an office e holds; or b) a CFJ, open within the last week, of > > > > which e is the judge. Certifying a proposal in violation of this > > > > paragraph is the Class-4 Crime of Uncertain Certification. A person > > > > certifying a proposal SHOULD explain why doing so does not violate > > > > this paragraph. > > > > > > This seems like it'll cause a lot of CFJs and uncertainty. > > > > > > -- > > > nch > > > > > > > Could you elaborate on this? As I see it, there would be no reason for > > more CFJs to occur under this rule. > > > > There would be regular CFJs about what relates to rectifying, etc etc. > Referee doesn't have full discretion on these things, e can be overruled by > CFJ. > > -- > From R. Lee That makes sense, but my reading of the rules — which, if I recall correctly G. has also stated — is that only a fine can be questioned by CFJ not a finding of shenanigans. I can say that my general standard would be to err on the side of leniency unless it is clear that others have strong feelings to the contrary. In general, my assumption was that we would be reasonably agreable on these matters. On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:38 AM nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thursday, June 4, 2020 10:34:29 AM CDT you wrote: > > Could you elaborate on this? As I see it, there would be no reason for > > more CFJs to occur under this rule. > > How is "primary function" determined? Is G's complete rewrite of the auction > rule primarily a bug fix? > > -- > nch > Based off of the phrasing of the rule, I think it would be a bug fix because it isn't more specific. I think it might be better if we said, "minimally rectify", to make it clear that it only applied to the minimal change necessary.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Certifiable Patches
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 1:35 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:02 AM nch via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > On Thursday, June 4, 2020 12:41:14 AM CDT Aris Merchant via > agora-business > > wrote: > > > I submit the following proposal. > > > > > > -Aris > > > --- > > > Title: Certifiable Patches > > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > > Author: Aris > > > Co-author(s): > > > > > > > > > Enact a new power 1.0 rule, entitled "Certifiable Patches", with the > > > following text: > > > Any player CAN, by announcement, certify a specified proposal (as a > > > patch), causing it to become pended. > > > > > > A player SHALL NOT certify a proposal unless its primary function > > > is to rectify a bug, error, or ambiguity that relates substantially > > > to a) an office e holds; or b) a CFJ, open within the last week, of > > > which e is the judge. Certifying a proposal in violation of this > > > paragraph is the Class-4 Crime of Uncertain Certification. A person > > > certifying a proposal SHOULD explain why doing so does not violate > > > this paragraph. > > > > This seems like it'll cause a lot of CFJs and uncertainty. > > > > -- > > nch > > > > Could you elaborate on this? As I see it, there would be no reason for > more CFJs to occur under this rule. > There would be regular CFJs about what relates to rectifying, etc etc. Referee doesn't have full discretion on these things, e can be overruled by CFJ. -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Certifiable Patches
On Thursday, June 4, 2020 10:34:29 AM CDT you wrote: > Could you elaborate on this? As I see it, there would be no reason for > more CFJs to occur under this rule. How is "primary function" determined? Is G's complete rewrite of the auction rule primarily a bug fix? -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Certifiable Patches
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:02 AM nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thursday, June 4, 2020 12:41:14 AM CDT Aris Merchant via agora-business > wrote: > > I submit the following proposal. > > > > -Aris > > --- > > Title: Certifiable Patches > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-author(s): > > > > > > Enact a new power 1.0 rule, entitled "Certifiable Patches", with the > > following text: > > Any player CAN, by announcement, certify a specified proposal (as a > > patch), causing it to become pended. > > > > A player SHALL NOT certify a proposal unless its primary function > > is to rectify a bug, error, or ambiguity that relates substantially > > to a) an office e holds; or b) a CFJ, open within the last week, of > > which e is the judge. Certifying a proposal in violation of this > > paragraph is the Class-4 Crime of Uncertain Certification. A person > > certifying a proposal SHOULD explain why doing so does not violate > > this paragraph. > > This seems like it'll cause a lot of CFJs and uncertainty. > > -- > nch > Could you elaborate on this? As I see it, there would be no reason for more CFJs to occur under this rule.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No More Numbers!
> On Jun 3, 2020, at 18:46, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 3:40 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> >>> On 6/3/2020 2:45 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 2:20 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < >>> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: >>> On 6/3/2020 2:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Aris may have a little more difficulty with eir proposal because that >> F/A > ratio doesn't have a clever term-of-art name defined in R955 - and I >> just > realized it's broken anyway, because the "greatest F/A ratio" doesn't > error trap division by 0 the way R955 does, even if it directly refers >> to > R955. > > (In terms of "greatest", for A=0 you might need an explicit tiebreaker >> - > level of F maybe? - that's not in the rules anywhere). > Just a little more on this: the way we used to do it is to define >> "Voting Index" (VI) using the F/A ratio such that: If A>0 then VI = F/A; else if F=0 then VI=0; else VI = 'Unanimous' and we had additional text that said a proposal was ADOPTED if VI > AI, where 'unanimous' was considered greater than any AI. Still doesn't help with ties for A=0... >>> >>> I'll go with (F - A)/total. >> >> You might want to limit to "adopted" proposals (maybe?), in the above >> formula you could have a proposal rejected at AI 3 beat a proposal that's >> adopted at AI 1. Maybe that's ok though. Other wordsmithing: I don't >> think "open" is a defined concept for decisions in "no decision whether to >> adopt any proposal distributed in the same message remains open" (it could >> easily apply to either the full decision or just the voting period). >> >> I hereby solicit opinions on > 1) Whether it should be limited to adopted proposals, and I’d be open to either, but I think we should make the rule text explicit either way. > 2) Whether it should be calculated in terms of strength for and against or > in terms of ballots for and against. I’m inclined towards ballots because it’s more reflective of the general sentiment and many proposers will also be related ministers. On the other hand, this further complicates the first question. > > -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No More Numbers!
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 3:40 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/3/2020 2:45 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 2:20 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > >> > >> On 6/3/2020 2:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >>> > >>> Aris may have a little more difficulty with eir proposal because that > F/A > >>> ratio doesn't have a clever term-of-art name defined in R955 - and I > just > >>> realized it's broken anyway, because the "greatest F/A ratio" doesn't > >>> error trap division by 0 the way R955 does, even if it directly refers > to > >>> R955. > >>> > >>> (In terms of "greatest", for A=0 you might need an explicit tiebreaker > - > >>> level of F maybe? - that's not in the rules anywhere). > >>> > >> > >> Just a little more on this: the way we used to do it is to define > "Voting > >> Index" (VI) using the F/A ratio such that: > >> > >> If A>0 then VI = F/A; else > >> if F=0 then VI=0; else > >> VI = 'Unanimous' > >> > >> and we had additional text that said a proposal was ADOPTED if VI > AI, > >> where 'unanimous' was considered greater than any AI. > >> > >> Still doesn't help with ties for A=0... > >> > > > > I'll go with (F - A)/total. > > You might want to limit to "adopted" proposals (maybe?), in the above > formula you could have a proposal rejected at AI 3 beat a proposal that's > adopted at AI 1. Maybe that's ok though. Other wordsmithing: I don't > think "open" is a defined concept for decisions in "no decision whether to > adopt any proposal distributed in the same message remains open" (it could > easily apply to either the full decision or just the voting period). > > I hereby solicit opinions on 1) Whether it should be limited to adopted proposals, and 2) Whether it should be calculated in terms of strength for and against or in terms of ballots for and against. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No More Numbers!
