Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Potential Further Absurdity (@Notary)

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 7/8/24 16:46, Mischief via agora-business wrote,:
> On 7/8/24 9:01 AM, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
>
>> Please increase the complexity of the office to 1, if there is ever a
>> redraft. Otherwise, I'll petition the ADoP later, so its ok.
> I didn't include it in the proposal because complexity is secured at power 2.
>
>
> I grant the following promise ("Absurdor Complexity") to juan:
>
> Cashing conditions: 1) it is before the expiration date of October 1, 2024; 
> 2) 
> the "Potential Further Absurdity" proposal I submitted prior to issuing this 
> promise has passed; 3) there is a tabled intent to set the complexity of the 
> Absurdor to 1
>
> Text: I support the tabled intent to set the complexity of the Absurdor to 1.
>
>

Acting on behalf to support/object is impossible. (R2124 para 1, "act on
eir own behalf".)

-- 
Janet Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9134-9141

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 7/1/24 11:25, Agora amdw42 via agora-discussion wrote:
> I vote as follows:
>> 9134~   snail, ais523   1.0   It takes two
> FOR
>> 9135~   snail   1.0   Ammo Store
> AGAINST
>> 9136~   Janet, Kate, Mischief   3.0   Sorting out sortition
> FOR
>> 9137~   Quadrantal, Aris1.7   A possible patch for a peculiar
>> persisting pledge paradox
> FOR
>> 9138~   Janet   2.0   Stone cost adjustments
> FOR
>> 9139~   Mischief, Janet 2.0   Protection Stone Fix
> FOR
>> 9140~   Quadrantal, Janet   2.0   Whoops, missed one
> FOR
>> 9141~   Janet   2.0   Time for some clarifications
> FOR
>
>
> I shall update the spreadsheet accordingly
> ——
> Ben
> 
> From: agora-business  on behalf of 
> Janet Cobb via agora-business 
> Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2024 11:09:40 PM
> To: Agora Business 
> Cc: Janet Cobb 
> Subject: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9134-9141
>
> I vote as follows
>> 9134~   snail, ais523   1.0   It takes two
> FOR
>
>
>> 9135~   snail   1.0   Ammo Store
> AGAINST
>
>
>> 9136*   Janet, Kate, Mischief   3.0   Sorting out sortition
> FOR
>
>
>> 9137~   Quadrantal, Aris1.7   A possible patch for a peculiar
>> persisting pledge paradox
> FOR
>
>
>> 9138~   Janet   2.0   Stone cost adjustments
> FOR
>
>
>> 9139~   Mischief, Janet 2.0   Protection Stone Fix
> FOR, I guess, but this feels fragile based on precedence. I think "being
> granted immunity if not owned by Agora" and "actually being immune"
> should have different terms.
>
>
>> 9140~   Quadrantal, Janet   2.0   Whoops, missed one
> FOR
>
>
>> 9141~   Janet   2.0   Time for some clarifications
> FOR
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason


NttPF

-- 
Janet Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Verbal Cake (@Tailor)

[juan via agora-discussion]

Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion [2024-06-29 19:56]:
> I am very much in the market for a better email client if anyone has
> recommendations
> 
> ~qenya

My current: neomutt
My next hispter desire: aerc

If TUIs are not your thing, then I can't help you.

-- 
juan
Wearing a green eyeshade

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@ADoP) Re: OFF: Re: BUS: Expediting sortition procedure

[Matt Smyth via agora-discussion]

whoops - that was supposed to be spendor... but i'm fine to sit this one out.

On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 at 21:32, Katherina Walshe-Grey via
agora-discussion  wrote:
>
> On 01/07/2024 04:40, Matt Smyth via agora-business wrote:
>
> > I become an option for the office of Webmastor.
> > I become an option for the office of Tailor.
> > I become an option for the office of Collector.
> > I become an option for the office of Stonemason.
>
> Tailor is not being sortitioned - calling attention in case you typoed
> for something else.
>
> ~qenya
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9125-9133

[Quadrantal via agora-discussion]

On 2024-06-29 02:37, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:

Can I ask why you prefer "last"?


Mostly just vibes, if I'm honest. I find "past" tends to disrupt my flow 
of reading.



In my opinion, this just makes searching the rules for relative dates
easier, as "last" is already used to instead refer to previous actions
(last change, last election, last ratification) which is a bit annoying.
Other uses of "past" seem to just refer to "the past" as a concept, which
is easier to separate out.


That's a reasonable argument, enough that it would override my personal 
preference if that sort of searching was something that was something 
being done regularly. I'm not entirely convinced that that's the case in 
this specific context though; personally, when I ctrl+F the rules, I 
tend to be searching for mentions a specific office or switch. There is, 
of course, some value for theses, but they're relatively uncommon.


Overall, if the broader consensus is that "past" makes things easier, I 
certainly won't mind; at the moment, I don't really see much value in 
standardizing either way, hence my vote.


--
Quadrantal

Illuminator

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] It takes two, and Ammo Store

[Matt Smyth via agora-discussion]

how about a dodging mechanic? give everyone a speed value, or perhaps
they can buy bulletproof vests?

On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 at 19:33, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 4:04 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I don't think that requiring 2 Bangs to kill someone will necessarily slow
> > down the game once the match starts. We've seen that players (others and
> > myself) can easily use Contracts to prepare beforehand to set up automation
> > which can lead to very fast wins.
> >
> > Perhaps a player could only shoot once per X hours (72?), and it takes two
> > shots to kill someone?
> >
>
> Part of the reason it went so fast is that a small number of players was
> able to eliminate enough players immediately, and this makes it take twice
> as many resources to do that.
>
> I was also thinking about changing the game to eliminate all the timing
> nonsense, and letting players commit to eliminations and reveal them the
> next week. This would reduce rapid-fire combos and make things more fair
> for people who aren't as active. 72 hours would still have some of those
> issues, but if everyone eliminates at once it should be better.
>
> --
> snail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Herald) Victory by Quickdraw

[ais523 via agora-discussion]

On Fri, 2024-06-28 at 11:20 +0200, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> I believe that deals and alliances are going to be extremely strong here.
> To me, it seems to be in practice a prerequisite to incarnating at all in
> the first place.

There is no downside (other than the rather problematic tracking
burden, which is a SHOULD) to incarnating if you don't intend to win
via Bangs yourself – it helps to block a win, and may produce Bangs
which could potentially have value as trade items.

If enough players incarnate, it'll make a win via pooling quite hard to
achieve, because (under the current rules) the pool has to form at
least half of the players who incarnate (and would have to be an even
greater proportion if the cost to eliminate someone were increased).

There's also an interesting sort of relationship in which the more
players incarnate, the more valuable Bangs become (due to reduced
supply: some players would be willing to sell Bangs very cheaply, but
others will demand more, and with lots of players incarnated then deals
will have to be made with the more demanding players). That means that
even if a player would be willing to sell their Bangs cheaply, if lots
of players are incarnated, it makes more economic sense to increase
your price because you're still likely going to be within the top X
players to buy from. And that in turn means that the price of buying a
win is going to go up faster than linearly as more players incarnate.

All this means that players should be encouraged to incarnate rather
than discouraged: staying Ghostly only benefits players who are trying
to pool for a win.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] It takes two, and Ammo Store

[secretsnail9 via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 4:04 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I don't think that requiring 2 Bangs to kill someone will necessarily slow
> down the game once the match starts. We've seen that players (others and
> myself) can easily use Contracts to prepare beforehand to set up automation
> which can lead to very fast wins.
>
> Perhaps a player could only shoot once per X hours (72?), and it takes two
> shots to kill someone?
>

Part of the reason it went so fast is that a small number of players was
able to eliminate enough players immediately, and this makes it take twice
as many resources to do that.

I was also thinking about changing the game to eliminate all the timing
nonsense, and letting players commit to eliminations and reveal them the
next week. This would reduce rapid-fire combos and make things more fair
for people who aren't as active. 72 hours would still have some of those
issues, but if everyone eliminates at once it should be better.

--
snail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Herald) Victory by Quickdraw

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I believe that deals and alliances are going to be extremely strong here.
To me, it seems to be in practice a prerequisite to incarnating at all in
the first place.

On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 4:45 AM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 2024-06-27 at 21:34 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-business
> wrote:
> > I stand Alone.
>
> Now I'm trying to figure out how you could afford to bribe so many
> people (particularly along the lines of "are these bribes large, in
> which case you might not be able to pay for them, or small, in which
> case how did you persuade people to accept them?"). I think it's
> possible that there is some sort of win-trading going on (i.e. you
> bribed the players by planning to support future wins).
>
> In any case, this has demonstrated that a 1 Bang = 1 elimination ratio
> is probably not enough to handle high levels of trading – possibly
> players should start with half a Bang rather than a whole one. (Because
> the way you eliminate a player is, in effect, to transfer a Bang to
> them, there will always be enough to finish the game unless players
> start hoarding.)
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Herald) Victory by Quickdraw

[4st nomic via agora-discussion]

In my defense, I have not read the rules, and snail was the only one who
asked. I figured it could not hurt because j don't know how to bang

On Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 5:45 AM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 2024-06-27 at 21:34 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-business
> wrote:
> > I stand Alone.
>
> Now I'm trying to figure out how you could afford to bribe so many
> people (particularly along the lines of "are these bribes large, in
> which case you might not be able to pay for them, or small, in which
> case how did you persuade people to accept them?"). I think it's
> possible that there is some sort of win-trading going on (i.e. you
> bribed the players by planning to support future wins).
>
> In any case, this has demonstrated that a 1 Bang = 1 elimination ratio
> is probably not enough to handle high levels of trading – possibly
> players should start with half a Bang rather than a whole one. (Because
> the way you eliminate a player is, in effect, to transfer a Bang to
> them, there will always be enough to finish the game unless players
> start hoarding.)
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] Billboard Rock Chart - 3 June 2024

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/3/24 19:05, Matt Smyth via agora-discussion wrote:
> My wielding of the minty stone failed, right? Because snail had wielded it
> three days prior?


It would have failed if you had owned the stone, yes.

-- 
Janet Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday

[Mischief via agora-discussion]

On 6/3/24 3:27 PM, nix via agora-discussion wrote:

On 6/3/24 14:25, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:

what I
0wrote last time



0wrote


Unforgivable


Agoran dendrochronology

--
Mischief

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/1/24 17:25, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/1/24 3:57 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>
>> Actually, the fee-based actions rules don't have any special cases for
>> negative values, and you can't destroy a negative number of assets. So I
>> think if the required fee is negative, it's just not possible to do (and
>> this is... not a crazy outcome policy-wise?).
> Looking at the rules again after what snail said, I think it's in rule 2577 
> (Asset Actions) instead, where it effectively floors it at zero...
>
>When a rule indicates creating, destroying, or transferring an
>amount of assets that is not a natural number, the specified
>amount is rounded up to the nearest natural number after all other
>calculations.
>

Ah, yes, sorry, I forgot about that. Then yes, it would be floored at 0.

-- 
Janet Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@stonemason, @spendor) Theft

[Mischief via agora-discussion]

On 5/31/24 4:23 PM, nix via agora-discussion wrote:


What was the cost of this stone when you did that? Shouldn't it be 9
because I transferred it to myself last week? Or is the SLR out of date
on this?



The latter is true. (I haven't been tracking the stone movements closely enough 
to say anything about the correct price.) Proposal 9107 changed the pricing 
algorithm...

ID: 9107
Title: Market Stone Pricing
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Jaff
Co-authors:


Amend Rule 2642/9 (Stone Cost) by replacing the text:

{
When a stone is transferred, its Stone Cost is set to the default.
At the
beginning of every week, the Stone Cost for each stone is reduced by 1, to a
minimum of 0.
}

with

{
At the beginning of each week, for each stone that was not
transferred during the previous week, its Stone Cost is reduced by 1, to a
minimum of 1. Then, for each stone that was transferred more than once
during the previous week, its Stone Cost is increased by 1.
}


https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg13905.html

--
Mischief

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Welcome package

[Mischief via agora-discussion]

On 5/29/24 12:18 PM, Paul McDowell via agora-discussion wrote:

Indeed, I was on digest mode so I didn't see it right away. Happy to be here!


Welcome!

You may wish to use the 10 Spendies from your welcome package soon (e.g., on 
Stamps, radiance, or stones) since they expire at the end of the month.

--
Mischief

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Welcome package

[Paul McDowell via agora-discussion]

Indeed, I was on digest mode so I didn't see it right away. Happy to be here!

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bowing to the Inevitable (attn Registrar, Spendor, Collector)

[Mischief via agora-discussion]

On 5/26/24 8:03 PM, nix via agora-discussion wrote:

On 5/15/24 15:48, Joshua Boehme via agora-business wrote:

In the past I went by Elysion, but that nickname feels like it belongs
to another era. This time I'll go by Mischief, and for ease I'll be
using agoran.misch...@gmail.com as my email address instead of this one.


Oops, sorry that I used the wrong name in the Arbitor report. Just saw
this one. I'll fix it in the next version of the report.


I called the CFJs before changing nicknames, and that's the historically 
relevant one, so personally I'm not worried about changing it in the CFJs. (I'm 
not opposed either, though, if you think it'll be clearer.)

--
Mischief

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Experimenting with Regulations

[4st nomic via agora-discussion]

Right. However, the proposal gives some rule defined parameters for the
operation of crystals, leaving the exact details to regulations. Eg
"crystals increase in size when rules are amended or repealed" does not
specify precisely how or how much, leaving those details to the regulation.

