BUS: Proposal: Rock strat
Proposal: Rock strat [Good ol' rock. Nothing beats rock.] Amend Rule 2683 (The Boulder) by replacing this text: Each player CAN, once a week, by announcement, push the boulder. When a player pushes the Boulder, its Height is increased by 1. At the beginning of each week, if the boulder was not pushed in the previous week, the Boulder's Height is set to 0. with this text: Each player CAN, once a week, pay a fee of N + 1 spendies to push the Boulder, where N is the number of times e has already done so that month. When a player pushes the Boulder, its Height is increased by 1. At the beginning of the week, if the Boulder was not pushed in the previous week, the Boulder's Height is decreased to half its value, rounded down.
BUS: Proposal: Anniversaries (attn Promotor)
I submit the following proposal ("Anniversaries" AI=2):
Amend rule 1023 (Agoran Time) by appending:
5. Any anniversary, monthly anniversary, or quarterly anniversary
that would otherwise occur on a day of the month that does not
exist (after considering any leap day) instead occurs on the
following day.
--
Mischief
BUS: Proposal: Hats (attn Promotor)
Considering that folks have already been putting on hats before this was even
formally submitted as a proposal, I think it's safe to say there's interest in
this...
I submit the following proposal ("Hats" AI=1):
[The idea here is to have a playful mechanism that also serves as a straw poll of how
players are feeling. Inspired by the self-reporting approach in the "Bang!"
subgame, a player could include eir current hat in eir signature if e wished. The
recordkeepor language is meant to 1) avoid requiring any work and also 2) avoid problems
if someone's first post after changing eir hat is to agora-discussion.]
Create a rule titled "Hats" reading:
Hats are a secured player switch defaulting to "none" with the following
possible values and associated meanings for the player's current focus:
none: no particular focus
armored helm: competing for wins and in sub-games
dunce cap: expressing regret or acknowledging a mistake
floral wreath: resolving conflict
green eyeshade: maintaining accurate records
hard hat: repairing problems in the rules
jaunty beret: exploring creative expression
jester's cap: bringing levity and humor
judicial wig: ruling on CFJs and interpreting the rules
knitted cap: finding loopholes and exploits
plain hat: simplifying the rules
rugged fedora: researching Agoran and Nomic history
sleeping cap: reducing eir participation in Agora
steampunk hat: creating new game mechanics
traditional mortarboard: conducting research and writing theses
A player CAN change eir hat at any time by notifying the recordkeepor for eir
hat (publicly or privately). Unless otherwise specified by the rules: 1) the
recordkeepor for a player's hat is the player emself, and 2) reporting on hats
is OPTIONAL.
Hats do not otherwise limit or restrict a player's actions in any way, and
every player is ENCOURAGED to participate in all aspects of the game regardless
of eir current hat.
--
Mischief
Re: BUS: [Proposal] An Agoran Standoff
I withdraw my latest Proposal too, the one about Weapons. I was too
excited, and sloppy. Although I still like the idea and would enjoy
expanding the Bang game.
On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 11:25 AM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 6:56 AM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
> agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > It seems like Agora could use some more gameplay right now, so I present
> > this subgame that got drafted a while ago. It experiments with an
> > officerless tracking system, where players should report their status in
> > all their messages. For example (Alive, 3 Bangs) after a signature would
> > suffice.
> >
> > I submit the following proposal:
> >
> > {{{
> > Title: A friendly game
> > Adoption Index: 1.0
> > Author: snail
> > Co-author(s): juan
> >
> > Enact the following rule with title "Bang!" and the following text:
> >
> > {
> > Bangs are a fungible asset.
> >
> > Vitality is an untracked player Switch with possible values of
> > Invulnerable, Alive, Unalive, or Ghostly (default). A player with a
> > Vitality that is not Ghostly is called “corporeal”, else e is called
> > "ghostly".
> >
> > A ghostly player CAN incarnate by announcement, which means
> > to flip eir Vitality to Invulnerable, provided there are only
> > Invulnerable or Ghostly players.
> >
> > Each corporeal player SHOULD list eir Vitality and Bang Balance in all
> eir
> > messages.
> >
> > Any player CAN publish a report of all Bang Balances and Vitalities.
> Such a
> > purported report is self-ratifying, and SHOULD be made as needed.
> >
> > Each Alive player CAN eliminate another specified Alive player by paying
> a
> > fee of 1 bang. Eliminating a player makes em Unalive, and then grants em
> 1
> > bang.
> >
> > Any Alive player CAN Stand Alone by announcement, if there are no other
> > players that are Alive, and no person has won the game by doing so in the
> > past 7 days. When a player Stands Alone, e wins the game. If a player won
> > the game in this manner 4 days ago, then the match is reset.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > When 14 days have passed since a player was last eliminated, the match
> > resets, and then each player that was alive immediately before the match
> > reset gains 1 bang.
> > }
> >
> > The match is hereby reset.
> > }}}
> > --
> > snail
> >
>
> I withdraw the above proposal. (I've changed the reset period to allow 7
> days of incarnating so hopefully nobody misses out, plus allow time for
> proposals after a match ends, and mention ratifying the optional report
> without objection. Also cleaned up something yachay mentioned)
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {{{
> Title: A friendly game v2
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: snail
> Co-author(s): juan, janet, ais523, Yachay
>
> Enact the following rule with title "Bang!" and the following text:
>
> {
> Bangs are a fungible asset.
>
> Vitality is an untracked player Switch with possible values of
> Invulnerable, Alive, Unalive, or Ghostly (default). A player with a
> Vitality that is not Ghostly is called “corporeal”, else e is called
> "ghostly".
>
> To "incarnate" is to flip one's Vitality to Invulnerable. A ghostly player
> CAN
> incarnate by announcement, provided there are only Invulnerable or Ghostly
> players.
>
> Each corporeal player SHOULD list eir Vitality and Bang Balance in all eir
> messages.
>
> Any player CAN publish a report of all Bang Balances and Vitalities. Such a
> report SHOULD be made and Ratified Without Objection as needed.
>
> Each Alive player CAN eliminate another specified Alive player by paying a
> fee of 1 bang. Eliminating a player makes em Unalive, and then grants em 1
> bang.
>
> Any Alive player CAN Stand Alone by announcement, if there are no other
> players that are Alive, and no person has won the game by doing so in the
> past 7 days. When a player Stands Alone, e wins the game. If a player won
> the game in this manner 4 days ago, then the match is reset.
>
> When the match is reset, each player is set to Ghostly, all bangs are
> destroyed, and then each player gains 1 bang.
>
> When 7 days have passed since the match is reset, all Invulnerable
> players have eir Vitality set to Alive.
>
> When 14 days have passed since a player was last eliminated, the match
> resets, and then each player that was alive immediately before the match
> reset gains 1 bang.
> }
>
> The match is hereby reset.
> }}}
> --
> snail
>
Re: BUS: [Proposal] An Agoran Standoff
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 6:56 AM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> It seems like Agora could use some more gameplay right now, so I present
> this subgame that got drafted a while ago. It experiments with an
> officerless tracking system, where players should report their status in
> all their messages. For example (Alive, 3 Bangs) after a signature would
> suffice.
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {{{
> Title: A friendly game
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: snail
> Co-author(s): juan
>
> Enact the following rule with title "Bang!" and the following text:
>
> {
> Bangs are a fungible asset.
>
> Vitality is an untracked player Switch with possible values of
> Invulnerable, Alive, Unalive, or Ghostly (default). A player with a
> Vitality that is not Ghostly is called “corporeal”, else e is called
> "ghostly".
>
> A ghostly player CAN incarnate by announcement, which means
> to flip eir Vitality to Invulnerable, provided there are only
> Invulnerable or Ghostly players.
>
> Each corporeal player SHOULD list eir Vitality and Bang Balance in all eir
> messages.
>
> Any player CAN publish a report of all Bang Balances and Vitalities. Such a
> purported report is self-ratifying, and SHOULD be made as needed.
>
> Each Alive player CAN eliminate another specified Alive player by paying a
> fee of 1 bang. Eliminating a player makes em Unalive, and then grants em 1
> bang.
>
> Any Alive player CAN Stand Alone by announcement, if there are no other
> players that are Alive, and no person has won the game by doing so in the
> past 7 days. When a player Stands Alone, e wins the game. If a player won
> the game in this manner 4 days ago, then the match is reset.
>
> 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.
>
> When 14 days have passed since a player was last eliminated, the match
> resets, and then each player that was alive immediately before the match
> reset gains 1 bang.
> }
>
> The match is hereby reset.
> }}}
> --
> snail
>
I withdraw the above proposal. (I've changed the reset period to allow 7
days of incarnating so hopefully nobody misses out, plus allow time for
proposals after a match ends, and mention ratifying the optional report
without objection. Also cleaned up something yachay mentioned)
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: A friendly game v2
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: snail
Co-author(s): juan, janet, ais523, Yachay
Enact the following rule with title "Bang!" and the following text:
{
Bangs are a fungible asset.
Vitality is an untracked player Switch with possible values of
Invulnerable, Alive, Unalive, or Ghostly (default). A player with a
Vitality that is not Ghostly is called “corporeal”, else e is called
"ghostly".
To "incarnate" is to flip one's Vitality to Invulnerable. A ghostly player
CAN
incarnate by announcement, provided there are only Invulnerable or Ghostly
players.
Each corporeal player SHOULD list eir Vitality and Bang Balance in all eir
messages.
Any player CAN publish a report of all Bang Balances and Vitalities. Such a
report SHOULD be made and Ratified Without Objection as needed.
Each Alive player CAN eliminate another specified Alive player by paying a
fee of 1 bang. Eliminating a player makes em Unalive, and then grants em 1
bang.
Any Alive player CAN Stand Alone by announcement, if there are no other
players that are Alive, and no person has won the game by doing so in the
past 7 days. When a player Stands Alone, e wins the game. If a player won
the game in this manner 4 days ago, then the match is reset.
When the match is reset, each player is set to Ghostly, all bangs are
destroyed, and then each player gains 1 bang.
When 7 days have passed since the match is reset, all Invulnerable
players have eir Vitality set to Alive.
When 14 days have passed since a player was last eliminated, the match
resets, and then each player that was alive immediately before the match
reset gains 1 bang.
}
The match is hereby reset.
}}}
--
snail
BUS: Proposal: Say It Once Mk II (attn Promotor)
I retract my proposal "Say It Once"
I submit the following proposal ("Say It Once Mk II" AI=3):
[This proposal quotes text that explicitly includes both references, so this
should be safe against unintended conflicts with other changes.]
Amend rule 1950 (Decisions with Adoption Indices) by, in the text reading:
Adoption index (AI) is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran
decisions and proposals, secured at power 2. For decisions, the
possible values are "none" (default) or integral multiples of 0.1
from 1.0 to 9.9. For proposals, the possible values are integral
multiples of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9 (default 1.0).
The adoption index of a referendum CANNOT be set or changed to
"none" or to a value less than that of its associated proposal. If
a referendum ever has an adoption index of "none" or an adoption
index less than that of its associated proposal, it is immediately
set to the adoption index of the associated proposal.
Adoption index is secured with a Power Threshold of 2.
deleting the sentence "Adoption index is secured with a Power Threshold of 2."
--
Mischief
Re: BUS: Proposal: Say It Once (attn Promotor)
On 5/21/24 16:07, Mischief via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal ("Say It Once" AI=3):
>
> [This proposal refers to the rule using its revision number and by quoting
> text that explicitly includes both references, so this should be safe against
> unintended conflicts with other changes.]
>
> Amend rule 1950/38 (Decisions with Adoption Indices) by, in the text reading:
>
>Adoption index (AI) is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran
>decisions and proposals, secured at power 2. For decisions, the
>possible values are "none" (default) or integral multiples of 0.1
>from 1.0 to 9.9. For proposals, the possible values are integral
>multiples of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9 (default 1.0).
>
>The adoption index of a referendum CANNOT be set or changed to
>"none" or to a value less than that of its associated proposal. If
>a referendum ever has an adoption index of "none" or an adoption
>index less than that of its associated proposal, it is immediately
>set to the adoption index of the associated proposal.
>
>Adoption index is secured with a Power Threshold of 2.
>
> deleting the sentence "Adoption index is secured with a Power Threshold of 2."
>
>
>
Please don't include the revision number in amendments. I believe we've
held that doing so causes the specification to be invalid (that would
have been under the old R105 standard though). Also, it's unclear what
happens if the revision number is wrong due to the rule history being wrong.
Including the whole text of the rule should be sufficient.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: Proposal: Say It Once (attn Promotor)
I submit the following proposal ("Say It Once" AI=3):
[This proposal refers to the rule using its revision number and by quoting text
that explicitly includes both references, so this should be safe against
unintended conflicts with other changes.]
Amend rule 1950/38 (Decisions with Adoption Indices) by, in the text reading:
Adoption index (AI) is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran
decisions and proposals, secured at power 2. For decisions, the
possible values are "none" (default) or integral multiples of 0.1
from 1.0 to 9.9. For proposals, the possible values are integral
multiples of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9 (default 1.0).