On 6/3/2020 2:45 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 2:20 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> >> On 6/3/2020 2:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> >>> Aris may have a little more difficulty with eir proposal because that F/A >>> ratio doesn't have a clever term-of-art name defined in R955 - and I just >>> realized it's broken anyway, because the "greatest F/A ratio" doesn't >>> error trap division by 0 the way R955 does, even if it directly refers to >>> R955. >>> >>> (In terms of "greatest", for A=0 you might need an explicit tiebreaker - >>> level of F maybe? - that's not in the rules anywhere). >>> >> >> Just a little more on this: the way we used to do it is to define "Voting >> Index" (VI) using the F/A ratio such that: >> >> If A>0 then VI = F/A; else >> if F=0 then VI=0; else >> VI = 'Unanimous' >> >> and we had additional text that said a proposal was ADOPTED if VI > AI, >> where 'unanimous' was considered greater than any AI. >> >> Still doesn't help with ties for A=0... >> > > I'll go with (F - A)/total. You might want to limit to "adopted" proposals (maybe?), in the above formula you could have a proposal rejected at AI 3 beat a proposal that's adopted at AI 1. Maybe that's ok though. Other wordsmithing: I don't think "open" is a defined concept for decisions in "no decision whether to adopt any proposal distributed in the same message remains open" (it could easily apply to either the full decision or just the voting period).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No More Numbers!
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 2:20 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/3/2020 2:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Aris may have a little more difficulty with eir proposal because that F/A > > ratio doesn't have a clever term-of-art name defined in R955 - and I just > > realized it's broken anyway, because the "greatest F/A ratio" doesn't > > error trap division by 0 the way R955 does, even if it directly refers to > > R955. > > > > (In terms of "greatest", for A=0 you might need an explicit tiebreaker - > > level of F maybe? - that's not in the rules anywhere). > > > > Just a little more on this: the way we used to do it is to define "Voting > Index" (VI) using the F/A ratio such that: > > If A>0 then VI = F/A; else > if F=0 then VI=0; else > VI = 'Unanimous' > > and we had additional text that said a proposal was ADOPTED if VI > AI, > where 'unanimous' was considered greater than any AI. > > Still doesn't help with ties for A=0... > I'll go with (F - A)/total. -Aris > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No More Numbers!
On 6/3/2020 2:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Aris may have a little more difficulty with eir proposal because that F/A > ratio doesn't have a clever term-of-art name defined in R955 - and I just > realized it's broken anyway, because the "greatest F/A ratio" doesn't > error trap division by 0 the way R955 does, even if it directly refers to > R955. > > (In terms of "greatest", for A=0 you might need an explicit tiebreaker - > level of F maybe? - that's not in the rules anywhere). > Just a little more on this: the way we used to do it is to define "Voting Index" (VI) using the F/A ratio such that: If A>0 then VI = F/A; else if F=0 then VI=0; else VI = 'Unanimous' and we had additional text that said a proposal was ADOPTED if VI > AI, where 'unanimous' was considered greater than any AI. Still doesn't help with ties for A=0...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No More Numbers!
On 6/3/2020 2:03 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:00 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On 6/3/2020 1:46 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: >>> On 6/3/20 4:44 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: Replace the text "Rule 478" in Rule 2139, "The Registrar" with "the rule entitled "Fora"". Replace the text "Rule 1789" in Rule 2139, "The Registrar" with "the rule entitled "Cantus Cygneus"". >>> >>> >>> Honestly, it might just be better to nuke the last paragraph of that >>> rule - it doesn't really add anything. >>> >> >> Middle ground: recognize that both "publicity of a forum" and >> "Cantus/Writs" are well-defined terms of art so the "as described in..." >> clauses aren't needed at all. >> >> And here: >>> an action by a set of one or more dependent actions identified in >>> Rule 1728 >> >> R1728 starts: >>> The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent >>> actions": >> >> so again, the term of art "dependent actions" is well-defined so the >> "identified in Rule 1728" is also wholly unneeded. >> > > So would this be better to just remove the references? > I don't see a need for them. I think the terms of art are pretty clear. Aris may have a little more difficulty with eir proposal because that F/A ratio doesn't have a clever term-of-art name defined in R955 - and I just realized it's broken anyway, because the "greatest F/A ratio" doesn't error trap division by 0 the way R955 does, even if it directly refers to R955. (In terms of "greatest", for A=0 you might need an explicit tiebreaker - level of F maybe? - that's not in the rules anywhere).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No More Numbers!
On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 4:03:35 PM CDT Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:00 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > On 6/3/2020 1:46 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 6/3/20 4:44 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business wrote: > > >> Replace the text "Rule 478" in Rule 2139, "The Registrar" with "the > > >> rule entitled "Fora"". > > >> > > >> Replace the text "Rule 1789" in Rule 2139, "The Registrar" with "the > > >> rule entitled "Cantus Cygneus"". > > > > > > Honestly, it might just be better to nuke the last paragraph of that > > > rule - it doesn't really add anything. > > > > Middle ground: recognize that both "publicity of a forum" and > > "Cantus/Writs" are well-defined terms of art so the "as described in..." > > clauses aren't needed at all. > > > > And here: > > > an action by a set of one or more dependent actions identified in > > > Rule 1728 > > > > R1728 starts: > > > The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent > > > > > actions": > > so again, the term of art "dependent actions" is well-defined so the > > "identified in Rule 1728" is also wholly unneeded. > > So would this be better to just remove the references? I would rewrite it as: The Registrar's duties and abilities also include: * Changing the publicity of a forum * Publishing Cantus Cygnei and Writs of FAGE The intent of this section when we added it was to have all of the responsibilities of the Registrar identified in one rule for easy readability. I think it's worth keeping. -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No More Numbers!
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 2:04 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:00 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > > > On 6/3/2020 1:46 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 6/3/20 4:44 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business > wrote: > > >> Replace the text "Rule 478" in Rule 2139, "The Registrar" with "the > > >> rule entitled "Fora"". > > >> > > >> Replace the text "Rule 1789" in Rule 2139, "The Registrar" with "the > > >> rule entitled "Cantus Cygneus"". > > > > > > > > > Honestly, it might just be better to nuke the last paragraph of that > > > rule - it doesn't really add anything. > > > > > > > Middle ground: recognize that both "publicity of a forum" and > > "Cantus/Writs" are well-defined terms of art so the "as described in..." > > clauses aren't needed at all. > > > > And here: > > > an action by a set of one or more dependent actions identified in > > > Rule 1728 > > > > R1728 starts: > > > The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent > > > actions": > > > > so again, the term of art "dependent actions" is well-defined so the > > "identified in Rule 1728" is also wholly unneeded. > > > > So would this be better to just remove the references? > Yes. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No More Numbers!
