Re: DIS: The State of Discussion, Mailing Lists, IRC, and things that were actually invented this century.

[Aris Merchant]

On Friday, November 4, 2016, Michael Brown  wrote:

>
> On 5 November 2016 at 14:35, Aris Merchant  gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
>> I'm definitely in favor of this
>> Discord/Slack idea. I don't know about cost and effort, but for a
>> discussion forum? Go for it. Besides, it will simplify my plotting
>> about the next generation of inter-nomic cooperation. I have plans to
>> repurpose the NPS (Nomic preservation society) for more peaceful aims.
>> That's all I'm telling from now...
>>
>
> I've been tossing around similar ideas I think. Nomic Preservation
> Society, League of Nomics, or United Nomics... something like that. A
> meta-nomic that is itself a nomic, if you will. Also as something to
> perhaps take up the mantle of the thoroughly defunct nomic.net...
>
That sounds exactly like what I was thinking. Let's compare notes!

-Aris

Re: DIS: The State of Discussion, Mailing Lists, IRC, and things that were actually invented this century.

[Aris Merchant]

On Friday, November 4, 2016, Michael Brown  wrote:

>
> On 5 November 2016 at 13:13, Owen Jacobson  > wrote:
>
>>
>> If you have ideas for founding rules that aren’t Suber’s, let me know at
>> this address?
>>
>
> Nothing terribly specific at this stage. I think perhaps something similar
> to Blognomic - or anything semi-imperial - might be better suited to the
> pull request model. It could be the subject of discussion once we know if
> anyone is interested.
>
Consider me interested.

-Aris

Re: DIS: The State of Discussion, Mailing Lists, IRC, and things that were actually invented this century.

[Michael Brown]

On 5 November 2016 at 13:13, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> If you have ideas for founding rules that aren’t Suber’s, let me know at
> this address?
>

Nothing terribly specific at this stage. I think perhaps something similar
to Blognomic - or anything semi-imperial - might be better suited to the
pull request model. It could be the subject of discussion once we know if
anyone is interested.

Re: DIS: The State of Discussion, Mailing Lists, IRC, and things that were actually invented this century.

[Michael Brown]

On 5 November 2016 at 14:35, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm definitely in favor of this
> Discord/Slack idea. I don't know about cost and effort, but for a
> discussion forum? Go for it. Besides, it will simplify my plotting
> about the next generation of inter-nomic cooperation. I have plans to
> repurpose the NPS (Nomic preservation society) for more peaceful aims.
> That's all I'm telling from now...
>

I've been tossing around similar ideas I think. Nomic Preservation Society,
League of Nomics, or United Nomics... something like that. A meta-nomic
that is itself a nomic, if you will. Also as something to perhaps take up
the mantle of the thoroughly defunct nomic.net...

Re: DIS: The State of Discussion, Mailing Lists, IRC, and things that were actually invented this century.

[Aris Merchant]

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Nicholas Evans  wrote:
> There's been some frustration voiced about the three mailing list system,
> again. I say again because there was a plan to migrate the mailing lists to
> a unified solution this summer, but it fell by the wayside as, presumably,
> the mailing list maintainer got busy. But now it's being brought up again. I
> thought we'd have a unified discussion for it instead of putting it in
> replies to other things.
>
> (I'd like to link you to the appropriate discussions from this summer, but
> since they're split among multiple archives it's difficult. Look in your
> history, or the archives' history, for "Future of Agora", "might as well try
> for a show of hands" and "Rule Improvements".)
>
> 1) OFF, BUS, and DIS. The split is useful, yes, but also a relic. One reason
> we maintain this split (besides an incredible conservatism) is because it
> prevents accidental action-taking or burying actions in mounds of
> discussion. There's probably better solutions to this though.
Keep it. See below.

> 2) Combining BUS and DIS. I'm not against this, but would like some sort of
> Subject convention that makes it remain easy to find office-relevant
> information.
I'm the Promotor, and this would make my job a nightmare. A worse one
than it already. (Not sure if that was a joke.) I like the three list
system. It's easy to make mistakes while sending, but it makes the
archives so much neater to look through. Please, just leave it.

> 3) The /other/ discussion forum: IRC. We're still using IRC. I'm 24, and the
> fact that I know what IRC is is an anomaly. We're not going to bring any
> youngsters into the IRC fold, especially when much nicer IRC-like solutions
> like Discord and Slack dominate. Speaking of, I saw that BlogNomic has a
> Slack and wondered what it'd be like to have a unified Slack/Discord for
> nomics. For those of you unfamiliar: you have a server with some number of
> text and voice channels. Slack's very popular among tech and freelance
> professionals, and Discord is very popular among gamers/them youths. Both
> are accessible from websites, downloadable clients, and smartphone apps. We
> could co-operate with BlogNomic and have a unified Nomic server with
> channels for each nomic, as well as a general channel. No longer fragmented
> kingdoms of yore.
As a member of the aforementioned younger generation (You're not going
to get any more that that the difference is significant), I agree
about the obsolescence of IRC. I'm anomalous among my generation in
that I still use email as my main mode of communication. Most of them
use text or instant messaging. I'm definitely in favor of this
Discord/Slack idea. I don't know about cost and effort, but for a
discussion forum? Go for it. Besides, it will simplify my plotting
about the next generation of inter-nomic cooperation. I have plans to
repurpose the NPS (Nomic preservation society) for more peaceful aims.
That's all I'm telling from now...

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Simple Economy

[Aris Merchant]

I like the basic idea. I tend to agree with the other about the
substance, and I'm not much good on technicalities. I do have some
worries about the proposal system, and I would be totally against any
such restriction on CFJs or the like.

 A few things about proposals. There was proposal recently, which I
think passed, to allow for the unpending of proposals. It was called
"make spending power more useful". I also had problems with that. One,
it's generally the promotor's job to pend everything, so I'd like them
to have a "first pend" exception. I had a proposal to fix that
problem, but it wasn't terribly well phrased. I'm going to withdraw it
and see what happens. Two, I tend to dislike anything that limits
gameplay too much. I'd prefer some way of un-overridably pending a
proposal. I had a vague idea for that, involving "locking" (preventing
changes to) switches, but it isn't very complete. However, given the
clear will of Agora on the subject, it (un-pending) should really be
worked in in some form.

-Aris

Re: DIS: The State of Discussion, Mailing Lists, IRC, and things that were actually invented this century.

[Owen Jacobson]

I have a couple of other people on my end who were interested in a Github Nomic 
experiment earlier this year. I’ve reached out to them to see if they’re still 
interested; if they are, I’ll spin something up over the weekend.

If you have ideas for founding rules that aren’t Suber’s, let me know at this 
address?