The adoption index of a referendum CANNOT be set or changed to
"none" or to a value less than that of its associated proposal. If
a referendum ever has an adoption index of "none" or an adoption
index less than that of its associated proposal, it is immediately
set to the adoption index of the associated proposal.
Adoption index is secured with a Power Threshold of 2.
deleting the sentence "Adoption index is secured with a Power Threshold of 2."
--
Mischief
Re: BUS: Proposal - Bang game Weapons (@Promotor)
On 5/14/24 15:08, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote:
> {
> Weapon is an untracked corporeal player switch with possible values of the
> names of the weapons listed below, with Revolver as the default.
>
> - Revolver: An Alive player with a Revolver CAN Revolvershot another
> specified Alive player by paying a fee of 1 bang. This Eliminates that
> player.
> - Grenade: An Alive player with a Grenade CAN Grenadeboom 3 specified
> players that do not have Sniper Rifles by paying a fee of 2 bang.
> - Dynamite: An Alive player with a Dynamite CAN Dynamiteboom with 7 days of
> notice. To Dynamiteboom is to pay 3 bang and then Eliminate all other Alive
> players without a Sniper Rifle.
"pay" here doesn't trigger the fee-based actions machinery, so this
likely isn't well-enough specified. Also note that this can be done
multiple times from a single intent.
> - Sniper Rifle: An Alive player with a Sniper Rifle has an Aim switch, with
> possible values of all Alive players, defaulting to emselves. If ey haven't
> done so in the last 3 days, a player with a Sniper Rifle can Change Aim by
> announcement, setting eir Aim switch to a specified value. An Alive player
> with a Sniper Rifle with an Aim switch that hasn't changed value in the
> last 3 days can Snipershot the player specified by eir Aim switch by paying
> a fee of 1 bang. This Eliminates that player.
Agoran Spivak uses "emself" and "e", both singular (so "e has not"
rather than "ey haven't"). This applies below as well.
> - Book of Blackpowder: An Alive player with a Book of Blackpowder can
> Bookrevive a specified player by paying a fee of 2 bang, this Revives em.
> Reviving a player makes em Alive if ey were Unalive. An Alive player with a
> Book of Blackpowder can Bookblast a specified player by paying a fee of 2
> bang, this Eliminates em.
>
> A corporeal player can set eir Weapon switch to a specified value by
> announcement if ey haven't done so in the last time the match was reset, or
> by paying a fee of 5 Stamps.
>
> If a player's Weapon switch has changed in the last 48 hours, ey CANNOT
> spend bang, other rules notwithstanding.
"rules to the contrary notwithstanding".
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: BUS: [Proposal] An Agoran Standoff
On 5/14/24 07:55, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > Any player CAN publish a report of all Bang Balances and Vitalities. Such a > purported report is self-ratifying, and SHOULD be made as needed. I don't think this works. It isn't a switch report R2162 so it isn't self-ratifying there, and new definitions of self-ratifying things are secured at power 3. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: Proposal: Self-Elimination
I submit the following proposal ("Self-Elimination" AI=1):
[Perhaps someone will find an interesting reason to do this. This proposal
should work with either version of the game.]
Amend the rule titled "Bang!" by replacing every instance of "another specified Alive
player" with "a specified Alive player"
Amend the rule titled "Bang for your Buck" by replacing every instance of "another specified
Alive player" with "a specified Alive player"
--
Mischief
BUS: Proposal - Bang game Weapons (@Promotor)
I like the Bang idea quite a lot.
I submit the following Proposal:
---
Title: A friendly shop
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: Yachay
Co-author(s): -
Amend "Each Alive player CAN eliminate another specified Alive player by
paying a fee of 1 bang. Eliminating a player makes em Unalive, and then
grants em 1 bang." in the rule "Bang!" to:
"Eliminating a player makes em Unalive, and then grants em 1 bang."
Then create a new rule called "Bang for your Buck" with the following text:
{
Weapon is an untracked corporeal player switch with possible values of the
names of the weapons listed below, with Revolver as the default.
- Revolver: An Alive player with a Revolver CAN Revolvershot another
specified Alive player by paying a fee of 1 bang. This Eliminates that
player.
- Grenade: An Alive player with a Grenade CAN Grenadeboom 3 specified
players that do not have Sniper Rifles by paying a fee of 2 bang.
- Dynamite: An Alive player with a Dynamite CAN Dynamiteboom with 7 days of
notice. To Dynamiteboom is to pay 3 bang and then Eliminate all other Alive
players without a Sniper Rifle.
- Sniper Rifle: An Alive player with a Sniper Rifle has an Aim switch, with
possible values of all Alive players, defaulting to emselves. If ey haven't
done so in the last 3 days, a player with a Sniper Rifle can Change Aim by
announcement, setting eir Aim switch to a specified value. An Alive player
with a Sniper Rifle with an Aim switch that hasn't changed value in the
last 3 days can Snipershot the player specified by eir Aim switch by paying
a fee of 1 bang. This Eliminates that player.
- Book of Blackpowder: An Alive player with a Book of Blackpowder can
Bookrevive a specified player by paying a fee of 2 bang, this Revives em.
Reviving a player makes em Alive if ey were Unalive. An Alive player with a
Book of Blackpowder can Bookblast a specified player by paying a fee of 2
bang, this Eliminates em.
A corporeal player can set eir Weapon switch to a specified value by
announcement if ey haven't done so in the last time the match was reset, or
by paying a fee of 5 Stamps.
If a player's Weapon switch has changed in the last 48 hours, ey CANNOT
spend bang, other rules notwithstanding.
Each corporeal player SHOULD specify eir Weapon in all eir messages.
}
BUS: [Proposal] An Agoran Standoff
It seems like Agora could use some more gameplay right now, so I present
this subgame that got drafted a while ago. It experiments with an
officerless tracking system, where players should report their status in
all their messages. For example (Alive, 3 Bangs) after a signature would
suffice.
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: A friendly game
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: snail
Co-author(s): juan
Enact the following rule with title "Bang!" and the following text:
{
Bangs are a fungible asset.
Vitality is an untracked player Switch with possible values of
Invulnerable, Alive, Unalive, or Ghostly (default). A player with a
Vitality that is not Ghostly is called “corporeal”, else e is called
"ghostly".
A ghostly player CAN incarnate by announcement, which means
to flip eir Vitality to Invulnerable, provided there are only
Invulnerable or Ghostly players.
Each corporeal player SHOULD list eir Vitality and Bang Balance in all eir
messages.
Any player CAN publish a report of all Bang Balances and Vitalities. Such a
purported report is self-ratifying, and SHOULD be made as needed.
Each Alive player CAN eliminate another specified Alive player by paying a
fee of 1 bang. Eliminating a player makes em Unalive, and then grants em 1
bang.
Any Alive player CAN Stand Alone by announcement, if there are no other
players that are Alive, and no person has won the game by doing so in the
past 7 days. When a player Stands Alone, e wins the game. If a player won
the game in this manner 4 days ago, then the match is reset.
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.
When 14 days have passed since a player was last eliminated, the match
resets, and then each player that was alive immediately before the match
reset gains 1 bang.
}
The match is hereby reset.
}}}
--
snail
BUS: [Proposal] Grind Stone, Lode Stone
Here's some proposals to replace the currently defunct stones:
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Grind Stone
Adoption Index: 2.0
Author: snail
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2645 (The Stones) by replacing
{
- Anti-Equatorial Stone (monthly): When wielded, the mossiest
non-immune stone is transferred to the wielder. If more than one
such stone is tied for mossiest, a specified one is transferred.
When this happens, the wielded stone's mossiness is incremented
by 1.
}
with
{
- Grind Stone (quarterly): When wielded, if this is the 5th time the
wielder has wielded the Grind Stone (not the recursion stone) since any
other player wielded it, e wins the game.
}
}}}
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Lode Stone
Adoption Index: 2.0
Author: snail
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2645 (The Stones) by replacing
{
- Loud Stone (monthly): When wielded, a specified player's
Dream is set to a specified Dream, and then e is Beguiled;
Beguiling is secured. A player's Dream CANNOT be flipped if e
was Beguiled in the last 7 days, rules to the contrary
notwithstanding.
}
with
{
- Lode Stone (monthly): If e has wielded this stone in the same
message, any player CAN pay a fee of X-2 Spendies to transfer a specified
stone to emself, where X is the current Stone Cost of the specified stone.
}
}}}
--
snail
BUS: [proposal] Delegate removal
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Delegate removal
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
{
Amend Rule 2689 ("Vacations & Delegation") by replacing
{ E CAN, by announcement, flip the Delegate switch of that office to
"None". }
with
{ The Delegate of an office, if any, and the holder of that office, if
any, CAN by announcement flip the Delegate of that office to "None". }
[Allow officers to remove delegates in order to allow an officer to
regain control of the office by force (unlikely to actually matter, but
it seems like something that should be possible).]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sortition
> SHALL in a timely manner, initiate a sorition for each sortitioned typo ^ -- Falsifian
BUS: [Proposal] Market Stone Pricing
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Market Stone Pricing
Author: Jaff
AI: 2.0
{
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.
}
}
}}}
- Jaff
BUS: [Proposal] Sortition
I submit the following proposal:
{
Title: Sortition
Author: nix
Co-Authors: Janet
AI: 2
[This proposal experiments with a much older idea of democracy -
sortition. In this process, instead of an election the office is
randomly assigned to a player from a pool of interested players.
In theory the advantages is that it avoids us becoming too reliant on a
specific officer or workflow, and gives everyone a chance to
participate.]
Enact a new Power = 2 rule titled "Sortition Procedure" with the
following text:
At the beginning of each quarter, the ADoP CAN by announcement, and
SHALL in a timely manner, initiate a sorition for each sortitioned
office if e has not already done so for that office.
When a sortition is initiated, it enters the lots period. Any player
CAN become an option for that office during this period. If a person
ceases to be a player during this period, e also ceases to be an
option for each current sortition.
Seven days after a sortition is initiated, its lots period ends. The
ADoP CAN by announcement, and SHALL in a timely manner after a
lots period ends, randomly select one of the options for that
office. When e does so, that player becomes the officeholder for
that office.
Amend R1006 (Offices) by replacing:
An imposed office is an office described as such by the rule
defining it. All others are elected.
with:
Imposed offices and sortitioned are offices described as such by the
rules that define them. All other offices are elected
Amend R2683 (The Boulder) by replacing "The Absurdor is an office" with
"The Absurdor is a sortitioned office".
Amend R2616 (The Webmastor) by replacing "The Webmastor is an office"
with "The Webmastor is a sortitioned office".
Amend R2659 (Stamps) by replacing "The Collector is an office" with "The
Collector is a sortitioned office".
Amend R2685 (Crystals) by replacing "The Geologist is an office" with
"The Geologist is a sortitioned office".
Amend R2640 (Stones) by replacing "The Stonemason is an office" with
"The Stonemason is a sortitioned office".
Amend R2656 (Radiance) by replacing "The Illuminator is an office" with
"The Illuminator is a sortitioned office".
Amend R2690 (Spendies) by replacing "The Spendor is an office" with "The
Spendor is a sortitioned office".
}
--
nix
Arbitor, Spendor
BUS: [Proposal] Less Smooth, More Immune
I submit the following proposal:
{
Title: Less Smooth, More Immune
AI: 2.0
Author: nix
Co-authors: Janet
[The overhaul spendies did to stones left two major stubs. The first is
references to smoothness, a removed mechanic. This will simply remove
those references.
The second leftover is immunity. It no longer means anything, but some
stones reference it. This adds immunity back, in a way balanced with
the current mechanics.]
Amend R2640 (Stones) by removing "(ii) The smoothness of the stone,
which is a non-negative integer;", replacing "(iii)" with "(ii)",
replacing "(iv)" with "(iii)", and appending, to the end, the following
paragraph:
A stone is immune if and only if a rule of power 2 or more says it
is immune; otherwise it is non-immune.
Amend R2642 (Stone Cost) by replacing "to transfer a specified stone"
with "to transfer a specified non-immune stone".
Amend R2645 (The Stones) by replacing every instance of "(weekly, X)",
where X is a number, with "(weekly)".
Amend R2645 (The Stones) by replacing every instance of "(monthly, X)",
where X is a number, with "(monthly)";
Amend R2645 (The Stones) by replacing:
- Protection Stone (monthly): When wielded, a specified stone is
granted immunity.
with:
- Protection Stone (monthly): When wielded, specify a stone. The
stone most recently specified when wielding the Protection Stone
is immune.