On 2020-06-03 15:03, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:00 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: On 6/3/2020 1:46 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: On 6/3/20 4:44 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business wrote: Replace the text "Rule 478" in Rule 2139, "The Registrar" with "the rule entitled "Fora"". Replace the text "Rule 1789" in Rule 2139, "The Registrar" with "the rule entitled "Cantus Cygneus"". Honestly, it might just be better to nuke the last paragraph of that rule - it doesn't really add anything. Middle ground: recognize that both "publicity of a forum" and "Cantus/Writs" are well-defined terms of art so the "as described in..." clauses aren't needed at all. And here: an action by a set of one or more dependent actions identified in Rule 1728 R1728 starts: The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent actions": so again, the term of art "dependent actions" is well-defined so the "identified in Rule 1728" is also wholly unneeded. So would this be better to just remove the references? I think it makes most sense to just remove the references. If we don't require 'X is a switch (defined "here") possessed by Y entities (defined "there")' then we don't need these references to specific rules. -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No More Numbers!
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:00 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 6/3/2020 1:46 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 6/3/20 4:44 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business wrote: > >> Replace the text "Rule 478" in Rule 2139, "The Registrar" with "the > >> rule entitled "Fora"". > >> > >> Replace the text "Rule 1789" in Rule 2139, "The Registrar" with "the > >> rule entitled "Cantus Cygneus"". > > > > > > Honestly, it might just be better to nuke the last paragraph of that > > rule - it doesn't really add anything. > > > > Middle ground: recognize that both "publicity of a forum" and > "Cantus/Writs" are well-defined terms of art so the "as described in..." > clauses aren't needed at all. > > And here: > > an action by a set of one or more dependent actions identified in > > Rule 1728 > > R1728 starts: > > The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent > > actions": > > so again, the term of art "dependent actions" is well-defined so the > "identified in Rule 1728" is also wholly unneeded. > So would this be better to just remove the references?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No More Numbers!
On 6/3/2020 1:46 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/3/20 4:44 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business wrote: >> Replace the text "Rule 478" in Rule 2139, "The Registrar" with "the >> rule entitled "Fora"". >> >> Replace the text "Rule 1789" in Rule 2139, "The Registrar" with "the >> rule entitled "Cantus Cygneus"". > > > Honestly, it might just be better to nuke the last paragraph of that > rule - it doesn't really add anything. > Middle ground: recognize that both "publicity of a forum" and "Cantus/Writs" are well-defined terms of art so the "as described in..." clauses aren't needed at all. And here: > an action by a set of one or more dependent actions identified in > Rule 1728 R1728 starts: > The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent > actions": so again, the term of art "dependent actions" is well-defined so the "identified in Rule 1728" is also wholly unneeded.
Re: [Proto-Contract] LoAFER (was: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.3)
On Sunday, May 24, 2020 9:05:29 PM CDT Reuben Staley via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 2020-05-24 18:47, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote:
> > it used to be considered somewhat rude to submit a proposal after the
> > promotor had published eir draft but before the distribution
>
> I think we need to respect and help officers more in general.
>
> Thoughts on this fun proto-contract I whipped up?
Wonder if we could make this a sort of bet. Every week members of the contract
put 1 or 2 coins in and everyone who doesn't violate it gets a cut of the pot
(leaving remainders for next time)?
>
> --
> League of Agorans Facilitating Accurate Recordkeeping
>
> Parties to this contract should attempt to help the officers of Agora in
> their official duties by following the guidelines of this contract,
> which are enumerated below:
>
> 1. Signaling: the act of placing in the subject text of a message to the
> effect of "[attn {Officer}]" when actions taken in the message
> pertain directly to the mentioned officer's position.
Maybe also include the other tags people already use ([Proposal], Notice of
Honor) as alternatives to 'tagging' the officer directly?
--
nch
[Proto-Contract] LoAFER (was: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.3)
On 2020-05-24 18:47, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote:
it used to be considered somewhat rude to submit a proposal after the
promotor had published eir draft but before the distribution
I think we need to respect and help officers more in general.
Thoughts on this fun proto-contract I whipped up?
--
League of Agorans Facilitating Accurate Recordkeeping
Parties to this contract should attempt to help the officers of Agora in
their official duties by following the guidelines of this contract,
which are enumerated below:
1. Signaling: the act of placing in the subject text of a message to the
effect of "[attn {Officer}]" when actions taken in the message
pertain directly to the mentioned officer's position.
Parties to this contract should signal their own messages. They
should also, if a message that should be signaled lacks one, reply to
that message, signaling their own message and stating that the quoted
message conains actions that should be signaled.
A list of Offices and events that should be signaled is as follows:
* ADoP: initiation of elections, declaration of the winners of
elections, writs of IAR.
* Arbitor: Submission of CFJs, judgement of CFJs (if the judgement is
not in the same thread as its assignment), filing a Motion to
Reconsider, entering a judgement into Moot.
* Herald: awarding patent titles, publishing Notices of Honour,
submitting theses, winning the Game.
* [ TODO: Add all the offices ]
2. Respecting Drafts: the act of not performing actions that would cause
an officer to be required to update already-published drafts.
Parties to this contract should respect drafts except when urgent
action is required and when the rules require them to take said
actions.