On Sun, May 26, 2024, 5:24 AM Mischief via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/25/24 10:11 PM, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> > In an effort to reduce the ruleset, what if we offload things that only
> > affect the officer of a report, or rather, leave the specifics of
> mechanics
> > to the officer that tracks it?
>
> Could you explain a little about more how you see this working? I can see
> the application when it comes to Stones (shifting their definitions/powers
> to regulations and tweaking them there). Aren't crystals pretty much all
> identical, though, other than their individual numeric parameters (ID,
> size, instability)?
>
> --
> Mischief
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119

[Matt Smyth via agora-discussion]

... whoops

On Sun, 26 May 2024 at 11:43, 4st nomic <4st.no...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> sorry Juniper, this was to DIS, make sure you send votes to BUS
>
> On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 6:42 PM Matt Smyth via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
>>
>> I vote as follows:
>>
>> >
>> > > 9114~   snail   2.0   Grind Stone
>> >
>> FOR
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > 9115~   snail   2.0   Lode Stone
>> >
>>
>> FOR
>>
>> >
>> > > 9116~   snail, juan...[1]   1.0   A friendly game v2
>> >
>> FOR
>>
>> >
>> > > 9117~   Mischief1.0   Self-Elimination
>> >
>> > PRESENT
>> >
>> >
>> > > 9118~   juniper 1.0   Recursion
>> >
>> > AGAINST
>> >
>> >
>> > > 9119*   Mischief3.0   Say It Once Mk II
>> >
>> > FOR
>> >
>> > --
>> > Janet Cobb
>> >
>> > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>> >
>
>
>
> --
> apathy (4ˢᵗ)
> wearing Jester's Cap
> Uncertified Bad Idea Generator

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119

[4st nomic via agora-discussion]

sorry Juniper, this was to DIS, make sure you send votes to BUS

On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 6:42 PM Matt Smyth via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I vote as follows:
>
> >
> > > 9114~   snail   2.0   Grind Stone
> >
> FOR
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > 9115~   snail   2.0   Lode Stone
> >
>
> FOR
>
> >
> > > 9116~   snail, juan...[1]   1.0   A friendly game v2
> >
> FOR
>
> >
> > > 9117~   Mischief1.0   Self-Elimination
> >
> > PRESENT
> >
> >
> > > 9118~   juniper 1.0   Recursion
> >
> > AGAINST
> >
> >
> > > 9119*   Mischief3.0   Say It Once Mk II
> >
> > FOR
> >
> > --
> > Janet Cobb
> >
> > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
> >
>


-- 
apathy (4ˢᵗ)
wearing Jester's Cap
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Salaries

[secretsnail9 via agora-discussion]

On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 5:04 PM Matt Smyth via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> Hey, did this proposal count as invalid or something??
>
> > juniper :)
> >
>

Ah The subject line didn't contain the usual "[Proposal]" or mention
the promotor so i missed it. Typically you could just CoE the Promotor's
report to prevent the proposals from ratifying away, but I'll do that and
distribute your two proposals i missed (the other is the short ruleset
proposal).

--
snail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] An Agoran Standoff

[secretsnail9 via agora-discussion]

On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 12:34 AM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2024-05-14 at 06:55 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
> > A ghostly player CAN incarnate by announcement, which means
> > to flip eir Vitality to Invulnerable, provided there are only
> > Invulnerable or Ghostly players.
> [snip]
> > When the match is reset, each player is set to Ghostly, all bangs are
> > destroyed, and then each player gains 1 bang.
> >
> > When 3 days have passed since the match is reset, all Invulnerable
> > players have eir Vitality set to Alive.
>
> The timing here is incredibly tight given Agora's typical pace of
> play – not only is it faster than the "once per week" cadence at which
> many players seem to be paying attention, it's even faster than the 4-
> day without-objection timer.
>
> This makes it likely that only players who are continuously paying
> attention will end up joining the match, and could arguably be
> considered a scam, or at least biased proposal-writing in favour of the
> continuously active.
>

This is a great point, so I'll extend it to 7 days.



>
> > Each corporeal player SHOULD list eir Vitality and Bang Balance in
> > all eir messages.
>
> This one is also a problem, seeing as it includes things like official
> reports (and even the SLR/FLR) – although some means is needed to track
> things, and I think officer-less subgames are an experiment worth
> trying, "every message" seems like too high a frequency for this.
>

I think this is actually fine: it's only a few words to be added to your
signature at the end of the report, and since it's a SHOULD it will be easy
to figure out if it's annoying or immersive (as i intend it to be). I'll be
putting it in all my reports at least :3

--
snail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bowing to the Inevitable

[Mischief via agora-discussion]

On 5/15/24 5:48 PM, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:


FWIW, Welcome back!


Why I declare, apathy, you have manners befitting a true Southern gentlespivak.



(Deliberately NttPF, but someone needed to make a joke along these lines 
eventually)

--
Mischief

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals (attn Promotor)

[Edward Murphy via agora-discussion]

wunst wrote:


Am 13.05.24 um 01:00 schrieb ais523 via agora-discussion:

On Sun, 2024-05-12 at 15:32 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-business
wrote:

Proposal: No apathetic apathy

Amend Rule 2465 (Victory by Apathy) by appending this text:

    A player SHALL NOT announce intent to Declare Apathy and then
    fail to Declare Apathy before that intent ceases to be ripe; 
such

    failure is the Class 5 Infraction of Not Reading the Room.

What's the intention behind this one (and why such a high class)? Is
the intention to make failed Apathy attempts illegal?



> I think the goal is to make it possible to shoot yourself in the foot
> with apathy.
>
> Intended effect (probably?):
>
> 1. A intents apathy
> 2. nobody objects
> 3. A has forgotten about intent, does nothing -> infraction
>
> But the current phrasing would also make unsuccessful attempts illegal
> as it says nothing about the intent having no objections

More than that, the goal is to discourage the trend of almost all
intents to declare apathy having no obvious path to success beyond
"lol maybe every single player will inexplicably either fail to
notice or fail to object", which is pretty boring IMO.

Now if e.g. you actually spot and try to exploit a subtle bug in the 
tabled-action rules, or try to bribe objectors to bury an "I withdraw my

objection" announcement in the middle of a long message (I have received
such bribe offers approximately zero times), then that is when apathy is
actually interesting. Even if it fails, if a good-faith attempt of this
sort was demonstrated, then I would advocate for a reduced NRtR fine.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] An Agoran Standoff

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

>
> The eliminated player has no obvious use for the granted bang, as it
> will be destroyed before they next become alive. Is this intended to
> give em something to trade with?
>

I believe so too, and I think that it's a good design because it gives
(dead) players something to keep playing the game with. It also encourages
more Eliminating and moving the game forwards, with the Bang surplus.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals (attn Promotor)

[wunst via agora-discussion]

I think the goal is to make it possible to shoot yourself in the foot 
with apathy.


Intended effect (probably?):

1. A intents apathy
2. nobody objects
3. A has forgotten about intent, does nothing -> infraction

But the current phrasing would also make unsuccessful attempts illegal 
as it says nothing about the intent having no objections


--wunst

Am 13.05.24 um 01:00 schrieb ais523 via agora-discussion:

On Sun, 2024-05-12 at 15:32 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-business
wrote:

Proposal: No apathetic apathy

Amend Rule 2465 (Victory by Apathy) by appending this text:

    A player SHALL NOT announce intent to Declare Apathy and then
    fail to Declare Apathy before that intent ceases to be ripe; such
    failure is the Class 5 Infraction of Not Reading the Room.

What's the intention behind this one (and why such a high class)? Is
the intention to make failed Apathy attempts illegal?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New week, new push (attn Absurdor)

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

That's incredibly cool

On Sun, May 5, 2024 at 10:02 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 2024-05-05 at 21:38 +0200, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-
> discussion wrote:
> > It's crazy to me how they've made a whole video game based on an
> > Agoran subgame.
>
> BF Joust escaped its origins as an Agoran subgame and became something
> that received intermittent play for over seven years. I'm not sure
> whether or not it counts as a video game (but the submissions were
> moderated automatically by computer and we had visualisations for
> seeing how the various competing warriors did, so it's a video game in
> the sense of "a game played by interacting with a computer program that
> provides graphical feedback").
>
> You can see https://esolangs.org/wiki/BF_Joust_strategies for some of
> the nonsense we came up with over the years. (The rules were slightly
> different from the original ruleset that was run at Agora - the "flag
> zero" victory condition was changed to require the flag to be at two
> cycles rather than one, the tape was made shorter, and a command was
> added to wait for one cycle. Competitions also started to be run
> continuously, rather than in weekly batches, and with a draw being
> counted as a draw rather than a double loss. But most of the rules are
> still the same as in the Agoran original.)
>
> For those who weren't active in 2008, here's how it looked at Agora:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg10766.html
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New week, new push (attn Absurdor)

[ais523 via agora-discussion]

On Sun, 2024-05-05 at 21:38 +0200, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-
discussion wrote:
> It's crazy to me how they've made a whole video game based on an
> Agoran subgame.

BF Joust escaped its origins as an Agoran subgame and became something
that received intermittent play for over seven years. I'm not sure
whether or not it counts as a video game (but the submissions were
moderated automatically by computer and we had visualisations for
seeing how the various competing warriors did, so it's a video game in
the sense of "a game played by interacting with a computer program that
provides graphical feedback").

You can see https://esolangs.org/wiki/BF_Joust_strategies for some of
the nonsense we came up with over the years. (The rules were slightly
different from the original ruleset that was run at Agora - the "flag
zero" victory condition was changed to require the flag to be at two
cycles rather than one, the tape was made shorter, and a command was
added to wait for one cycle. Competitions also started to be run
continuously, rather than in weekly batches, and with a draw being
counted as a draw rather than a double loss. But most of the rules are
still the same as in the Agoran original.)

For those who weren't active in 2008, here's how it looked at Agora:
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg10766.html

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Petitions [further attn. Promotor, Arbitor, Tailor, ADoP]

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 5/2/24 10:15, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> Joint awards are a normal thing in real life, and the announcement would
> be pretty much identical to that intent. I really don't see any
> specificity issue.


I originally read, and still read, the intent as intending to award a
separate title to each person. If you're reading it the other way (as a
single title awarded to a set of persons), that suggests that the intent
isn't unambiguous.


> Whether you think it *should* be done this way is a separate question of
> whether it works (which I see no rule reason to doubt).

Okay, that's fair.

-- 
Janet Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Petitions [further attn. Promotor, Arbitor, Tailor, ADoP]

[nix via agora-discussion]

On 5/2/24 01:39, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 5/1/24 13:19, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
 I intend to award Employee of the Year to snail and Janet.
>>> I object, sorry. I think these need to be phrased as separate intents.
>>>
>> I don't think that's true. The rule text says awardable to "the
>> persons", plural. Nothing indicates it cannot be awarded to multiple
>> people, and overall patent titles can belong to entities (and the joint
>> of two players is still an entity). The semantic difference is whether
>> there's one title jointly awarded to both of you (which I think this
>> implies), or two separate titles for each of you.
> 
> 
> It's certainly possible to do, but I don't think we have previously had
> a patent title being (deliberately) awarded to a set of persons (under
> the legal definition, so excluding the instance with BC System), and I
> don't think we should start. At the very least, it'd likely cause
> confusion in the Herald's report?
> 
> In any event, I don't think the intent specifies that clearly enough to
> meet the tabled action standard.
> 

Joint awards are a normal thing in real life, and the announcement would
be pretty much identical to that intent. I really don't see any
specificity issue.

Whether you think it *should* be done this way is a separate question of
whether it works (which I see no rule reason to doubt).

-- 
nix
Arbitor, Spendor

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Petitions [further attn. Promotor, Arbitor, Tailor, ADoP]

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 5/1/24 13:19, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> I intend to award Employee of the Year to snail and Janet.
>> I object, sorry. I think these need to be phrased as separate intents.
>>
> I don't think that's true. The rule text says awardable to "the
> persons", plural. Nothing indicates it cannot be awarded to multiple
> people, and overall patent titles can belong to entities (and the joint
> of two players is still an entity). The semantic difference is whether
> there's one title jointly awarded to both of you (which I think this
> implies), or two separate titles for each of you.


It's certainly possible to do, but I don't think we have previously had
a patent title being (deliberately) awarded to a set of persons (under
the legal definition, so excluding the instance with BC System), and I
don't think we should start. At the very least, it'd likely cause
confusion in the Herald's report?

In any event, I don't think the intent specifies that clearly enough to
meet the tabled action standard.

-- 
Janet Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 4075 and 4076

[4st nomic via agora-discussion]

Mostly just throwing fuel on the fire and poking things, for fun :) (That's
why I'm not objecting officially.)

Firstly, "Ownership" takes precedence (by power) over "Promises", and the
actions happen in sequence, so Ownership takes precedence over Promises
which attempts to change the owner of the promise. Whether or not the
promise is cashed happens later in the sequence - even if the promise
itself were to affect a switch or other gamestate when it was cashed, those
switches would equally just become "indeterminate", thereby not producing a
paradox, as no gamestate becomes undefined, the gamestate instead obtains
"indeterminate" values, which are equally valid values that do not produce
paradoxes.

For example, even with Rice Plans, per "Switches", all the switches would
have a definitive value of the last value they had had, or their default
value. Agora requires clarity at all steps to function, and indeterminacy
can set things in the platonic gamestate backwards, even if you don't
notice, relying instead on ratification to operate.

Not sure this is anything, but I also just noticed, [R217]
"in particular, an absurdity [the paradox] that can be concluded from the
assumption that a statement about rule-defined concepts is false [the
promise being taken or cashed] does not constitute proof that it is true."

(Also of note: It is up to the Judge and the players what the CFJ outcome
should be. This is not a platonic point, rather, it is subjective and open
to persuasion and such. Therefore, this case can still be judged
Paradoxical, even if no paradoxes are involved. Similarly, a CFJ with a
paradox can be judged as not-Paradoxical.)

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 10:06 AM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2024-04-30 at 09:52 -0700, 4st nomic via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > I object.
> > Per Rule 2576 "Ownership", the asset goes into abeyance as soon as the
> > owner is ambiguous.
> > The owner becomes ambiguous at step 2, wherein we are not sure if ais523
> > can take the asset due to the ensuing contradiction.
> > Therefore, both CFJs should be FALSE, as neither party can cash a promise
> > that is in abeyance.
>
> This argument assumes that the paradox has already occurred – if there
> were no paradox there would be no ambiguity. So this is a self-
> defeating line of reasoning: you're saying that the first transfer
> causes the promise's ownership to be ambiguous because it would cause a
> paradox, then that the second transfer unambiguously fails because the
> first transfer moved the promise to the L – or in other words, this
> is an argument that says "if there were a paradox, that would cause
> there to not be a paradox".
>
> This doesn't lead to a consistent outcome because it requires a view of
> things in which the paradox both does and doesn't occur; it's just as
> self-contradictory as the scenarios in which the first transfer fails
> and in which the first transfer succeeds. (Or to think about it another
> way, Murphy has proved that if there were not a paradox, there would be
> a paradox, and you are arguing that if there were a paradox there would
> not be a paradox, and thus we have constructed a paradox as to whether
> there's a paradox!)
>
> --
> ais523
>


-- 
4ˢᵗ

Uncertified Bad Idea Generator

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 4075 and 4076

[ais523 via agora-discussion]

On Tue, 2024-04-30 at 09:52 -0700, 4st nomic via agora-discussion
wrote:
> I object.
> Per Rule 2576 "Ownership", the asset goes into abeyance as soon as the
> owner is ambiguous.
> The owner becomes ambiguous at step 2, wherein we are not sure if ais523
> can take the asset due to the ensuing contradiction.
> Therefore, both CFJs should be FALSE, as neither party can cash a promise
> that is in abeyance.

