Re: DIS: [proto] Definitely not a ploy to get more pendants
On 7/6/20 9:33 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 6:32 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On 7/6/20 9:28 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 6:27 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <
>>> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>>>
On 7/6/20 9:20 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 7/6/20 8:37 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>> It was suggested to make card grants once per office per month rather
>> than once per officer per month. This is a proto to make that change,
>> in
>> order to solicit feedback on both the wording and the idea in general:
> What if the office changes hands? I think we should avoid scams, but if
> someone hasn't yet given a card from a particular office in a month, I
> think e should be able to even if a previous holder had.
>
I think my wording handles that. If Alice is Comptrollor and awards a
card, and then, later in the same month, Bob becomes Comptrollor, it is
true that Bob "has not done so in reference to [Comptrollor] in the
current Agoran month".
>>> I have a severe headache, so I might be confusing things. That being
>> said "It
>>> was suggested to make card grants once per office per month rather than
>>> once per officer per month" seems like the opposite of what you're doing?
>>> Did you flip it?
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>
>> I don't think so? Right now it's once per person with an office per
>> month ("An officer CAN, once per month..."), and I'm suggesting to make
>> it once per office per month.
>>
>> Good luck with your headache :(.
>
> Oh, okay. You're making it once per (officer, office) pair per month,
> basically?
>
> Also, thanks.
>
> -Aris
Yep, that's the idea.
--
Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [proto] Definitely not a ploy to get more pendants
On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 6:32 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 7/6/20 9:28 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 6:27 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <
> > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/6/20 9:20 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion
> >> wrote:
> >>> On 7/6/20 8:37 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> It was suggested to make card grants once per office per month rather
> than once per officer per month. This is a proto to make that change,
> in
> order to solicit feedback on both the wording and the idea in general:
> >>> What if the office changes hands? I think we should avoid scams, but if
> >>> someone hasn't yet given a card from a particular office in a month, I
> >>> think e should be able to even if a previous holder had.
> >>>
> >> I think my wording handles that. If Alice is Comptrollor and awards a
> >> card, and then, later in the same month, Bob becomes Comptrollor, it is
> >> true that Bob "has not done so in reference to [Comptrollor] in the
> >> current Agoran month".
> >
> > I have a severe headache, so I might be confusing things. That being
> said "It
> > was suggested to make card grants once per office per month rather than
> > once per officer per month" seems like the opposite of what you're doing?
> > Did you flip it?
> >
> > -Aris
>
>
> I don't think so? Right now it's once per person with an office per
> month ("An officer CAN, once per month..."), and I'm suggesting to make
> it once per office per month.
>
> Good luck with your headache :(.
Oh, okay. You're making it once per (officer, office) pair per month,
basically?
Also, thanks.
-Aris
Re: DIS: [proto] Definitely not a ploy to get more pendants
On 7/6/20 9:28 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 6:27 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On 7/6/20 9:20 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion
>> wrote:
>>> On 7/6/20 8:37 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
It was suggested to make card grants once per office per month rather
than once per officer per month. This is a proto to make that change, in
order to solicit feedback on both the wording and the idea in general:
>>> What if the office changes hands? I think we should avoid scams, but if
>>> someone hasn't yet given a card from a particular office in a month, I
>>> think e should be able to even if a previous holder had.
>>>
>> I think my wording handles that. If Alice is Comptrollor and awards a
>> card, and then, later in the same month, Bob becomes Comptrollor, it is
>> true that Bob "has not done so in reference to [Comptrollor] in the
>> current Agoran month".
>
> I have a severe headache, so I might be confusing things. That being said "It
> was suggested to make card grants once per office per month rather than
> once per officer per month" seems like the opposite of what you're doing?
> Did you flip it?
>
> -Aris
I don't think so? Right now it's once per person with an office per
month ("An officer CAN, once per month..."), and I'm suggesting to make
it once per office per month.
Good luck with your headache :(.