3. [ TODO: Add more of these too ]
[ TODO: Method to change contract ]
[ TODO: Gamify this a bit? Add contract asset rewards or other
incentives for being helpful? ]
--
Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.3
On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 6:06 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > > > > > On May 24, 2020, at 20:58, nch via agora-business > > wrote: > > > > On Sunday, May 24, 2020 7:50:27 PM CDT you wrote: > >>> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 5:42 PM nch via agora-business > >>> > >>> wrote: > >>> Ok, here's 1.3. > >>> > >>> I cut out auctions completely because there are two proposals right now to > >>> fix them and I'd rather that dust settled first. I have a separate > >>> proposal, based on Trigon's transmutation idea, coming later tonight. > >>> That both adds a way to get Victory Points and helps us balance any card > >>> types that might end up scarce. > >>> > >>> I also reworked pending, based on G's comments. Now proposals go straight > >>> into the pool like they always did. There's a separate rule that adds a > >>> Pend switch for them, and distribution requires proposals to have > >>> Pend=True. The net effect is less direct changes to important rules, and > >>> honestly a more intuitive system. > >> > >> *groans* > >> > >> Back to non-empty proposal pool reports I see. *sigh* > >> > >> I may propose changing this at some point so that I only have to > >> report pending proposals, but that's the sort of thing that can be > >> dealt with later. > >> > >> -Aris > > > > Sorry Aris. On the plus side PSS did just point out a good tiny adjustment. > > I > > withdraw Sets v1.3 and pledge not to submit any proposals until after the > > next > > distribution. > > If we’re putting this off until the next distribution, then I’ll provide some > substantive thoughts on this matter. What if we made the author of a > non-pending proposal responsible for its record-keeping but remove the > responsibility to do so? That way the Promotor’s workload doesn’t increase, > and excess proposals would self-ratify out of existence. That seems too complicated to me. G.'s model is the way we've done it before, I just don't like it because tracking proposals that don't end up being distributed feels like unnecessary work. It does serve some utility by giving people a list of things they can pend, I just find it annoying and am prone to grumbling. In any case, I can propose to change this later. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.3
On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 5:52 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 8:47 PM Rebecca via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > it used to be considered somewhat rude to submit a proposal after the > > promotor had published eir draft but before the distribution > > That's true. I'd like to apologize to the Promotor for the ways in > which I have contributed to this situation. While this situation is > best avoided, I do find it telling that even our games seem to go the > way of a workplace or real legislature with everyone working around > each other to make sure their work gets done by a certain time. It's not nearly as big a deal as it used to be. Amendments to the pending rules have made it so that I'm allowed to do reports "as of" a certain time. I try to avoid it, but I do have the option. Oh, the other problem is that I usually do my reports shortly after the beginning of the week (in part due to the weekend being the only time I have a chance to do them, combined with the way timezones work), so that makes things a bit more complicated. But I still have the option of doing a cutoff time of an instant after the beginning of the week. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.3
On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 8:47 PM Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > > it used to be considered somewhat rude to submit a proposal after the > promotor had published eir draft but before the distribution That's true. I'd like to apologize to the Promotor for the ways in which I have contributed to this situation. While this situation is best avoided, I do find it telling that even our games seem to go the way of a workplace or real legislature with everyone working around each other to make sure their work gets done by a certain time.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.2
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:33 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/21/2020 2:28 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thursday, May 21, 2020 4:13:43 PM CDT Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> Also, you've got a bunch of zombie protections, but one thing that's not > >> obvious is that having a zombie is a big advantage in multi-lot auctions, > >> because it lets you place 2 bids and accumulate at twice the speed - this > >> is not apparent now because zombies can't bid in zombie auctions. IIRC, > >> when we had land auctions this made zombies a bit overpowered (can't > >> remember if we forbid them from bidding in the end). > >> > >> -G. > > > > That's intentional. I don't want zombies to be useless, I mostly just want > > them to not generate free resources for their owner. The owner here still > > has > > to spend the coins. > > > > Sure no worries let's try it - with plenty of cash on hand and a zombie, I > sure don't mind getting a head start :) - it really was part of what made > land go unbalanced so quickly after it spun up, so just wanted to warn if > you hadn't thought about it. I am just now realizing that I could really use those thousand coins I spent to win a couple weeks ago. :P -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.2
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:16 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/21/2020 1:08 PM, nch via agora-business wrote: > > Once a week the Treasuror CAN and SHOULD initiate an auction. The > > auction has the following lots: > > This means the Treasuror will frequently have multiple auctions running at > once - Trigon have you weighed in on that pacing? >From the standpoint of work from me, I could manage doing a couple of auctions each week. There would be occasional overlap, but that wouldn't break anything. For Nch's desired pacing, this makes a lot of sense. -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.2
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 2:51 PM nch via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Thursday, May 21, 2020 4:33:12 PM CDT Aris Merchant via > agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 2:24 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > > > > wrote: > > > On 5/21/2020 1:08 PM, nch via agora-business wrote: > > > > The Treasuror is the auctioneer for this auction, and may order > > > > the lots > > > > as e chooses. The minimum bid for this auction is 1 coin. > > > > > > I'm afraid this part *is* broken though. I'm sure Trigon isn't cool > with > > > being the auctioneer (e may be cool at being the announcer though!) :) > > > > I think it might be a good idea to pull this proposal for a week and > > let people keep pointing out errors and proposing tweaks. I get not > > wanting to let it get bogged down indefinitely, but I think people are > > catching enough stuff still that waiting and letting them do their > > work is a better idea than rushing. This is, after all, our next major > > economic system, and it isn't exactly one of those simple one rule > > ones that you can be almost certain has no errors (as illustrated by > > the fact that people keep finding them). I do support the system; I'd > > just prefer that there were more time to debug it before enacting it. > > > > -Aris > > Probably prudent. My rush was for 2 reasons: > > 1) I'm busy tonight and tomorrow and I assumed distribution was coming in > the > next couple days. I have no clue when the next distribution will be, though I'm guessing not till the weekend. It'll basically be whenever I can find the time to put together the report. I'm still in that ~two week period of on and off busyness I mentioned, so my schedule is still rather up in the air. I'm currently praying it doesn't turn into a three week period. > > 2) I don't want to get bogged down in design-choice debates. That is, I > think > what's written now is good enough to pass and tweak, once its bugfixed. > I'm > afraid of spending a while on debates like "should zombies be allowed to > bid > in auctions" or "how many of each card each month is enough" because we > could > have a million of those debates without ever playing and we'll all have > better > informed opinions on those things once we've been playing. Eminently reasonable! I'll try to steer away from those, now that you've mentioned it, and I hope others will do the same. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.2
On 5/21/2020 2:42 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thursday, May 21, 2020 4:23:25 PM CDT Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On 5/21/2020 1:08 PM, nch via agora-business wrote: >>> The Treasuror is the auctioneer for this auction, and may order the >>> lots >>> as e chooses. The minimum bid for this auction is 1 coin. >> >> I'm afraid this part *is* broken though. I'm sure Trigon isn't cool with >> being the auctioneer (e may be cool at being the announcer though!) :) > > I just reread the relevant rules and I think it might be less 'broke' and > more > 'works but not in the way anyone expects'. The rules do allow the Auctioneer > to be a person, and even makes em also the announcer. So that's good. Then, > the auctioneer needs to be able to transfer the asset. E can, but it'd have > to > be through the "without objection" clause for the L&FD lot I think. Also, the > coins would go to Trigon as e is the auctioneer. > > Ultimately you're right in that this part needs to be entirely rewritten. > Heh, the auction rules need that too...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.2
