DIS: Proto: Conditional Victory
So I was looking at the best ways to handle the illegal win problem,
and I decided to bring back an older set of somewhat more complicated
victory rules. They involve Winning Conditions, Losing Conditions,
Victory Announcements, and Cleanup Procedures. Basically, if you
satisfy a Winning Condition and no Losing Conditions, you can make a
self-ratifying Victory Announcement to that effect. If the
announcement ratifies, you win, and the Cleanup Procedure for the
Winning Condition you satisfied is activated. This seemed a robust set
of generic concepts for dealing with victory, so I thought reenacting
them with some modifications might solve our problems. Here's a proto
that does that. Part 1 consists of the new victory rules, and part 2
consists of assorted modifications to existing rules to make them
compatible. I'd love to hear what you think!
-Aris
P.S. The old rules were R2186 from March 2008 [1] and R2343 from March 2012 [2]
[1]
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2008-March/004137.html
[2]
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2012-March/009331.html
---
Title: Conditional Victory
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-author(s):
Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and text in square brackets ("[]")
are comments.
# 1 WINNING REWRITE
Enact a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Winning: Terms and Conditions",
and reading as follows:
Winning Conditions and Losing Conditions are conditions
explicitly defined as such by the Rules. Such conditions are
generally satisfied instantaneously, not continuously. No such
condition is satisfied unless a rule specifies that it is.
Each Winning Condition should (if needed) specify a Cleanup
Procedure to prevent an arbitrary number of wins arising from
essentially the same circumstances. When one or more persons win
the game by some Winning Condition, for each of those persons who satisfy
that Winning Condition, its Cleanup Procedure occurs.
If a rule states that a person "achieves victory by X", it is to be
construed as meaning that mean that the specified person satisfies
the Winning Condition of X for a period of one month, beginning
at the specified time, or until e wins the game by X, whichever is sooner.
The one month period is tolled (suspended) for so long as any CFJ relating
substantially to the circumstances of the win is open and for one week after
its closure.
Amend Rule 2449, "Winning the Game", to read as follows:
A Victory Announcement is a published statement, labeled as a
Victory Announcement, that declares clearly that a specified person
or persons satisfy a specified Winning Condition while
not satisfying any Losing Conditions (and explicitly and clearly
states which persons and which Winning Condition). A Victory
Announcement is self-ratifying.
When a Victory Announcement ratifies, or a judgement confirming
the veracity of a victory announcement has been in effect and
unappealed for one week the person(s) Win the Game; specifically they win the
Round that ends with the indicated win. Agora itself does not end and the
ruleset remains unchanged. The game CANNOT be won in any other way, rules to
the contrary notwithstanding.
The Herald SHALL award the Patent Title Champion to any person
who wins the game, in a timely fashion the win. The
Herald SHOULD note the method of winning in eir report.
Retitle Rule 2449 to "Winning: Apply Here".
Enact a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Winning: Exemptions and Exclusions",
with the following text:
Any person who is included in an attempt to win the game, for the purpose
of which attempt that person has either knowingly violated a rule, or
willingly and knowingly been a party to a rules violation, where that
violation is directly and materially responsible for circumstances necessary
for or beneficial to that attempt, commits the Class-6 Crime of
Poor Sportsmanship, and furthermore satisfies the Losing Condition of Bad Form
with respect the attempted victory.
Any person, having already been listed as winning in a correct Victory
Announcement, who is again listed to win in Victory Announcement, published
within 30 days of the first one, where the circumstances of the attempted
victory are substantially unchanged, satisfies the Losing Condition of
Excessive Repetition with respect to the later attempt.
# 2 TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS
# 2.1 THE ONE AND ONLY OLD LOSING CONDITION
Amend Rule 2556, Penalties, by changing the first paragraph of that rule
to read as follows:
Every impure person satisfies the Losing Condition of Disrepute.
