On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 12:36, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> The only thing I'm a little concerned about is glitter. Rewards for
> proposals, CFJs, reports and theses are all clearly associated with one
> officer when they are awarded, but glitter might be in response to a
> variety of different actions. I don't think the Tailor ought to have to
> keep track of the votes on every proposal to see when someone earns an
> orange ribbon.

omd's fix proposal would make it so that the amount of the award is
platonic, given when the player invokes the triggering phrase (presumably
in response to our 21 different attempts to use the rule with different
numbers). It would then be easy for the Tailor to give the appropriate
awards by searching for instances of the triggering action.

> In the past, Agora has often taken an extremely pragmatic approach, where
> > the officers in question would be given the power to make such awards
> even
> > if they were incorrect, with penalties for officers who abuse their
> > position and possibly mechanisms to undo them. What are others' thoughts
> on
> > moving towards this model?
> Personally I'm not terribly worried about the risk of abusive officers.
> As much as we pontificate about "protecting against scams", Agora is not
> really as hyperliteralist as it seems - it's not quite as democratic as
> BlogNomic's votes on whether someone meets a victory condition, but when
> a scam is perpetrated that's obviously in poor taste, the responsible
> party is rarely allowed to keep eir winnings. I can recall two incidents
> where officers badly abused their offices for personal gain, the first
> being when I rearranged proposals' order as Assessor to change their
> effects, and the second when D. Margaux awarded emself infinite
> political favours as Clork. Both were eventually reversed by proposal or
> ratification, mine because it was unnecessarily disruptive to everyone
> else and D. Margaux's because it was incredibly boring. (Honestly the
> most interesting part was the CFJ on whether e deserved an infinite
> fine.)

Huh. I'm not sure of the incident you're referring to as Assessor, but
historically the Assessor's primary prerogatives have been to resolve
proposals out-of-order and to act first after resolution (including
possibly being the only player able to act in a window of opportunity
between two resolutions). I'm pretty sure Agora has accepted the Assessor
doing this in the past. Certainly, though, a fix proposal may be necessary
if the results are that the ruleset becomes disrupted from what it should
be, and it's not just e.g. to create a window of opportunity.

As Aris said at the time:
> > Winning by flagrant rule violations is generally thought to be uncouth.
> -twg

Agreed that it is uncouth; we also should reinstate a protection in place
against it. There have been such protections in the past, but currently
blot awards are too slow to be effective.


Reply via email to