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 4:23:25 PM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/21/2020 1:08 PM, nch via agora-business wrote: > > The Treasuror is the auctioneer for this auction, and may order the > > lots > > as e chooses. The minimum bid for this auction is 1 coin. > > I'm afraid this part *is* broken though. I'm sure Trigon isn't cool with > being the auctioneer (e may be cool at being the announcer though!) :) I just reread the relevant rules and I think it might be less 'broke' and more 'works but not in the way anyone expects'. The rules do allow the Auctioneer to be a person, and even makes em also the announcer. So that's good. Then, the auctioneer needs to be able to transfer the asset. E can, but it'd have to be through the "without objection" clause for the L&FD lot I think. Also, the coins would go to Trigon as e is the auctioneer. Ultimately you're right in that this part needs to be entirely rewritten. -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.2
On 5/21/2020 2:28 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thursday, May 21, 2020 4:13:43 PM CDT Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On 5/21/2020 1:08 PM, nch via agora-business wrote: >>> Once a week the Treasuror CAN and SHOULD initiate an auction. The >> >>> auction has the following lots: >> This means the Treasuror will frequently have multiple auctions running at >> once - Trigon have you weighed in on that pacing? >> >> Also, you've got a bunch of zombie protections, but one thing that's not >> obvious is that having a zombie is a big advantage in multi-lot auctions, >> because it lets you place 2 bids and accumulate at twice the speed - this >> is not apparent now because zombies can't bid in zombie auctions. IIRC, >> when we had land auctions this made zombies a bit overpowered (can't >> remember if we forbid them from bidding in the end). >> >> -G. > > That's intentional. I don't want zombies to be useless, I mostly just want > them to not generate free resources for their owner. The owner here still has > to spend the coins. > Sure no worries let's try it - with plenty of cash on hand and a zombie, I sure don't mind getting a head start :) - it really was part of what made land go unbalanced so quickly after it spun up, so just wanted to warn if you hadn't thought about it.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.2
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 2:24 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > > On 5/21/2020 1:08 PM, nch via agora-business wrote: > > > The Treasuror is the auctioneer for this auction, and may order the > > lots > > as e chooses. The minimum bid for this auction is 1 coin. > > I'm afraid this part *is* broken though. I'm sure Trigon isn't cool with > being the auctioneer (e may be cool at being the announcer though!) :) I think it might be a good idea to pull this proposal for a week and let people keep pointing out errors and proposing tweaks. I get not wanting to let it get bogged down indefinitely, but I think people are catching enough stuff still that waiting and letting them do their work is a better idea than rushing. This is, after all, our next major economic system, and it isn't exactly one of those simple one rule ones that you can be almost certain has no errors (as illustrated by the fact that people keep finding them). I do support the system; I'd just prefer that there were more time to debug it before enacting it. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.2
On 5/21/2020 2:21 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/21/20 5:18 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> Not the sort of danger I prefer, it just leads to messes. >> >> Especially because, the way I'm reading it, the lots must include a single >> type of asset if at least one exists. >> >> Right now we have changed the assets rule so that anything indeterminate >> ends up in the L&FD. If any assets passage there is indeterminate, the >> uncertainty cascades to the auction (without the Treasuror necessarily >> having a choice about excluding the uncertain lots). > > > The Treasuror would never actually be REQUIRED to initiate an action - > the rule says CAN and SHOULD. > Sorry, I meant that any time e starts an auction, e must include at least one batch of stranded currency (e doesn't have an option of auctioning just the Victory Card as long as there's at least one other currency potentially in the L&FD, at least that's my reading). Since there's just been a technical flaw pointed out anyway, making it the option of the Treasuror to include or leave out a currency lot (if that doesn't change the idea too much) would make me feel better :). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.2
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 4:13:43 PM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/21/2020 1:08 PM, nch via agora-business wrote: > > Once a week the Treasuror CAN and SHOULD initiate an auction. The > > > auction has the following lots: > This means the Treasuror will frequently have multiple auctions running at > once - Trigon have you weighed in on that pacing? > > Also, you've got a bunch of zombie protections, but one thing that's not > obvious is that having a zombie is a big advantage in multi-lot auctions, > because it lets you place 2 bids and accumulate at twice the speed - this > is not apparent now because zombies can't bid in zombie auctions. IIRC, > when we had land auctions this made zombies a bit overpowered (can't > remember if we forbid them from bidding in the end). > > -G. That's intentional. I don't want zombies to be useless, I mostly just want them to not generate free resources for their owner. The owner here still has to spend the coins. -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.2
On 5/21/20 5:18 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Not the sort of danger I prefer, it just leads to messes. > > Especially because, the way I'm reading it, the lots must include a single > type of asset if at least one exists. > > Right now we have changed the assets rule so that anything indeterminate > ends up in the L&FD. If any assets passage there is indeterminate, the > uncertainty cascades to the auction (without the Treasuror necessarily > having a choice about excluding the uncertain lots). The Treasuror would never actually be REQUIRED to initiate an action - the rule says CAN and SHOULD. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.2
On 5/21/2020 2:12 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 2:02 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> On 5/21/2020 1:08 PM, nch via agora-business wrote: >>> * all of any single type of asset currently own by the Lost and Found >>> Department, if any. >> >> I'm concerned about allowing the hijacking and auction of literally any >> asset (including contract assets or whatever) that end up in the L&FD. >> >> The reason the L&FD is separate than Agora (i.e. just having stuff end up >> in Agora's possession) is insulation against uncertainty and problems, >> because it takes w/o objection to get things out of there. >> > > Sometimes one needs a bit of excitement to spice things up. This > doesn't feel particularly dangerous? Not the sort of danger I prefer, it just leads to messes. Especially because, the way I'm reading it, the lots must include a single type of asset if at least one exists. Right now we have changed the assets rule so that anything indeterminate ends up in the L&FD. If any assets passage there is indeterminate, the uncertainty cascades to the auction (without the Treasuror necessarily having a choice about excluding the uncertain lots). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.2
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 4:01:12 PM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/21/2020 1:08 PM, nch via agora-business wrote: > > * all of any single type of asset currently own by the Lost and > > Found > > > > Department, if any. > > I'm concerned about allowing the hijacking and auction of literally any > asset (including contract assets or whatever) that end up in the L&FD. > > The reason the L&FD is separate than Agora (i.e. just having stuff end up > in Agora's possession) is insulation against uncertainty and problems, > because it takes w/o objection to get things out of there. > > -G. Do you think this is a big enough deal to resubmit? I don't see any immediate risks and I think there's a couple ways a patch could go (just remove the clause, auction things in agora's possession and send things there from the L&FD after a certain amount of time, etc) so I'm inclined to leave it and work out solutions later. -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.2
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 2:02 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 5/21/2020 1:08 PM, nch via agora-business wrote: > > * all of any single type of asset currently own by the Lost and Found > > Department, if any. > > I'm concerned about allowing the hijacking and auction of literally any > asset (including contract assets or whatever) that end up in the L&FD. > > The reason the L&FD is separate than Agora (i.e. just having stuff end up > in Agora's possession) is insulation against uncertainty and problems, > because it takes w/o objection to get things out of there. > Sometimes one needs a bit of excitement to spice things up. This doesn't feel particularly dangerous? -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.0
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 10:19:27 AM CDT you wrote: > Surely I can just say "CAN pay X to Y"? 2579 defines 'pay' so I think it > triggers it sufficiently clearly (and the usage is intuitive anyway). Clarification here: 2579 doesn't define 'pay' but it talks about payment. The only fee-based actions in the rules rn are winning via coins and auctions. Winning via coins says "paying a fee of" and auctions seem to just say "pay that amount". Which makes me think "pay X to Y" already has precedent that it works but maybe 2579 could be amended some time to make that more explicit. > Noted on the high standard. Can you point out the typo? I've reread this > twice and missed it. Found the typo. -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.0
I'm going to resubmit and fix most of the things you mentioned, but as argued
below I don't overall agree that "by announcement" would break the clauses.
On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 11:51:47 PM CDT Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 7:05 PM nch via agora-business
>
> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 8:05:26 PM CDT nch via agora-business wrote:
> > > Title: Sets v1.0
> > > Author: nch
> > > Co-Authors: Trigon, Falsifian, PSS, Jason Cobb
> > > AI: 3
> >
> > I withdraw Sets v1.0 and submit the following proposal.