--
Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [proto] Definitely not a ploy to get more pendants
On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 6:27 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 7/6/20 9:20 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On 7/6/20 8:37 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > >> It was suggested to make card grants once per office per month rather > >> than once per officer per month. This is a proto to make that change, in > >> order to solicit feedback on both the wording and the idea in general: > > What if the office changes hands? I think we should avoid scams, but if > > someone hasn't yet given a card from a particular office in a month, I > > think e should be able to even if a previous holder had. > > > > I think my wording handles that. If Alice is Comptrollor and awards a > card, and then, later in the same month, Bob becomes Comptrollor, it is > true that Bob "has not done so in reference to [Comptrollor] in the > current Agoran month". I have a severe headache, so I might be confusing things. That being said "It was suggested to make card grants once per office per month rather than once per officer per month" seems like the opposite of what you're doing? Did you flip it? -Aris
Re: DIS: [proto] Definitely not a ploy to get more pendants
On 7/6/20 9:20 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On 7/6/20 8:37 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: >> It was suggested to make card grants once per office per month rather >> than once per officer per month. This is a proto to make that change, in >> order to solicit feedback on both the wording and the idea in general: > What if the office changes hands? I think we should avoid scams, but if > someone hasn't yet given a card from a particular office in a month, I > think e should be able to even if a previous holder had. > I think my wording handles that. If Alice is Comptrollor and awards a card, and then, later in the same month, Bob becomes Comptrollor, it is true that Bob "has not done so in reference to [Comptrollor] in the current Agoran month". -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [proto] Definitely not a ploy to get more pendants
On 7/6/20 8:37 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> It was suggested to make card grants once per office per month rather
> than once per officer per month. This is a proto to make that change, in
> order to solicit feedback on both the wording and the idea in general:
What if the office changes hands? I think we should avoid scams, but if
someone hasn't yet given a card from a particular office in a month, I
think e should be able to even if a previous holder had.
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2624 (Card Administration) by replacing the final paragraph
> (including the list) with the following:
>
> {
>
> The officeholder of an office CAN by announcement grant another player a
> specified type of card, specifying that office, under the following
> conditions:
>
> * e has not done so in reference to that office in the current Agoran month,
>
> * that office's interests includes the card's associated ministry,
>
> * the player receiving the card does not hold an office with the card's
> associated ministry in its interests, and
>
> * the player receiving the card is not a zombie.
>
> }
>
> }
>
--
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate
Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport (attempted, also attn Treasuror)
On 2020-07-06 18:34, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: On 7/2/2020 8:38 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-official wrote: INTERESTS - Office Interest [snip] Treasuror Economy, Economy I get that the Treasuror is *really* involved with the economy, but I don't think the interest is supposed to be listed twice. I personally am quite interested in economy. -- Trigon I LOVE SPAGHETTI transfer Jason one coin nch was here I hereby don't... trust... the dragon... don't... trust... the dragon... Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport (attempted, also attn Treasuror)
On 7/6/2020 8:36 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: On 7/6/20 8:34 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: On 7/2/2020 8:38 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-official wrote: INTERESTS - Office Interest [snip] Treasuror Economy, Economy I get that the Treasuror is *really* involved with the economy, but I don't think the interest is supposed to be listed twice. It is, and it was set in the original interests proposal. See [0]. [0]: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2020-January/013387.html Oh, interesting. (no pun intended) -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
DIS: [proto] Definitely not a ploy to get more pendants
It was suggested to make card grants once per office per month rather
than once per officer per month. This is a proto to make that change, in
order to solicit feedback on both the wording and the idea in general:
{
Amend Rule 2624 (Card Administration) by replacing the final paragraph
(including the list) with the following:
{
The officeholder of an office CAN by announcement grant another player a
specified type of card, specifying that office, under the following
conditions:
* e has not done so in reference to that office in the current Agoran month,
* that office's interests includes the card's associated ministry,
* the player receiving the card does not hold an office with the card's
associated ministry in its interests, and
* the player receiving the card is not a zombie.