This argument assumes that the paradox has already occurred – if there
were no paradox there would be no ambiguity. So this is a self-
defeating line of reasoning: you're saying that the first transfer
causes the promise's ownership to be ambiguous because it would cause a
paradox, then that the second transfer unambiguously fails because the
first transfer moved the promise to the L – or in other words, this
is an argument that says "if there were a paradox, that would cause
there to not be a paradox".

This doesn't lead to a consistent outcome because it requires a view of
things in which the paradox both does and doesn't occur; it's just as
self-contradictory as the scenarios in which the first transfer fails
and in which the first transfer succeeds. (Or to think about it another
way, Murphy has proved that if there were not a paradox, there would be
a paradox, and you are arguing that if there were a paradox there would
not be a paradox, and thus we have constructed a paradox as to whether
there's a paradox!)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 4075 and 4076

[4st nomic via agora-discussion]

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 10:03 AM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 4/30/24 11:52, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> > I object.
> > Per Rule 2576 "Ownership", the asset goes into abeyance as soon as the
> > owner is ambiguous.
> > The owner becomes ambiguous at step 2, wherein we are not sure if ais523
> > can take the asset due to the ensuing contradiction.
> > Therefore, both CFJs should be FALSE, as neither party can cash a promise
> > that is in abeyance.
>
> You cannot object to a judgment, but you can either file a Motion to
> Reconsider or call a Moot on these CFJs. Here's the specifics of both:
>
> {
> Rule 911/55 (Power=1.7)
> Motions and Moots
>
>   If a judgement has been in effect for less then seven days and has
>   not been entered into Moot, then:
>
>   - The judge of that CFJ CAN self-file a Motion to Reconsider the
> case by announcement, if e has not already self-filed a Motion
> to Reconsider that CFJ.
>   - Any Player CAN group-file a Motion to Reconsider the case with 2
> support, if the CFJ has not had a Motion to Reconsider
> group-filed for it at any time while it has been assigned to its
> current judge.
>
>   When a Motion to Reconsider is so filed, the case is rendered open
>   again.
>
>   If a CFJ has a judgement assigned, a player CAN enter that
>   judgement into Moot with N+2 support, where N is the number of
>   weeks since that judgement has been assigned, rounded down. When
>   this occurs, the CFJ is suspended, and the Arbitor is once
>   authorized to initiate the Agoran decision to determine public
>   confidence in the judgement, which e SHALL do in a timely fashion.
>
>   For this decision, the vote collector is the Arbitor and the valid
>   options are AFFIRM, REMAND, and REMIT. When the decision is
>   resolved, the effect depends on the outcome:
>
>   - AFFIRM, FAILED QUORUM: The judgement is reassigned to the case,
> and cannot be entered into Moot again.
>
>   - REMAND: The case becomes open again.
>
>   - REMIT: The case becomes open again, and the current judge is
> recused. The Arbitor SHALL NOT assign em to the case again
> unless no other eligible judges have displayed interest in
> judging.
> }
>
> --
> nix
> Arbitor, Spendor
>
>
Ah, but that requires me becoming a player! Not at this time, trixy trixy
nixy!

-- 
4ˢᵗ

Uncertified Bad Idea Generator

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 4075 and 4076

[4st nomic via agora-discussion]

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 9:52 AM 4st nomic via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I object.
> Per Rule 2576 "Ownership", the asset goes into abeyance as soon as the
> owner is ambiguous.
> The owner becomes ambiguous at step 2, wherein we are not sure if ais523
> can take the asset due to the ensuing contradiction.
> Therefore, both CFJs should be FALSE, as neither party can cash a promise
> that is in abeyance.
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 3:39 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > Attempted actions (#2 through #5 were all in the same message):
> >
> >1) ais523 grants Promise Q to the Library.
> >2) ais523 takes Promise Q from the Library per R2618 "Any player CAN".
> >3) ais523 transfers Promise Q to Yachay.
> >4) ais523 takes Promise Q from the Library per R2618 "Any player CAN".
> >5) ais523 cashes Promise Q.
>

(On the grounds of "Ship of Theseus" problem, wherein, the radiance stone
had some qualities changed and the owner thereby became ambiguous, SHOULD
have also gone straight into abeyance as the owner was equally ambiguous.)

-- 
4ˢᵗ

Uncertified Bad Idea Generator

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[juan via agora-discussion]

Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2024-04-23 00:59]:
> On 4/23/24 00:55, mqyhlkahu via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Janet (randomnetcat) responded to our Declaration of Intent to Push the
> > Boulder[1] with the following[2]:
> >
> >> this is *very* close to accidentally being a tabled intent under R1728 
> >> rather
> >> than actually pushing the bolder.
> > To our understanding, our action is not a Tabled Action[3] because the 
> > Rules do
> > not "purport to authorise its performance"[4] by one of [5].  Is our
> > understanding correct?
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> >
> >[1]  
> > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2024-April/052927.html
> >
> >[2]  
> > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2024-April/064058.html
> >
> >[3]  Rule 1728/46 (Power=3)
> >
> >[4]  {{{
> >   >   An action is a Tabled Action if the Rules purport to 
> > authorize its
> >   >   performance via one of the following methods:
> >   >   [- snip [5] -]
> >   >   [- snip -]
> >   >   A person, acting as emself, CAN by announcement table an 
> > intent
> >   >   (syn.  "intend") to perform a tabled action, clearly,
> >   >   conspicuously, explicitly, and without obfuscation specifying 
> > the
> >   >   action, the method (including non-default parameter values), 
> > and,
> >   >   optionally, conditions.
> >}}} [3]
> >
> >[5]  {{{
> >   >   * With N Support, where N is a positive integer.
> >   >   * Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer.
> >   >   * With N Agoran Consent, where N is a positive integer 
> > multiple of
> >   > 0.1.
> >   >   * With T notice, where T is a time period.
> >}}} [3]
> >
> 
> Ah, yes, good point. I did forget that requirement. So it wouldn't be a
> successful tabled intent. However, to my mind, "We intend to push the
> boulder." would likely be held as failing to push the boulder, as the
> intent to do so "by sending the message" isn't clear and unambiguous
> (R478), since that's the normal form for setting up a tabled intent for
> later, even if that isn't actually possible.
> 
> (As usual, I'm merely guessing how a judge would rule, but that's
> certainly how I would rule.)
> 
> I still think your original message isn't quite that, but it's close.

I honestly don't consider the original message as a boulder push (and
do realize that I'm considerably leniant on that front). I won't record
it. On the plus side, it's a great chance for mqyhlkahu to interact with
the CFJ system.

-- 
juan
Absurdor

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 4/23/24 00:55, mqyhlkahu via agora-discussion wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Janet (randomnetcat) responded to our Declaration of Intent to Push the
> Boulder[1] with the following[2]:
>
>> this is *very* close to accidentally being a tabled intent under R1728 rather
>> than actually pushing the bolder.
> To our understanding, our action is not a Tabled Action[3] because the Rules 
> do
> not "purport to authorise its performance"[4] by one of [5].  Is our
> understanding correct?
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>[1]  
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2024-April/052927.html
>
>[2]  
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2024-April/064058.html
>
>[3]  Rule 1728/46 (Power=3)
>
>[4]  {{{
>   >   An action is a Tabled Action if the Rules purport to authorize 
> its
>   >   performance via one of the following methods:
>   >   [- snip [5] -]
>   >   [- snip -]
>   >   A person, acting as emself, CAN by announcement table an intent
>   >   (syn.  "intend") to perform a tabled action, clearly,
>   >   conspicuously, explicitly, and without obfuscation specifying 
> the
>   >   action, the method (including non-default parameter values), 
> and,
>   >   optionally, conditions.
>}}} [3]
>
>[5]  {{{
>   >   * With N Support, where N is a positive integer.
>   >   * Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer.
>   >   * With N Agoran Consent, where N is a positive integer multiple 
> of
>   > 0.1.
>   >   * With T notice, where T is a time period.
>}}} [3]
>

Ah, yes, good point. I did forget that requirement. So it wouldn't be a
successful tabled intent. However, to my mind, "We intend to push the
boulder." would likely be held as failing to push the boulder, as the
intent to do so "by sending the message" isn't clear and unambiguous
(R478), since that's the normal form for setting up a tabled intent for
later, even if that isn't actually possible.

(As usual, I'm merely guessing how a judge would rule, but that's
certainly how I would rule.)

I still think your original message isn't quite that, but it's close.

-- 
Janet Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[mqyhlkahu via agora-discussion]

Hello,

Janet (randomnetcat) responded to our Declaration of Intent to Push the
Boulder[1] with the following[2]:

> this is *very* close to accidentally being a tabled intent under R1728 rather
> than actually pushing the bolder.

To our understanding, our action is not a Tabled Action[3] because the Rules do
not "purport to authorise its performance"[4] by one of [5].  Is our
understanding correct?

Thank you.


   [1]  
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2024-April/052927.html

   [2]  
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2024-April/064058.html

   [3]  Rule 1728/46 (Power=3)

   [4]  {{{
  >   An action is a Tabled Action if the Rules purport to authorize its
  >   performance via one of the following methods:
  >   [- snip [5] -]
  >   [- snip -]
  >   A person, acting as emself, CAN by announcement table an intent
  >   (syn.  "intend") to perform a tabled action, clearly,
  >   conspicuously, explicitly, and without obfuscation specifying the
  >   action, the method (including non-default parameter values), and,
  >   optionally, conditions.
   }}} [3]

   [5]  {{{
  >   * With N Support, where N is a positive integer.
  >   * Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer.
  >   * With N Agoran Consent, where N is a positive integer multiple of
  > 0.1.
  >   * With T notice, where T is a time period.
   }}} [3]



After all, you can cut the flowers, but the weather is everywhere.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No Overpowered Deputizations

[secretsnail9 via agora-discussion]

On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 9:08 PM Jaff via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I will point out that there are multiple ways to take actions of an office
> without holding it which this wouldn't cover, such as delegation. I think a
> safer fix would be preventing a player who holds an office from taking
> actions corresponding to another office such that holding both would make
> them Overpowered.
>

Being able to take actions as another officer without holding the office is
useful, though, especially in some edge cases. Being unable to resolve
proposals because you're the promotor seems more dangerous than allowing it
only by temporary deputization, which already has some strict requirements.
Delegation may need another look, though, since it can be done with just
the consent of the delegating office and 1 other party, but it also has the
safeguard of being overwritten with agoran consent. Offices can also in
general be impeached with 2 Agoran consent, in case anyone abuses
delegation or deputization. This at least prevents becoming overpowered by
deputization, which most likely would happen by accident and could cause
other problems.
--
snail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9096-9101

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 4/21/24 22:43, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
>> Spending Stone: As the Stonemason, I don't want to incentivize massive
>> numbers of wieldings in the same message because that increases my
>> workload.
>>
> This one doesn't make sense, the stones would probably be wielded anyways,
> and this would just make it more likely it'd be done in the same message
> instead of seperate ones, which seems like less or equal work.


I think I disagree with that premise. This would encourage wielding
stones to no or minimal effect (e.g. the Blank Stone), which would
otherwise go unwielded, and that does increase my workload.

-- 
Janet Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9096-9101

[secretsnail9 via agora-discussion]

On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 9:10 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 4/21/24 18:04, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 3:12 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >>> 9099~   snail   2.0   Quantum Superstone
> >> AGAINST
> >>
> >>
> >>> 9100~   snail   2.0   Spending Stone
> >> AGAINST
> >>
> >>
> >>> 9101~   snail   2.0   Unstable Stone
> >> AGAINST
> >>
> >> --
> >> Janet Cobb
> >>
> >> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
> >>
> > Why no stones?
> > --
> > snail
>
>
> Quantum Superstone: A nightmare to track.
>
It wouldn't be THAT bad i think, but alright.


>
> Unstable Stone: I remain opposed to crystals and extending them into
> other areas of the game.
>
> Spending Stone: As the Stonemason, I don't want to incentivize massive
> numbers of wieldings in the same message because that increases my
> workload.
>

This one doesn't make sense, the stones would probably be wielded anyways,
and this would just make it more likely it'd be done in the same message
instead of seperate ones, which seems like less or equal work.
--
snail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Collector] (@Illuminator) Stamp Raffle Results (THE GREAT STAMP HEIST)

[secretsnail9 via agora-discussion]

On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 7:41 PM Matt Smyth via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> And at what point in the rules does it say when you are able to close
> registration for the raffle? The emails seem to show that you started,
> registered, then closed the raffle within about ten minutes. Surely there's
> something to prevent this from happening?
>
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, 10:37 am secretsnail9 via agora-discussion, <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 7:06 PM Matt Smyth via agora-discussion <
> > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, 10:04 am secretsnail9 via agora-business, <
> > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I temporarily deputize as Collector to publish the following Raffle
> > > Result.
> > > >
> > > > Raffle Participants:
> > > > snail
> > > >
> > > > Raffle Winner:
> > > > snail
> > > > --
> > > > snail
> > > >
> > > So you collected your own stamp?
> > > ___
> > > Juniper
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > I got every stamp owned by Agora, which is a lot more than just 1 stamp i
> > think. Getting together the collector's report now (just gonna deputize
> > again).
> > --
> > snail
> >
>

Here's the full Rule:

Rule 2687/0 (Power=1.0)
The Stamp Raffle

  Once per week, each player CAN enter the raffle by paying a fee of
  1 stamp of eir own type to Agora.

  Once each week, the Collector CAN and SHALL publish a Raffle
  Result by announcement, containing a list of players that entered
  the raffle in the previous week (the participants of the raffle)
  and the selection of a random player from that list (the winner of
  the raffle) if it is not empty.

  When a Raffle Result is published, each stamp that was owned by
  Agora at the start of the current week is transferred to the
  winner of the raffle (if there is one), and each participant of
  the raffle gains 1 radiance.