> >
> > {
> >
> > Title: Sets v1.1
> > Author: nch
> > Co-Authors: Trigon, Falsifian, PSS, Jason
> > AI: 3
> >
> > Enact a new Power=1 rule titled "Cards & Sets" with the text:
> > Cards are a type of asset with a corresponding Product. Products are
> > also assets. The types of Cards and their corresponding Products
> > are:
> >
> > * Victory Cards and Victory Points.
> >
> > * Justice Cards and Blot-B-Gones
> >
> > * Legislative Cards and Pendants
> >
> > * Voting Cards and Extra Votes
> >
> > A player CAN, by announcement, pay a 'set' of X Cards of the same
> > type
> > to create in eir possession Y corresponding Products. The value of X
>
> > determines the value of Y in the following ways:
> This is badly broken. The "by announcement" (arguably) makes it so you
> can do it regardless if you have the cards. It needs to be a fee
> (those have all sorts of protections, so it's best to use them
> wherever possible).
This is fee-based. R2579 says as long as a payment is associated, it's fee-
based. I definitely see how "by announcement" is redundant but I don't think
it's a common-sense reading to say that that means you can bypass the 2579
provisions.
> The rephrased version would be something like "A player CAN, by paying
> as a fee a 'set' of X Cards of the same type, earn Y corresponding
> Products." I also added earn, because let's use those high level asset
> verbs!
Surely I can just say "CAN pay X to Y"? 2579 defines 'pay' so I think it
triggers it sufficiently clearly (and the usage is intuitive anyway).
> >
> > Enact a new Power=1 rule titled "VP Wins" with the following text:
> > If a player has at least 20 more Victory Points than any other
> > player, e
> > can win by announcement. When a player wins this way, destroy all
> > Cards
> > and their corresponding products. Then, for each non-zombie player
> >
> > create
> >
> > 1 card of each type in eir possession.
>
> Seems like there should be another comma in the last sentence? I'm not
> a grammar expert, but it feels to me like there should be one after
> "player".
It's traditional but it doesn't change the meaning at all. I'll fix it anyway
while I'm at it. (And I am a grammar expert, I guess. BS Linguistics and half
of an MSEd. :p)
> > [Exactly what it says on the tin.]
> >
> > Amend rule 2555 "Blots" by replacing the following paragraph:
> > If a person (the penitent) has neither gained blots nor had more
> > than 2 blots expunged from emself in the current Agoran week, then
> > any player (the confessor) who has not, by this mechanism,
> > expunged any blots in the current Agoran week CAN expunge 1 blot
> > from the penitent, by announcement.
> >
> > with:
> > Any player CAN, by announcement, expunge a blot from a specified
> > person
> > (or emself if no one is specified) by paying a fee of one
> > Blot-B-Gone.
>
> Broken, because by announcement and by fee are two separate methods.
> Incidentally, this is a good example of why the by announcement
> defaulting is likely a bad idea. Anyhow, rephrasing "Any player CAN
> expunge a blot from a specified person (or emself if no one is
> specified) by paying a fee of one Blot-B-Gone."
Again I don't think it's the common-sense interpretation that the 'by
announcement' clause overrides the 'pay'.
>
> > Amend rule 2350 "Proposals" by replacing:
> > Creating a proposal adds it to the Proposal Pool. Once a proposal
> > is created, neither its text nor any of the aforementioned
> > attributes can be changed. The author (syn. proposer) of a
> > proposal is the person who submitted it.
> >
> > with:
> > If a proposal was created in the last week and has not been added to
> > the
> > proposal pool, any player CAN add it to the Proposal Pool by paying
> > one
> > Pendant. When a player who is not the author or a co-author of a
> > proposal adds it to the Proposal Pool by this method, e is added to
> > the
> > list of co-authors.
> >
> > Once a proposal is created, neither its text nor any of the
> > aforementioned attributes can be changed, except by the mechanisms
> > in
> > this rule. The author (syn. proposer) of a proposal is the person
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.0
On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 8:30:24 PM CDT Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > The important bit is "neither its text nor any of the aforementioned > attributes can be changed". This means the attempt to change the > coauthors is INEFFECTIVE under R2240. > > -- > Jason Cobb Thanks for the quick catch! -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Mooting moots
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 3:45 PM James Cook wrote: > > > I had been under the impression that the current case of CFJ 3831 is > > > sort of like that, since I don't remember people disagreeing with the > > > judgement until somewhat later. > > > > Yes the main issue was there wasn't a peep of complaint for the first > > 2 weeks (at least that I saw). There should be a cutoff time but I'm > > open to the correct length for that. (Right now the main reason not > > to make it longer is the 7-day waiting period for paradox, making it > > longer could lead to "get the win, then appeal the judgement" type of > > scams). > > How does that scam work? Oh - sorry! There's a protection against the scam I had in mind, forgot that. Nevermind. What's the right time limit for group-filing a motion - is 14 days enough?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Mooting moots
> > I had been under the impression that the current case of CFJ 3831 is > > sort of like that, since I don't remember people disagreeing with the > > judgement until somewhat later. > > Yes the main issue was there wasn't a peep of complaint for the first > 2 weeks (at least that I saw). There should be a cutoff time but I'm > open to the correct length for that. (Right now the main reason not > to make it longer is the 7-day waiting period for paradox, making it > longer could lead to "get the win, then appeal the judgement" type of > scams). How does that scam work? - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Mooting moots
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 3:07 PM James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > Why the third requirement? What if someone notices a problem with a > judgement 10 days after it's assigned, and there was no motion to > reconsider? The idea is a fixed progression: first you remand via a motion to give the judge a chance to address it, and only then do go to the remit option. This is a compromise - making remit faster/simpler but not allowing a "remit" without giving the judge a chance to reconsider. > I had been under the impression that the current case of CFJ 3831 is > sort of like that, since I don't remember people disagreeing with the > judgement until somewhat later. Yes the main issue was there wasn't a peep of complaint for the first 2 weeks (at least that I saw). There should be a cutoff time but I'm open to the correct length for that. (Right now the main reason not to make it longer is the 7-day waiting period for paradox, making it longer could lead to "get the win, then appeal the judgement" type of scams). > Are cases ever re-opened by proposal, when other methods are expired > or exhausted? I've never seen that (though there's nothing stopping it) - when it gets to a legislative solution people have just proposed the answer they wanted (e.g. "ratify that X happened and change the rule so it's not confusing any more").