}
}
--
Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport (attempted, also attn Treasuror)
On 7/6/20 8:34 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > On 7/2/2020 8:38 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-official wrote: >> INTERESTS >> - >> >> Office Interest >> > [snip] >> Treasuror Economy, Economy > I get that the Treasuror is *really* involved with the economy, but I > don't think the interest is supposed to be listed twice. > > It is, and it was set in the original interests proposal. See [0]. [0]: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2020-January/013387.html -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport (attempted, also attn Treasuror)
On 7/2/2020 8:38 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-official wrote: INTERESTS - Office Interest [snip] Treasuror Economy, Economy I get that the Treasuror is *really* involved with the economy, but I don't think the interest is supposed to be listed twice. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
DIS: Ideas for a Deck System
A few weeks back I drafted a proposal for a "deck" for our card economy. The basic idea is this: there's a deck, it has cards in it, and you can pay some sort of fee to "draw" a random card from it, like you might in a real life card game. It was received generally positively, but the main feedback was "we don't really know how much cards are worth, we need to let the game play out for a bit." Now that we've had the new economy for a bit, we have somewhat of an idea, but still not that much. It seems like cards are averaged at around 20 coins, but there haven't been that many trades yet. So I had a few ideas for the deck idea. We could, of course, just wait a bit longer to really see how much cards are worth, but I think there are a few other ideas to make this work. My first idea is a simple one: everybody gets a certain number of "draws" per unit of time. Once every other week, or two a month, or once a month, or something like that. The advantage is that it's easy to understand, it's just "you can draw x times every y." The problem is we still need to figure out a good value for x and y. If we set them too high, then there's a massive influx of cards and, depending on how the deck works, either (a) people just get way too many cards or (b) all the cards get scooped up really quickly and then it's just a case of whoever gets them first. But if we set them too low, then the system could become irrelevant and might as well not exist. So, that's where my second idea comes in. I think that there should be some sort of currency that is paid in order to draw cards. One option to distribute this currency is with an auction. Then we don't have to "figure out" the value of it - the value is whatever bidders are willing to pay. The other option, which I think is a great idea but might actually be a terrible idea, is to add a fifth type of card and product. The products could be paid (maybe 2 or 3 at a time, because drawing 10 cards by paying only 4 is really powerful) to draw cards from the deck. These could be auctioned like Victory cards (potentially even as separate lots in the same auction), - or they could be associated with the Ministry of Economy. That allows more officers (*cough* Notary *cough*) to be able to grant cards and encourages trading even more. The main problem I see with that is that these new cards could potentially have intrinsically more value than all other cards. We could also just not have a deck. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: DIS: [Treasuror] Second draft of auction regulations
* For each auction, there are a number of awardees equal to the number of lots. The Nth lot of an auction goes to the Nth awardee of that auction. If the identity of an awardee is undecidable, then that lot cannot be given away. This doesn't allow for auctions where bidders can give preferences for specific lots. That wasn't even something I had considered, and I'm not sure I like the idea of bidding on specific lots. Then it becomes a scenario more like multiple auctions. Multi-lot auctions, on the other hand, are meant to give players who might not have as much money the opportunity to receive something from the auction. They're separate in any case You can allow bidding on individual lots and still have the constraint that nobody gets more than one lot (and so bidders with less money can still get something). I remember a few months ago someone (Alexis?) drafted auction rules that did that. Each player specified both a bid and an ordering, and I think the highest bid got first pick. There's also an interesting generalization of second-price auctions that we could try (though I think it would be too complicated). In practice, this isn't interesting for either of the two kinds of rule-defined auction we have. In both Victory Auctions and Zombie Auctions, there's no reason for different players to have significantly different preferences, so the auctioneer might as well put them in some reasonable order. If we did create an auction where where players' preferences for lots would differ significantly, things could get interesting. For example, if the lots were ribbon colours... auctioning off ribbons is probably a bad idea, but it's an example where people would have different preferences. -- Falsifian
Re: DIS: [Treasuror] Second draft of auction regulations
I'm going to start the card auctions in a bit but I wanted to reply to
this feedback first.
On 2020-07-03 20:14, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
Looks mostly good.
We should probably require lot winners to pay their bid. I don't know if
SHALLs in these regulations are enforceable, but might as well try. (If
we're going to do that, I guess that would entail REQUIRE-ing bidders in
sealed bid auctions to reveal their bids?)
The only reason they aren't SHALLed is because I was unsure if they
would be enforceable. What are everyone's thoughts on this?