The key here is that raffle results went unpublished, leaving stamps in the
possession of Agora. Murphy, ais523, wunst, and Quadrantal all entered the
raffle one week, and then the next week there was no raffle result, so the
stamps they paid rolled over to the next raffle. Since i was the only
participant last week, I could claim all the prizes this week, since all
the stamps were technically owned by Agora at the start of this week.
--
snail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: An Overpowering Proposal

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 4/21/24 20:11, Matt Smyth via agora-discussion wrote:
> I edit the proposal as such:
>
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, 9:41 am Matt Smyth via agora-business, <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> {{{
>> Title: An Overpowering Proposal
>> Adoption Index: 1.0
>> Author: juniper
>> Co-authors:
>>
>>
>> Amend Rule 2472 (Office Incompatibilities) by appending
>>
>> {
>> If, at least three days after becoming Overpowered, a player is still
>> Overpowered,
>> and e was Overpowered for all of those days, then the player can
>> declare a Dictatorship, and declare emself a Dictator
>>
> by making an announcement which includes the text "I declare a
> Dictatorship" and proof the criteria for Dictatorship was met three days
> ago. If there is insufficient evidence, the player attempting to be
> Dictator loses voting rights for twenty-three hours and fifty-nine minutes
> from the time they declared a Dictatorship.
>
>> }
>>
>> }}}
>>
>>
>> I submit the following proposal, enacted only if An Overpowering Proposal
>> is enacted:
>>
>> {{{
>> Title: Dictator Takes the Quorum
>> Adoption Index: 1.0
>> Author: juniper
>> Co-authors:
>>
>> Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by appending
>>
>> {
>> If there is currently a player who is a Dictator, eir vote counts as one
>> less than the current Quorum
>>
> multiplied by the default voting strength.
>
>> }
>>
>> }}}
>> --
>> Juniper
>>

Proposals cannot be edited, only withdrawn and resubmitted.

Also, in any case, this was to DIS, and game actions must be sent to a
public forum, typically BUS.

-- 
Janet Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9096-9101

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 4/21/24 18:04, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 3:12 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>>> 9099~   snail   2.0   Quantum Superstone
>> AGAINST
>>
>>
>>> 9100~   snail   2.0   Spending Stone
>> AGAINST
>>
>>
>>> 9101~   snail   2.0   Unstable Stone
>> AGAINST
>>
>> --
>> Janet Cobb
>>
>> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>>
> Why no stones?
> --
> snail


Quantum Superstone: A nightmare to track.

Unstable Stone: I remain opposed to crystals and extending them into
other areas of the game.

Spending Stone: As the Stonemason, I don't want to incentivize massive
numbers of wieldings in the same message because that increases my workload.

-- 
Janet Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Collector] (@Illuminator) Stamp Raffle Results (THE GREAT STAMP HEIST)

[Matt Smyth via agora-discussion]

And at what point in the rules does it say when you are able to close
registration for the raffle? The emails seem to show that you started,
registered, then closed the raffle within about ten minutes. Surely there's
something to prevent this from happening?

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, 10:37 am secretsnail9 via agora-discussion, <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 7:06 PM Matt Smyth via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, 10:04 am secretsnail9 via agora-business, <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I temporarily deputize as Collector to publish the following Raffle
> > Result.
> > >
> > > Raffle Participants:
> > > snail
> > >
> > > Raffle Winner:
> > > snail
> > > --
> > > snail
> > >
> > So you collected your own stamp?
> > ___
> > Juniper
> >
> > >
> >
>
> I got every stamp owned by Agora, which is a lot more than just 1 stamp i
> think. Getting together the collector's report now (just gonna deputize
> again).
> --
> snail
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Collector] (@Illuminator) Stamp Raffle Results (THE GREAT STAMP HEIST)

[secretsnail9 via agora-discussion]

On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 7:06 PM Matt Smyth via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, 10:04 am secretsnail9 via agora-business, <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I temporarily deputize as Collector to publish the following Raffle
> Result.
> >
> > Raffle Participants:
> > snail
> >
> > Raffle Winner:
> > snail
> > --
> > snail
> >
> So you collected your own stamp?
> ___
> Juniper
>
> >
>

I got every stamp owned by Agora, which is a lot more than just 1 stamp i
think. Getting together the collector's report now (just gonna deputize
again).
--
snail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: An Overpowering Proposal

[Matt Smyth via agora-discussion]

I'll modify the proposal

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, 10:05 am Matt Smyth,  wrote:

> My idea was quorum-minus-one times default voting, so that it takes e.g.
> if there were eleven voters then dictator would count as 5 votes (or voting
> strength, etc.) if one person has one vote. This means it requires the
> Dictator and one player to vote the same way for a proposal to pass.
>
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, 9:59 am secretsnail9 via agora-discussion, <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 6:41 PM Matt Smyth via agora-business <
>> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>>
>> > I submit the following proposal:
>> >
>> > {{{
>> > Title: An Overpowering Proposal
>> > Adoption Index: 1.0
>> > Author: juniper
>> > Co-authors:
>> >
>> >
>> > Amend Rule 2472 (Office Incompatibilities) by appending
>> >
>> > {
>> > If, three days after becoming Overpowered, a player is still
>> Overpowered,
>> > and e was Overpowered for all of those three days, then the player can
>> > declare a Dictatorship, and declare emself a Dictator.
>> > }
>> >
>>
>> This doesn't have a method for becoming dictator (by announcement, for
>> example) and only allows it at a single instant, exactly 3 days after
>> being
>> overpowered.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > }}}
>> >
>> >
>> > I submit the following proposal, enacted only if An Overpowering
>> Proposal
>> > is enacted:
>> >
>> > {{{
>> > Title: Dictator Takes the Quorum
>> > Adoption Index: 1.0
>> > Author: juniper
>> > Co-authors:
>> >
>> > Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by appending
>> >
>> > {
>> > If there is currently a player who is a Dictator, eir vote counts as one
>> > less than the current Quorum.
>> > }
>> >
>> > }}}
>> > --
>> > Juniper
>> >
>>
>> how does ones vote count as... 6... 6 what? we have voting strength, that
>> could work. it's default of 3, though, so this isnt too powerful.
>>
>> --
>> snail
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: An Overpowering Proposal

[Matt Smyth via agora-discussion]

My idea was quorum-minus-one times default voting, so that it takes e.g. if
there were eleven voters then dictator would count as 5 votes (or voting
strength, etc.) if one person has one vote. This means it requires the
Dictator and one player to vote the same way for a proposal to pass.

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, 9:59 am secretsnail9 via agora-discussion, <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 6:41 PM Matt Smyth via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I submit the following proposal:
> >
> > {{{
> > Title: An Overpowering Proposal
> > Adoption Index: 1.0
> > Author: juniper
> > Co-authors:
> >
> >
> > Amend Rule 2472 (Office Incompatibilities) by appending
> >
> > {
> > If, three days after becoming Overpowered, a player is still Overpowered,
> > and e was Overpowered for all of those three days, then the player can
> > declare a Dictatorship, and declare emself a Dictator.
> > }
> >
>
> This doesn't have a method for becoming dictator (by announcement, for
> example) and only allows it at a single instant, exactly 3 days after being
> overpowered.
>
>
> >
> > }}}
> >
> >
> > I submit the following proposal, enacted only if An Overpowering Proposal
> > is enacted:
> >
> > {{{
> > Title: Dictator Takes the Quorum
> > Adoption Index: 1.0
> > Author: juniper
> > Co-authors:
> >
> > Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by appending
> >
> > {
> > If there is currently a player who is a Dictator, eir vote counts as one
> > less than the current Quorum.
> > }
> >
> > }}}
> > --
> > Juniper
> >
>
> how does ones vote count as... 6... 6 what? we have voting strength, that
> could work. it's default of 3, though, so this isnt too powerful.
>
> --
> snail
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9087-9095

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 4/18/24 08:26, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> I think crystal poaching is fine: it's competitive teamwork! I've poached
> Janet for example. Perhaps coauthors need to be rewarded also?


I mean, I wasn't thrilled by that. I think it's reasonable to want to
reap the rewards from your own work, both economic and historical (I am
proud of how often my name appears in the FLR, and it represents a lot
of time and effort).

-- 
Janet Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9087-9095

[4st nomic via agora-discussion]

I think crystal poaching is fine: it's competitive teamwork! I've poached
Janet for example. Perhaps coauthors need to be rewarded also?

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024, 11:01 PM secretsnail9 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
> > 9094~   snail, R. Lee   1.0   More instability with a hyphen
> > PRESENT, but I'm quite peeved - it would have been polite to let me know
> > about the error so I could correct it instead of submitting your own
> > proposal and getting the crystal benefits therefrom.
>
> The trouble with this is i'm the promotor, and i'd also like proposals to
> be distributed quickly to keep the game moving. So if I pointed out the
> error, i'd still have to distribute the proposal anyways, plus then it'd be
> another week until the next distribution (unless i did it immediately which
> would be rude to the Assessor).
>
> I'll try and message people on discord first if this situation comes up
> again, though, since then there's a chance for a quick fix. And it likely
> will since i usually read the proposals deeply only when i distribute them.
> Should probably change that too...
> --
> snail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Deregistration attempts

[4st nomic via agora-discussion]

Deregistering players, fine
But insisting on being a player but not doing much is a little confusing to
me

On Tue, Apr 16, 2024, 6:22 AM juan via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> 4st nomic via agora-discussion [2024-04-15 21:57]:
> > I'm confused about the reasoning behind doing this...?
>
> What part of it?
>
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024, 1:17 PM Rose Strong via agora-business <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I activate myself.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024, 4:03 PM juan  wrote:
> > >
> > > > As per rule 2646, for each of the following players, who have been
> > > > inactive since 2024-02-12, I intend, without 3 objections, to
> deregister
> > > > em.
> > > >
> > > > * cuddlybanana
> > > > * blob
> > > > * Anneke-Constantine
> > > > * Zipzap
> > > > * Crystalizedmire
> > > > * Goren Barak
> > > >
> > > > Note that they have been CC'd.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > juan
> > > > Registrar
> > > >
> > >
>
> --
> juan
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Deregistration attempts

[juan via agora-discussion]

4st nomic via agora-discussion [2024-04-15 21:57]:
> I'm confused about the reasoning behind doing this...?

What part of it?

> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024, 1:17 PM Rose Strong via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> 
> > I activate myself.
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024, 4:03 PM juan  wrote:
> >
> > > As per rule 2646, for each of the following players, who have been
> > > inactive since 2024-02-12, I intend, without 3 objections, to deregister
> > > em.
> > >
> > > * cuddlybanana
> > > * blob
> > > * Anneke-Constantine
> > > * Zipzap
> > > * Crystalizedmire
> > > * Goren Barak
> > >
> > > Note that they have been CC'd.
> > >
> > > --
> > > juan
> > > Registrar
> > >
> >

-- 
juan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Civic Duty (Absurdor)

[Quadrantal via agora-discussion]

Hah! Even here, I'm not safe from linguistics; I suppose I brought þis 
on myself.


My limited knowledge of phonology would agree wiþ you, though I'm no 
expert. Unfortunately for linguistic accuracy, however, my use of þe 
þorn is mostly currently limited to replacements by an autohotkey 
script, for which analysis of context is pretty much out of þe question. 
Hmm... guess I have a new project!


On 2024-04-13 10:28 p.m., ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:

On Sat, 2024-04-13 at 22:11 -0400, Quadrantal via agora-business wrote:

I push þe boulder.

--

The above message shall be read, to the fullest extent possible, as if
it was sent with the digraph "th" in place of all occurrences of the
character thorn ("þ"), and such digraphs were capitalized equivalently.

Quadrantal

Isn't that "th" actually a ð rather than a þ? Admittedly they were
pretty much used interchangeably in Old English (and ð ended up dying
out even before þ did, and before the distinction was commonly made),
but when writing the "th" sounds using historical letters, it makes
sense to give the two different sounds two different letters.

(IPA confuses the matter by using ð and θ for the two sounds, rather
than ð and þ, but the latter pair were both historically used for "th"
sounds in English and are rather easier to type.)



--
The above message shall be read, to the fullest extent possible, as if it was sent with the digraph 
"th" in place of all occurrences of the character thorn ("þ"), and such 
digraphs were capitalized equivalently.

Quadrantal

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Cleaning R2578

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 4/8/24 18:42, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> I object
> The possessive and the plural are not typos


The full context:

> Amend R2578 to read in full:
>
> A fungible asset is one where two instances of it are considered
> equivalent if they have the same owner, for the purposes of
> specification, granting, and transferring. The total amount of a
> fungible asset that an entity owns is also know as that entities
> "balance" of that asset.


This is a correction to "grammar", as permitted in R2221.

-- 
Janet Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Cleaning R2578

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 4/8/24 18:45, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> I object on secondary grounds that rule 2578 "currencies" does not contain
> "entities"


It does as a result of a resolved proposal, I just noticed it while
working on the (unpublished) updated ruleset.

-- 
Janet Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: @Notary @ADoP Delegating for tailor

[wunst via agora-discussion]

O that's what "mature" means

Thank you very much

-wunst

On 04.04.24 20:11, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:

On 4/4/24 14:05, wunst via agora-discussion wrote:

I do so (1 and 2).

I award myself a Cyan ribbon.

@ais523 Thanks for the clarification

@Murphy Have a nice vacation


These both fail. "With Agoran consent" intents aren't resolvable for 4
days (you may be confusing it with "with support").

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4073 Judged TRUE by Yachay

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I do, sorry for the delay.

On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 5:47 PM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 3/19/24 16:06, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote:
> > That is a good point, I self-file a motion to reconsider.
>
> Do you intend to rejudge this yourself, or would you like it to be
> assigned to someone else?
>
> --
> nix
> Arbitor
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 4072 Judged TRUE

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 3/25/24 18:10, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 3/16/24 22:08, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> So, a potential point of disagreement here is what *exactly* this
>> standard is requiring. Importantly, I think it's unclear whether the
>> requirement for the "specification of the method" includes a requirement
>> for the specification to be labelled as the "specification of the method".
> Is there precedent for us requiring things to be labeled? The
> disclaimers for No Faking don't need to be labeled as disclaimed, for
> instance.
>
> I don't think it needs to be labeled, so I do think that's a potential
> scam currently (that could be easily rectified by improving the
> requirement, which we should do anyway).
>

If we had an action that required specifying two things, it'd have to be
clear which is which, at least? But it's true that for by announcement
actions we don't require a specific labeling if it's clear what the
overall action is (e.g. "I initiate CFJ on X" rather than "I initiate a
CFJ with statement X").