Amedn R2645 (The Stones) by replacing:
- Hot Potato Stone (weekly): When this stone is wielded, the wielder
specifies an eligible player and gains 8 radiance. The stone is
transferred to the eligible player. An eligible player is one who
has not owned this stone since the last time Agora owned it. If
this stone is not owned by Agora, a player CANNOT otherwise
transfer it, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. This stone is
immune if 3 or more players have wielded it since the most recent
collection notice.
with:
- Hot Potato Stone (weekly): When this stone is wielded, the wielder
specifies an eligible player and gains 8 radiance. The stone is
transferred to the eligible player. An eligible player is one who
has not owned this stone since the last time it was transferred
without being wielded. If this stone has been wielded at least
once in the last 15 days, it is immune.
}
--
nix
Arbitor, Spendor
BUS: [Proposal] No Overpowered Deputizations
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: No Overpowered Deputizations
Adoption Index: 3.0
Author: snail
Co-authors: Janet, Murphy, Juniper
Amend Rule 2160 (Deputisation) by replacing
{
When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the
holder of that office, unless the deputisation is temporary,
and/or the action being performed would already install someone
into that office.
}
with
{
When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the holder
of that office, unless the deputisation is temporary, doing so would make
em Overpowered, and/or the action being performed would already install
someone into that office.
}
}}}
--
snail
BUS: [Proposal] No more mega raffles
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Stamp Raffle fix
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: snail
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2687 (The Stamp Raffle) by appending the following paragraph:
{
At the end of each week in which a Raffle Result was not published, each
stamp owned by Agora at the beginning of the week is transferred to the
player it has as a type, or to the Lost and Found Department if no such
player exists. Then, each player that received a stamp this way gains 1
radiance.
}
}}}
I submit the following proposal, which would also fix this:
{{{
Title: Stamp Raffle Repeal
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: snail
Co-authors:
Repeal Rule 2687 (The Stamp Raffle).
Each stamp owned by Agora is transferred to the player it has as a type, or
to the Lost and Found Department if no such player exists.
}}}
--
snail
BUS: [Proposal] Welcome to spendy town
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Welcome Spendies
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: snail
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2499 (Welcome Packages) by replacing
{
* One stamp of eir own type.
}
with
{
* One stamp of eir own type.
* 10 spendies, if e has not been granted any spendies since e last
registered.
}
}}}
--
snail
BUS: [proposal] Festival restrictions
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Festival strength restrictions
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
{
Amend Rule 2481 ("Festival Restrictions") by replacing "Each Festive
player has the maximum possible voting strength. All other players have
the minimum possible voting strength." with "Each Festive player has the
maximum possible voting strength. Each person who is not a Festive
player has the minimum possible voting strength. Rules to the contrary
notwithstanding, no modifications to voting strength (other than
defining the maximum and minimum) are applied by any other Rule.".
[Clarify that setting strength to the maximum/minimum cannot then be
altered with Blots or bonuses, since it's currently unclear whether the
method of calculation in R2422 applies. Additionally, don't allow
non-Festive players to escape the penalty by deregistering.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: BUS: [proposal] Stone cleanups
On 4/14/24 15:12, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I withdraw the above proposal.
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Stone cleanups
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Janet
> Coauthors:
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2451 ("Executive Orders") by deleting the list item
> (including the bullet point) that contains "Growth".
>
> Amend Rule 2645 ("The Stones") by, as a single amendment, deleting the
> list item (including the bullet point) that contains "Anti-Equatorial"
> and the list item (including the bullet point) that contains "Loud".
>
> [Growth and the Anti-Equatorial Stone depend on mossiness, which no
> longer exists. The Loud Stone depends on Dreams, which no longer exist.]
>
> }
I withdraw the above-submitted proposal.
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Stone cleanups v3
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
{
Amend Rule 2451 ("Executive Orders") by deleting the list item
(including the bullet point) that contains "Growth". Amend Rule 2645
("The Stones") by, as a single amendment:
* Deleting the list item (including the bullet point) that contains
"Anti-Equatorial Stone", the list item (including the bullet point) that
contains "Loud Stone", and the list item (including the bullet point)
that contains "Protection Stone".
* Replacing each instance of the text "non-immune stone" with "stone".
* In the list item containing "Hot Potato Stone", deleting from " If
this stone is not owned by Agora" (inclusive) to the end of the list item.
[Growth and the Anti-Equatorial Stone depend on mossiness, which no
longer exists. The Loud Stone depends on Dreams, which no longer exist.
The Protection Stone depends on immunity, which no longer Next, Also,
clean up references to immunity. Finally, the Hot Potato Stone no longer
needs to restrict transference, as stones are now fixed.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: BUS: [proposal] Stone cleanups
On 4/14/24 15:06, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Stone cleanups
>
> Adoption index: 2.0
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coauthors:
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2451 ("Executive Orders") by deleting the list item
> (including the bullet point) that contains "Growth".
>
> Amend Rule 2645 ("The Stones") by deleting the list item (including the
> bullet point) that contains "Anti-Equatorial".
>
> [Both of these depend on mossiness, which no longer exists.]
>
> }
>
I withdraw the above proposal.
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Stone cleanups
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
{
Amend Rule 2451 ("Executive Orders") by deleting the list item
(including the bullet point) that contains "Growth".
Amend Rule 2645 ("The Stones") by, as a single amendment, deleting the
list item (including the bullet point) that contains "Anti-Equatorial"
and the list item (including the bullet point) that contains "Loud".
[Growth and the Anti-Equatorial Stone depend on mossiness, which no
longer exists. The Loud Stone depends on Dreams, which no longer exist.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [proposal] Stone cleanups
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Stone cleanups
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
{
Amend Rule 2451 ("Executive Orders") by deleting the list item
(including the bullet point) that contains "Growth".
Amend Rule 2645 ("The Stones") by deleting the list item (including the
bullet point) that contains "Anti-Equatorial".
[Both of these depend on mossiness, which no longer exists.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [Proposal] Spendy Sizing
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Spendy Sizing
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: snail
Co-authors:
Amend rule 2685 (Crystals) by replacing
{
A player is crystallized if the total size of crystals e owns is
at least the number of rules in the current ruleset.
}
with
{
A player is crystallized if the total size of crystals e owns is
at least the number of rules in the current ruleset.
A player CAN increase the size of a specified crystal by 1 by paying
a fee of 11 spendies.
}
}}}
--
snail
BUS: [Proposal] Preventing catastrophe.
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: More instability with a hyphen
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: snail
Co-authors: R. Lee
Amend rule 2685 (Crystals) by replacing
"- If that crystal's owner is not the author of that proposal, the
instability
of that crystal is increased by 1."
with
"- If that crystal's owner is not the author of that proposal, the
instability of that crystal is increased by 2."
[The above hyphen was missing in the previous version.]
}}}
--
snail
Re: BUS: [proposal] Welcome package fix
On 4/10/24 11:16, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> On 4/10/24 11:13, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> Title: Welcome package fix, again
>>
>> Author: Janet
>>
>> Coauthors: Aris
>>
>> Adoption index: 1.0
>>
>> {
>>
>> Amend Rule 2499 ("Welcome Packages") to read, in whole:
>>
>> {
>>
>> When a player receives a welcome package, if e has not received a
>> welcome package, including under any previous definition, since e last
>> registered nor in the last 30 days, e gains the following assets:
>> * One stamp of eir own type.
>>
>> A player CAN, by announcement, cause a specified player to receive a
>> welcome package (syn. "grant" em a welcome package).
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>> [Clarify the issues identified with welcome packages previously. There
>> has been discussion of adding pro-rated spendies, but that will be done
>> separately.]
>>
>> }
>>
> I withdraw the above-submitted proposal.
>
> Title: Welcome package fix, again
> Author: Janet
> Coauthors: Aris
> Adoption index: 1.0
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2499 ("Welcome Packages") to read, in whole:
>
> {
>
> When a player receives a welcome package, if e has not received a
> welcome package, including under any previous definition, since e last
> registered nor in the last 30 days, e gains the following assets:
>
> * One stamp of eir own type.
>
> A player CAN, by announcement, cause a specified player to receive a
> welcome package (syn. "grant" em a welcome package).
>
> }
>
>
> [Clarify the issues identified with welcome packages previously. There
> has been discussion of adding pro-rated spendies, but that will be done
> separately. Only a formatting change from V1.]
>
> }
>
Goddammit. I withdraw each proposal I submitted in the above-quoted message.
I submit the following proposal
Title: Welcome package fix, again, again
Author: Janet
Coauthors: Aris
Adoption index: 1.0
{
Amend Rule 2499 ("Welcome Packages") to read, in whole:
{
When a player receives a welcome package, if e has not received a
welcome package, including under any previous definition, since e last
registered nor in the last 30 days, e gains the following assets:
* One stamp of eir own type.
A player CAN, by announcement, cause a specified player to receive a
welcome package (syn. "grant" em a welcome package).
}
[Clarify the issues identified with welcome packages previously. There
has been discussion of adding pro-rated spendies, but that will be done
separately. Only a formatting change from V1.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: BUS: [proposal] Welcome package fix
On 4/10/24 11:13, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Welcome package fix, again
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coauthors: Aris
>
> Adoption index: 1.0
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2499 ("Welcome Packages") to read, in whole:
>
> {
>
> When a player receives a welcome package, if e has not received a
> welcome package, including under any previous definition, since e last
> registered nor in the last 30 days, e gains the following assets:
> * One stamp of eir own type.
>
> A player CAN, by announcement, cause a specified player to receive a
> welcome package (syn. "grant" em a welcome package).
>
> }
>
>
> [Clarify the issues identified with welcome packages previously. There
> has been discussion of adding pro-rated spendies, but that will be done
> separately.]
>
> }
>
I withdraw the above-submitted proposal.
Title: Welcome package fix, again
Author: Janet
Coauthors: Aris
Adoption index: 1.0
{
Amend Rule 2499 ("Welcome Packages") to read, in whole:
{
When a player receives a welcome package, if e has not received a
welcome package, including under any previous definition, since e last
registered nor in the last 30 days, e gains the following assets:
* One stamp of eir own type.
A player CAN, by announcement, cause a specified player to receive a
welcome package (syn. "grant" em a welcome package).
}
[Clarify the issues identified with welcome packages previously. There
has been discussion of adding pro-rated spendies, but that will be done
separately. Only a formatting change from V1.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [proposal] Welcome package fix
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Welcome package fix, again
Author: Janet
Coauthors: Aris
Adoption index: 1.0
{
Amend Rule 2499 ("Welcome Packages") to read, in whole:
{
When a player receives a welcome package, if e has not received a
welcome package, including under any previous definition, since e last
registered nor in the last 30 days, e gains the following assets:
* One stamp of eir own type.
A player CAN, by announcement, cause a specified player to receive a
welcome package (syn. "grant" em a welcome package).
}
[Clarify the issues identified with welcome packages previously. There
has been discussion of adding pro-rated spendies, but that will be done
separately.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: Proposal: crystals change
I create the following proposal. The reason for it is because one weird attribute of crystals is that power 3 rules can never change ownership. the size increases by 3 each time and the instability increases by a max of 3. Title: More instability so crystals can actually change hands AI: 1 Text: Amend rule 2685 'Crystals' by replacing "- If that crystal's owner is not the author of that proposal, the instability of that crystal is increased by 1." with "If that crystal's owner is not the author of that proposal, the instability of that crystal is increased by 2."
Re: BUS: [proposal] Spendor definition
On 4/10/24 11:02, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Who are you, again?
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coauthors:
>
> Adoption index: 1.0
>
> {
>
> Amend the Rule entitled "Spendies" by prepending the following paragraph:
>
> {
>
> The Spendor is an office.
>
> }
>
> }
>
*sigh*
I withdraw the above-submitted proposal.
Title: Who are you, again, again?
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 1.0
{
Amend the Rule entitled "Spendies" by prepending the following paragraph:
{
The Spendor is an office.
}
The Officeholder of Spendor is hereby flipped to nix.
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [proposal] Spendor definition
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Who are you, again?
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 1.0
{
Amend the Rule entitled "Spendies" by prepending the following paragraph:
{
The Spendor is an office.
}
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [Proposal] Spendie Fixie
I submit the following proposal:
{
Title: Spendie Fixie
AI: 2.0
Author: nix
Co-Authors: Murphy, ais523, Janet
[Spendies v1.1 both failed to repeal R2643 and may have accidentally
repealed 2642. This proposal fixes both of those.]
Reenact R2642 (Stone Cost) with a Power of 2 and the full text:
Stone Cost is a Stone switch with values of non-negative integers
and a default of 10. Stone Cost is tracked by the Stonemason.
Any player CAN pay a fee of X Spendies to transfer a specified stone
to emself, where X is the current Stone Cost of the specified stone.
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.
[If the rule is repealed, this brings it back. If the rule isn't
repealed, it does nothing.]
Repeal R2643 (Collecting Stones).
If no player has any Spendies, grant each player 20 Spendies.
[Get Spendies running properly if they aren't already.]
}
--
nix
Arbitor
BUS: [proposal] A repeal
I submit the following proposal:
Title: A repeal
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 1.0
{
Repeal the Rule entitled "Agora of Empires".