-o

> On Nov 4, 2016, at 11:10 PM, Michael Brown  wrote:
> 
> Remember that Github also has built in wiki, issue system and web hosting 
> (Jekyll powered -- so there's some automation potential) as well. So there is 
> some flexibility in how you can manage discussions and game state.
> 
> On 5 November 2016 at 13:02, Alexis Hunt  > wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 11:00 PM Michael Brown  > wrote:
> 
> On 5 November 2016 at 11:47, Owen Jacobson  > wrote:
> (Personally, I’d like to experiment with a Nomic executed through Github pull 
> requests.)
> 
> ^^^ This as well. The handful of Github nomics I have seen don't seem to work 
> very well though, either because they don't get very many players and/or they 
> start from the Suber rule set which is not at all well adapted to the pull 
> request model. If others are interested in an experimental little Github 
> nomic I'd love to join in.
> 
> 
> Github seems mediocre for gameplay but lovely for official reports.
> 
> -Alexis 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ---.sig---
> DISCLOSURE (updated on legal advice): The information in this email is 
> confidential. If its contents are disclosed our lawyers will swoop down from 
> helicopters and smash through the skylight nearest you and drag you away with 
> a black bag over your head. They will then take you to our super secret 
> headquarters and make you fight to the death with other people who shared 
> this email. We will then watch said death match and place bets on the winner. 
> You will be given a large buck knife and an unlimited supply of 
> methamphetamines. If the fight becomes boring or there is a stalemate, rabid 
> dogs will be released into the arena to liven things up a bit. If the dogs 
> become docile, we will squirt them with water bottles until they become 
> temperamental.
> --

Re: DIS: The State of Discussion, Mailing Lists, IRC, and things that were actually invented this century.

[Michael Brown]

Remember that Github also has built in wiki, issue system and web hosting
(Jekyll powered -- so there's some automation potential) as well. So there
is some flexibility in how you can manage discussions and game state.

On 5 November 2016 at 13:02, Alexis Hunt  wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 11:00 PM Michael Brown 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 5 November 2016 at 11:47, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>
>> (Personally, I’d like to experiment with a Nomic executed through Github
>> pull requests.)
>>
>>
>> ^^^ This as well. The handful of Github nomics I have seen don't seem to
>> work very well though, either because they don't get very many players
>> and/or they start from the Suber rule set which is not at all well adapted
>> to the pull request model. If others are interested in an experimental
>> little Github nomic I'd love to join in.
>>
>>
> Github seems mediocre for gameplay but lovely for official reports.
>
> -Alexis
>



-- 
---.sig---
DISCLOSURE (updated on legal advice): The information in this email is
confidential. If its contents are disclosed our lawyers will swoop down
from helicopters and smash through the skylight nearest you and drag you
away with a black bag over your head. They will then take you to our super
secret headquarters and make you fight to the death with other people who
shared this email. We will then watch said death match and place bets on
the winner. You will be given a large buck knife and an unlimited supply of
methamphetamines. If the fight becomes boring or there is a stalemate,
rabid dogs will be released into the arena to liven things up a bit. If the
dogs become docile, we will squirt them with water bottles until they
become temperamental.
--

Re: DIS: The State of Discussion, Mailing Lists, IRC, and things that were actually invented this century.

[Alexis Hunt]

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 11:00 PM Michael Brown 
wrote:

>
> On 5 November 2016 at 11:47, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
> (Personally, I’d like to experiment with a Nomic executed through Github
> pull requests.)
>
>
> ^^^ This as well. The handful of Github nomics I have seen don't seem to
> work very well though, either because they don't get very many players
> and/or they start from the Suber rule set which is not at all well adapted
> to the pull request model. If others are interested in an experimental
> little Github nomic I'd love to join in.
>
>
Github seems mediocre for gameplay but lovely for official reports.

-Alexis

Re: DIS: The State of Discussion, Mailing Lists, IRC, and things that were actually invented this century.

[Michael Brown]

On 5 November 2016 at 11:47, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> (Personally, I’d like to experiment with a Nomic executed through Github
> pull requests.)


^^^ This as well. The handful of Github nomics I have seen don't seem to
work very well though, either because they don't get very many players
and/or they start from the Suber rule set which is not at all well adapted
to the pull request model. If others are interested in an experimental
little Github nomic I'd love to join in.

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Simple Economy

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Nov 4, 2016, at 8:59 PM, nichdel  wrote:
> 
> I submit the following proposal (I'll pend in a couple days after a
> feedback period):
> 
> Title: Simple Economics
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: nichdel
> Co-author(s): G.


Okay, so you’ve got:

* A fast currency
* A treasury for said currency, but no central bank
* Current accounts for all players and all organizations, and for Agora itself
* The moral equivalent of a last will and testament
* A source of income, plus bonuses for gameplay-related duties
* A single good, whose price is set by recurring auction.

It might be worth allowing players to designate one or more heirs, rather than 
a single heir, and to be able to designate those heirs in advance (by 
declaration). Tracking wills can go with the job of tracking balances.

I see from another reply that you’re considering this as a job for the 
Secretary. Assuming I take on the office, I foresee no problem with the 
workload. The Secretary’s reports are fairly straightforward (they’re the same 
kind of responsibilities as the Assessor and Promotor, but with a much smaller 
constituency). I look forward to seeing an amended proposal.

I’d love to see the ACU retired, or reworked, in light of this; giving ACU 
members the ability to control the ACU’s accounts by expending their credit 
balances might be interesting. I might spin up a fractional reserve bank 
organization, if I can find suitable investment targets, too.

-o

Re: DIS: The State of Discussion, Mailing Lists, IRC, and things that were actually invented this century.

[Owen Jacobson]

On Nov 4, 2016, at 9:47 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> Slack… isn’t open, which concerns me a lot. Right now they’re tolerant of 
> clients other than their own, so it’s technically possible to attach 
> archiving and to pull data from Slack, but the terms of service permit Slack 
> to revoke that permission at any time.
> 
> It’s also not memorable: If you’re using Slack’s free offering, you get a 
> searchable window of the 10,000 most recent messages. Since Slack follows the 
> dynamics of chat, 10k messages pass through fairly quickly. I’d tell you how 
> quickly, but you need to be on Slack’s paid tier to get statistics at a fine 
> enough grain to determine.
> 
> This brings me to my third objection to Slack: it’s EXPENSIVE. The paid tier 
> starts at USD 8 per user per month. Looking at the admin panel for a smallish 
> social Slack I use puts that into proportion: $2,640/yr for 33 active users. 
> I suspect the pricetag is beyond Agora’s budget.

Someone on IRC (irony) reminded me: IRC is a discussion forum, not an official 
forum, and therefore a lot less sensitive to these concerns. I’d be more than 
happy to have more discussion fora, either experimentally or permanently, even 
including Slack.

-o

Re: DIS: The State of Discussion, Mailing Lists, IRC, and things that were actually invented this century.