I think that's a justifiable reading, and given that I won't dispute it.
(But I still think we should work on ratifying everything anyway, which
I'll look into when I get a chance.)

-- 
Janet Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: yes, yes, I got the memo

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Mar 25, 2024, at 8:53 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> I suggest "un-noted" to prevent all instances of noting 1 infraction
> multiple times.

That doesn’t fix the original issue, as an infraction can be
investigated without being noted. And I don’t really think duplicate
notes are an issue, as investigating it discharges all the obligations
at once.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: yes, yes, I got the memo

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Mar 25, 2024, at 8:06 PM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> On 25/03/2024 19:13, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
>> Amend rule 2478 (“Justice”) by replacing: {
>>  A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
>>  committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
>>  incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
>>  it has one).
>> } with {
>>  A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
>>  committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
>>  incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
>>  it has one); but a player CANNOT note an infraction that has
>>  already been investigated.
>> }
> 
> Could this not more succinctly just be "...an unforgiven, uninvestigated
> infraction"? The rule is already quite long and hard to parse.
> 
> -Kate

Possibly - I started there, but wasn’t confident “uninvestigated”
was usable without a definition, and defining it would just make
things worse.

Could certainly be convinced otherwise; I don’t like this wording
either.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: yes, yes, I got the memo

[secretsnail9 via agora-discussion]

On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 3:07 PM Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 25/03/2024 19:13, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
> > Amend rule 2478 (“Justice”) by replacing: {
> >   A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
> >   committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
> >   incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
> >   it has one).
> > } with {
> >   A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
> >   committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
> >   incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
> >   it has one); but a player CANNOT note an infraction that has
> >   already been investigated.
> > }
>
> Could this not more succinctly just be "...an unforgiven, uninvestigated
> infraction"? The rule is already quite long and hard to parse.
>
> -Kate


I suggest "un-noted" to prevent all instances of noting 1 infraction
multiple times.
--
snail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Revised Resolution of Proposals 9068-9069

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 3/24/24 17:56, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:
> Well, I for one am confused. What was this even /intended/ to do? It
> appears to fail to resolve anything, due to ambiguity. Or was it
> intended as "I already published a corrected resolution, now I'm
> just quoting said correction in response to the CoE"?


Yes, the latter. I originally published the revision while forgetting to
quote the CoE.

-- 
Janet Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: one from the archives

[Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion]

On 24/03/2024 12:44, Gaealn Steele via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On Mar 24, 2024, at 12:21 PM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion 
>>  wrote:
>> hmm... the "Optionally" removes any obligation, but does mean that if
>> there are any documents the Archivist deems worthy of archival (even
>> non-Agoran documents!) but doesn't include, the option has not been
>> taken and any documents the Archivist does include are not part of the
>> report even if they may happen to be part of the same message
>>
>> which I don't think affects anything because the report doesn't
>> self-ratify but feels untidy
> 
> Ah, yeah, good catch - starting to see the appeal of your suggested
> wording (“chooses and deems…”)!
> 
> Probably worth patching afterwards, but not worth withdrawing the
> proposal over?

Agree - could even be part of the same distribution conditional on the
rule existing

-Kate

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: one from the archives

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Mar 24, 2024, at 12:21 PM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> On 24/03/2024 09:16, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:> *
> Optionally, any other documents the Archivist deems worthy
>>  of archival.
> 
> hmm... the "Optionally" removes any obligation, but does mean that if
> there are any documents the Archivist deems worthy of archival (even
> non-Agoran documents!) but doesn't include, the option has not been
> taken and any documents the Archivist does include are not part of the
> report even if they may happen to be part of the same message
> 
> which I don't think affects anything because the report doesn't
> self-ratify but feels untidy
> 
> -Kate

Ah, yeah, good catch - starting to see the appeal of your suggested
wording (“chooses and deems…”)!

Probably worth patching afterwards, but not worth withdrawing the
proposal over?

Gaealn

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Reconsidering 4069

[4st nomic via agora-discussion]

Ah. Then yes, I'd definitely refile the case.

On Sun, Mar 17, 2024, 10:38 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 3/18/24 01:14, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On 3/17/24 22:14, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> >> What evidence do you have that rule numbers and Id numbers are the same?
> >> Because arguing that this case is false has definitive disastrous
> effects,
> >> so is there another way to judge this case outside of those two options?
> >
> > The earliest FLR in the agora-official archives [0] describes "rule
> > numbers" with numbers that match today's ID numbers.
> >
> >
> > The following proposal [1] uses "rule number" in its title and "ID
> > number" in its text:
> >
> >> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
> >>
> >> Proposal 5115 (Democratic, AI=3, Disinterested) by Zefram
> >> restore enforcement of rule number stability
> >>
> >> Amend rule 2141 by replacing the paragraph
> >>
> >>   Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor.
> >>
> >> with
> >>
> >>   Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor.  A rule
> >>   CANNOT have the same ID number as any other rule.  Once
> >>   assigned, a rule's ID number cannot be changed.
> >>
> >> [This only applies if P5110 "Regulate ID numbers" generalised the
> >> assignment of ID numbers.  The new rule "ID Numbers" says that ID
> >> numbers must be distinct and can't be changed, but that's only at
> >> power=2.  For rules, especially with ID numbers being used to
> >> determine precedence, these things should be enforced at power=3.  The
> >> detailed procedure for ID number selection and assignment remains
> >> separate in the "ID Numbers" rule.]
> >>
> >> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
> >
> > CFJ 1876 [2] uses "rule number" while the contemporary ruleset [3] uses
> > "ID number". This is not commented upon. See also CFJ 2513.
> >
> >
> > The following proposal (never distributed?) [4] uses "rule number" to
> > describe what the contemporary ruleset [5] calls "ID numbers" (and even
> > uses it to describe the specific ID numbers in question):
> >
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Title: Sudden Death
> >> Author: G.
> >> AI: 1.0
> >> II: 1
> >> Chamber: Green
> >>
> >> [A bonus temporary win condition that only two people should ever
> >> be able to achieve.  Start your engines!]
> >>
> >> Create the following rule, Sudden Death.
> >>
> >>  The next player who wins the game by Renaissance simultaneously
> >>  wins the game by satisfying the winning condition IN OVERTIME,
> >>  provided no other player won the game by Renaissance in the
> >>  same instant.
> >>
> >>  If a player has won the game by Renaissance since the creation
> >>  of this rule, the Herald CAN and SHALL, by announcement, cause
> >>  this rule to cause Rule 2199 to repeal itself.
> >>
> >>  The next player who wins the game by high score simultaneously
> >>  wins the game by satisfying the winning condition IN OVERTIME,
> >>  provided no other player won the game by high score in the
> >>  same instant.
> >>
> >>  If a player has won the game by High Score since the creation
> >>  of this rule, the Herald CAN and SHALL, by a single announcement,
> >>  cause this rule to cause Rules 2179, 2187, 2232, 2233, and 2234
> >>  to repeal themselves in order.
> >>
> >>  If none of the rules listed by rule number in the text of this
> >>  rule exist, the Herald CAN and SHALL, by announcement, cause
> >>  this rule to repeal itself.
> >>
> >> ---
> > The following proposal [6] uses "rule number" in its title and "ID
> > number" in its text:
> >
> >> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
> >>
> >> Proposal 6992 (Democratic, AI=3.0) by Murphy
> >> (coauth: omd)
> >> Fix rule numbers
> >>
> >> Ratify all rule ID numbers in the document purported to be the
> >> Short Logical Ruleset and published on or about Thu, 3 Mar 2011
> >> 14:40:44 -0500.
> >>
> >> Amend Rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability) by replacing "modify"
> >> with "set or modify".
> >>
> >> Amend Rule 2141 (Role and Attributes of Rules) by replacing this
> >> text:
> >>
> >>   Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor, and are
> >>   strictly ordered.
> >>
> >>   Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification.  If a
> >>   rule ever does not have a title, the Rulekeepor shall assign
> >>   a title to it by announcement as soon as possible.
> >>
> >>   For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,
> >>   the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all
> >>   substantive aspects of the rule.
> >>
> >> with this text:
> >>
> >>   Rules have ID numbers, to 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Reconsidering 4069

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 3/18/24 01:14, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 3/17/24 22:14, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
>> What evidence do you have that rule numbers and Id numbers are the same?
>> Because arguing that this case is false has definitive disastrous effects,
>> so is there another way to judge this case outside of those two options?
>
> The earliest FLR in the agora-official archives [0] describes "rule
> numbers" with numbers that match today's ID numbers.
>
>
> The following proposal [1] uses "rule number" in its title and "ID
> number" in its text:
>
>> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
>>
>> Proposal 5115 (Democratic, AI=3, Disinterested) by Zefram
>> restore enforcement of rule number stability
>>
>> Amend rule 2141 by replacing the paragraph
>>
>>   Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor.
>>
>> with
>>
>>   Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor.  A rule
>>   CANNOT have the same ID number as any other rule.  Once
>>   assigned, a rule's ID number cannot be changed.
>>
>> [This only applies if P5110 "Regulate ID numbers" generalised the
>> assignment of ID numbers.  The new rule "ID Numbers" says that ID
>> numbers must be distinct and can't be changed, but that's only at
>> power=2.  For rules, especially with ID numbers being used to
>> determine precedence, these things should be enforced at power=3.  The
>> detailed procedure for ID number selection and assignment remains
>> separate in the "ID Numbers" rule.]
>>
>> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
>
> CFJ 1876 [2] uses "rule number" while the contemporary ruleset [3] uses
> "ID number". This is not commented upon. See also CFJ 2513.
>
>
> The following proposal (never distributed?) [4] uses "rule number" to
> describe what the contemporary ruleset [5] calls "ID numbers" (and even
> uses it to describe the specific ID numbers in question):
>
>> ---
>>
>> Title: Sudden Death
>> Author: G.
>> AI: 1.0
>> II: 1
>> Chamber: Green
>>
>> [A bonus temporary win condition that only two people should ever
>> be able to achieve.  Start your engines!]
>>
>> Create the following rule, Sudden Death.
>>
>>  The next player who wins the game by Renaissance simultaneously
>>  wins the game by satisfying the winning condition IN OVERTIME,
>>  provided no other player won the game by Renaissance in the
>>  same instant.
>>
>>  If a player has won the game by Renaissance since the creation
>>  of this rule, the Herald CAN and SHALL, by announcement, cause
>>  this rule to cause Rule 2199 to repeal itself.
>>
>>  The next player who wins the game by high score simultaneously
>>  wins the game by satisfying the winning condition IN OVERTIME,
>>  provided no other player won the game by high score in the
>>  same instant.
>>
>>  If a player has won the game by High Score since the creation
>>  of this rule, the Herald CAN and SHALL, by a single announcement,
>>  cause this rule to cause Rules 2179, 2187, 2232, 2233, and 2234
>>  to repeal themselves in order.
>>
>>  If none of the rules listed by rule number in the text of this
>>  rule exist, the Herald CAN and SHALL, by announcement, cause
>>  this rule to repeal itself.
>>
>> ---
> The following proposal [6] uses "rule number" in its title and "ID
> number" in its text:
>
>> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
>>
>> Proposal 6992 (Democratic, AI=3.0) by Murphy
>> (coauth: omd)
>> Fix rule numbers
>>
>> Ratify all rule ID numbers in the document purported to be the
>> Short Logical Ruleset and published on or about Thu, 3 Mar 2011
>> 14:40:44 -0500.
>>
>> Amend Rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability) by replacing "modify"
>> with "set or modify".
>>
>> Amend Rule 2141 (Role and Attributes of Rules) by replacing this
>> text:
>>
>>   Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor, and are
>>   strictly ordered.
>>
>>   Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification.  If a
>>   rule ever does not have a title, the Rulekeepor shall assign
>>   a title to it by announcement as soon as possible.
>>
>>   For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,
>>   the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all
>>   substantive aspects of the rule.
>>
>> with this text:
>>
>>   Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor.
>>
>>   Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification.  If a
>>   rule ever does not have a title, the Rulekeepor SHALL assign
>>   a title to it by announcement as soon as possible.
>>
>>   For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,
>>   the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all
>>   

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Reconsidering 4069

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 3/17/24 22:14, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> What evidence do you have that rule numbers and Id numbers are the same?
> Because arguing that this case is false has definitive disastrous effects,
> so is there another way to judge this case outside of those two options?


The earliest FLR in the agora-official archives [0] describes "rule
numbers" with numbers that match today's ID numbers.


The following proposal [1] uses "rule number" in its title and "ID
number" in its text:

> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
>
> Proposal 5115 (Democratic, AI=3, Disinterested) by Zefram
> restore enforcement of rule number stability
>
> Amend rule 2141 by replacing the paragraph
>
>   Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor.
>
> with
>
>   Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor.  A rule
>   CANNOT have the same ID number as any other rule.  Once
>   assigned, a rule's ID number cannot be changed.
>
> [This only applies if P5110 "Regulate ID numbers" generalised the
> assignment of ID numbers.  The new rule "ID Numbers" says that ID
> numbers must be distinct and can't be changed, but that's only at
> power=2.  For rules, especially with ID numbers being used to
> determine precedence, these things should be enforced at power=3.  The
> detailed procedure for ID number selection and assignment remains
> separate in the "ID Numbers" rule.]
>
> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{


CFJ 1876 [2] uses "rule number" while the contemporary ruleset [3] uses
"ID number". This is not commented upon. See also CFJ 2513.