On 2020-06-24 10:09 p.m., Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:
* Auction methods cannot specify the exclusion of any information
listed above from the initiation message of auctions using that
method.
I don't know if this is enforceable. R2545 says these regulations
"define specific auction methods" but I could just run an auction that
doesn't refer to any of your definitions.
Maybe change "cannot" to "should not"?
Right, I guess this is a good point. "Auction methods" in these
regulations were taken to mean the methods defined in my regulations.
* For each auction, there are a number of awardees equal to the
number of lots. The Nth lot of an auction goes to the Nth awardee
of that auction. If the identity of an awardee is undecidable, then
that lot cannot be given away.
This doesn't allow for auctions where bidders can give preferences for
specific lots.
That wasn't even something I had considered, and I'm not sure I like the
idea of bidding on specific lots. Then it becomes a scenario more like
multiple auctions. Multi-lot auctions, on the other hand, are meant to
give players who might not have as much money the opportunity to receive
something from the auction. They're separate in any case.
I don't have any immediate plans to run any like that, and I think I can
override these if I want to anyway, so it's not a big deal.
Yes, you can override these. I'm just supposed to promulgate these for
the good of Agora and to make auctioneers' lives easier.
* Auction methods specify how awardees are picked for auctions using
that method.
* The auctioneer of an auction SHALL within, four days after the
ending of that auction, create a public message (henceforth the
"termination message") that contains a full history of bids on the
auction and withdrawals from the auction. It should also clearly
indicate each awardee and the lot e recieves.
5. CLAIMING:
* For a period of seven days after an auction ends, each awardee of
that auction CAN transfer (or create in eir own possession if the
item is new) the set of assets associated with the lot e won by
paying a fee corresponding to eir winning bid.
This doesn't allow auctions where the fee gets paid too some specific
entity. E.g. if we wanted to add free auctions again we'd want the owner
of the lots to get paid.
But the rules don't allow that yet so maybe that's not an issue.
I did consider that fact. But my thought process was the same as yours.
Probably would just be simpler to have players do auctions through
contracts if they want to give something away.
* The Nth awardee for a forward auction is the non-withdrawn player who
submitted the Nth-highest bid in the set of all players' highest bids
(i.e. if Alice bids 10, Bob bids 20, and Alice bids 30, then the set
of highest bids is {Alice with 30, Bob with 20} so Alice is the first
awardee with her bid of 30 and Bob is the second awardee with is bid
of 20).
What about ties?
That should be covered by the first point under "2. BIDDING", which reads:
* Players CAN place a bid on an open auction by specifying an amount
of the auction's currency as eir bid /not equal to the bid of
another player./
--
Trigon
I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal, not pended] Regulated Welcomes
On 7/6/20 2:32 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business wrote:
> If "Warmer Welcomes" has passed:
> {
> Amend rule 2499 "Welcome Packages" by replacing the sentence that reads:
>
> "When a player receives a Welcome Package, e earns 25 coins and one of
> each type of Card defined in the rules."
>
> with the following:
>
> "When a player receives a Welcome Package, e earns a set of assets
> defined by the Treasuror's regulations. When the Treasuror's regulations
> are silent, e earns 25 coins and one of each type of Card defined in the
> rules."
> }
I think this should say the Treasuror's administrative regulations,
rather than just eir regulations (since that could also be construed to
include auction regulations).