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Nov 4, 2016, at 7:24 PM, Nicholas Evans  wrote:
> 
> There's been some frustration voiced about the three mailing list system, 
> again. I say again because there was a plan to migrate the mailing lists to a 
> unified solution this summer, but it fell by the wayside as, presumably, the 
> mailing list maintainer got busy. But now it's being brought up again. I 
> thought we'd have a unified discussion for it instead of putting it in 
> replies to other things.
> 
> (I'd like to link you to the appropriate discussions from this summer, but 
> since they're split among multiple archives it's difficult. Look in your 
> history, or the archives' history, for "Future of Agora", "might as well try 
> for a show of hands" and "Rule Improvements".)
> 
> 1) OFF, BUS, and DIS. The split is useful, yes, but also a relic. One reason 
> we maintain this split (besides an incredible conservatism) is because it 
> prevents accidental action-taking or burying actions in mounds of discussion. 
> There's probably better solutions to this though.
> 
> 2) Combining BUS and DIS. I'm not against this, but would like some sort of 
> Subject convention that makes it remain easy to find office-relevant 
> information.
> 
> 3) The /other/ discussion forum: IRC. We're still using IRC. I'm 24, and the 
> fact that I know what IRC is is an anomaly. We're not going to bring any 
> youngsters into the IRC fold, especially when much nicer IRC-like solutions 
> like Discord and Slack dominate. Speaking of, I saw that BlogNomic has a 
> Slack and wondered what it'd be like to have a unified Slack/Discord for 
> nomics. For those of you unfamiliar: you have a server with some number of 
> text and voice channels. Slack's very popular among tech and freelance 
> professionals, and Discord is very popular among gamers/them youths. Both are 
> accessible from websites, downloadable clients, and smartphone apps. We could 
> co-operate with BlogNomic and have a unified Nomic server with channels for 
> each nomic, as well as a general channel. No longer fragmented kingdoms of 
> yore.

ON MEDIUM

Email is an intrinsic part of the flavour of Agora. Its rules subtly assume 
email-like communication patterns, and the limitations and dynamics of email 
inform the kinds of proposals that get made and the kinds of discussions that 
happen. Looking at some of the referenced threads, I see a few proposals for 
adding non-email fora to Agora, or transplanting it: to Reddit, to wiki 
software, and so on. I think those are interesting proposals, but also that 
they’re best explored as small, free-standing Nomics in their own right.

(Personally, I’d like to experiment with a Nomic executed through Github pull 
requests.)

Email has some useful traits:

* It’s open - no single vendor controls it, which means Agora is not at the 
mercy of someone’s profit margins. Even if omd were to be unwilling to host the 
lists, Agora could continue on another email server with minimal disruption.

* It’s cheap - omd presumably has the actual numbers, but an internet-connected 
server capable of hosting Agora’s mailing lists costs peanuts to maintain.

* It’s universal - in spite of Google’s efforts, email clients remain one of 
the pieces of software that we can safely assume every potential player has. By 
using email, we’re only excluding people whose primary internet access is via a 
feature phone or via a sponsored device (think Internet Dot Org), and people 
who do not use the internet at all.

* It’s extensible - the more technically-inclined Agorans can easily automate 
report generation via email, or archival and search or do bulk text 
recognition, or otherwise experiment with Agora as a corpus of messages.

* It’s memorable - recording and referring back to email messages is very 
straightforward, both because it’s easy for everyone to keep relevant messages 
handy on their own mailer and because there are multiple archive services 
storing Agora email.

IRC hits almost all of those, but it’s not memorable. IRC messages get lost, 
fairly quickly; even IRC logging services with search don’t make it 
particularly straightforward to refer back to prior conversations, or to 
separate important messages (in Agora, actions and reports) from discussion and 
natter. As a few people have observed, IRC’s user experience is pretty poor, 
and I don’t see that improving any time soon.

Slack… isn’t open, which concerns me a lot. Right now they’re tolerant of 
clients other than their own, so it’s technically possible to attach archiving 
and to pull data from Slack, but the terms of service permit Slack to revoke 
that permission at any time.

It’s also not memorable: If you’re using Slack’s free offering, you get a 
searchable window of the 10,000 most recent messages. Since Slack follows the 
dynamics of chat, 10k messages pass through fairly quickly. I’d tell you how 
quickly, but you need to be on Slack’s paid tier to get statistics at a fine 

Re: DIS: The State of Discussion, Mailing Lists, IRC, and things that were actually invented this century.

[Michael Brown]

3') Or a dedicated Agora Slack server with separate channels for OFF, BUS
and DIS...

On 5 November 2016 at 09:24, Nicholas Evans  wrote:

> There's been some frustration voiced about the three mailing list system,
> again. I say again because there was a plan to migrate the mailing lists to
> a unified solution this summer, but it fell by the wayside as, presumably,
> the mailing list maintainer got busy. But now it's being brought up again.
> I thought we'd have a unified discussion for it instead of putting it in
> replies to other things.
>
> (I'd like to link you to the appropriate discussions from this summer, but
> since they're split among multiple archives it's difficult. Look in your
> history, or the archives' history, for "Future of Agora", "might as well
> try for a show of hands" and "Rule Improvements".)
>
> 1) OFF, BUS, and DIS. The split is useful, yes, but also a relic. One
> reason we maintain this split (besides an incredible conservatism) is
> because it prevents accidental action-taking or burying actions in mounds
> of discussion. There's probably better solutions to this though.
>
> 2) Combining BUS and DIS. I'm not against this, but would like some sort
> of Subject convention that makes it remain easy to find office-relevant
> information.
>
> 3) The /other/ discussion forum: IRC. We're still using IRC. I'm 24, and
> the fact that I know what IRC is is an anomaly. We're not going to bring
> any youngsters into the IRC fold, especially when much nicer IRC-like
> solutions like Discord and Slack dominate. Speaking of, I saw that
> BlogNomic has a Slack and wondered what it'd be like to have a unified
> Slack/Discord for nomics. For those of you unfamiliar: you have a server
> with some number of text and voice channels. Slack's very popular among
> tech and freelance professionals, and Discord is very popular among
> gamers/them youths. Both are accessible from websites, downloadable
> clients, and smartphone apps. We could co-operate with BlogNomic and have a
> unified Nomic server with channels for each nomic, as well as a general
> channel. No longer fragmented kingdoms of yore.
>



-- 
---.sig---
DISCLOSURE (updated on legal advice): The information in this email is
confidential. If its contents are disclosed our lawyers will swoop down
from helicopters and smash through the skylight nearest you and drag you
away with a black bag over your head. They will then take you to our super
secret headquarters and make you fight to the death with other people who
shared this email. We will then watch said death match and place bets on
the winner. You will be given a large buck knife and an unlimited supply of
methamphetamines. If the fight becomes boring or there is a stalemate,
rabid dogs will be released into the arena to liven things up a bit. If the
dogs become docile, we will squirt them with water bottles until they
become temperamental.
--

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Simple Economy

[Alexis Hunt]

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:26 PM nichdel  wrote:

> On 11/04/2016 08:05 PM, ais523 wrote:
> > The largest problem is that you haven't specified an officer to track
> > the switches.
> Woops, lost it in editing. Meant to be the Secretary.
> > Currencies typically need to have multiple dimensions so that a varying
> > exchange rate can be set up between them.
> >
> > Out of interest, is anyone else working on an economy proposal at the
> > moment? It might be worth sharing notes. (I've been having some
> > thoughts in that direction, but nothing concrete.)
>
> There's the more complex one I spent a while on [1] before dropping. My
> concern is that we're barely filling the offices now, I don't want to
> overwhelm officers with too many monthly tabulations. Thus the attempt
> at one currency with variable prices.
>
> [1] http://hearthgate.net/agorawiki/Econ-Proto


I like the idea of a simple economy. I have an idea for a complex one and
some of my recent proposals have been spinoffs from that idea. That said,
and ais523 will agree, proposal distribution is a rather weak reward for
economy for two reasons. The first is that proposal distribution is the
fundamental mechanic of the game, and slowing it down can lead to bad
incentives, like minor fix proposals not being worth it. The second is that
proposal distribution is the fundamental mechanic of the game, and so
players are in practice willing to help each other out with it. In every
variation of the limited-distribution mechanic I've seen, people invariably
assist each other 99% of the time, which makes the economy rather pointless.