[The only gameplay this has produced is what was effectively an Apathy
attempt, and it does not appear likely to produce more in the future.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [proposal] Better late than never
I submit the following proposal:
Title: SLR ratification 2023-12-31
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 3.0
{
Ratify the Short Logical Ruleset published by Janet on or about December
31, 2023 at 21:12:14 UTC, available at [0].
[0]
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-December/017538.html
[I was required to submit such a proposal for Ratify the Ruleset Week
but forgot to. Sorry.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: Proposal: yes, yes, I got the memo
I create the following proposal:
---
Title: yes, yes, I got the memo
Author: Gaelan
AI: 1.7
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.
}
[Currently, if an infraction is noted after it is investigated,
the Investigator SHALL but CANNOT investigate it. This would be
automatically forgiven by 2531, so it’s not an issue in practice,
but let’s fix it properly.]
---
Gaelan
BUS: Proposal: Don't humiliate the recently departed
I create the following proposal: {
Title: Don't humiliate the recently departed
AI: 2
Amend rule 2168 ("Extending the Voting Period”) by replacing "despite being
eligible” with "despite being eligible players”.
}
Gaelan
Re: BUS: Proposal: one from the archives
I withdraw the quoted proposal and create an identical one, but
with Kate as a co-author.
Gaelan
> On Mar 24, 2024, at 9:16 AM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business
> wrote:
>
> I create the following proposal:
>
> {{{
> Title: One from the archives
> Author: Gaelan
> AI: 1
>
> Re-enact rule 417, with the following text: {
> The Archivist is an office; its holder is responsible for ensuring
> the continued availability of documents of historical interest.
>
> The archivist’s monthly report contains:
> * Instructions for accessing collections of:
>* Texts of each historic rule revision.
>* Texts of each proposal.
>* Judicial cases.
>* Public messages.
>* Messages to discussion fora.
>* Theses for which a person was awarded a degree.
>* Optionally, any other documents the Archivist deems worthy
> of archival.
> * A description of the completeness of each of the above
>collections.
>
> The referenced collections NEED NOT be perfectly complete or
> accurate, but the Archivist SHOULD work towards improving
> their completeness and accuracy.
> }
>
> Re-title rule 417 to “The Archivist”.
>
> Amend Rule 2581 by appending the following item to the list: {
> - Archaeologist, awardable by the Archivist to any player who
> makes a significant contribution to filling in missing
> historical records.
> }
>
> Make Gaelan the Archivist.
>
> [History for the Rulekeepor’s benefit, copied from Zefram’s rule
> archive:
> ??? by Proposal 417 [presumably enacted - Gaelan]
> Amended(1) by Proposal 1302, 4 November 1994
> Amended(2) by Proposal 1700, 1 September 1995
> Amended(3) by Proposal 1735, 15 October 1995
> Amended(4) by Proposal 1741, 15 October 1995
> Amended(5) by Proposal 2029, 28 November 1995
> Infected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, 23 January 1996
> Amended(7) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996
> Amended(8) by Proposal 2696, 10 October 1996
> Null-Amended(9) by Proposal 2710, 12 October 1996
> Repealed as Power=1 Rule 417 by Proposal 3787 (Steve), 8 September 1998
> ]
>
> [This is intentionally written loosely to allow the Archivist to
> defer to existing archives - for example that maintained by the
> CotC - where appropriate.]
> }}}
BUS: Proposal: one from the archives
I create the following proposal:
{{{
Title: One from the archives
Author: Gaelan
AI: 1
Re-enact rule 417, with the following text: {
The Archivist is an office; its holder is responsible for ensuring
the continued availability of documents of historical interest.
The archivist’s monthly report contains:
* Instructions for accessing collections of:
* Texts of each historic rule revision.
* Texts of each proposal.
* Judicial cases.
* Public messages.
* Messages to discussion fora.
* Theses for which a person was awarded a degree.
* Optionally, any other documents the Archivist deems worthy
of archival.
* A description of the completeness of each of the above
collections.
The referenced collections NEED NOT be perfectly complete or
accurate, but the Archivist SHOULD work towards improving
their completeness and accuracy.
}
Re-title rule 417 to “The Archivist”.
Amend Rule 2581 by appending the following item to the list: {
- Archaeologist, awardable by the Archivist to any player who
makes a significant contribution to filling in missing
historical records.
}
Make Gaelan the Archivist.
[History for the Rulekeepor’s benefit, copied from Zefram’s rule
archive:
??? by Proposal 417 [presumably enacted - Gaelan]
Amended(1) by Proposal 1302, 4 November 1994
Amended(2) by Proposal 1700, 1 September 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 1735, 15 October 1995
Amended(4) by Proposal 1741, 15 October 1995
Amended(5) by Proposal 2029, 28 November 1995
Infected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, 23 January 1996
Amended(7) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996
Amended(8) by Proposal 2696, 10 October 1996
Null-Amended(9) by Proposal 2710, 12 October 1996
Repealed as Power=1 Rule 417 by Proposal 3787 (Steve), 8 September 1998
]
[This is intentionally written loosely to allow the Archivist to
defer to existing archives - for example that maintained by the
CotC - where appropriate.]
}}}
BUS: [Proposal] Spendies
Below is my spendies proposal. Some of the changes from the proto are
outlined in that thread. The big change is lowering the number from 100
to 20, and adjusting the costs of things to match. This was based on a
suggestion from kiako to encourage less round numbers to be used, which
may encourage more trading.
I submit the following proposal:
{
Title: Spendies v1.1
Author: nix
Co-Authors: Janet, kiako
AI: 2
[Spendies are simple. We all start with the same amount every month,
and if you don't use them you lose them. You can transfer them, put
them in contracts, etc. But they will go away. What's important is what
you do with them in that month.]
Enact a new (Power=1) rule titled Spendies with the text:
Spendies are a currency ownable by players and contracts. Spendies
are tracked by the Spendor in eir weekly report.
At the end of each month, all Spendies are destroyed. At the
beginning of each month, every player is granted 20 Spendies.
[Quick compatibility with another proposal]
If a proposal titled "FUNgibility" and authored by nix has been adopted
within the last 90 days, amend the rule titled "Spendies" to replace
"currency" with "fungible liquid asset".
[Delete dream of wandering.]
Repeal R2675 (Dream of Wandering).
[Below stones are simplified, similarly to the stamp specialization
proposal I made previously. You simply buy them for a cost that
decreases every month while the stone has the same owner.]
Amend R2640 (Stones) by replacing:
A stone is a unique indestructible liquid asset
with:
A stone is a unique indestructible fixed asset
and deleting its last two paragraphs.
Amend R2641 (Wielding Stones) by replacing:
While a stone is hot, it is IMPOSSIBLE to wield it or to transfer it
by announcement.
with:
While a stone is hot, it is IMPOSSIBLE to wield it.
Retitle R2642 (Gathering Stones) to "Stone Cost" and then amend R2642 to
read in full:
Stone Cost is a Stone switch with values of non-negative integers
and a default of 10. Stone Cost is tracked by the Stonemason.
Any player CAN pay a fee of X Spendies to transfer a specified stone
to emself, where X is the current Stone Cost of the specified stone.
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.
Repeal R2642 (Gathering Stones).
[Similarly, let's include stamps. Remember Dreams are gone, so this is
now the primary way to get new stamps. Use Spendies to get stamps from
L, or mint more of your own. There's some modifications to the cost
to account for scale, which also discourages timing scams somewhat.]
Amend R2659 (Stamps) by appending the following paragraphs:
Any player CAN pay a fee of 5 Spendies to grant emself X stamps of
eir own type. When less than 8 Stamps of eir type exist, X is 2.
When 8 to 15 Stamps of eir type exist, X is 1. When 16 or more
stamps of eir type exist, X is 0.
Any player CAN pay a fee of 5 + (X) Spendies to transfer a
specified stamp from the L to emself. X is equal to the number of
times e has already done so in the current month.
[Finally, you can buy some radiance, tho the cost is fairly high. Might
push you across the finish line tho, or at least give a use for some
spare Spendies.]
Amend R2656 (Radiance) by appending the following paragraph:
Any player CAN increase eir radiance by 1 by paying a fee of 2
Spendies.
}
--
nix
Arbitor
BUS: [proposal] Empire fixes
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Empire fixes
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 1.0
{
Amend the Rule entitled "Agora of Empires" by, as a single amendment
(using the following steps, as if they were applied in order, to compute
the final text):
* Replacing the text "There exists a document known as the Empireworld"
with "There exists a document, initially empty, known as the Empireworld".
* Replacing each instance of the text "CfJ" with the text "CFJ".
* Replacing the text "when ey believe it to be appropriate" with "when
they believe it to be appropriate". [The antecedent is "Imperials",
which is plural.]
* Replacing the final paragraph with the following:
{
An Imperial CAN, without 2 objections, Dominate the World provided that
(1) the Empireworld shows that e has accomplished at least 3
extraordinary feats in the fictional world that the Empireworld
describes since e last won the game as a result of this Rule and that
(2) no person has won the game as a result of this Rule in the past 30
days. When a player Dominates the World, e wins the game.
This Rule does not describe what qualifies as an extraordinary feat.
}
Set the Empireworld to what it would be had it been empty initially
after the enactment of the Rule entitled "Agora of Empires".
[Fixes the uninitialized state, fixes minor grammar issues, does the
standard win indirection, and removes the double "by announcement" and
"without 2 objections" method for winning (which *shouldn't* allow by
announcement wins by precedent, but should be fixed in any case).]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [Proposal] Mourning shattered crystals
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Less Fragile Crystals
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: snail
Co-authors:
[Makes it so crystals can't be destroyed by the player that owns them,
which doesn't seem fun. Also gets rid of the "repeal this rule once someone
wins" part since we can just do that by proposal if we want. I'd rather it
stay around by default.]
Amend Rule 2685 (Crystals) by replacing
{
A crystal is an asset with secured integer switches identity, size
(default 0), and instability (default 0).
}
with
{
A crystal is an indestructible asset with secured integer switches
identity, size
(default 0), and instability (default 0).
}
and by replacing
{
Any player CAN, by announcement, Shatter the System, specifying
each crystallized player, and provided that no player has done so
in the past 30 days. When a player does so, each crystallized
player wins the game.
If at least 4 days have passed since any player won the game in
this manner, any player CAN repeal this rule by announcement.
}
with
{
Any player CAN, by announcement, Shatter the System, specifying
at least 1 crystallized player, and provided that no person has done
so
in the past 30 days. When a player does so, each crystallized
player wins the game.
If a player won the game in this manner 4 days ago, then all existing
crystals are destroyed.
}
}}}
--
snail
BUS: [Proposal] FUNgibility
I submit the following proposal:
{
Title: FUNgibility
Author: nix
Co-Authors:
AI: 3
[Right now, sentences like "Blank are an asset ownable by..." is
interpreted to adding to a default within R2576. This seems unintuitive.
This proposal makes that default only apply if there's no mention of
ownership.]
Retitle R2578 (Currencies) to "Fungibility"
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.
Amend R2659 (Stamps) by replacing:
Stamps of a given type are a currency.
with:
Stamps of a given type are fungible.
Amend R2555 (Blots) by replacing:
Blots are an indestructible fixed currency
with:
Blots are an indestructible fixed fungible asset
}
--
nix
Arbitor
BUS: [Proposal] No Hidden Ownership Restrictions
I submit the following proposal:
{
Title: No Hidden Ownership Restrictions
Author: nix
Co-Authors: Janet, kiako
AI: 3
[Right now, sentences like "Blank are an asset ownable by..." is
interpreted to adding to a default within R2576. This seems unintuitive.
This proposal makes that default only apply if there's no mention of
ownership.]
Amend R2576 (Ownership) by replacing:
If ownership of an asset is restricted to a class of entities, then
that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity outside
that class. By default, ownership of an asset is restricted to
Agora, players, and contracts, but an asset's backing document may
modify this.
with:
An asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity unless its
backing document specifies that entity can own it. If an asset's
backing document is otherwise silent on which entities can own it,
then it can be owned by Agora, players, and contracts.
Amend R2659 (Stamps) by replacing:
Stamps are a category of asset ownable by players .
with:
Stamps are a category of asset ownable by players and Agora.
}
--
nix
Arbitor
BUS: [proposal] Close enough rulekeeping
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Close enough
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 3.0
{
Amend Rule 105 by deleting the text " and the next change identifier".
[Remove the reference to "change identifiers" (presumably just revision
numbers) for reenactment.]
Amend Rule 1681 by, as a single amendment, deleting the text ", revision
number, " and inserting the following paragraph after the paragraph
beginning "The listing of each rule in the SLR":
{
The listing of each rule in the SLR must additionally include a
reasonably accurate approximation of the number of changes made to the
rule (the rule's revision number). The Rulekeepor may exercise
reasonable discretion in calculating revision numbers.