The following proposal (never distributed?) [4] uses "rule number" to
describe what the contemporary ruleset [5] calls "ID numbers" (and even
uses it to describe the specific ID numbers in question):

> ---
>
> Title: Sudden Death
> Author: G.
> AI: 1.0
> II: 1
> Chamber: Green
>
> [A bonus temporary win condition that only two people should ever
> be able to achieve.  Start your engines!]
>
> Create the following rule, Sudden Death.
>
>  The next player who wins the game by Renaissance simultaneously
>  wins the game by satisfying the winning condition IN OVERTIME,
>  provided no other player won the game by Renaissance in the
>  same instant.
>
>  If a player has won the game by Renaissance since the creation
>  of this rule, the Herald CAN and SHALL, by announcement, cause
>  this rule to cause Rule 2199 to repeal itself.
>
>  The next player who wins the game by high score simultaneously
>  wins the game by satisfying the winning condition IN OVERTIME,
>  provided no other player won the game by high score in the
>  same instant.
>
>  If a player has won the game by High Score since the creation
>  of this rule, the Herald CAN and SHALL, by a single announcement,
>  cause this rule to cause Rules 2179, 2187, 2232, 2233, and 2234
>  to repeal themselves in order.
>
>  If none of the rules listed by rule number in the text of this
>  rule exist, the Herald CAN and SHALL, by announcement, cause
>  this rule to repeal itself.
>
> ---

The following proposal [6] uses "rule number" in its title and "ID
number" in its text:

> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
>
> Proposal 6992 (Democratic, AI=3.0) by Murphy
> (coauth: omd)
> Fix rule numbers
>
> Ratify all rule ID numbers in the document purported to be the
> Short Logical Ruleset and published on or about Thu, 3 Mar 2011
> 14:40:44 -0500.
>
> Amend Rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability) by replacing "modify"
> with "set or modify".
>
> Amend Rule 2141 (Role and Attributes of Rules) by replacing this
> text:
>
>   Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor, and are
>   strictly ordered.
>
>   Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification.  If a
>   rule ever does not have a title, the Rulekeepor shall assign
>   a title to it by announcement as soon as possible.
>
>   For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,
>   the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all
>   substantive aspects of the rule.
>
> with this text:
>
>   Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor.
>
>   Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification.  If a
>   rule ever does not have a title, the Rulekeepor SHALL assign
>   a title to it by announcement as soon as possible.
>
>   For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,
>   the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all
>   substantive aspects of the rule.  However, rules to the contrary
>   notwithstanding, the Rulekeepor CAN set rule aspects as described
>   elsewhere in this rule.
>
>
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ah what the hell (Registrar, Dream Keeper)

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Mar 17, 2024, at 12:45 PM, Sarah S. via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 11:42 PM Sarah S. via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> 
>> I register, claim a welcome package, and dream of Wealth
>> 
> 
> Sorry, this is R. Lee
> 
> --
> R. Lee


Welcome back!

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 4072 Judged TRUE

[nix via agora-discussion]

On 3/16/24 14:58, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> One quick thought to add: I suspect one or two people will want to
> reconsider this. If they do, I strongly suggest they come up with
> compelling arguments for why this was missed by every CFJ on Rule 105,
> every Promotor, and every player in 10 years. It strikes me that the
> person saying "everyone but me is wrong" needs a damn good argument for
> how that could occur.

To be clear I don't mean this as a slight at anyone, and I probably
typed it a little loose and fast here. A better way to say it might be
that "ten years of tradition is wrong" is an extraordinary claim, and it
needs extraordinary evidence for why that would occur, beyond a
different interpretation of the text.

-- 
nix

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] New Arbitor in Town @kiako @Kate @Yachay @ais523 @Janet @Murphy

[Edward Murphy via agora-discussion]

snail wrote:


On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 6:03 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:


On 3/10/24 19:01, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:

On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 5:45 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:


On Sun, 2024-03-10 at 15:38 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion
wrote:

If so, and if Kate indeed gained five Ribbons on 2023-08-31, and no
one else gained as many, then:
* Only Kate's vote counted on any proposal resolved after 230.
* Only Kate's support counted on any tabled action resolved after
230.
which should have been enough for eir dictatorship to become
effective.

What was quorum? If it ever got low enough for that to work, then there
is something badly broken with the quorum rules and we need to revise
them.

--
ais523


from Rule 2481 (Festival Restrictions) Power 3.1:

{
  While Agora's Festivity is nonzero, the following apply:



   2. Quorum for Agoran Decisions is equal to half the number of
  Festive players, rounded up;

}

Quorum was 1 if Festivity was 5, since Kate would be the only Festive
player. Except!

Rule 879/40 (Power=3)
Quorum

   Each Agoran decision has a quorum. This is a number set when the
   decision is created, and thereafter cannot be changed. When a
   person initiates an Agoran decision, that person SHALL state the
   quorum of that decision. However, incorrectly stating the quorum
   of a decision does not invalidate the initiation, nor does it
   actually change the quorum of the decision.

   The quorum that an Agoran decision gains as it is created can be
   defined by other rules of power 2 or greater. If no other rule
   defines the quorum of an Agoran decision, the quorum for that
   decision is equal to 2/3 of the number of voters on the referendum
   that had been most recently resolved at the time of that
   decision's initiation, the whole rounded to the nearest integer.

   As an exception to the previous paragraph, the minimum quorum of
   an Agoran decision is 2, or 1 if there are fewer than 2 players in
   the game. If the rules would attempt to set the quorum of an
   Agoran decision to less than the minimum quorum, it is set to the
   minimum instead.


It seems like because of Rule 879, Rule 2481 attempts to set quorum as 1,
but then it is set to 2 instead. This means if festivity was 5, all
distributions initiated would fail quorum.


Incidentally, no, because R2481 takes precedence over R879.


--
snail



A voter is voting strength 0 still counts for quorum purposes.

--
Janet Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason



Oh. Well that's silly, scammable, and we should probably change it. Players
"voting" but having no effect on the decisions besides quorum doesn't
really seem right. In real agora this could lead to just 1 person having a
say whether a proposal passes or fails.


Except:

  a) If there are fewer than 5 Festive players, any player CAN flip
 Festivity to 0 by announcement (R2480). Kate's scam depended on eir
 opponents not noticing the Festival until after eir dictatorship
 was already in place.

  b) As (I think) Kate pointed out when the scam was first revealed,
 in real Agora there are several high-Laudability players, so a
 Festivity scam would require buying off enough of them (or somehow
 tampering with Laudability). Kate's scam also depended on this not
 being the case in Agoran't.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] New Arbitor in Town @kiako @Kate @Yachay @ais523 @Janet @Murphy

[secretsnail9 via agora-discussion]

On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 6:03 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 3/10/24 19:01, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 5:45 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
> > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 2024-03-10 at 15:38 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion
> >> wrote:
> >>> If so, and if Kate indeed gained five Ribbons on 2023-08-31, and no
> >>> one else gained as many, then:
> >>>* Only Kate's vote counted on any proposal resolved after 230.
> >>>* Only Kate's support counted on any tabled action resolved after
> >>> 230.
> >>> which should have been enough for eir dictatorship to become
> >>> effective.
> >> What was quorum? If it ever got low enough for that to work, then there
> >> is something badly broken with the quorum rules and we need to revise
> >> them.
> >>
> >> --
> >> ais523
> >>
> > from Rule 2481 (Festival Restrictions) Power 3.1:
> >
> > {
> >  While Agora's Festivity is nonzero, the following apply:
> >
> > 
> >
> >   2. Quorum for Agoran Decisions is equal to half the number of
> >  Festive players, rounded up;
> >
> > }
> >
> > Quorum was 1 if Festivity was 5, since Kate would be the only Festive
> > player. Except!
> >
> > Rule 879/40 (Power=3)
> > Quorum
> >
> >   Each Agoran decision has a quorum. This is a number set when the
> >   decision is created, and thereafter cannot be changed. When a
> >   person initiates an Agoran decision, that person SHALL state the
> >   quorum of that decision. However, incorrectly stating the quorum
> >   of a decision does not invalidate the initiation, nor does it
> >   actually change the quorum of the decision.
> >
> >   The quorum that an Agoran decision gains as it is created can be
> >   defined by other rules of power 2 or greater. If no other rule
> >   defines the quorum of an Agoran decision, the quorum for that
> >   decision is equal to 2/3 of the number of voters on the referendum
> >   that had been most recently resolved at the time of that
> >   decision's initiation, the whole rounded to the nearest integer.
> >
> >   As an exception to the previous paragraph, the minimum quorum of
> >   an Agoran decision is 2, or 1 if there are fewer than 2 players in
> >   the game. If the rules would attempt to set the quorum of an
> >   Agoran decision to less than the minimum quorum, it is set to the
> >   minimum instead.
> >
> >
> > It seems like because of Rule 879, Rule 2481 attempts to set quorum as 1,
> > but then it is set to 2 instead. This means if festivity was 5, all
> > distributions initiated would fail quorum.
> >
> > --
> > snail
>
>
> A voter is voting strength 0 still counts for quorum purposes.
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>
Oh. Well that's silly, scammable, and we should probably change it. Players
"voting" but having no effect on the decisions besides quorum doesn't
really seem right. In real agora this could lead to just 1 person having a
say whether a proposal passes or fails.
--
snail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] New Arbitor in Town @kiako @Kate @Yachay @ais523 @Janet @Murphy

[ais523 via agora-discussion]

On Sun, 2024-03-10 at 18:01 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion
wrote:
> from Rule 2481 (Festival Restrictions) Power 3.1:
> 
> {
>  While Agora's Festivity is nonzero, the following apply:
> ...
> 
>   2. Quorum for Agoran Decisions is equal to half the number of
>  Festive players, rounded up;
> 
> }
> 
> Quorum was 1 if Festivity was 5, since Kate would be the only Festive
> player. Except!

I think that the underlying problem/bug here is "the Festivity
mechanism is intended to ensure that there are always at least 5
Festive players during a Festival, and the Festivity rules assume that;
but if Festivity is set via a mechanism other than that in rule 2480,
it is possible to end up with fewer Festive players than that".

Presumably the fix is to add a failsafe that platonically turns off
some of the Festival restrictions if there are insufficiently many
Festive players (either directly or by platonically changing the
Festivity back down).

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] New Arbitor in Town @kiako @Kate @Yachay @ais523 @Janet @Murphy

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 3/10/24 19:01, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 5:45 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2024-03-10 at 15:38 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion
>> wrote:
>>> If so, and if Kate indeed gained five Ribbons on 2023-08-31, and no
>>> one else gained as many, then:
>>>* Only Kate's vote counted on any proposal resolved after 230.
>>>* Only Kate's support counted on any tabled action resolved after
>>> 230.
>>> which should have been enough for eir dictatorship to become
>>> effective.
>> What was quorum? If it ever got low enough for that to work, then there
>> is something badly broken with the quorum rules and we need to revise
>> them.
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>>
> from Rule 2481 (Festival Restrictions) Power 3.1:
>
> {
>  While Agora's Festivity is nonzero, the following apply:
>
> 
>
>   2. Quorum for Agoran Decisions is equal to half the number of
>  Festive players, rounded up;
>
> }
>
> Quorum was 1 if Festivity was 5, since Kate would be the only Festive
> player. Except!
>
> Rule 879/40 (Power=3)
> Quorum
>
>   Each Agoran decision has a quorum. This is a number set when the
>   decision is created, and thereafter cannot be changed. When a
>   person initiates an Agoran decision, that person SHALL state the
>   quorum of that decision. However, incorrectly stating the quorum
>   of a decision does not invalidate the initiation, nor does it
>   actually change the quorum of the decision.
>
>   The quorum that an Agoran decision gains as it is created can be
>   defined by other rules of power 2 or greater. If no other rule
>   defines the quorum of an Agoran decision, the quorum for that
>   decision is equal to 2/3 of the number of voters on the referendum
>   that had been most recently resolved at the time of that
>   decision's initiation, the whole rounded to the nearest integer.
>
>   As an exception to the previous paragraph, the minimum quorum of
>   an Agoran decision is 2, or 1 if there are fewer than 2 players in
>   the game. If the rules would attempt to set the quorum of an
>   Agoran decision to less than the minimum quorum, it is set to the
>   minimum instead.
>
>
> It seems like because of Rule 879, Rule 2481 attempts to set quorum as 1,
> but then it is set to 2 instead. This means if festivity was 5, all
> distributions initiated would fail quorum.
>
> --
> snail


A voter is voting strength 0 still counts for quorum purposes.

-- 
Janet Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] New Arbitor in Town @kiako @Kate @Yachay @ais523 @Janet @Murphy

[secretsnail9 via agora-discussion]

On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 5:45 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 2024-03-10 at 15:38 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > If so, and if Kate indeed gained five Ribbons on 2023-08-31, and no
> > one else gained as many, then:
> >* Only Kate's vote counted on any proposal resolved after 230.
> >* Only Kate's support counted on any tabled action resolved after
> > 230.
> > which should have been enough for eir dictatorship to become
> > effective.
>
> What was quorum? If it ever got low enough for that to work, then there
> is something badly broken with the quorum rules and we need to revise
> them.
>
> --
> ais523
>

from Rule 2481 (Festival Restrictions) Power 3.1:

{
 While Agora's Festivity is nonzero, the following apply:



  2. Quorum for Agoran Decisions is equal to half the number of
 Festive players, rounded up;

}

Quorum was 1 if Festivity was 5, since Kate would be the only Festive
player. Except!

Rule 879/40 (Power=3)
Quorum

  Each Agoran decision has a quorum. This is a number set when the
  decision is created, and thereafter cannot be changed. When a
  person initiates an Agoran decision, that person SHALL state the
  quorum of that decision. However, incorrectly stating the quorum
  of a decision does not invalidate the initiation, nor does it
  actually change the quorum of the decision.

  The quorum that an Agoran decision gains as it is created can be
  defined by other rules of power 2 or greater. If no other rule
  defines the quorum of an Agoran decision, the quorum for that
  decision is equal to 2/3 of the number of voters on the referendum
  that had been most recently resolved at the time of that
  decision's initiation, the whole rounded to the nearest integer.

  As an exception to the previous paragraph, the minimum quorum of
  an Agoran decision is 2, or 1 if there are fewer than 2 players in
  the game. If the rules would attempt to set the quorum of an
  Agoran decision to less than the minimum quorum, it is set to the
  minimum instead.


It seems like because of Rule 879, Rule 2481 attempts to set quorum as 1,
but then it is set to 2 instead. This means if festivity was 5, all
distributions initiated would fail quorum.

--
snail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] New Arbitor in Town @kiako @Kate @Yachay @ais523 @Janet @Murphy

[ais523 via agora-discussion]

On Sun, 2024-03-10 at 15:38 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion
wrote:
> If so, and if Kate indeed gained five Ribbons on 2023-08-31, and no
> one else gained as many, then:
>    * Only Kate's vote counted on any proposal resolved after 230.
>    * Only Kate's support counted on any tabled action resolved after
> 230.
> which should have been enough for eir dictatorship to become
> effective.