# 2.1 WINNING CONDITIONS
Amend Rule 2594, Fame, by changing the paragraph beginning
"Any player whose Fame"
to read
"Any player whose Fame has been either 10 or -10 for at least 2 days
satisfies the Winning Condition of Stellar Domination. Cleanup Procedure:
The Victor's fame is reset to 0."
[The following
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: With apologies to Trigon
It's literally just 1 infamy, and I didn't do anything with my 200 asset steal while in the meantime everyone else is stomping around stealing degrees and making dictatorships :( On 2019-02-07 03:26, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: The following is a Notice of Honour: +1 Trigon (for eir neat storytelling) -1 Telnaior (for continuing to exploit a known loophole that has a patch pending, which IMO is not very sporting) What do people think of another one of those sneaky officer tricks: Declining to resolve Space Battle 0005 for as long as possible in order to protect the galaxy from Space Pirate Telnaior, in the hope the proposal Spaaace Loophole #493 passes quickly? -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 12:14 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: The quoted hashed string is: Trigon watched as his hit landed. Surprisingly, it didn't seem to do much damage. He realized that he had lost. But how? Telnaior hailed his ship once again. "I apologize for this, but you're the best target I have. Picking on anyone else would be far too much effort." And with that, Trigon hatched a plan to end this cycle that would clearly continue if he didn't stop it. On 2/4/19 2:08 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Telnaior has sent eir Energy value now, so fire away with the melons. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 4, 2019 1:40 AM, Reuben Staley reuben.sta...@gmail.com wrote: PF On 2/3/19 6:40 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: Getting roped into doing a space battle I didn't even want to do in the first place and then getting a rule violation for it. Figures. I wish to spend an amount of energy equal to the number of times the word "cantaloupe" appears in the following hashed string: c60be28bd4658321826d9eae4cb14222 On 2/3/19 6:28 PM, Madeline wrote: I haven't sent mine yet, that didn't count. On 2019-02-04 12:29, Reuben Staley wrote: I wish to spend 0 energy on this space battle On 2/3/19 6:01 PM, Telnaior wrote: You're really the only good target that I wouldn't have to go halfway across the map to reach :( I spend one coin to repair the Armour of my Spaceship by 1. I initiate a Space Battle between my Spaceship and Trigon's Spaceship, specifying twg as the resolver. -- Trigon -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate
It was before my time, but the motivation is that there's lots of things that we want (in a practical sense) to be changable by a "rule or proposal", so it makes sense to define a name for such things so you don't have to keep saying "X CAN be changed by a rule or proposal". It also makes sense to distinguish between temporary change agents (proposals that can only work once) versus Rules that can affect things continuously. So tying the definition to something (power) that turns on and off for proposals but is constant for Rules also makes sense. Secure-N is a relative latecomer, but once you have those other definitions, having shorthand for "can only be changed by (rule or proposal of power>N)" is also useful. I can't remember any non-scam entities that were given power other than rules or proposals, maybe there were some other legit uses I've forgotten about. So it might be less scammy to say "an instrument is either a Rule, or a Proposal during the time that the proposal is taking effect - no other things are instruments". Maybe we should... but part of the fun is (a) leaving stubs for legit gameplay - maybe someday there will be a legit reason to allow a Decree to work and (b) where's the fun in that, if we over-generalize, we can promote a nice variety of scams and discussions like this one. :P On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 11:10 AM Cuddle Beam wrote: > I'm curious about the history around this sort of things. Like, what > motivated making the concept of "Instruments" in the first place for Agora? > It seems like such a weird thing. > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 7:07 AM Madeline wrote: > > > At what point do we just power-4 "Persons CANNOT be Instruments"? > > > > On 2019-02-06 14:41, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > Actually that Security thing is a big hole, there's lots of stuff > that's > > > secured, and R1688 applies the method here: > > > > except as allowed by an Instrument > > > > > > If "allowed" is defined as something a person can do "naturally" (the > > > way we > > > treat, say, "agree"), then when the instrument is a natural person, e > > > could > > > just say "I allow, on an ongoing basis, changes to happen when I > perform > > > them by announcement" and