}
[Define what a rule's "revision number" is and explicitly grant the
Rulekeepor discretion in calculating it (e.g. not counting certain
amendments (back when we used Suber-style proposals that re-numbered
rules) or skipping revision numbers (for historical reasons).]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [Proposal] In case of unexpected nonplayerhood
I submit this proposal: // Title: In case of unexpected nonplayerhood Adoption index: 1.0 Author: Kate Co-authors: Gaelan In Rule 2492 (Recusal), s/deregistered/unregistered [Allows a judge to be removed if, through some mishap, the CFJ has been assigned to someone who has never been a player or who ceased to be a player through some means other than deregistration. Composition fully intended to annoy Janet, but I think completely effective under the new standard of "clear to a reasonable player".] // -Kate
BUS: [Proposal] vacations v4
I submit the following proposal:
{
Title: Vacations v4
Adoption Index: 3.0
Author: snail
Co-authors: nix, Janet, 4st, Yachay, G., juan, Murphy, ais523
[This proposal adds Vacations and Delegation, which encourage officers
to take time off and give the responsibility to someone else for a
while. Not only is this intended to reduce burnout for officers, but it
is also intended to be an opportunity for other players to learn an
office without fully committing to it. snail's note: this version allows a
delegate to resign by announcement. This should work fine: anyone can then
become the delegate with Agoran Consent, or by the officer making an intent
to give another player delegate (perhaps their second choice).]
Amend R2438 by replacing "Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an
office" with "Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an office or is the
delegate for an office while its holder is on vacation."
Enact a new Power=3 rule titled "Vacations & Delegation" with the
following text:
Delegate is an Office switch with possible values of "None" and
any active player, and default value of "None". Delegates are
tracked by the ADoP in eir weekly report.
A player CAN flip the Delegate switch of a specified office to
emself with Agoran Consent. If the Delegate switch of an office is
set to "None", the holder of that office CAN flip the Delegate
switch of that office to a specified player with support from that
specified player.
An officer CAN and SHOULD take a Vacation from a specified office e
has continuously held for over 6 months with 7 day notice, if e has
not done so in the last year. When an officer qualifies for a
Vacation, the ADoP SHOULD encourage em to take one, at least once a
quarter.
An officer is On Vacation from a specified office if e has taken a
Vacation from that office in the last 30 days. The list of officers
currently on vacation is part of the ADoP's report.
While the holder of an office is On Vacation, the Delegate of that
office CAN perform an action ordinarily reserved for the office-holder
as if e held the office, if it would be POSSIBLE for the Delegate to
perform the action, other than by this method, if e held the office.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, while an officer is On
Vacation that officer NEED NOT comply with any duties of that
office, and the Delegate, if any, SHALL comply with all duties of
the office as if e held the office.
The Delegate of an office CANNOT resign it. E CAN, by announcement,
flip the Delegate
switch of that office to "None".
}
--
snail
BUS: [Proposal] ROCK
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Loud Stone
Adoption Index: 2.0
Author: snail
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2645 (The Stones) by appending the following paragraph:
{
- Loud Stone (monthly, 4): When wielded, a specified player's Dream is set
to a specified Dream, and then e is Beguiled; Beguiling is secured. A
player's Dream CANNOT be flipped if e was Beguiled in the last 7 days,
rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
}
}}}
--
snail
BUS: [Proposal] Coauthored Crystals
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Coauthored Crystals
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: snail
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2685 (Crystals) by replacing
{
- If that crystal's owner is not the author of that proposal, the
instability of that crystal is increased by 3.
}
with
{
- If that crystal's owner is not the author of that proposal, the
instability of that crystal is increased by 1.
- If that crystal's owner is not the author or coauthor of that proposal,
the
instability of that crystal is increased by 2.
}
[This makes the rule function the same when there's no coauthors, but if
there's a coauthor that owns the crystal of the modified rule, its
instability is only increased by 1 instead of 3.]
}}}
--
snail
BUS: [proposal] vacations v3
I submit the following proposal:
{
Title: Vacations v3
Adoption Index: 3.0
Author: snail
Co-authors: nix, Janet, 4st, Yachay, G., juan, Murphy
[This proposal adds Vacations and Delegation, which encourage officers
to take time off and give the responsibility to someone else for a
while. Not only is this intended to reduce burnout for officers, but it
is also intended to be an opportunity for other players to learn an
office without fully committing to it. snail's note: added a simple consent
check of having to support becoming a delegate, instead of the changes i
did before. Also still changed the deputization-like clause.]
Amend R2438 by replacing "Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an
office" with "Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an office or is the
delegate for an office while its holder is on vacation."
Enact a new Power=3 rule titled "Vacations & Delegation" with the
following text:
Delegate is an Office switch with possible values of "None" and
any active player, and default value of "None". Delegates are
tracked by the ADoP in eir weekly report.
A player CAN flip the Delegate switch of a specified office to
emself with Agoran Consent. If the Delegate switch of an office is
set to "None", the holder of that office CAN flip the Delegate
switch of that office to a specified player with support from that
specified player.
An officer CAN and SHOULD take a Vacation from a specified office e
has continuously held for over 6 months with 7 day notice, if e has
not done so in the last year. When an officer qualifies for a
Vacation, the ADoP SHOULD encourage em to take one, at least once a
quarter.
An officer is On Vacation from a specified office if e has taken a
Vacation from that office in the last 30 days. The list of officers
currently on vacation is part of the ADoP's report.
While the holder of an office is On Vacation, the Delegate of that
office CAN perform an action ordinarily reserved for the office-holder
as if e held the office, if it would be POSSIBLE for the Delegate to
perform the action, other than by this method, if e held the office.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, while an officer is On
Vacation that officer NEED NOT comply with any duties of that
office, and the Delegate, if any, SHALL comply with all duties of
the office as if e held the office.
}
--
snail
BUS: [Proposal] (@Promotor) A Loud Noise
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Wake Up Call
Adoption Index: 2.0
Author: snail
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2675 (Dream of Wandering) by replacing "Dream is a secured
active player switch" with "Dream is an active player switch".
Enact a new Rule with Power 1 and title "Clapping" and the following text:
{
Each player CAN, with 3 support, Clap. When a player Claps, each active
player's Dream is set to Wandering. A player CANNOT Clap if any person has
Clapped in the past 2 weeks.
}
}}}
--
snail
Re: BUS: [Proposal] Things Mean What They're Meant to Mean
On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 3:08 PM Aris via agora-business wrote: > > I submit the following proposal. > > -Aris > --- > Title: Things Mean What They're Meant to Mean I retract this proposal and submit the following. No substantive changes. I'm sorry, Promotor. -Aris --- Title: Things Mean What They're Meant to Mean Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: G. Amend Rule 105, "Rule Changes", by adding at the end of the paragraph: A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes. Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously. the text: If a specification would ever be interpreted as causing multiple changes to happen at once, it is instead interpreted as attempting to cause them to occur separately, in the order they are listed in the specification. and by replacing the paragraph: Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be void and without effect. An inconsequential variation in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does. with: Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be void and without effect. An inconsequential variation in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule. Furthermore, if the change being specified would be clear to any reasonable player, the specification is not ambiguous, even if it is incorrect or unclear on its face. This provision does not prevent the specification of undesirable changes; for instance, an amendment which adds a typo is not corrected to remove the typo. and by replacing the text: 5. retitle (syn. amend the title of) a rule. with: 5. retitle a rule. [Removing the synonym, since it should no longer be needed.] At 4st's request, it is publicly noted that e is very silly for calling this proposal an unnecessary bug fix. [Some further examples of what should now work: 1. An amendment to the power of a rule is read as a change of the rule's power. 2. A repeal of a section of a rule is read as an amendment which removes that section. 3. Ellipses are read sensibly in rule quotations. 4. "Enact the following:" enacts the rule, unless it could sensibly be read as enacting a regulation. 5. "Append the following paragraph" works even if two paragraphs are clearly specified. (It still fails if it's unclear whether the text means one or two paragraphs though.) You get the point.]
BUS: [Proposal] Things Mean What They're Meant to Mean
I submit the following proposal. -Aris --- Title: Things Mean What They're Meant to Mean Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: G. Amend Rule 105, "Rule Changes", by adding at the end of the paragraph: A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes. Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously. the text: If a specification would ever be interpreted as causing multiple changes to happen at once, it is instead interpreted as attempting to cause them to occur separately, in the order they are listed in the specification. and by replacing the paragraph: Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be void and without effect. An inconsequential variation in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does. with: Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be void and without effect. An inconsequential variation in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule. Furthermore, if the change being specified would be clear to any reasonable player, the specification is not ambiguous, even if it is incorrect or unclear on its face. This provision does not prevent the specification of undesirable changes; for instance, an amendment which adds a typo is not corrected to remove the typo. and by replacing the text: 5. retitle (syn. amend the title of) a rule. with: 5. retitle a rule. [Removing the synonym, since it should now be unneeded.] At 4st's request, it is publicly noted that e is very silly for calling this proposal an unneeded bug fix. [Some further examples of what should now work: 1. An amendment to the power of a rule is read as a change in the rule's power. 2. A repeal of a section of a rule is read as an amendment which removes that section. 3. Ellipses are read sensibly in rule quotations. 4. "Enact the following:" enacts the rule, unless it could sensibly be read as enacting a regulation. 5. "Append the following paragraph" works even if two paragraphs are clearly specified. (It still fails if it's unclear whether the text means one or two paragraphs though.) You get the point.]
BUS: [Proposal] Vacations v2
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Vacations v2
Adoption Index: 3.0
Author: snail
Co-authors: nix, Janet, 4st, Yachay, G., juan, Murphy
[This proposal adds Vacations and Delegation, which encourage officers
to take time off and give the responsibility to someone else for a
while. Not only is this intended to reduce burnout for officers, but it
is also intended to be an opportunity for other players to learn an
office without fully committing to it.
Snail's note: edited to reduce the ability to abuse the system, delegates
are now opt-in only, so players can't be forced to be a delegate. Also
further specified the deputization-like acting as an officer a delegate
does.]
Amend R2438 by replacing "Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an
office" with "Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an office or is the
delegate for an office while its holder is on vacation."
Enact a new Power=3 rule titled "Vacations & Delegation" with the
following text:
{
Delegate is an Office switch with possible values of "None" and
any Delegatable player, and default value of "None". Delegates are
tracked by the ADoP in eir weekly report. Delegatable is a negative
boolean player switch tracked by the ADoP. A player CAN flip their
Delegatable switch to True or False by announcement.
A player CAN flip the Delegate switch of a specified office to
emself with Agoran Consent. If the Delegate switch of an office is
set to "None", the holder of that office CAN flip the Delegate
switch of that office to a specified player with notice.
An officer CAN and SHOULD take a Vacation from a specified office e
has continuously held for over 6 months with 7 day notice, if e has
not done so in the last year. When an officer qualifies for a
Vacation, the ADoP SHOULD encourage em to take one, at least once a
quarter.
An officer is On Vacation from a specified office if e has taken a
Vacation from that office in the last 30 days. The list of officers
currently on vacation is part of the ADoP's report.
While the holder of an office is On Vacation, the Delegate of that
office CAN perform an action ordinarily reserved for the office-holder
as if e held the office, if it would be POSSIBLE for the Delegate to
perform the action, other than by this method, if e held the office.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, while an officer is On
Vacation that officer NEED NOT comply with any duties of that
office, and the Delegate, if any, SHALL comply with all duties of
the office as if e held the office.
}
}}}
--
snail
BUS: [Proposal] Vacations
I submit the following proposal:
{
Title: Vacations
AI: 3
Author: nix
Co-Author(s): Janet, 4st, Yachay, G., juan, Murphy
[This proposal adds Vacations and Delegation, which encourage officers
to take time off and give the responsibility to someone else for a
while. Not only is this intended to reduce burnout for officers, but it
is also intended to be an opportunity for other players to learn an
office without fully committing to it.]
Amend R2438 by replacing "Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an
office" with "Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an office or is the
delegate for an office while its holder is on vacation."
Enact a new Power=3 rule titled "Vacations & Delegation" with the
following text:
Delegate is an Office switch with possible values of "None" and
any active player, and default value of "None". Delegates are
tracked by the ADoP in eir weekly report.
A player CAN flip the Delegate switch of a specified office to
emself with Agoran Consent. If the Delegate switch of an office is
set to "None", the holder of that office CAN flip the Delegate
switch of that office to a specified player with notice.
An officer CAN and SHOULD take a Vacation from a specified office e
has continuously held for over 6 months with 7 day notice, if e has
not done so in the last year. When an officer qualifies for a
Vacation, the ADoP SHOULD encourage em to take one, at least once a
quarter.
An officer is On Vacation from a specified office if e has taken a
Vacation from that office in the last 30 days. The list of officers
currently on vacation is part of the ADoP's report.
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.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, while an officer is On
Vacation that officer NEED NOT comply with any duties of that
office, and the Delegate, if any, SHALL comply with all duties of
the office as if e held the office.
}
--
nix
BUS: [Proposal] A bit of chance
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: The Stamp Raffle
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: snail
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2659 (Stamps) by replacing "Stamps are a category of asset
ownable by players." with "Stamps are a category of asset ownable by
players and Agora.".