Voting strength is the obvious easy target for economy, winning is the
higher bar. Based on my past experience, voting strength increases should
not be for a specific proposal (encourages hoarding for voting fights over
proposals rather than general changes of influence over time), and should
reset naturally in some fashion. For now, simple is probably fine.

-Alexis

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Simple Economy

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 4 Nov 2016, nichdel wrote:


I submit the following proposal (I'll pend in a couple days after a
feedback period):

Title: Simple Economics
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: nichdel
Co-author(s): G.



  Any player MAY pay Agora, any other player, or any organization
  any amount by announcement.


MAY is not a synonym of CAN, and I don't think it even implies it.  Thus 
this would not let players pay successfully.



  Any organization CAN pay Agora, any player, or any other
  organization by announcement by a member of said organization,
  as specified in the charter of said organization.

  The Secretary CAN cause Agora to pay any player or organization by
  announcement if doing so is specified by a rule.

  Any attempt to pay a negative amount is INEFFECTIVE. Any attempt
  by a player or organization to pay that would make eir Balance
  less than 0 is INEFFECTIVE.


INEFFECTIVE is just the negative of CAN, so I think you need to be more 
specific to imply that the INEFFECTIVEs takes precedence over the CANs.



Enact a new rule (P=1) titled "Payday" which reads:

  If Agora's Balance is not 0 or less, within the first 7 days of
  the month the Secretary SHALL cause Agora to pay each player 10
  plus another 10 for each office e holds.


When is the first condition checked?  If it's "any time in the 7 days" or 
even "when the Secretary pays", the Secretary might be required to act 
unreasonably fast.


Also missing units.


Enact a new rule (P=1) titled "You can't take it with you" which reads:

  When a player is deregistered, e may specify another player, an
  organization, or Agora and pay all of eir Balance to the
  specified, within 1 day of deregistration. If e does not do so,
  eir Balance is paid to Agora.


When does the default payment happen?


  Any player MAY pay Agora a specified amount to flip a proposal's
  imminence to "pending" by announcement. If the specified amount is
  less than 9/10ths, rounded down, of the Pending List Price the
  attempt to pay is INEFFECTIVE and the proposal's imminence is not
  flipped.


Another MAY that should be CAN, and an INEFFECTIVE that may or may not 
take precedence once that's fixed.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Simple Economy

[Nicholas Evans]

 On 11/04/2016 08:05 PM, ais523 wrote:

The largest problem is that you haven't specified an officer to track
the switches.


Woops, lost it in editing. Meant to be the Secretary.

Currencies typically need to have multiple dimensions so that a varying
exchange rate can be set up between them.

Out of interest, is anyone else working on an economy proposal at the
moment? It might be worth sharing notes. (I've been having some
thoughts in that direction, but nothing concrete.)


There's the more complex one I spent a while on [1] that I dropped. My
concern is that we're barely filling the offices now, I don't want to
overwhelm officers with too many monthly tabulations. Thus the attempt at
one currency with variable prices.

[1] http://hearthgate.net/agorawiki/Econ-Proto

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Simple Economy

[nichdel]

On 11/04/2016 08:05 PM, ais523 wrote:

The largest problem is that you haven't specified an officer to track
the switches.

Woops, lost it in editing. Meant to be the Secretary.

Currencies typically need to have multiple dimensions so that a varying
exchange rate can be set up between them.

Out of interest, is anyone else working on an economy proposal at the
moment? It might be worth sharing notes. (I've been having some
thoughts in that direction, but nothing concrete.)


There's the more complex one I spent a while on [1] before dropping. My 
concern is that we're barely filling the offices now, I don't want to 
overwhelm officers with too many monthly tabulations. Thus the attempt 
at one currency with variable prices.


[1] http://hearthgate.net/agorawiki/Econ-Proto

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Simple Economy

[ais523]

On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 19:59 -0500, nichdel wrote:
> I submit the following proposal (I'll pend in a couple days after a
> feedback period):

The largest problem is that you haven't specified an officer to track
the switches.

I'm not sure I really like the idea behind it, though. A currency
/this/ simple tends to have fairly easy strategy behind it. (In
particular, I would almost certainly not spend it, trying to persuade
other players to spend it instead; all it can do at the moment is
pending and pending isn't very valuable, but it's likely it would gain
other uses in the future.)

Currencies typically need to have multiple dimensions so that a varying
exchange rate can be set up between them.

Out of interest, is anyone else working on an economy proposal at the
moment? It might be worth sharing notes. (I've been having some
thoughts in that direction, but nothing concrete.)

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise

[Owen Jacobson]

On Nov 4, 2016, at 1:47 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> * It’ll take me about that long to get the reports together anyways, and I’d 
> rather not duplicate the effort if someone else is already doing it;

Apparently not.

I have DRAFTS of the two rules-required reports, as well as murphy’s “Bank 
Statement” report: 
https://gist.github.com/ojacobson/50ff89169bd10f0968ee6bf96d5da53c 


Feedback very much wanted.

-o

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Prime Minister election

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 4 Nov 2016, ais523 wrote:


It's probably simplest to define like this: "Repeatedly eliminate the
player with the fewest first-choice votes until someone wins. Votes for
eliminated players don't count (thus potentially promoting someone else
to hold the first-choice position)."


Set of players. It's not necessarily a unique one. That can of course also 
apply in the final step, in which case you won't get a winner.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Invasion protection, again

[ais523]

On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 19:38 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> I’m skeptical of rules which serve to disenfranchise players
> generally, and more so of rules that disenfranchise new players
> specifically. In general, I think raising the bar to participation is
> an extremely high-risk move for the health of Agora.
> 
> Having said that, I really like the structure of this proposal. The
> default state is full franchise for all players, new and old, and the
> disenfranchisement system has two separate built-in ratchets that
> appear to guarantee that the franchise will be restored even in the
> face of continuous effort to deny new players the ability to vote.

Right, the idea is that you have full participation most of the time,
but can also reduce participation in an emergency. The proposal's
designed so that it's impossible to lock out new players indefinitely.
I also suggest that game custom should be that Festivals should be
rare, and that attempts to start one without good justification should
not be supported. (This is true of the previous rules we've had along
these lines, too.)

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Invasion protection, again

[Owen Jacobson]

On Nov 4, 2016, at 4:01 AM, ais523  wrote:

> In many periods of history, Agora has had some sort of invasion
> protection rule. This normally serves two purposes: protecting Agora
> from a large influx of new players who are aiming to gain control over
> the ruleset; and making counterscamming more interesting (typically,
> when Agora is in "invasion mode" some aspects of scams become harder to
> pull off, but sometimes some become easier).
> 
> Even before the recent events at BlogNomic, I was considering re-adding 
> such a rule. Now, it seems like it may be fairly urgent.

I’m skeptical of rules which serve to disenfranchise players generally, and 
more so of rules that disenfranchise new players specifically. In general, I 
think raising the bar to participation is an extremely high-risk move for the 
health of Agora.

Having said that, I really like the structure of this proposal. The default 
state is full franchise for all players, new and old, and the 
disenfranchisement system has two separate built-in ratchets that appear to 
guarantee that the franchise will be restored even in the face of continuous 
effort to deny new players the ability to vote.

I’ll probably vote for this.

-o

DIS: The State of Discussion, Mailing Lists, IRC, and things that were actually invented this century.

[Nicholas Evans]

There's been some frustration voiced about the three mailing list system,
again. I say again because there was a plan to migrate the mailing lists to
a unified solution this summer, but it fell by the wayside as, presumably,
the mailing list maintainer got busy. But now it's being brought up again.
I thought we'd have a unified discussion for it instead of putting it in
replies to other things.

(I'd like to link you to the appropriate discussions from this summer, but
since they're split among multiple archives it's difficult. Look in your
history, or the archives' history, for "Future of Agora", "might as well
try for a show of hands" and "Rule Improvements".)

1) OFF, BUS, and DIS. The split is useful, yes, but also a relic. One
reason we maintain this split (besides an incredible conservatism) is
because it prevents accidental action-taking or burying actions in mounds
of discussion. There's probably better solutions to this though.

2) Combining BUS and DIS. I'm not against this, but would like some sort of
Subject convention that makes it remain easy to find office-relevant
information.

3) The /other/ discussion forum: IRC. We're still using IRC. I'm 24, and
the fact that I know what IRC is is an anomaly. We're not going to bring
any youngsters into the IRC fold, especially when much nicer IRC-like
solutions like Discord and Slack dominate. Speaking of, I saw that
BlogNomic has a Slack and wondered what it'd be like to have a unified
Slack/Discord for nomics. For those of you unfamiliar: you have a server
with some number of text and voice channels. Slack's very popular among
tech and freelance professionals, and Discord is very popular among
gamers/them youths. Both are accessible from websites, downloadable
clients, and smartphone apps. We could co-operate with BlogNomic and have a
unified Nomic server with channels for each nomic, as well as a general
channel. No longer fragmented kingdoms of yore.

Re: DIS: (Off-Topic) BlogNomic

[Michael Brown]

Brendan has indicated that he intends to reintroduce the doomsday proposal
after taking people's concerns into account. We'll have to wait and see
what he comes up with...

On 5 November 2016 at 08:46, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> > On Nov 4, 2016, at 12:14 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >
> > On the theory that BlogNomic has been colonized by a party bent on
> destroying the game, is there any aid we can extend to the other players?
>
> I withdraw this theory.
>
> > To be clear: my actual goal is to put Blognomic at a REAL RISK of
> ending, but not to make it a foregone conclusion. I’m writing another
> proposal now as a mechanism to stave it off if we get enough interest and
> activity in the dynasty. Kevan’s assessment is pretty spot-on.
>
> - Brendan, at  comments>
>
> Furthermore, the proposal has failed quite dramatically, with half of
> BlogNomic’s eligible voters posting ballots explicitly against it
> as-written. Brendan’s explanation of his rationale and subsequent proposals
> are enough to convince me, at least, that he’s not a mad bomber, even if he
> is a daredevil and an irresponsible risk-taker with the health of that game.
>
> It’ll be interesting to see how the subsequent proposals, which construct
> some kind of doomsday clock, evolve…
>
> -o
>
>


-- 
---.sig---
DISCLOSURE (updated on legal advice): The information in this email is
confidential. If its contents are disclosed our lawyers will swoop down
from helicopters and smash through the skylight nearest you and drag you
away with a black bag over your head. They will then take you to our super
secret headquarters and make you fight to the death with other people who
shared this email. We will then watch said death match and place bets on
the winner. You will be given a large buck knife and an unlimited supply of
methamphetamines. If the fight becomes boring or there is a stalemate,
rabid dogs will be released into the arena to liven things up a bit. If the
dogs become docile, we will squirt them with water bottles until they
become temperamental.
--

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7821-7830

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Nov 4, 2016, at 6:43 PM, ais523  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 18:39 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> More generally, I realize I’m relatively new, but the three-list
>> setup seems spectacularly prone to this kind of mistake, without
>> offering much additional value over a single list. Given the
>> relatively small number of players right now, would it be worthwhile
>> to propose allowing business traffic on -discussion for the time
>> being, or merging the lists? Mail to -official seems to go wrong a
>> lot less frequently, so I’m content that that one is working as
>> desired...
> 
> There are two reasons we have a -discussion list. One, which might only
> be of historical interest, is that some players used to unsubscribe
> from -discussion to reduce the volume of mail they got. The other is
> that we sometimes have rules that restrict what can be posted on a
> public forum (e.g. rules that prevent you lying, or using the wrong
> pronoun, etc.), so it helps to have an unrestricted forum in which to
> discuss the game.

That’s a fair point. As Alexis points out, I may also change my tune if I 
become Secretary.

> I think the a-o/a-b split is to make it easier to find reports, but I'm
> not sure how useful that is in these days of advanced email search
> engines.

I absolutely make use of this. I have fairly reasonable search, but `To: Agora 
Official` is still the easiest way for me to find all of the recent reports.

Thanks for the feedback & clarification!

-o

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7821-7830

[Aris Merchant]

Not sure if this is how the lists are setup, but my mailer automatically
sends all replies to a-d, which is generally useful, but sometimes a bit
annoying.

-Aris

Re: DIS: (Off-Topic) BlogNomic

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Nov 4, 2016, at 12:14 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> On the theory that BlogNomic has been colonized by a party bent on destroying 
> the game, is there any aid we can extend to the other players?

I withdraw this theory.

> To be clear: my actual goal is to put Blognomic at a REAL RISK of ending, but 
> not to make it a foregone conclusion. I’m writing another proposal now as a 
> mechanism to stave it off if we get enough interest and activity in the 
> dynasty. Kevan’s assessment is pretty spot-on.

- Brendan, at 


Furthermore, the proposal has failed quite dramatically, with half of 
BlogNomic’s eligible voters posting ballots explicitly against it as-written. 
Brendan’s explanation of his rationale and subsequent proposals are enough to 
convince me, at least, that he’s not a mad bomber, even if he is a daredevil 
and an irresponsible risk-taker with the health of that game.

It’ll be interesting to see how the subsequent proposals, which construct some 
kind of doomsday clock, evolve…

-o

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7821-7830

[ais523]

On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 18:39 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> More generally, I realize I’m relatively new, but the three-list
> setup seems spectacularly prone to this kind of mistake, without
> offering much additional value over a single list. Given the
> relatively small number of players right now, would it be worthwhile
> to propose allowing business traffic on -discussion for the time
> being, or merging the lists? Mail to -official seems to go wrong a
> lot less frequently, so I’m content that that one is working as
> desired...

There are two reasons we have a -discussion list. One, which might only
be of historical interest, is that some players used to unsubscribe
from -discussion to reduce the volume of mail they got. The other is
that we sometimes have rules that restrict what can be posted on a
public forum (e.g. rules that prevent you lying, or using the wrong
pronoun, etc.), so it helps to have an unrestricted forum in which to
discuss the game.

I think the a-o/a-b split is to make it easier to find reports, but I'm
not sure how useful that is in these days of advanced email search
engines.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7821-7830

[Alexis Hunt]

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 6:39 PM Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> On Nov 4, 2016, at 11:58 AM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Luis Ressel  wrote:
> >>> 7823+  Alexis  3.0  Vigilante Justice
> >>
> >> I change my vote on proposal 7823 to AGAINST.
> > I withdraw any previous vote, and vote AGAINST.
> >
> > -Aris
>
> Might I suggest casting your votes in -business?
>
> More generally, I realize I’m relatively new, but the three-list setup
> seems spectacularly prone to this kind of mistake, without offering much
> additional value over a single list. Given the relatively small number of
> players right now, would it be worthwhile to propose allowing business
> traffic on -discussion for the time being, or merging the lists? Mail to
> -official seems to go wrong a lot less frequently, so I’m content that that
> one is working as desired...
>
> -o
>

The advantage is that an officer trying to filter out all irrelevant
conversation has a much easier time of things. As you'll likely soon find
out, this is a significant advantage.

-Alexis

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7821-7830

[Owen Jacobson]

On Nov 4, 2016, at 11:58 AM, Aris Merchant  
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Luis Ressel  wrote:
>>> 7823+  Alexis  3.0  Vigilante Justice
>> 
>> I change my vote on proposal 7823 to AGAINST.
> I withdraw any previous vote, and vote AGAINST.
> 
> -Aris

Might I suggest casting your votes in -business?

More generally, I realize I’m relatively new, but the three-list setup seems 
spectacularly prone to this kind of mistake, without offering much additional 
value over a single list. Given the relatively small number of players right 
now, would it be worthwhile to propose allowing business traffic on -discussion 
for the time being, or merging the lists? Mail to -official seems to go wrong a 
lot less frequently, so I’m content that that one is working as desired...

-o

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Identification of Proposal 7820

[Alexis Hunt]

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 3:44 PM nichdel  wrote:

> On 11/03/2016 11:20 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:55 PM nichdel  > > wrote:
> >
> > On 10/28/2016 11:18 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >
> > > ID Author(s)   AI   Title
> > >
> > -
> > > 7820^! Alexis, ais523  1.0  Official Clarification
> > >
> > >
> > I vote AGAINST.Don't like the terms "substantially correct" or "minor
> > errors".
> >
> >
> > Why not?
> >
> > -Alexis
>
> If I published a weekly Registrar's Report that read, in full:
>
> "The list of registered players includes nichdel."
>

Oh, that's a good point. I would have appreciated if you had made this more
clear before.

Proposal: Official Clarification v2 (AI=1, coauthors=ais523, nichdel)
{{{
Amend Rule 2143 (Official Duties) by adding "A person's obligation to
publish a report or other document is satisfied by eir publication of a
substantially complete and correct document if the only errors it contains
are minor errors of which e is unaware."
}}}

-Alexis

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Identification of Proposal 7820

[nichdel]

On 11/03/2016 11:20 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:55 PM nichdel > wrote:


On 10/28/2016 11:18 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

> ID Author(s)   AI   Title
>
-
> 7820^! Alexis, ais523  1.0  Official Clarification
>
>
I vote AGAINST.Don't like the terms "substantially correct" or "minor
errors".


Why not?

-Alexis


If I published a weekly Registrar's Report that read, in full:

"The list of registered players includes nichdel."

It seems to me that that would be 'substantially correct' in that the 
whole of it is factually correct. It also contains no errors at all.


The result is a situation where I can continue to do that until I'm 
removed via election, since no one can deputise to fix the situation. If 
the ADoP is complicit with this, that means up to 90 days of an 
officeholder doing this before elections can begin.


I'm also working on a new, simpler version of the econ proposal that 
would make holding offices more desirable, and this scam more dangerous.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Draft of corrected proposal distribution

[Nicholas Evans]

Use a text editor that doesn't do any adjustments to the formatting. If
you're on Windows, notepad is fine for the job. If you want something nicer
on Windows try notepad++ or gedit. I'm on linux, and usually use gedit or
vim.

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>
> >
> > This paragraph should be indented.
> >
> >> When a Pink Slip is issued, as a penalty, within the next 7 days, any
> >> player CAN, with 2 Support, become the holder of one or more of those
> >> offices still held by the bad sport.
> >
> >
> > And this one.
> >
> >>
> >> When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL investigate the
> >> allegation and, in a timely fashion, SHALL conclude the investigation
> >> by:
> >
> >
> > And this one.
> >
> > And more.
> >
> > -Alexis
> I'll deal with that. I need a new text editor. (Sigh.) I'll try to get
> it out this evening. (UTC -7)
>
> -Aris
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Prime Minister election

[ais523]

On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 10:09 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Luis Ressel  wrote:
> > This has definitly made my life easier, anyway: It's been the fifth
> > election using instant runoff voting, and I still haven't been
> > forced to read up on the details of this voting method.
> "The standard definition of instant runoff voting" or whatever
> version
> of that is in the current rules, has always felt like cop-out to me.

It's probably simplest to define like this: "Repeatedly eliminate the
player with the fewest first-choice votes until someone wins. Votes for
eliminated players don't count (thus potentially promoting someone else
to hold the first-choice position)."

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Prime Minister election

[Aris Merchant]

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Luis Ressel  wrote:

>
> This has definitly made my life easier, anyway: It's been the fifth
> election using instant runoff voting, and I still haven't been
> forced to read up on the details of this voting method.
>
"The standard definition of instant runoff voting" or whatever version
of that is in the current rules, has always felt like cop-out to me.

-Aris

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Luis Ressel]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:27:51 -0700
Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> Rule 106/36 (Power=3)
> Adopting Proposals
> 
> [...]
>
> Amended(36) by Proposal 7778 (scshunt), 14 August 2014

The last cited line contains a typo: s/2014/2015/

The same error also occurs in the histories of several other rules.
Just grep for 7778.

-- 
aranea

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Draft of corrected proposal distribution

[Aris Merchant]

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:

>
> This paragraph should be indented.
>
>> When a Pink Slip is issued, as a penalty, within the next 7 days, any
>> player CAN, with 2 Support, become the holder of one or more of those
>> offices still held by the bad sport.
>
>
> And this one.
>
>>
>> When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL investigate the
>> allegation and, in a timely fashion, SHALL conclude the investigation
>> by:
>
>
> And this one.
>
> And more.
>
> -Alexis
I'll deal with that. I need a new text editor. (Sigh.) I'll try to get
it out this evening. (UTC -7)

-Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7821-7830

[Aris Merchant]

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Luis Ressel  wrote:
>> 7823+  Alexis  3.0  Vigilante Justice
>
> I change my vote on proposal 7823 to AGAINST.
I withdraw any previous vote, and vote AGAINST.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Violations

[Alexis Hunt]

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 11:06 AM Luis Ressel  wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Nov 2016 01:37:28 +
> Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>
> > I issue a Black Card to Murphy for failing to publish a Secretary's
> > report last week.
>
> Isn't that a bit harsh? IMHO, nonmaliciously neglecting office duties
> does not constitue a "severe abuse of power".
>
> --
> aranea
>

Ah, you might think that, but in actuality Murphy's neglect of office has
been in no small part responsible for the atrophy of Agora's most
significant gameplay mechanism. E may be doing it subconsciously, but
surely you would agree that allowing an officer to use their power to
forestall reports to destroy the section of gameplay for which they
responsible is abusive and severe? ;)

In practice the punishment is meaningless anyhow since the reports are so
overdue (months!) that anyone could deputize the office.

-Alexis

DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Violations

[Luis Ressel]

On Wed, 02 Nov 2016 01:37:28 +
Alexis Hunt  wrote:

> I issue a Black Card to Murphy for failing to publish a Secretary's
> report last week.

Isn't that a bit harsh? IMHO, nonmaliciously neglecting office duties
does not constitue a "severe abuse of power".

-- 
aranea

Re: DIS: Draft of corrected proposal distribution

[Alexis Hunt]

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 4:16 AM ais523  wrote:

a) You posted this to a-d.
b) We have some precedent that attempting to distribute a typo-ed
proposal leads to the Promotor submitting the proposal immediately
before distributing it, in which case both proposals are valid (and the
new one should therefore probably have a new number). I have no idea if
that precedent still holds under the current ruleset.


The original distribution would then still be invalid as it had an
incorrect author.

-Alexis

Re: DIS: Draft of corrected proposal distribution

[ais523]

On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 01:12 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> [As pointed out on a-d, my original distribution contained incorrect
> text, rendering it invalid. I'm afraid everyone's going to have to
> re-cast their votes. Sorry about the mix-up.]

a) You posted this to a-d.
b) We have some precedent that attempting to distribute a typo-ed
proposal leads to the Promotor submitting the proposal immediately
before distributing it, in which case both proposals are valid (and the
new one should therefore probably have a new number). I have no idea if
that precedent still holds under the current ruleset.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: Draft of corrected proposal distribution

[Aris Merchant]

I have a question. If my distribution failed, did my first pend
succeed, or do I need to re-pend?

-Aris

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 1:12 AM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> [As pointed out on a-d, my original distribution contained incorrect
> text, rendering it invalid. I'm afraid everyone's going to have to
> re-cast their votes. Sorry about the mix-up.]
>
>
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, and the
> valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>
>
> ID Author(s)   AI   Title
> -
> 7823+  Alexis  3.0  Vigilante Justice
>
>
> Legend: * : Proposal is pending
> + : By publishing this report, I pend the marked proposal
>
> //
> ID: 7823
> Title: Vigilante Justice
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Alexis
> Co-author(s):
>
>
> [This is a proposal to factor out Cards into a number of pieces and
> implement a slightly more fleshed-out justice system.]
>
> Mutate rule 2426 (Cards)'s power to 2, then amend it to read as follows:
>
>   A Card is a recognition of a specific violation of the rules or
> other manner of infraction that is awarded to the violator in order to
> draw attention to eir disregard for the rule of law and, depending
> on the type of Card, to impose a penalty.
>
>   Cards CANNOT be issued except by players by announcement. Any
> attempt to issue a Card, or any intent for a dependent action to issue
> a Card, is INEFFECTIVE if it does not include the following
> information:
>
>   - The type of Card being issued,
>   - The person to whom the Card is being issued (the bad sport), and
>   - The specific action, inaction of the bad sport giving rise to
> the Card (the reason).
>
>   Issuing Cards is secured with power threshold 1.7.
>
>
>
>   The types of Card are defined by the rules. A type of Card may have
> a defined set of circumstances for which it is appropriate, as well as
> a penalty which takes effect when a Card of that type is issued.
> Unless otherwise specified by the rule defining a type of Card, that
> Card type's penalty and circumstances for which it is appropriate are
> secured at the power threshold of that rule.
>
>   A person SHALL NOT issue a Card unless:
>
>   - the reason is appropriate for the type of Card being issued;
>   - there has not already been a Card issued for that reason; and
>   - the reason occurred within the 14 days preceding the issuance of
> the Card or, when the Card arises out of any manner of official
> proceeding, the initiation of that proceeding.
>
> [The main takeaways here are:
>
> - Issuing a card must be explicit.
>
> - It's now illegal to issue an incorrect Card or timed-out Card, or
> multiple Cards for the same offense.
>
> The requirement that Cards be issued by announcement and by players is
> mostly a safety valve, but also to ensure that a Card always has a
> reason attached. Note also that dependent actions are still performed
> in the end by announcement, so this prohibition does not prevent
> dependently issuing a card. ]
>
>
> Amend Rule 2451 (Executive Orders) by replacing:
>
>   - Dive (Referee): The Prime Minister issues a specified Card to a
> specified player. In doing so, the Prime Minister SHOULD cite a
> specific grievance against that player, not necessarily a violation of
> a rule.
>
> with:
>
>   - Dive (Referee): The Prime Minister issues a specified Card to a
> specified player. The reason for the card MAY be any grievance held by
> the Prime Minister, not necessarily a violation of the rules, against
> the person to whom the Card is issued.
>
> [Clarify the interaction of this rule with Cards.]
>
> Create a new rule with power 0.5 entitled "Green Cards" and reading as 
> follows:
>
>   A Green Card is a type of Card that is appropriate for minor,
> accidental, and/or inconsequential infraction. A Green Card is also
> appropriate for any infraction for which no other type of Card is
> appropriate. When a person is issued a Green Card, they are ENCOURAGED
> to travel to the United States.
>
> [Breaking each type of card into its own rule, mainly to allow for cards
> to be defined at different powers without the gymnatics that Red Card
> currently has.]
>
> Mutate Rule 2427 (Red Cards) to power 2, retitle it to "Yellow Cards",
> and then amend it to read as follows:
>
>   A Yellow Card is a type of Card that is appropriate either for
> infractions that have a significant, though small, impact on gameplay
> or for infractions for which a Green Card has already been issued.
>
>   When a Yellow Card is issued, the bad sport SHOULD publish a formal
> apology of at least 200 words explaining eir error, shame, remorse,
> and ardent desire for self-improvement. A player 

DIS: Draft of corrected proposal distribution

[Aris Merchant]

[As pointed out on a-d, my original distribution contained incorrect
text, rendering it invalid. I'm afraid everyone's going to have to
re-cast their votes. Sorry about the mix-up.]


I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, and the
valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote).


ID Author(s)   AI   Title
-
7823+  Alexis  3.0  Vigilante Justice


Legend: * : Proposal is pending
+ : By publishing this report, I pend the marked proposal

//
ID: 7823
Title: Vigilante Justice
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Alexis
Co-author(s):


[This is a proposal to factor out Cards into a number of pieces and
implement a slightly more fleshed-out justice system.]

Mutate rule 2426 (Cards)'s power to 2, then amend it to read as follows:

  A Card is a recognition of a specific violation of the rules or
other manner of infraction that is awarded to the violator in order to
draw attention to eir disregard for the rule of law and, depending
on the type of Card, to impose a penalty.

  Cards CANNOT be issued except by players by announcement. Any
attempt to issue a Card, or any intent for a dependent action to issue
a Card, is INEFFECTIVE if it does not include the following
information:

  - The type of Card being issued,
  - The person to whom the Card is being issued (the bad sport), and
  - The specific action, inaction of the bad sport giving rise to
the Card (the reason).

  Issuing Cards is secured with power threshold 1.7.



  The types of Card are defined by the rules. A type of Card may have
a defined set of circumstances for which it is appropriate, as well as
a penalty which takes effect when a Card of that type is issued.
Unless otherwise specified by the rule defining a type of Card, that
Card type's penalty and circumstances for which it is appropriate are
secured at the power threshold of that rule.

  A person SHALL NOT issue a Card unless:

  - the reason is appropriate for the type of Card being issued;
  - there has not already been a Card issued for that reason; and
  - the reason occurred within the 14 days preceding the issuance of
the Card or, when the Card arises out of any manner of official
proceeding, the initiation of that proceeding.

[The main takeaways here are:

- Issuing a card must be explicit.

- It's now illegal to issue an incorrect Card or timed-out Card, or
multiple Cards for the same offense.

The requirement that Cards be issued by announcement and by players is
mostly a safety valve, but also to ensure that a Card always has a
reason attached. Note also that dependent actions are still performed
in the end by announcement, so this prohibition does not prevent
dependently issuing a card. ]


Amend Rule 2451 (Executive Orders) by replacing:

  - Dive (Referee): The Prime Minister issues a specified Card to a
specified player. In doing so, the Prime Minister SHOULD cite a
specific grievance against that player, not necessarily a violation of
a rule.

with:

  - Dive (Referee): The Prime Minister issues a specified Card to a
specified player. The reason for the card MAY be any grievance held by
the Prime Minister, not necessarily a violation of the rules, against
the person to whom the Card is issued.

[Clarify the interaction of this rule with Cards.]

Create a new rule with power 0.5 entitled "Green Cards" and reading as follows:

  A Green Card is a type of Card that is appropriate for minor,
accidental, and/or inconsequential infraction. A Green Card is also
appropriate for any infraction for which no other type of Card is
appropriate. When a person is issued a Green Card, they are ENCOURAGED
to travel to the United States.

[Breaking each type of card into its own rule, mainly to allow for cards
to be defined at different powers without the gymnatics that Red Card
currently has.]

Mutate Rule 2427 (Red Cards) to power 2, retitle it to "Yellow Cards",
and then amend it to read as follows:

  A Yellow Card is a type of Card that is appropriate either for
infractions that have a significant, though small, impact on gameplay
or for infractions for which a Green Card has already been issued.

  When a Yellow Card is issued, the bad sport SHOULD publish a formal
apology of at least 200 words explaining eir error, shame, remorse,
and ardent desire for self-improvement. A player issuing a Yellow Card
MAY, when doing so, additionally specify up to 10 words to be included
in the apology. Until e publishes such an apology, as a penalty, the
bad sport's voting strength on all Agoran decisions initiated within
30 days of the Card's issuance is set to 0 after modifiers.

[A couple changes here. First, renaming red cards to yellow cards to
make room for a more severe red card. 

Re: DIS: (Off-Topic) BlogNomic

[Michael Brown]

I like "the Nomic Preservation Society" and agree the effort should be
broader than Agora itself. This was just a good place to start recruiting.
:D

I'm also fine with the watch and wait approach, but we should be prepared
to act. Of course, people who don't care about Blognomic aren't mandated to
do anything (hence my resolution using "should" and "encouraged" rather
than "shall" and "required"). I figure that people who do care enough to
take action will also tend to stay on and play the game proper, which
should soften any resentment on the Blognomic side.

FYI I'm the player "gazebo_dude" over on Blognomic. I also played Agora
briefly under that name (I'm pretty sure) some years ago... 2005 I think.
Been thinking about rejoining since I've recently come into more free time.


On 4 November 2016 at 16:23, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
> > While the spirit of this idea admirable, I have serious reservations
> about calling on Agorans - or on any other group - to register and vote en
> bloc on another Nomic. For now - at least - BlogNomic regulars appear to be
> voting down the proposal that would otherwise enable the end of the game.
> >
> > I obviously can’t stop anyone from going to register or to vote, but I
> urge Agorans to respect BlogNomic’s players, and to refrain from flooding
> out regular BlogNomic players in the hopes of saving BlogNomic from itself.
> That trick never works.
> >
> > -o
> >
> I hereby call to order the first meeting of... the Nomic Preservation
> Society? If someone asks, we need to say where all these new players
> are coming from, and they might not like the idea of being invaded by
> another Nomic. Besides, it sounds good, and that's what really
> matters.
>
> I tend to agree that we should just keep an eye on things for now.
> What's really worrying is that both of their "admins" voted for it. If
> we really have to intervene we can, but let's wait and see if it's
> needed. They seem to be handling it on their own for now. It may all
> just be a joke... Not a very funny one, but you know.
>
> -Aris
>

Re: DIS: (Off-Topic) BlogNomic

[Aris Merchant]

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> While the spirit of this idea admirable, I have serious reservations about 
> calling on Agorans - or on any other group - to register and vote en bloc on 
> another Nomic. For now - at least - BlogNomic regulars appear to be voting 
> down the proposal that would otherwise enable the end of the game.
>
> I obviously can’t stop anyone from going to register or to vote, but I urge 
> Agorans to respect BlogNomic’s players, and to refrain from flooding out 
> regular BlogNomic players in the hopes of saving BlogNomic from itself. That 
> trick never works.
>
> -o
>
I hereby call to order the first meeting of... the Nomic Preservation
Society? If someone asks, we need to say where all these new players
are coming from, and they might not like the idea of being invaded by
another Nomic. Besides, it sounds good, and that's what really
matters.

I tend to agree that we should just keep an eye on things for now.
What's really worrying is that both of their "admins" voted for it. If
we really have to intervene we can, but let's wait and see if it's
needed. They seem to be handling it on their own for now. It may all
just be a joke... Not a very funny one, but you know.

-Aris