the method is supplied. > > > > > > Also, R105 specifies that an instrument can make a rule change "as > > > part of > > > effect", though it would get pretty philosophical to figure out how a > > > person's "effect" is triggered (at the very least, R105 limits it to a > > > publicly-written process of at least 4 days). > > > > > > On 2/5/2019 6:05 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > >> It still matters what the rules say about the order of precedence, > > >> because > > >> the order of precedence is decided by the rules. If the rule defining > > >> the > > >> order of precedence was repealed, there wouldn't be an order of > > >> precedence, > > >> and power would have no effect in that regard. As it happens, the > > >> power of > > >> an instrument that isn’t a rule currently doesn’t have any effect > > >> outside > > >> secured things and changing entities with higher power. > > >> > > >> -Aris > > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 5:59 PM D. Margaux > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> But if the person is high enough powered (say, power=5), should it > > >>> matter > > >>> what the rules say about order of precedence if the high-powered > person > > >>> overrules them? > > >>> > > >>> I suppose ultimately it comes down to what the Agoran community is > > >>> willing > > >>> to accept, rather than what the Rules or any particular person says. > > >>> > > On Feb 5, 2019, at 8:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: > > > > > > I guess if a person had power >3, then the R2125 limitation > > > wouldn’t be > > >>> a barrier anymore, though. > > > > I don't see why. I don't think there's any provision for anything > > other > > >>> than a rule to take precedence over a rule, regardless of power. > > > > Greetings, > > Ørjan. > > >>> > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3703 assigned
Actually, on reflection, this is a silly technicality because I think if the "CFJ" idea is removed we've accepted it in the past. The Space Battle is not resolved unless the Resolver reports the platonically-correct values - if the Resolver resolves it in one way, and it turns out to be inaccurate, then there was no resolution and e gets a re-do. Therefore it's done like this: Announcement part 1: [First Resolution option, without any conditionals]. Announcement part 2: "If I have not yet resolved Space Battle 0006, I resolve it as follows [second option]. Announcement part 3: Some disclaimer explaining why you're doing the above to avoid no faking. I mean, we've accepted that in the past, right? Metaphysical questions about the "state of a CFJ before it's judged" aside, the practical conditional is no different. On this subject, also, Resolvers shouldn't need to worry about being punished for things like this, as long as they make some attempt to resolve it - even if they just pick their own best guess from the options and go with it, ignoring the other one. There's been plenty of times that a Proposal Decision Resolution had the wrong number of votes reported, and the Assessor couldn't do eir job until a CFJ decided the matter. I don't think anyone punishes for that, even if the "final" (and only effective) resolution comes in past the deadline due to the CFJ. On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 10:45 AM Cuddle Beam wrote: > It's currently an indeterminate pudding! > > I believe CFJs have no real true value at the time they are called, because > nomic relies on a subjective consensus reality, a sort of haze of various > individual views (yes hello Nietzche and Perspectivism) which are attempted > to be herded up into a single view via mechanisms which are more easily > agreed upon than the issues they handle. It's not a pure and formal game, > because its "hardware" are these crappy and subjective bipedal monkeys. > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 7:31 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > These fail by precedent. Conditionals must be resolvable at the time of > > the action by information available or researchable "with reasonable > > effort" at the time of the action. If it requires a CFJ to determine the > > outcome, then someone who's not the judge can't figure out the answer > with > > reasonable effort at this time. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 8:57 AM D. Margaux wrote: > > > > > > I CFJ, barring D. Margaux, on the statement: "If and when -N > (negative > > > N) coins are revoked from an entity, where N is a natural number, that > > > entity's coin balance increases by N." > > > > > > CFJ 3703. I assign it to Murphy. > > > > > > > On Feb 6, 2019, at 11:47 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > > > > If the CFJed statement is FALSE, then I resolve Space Battle 0006 as > > > follows: > > > > > > > > If the CFJed statement is TRUE, then I instead resolve Space Battle > > 0006 > > > as follows: > > > > > > I wonder, are these conditionals extricable? Does a CFJ have a truth > > value > > > at the time it is initiated (and the judge just discerns what that > value > > > is), or does a CFJ become true or false by virtue of the act of the > judge > > > assigning it a truth value? > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate
I'm curious about the history around this sort of things. Like, what motivated making the concept of "Instruments" in the first place for Agora? It seems like such a weird thing. On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 7:07 AM Madeline wrote: > At what point do we just power-4 "Persons CANNOT be Instruments"? > > On 2019-02-06 14:41, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Actually that Security thing is a big hole, there's lots of stuff that's > > secured, and R1688 applies the method here: > > > except as allowed by an Instrument > > > > If "allowed" is defined as something a person can do "naturally" (the > > way we > > treat, say, "agree"), then when the instrument is a natural person, e > > could > > just say "I allow, on an ongoing basis, changes to happen when I perform > > them by announcement" and the method is supplied. > > > > Also, R105 specifies that an instrument can make a rule change "as > > part of > > effect", though it would get pretty philosophical to figure out how a > > person's "effect" is triggered (at the very least, R105 limits it to a > > publicly-written process of at least 4 days). > > > > On 2/5/2019 6:05 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > >> It still matters what the rules say about the order of precedence, > >> because > >> the order of precedence is decided by the rules. If the rule defining > >> the > >> order of precedence was repealed, there wouldn't be an order of > >> precedence, > >> and power would have no effect in that regard. As it happens, the > >> power of > >> an instrument that isn’t a rule currently doesn’t have any effect > >> outside > >> secured things and changing entities with higher power. > >> > >> -Aris > >> > >> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 5:59 PM D. Margaux > wrote: > >> > >>> But if the person is high enough powered (say, power=5), should it > >>> matter > >>> what the rules say about order of precedence if the high-powered person > >>> overrules them? > >>> > >>> I suppose ultimately it comes down to what the Agoran community is > >>> willing > >>> to accept, rather than what the Rules or any particular person says. > >>> > On Feb 5, 2019, at 8:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen > wrote: > > > On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: > > > > I guess if a person had power >3, then the R2125 limitation > > wouldn’t be > >>> a barrier anymore, though. > > I don't see why. I don't think there's any provision for anything > other > >>> than a rule to take precedence over a rule, regardless of power. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. > >>> > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3700 Judgement
If anything, changing how the nomic works is very nomicky! On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 7:35 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I'm sorry, G., if you wanted a different outcome, but I'm going to judge > > TRUE on this one. > > That's ok - it means people can just not state the amount at all, and they > don't even have to say Quang - they can refer to the Rule, like I did > later. > That's convenient enough. I mean it makes a bit of a mockery of the > original intent of that clause but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3703 assigned
It's currently an indeterminate pudding! I believe CFJs have no real true value at the time they are called, because nomic relies on a subjective consensus reality, a sort of haze of various individual views (yes hello Nietzche and Perspectivism) which are attempted to be herded up into a single view via mechanisms which are more easily agreed upon than the issues they handle. It's not a pure and formal game, because its "hardware" are these crappy and subjective bipedal monkeys. On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 7:31 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > These fail by precedent. Conditionals must be resolvable at the time of > the action by information available or researchable "with reasonable > effort" at the time of the action. If it requires a CFJ to determine the > outcome, then someone who's not the judge can't figure out the answer with > reasonable effort at this time. > > > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 8:57 AM D. Margaux wrote: > > > > I CFJ, barring D. Margaux, on the statement: "If and when -N (negative > > N) coins are revoked from an entity, where N is a natural number, that > > entity's coin balance increases by N." > > > > CFJ 3703. I assign it to Murphy. > > > > > On Feb 6, 2019, at 11:47 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > > If the CFJed statement is FALSE, then I resolve Space Battle 0006 as > > follows: > > > > > > If the CFJed statement is TRUE, then I instead resolve Space Battle > 0006 > > as follows: > > > > I wonder, are these conditionals extricable? Does a CFJ have a truth > value > > at the time it is initiated (and the judge just discerns what that value > > is), or does a CFJ become true or false by virtue of the act of the judge > > assigning it a truth value? >
