Speaking of which, I own the agronomic Google Group if we ever want to set that up as a backup.
Gaelan > On Feb 25, 2019, at 8:59 PM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote: > > One key trait of Nomic that comes from its main spin as a game built around > rule changes is adaptability. I am of the opinion that, as of right now, > there is no perfect forum on which to play Nomic, but Nomic can and, with a > reasonably wise group of players who each have the strengths and limitations > of the forum in question in mind, will become more suited to its environment. > > Agora, in its over twenty years of history, has adapted to the mailing list > format because it had to to facilitate play. Emails are messages that can > either be long or short, but that cannot be changed after they are sent. So > we had to work around that. > > The main manifestation of Agora's adaptation is reports. In BlogNomic, the > Ruleset page on the wiki and the GNDT do most of the tracking, whereas in > Agora, we publish the information every week because we can't keep a > constantly changing record. If we were to transition off a mailing list, > Reports would be one of the first mechanics to go. > > Along the same line, we have the distribution system of proposals. This goes > along with (1), but is still worth mentioning. In most other Nomics, > proposals are immediately put up for voting since one post can represent a > proposal. Of course, this is not something that would definitely have to go; > it's not hard to imagine a blog-based Nomic in which proposals are > distributed all at once. > > Now, there are many issues with the idea of moving a Nomic platform. Suppose > that the mail server went offline one day and a group of Agorans got together > off-list to figure out what to do. Chances are, not everyone would agree on > everything. It seems to me that there's a non-negligible chance that Agora > would split into multiple games at that point, each one claiming to be the > true successor to Agora in the same way FRC and Agora itself argue about who > is the worthy successor to Nomic World. > > Another point: remember how I said Nomic is adaptable? Well, I would like to > add an important clarification: Nomic is adaptable, but it adapts slowly. > It's likely that some forks of Agora would die out before they finished > adapting to the new platform because it would just be so hard to play in its > current state. > > Now, let's discuss potential new forums for Agora. I believe that a bulletin > board would be the best way to continue playing Agora should it be moved. > Agoran threads get very long very fast, and a bulletin board would show every > comment response. Gamestate tracking could be relegated to a specific > category of posts; as could proposals and maybe even minigames. This may just > be my personal opinion about bulletin boards being the best out of the > current ways to play Nomic; however, I do honestly believe it would be the > best way to go. > > I hope this helps you with your research, o. > > On 2/25/19 5:15 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> Hi Agorans! Please put the pitchforks down - I’m here with a question, not a >> request. >> It’s my view that the Rules and the structural properties of the fora in >> which Agora is played have a sympathetic relationship with one another. The >> Rules and CFJ case law combine to treat email as the preferred format for >> playing Agora, and in turn email contains properties that make it uniquely >> attractive to Agora’s players. >> Rule 478 (“Fora”) sets out the basic requirements for an Agoran forum: >>> Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of >>> any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player shall >>> be prohibited from participating in the Fora, nor shall any person >>> create physical or technological obstacles that unduly favor some >>> players' fora access over others. >> A forum must, in technical implementation, be reasonably equitable, >>> Each player should ensure e can receive messages via each public >>> forum. >> It is the responsibility of each player to ensure that they can view each >> fora, before it is the responsibility of the forum’s operator to ensure the >> players can view the forum they operate, >>> A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent to >>> all players and containing a clear designation of intent to be >>> public. A rule can also designate that a part of one public >>> message is considered a public message in its own right. A person >>> "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public message. >> A forum is a collection of messages, which may include sub-messages, >> are collectively a pretty good description of the email system, as deployed >> on the internet. >> However, the use of email (and the use of email distribution lists, in >> particular) is far out of favour on the internet at large. While most people >> can be taught to operate mailman and how to effectively participate in an >> email distribution list discussion, those skills are no longer as prevalent >> in the internet userbase as they may once have been. This shows up for Agora >> in terms of people failing to subscribe, or failing to understand where >> their messages have gone, and it probably shows up in terms of potential >> players we never hear about because they completely fail the initial task of >> “subscribe to the list” without asking for help. >> (Lurking in Freenode’s ##nomic has convinced me that that barrier exists, at >> least for some users.) >> With that in mind, I have two questions. >> 1. What, if any, web-based discussion systems would be effective for >> supporting Agora as it is today? >> I did a cursory survey of the state of the art, and it appears that >> web-based discussions are dominated by: >> * Discus, for discussions associated with some parent document (generally a >> blog post or news item), >> * Discourse, for open-ended discussion venues dedicated to specific subject >> matter, and >> * Social Media (as exemplified by Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit), for >> freeform conversation. >> None of these exactly map to the forum criteria established in Rule 478: >> Discus, for example, imposes a tree-shaped interface, and provides a >> completely separate discussion for each parent document, while social media >> systems invariably interpose some kind of attention-seeking algorithmic >> ordering, and often algorithmic *removal*, between author and reader. It >> would be quite hard to collate out a single, chronological list of messages >> (required by the final paragraph of Rule 478) from any of those systems. >> 2. What, if anything, would need to be amended to allow something like Agora >> to be played in a venue other than email? >> My real motivation here is to find ways to adapt Agora’s decision-making >> systems for other use cases. I think Agora’s model of asynchronous >> deliberation, its system of votes, AI, and document power ratings, and its >> mechanisms for inclusion are a powerful alternative to the kinds of chaos I >> run into when organizing gaming groups, and I’ve got a personal interest in >> trying to use it to structure a user-owned cooperative enterprise in another >> sphere. >> -o > > -- > Trigon
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature