Speaking of which, I own the agronomic Google Group if we ever want to set that 
up as a backup.


> 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

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Reply via email to