Enact a new rule with title "The Stamp Raffle" and the following text:
{
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.
}
}}}
--
snail
BUS: [Proposal] It grows
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: A Mossy Cabinet
Adoption Index: 2.0
Author: snail
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2451 (Executive Orders) by appending the following Cabinet Order:
{
- Growth (Stonemason): The Prime Minister increases the mossiness of
a specified stone by 2.
}
}}}
--
snail
Re: BUS: [proposal] Self-ratification security
On 1/5/24 02:17, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Self-ratification limitations
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coauthors:
>
> Adoption index: 3.0
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2201 ("Self-ratification") by, as a single amendment (in order):
>
> * Replacing "When a public document is continuously undoubted for one
> week after publication" with "When a public document published less than
> 180 days ago is first continuously undoubted for one week after publication"
>
> * Replacing the text "identifying a document and explaining" with
> "identifying a public document published less than 180 days ago and
> explaining".
>
> [First, prevent self-ratifying documents from ratifying more than once
> if they go from undoubted to doubted to undoubted. Next, add a
> (generous) time limit on self-ratification and doubts to prevent very
> old documents from surprisingly being ratified or imposing a requirement
> on their publishers to respond. Also, only allow claims of error on
> published documents (which later parts of the rule assume anyway).]
>
>
> Amend Rule 2201 ("Self-Ratification") by, as a single amendment (in order):
>
> * Inserting the following paragraph before the paragraph beginning "Any
> person CAN": "The definition of documents as self-ratifying and the
> definition of documents as self-ratifying attestations are secured at
> power 3."
>
> * Appending the following paragraph to the Rule:
>
> {
>
> The issuance of a doubt on a documents, the denial of a claim of error,
> and the ceasing of a doubt on a document to be a doubt are secured at
> power 3.
>
> }
>
> [Prevent low-power dictatorships from making random things
> self-ratifying and from automatically making or denying claims of error.
> All self-ratifying things (assets, Proposal Pool, switches, Festivity,
> decision initiation/termination) are already defined at power >= 3.]
>
> }
>
AHHH I shouldn't draft while tired, I got the capitalization of the
title wrong
I withdraw the above proposal.
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Self-ratification limitations
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 3.0
{
Amend Rule 2201 ("Self-Ratification") by, as a single amendment (in order):
* Replacing "When a public document is continuously undoubted for one
week after publication" with "When a public document published less than
180 days ago is first continuously undoubted for one week after publication"
* Replacing the text "identifying a document and explaining" with
"identifying a public document published less than 180 days ago and
explaining".
[First, prevent self-ratifying documents from ratifying more than once
if they go from undoubted to doubted to undoubted. Next, add a
(generous) time limit on self-ratification and doubts to prevent very
old documents from surprisingly being ratified or imposing a requirement
on their publishers to respond. Also, only allow claims of error on
published documents (which later parts of the rule assume anyway).]
Amend Rule 2201 ("Self-Ratification") by, as a single amendment (in order):
* Inserting the following paragraph before the paragraph beginning "Any
person CAN": "The definition of documents as self-ratifying and the
definition of documents as self-ratifying attestations are secured at
power 3."
* Appending the following paragraph to the Rule:
{
The issuance of a doubt on a documents, the denial of a claim of error,
and the ceasing of a doubt on a document to be a doubt are secured at
power 3.
}
[Prevent low-power dictatorships from making random things
self-ratifying and from automatically making or denying claims of error.
All self-ratifying things (assets, Proposal Pool, switches, Festivity,
decision initiation/termination) are already defined at power >= 3.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [proposal] Self-ratification security
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Self-ratification limitations
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 3.0
{
Amend Rule 2201 ("Self-ratification") by, as a single amendment (in order):
* Replacing "When a public document is continuously undoubted for one
week after publication" with "When a public document published less than
180 days ago is first continuously undoubted for one week after publication"
* Replacing the text "identifying a document and explaining" with
"identifying a public document published less than 180 days ago and
explaining".
[First, prevent self-ratifying documents from ratifying more than once
if they go from undoubted to doubted to undoubted. Next, add a
(generous) time limit on self-ratification and doubts to prevent very
old documents from surprisingly being ratified or imposing a requirement
on their publishers to respond. Also, only allow claims of error on
published documents (which later parts of the rule assume anyway).]
Amend Rule 2201 ("Self-Ratification") by, as a single amendment (in order):
* Inserting the following paragraph before the paragraph beginning "Any
person CAN": "The definition of documents as self-ratifying and the
definition of documents as self-ratifying attestations are secured at
power 3."
* Appending the following paragraph to the Rule:
{
The issuance of a doubt on a documents, the denial of a claim of error,
and the ceasing of a doubt on a document to be a doubt are secured at
power 3.
}
[Prevent low-power dictatorships from making random things
self-ratifying and from automatically making or denying claims of error.
All self-ratifying things (assets, Proposal Pool, switches, Festivity,
decision initiation/termination) are already defined at power >= 3.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: BUS: [proposal] Registration restrictions
On 1/5/24 01:40, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I withdraw the above proposal.
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Registration restrictions
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coathors: Aris, ais523
>
> Adoption index: 3.0
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 869 by, as a single amendment (in order):
>
> * Replacing the text "No person can be a player if e is part of another
> player or another player is part of em." with "Rules to the contrary
> notwithstanding, two or more persons CANNOT become Registered
> simultaneously.".
>
> * Inserting the following paragraph after the paragraph beginning "An
> Unregistered person CAN":
>
> {
>
> The basis of a person is the set of all persons that are (recursively)
> part of em, in addition to emself. Rules to the contrary
> notwithstanding, a person CANNOT become Registered if eir basis overlaps
> with that of any current player
>
> }
>
>
> [
>
> This fixes a bug where two group persons [A B] and [B C] could be both
> be players, since neither is a part of the other.
>
> In order to let this work, this also prohibits simultaneous
> registrations. This is done now because simultaneous registrations would
> break the check for overlapping persons (if [A B] and [B C] could
> register simultaneously, neither would overlap with any existing player,
> even if they overlapped with each other). As a more general matter,
> simultaneous registrations seem likely to result in bugs, and
> registration order has been used as a tiebreak before (e.g. for Spaaace).
>
> ]
>
> }
I withdraw the above proposal.
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Registration restrictions
Author: Janet
Coathors: Aris, ais523
Adoption index: 3.0
{
Amend Rule 869 by, as a single amendment (in order):
* Replacing the text "No person can be a player if e is part of another
player or another player is part of em." with "Rules to the contrary
notwithstanding, two or more persons CANNOT become Registered
simultaneously.".
* Inserting the following paragraph after the paragraph beginning "An
Unregistered person CAN":
{
The basis of a person is the set of all persons that are (recursively)
part of em, in addition to emself. Rules to the contrary
notwithstanding, a person CANNOT become Registered if eir basis overlaps
with that of any current player.
}
[
This fixes a bug where two group persons [A B] and [B C] could be both
be players, since neither is a part of the other.
In order to let this work, this also prohibits simultaneous
registrations. This is done now because simultaneous registrations would
break the check for overlapping persons (if [A B] and [B C] could
register simultaneously, neither would overlap with any existing player,
even if they overlapped with each other). As a more general matter,
simultaneous registrations seem likely to result in bugs, and
registration order has been used as a tiebreak before (e.g. for Spaaace).
]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: BUS: [proposal] Registration restrictions
On 1/5/24 01:40, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Registration restrictions
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coathors: Aris, ais523
>
> Adoption index: 3.0
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 869 by, as a single amendment (in order):
>
> * Replacing the text "No person can be a player if e is part of another
> player or another player is part of em." with "Rules to the contrary
> notwithstanding, two or more persons CANNOT become Registered
> simultaneously.".
>
> * Inserting the following paragraph after the paragraph:
>
> {
>
> The basis of a person is the set of all persons that are (recursively)
> part of em, in addition to emself. Rules to the contrary
> notwithstanding, a person CANNOT become Registered if eir basis overlaps
> with that of any current player
>
> }
>
>
> [
>
> This fixes a bug where two group persons [A B] and [B C] could be both
> be players, since neither is a part of the other.
>
> In order to let this work, this also prohibits simultaneous
> registrations. This is done now because simultaneous registrations would
> break the check for overlapping persons (if [A B] and [B C] could
> register simultaneously, neither would overlap with any existing player,
> even if they overlapped with each other). As a more general matter,
> simultaneous registrations seem likely to result in bugs, and
> registration order has been used as a tiebreak before (e.g. for Spaaace).
>
> ]
>
> }
>
I withdraw the above proposal.
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Registration restrictions
Author: Janet
Coathors: Aris, ais523
Adoption index: 3.0
{
Amend Rule 869 by, as a single amendment (in order):
* Replacing the text "No person can be a player if e is part of another
player or another player is part of em." with "Rules to the contrary
notwithstanding, two or more persons CANNOT become Registered
simultaneously.".
* Inserting the following paragraph after the paragraph beginning "An
Unregistered person CAN":
{
The basis of a person is the set of all persons that are (recursively)
part of em, in addition to emself. Rules to the contrary
notwithstanding, a person CANNOT become Registered if eir basis overlaps
with that of any current player
}
[
This fixes a bug where two group persons [A B] and [B C] could be both
be players, since neither is a part of the other.
In order to let this work, this also prohibits simultaneous
registrations. This is done now because simultaneous registrations would
break the check for overlapping persons (if [A B] and [B C] could
register simultaneously, neither would overlap with any existing player,
even if they overlapped with each other). As a more general matter,
simultaneous registrations seem likely to result in bugs, and
registration order has been used as a tiebreak before (e.g. for Spaaace).
]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [proposal] Registration restrictions
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Registration restrictions
Author: Janet
Coathors: Aris, ais523
Adoption index: 3.0
{
Amend Rule 869 by, as a single amendment (in order):
* Replacing the text "No person can be a player if e is part of another
player or another player is part of em." with "Rules to the contrary
notwithstanding, two or more persons CANNOT become Registered
simultaneously.".
* Inserting the following paragraph after the paragraph:
{
The basis of a person is the set of all persons that are (recursively)
part of em, in addition to emself. Rules to the contrary
notwithstanding, a person CANNOT become Registered if eir basis overlaps
with that of any current player
}
[
This fixes a bug where two group persons [A B] and [B C] could be both
be players, since neither is a part of the other.
In order to let this work, this also prohibits simultaneous
registrations. This is done now because simultaneous registrations would
break the check for overlapping persons (if [A B] and [B C] could
register simultaneously, neither would overlap with any existing player,
even if they overlapped with each other). As a more general matter,
simultaneous registrations seem likely to result in bugs, and
registration order has been used as a tiebreak before (e.g. for Spaaace).
]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [Proposal] New Year, New Economy
This is a final version of the proto I drafted in November. The basic gameplay:
You choose a stamp specialization (Selfsame, Stone, or Strength) that applies
to all stamps of your type (all "nix stamps" for me. At the beginning of each
month, you receive stamps of your type based on how many you currently own. 25
if you own less than 8, 3 if you own 8 to 15, and 1 otherwise.
To win: One stamp of each specialization can be traded in for a Victory Token.
When the boulder's height is 50 or more, the person with the most Victory
Tokens can win.
Selfsame Stamps: Pay 3 selfsame stamps for 2 stamps of your own type.
Strength Stamps: Pay three strength stamps to increase your voting strength on
proposals by 2.
Stone Stamps: Stones now have a grab cost. It starts at 10 and decreases by 1
every week (to a minimum of 1). To grab a stone, pay its cost in stone stamps,
regardless of who currently owns it. When someone grabs a stone, its cost goes
back to 10.
I submit the following proposal:
{
Title: Stamp Specialization
Adoption Index: 2
Author: nix
Co-Authors: 4st, ais523, Janet
Enact a new Power 1 rule titled "Stamp Specialization":
Stamp Specialization is a person switch with potential values "None"
(default), "Any", "Selfsame", "Stone", and "Strength", tracked by
the Collector.
If e has not done so since the last time e registered, or since the
last time a player won via tokens (whichever is more recent), a
player CAN flip eir Stamp Specialization switch to "Selfsame",
"Stone", or "Strength" by announcement.
If a person has not been a player for the last three months, any
player CAN flip that player's Stamp Specialization switch to "Any"
by announcement. When a player registers, if eir Stamp
Specialization switch is set to "Any", flip it to "None".
To pay a fee of a "X" Stamp, where X is a Stamp Specialization, is
to pay a fee of a Stamp whose corresponding player's Stamp
Specialization is either X or "Any".
Enact a new Power 1 rule titled "Victory Tokens":
Victory Tokens are an asset tracked by the Collector in eir weekly
report. A player CAN pay a Selfsame Stamp, a Stone Stamp, and a
Strength Stamp to grant emself 1 Victory Token.
If a player has more Victory Tokens than each other player, the
Boulder's Height is 50 or more, and no one has done so in the last
7 days, that player CAN win by announcement.