What was quorum? If it ever got low enough for that to work, then there
is something badly broken with the quorum rules and we need to revise
them.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[ais523 via agora-discussion]

On Sun, 2024-03-10 at 12:46 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:
> Aris wrote:
> 
> > Erm... that CFJ doesn't do what you want it to. CFJs are supposed to be
> > statements, not questions, and interpreting something out of context is
> > different from interpreting it in context.
> 
> At one point we did legislate that, for CFJs asking yes/no questions, a
> judgement of TRUE/FALSE is appropriate if the answer is yes/no
> (respectively). Is it worth bringing that back?

I suspect that it isn't – this doesn't happen often enough to make it
worth the additional rules complexity, and the consequences of getting
it wrong are pretty small/minor and easily fixed.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Covering bases

[4st nomic via agora-discussion]

On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 12:47 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2024-03-05 at 14:36 -0600, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On 3/5/24 14:24, Rowan Evans via agora-business wrote:
> > > After that: If I have granted myself a welcome package 52 times AND
> > > not granted Murphy 2.4, then 2.4 times, I grant Murphy a welcome
> > > package.
> >
> > This still fails, you can't do something a fractional amount, so the
> > specification of what you're doing is too unclear.
>
> I guess this is yet another example of the "I say I do, therefore I do"
> fallacy, which has plagued Agora for a long time.
>
> Just saying you perform an action doesn't actually perform it unless
> there's a rule that causes that statement to have an effect; when I
> make a statement like "I wield the Radiance Stone", the statement
> doesn't directly do anything, and the Radiance Stone only gets wielded
> because rule 2641 triggers as a consequence of the announcement and
> changes the gamestate (due to the definition of "by announcement" in
> rule 478).
>
> For something that isn't rules-defined, like taking an action a
> fractional number of times, there's no way to trigger the relevant rule
> because there isn't one.
>
> --
> ais523
>

This is why I like the "narrative based" aspect to playing: the narrative
will subsequently define what 2.4 times means, if anything. It also
prevents Paradoxes, such as Theseus, by resolving them in the same instant,
or blatantly leaving them for others to resolve.

"This week, my empire, 2.4 times, strikes back. Additionally, half the
parts of the death star were replaced and used to build another death star,
both thereby being the original. Finally, I went back in time and killed my
grandfather before I was born. TAKE THAT, GRANDPA! He's subsequently lost
in the space-time continuum, hopefully he doesn't unlock the secrets of the
universe in there and come back to haunt me."

-- 
4ˢᵗ

Uncertified Bad Idea Generator

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Covering bases

[ais523 via agora-discussion]

On Tue, 2024-03-05 at 14:36 -0600, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 3/5/24 14:24, Rowan Evans via agora-business wrote:
> > After that: If I have granted myself a welcome package 52 times AND
> > not granted Murphy 2.4, then 2.4 times, I grant Murphy a welcome
> > package.
> 
> This still fails, you can't do something a fractional amount, so the
> specification of what you're doing is too unclear.

I guess this is yet another example of the "I say I do, therefore I do"
fallacy, which has plagued Agora for a long time.

Just saying you perform an action doesn't actually perform it unless
there's a rule that causes that statement to have an effect; when I
make a statement like "I wield the Radiance Stone", the statement
doesn't directly do anything, and the Radiance Stone only gets wielded
because rule 2641 triggers as a consequence of the announcement and
changes the gamestate (due to the definition of "by announcement" in
rule 478).

For something that isn't rules-defined, like taking an action a
fractional number of times, there's no way to trigger the relevant rule
because there isn't one.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Covering bases

[Rowan Evans via agora-discussion]

@murphy, I tried bud

On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 6:37 AM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 3/5/24 14:24, Rowan Evans via agora-business wrote:
> > After that: If I have granted myself a welcome package 52 times AND not
> > granted Murphy 2.4, then 2.4 times, I grant Murphy a welcome package.
>
> This still fails, you can't do something a fractional amount, so the
> specification of what you're doing is too unclear.
>
> --
> nix
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[nix via agora-discussion]

On 3/5/24 09:59, Aris via agora-business wrote:
> A question is not a statement; Rule 991
> *requires* a statement.

You haven't read How to Do Things With Words, have you?

(this is a tease, also a rhetorical question. which is a statement.)

-- 
nix

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[Aris via agora-discussion]

On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 7:57 AM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
> > On Mar 5, 2024, at 3:51 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2024-03-05 at 15:45 +, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
> > wrote:
> >> On Mar 5, 2024, at 4:37 AM, Aris via agora-business
> >>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Erm... that CFJ doesn't do what you want it to. CFJs are supposed to be
> >>> statements, not questions, and interpreting something out of context is
> >>> different from interpreting it in context.
> >>
> >> Without commenting on the rest of the situation (I haven’t looked into
> >> it), we have precedent that CFJs phrased as questions are fair game; see
> >> CFJ 3505.
> >
> > Well, the precedent of CFJ 3505 also states that CFJ 3505 was never
> > validly judged, although the CFJ record seems to ignore that. (FWIW, I
> > disagree and think that that part of the judgement was given validly,
> > but is wrong.)
> >
> > --
> > ais523
>
> Oh, interesting: I suppose to be a “past judgement” for four-factors
> purposes, something does actually have to be a validly assigned judgment to
> a CFJ.
>
> Although if you’re being *truly* pedantic, the term “judgement” refers only
> to one of the six valid judgements; there’s arguably no four-factors duty
> to consider the surrounding waffle, which has interesting implications for
> the classic “trivially FALSE, but to answer your real question:”
> judgements.
>
> Huh.


But under the game custom factor, we should interpret the judgement factor
more broadly! /lh /gen

-Aris

>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Mar 5, 2024, at 3:51 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2024-03-05 at 15:45 +, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 2024, at 4:37 AM, Aris via agora-business
>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Erm... that CFJ doesn't do what you want it to. CFJs are supposed to be
>>> statements, not questions, and interpreting something out of context is
>>> different from interpreting it in context.
>> 
>> Without commenting on the rest of the situation (I haven’t looked into
>> it), we have precedent that CFJs phrased as questions are fair game; see
>> CFJ 3505.
> 
> Well, the precedent of CFJ 3505 also states that CFJ 3505 was never
> validly judged, although the CFJ record seems to ignore that. (FWIW, I
> disagree and think that that part of the judgement was given validly,
> but is wrong.)
> 
> -- 
> ais523

Oh, interesting: I suppose to be a “past judgement” for four-factors
purposes, something does actually have to be a validly assigned judgment to
a CFJ.

Although if you’re being *truly* pedantic, the term “judgement” refers only
to one of the six valid judgements; there’s arguably no four-factors duty
to consider the surrounding waffle, which has interesting implications for
the classic “trivially FALSE, but to answer your real question:” judgements.

Huh.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[ais523 via agora-discussion]

On Tue, 2024-03-05 at 15:45 +, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2024, at 4:37 AM, Aris via agora-business
>  wrote:
> > 
> > Erm... that CFJ doesn't do what you want it to. CFJs are supposed to be
> > statements, not questions, and interpreting something out of context is
> > different from interpreting it in context.
> 
> Without commenting on the rest of the situation (I haven’t looked into
> it), we have precedent that CFJs phrased as questions are fair game; see
> CFJ 3505.

Well, the precedent of CFJ 3505 also states that CFJ 3505 was never
validly judged, although the CFJ record seems to ignore that. (FWIW, I
disagree and think that that part of the judgement was given validly,
but is wrong.)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9068-9069

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 3/3/24 17:22, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> Would this perhaps allow it to merit a non-AGAINST vote? My fingers are
> crossed.


I'll think about it, but I'm still concerned about the CFJ load.

-- 
Janet Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9068-9069

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Would this perhaps allow it to merit a non-AGAINST vote? My fingers are
crossed.

On Sun, Mar 3, 2024 at 10:32 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 3/3/24 16:30, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Janet wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/3/24 16:24, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:
>  9068~   Yachay 1.0   Agora of Empires
> >>> FOR (without 2 objections is a reasonable guard against trivial
> >>> wins, other issues can be ironed out later)
> >>
> >> That's not the only method to amend. There's also a "by announcement"
> >> method in the previous paragraph.
> > That's to add extraordinary feats, I was referring to winning as a
> > result of them.
>
>
> Ah, sorry, my eyes just completely missed that.
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9068-9069

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 3/3/24 16:30, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:
> Janet wrote:
>
>> On 3/3/24 16:24, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:
 9068~   Yachay 1.0   Agora of Empires
>>> FOR (without 2 objections is a reasonable guard against trivial
>>> wins, other issues can be ironed out later)
>>
>> That's not the only method to amend. There's also a "by announcement"
>> method in the previous paragraph.
> That's to add extraordinary feats, I was referring to winning as a
> result of them.


Ah, sorry, my eyes just completely missed that.

-- 
Janet Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal - Agora of Empires

[ais523 via agora-discussion]

On Sun, 2024-03-03 at 11:45 +0100, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-
discussion wrote:
> > This *really* seems like an infinite free win generation machine. At the
> > *very* least there should be some cooldown between wins (I'd argue for a
> > global 30 day cooldown at minimum)
> > 
> 
> I'm flattered that my incompetence is mistaken for some kind of plot. The
> suggestion seems good and easy to implement to me.

I guess this is worth expressing in a different way – even if it isn't
intended as an infinite free win generation machine, it is very likely
that at least one (and probably several) Agorans will attempt to use it
as one, because there aren't sufficient safeguards to prevent it being
used as one. So your proposal is unlikely to lead to the sort of
gameplay that you apparently expect it to.

A historical point of view: one of my favourite scams from the past of
Agora happened when someone suggested a similarly well-intentioned
contest that nonetheless had loopholes which made it very easy for a
small group of players to use it to win immediately. The scam wasn't
against the contest itself (which was quickly recognised by Agorans as
a whole to have insufficient safeguards against an immediate win), but
rather against the dependent/tabled actions system, with a group of
conspirators (including me) managing to get a without-3-objections to
occur and create the contest even though the rest of Agora thought
that, as there had been 3 objections already, the contest creation
attempt had failed. (At the time there were no restrictions on how
quickly a dependent action could be taken after an objection was
withdrawn, so we simply just made the objections ourself, and withdrew
them when it was time to scam the win. Nowadays, that doesn't work:
rule 2124 imposes a 24-hour delay.)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [@Herald] Re: ALT: (@Herald) Thesis still needs review/feedback/corrections/additions

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 2/27/24 11:30, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 2/27/24 09:49, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
>> I petition the Herald to deny reviewing my thesis nor accept it as a thesis.
>> Ample time was given for players to review it, and no reviews were provided.
>> If players don't care about theses, then don't force them to review it.
>> Players will not want to award it the proper merit it deserves, because
>> work was thrust upon them.
>> Particularly, backed by data as the thesis shows, awarded/older players,
>> who will likely be doing the reviewing, and the definitive trend of awards
>> for Agora as a whole, will be biased to deny any such award to a relatively
>> unawarded and relatively young player, myself.
>> Therefore, I do not wish to submit this thesis at this time, nor any time
>> soon. (Frankly, I should have seen those facts when I first submitted the
>> draft.)
> It was never submitted to a review process and at the time this email
> was sent, I had already privately sent 4st a review of this thesis. I
> reject the idea that because nobody read a draft once, that means nobody
> cares at all.


Fully agree here. The draft never got on my list of things to look at,
but undergoing a formal review process would give me an opportunity to
comment and a deadline to do so.

-- 
Janet Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [@Herald] Re: ALT: (@Herald) Thesis still needs review/feedback/corrections/additions

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I believe that it would be useful to have an introduction to Infinite Nomic
in the thesis for the people that (like myself) don't know much about it.
Same with the opinion on the current ribbons, you should mention what those
current "insane" ribbons are about; and for the mentioning that "some
awards might not be difficult as exemplified by (...)", it would help to
explain what those things are for future readers.

Besides adding more context, I think the thesis is fine and very
interesting.



On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 1:55 AM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 2/26/24 18:52, nix via agora-business wrote:
> > On 11/15/23 17:17, 4st nomic wrote:
> >> -- Forwarded message -
> >> From: *4st nomic* <4st.no...@gmail.com >
> >> Date: Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 1:30 PM
> >> Subject: (@Herald) Thesis still needs
> review/feedback/corrections/additions
> >> To: Agora Business  >> >
> >>
> >
> > I petition the Herald to assign a review board for this thesis.
> >
>
>
> The original post can be seen here:
> https://agoranomic.groups.io/g/main/message/124
>
> --
> nix
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Potential ruleset issue

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 2/18/24 17:39, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:
> nix wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/24 19:07, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>>> So, we've discovered on Discord a potential issue that could have
>>> wide-ranging effects. Consider the four-day rule as stated in the
>>> (purported) Rule 105/23:
>>> {
>>>
>>>A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its
>>>full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear
>>>specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at
>>>least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise
>>>take effect.
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> Importantly, this requires "an unambiguous and clear specification of
>>> the method to be used" to be published before each rule change.
>> When was this clause added? I'm wondering what was meant by "method" in
>> it. We use "method" to refer to the mechanism for CAN actions, but we
>> also use it for other things. For example, the "methods of obtaining
>> [ribbons]" in 2438 and voting strength increases in 2632 (which says "by
>> this method" in reference to a continuous occurrence, not something
>> someone does).
>>
>> I think it's feasible to interpret "method" in 105 as just the specifics
>> of the rule change in the proposal itself, meaning the proposal text has
>> to be clear and unambiguous about what it does. Knowing the context it
>> was written in might give some clarity.
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2014-November.txt
>
> Proposal 7710 (AI=3) by G.
> Defining Reasonable Review
>
> Amend Rule 105 (Rule Changes) by replacing:
> A rule change which would otherwise take effect without its
> substance being subject to general player review through a
> reasonably public process is wholly prevented from taking
> effect.
> with:
> A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless
> its full text was published, along with an unambiguous and
> clear specification of the method to be used for changing the
> rule, at least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would
> otherwise take effect.
>
> Submitted on Oct 23, subject "legislative solution", apparently
> regarding CFJ 3429:
>
> https://agoranomic.org/cases/?3429
>
> 9 FOR, 2 AGAINST. The AGAINST votes were omd (no comment) and Warrigal:
>  > I think a proposal should be able to effect a rule change without
>  > actually literally containing the text of the rule change.
>
> Personally, I think that normal proposal distributions constitute an
> implicit, yet still sufficiently unambiguous and clear specification of
> the proposal system as a whole, and furthermore that "its full text"
> refers to the *rule change* (e.g. "Amend Rule X by replacing Y with Z")
> rather than the post-change version of the rule, and that a four-factors
> analysis ought to back up these interpretations. But as usual, it
> wouldn't be a bad idea to adopt a just-in-case patch proposal.