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No More 'By Announcement'
> > That could probably be fixed, but it does seem to change the way at > > least I was thinking of dependent actions. My understanding was: > > dependent actions are methods; R2595 says how the method works; > > R2595's implementation happens to defer to the "by announcement" > > method. > > > > And under this if someone wanted to change it they could just add "without > announcement" to the conditions. I think I got confused about the UNLESS in your rule text. (It's a bit unintuitive that adding the phrasing "can be performed without announcement" actually makes the rule less permissive by removing the default method.) The "Otherwise, it is INEFFECTIVE" part is confusing... if we have a situation where the UNLESS part is true (the rule specified "without announcement") but the part before the unless is false (a player didn't announce an action), then does the "Otherwise, it is INEFFECTIVE" get triggered? (If we treat UNLESS like a logical operator (A OR NOT B) then I suppose we can say the first sentence is true and so the "Otherwise" part doesn't get triggered, but I don't think English really works that way...) If we do decide to make a change like this, I wonder if it could be done by just editing the part before the first comma (i.e. closer to the original phrasing, as you suggested). - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No More 'By Announcement'
On 5/19/2020 2:56 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:48:20 PM CDT you wrote: >> I don't like this idea. The history of this provision is that I gave a CFJ >> judgement essentially establishing something like this. Everyone >> (especially G.) thought it was a terrible idea, and they persuaded me. CAN >> has a very sensible default meaning currently, that allows us to do things >> like specifying a method in one place and enabling its use in another. >> Also, the need to write out the by announcement makes you think about >> whether that's actually what you want. But most of all, I just really don't >> like making this implicit, even if it's explicitly defined as being >> implicit. > > Do you happen to know whenabouts that discussion happened? I'd like to look > at > the arguments from then. I think what Aris is talking about was the discussion that happened that led up to P7928 'no we can't' (G.), 22 Oct 2017. Though I think the conversation was stretched out over a longer time leading up to that. The change made in that proposal was: > Amend Rule 2125 (Regulated Actions) by replacing: > > Restricted Actions CAN only be performed as described by the Rules. > > with: > > A Restricted Action CAN only be performed as described by the Rules, > and only using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules for > performing the given action. Previously, we'd generally assumed that R2125's "as described by the Rules" already implied the added clause (i.e. a rule had to have "by announcement" or another explicit method in order to for the performance to be "described"). But Aris found that it didn't, instead, e found that CAN with no method implied "CAN by announcement" (that's my memory, maybe it's wildly off, I didn't see the CFJ on my first look through?) Since that judgement was counter-intuitive to how we'd been playing, the proposal above was a legislative clarification to put things back to the way we'd been playing before the judgement. But it was also sort of a referendum on whether we wanted to play that way or not. I can't remember any strong arguments either way. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No More 'By Announcement'
On 5/19/2020 4:01 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > (There are also fee-based actions. I don't know if we have any right > now other than winning under R2483. Also, Agora currently CAN transfer > zombies to their owners, which is not done by announcement.) Also: Initiating Agoran Decisions Notices of Honour Cantus Cygneus i.e. anything where "publish a defined Notice which starts things going if the notice is valid" works pretty well for long procedures that have detailed specification requirements for the Notice.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No More 'By Announcement'
On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 6:01:39 PM CDT James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > I suppose that's true, but with the change you proposed, I think it's > a little unclear how to interpret current rules that describe things > you can do with dependent actions. > > For example, R2465: "A player CAN Declare Apathy without objection, > specifying a set of players." > > With your phrasing: > > Where the rules define an action that a person CAN perform, any > attempt to perform that action is EFFECTIVE if, and only if, e > unambiguously and clearly specifies the action in a public message and > announces that e performs it UNLESS the rule specifies the action can be > performed "without announcement". Otherwise, it is INEFFECTIVE. > > it seems that R2465 defines an action that a player CAN perform, so > surely any attempt I make to perform it is EFFECTIVE, as long as I > announce it unambiguously and clearly. Maybe I would need to announce > that I "Declare Apathy without objection"? You're right, the "if and only if" is bad phrasing. I should've stuck more similar to the original phrasing. > That could probably be fixed, but it does seem to change the way at > least I was thinking of dependent actions. My understanding was: > dependent actions are methods; R2595 says how the method works; > R2595's implementation happens to defer to the "by announcement" > method. > And under this if someone wanted to change it they could just add "without announcement" to the conditions. > (There are also fee-based actions. I don't know if we have any right > now other than winning under R2483. Also, Agora currently CAN transfer > zombies to their owners, which is not done by announcement.) Agora isn't a player so this clause doesn't apply. -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No More 'By Announcement'
On Tue, 19 May 2020 at 22:15, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 5:07:51 PM CDT Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via > agora-discussion wrote: > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:56 PM nch via agora-discussion > > > > wrote: > > > On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:48:20 PM CDT you wrote: > > > > I don't like this idea. The history of this provision is that I gave a > > > > CFJ > > > > judgement essentially establishing something like this. Everyone > > > > (especially G.) thought it was a terrible idea, and they persuaded me. > > > > CAN > > > > has a very sensible default meaning currently, that allows us to do > > > > things > > > > like specifying a method in one place and enabling its use in another. > > > > Also, the need to write out the by announcement makes you think about > > > > whether that's actually what you want. But most of all, I just really > > > > don't > > > > like making this implicit, even if it's explicitly defined as being > > > > implicit. > > > > > > What are the instances when it's useful to do something in a way besides > > > announcement? > > > > We do it all the time: with notice, without objection, with support, > > with Agoran Consent. > > Those are all dependent actions, which are define as occurring by announcement > (among the other conditions that make them distinct) in R2595. > > -- > nch I suppose that's true, but with the change you proposed, I think it's a little unclear how to interpret current rules that describe things you can do with dependent actions. For example, R2465: "A player CAN Declare Apathy without objection, specifying a set of players." With your phrasing: Where the rules define an action that a person CAN perform, any attempt to perform that action is EFFECTIVE if, and only if, e unambiguously and clearly specifies the action in a public message and announces that e performs it UNLESS the rule specifies the action can be performed "without announcement". Otherwise, it is INEFFECTIVE. it seems that R2465 defines an action that a player CAN perform, so surely any attempt I make to perform it is EFFECTIVE, as long as I announce it unambiguously and clearly. Maybe I would need to announce that I "Declare Apathy without objection"? That could probably be fixed, but it does seem to change the way at least I was thinking of dependent actions. My understanding was: dependent actions are methods; R2595 says how the method works; R2595's implementation happens to defer to the "by announcement" method. I vaguely recall someone proposed a smaller change to explicitly make "by announcement" the default method when no other method is specified, but it either got voted down or didn't make it to distribution. But I think I'd be more comfortable with a change along those lines, so that it's clear how a rule should define a CAN but rule out the by announcement method. (There are also fee-based actions. I don't know if we have any right now other than winning under R2483. Also, Agora currently CAN transfer zombies to their owners, which is not done by announcement.) - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No More 'By Announcement'
On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 5:07:51 PM CDT Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:56 PM nch via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:48:20 PM CDT you wrote: > > > I don't like this idea. The history of this provision is that I gave a > > > CFJ > > > judgement essentially establishing something like this. Everyone > > > (especially G.) thought it was a terrible idea, and they persuaded me. > > > CAN > > > has a very sensible default meaning currently, that allows us to do > > > things > > > like specifying a method in one place and enabling its use in another. > > > Also, the need to write out the by announcement makes you think about > > > whether that's actually what you want. But most of all, I just really > > > don't > > > like making this implicit, even if it's explicitly defined as being > > > implicit. > > > > What are the instances when it's useful to do something in a way besides > > announcement? > > We do it all the time: with notice, without objection, with support, > with Agoran Consent. Those are all dependent actions, which are define as occurring by announcement (among the other conditions that make them distinct) in R2595. -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No More 'By Announcement'
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:56 PM nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:48:20 PM CDT you wrote: > > I don't like this idea. The history of this provision is that I gave a CFJ > > judgement essentially establishing something like this. Everyone > > (especially G.) thought it was a terrible idea, and they persuaded me. CAN > > has a very sensible default meaning currently, that allows us to do things > > like specifying a method in one place and enabling its use in another. > > Also, the need to write out the by announcement makes you think about > > whether that's actually what you want. But most of all, I just really don't > > like making this implicit, even if it's explicitly defined as being > > implicit. > > What are the instances when it's useful to do something in a way besides > announcement? > We do it all the time: with notice, without objection, with support, with Agoran Consent.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Prior violations
On 5/17/20 1:30 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Since this just came up, does this address the fencepost issue; i.e., what > if the Assessor does something illegal as part of the act that changes the > rule so it's no longer illegal? (pledges are a better example I think, > the rule change situation is very unlikely - but my reading of the above > is that it would cover pledges). Yeah, I noticed this while trying to figure out if the pledge thing was actually a bug, but I chose the Assessor example because I thought it would be more clearly broken. I'm unsure about it addressing pledges. It would address it if there's an instant where the violation occurs before the pledge ceases to exist, but I'm not sure if that's the case. If this is adopted, the easiest way to fix the pledges thing might be to have the pledge cease to exist the instant after its time window expires, so that there's unambiguously an instant with a rules violation. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] They sought it with thimbles...