Enact a new Power 2 rule titled "Stamps for Strength":
A player CAN pay three Strength Stamps. Eir Voting Strength is
increased by 2 on all ordinary referenda currently being voted on
for every time e has done so during its voting period.
Amend R2659, "Stamps", by deleting the following:
Any player CAN, once per week, pay X Stamps, where each specified
Stamp is a different type, to gain (X^2)-X radiance.
Any player CAN, once per week, pay X Stamps, where each Stamp is
the same type, to gain (X-1)*2 radiance.
and adding:
At the beginning of the month, X stamps of eir own type are granted
to each player. When e owns less than 8 Stamps, X is 5. When e owns
8 to 15 Stamps, X is 3. When e owns 16 or more Stamps, X is 1.
A player CAN pay three Selfsame Stamps to grant emself 2 Stamps of
eir own type.
Repeal R2675 ("Dream of Wandering").
Repeal R2656 ("Radiance").
Amend R2640, "Stones" by replacing:
A stone is a unique indestructible liquid asset
with:
A stone is a unique fixed indestructible liquid asset
and deleting:
(ii) The smoothness of the stone, which is a non-negative integer;
Amend R2641, "Wielding Stones" by replacing:
While a stone is hot, it is IMPOSSIBLE to wield it or to transfer
it by announcement
with:
While a stone is hot, it is IMPOSSIBLE to wield it
Amend R2642, "Gathering Stones", to read in full:
Grab Cost is an integer stone switch with default value 10, tracked
by the Stonemason. At the beginning of each week, the Grab Cost of
each Stone is decreased by 1, unless it is already 0.
A player CAN "grab" a specified, non-immune stone by paying a fee of
X Stone Stamps, where X is the Stone's current Grab Cost. When e
does so, the specified stone is transferred to em and its Grab Cost
is set to 10.
Repeal R2643, "Collecting Stones".
Amend R2645, "The Stones", to read in full:
The following stones are defined, one per paragraph, with the
following format: Stone Name (Frequency): Description.
- Power Stone (weekly): When this stone is wielded, a specified
player (defaulting to the wielder if not specified) is Power
Stoned; Power Stoning is secured. A player's voting strength on
a referendum on an ordinary proposal is increased by 3 for each
time that e was Power Stoned during the referendum's voting
period.
- Soul Stone (weekly): When
BUS: [Proposal] Forcing the issue
I submit the following proposal:
{
Title: It's been 4+ years, Agora. 4+ YEARS.
Adoption Index: 3.0
Author: nix
Co-authors: 4st, snail
Ratify the Short Logical Ruleset published on the 19th of June, 2023,
available here [1].
[1]
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-June/017167.html
}
--
nix
Re: BUS: [proposal] Adoption AI security
On 12/4/23 17:47, Janet Cobb wrote:
> On 11/28/23 14:46, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> Title: Adoption AI security
>>
>> Adoption index: 1.0
>>
>> Author: Janet
>>
>> Coauthors: ais523
>>
>> {
>>
>> Amend Rule 1607 ("Distribution") by deleting the text ", or 1.0 if the
>> proposal does not have one".
>>
>> [A proposal always has a numeric AI, so this clause can never be
>> triggered. And, even if it could be triggered, this isn't the right
>> behavior (AI 3 would be a more sensible default, but we don't add that
>> here because it's impossible).]
>>
>>
>> Amend Rule 106 ("Adopting Proposals") by replacing "its power is set to
>> the minimum of four and its adoption index" with "its power is set to
>> the minimum of four, the adoption index of the proposal, and the
>> adoption index of the referendum".
>>
>> [Defend against any case where a proposal does not have an AI but the
>> referendum does, or where the referendum has a lower AI than the proposal.]
>>
>>
>> [Currently, these issues combine so that if there were somehow a
>> proposal without an AI (which cannot exist not but has been possible in
>> the past, according to ais523), it would be voted on at AI 1.0 but
>> adopted at power 4; this fixes both: it would no longer be
>> distributable, and if it were to take effect it would only take effect
>> at power 1.]
>>
>> }
>>
> I submit a proposal with title, coauthors, and text as listed above, and
> AI 3.
>
Oh, I guess I should read my mail before sending any.
I withdraw the above-submitted proposal.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: BUS: [proposal] Adoption AI security
On 11/28/23 14:46, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Adoption AI security
>
> Adoption index: 1.0
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coauthors: ais523
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 1607 ("Distribution") by deleting the text ", or 1.0 if the
> proposal does not have one".
>
> [A proposal always has a numeric AI, so this clause can never be
> triggered. And, even if it could be triggered, this isn't the right
> behavior (AI 3 would be a more sensible default, but we don't add that
> here because it's impossible).]
>
>
> Amend Rule 106 ("Adopting Proposals") by replacing "its power is set to
> the minimum of four and its adoption index" with "its power is set to
> the minimum of four, the adoption index of the proposal, and the
> adoption index of the referendum".
>
> [Defend against any case where a proposal does not have an AI but the
> referendum does, or where the referendum has a lower AI than the proposal.]
>
>
> [Currently, these issues combine so that if there were somehow a
> proposal without an AI (which cannot exist not but has been possible in
> the past, according to ais523), it would be voted on at AI 1.0 but
> adopted at power 4; this fixes both: it would no longer be
> distributable, and if it were to take effect it would only take effect
> at power 1.]
>
> }
>
I submit a proposal with title, coauthors, and text as listed above, and
AI 3.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [proposal] (@Promotor) Wishing
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Tiny Rulebending
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: 4st
Co-author: ais523
{
[Agoran Consent is basically like an adoption index of 1. This just
potentially adds an element of surprise, and severely reduces its
capabilities. This is also like Wizards Wage War, but much harder, since
Agoran Consent is much harder to obtain. It is also like apathy, but worse,
because you can't even win with it directly. (I almost considered repealing
apathy to have this instead.)]
Enact the following rule:
{
The Wishmaster is an office. Stars are an asset that are tracked by the
Wishmaster in eir monthly report.
A player can, with Agoran Consent, grant emself a star.
A player can pay a fee of 1 star and specify some text to create an
instrument with that text at 0.01 power, which takes effect immediately.
Such an instrument can not:
- cause a player to win
- cause a player to gain a black ribbon
- create instruments
}
}
--
4ˢᵗ
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
BUS: [proposal] Adoption AI security
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Adoption AI security
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Janet
Coauthors: ais523
{
Amend Rule 1607 ("Distribution") by deleting the text ", or 1.0 if the
proposal does not have one".
[A proposal always has a numeric AI, so this clause can never be
triggered. And, even if it could be triggered, this isn't the right
behavior (AI 3 would be a more sensible default, but we don't add that
here because it's impossible).]
Amend Rule 106 ("Adopting Proposals") by replacing "its power is set to
the minimum of four and its adoption index" with "its power is set to
the minimum of four, the adoption index of the proposal, and the
adoption index of the referendum".
[Defend against any case where a proposal does not have an AI but the
referendum does, or where the referendum has a lower AI than the proposal.]
[Currently, these issues combine so that if there were somehow a
proposal without an AI (which cannot exist not but has been possible in
the past, according to ais523), it would be voted on at AI 1.0 but
adopted at power 4; this fixes both: it would no longer be
distributable, and if it were to take effect it would only take effect
at power 1.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: Proposal: Ratify the Ruleset Week (attn Promotor)
Proposal: Ratify the Ruleset Week Create a rule titled "Ratify the Ruleset Week" with this text: The Agoran week each year containing the Ides of March is Ratify the Ruleset Week. During Ratify the Ruleset Week, the Rulekeepor SHALL submit a proposal to ratify a purported ruleset published since the last time the ruleset was ratified.
Re: BUS: [proposal] Registration security
On 11/26/23 13:20, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Registration security
>
> Adoption index: 3.0
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coauthors:
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 869 ("How to Join and Leave Agora") by, as a single amendment:
>
> {
>
> Replacing "An Unregistered person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or
> prevented by the rules) register" with "An Unregistered person CAN
> register".
>
> Then, replacing "If e does so, e CANNOT register or be registered for 30
> days." with "If e does so, e CANNOT register or be registered for 30
> days, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.".
>
> }
>
>
> [Fix this security bug identified in Agoran't. Simplest to require a
> Rule to take precedence over R869 to prohibit registration, rather than
> adding an explicit power requirement.]
>
> }
>
Oops, forgot a proposal to fix this was already submitted.
I withdraw the above proposal.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [proposal] Registration security
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Registration security
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
{
Amend Rule 869 ("How to Join and Leave Agora") by, as a single amendment:
{
Replacing "An Unregistered person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or
prevented by the rules) register" with "An Unregistered person CAN
register".
Then, replacing "If e does so, e CANNOT register or be registered for 30
days." with "If e does so, e CANNOT register or be registered for 30
days, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.".
}
[Fix this security bug identified in Agoran't. Simplest to require a
Rule to take precedence over R869 to prohibit registration, rather than
adding an explicit power requirement.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [proposal] AI security revisited
I submit the following proposal:
Title: AI security revisited
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Janet
Coauthors: ais523
{
Amend R1607 by replacing "A referendum is the Agoran decision to
determine whether to adopt a proposal." with "A referendum is the Agoran
decision to determine whether to adopt a proposal (its associated
proposal)."
[Define this undefined term.]
Amend Rule 1950 by, as a single amendment:
{
Deleting "If a referendum has an adoption index less than the adoption
index of its associated proposal, the referendum's adoption index is
immediately set to that of the associated proposal".
Then, inserting the following paragraph after the first paragraph:
{
The adoption index of a referendum CANNOT be set or changed to "none" or
to a value less than that of its associated proposal. If a referendum
ever has an adoption index of "none" or an adoption index less than that
of its associated proposal, it is immediately set to the adoption index
of the associated proposal.
}
}
[Prevent a low-powered rule from attempting to continuously set the
value of an AI, causing it to perhaps become indeterminate.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [Proposal] (@Promotor) Make it Work
Thanks 4st for reminding me, I found this earlier.
I submit the following proposal:
//
Title: Unbreaking Motions
Adoption Index: 2.0
Author: snail
Co-authors: 4st
Change the power of Rule 2463 ("Motion of No Confidence") to 2.
[Offices are secured, so you can't actually remove the PM in this way
currently.]
//
--
snail
Re: BUS: [Proposal] Long forgotten fix
oh wait. Maybe this did work. This proposal IS up for vote. Lol! On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 4:09 PM 4st nomic <4st.no...@gmail.com> wrote: > That's lovely! Unfortunately, due to the arcane beaurocracy presented by > the Law of Agora, > this proposal is not up for vote yet! > The process currently in place is basically: > Submit proposal (that's what snail did here) -> Promotor Distributes -> > Players vote -> Assessor resolves the decision > > On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 4:07 PM Goren Barak via agora-business < > agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On 2023-11-19 16:24, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: >> > I submit the following proposal: >> > >> > // >> > Title: A simple fix >> > Adoption index: 1.0 >> > Author: snail >> > Co-authors: nix >> > >> > >> > [We tried to fix this back in April but it got wrapped up in a bigger >> stamp >> > rework proposal, which failed.] >> > >> > Amend R2659 (Stamps) by replacing: >> > >> > Any player CAN win by paying N Stamps >> > >> > with: >> > >> > Any active player CAN win by paying N Stamps >> > >> > // >> > -- >> > snail >> >> I vote FOR on this proppsal. >> > > > -- > 4ˢᵗ > > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator > -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: BUS: [Proposal] Long forgotten fix
That's lovely! Unfortunately, due to the arcane beaurocracy presented by the Law of Agora, this proposal is not up for vote yet! The process currently in place is basically: Submit proposal (that's what snail did here) -> Promotor Distributes -> Players vote -> Assessor resolves the decision On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 4:07 PM Goren Barak via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 2023-11-19 16:24, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > I submit the following proposal: > > > > // > > Title: A simple fix > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > Author: snail > > Co-authors: nix > > > > > > [We tried to fix this back in April but it got wrapped up in a bigger > stamp > > rework proposal, which failed.] > > > > Amend R2659 (Stamps) by replacing: > > > > Any player CAN win by paying N Stamps > > > > with: > > > > Any active player CAN win by paying N Stamps > > > > // > > -- > > snail > > I vote FOR on this proppsal. > -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: BUS: [Proposal] Long forgotten fix
On 2023-11-19 16:24, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > I submit the following proposal: > > // > Title: A simple fix > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: snail > Co-authors: nix > > > [We tried to fix this back in April but it got wrapped up in a bigger stamp > rework proposal, which failed.] > > Amend R2659 (Stamps) by replacing: > > Any player CAN win by paying N Stamps > > with: > > Any active player CAN win by paying N Stamps > > // > -- > snail I vote FOR on this proppsal.
BUS: [Proposal] Long forgotten fix
I submit the following proposal: // Title: A simple fix Adoption index: 1.0 Author: snail Co-authors: nix [We tried to fix this back in April but it got wrapped up in a bigger stamp rework proposal, which failed.] Amend R2659 (Stamps) by replacing: Any player CAN win by paying N Stamps with: Any active player CAN win by paying N Stamps // -- snail
BUS: [proposal] What better time?