The requirements for the "full text" and "unambiguous and clear
specification of the method" are separate. So, yes, "its full text"
refers to the rule change (rather than the resulting rule), but that's
not at issue here. It still needs to satisfy the separate requirement
for a specification of the method to be used to effect the change.

And, again, I really don't buy that the current process accounts as an
"unambiguous and clear specification" of the method, certainly not one
that's "published" "along with" the text of the change.

-- 
Janet Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Potential ruleset issue

[Edward Murphy via agora-discussion]

nix wrote:


On 2/15/24 19:07, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:

So, we've discovered on Discord a potential issue that could have
wide-ranging effects. Consider the four-day rule as stated in the
(purported) Rule 105/23:
{

   A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its
   full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear
   specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at
   least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise
   take effect.

}

Importantly, this requires "an unambiguous and clear specification of
the method to be used" to be published before each rule change.


When was this clause added? I'm wondering what was meant by "method" in
it. We use "method" to refer to the mechanism for CAN actions, but we
also use it for other things. For example, the "methods of obtaining
[ribbons]" in 2438 and voting strength increases in 2632 (which says "by
this method" in reference to a continuous occurrence, not something
someone does).

I think it's feasible to interpret "method" in 105 as just the specifics
of the rule change in the proposal itself, meaning the proposal text has
to be clear and unambiguous about what it does. Knowing the context it
was written in might give some clarity.


https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2014-November.txt

Proposal 7710 (AI=3) by G.
Defining Reasonable Review

Amend Rule 105 (Rule Changes) by replacing:
   A rule change which would otherwise take effect without its
   substance being subject to general player review through a
   reasonably public process is wholly prevented from taking
   effect.
with:
   A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless
   its full text was published, along with an unambiguous and
   clear specification of the method to be used for changing the
   rule, at least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would
   otherwise take effect.

Submitted on Oct 23, subject "legislative solution", apparently
regarding CFJ 3429:

https://agoranomic.org/cases/?3429

9 FOR, 2 AGAINST. The AGAINST votes were omd (no comment) and Warrigal:
> I think a proposal should be able to effect a rule change without
> actually literally containing the text of the rule change.

Personally, I think that normal proposal distributions constitute an
implicit, yet still sufficiently unambiguous and clear specification of
the proposal system as a whole, and furthermore that "its full text"
refers to the *rule change* (e.g. "Amend Rule X by replacing Y with Z")
rather than the post-change version of the rule, and that a four-factors
analysis ought to back up these interpretations. But as usual, it
wouldn't be a bad idea to adopt a just-in-case patch proposal.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Potential ruleset issue

[nix via agora-discussion]

On 2/18/24 15:33, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 2/15/24 19:07, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> So, we've discovered on Discord a potential issue that could have
>> wide-ranging effects. Consider the four-day rule as stated in the
>> (purported) Rule 105/23:
>> {
>>
>>   A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its
>>   full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear
>>   specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at
>>   least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise
>>   take effect.
>>
>> }
>>
>> Importantly, this requires "an unambiguous and clear specification of
>> the method to be used" to be published before each rule change.
> 
> When was this clause added? I'm wondering what was meant by "method" in
> it. We use "method" to refer to the mechanism for CAN actions, but we
> also use it for other things. For example, the "methods of obtaining
> [ribbons]" in 2438 and voting strength increases in 2632 (which says "by
> this method" in reference to a continuous occurrence, not something
> someone does).
> 
> I think it's feasible to interpret "method" in 105 as just the specifics
> of the rule change in the proposal itself, meaning the proposal text has
> to be clear and unambiguous about what it does. Knowing the context it
> was written in might give some clarity.
> 

If we don't accept this line of reasoning (IMO, fair, I think it's a
little weak but I'm still thinking on it), then the question becomes
what the ruleset was the moment this clause was added. It might have
changed from there (if some proposals/distributions met standards, or
ratification has worked), but that'd be the last absolutely certainly
correct one at its time of publication (assuming no rulekeepor
shenanigans at that time).

>From there we could use a mechanism in that one (RWO or a proposal we
agree is distributed correctly, or both) to try to affirm the current
ruleset. That could potentially fail, but I'd rather try and wait for
someone to point to a specific mistake (which we could then try to
address) than do nothing.

-- 
nix

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) No Taxation Without Representation

[Edward Murphy via agora-discussion]

Janet wrote:


So, I don't think basing quorum on Activity is a good idea at all, and
there's no obvious change (to me) that would avoid these problems.


Whereas quorum is currently based on a specific type of activity (voting
on other recent decisions), which seems a lot more appropriate.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) No Taxation Without Representation

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 2/15/24 12:54, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 9:44 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/24 12:41, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
>>> I submit the following proposal:
>>> {
>>> Title: No Taxation Without Representation
>>> Adoption Index: 2.0
>>> Author: 4st
>>> Co-author(s):
>>>
>>> [Currently, democratic proposals can pass even if the quorum is much
>> lower
>>> than the number of active players. This means that democratic proposals
>>> have the potential to not represent a representative amount of them.
>>> Democratic proposals should not only meet a high adoption index, but
>> should
>>> also meet that adoption index with representation.]
>>>
>>> Amend Rule 2606 ("Proposal Classes") by appending "The quorum of a
>>> democratic proposal is 2/3 of the active players, rounded down."
>>> }
>>>
>> We almost never have 2/3 of active players actually voting on proposals.
>> This would almost certainly come close to locking us out of changes to
>> Power 3+ rules (but with no ossification risk, since ossification
>> assumes all players are acting).
>>
>> Interestingly, BlogNomic tried something almost identical to this
>> recently, then got rid of it because it was causing problems.
>>
>> --
>> Janet Cobb
>>
>> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>>
>>
> I understand we don't have much data on this... but my theory on that has
> to do with new players.
>
> I just think that we have players who don't say or vote much on Bus, but
> insist they are active (EG Gaelan, Kate, Aris), and democratic changes
> should value the input of players who are saying that those players do in
> fact exist.
>
> I do hear what you are saying about new players who seemed to... drop off.
> Perhaps I could amend this to address that particular concern?
>

Players may choose to stay legally active for several reasons even if
they aren't actively participating, and our current economic rules can
impose harsh penalties for being inactive. They shouldn't be discouraged
from doing so by their presence making it harder for the rest of us to
make necessary rule changes.

So, I don't think basing quorum on Activity is a good idea at all, and
there's no obvious change (to me) that would avoid these problems.

-- 
Janet Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) No Taxation Without Representation

[4st nomic via agora-discussion]

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 9:44 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 2/15/24 12:41, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> > I submit the following proposal:
> > {
> > Title: No Taxation Without Representation
> > Adoption Index: 2.0
> > Author: 4st
> > Co-author(s):
> >
> > [Currently, democratic proposals can pass even if the quorum is much
> lower
> > than the number of active players. This means that democratic proposals
> > have the potential to not represent a representative amount of them.
> > Democratic proposals should not only meet a high adoption index, but
> should
> > also meet that adoption index with representation.]
> >
> > Amend Rule 2606 ("Proposal Classes") by appending "The quorum of a
> > democratic proposal is 2/3 of the active players, rounded down."
> > }
> >
>
> We almost never have 2/3 of active players actually voting on proposals.
> This would almost certainly come close to locking us out of changes to
> Power 3+ rules (but with no ossification risk, since ossification
> assumes all players are acting).
>
> Interestingly, BlogNomic tried something almost identical to this
> recently, then got rid of it because it was causing problems.
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>
I understand we don't have much data on this... but my theory on that has
to do with new players.

I just think that we have players who don't say or vote much on Bus, but
insist they are active (EG Gaelan, Kate, Aris), and democratic changes
should value the input of players who are saying that those players do in
fact exist.

I do hear what you are saying about new players who seemed to... drop off.
Perhaps I could amend this to address that particular concern?

-- 
4ˢᵗ

Uncertified Bad Idea Generator

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 9053-9057 [attn. Arbitor]

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 2/14/24 20:16, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> Counterarguments/Gratuitous arguments TRUE:
>> 1. Does text specify a rule change?
>> 2. If so, is it unambiguous what the text of the rule to be enacted is?
>> As to 1, the text makes no mention of a "rule", only "enact[ing]"
>> something. There is at least one thing other than a rule that can be
>> "enacted" in the game: a regulation. I don't see any reason to read in
>> the specification that this is a rule when the text doesn't say it.
>> As to 2, there are no delimiters or indentation indicating whether both
>> of the paragraphs are to be enacted, or only the first one. This also
>> seems to make the change ambiguous.
> Firstly, an appeal to popularity (Pathos): such a proposal was voted on and
> adopted 4 to 1 (not taking account of voting strength.) and such an issue
> was only brought up *after* adoption by the player who was against the
> proposal. (This is probably a moot point.)


This is immaterial, and I'm a bit annoyed by the implication that I
wouldn't be doing my job properly if I supported the proposal policy-wise.


> Secondly, an appeal to kindness (Ethos): such a proposal was proposed by a
> new player, should we not give them the benefit of the doubt for their
> intention? (Also probably a moot point.)


This is also immaterial. Interpreting proposals differently based on who
wrote them is not something there's any textual or precedential basis
for, and it's not a can of worms that ought to be opened.


> Thirdly, an appeal to logic (where Agora does most of its business):
> {{{
> Firstly, "any ambiguity" and "unambiguous" should have the same meaning of
> "ambiguous", the base word.
> Specifically, in rule 217:
> "Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to
> be void and without effect."
> is/should be equivalent to saying it in the positive, something like
> "A lack of any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
> change to be valid and with effect."
> or
> "Unambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be
> valid and with effect."


I disagree. I think, in context, this sounds like a higher standard
("*any* ambiguity (at all)" causes the rule change to fail is roughly
how I read it). If R105 meant the normal "unambiguous" or "clear and
unambiguous" standard, it would use that.

In any case, I don't think this would meet the normal "by announcement"
standard anyway.


> Secondly, although the following arguments are not direct-forward
> reasoning, direct-forward reasoning per Rule 217 is only for definitions
> and prescriptions defined by the rules. When speaking to ambiguity, this is
> not defined or prescribed by the rules. Therefore, these arguments of proof
> by contradiction can be taken into account without breaking any rules.


This argument seems... questionable. I think most of what the rules do
is "prescribe" things.


> Secondly, the thing to enact is either:
> 1.
> "February 29 is a Holiday known as Radiance Day."
> or
> 2.
> "February 29 is a Holiday known as Radiance Day.
>
> At 00:00 UTC on Radiance Day, all players are awarded 10 Radiance."
>
> If Option 1 is the case, regardless of the thing to enact, then there is
> hidden latent gamestate associated with time. This seems unreasonable and
> generally undesired.


Even if there was "latent gamestate", the gamestate would have no
effect, since the rules don't examine that gamestate in any way.


> Secondly, with regard to the kind of thing being enacted, we have two
> things that are generally associated with "enact": rules and regulations.
> If it were a regulation, then it would not be capable of awarding Radiance.
> It would also have a Promulgator, and who that is is probably debateable.
> This is contrary to the surface-level intention of the proposal (to create
> a holiday and have something happen on that holiday), and thereby, seems
> unreasonable.
> If it is a rule being enacted, then it would be capable of awarding
> Radiance, and the tracker of the thing itself would be the Rulekeepor,
> which seems reasonable.
> And... If there is any other thing associated with enact, I don't think it
> would align with the surface-level intention either.
>
> Therefore, by contradiction, it is a rule with the text
> "February 29 is a Holiday known as Radiance Day.
>
> At 00:00 UTC on Radiance Day, all players are awarded 10 Radiance."


The fact that the proposal didn't specify "rule" or "regulation", and
that you have to try to figure out which it *really meant* is evidence
that there is, in fact, ambiguity.

We've also heard from at least one player (nix, on Discord) that e
specifically thought it was *not* a rule change because it didn't
mention a "rule".


> Arguments AGAINST:
> The method of the rule change was not clearly and unambiguously stated. The
> method being "Proposal takes effect".
> This would mean a lot of proposals have not enacted rule changes. :)
> Quote from Rule 205:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: @Promotor Submission of Proposal

[juan via agora-discussion]

>:(

On February 12, 2024 12:09:48 AM GMT-03:00, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion 
 wrote:
>
> (Unless it's something unimportant like pushing the boulder).
-- 
juan
Absurdor

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Registrar) Intents to deactivate

[4st nomic via agora-discussion]

I think you have to send a message on a public forum to negate it. Nothing
in particular is needed in the message, just has to be on a public fora.

On Wed, Jan 31, 2024, 12:34 PM Kiako via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 1/30/2024 5:28 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
> > I intend, with notice, to make kiako inactive.
> >
> > None of these players have made any public announcements in the past 30
> > days, to my knowledge (some much longer).
> > --
> > snail
>
> I refuse death (and object, if relevant)
>
> --
> kiako
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9053-9057

[4st nomic via agora-discussion]

On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 3:03 PM Jimmy via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I vote FOR 9053
>

I think this needs to be sent to agora-business? (yes the default "reply"
option changes replies to agora-discussion)
-- 
4ˢᵗ

Uncertified Bad Idea Generator

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9053-9057

[secretsnail9 via agora-discussion]

> On Jan 30, 2024, at 8:43 PM, nix via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> On 1/30/24 16:54, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
>> AGAINST (allows for officers to put officework on other players without
>> their consent, also might be broken)
> 
> The first is fixable after it passes. What do you mean by "might be broken"?
> 
> -- 
> nix
> 

"While the holder of an office is On Vacation, the Delegate of that
   office can act as if e is the holder of the Office."

I'm not sure if this would actually work as intended. If say, Janet had 
delegated 4st to be the rulekeeper's delegate, this would mean "4st can act as 
if e is Janet". I think we could do with different wording, like deputization 
has. (The requirement that the action be possible for em to do also seems 
important.) I'm not convinced this wording would prevent The Prime Minister 
from colluding with their delegate to get double the cabinet orders.

and also i think the "can" should be "CAN" instead. 

We probably shouldn't let it pass even if it's "fixable" since the fix could be 
easily blocked at AI 3.

--
snail