On 5/3/20 2:47 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, 2020-05-03 at 11:38 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: >> I submit the following proposal, "with smiles and soap", AI 1: >> -- >> >> Create a power-1 Rule, "The Snark": >> >> When this rule is enacted, a proposal is created with the >> title "A Boojum", an indeterminate text, and an adoption >> index of 1. >> >> Any player CAN cause this rule to repeal itself, with >> Notice. >> >> -- > This seems risky to me, because if this proposal passes I find it hard > to see how the resulting newly created proposal won't also end up > passing, and I can't guarantee that there are no dictatorship scams > exploitable via an AI 1 proposal. > > As a consequence, it may end up completely, 100% impossible to ever get > the gamestate back into a determinate state. > I don't think that "A Boojum" can even be distributed. Rule 107 says requires the notice initiating an Agoran decision to "clearly specify" any essential parameters, which include both the text and the author of the proposal. Both of these are problematic: the text is indeterminate, so any attempt to "clearly specify" it probably fails, and the proposal doesn't have an author because a rule, rather than a person, submitted it. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Wooden Gavel for twg
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 11:23, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Actually, rereading it this morning, could the proposal be a bit less > "whereas" ish and a bit more explaining why that particular judgement > deserves it enough to override twg's failure to deliver it? I'd prefer > honest discussion of such awards (as is more prone to happen when seeking > Agoran consent) over acclamation for its own sake. > > -G Also, for what it's worth, I do prefer giving the award to Falsifian.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Wooden Gavel for twg
On 4/25/2020 11:51 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 11:11 PM Alexis Hunt wrote: >> On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 01:43, Aris Merchant wrote: >> >>> [I'm attempting to replicate, as nearly as possible, the 2 Agoran >>> Consent requirement for awarding the patent title. Unless there is an >>> objection, the Promotorial Proposal Office intends to exercise its >>> discretion not to assign this proposal to a chamber.] >>> >>> I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to make the below proposal Democratic. >>> >>> -Aris >>> >> >> Why not just do it with 2 Agoran Consent? > > Rereading the rule, it seems the Arbitor CAN make an intent for > whoever e wants; the restriction on doing it for the judge of the CFJ > is a should. So I guess maybe we should go that route? I'm tired and > can't think ATM, I'll see what people have said in the morning. Actually, rereading it this morning, could the proposal be a bit less "whereas" ish and a bit more explaining why that particular judgement deserves it enough to override twg's failure to deliver it? I'd prefer honest discussion of such awards (as is more prone to happen when seeking Agoran consent) over acclamation for its own sake. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Wooden Gavel for twg
On 4/25/2020 11:51 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > Rereading the rule, it seems the Arbitor CAN make an intent for > whoever e wants; the restriction on doing it for the judge of the CFJ > is a should. So I guess maybe we should go that route? I'm tired and > can't think ATM, I'll see what people have said in the morning. I think: - Wooden Gavel, awardable by the Arbitor to the judge of a CFJ means it's literally not awardable to a non-judge. The "awardable by" refers back to the "CAN be awarded by the indicated officers" so I think the "to the judge" is a condition for the CAN. Anyway, I think my preference (just looking at the overall judgements) is to award to Falsifian.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Wooden Gavel for twg
On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 11:11 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 01:43, Aris Merchant via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > [I'm attempting to replicate, as nearly as possible, the 2 Agoran > > Consent requirement for awarding the patent title. Unless there is an > > objection, the Promotorial Proposal Office intends to exercise its > > discretion not to assign this proposal to a chamber.] > > > > I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to make the below proposal Democratic. > > > > -Aris > > > > Why not just do it with 2 Agoran Consent? Rereading the rule, it seems the Arbitor CAN make an intent for whoever e wants; the restriction on doing it for the judge of the CFJ is a should. So I guess maybe we should go that route? I'm tired and can't think ATM, I'll see what people have said in the morning. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Less Democracy Means More Fun
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 3:58 PM Rebecca via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > you want more than 3.0 rather than less than 3.0. this is the opposite to > intended effect! > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 1:30 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I submit the following proposal. > > > > -Aris > > --- > > Title: Less Democracy Means More Fun > > Adoption index: 2.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: > > Chamber: Legislation > > > > Amend Rule 2606, "Proposal Classes", by changing the text > > > > "When a proposal with an adoption index greater than 2.0 is created, > > its class becomes democratic." > > > > to read > > "When a proposal with an adoption index less than 3.0 is created, > > its class becomes democratic." > > > > [Note that proposals can still be turned democratic with 2 Agoran > Consent. > > However, this reserves democratic status for proposals changing core > > rules or of great public concern.] > > > > > -- > From R. Lee > it was already replied to, sorry. -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] solving double proposal effects
On 3/4/20 8:48 PM, Tanner Swett via agora-discussion wrote: > Is this needed? What's an example of a circumstance in which this would > prevent something bad from happening? > > —Warrigal A little less than a month ago, we made some large changes to voting strength; specifically, we added Proposal Chambers and Classes. In the assessment resolving that proposal, it was pointed out that the resolutions after the proposal that enacted the strength changes were partially incorrect (because we had just changed how voting strength was calculated). So, I published updated resolutions. However, it was then pointed out that the first set might have succeeded because they were platonically correct, while the second set might of succeeded by self-ratification. If true, this would have lead to some proposals applying their effects twice. At that point, nobody was really sure what had really happened, so it was resolved by Proposal 8322 [0]. [0]: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2020-February/013432.html -- Jason Cobb