I submit a proposal with the following attributes:
Title: Celebration!
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 3.0
{
Enact a new Rule with power 3, title "Dictatorship", and text as follows:
{
Janet, acting as emself, CAN proclaim by announcement, specifying a
published document as being the Decree. When e does so, the Decree's
power is set to the power of this rule, then it takes effect, then its
power is set to 0.
When a Decree takes effect, the Decree applies the changes
that it specifies in its text, except as prohibited by other
rules. Unless otherwise specified by the text, the effects are
applied in the order they appear in the text. Clearly marked
comments are ignored. If the Decree cannot make some changes it
specifies, that does not preclude the other changes from taking
place.
A document CANNOT become a Decree except as specified in this Rule. A
Decree CANNOT take effect except as specified in this Rule.
}
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [Proposal] (@Promotor) Still hasn't been fixed
I submit the following proposal:
//
Title: Sharing takes Care
Adoption Index: 2.0
Author: snail
Co-author(s): Zipzap
//comment: Changes "points" to "Radiance"
Amend Rule 2675 (Dream of Wandering) to read, in full:
{
The Dream Keeper is an office; its holder is responsible for
keeping track of the dreams of all active players.
Dream is a secured active player switch, tracked by the Dream
Keeper in eir weekly report, with possible values any Dream,
defaulting to Wandering. An "X Dreamer" is a player with eir Dream
switch set to X.
An active player CAN "envision" eir own Dream, specifying any
valid value for eir Dream, by announcement. When the rules state
that the wandering occurs, every active player's Dream is set to
the value e most recently envisioned. If a player did not envision
a dream since the last wandering, it is not flipped.
A wandering occurs at the beginning of each week.
The following is an exhaustive list of all Dreams and the rules
relevant to each dream:
- Wandering: This dream has no effect.
- Charity: Immediately after a wandering, one stamp (chosen by
most-to-least owned by the L at time of transfer, tie-broken
alphabetically) is transferred to each Charity Dreamer (in order
from least-to-most stamps owned, tie-broken alphabetically) from
the L If the number of Stamps the L owned during the last
wandering is greater than 10, this process happens a second
time. If it is more than 20, this process happens a third time.
- Justice: Immediately after a wandering, 1 blot is expunged from
each Justice Dreamer. If a Justice Dreamer had no blots
immediately after a wandering, e CAN once expunge one blot, by
announcement, from a specified player before the next wandering.
- Sharing: Immediately after a wandering, each Sharing Dreamer has
eir Radiance increased by X / Y, rounded down, where X is half the
number of active players, rounded up, and Y is the number of
Sharing Dreamers.
- Wealth: Immediately after a wandering, X stamps of eir own type
are granted to each Wealth Dreamer. When less than 8 Stamps of
eir type exist, X is 2. When 8 to 15 Stamps of eir type exist, X
is 1. When 16 ore more Stamps of eir type exist, X is 0.
- Gardens: Immediately after a wandering, the Base Rockiness of
each Gardens Dreamer is increased by 1.
- Power: Each Power Dreamer has eir voting strength increased by 2
for referenda on ordinary proposals.
- Revolution: A revolution is happening if the majority of active
players are Revolution Dreamers. Immediately after a wandering,
if a revolution is not happening, then all Revolution Dreamers
have eir radiance decreased by 1 to a minimum of 0. Immediately
after a wandering, if a revolution is happening, then all
players have eir radiance set to 100-X, where X was eir radiance
when the wandering occurred, and all player's Dreams are set to
Wandering.
}
//
--
snail
BUS: [proposal] The power of radiation
I submit the following proposal:
Title: It's a bit dark in here
Author: Janet
Coauthors: Kate
Adoption index: 1.5
{
Amend Rule 2656 by, as a single amendment:
* First, prepending the following paragraph: { The Illuminator is an
office, responsible for tracking radiance. }
* Then, replacing "tracked by the Herald" with "tracked by the Illuminator".
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: BUS: Proposal Submission - Stone Repeal
I retract the Proposal named "Stone Repeal" and I submit the following Proposal: Name: Stone Repeal AI: 2 Author: Yachay Co-authors: None Repeal Rules 2640, 2641, 2642, 2643, 2644, and 2645 in ascending numerical order by ID // Comment: This November, this rule will have existed for three years. Tragically, I haven't seen or experienced any interesting gameplay from it. I believe it's time to move on. On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 2:32 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 10/31/23 05:19, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > > I submit the following Proposal: > > > > Name: Stone Repeal > > AI: 2 > > Author: Yachay > > Co-authors: None > > > > Repeal Rule 2640, 2641, 2642, 2643, 2644, 2645 > > > > /* Comment: This November, this rule will have existed for three years. > > Tragically, I haven't seen or experienced any interesting gameplay from > it. > > I believe it's time to move on. > > > It's the only gameplay we have right now. > > Also, these proposals usually include "in order" or "in ascending > numerical order by ID" to avoid the rule changes accidentally being > simultaneous. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > >
Re: BUS: [proposal] Investigation time limits
On 10/22/23 17:56, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal
>
> Title: Investigation time limits
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coauthors:
>
> Adoption index: 1.7
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2478 by, as a single amendment:
>
> * Replacing "Within 14 days of an infraction being committed," with
> "Within 14 days of an infraction being committed, or if the infraction
> has been noted,".
>
> * Replacing "any other player in the last 7 days" with "any other player
> in the last 14 days".
>
> [Harmonize the time limits to investigate and to note, and ensure a
> noted infraction can always be investigated beyond the time limit to do
> so (allowing deputization).]
>
> }
>
I withdraw the above proposal, if it exists and is in the Proposal Pool.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: BUS: Proposal Submission - Stone Repeal
On 10/31/23 05:19, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > I submit the following Proposal: > > Name: Stone Repeal > AI: 2 > Author: Yachay > Co-authors: None > > Repeal Rule 2640, 2641, 2642, 2643, 2644, 2645 > > /* Comment: This November, this rule will have existed for three years. > Tragically, I haven't seen or experienced any interesting gameplay from it. > I believe it's time to move on. It's the only gameplay we have right now. Also, these proposals usually include "in order" or "in ascending numerical order by ID" to avoid the rule changes accidentally being simultaneous. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: Proposal Submission - Stone Repeal
I submit the following Proposal: Name: Stone Repeal AI: 2 Author: Yachay Co-authors: None Repeal Rule 2640, 2641, 2642, 2643, 2644, 2645 /* Comment: This November, this rule will have existed for three years. Tragically, I haven't seen or experienced any interesting gameplay from it. I believe it's time to move on.
BUS: [proposal] Investigation time limits
I submit the following proposal
Title: Investigation time limits
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 1.7
{
Amend Rule 2478 by, as a single amendment:
* Replacing "Within 14 days of an infraction being committed," with
"Within 14 days of an infraction being committed, or if the infraction
has been noted,".
* Replacing "any other player in the last 7 days" with "any other player
in the last 14 days".
[Harmonize the time limits to investigate and to note, and ensure a
noted infraction can always be investigated beyond the time limit to do
so (allowing deputization).]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: BUS: [proposal] Forum restoration
On 10/16/23 12:37, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Forum restoration
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coauthors: nix
>
> Adoption index:
>
> {
>
> The instance of the publicity switch possessed by the forum that can be
> sent to at "agoranomic at groups.io" is hereby flipped to Public.
>
> }
>
I withdraw the above proposal.
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Forum restoration
Author: Janet
Coauthors: nix, Kate
Adoption index: 3.0
{
The instance of the publicity switch possessed by the forum that can be
sent to at "agoranomic at groups.io" is hereby flipped to Public.
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [proposal] Forum restoration
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Forum restoration
Author: Janet
Coauthors: nix
Adoption index:
{
The instance of the publicity switch possessed by the forum that can be
sent to at "agoranomic at groups.io" is hereby flipped to Public.
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [proposal] Official security
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Official security
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 2.0
{
Amend Rule 1006 ("Offices") by replacing the sentence
{
Officeholder is an office switch tracked by the ADoP, with possible
values of any person or "vacant" (default).
}
with the following sentences:
{
Officeholder is an office switch tracked by the ADoP, with possible
values of any person or "vacant" (default). Each instance of the
Officeholder switch is secured at the power of the Rule defining the
associated office (or the power of this Rule, if the defining Rule's
power is higher).
}
Amend Rule 2632 ("Complexity") by replacing "Complexity is an office
switch" with "Complexity is a secured office switch".
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: BUS: Proposal: Amending the Sharing Dream
On 10/6/23 22:27, Zip via agora-business wrote: > I withdraw proposal 9011. > > I propose the following: > > // > > Title: Sharing Dreams in the Modern Era > Adoption Index: 2.0 > Author: Zipzap > > > Rule 2675's current text concerning the Sharing Dream > > > Sharing: Immediately after a wandering, each Sharing Dreamer has eir > points increased by X / Y... > > is amended to > > > Sharing: Immediately after a wandering, each Sharing Dreamer has eir > radiance increased by X / Y... > > // > > -Zipzap This wouldn't work because the ellipses are included within the quotation. I don't think this breaks it, but the more common phrasing is "Amend Rule 2675 by replacing [] with []". Also, quotation marks or braces are preferred to >-quoting because it allows the Promotor to reflow proposals. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: Proposal: Amending the Sharing Dream
I withdraw proposal 9011. I propose the following: // Title: Sharing Dreams in the Modern Era Adoption Index: 2.0 Author: Zipzap Rule 2675's current text concerning the Sharing Dream > Sharing: Immediately after a wandering, each Sharing Dreamer has eir points increased by X / Y... is amended to > Sharing: Immediately after a wandering, each Sharing Dreamer has eir radiance increased by X / Y... // -Zipzap
BUS: Proposal: Sharing Dream
If I have not submitted a proposal regarding the Sharing Dream recently, I submit this proposal: Rule 2675's current text concerning the Sharing Dream > Sharing: Immediately after a wandering, each Sharing Dreamer has eir points increased by X / Y... is amended to > Sharing: Immediately after a wandering, each Sharing Dreamer has eir radiance increased by X / Y... -Zipzap
BUS: Proposal: Sharing Dream
I'd like to submit the following Proposal. Rule 2675's current text concerning the Sharing Dream > Sharing: Immediately after a wandering, each Sharing Dreamer has eir points increased by X / Y... should be amended to > Sharing: Immediately after a wandering, each Sharing Dreamer has eir radiance increased by X / Y... -Zipzap
BUS: [proposal] Ordered cleanliness
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Ordered cleanliness
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
{
Amend Rule 2221 by replacing "the rule is amended by this rule as
specified by that person" with "when e does so, if any text changes were
specified, that rule is amended by this rule by applying the changes as
a single amendment (failing as a whole if any fail); then, if any title
changes were specified, that rule is retitled by this rule by applying
the changes as a single retitling (failing as a whole if any fail)."
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [Proposal] A proper punishment
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Always at risk
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: snail
Co-author(s):
Amend Rule 2683 (The Boulder) to read, in full:
{
The Absurdor is an office.
The Boulder's Height is a singleton integer switch defaulting to
0, tracked by the Absurdor.
Each player CAN, once a week, by announcement, push the boulder.
When a player pushes the Boulder, its Height is increased by 1.
At the beginning of each week, if the boulder was not pushed in the
previous week, the Boulder's Height is set to 0. The Absurdor SHOULD list
the largest Height of the Boulder ever reached in eir report.
}
}}}
--
snail
BUS: [proposal] Not so invisible now, eh?
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Shining a flashlight
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 1.0
{
Repeal Rule 2056 ("Invisibilitating").
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [proposal] Freeing Sisyphus
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Freeing Sisyphus
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 1.0
{
Repeal Rule 2683 ("The Boulder").
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [proposal] Unreality
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Unreality stone
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 2.0
{
Amend Rule 2643 by replacing the paragraph beginning "A Collection
Notice includes a random" with the following paragraph:
{
A Collection Notice includes a random integer from 1 to 6; this is the
Escape Minimum.
}
["Number" means real number by default.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [proposal] Process protection
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Process protection
Author: Janet
Coauthors: G.
Adoption index: 3.0
{
Amend Rule 2350 ("Proposals") by appending the following paragraph:
{
The destruction of a proposal and the causing of a proposal to cease
being a proposal are secured. The removal of a proposal from the
Proposal Pool, other than by distribution, is secured.
}
Amend Rule 1607 ("Distribution") by appending the following paragraph:
{
The destruction of a referendum is secured. Causing a referendum to
cease being a referendum is secured.
}
Amend Rule 107 ("Initiating Agoran Decisions") by appending the
following paragraph:
{
The destruction of an Agoran decision and the causing of an Agoran
decision to cease being an Agoran decision are secured at the power of
the Rule authorizing the initiation of such a decision.
}
[Prevents a power-1 dictatorship from vetoing proposals it doesn't like
by just disappearing the proposal or the decision.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