--
Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal, not pended] Regulated Welcomes
On 7/6/20 1:32 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business wrote: > "When a player receives a Welcome Package, e earns a set of assets > defined by the Treasuror's regulations. When the Treasuror's regulations > are silent, e earns 25 coins and one of each type of Card defined in the > rules." I actually don't approve of tying the cards into this, just the coins. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal, not pended] Warmer Welcomes
On 7/6/20 1:01 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On 7/6/20 2:00 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 7/6/20 12:54 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: >>> [This came from a discussion on Discord in which nch mentioned that the >>> current 10 coin welcome packages really don't help that much. 25 may >>> still be on the low side, but I think it's a lot better. I added in the >>> last clause because I felt it unfair to the players who just recently >>> registered to get the lesser Welcome Packages. It would be as if they >>> were cheated out of those coins just because they wanted to start >>> playing the game. The "for the first time" should stop any extra coins >>> going to the scammers if somehow it turns out the scam was successful.] >> Specifically the issue is that coins continually accrue, which causes >> inflation. This is going to continuously need updates for the amount it >> gives you to have the same purchasing power unless we find a way to >> limit circulation. >> > Why not just make it a switch specified by the Treasuror's regulations? > This would allow em to either set it directly or use a formula to do so. This seems like a nice, pragmatic solution. I'd be in favor of something like this. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal, not pended] Warmer Welcomes
On 7/6/2020 11:00 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On 7/6/20 12:54 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: >> [This came from a discussion on Discord in which nch mentioned that the >> current 10 coin welcome packages really don't help that much. 25 may >> still be on the low side, but I think it's a lot better. I added in the >> last clause because I felt it unfair to the players who just recently >> registered to get the lesser Welcome Packages. It would be as if they >> were cheated out of those coins just because they wanted to start >> playing the game. The "for the first time" should stop any extra coins >> going to the scammers if somehow it turns out the scam was successful.] > > Specifically the issue is that coins continually accrue, which causes > inflation. This is going to continuously need updates for the amount it > gives you to have the same purchasing power unless we find a way to > limit circulation. > Has anyone made a chart/table of the basic economy (rate of inputs, outputs, etc.) I feel like we might want to collect some of the various rate parameters into something dynamic and regulation based, and to figure that out it would be good to create some kind of flowchart...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal, not pended] Warmer Welcomes
On 7/6/20 2:00 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On 7/6/20 12:54 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: >> [This came from a discussion on Discord in which nch mentioned that the >> current 10 coin welcome packages really don't help that much. 25 may >> still be on the low side, but I think it's a lot better. I added in the >> last clause because I felt it unfair to the players who just recently >> registered to get the lesser Welcome Packages. It would be as if they >> were cheated out of those coins just because they wanted to start >> playing the game. The "for the first time" should stop any extra coins >> going to the scammers if somehow it turns out the scam was successful.] > > Specifically the issue is that coins continually accrue, which causes > inflation. This is going to continuously need updates for the amount it > gives you to have the same purchasing power unless we find a way to > limit circulation. > Why not just make it a switch specified by the Treasuror's regulations? This would allow em to either set it directly or use a formula to do so. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal, not pended] Warmer Welcomes
On 7/6/20 12:54 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: > [This came from a discussion on Discord in which nch mentioned that the > current 10 coin welcome packages really don't help that much. 25 may > still be on the low side, but I think it's a lot better. I added in the > last clause because I felt it unfair to the players who just recently > registered to get the lesser Welcome Packages. It would be as if they > were cheated out of those coins just because they wanted to start > playing the game. The "for the first time" should stop any extra coins > going to the scammers if somehow it turns out the scam was successful.] Specifically the issue is that coins continually accrue, which causes inflation. This is going to continuously need updates for the amount it gives you to have the same purchasing power unless we find a way to limit circulation. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 491
On 7/6/2020 8:44 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-official wrote: > |G. |1066| 1| 1| 0| 1| 0| 0| 10| 0| Sorry to be the first to spoil your shiny new report - I paid to pend a proposal yesterday: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-July/043940.html
DIS: [LoAFER] [Poll] Thread of Grievances @Officers
Officers of Agora, have ye any grievances? Now that we are a bit more settled in with the new economy, I have decided to create this thread in order that the officers of Agora have a place where they can discuss any problems they may have with how their official duties are handled by the Agoran Community. My hope is that this thread will lead to legislation and new traditions that will improve quality-of-life for Agoran Officers. TL;DR: What can the Agoran Community do better to help you as an officer? -- Trigon I LOVE SPAGHETTI transfer Jason one coin nch was here I hereby don't... trust... the dragon... don't... trust... the dragon... Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
DIS: Re: BUS: @Referee Giving a Blot B Gone to G
On 2020-06-30 09:01, Becca Lee via agora-business wrote: I give a blot b gone to G This also failed as you had transferred your only Blot-B-Gone to Publius the day before. -- Trigon I LOVE SPAGHETTI transfer Jason one coin nch was here I hereby don't... trust... the dragon... don't... trust... the dragon... Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