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3700 Judgement
> I'm sorry, G., if you wanted a different outcome, but I'm going to judge > TRUE on this one. That's ok - it means people can just not state the amount at all, and they don't even have to say Quang - they can refer to the Rule, like I did later. That's convenient enough. I mean it makes a bit of a mockery of the original intent of that clause but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3703 assigned
These fail by precedent. Conditionals must be resolvable at the time of the action by information available or researchable "with reasonable effort" at the time of the action. If it requires a CFJ to determine the outcome, then someone who's not the judge can't figure out the answer with reasonable effort at this time. On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 8:57 AM D. Margaux wrote: > > I CFJ, barring D. Margaux, on the statement: "If and when -N (negative > N) coins are revoked from an entity, where N is a natural number, that > entity's coin balance increases by N." > > CFJ 3703. I assign it to Murphy. > > > On Feb 6, 2019, at 11:47 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > If the CFJed statement is FALSE, then I resolve Space Battle 0006 as > follows: > > > > If the CFJed statement is TRUE, then I instead resolve Space Battle 0006 > as follows: > > I wonder, are these conditionals extricable? Does a CFJ have a truth value > at the time it is initiated (and the judge just discerns what that value > is), or does a CFJ become true or false by virtue of the act of the judge > assigning it a truth value?
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3703 assigned
The former, I believe. The rules assign no significance to the result of a CFJ. Gaelan > On Feb 6, 2019, at 8:56 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > >> I CFJ, barring D. Margaux, on the statement: "If and when -N (negative N) >> coins are revoked from an entity, where N is a natural number, that entity's >> coin balance increases by N." > > CFJ 3703. I assign it to Murphy. > >> On Feb 6, 2019, at 11:47 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> >> If the CFJed statement is FALSE, then I resolve Space Battle 0006 as follows: >> >> If the CFJed statement is TRUE, then I instead resolve Space Battle 0006 as >> follows: > > I wonder, are these conditionals extricable? Does a CFJ have a truth value at > the time it is initiated (and the judge just discerns what that value is), or > does a CFJ become true or false by virtue of the act of the judge assigning > it a truth value? smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: With apologies to Trigon
You can hold this off as long as you want, but please don't violate any rules in doing so. I can take the beating. On 2/6/19 9:26 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: The following is a Notice of Honour: +1 Trigon (for eir neat storytelling) -1 Telnaior (for continuing to exploit a known loophole that has a patch pending, which IMO is not very sporting) What do people think of another one of those sneaky officer tricks: Declining to resolve Space Battle 0005 for as long as possible in order to protect the galaxy from Space Pirate Telnaior, in the hope the proposal Spaaace Loophole #493 passes quickly? -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 12:14 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: The quoted hashed string is: Trigon watched as his hit landed. Surprisingly, it didn't seem to do much damage. He realized that he had lost. But how? Telnaior hailed his ship once again. "I apologize for this, but you're the best target I have. Picking on anyone else would be far too much effort." And with that, Trigon hatched a plan to end this cycle that would clearly continue if he didn't stop it. On 2/4/19 2:08 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Telnaior has sent eir Energy value now, so fire away with the melons. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 4, 2019 1:40 AM, Reuben Staley reuben.sta...@gmail.com wrote: PF On 2/3/19 6:40 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: Getting roped into doing a space battle I didn't even want to do in the first place and then getting a rule violation for it. Figures. I wish to spend an amount of energy equal to the number of times the word "cantaloupe" appears in the following hashed string: c60be28bd4658321826d9eae4cb14222 On 2/3/19 6:28 PM, Madeline wrote: I haven't sent mine yet, that didn't count. On 2019-02-04 12:29, Reuben Staley wrote: I wish to spend 0 energy on this space battle On 2/3/19 6:01 PM, Telnaior wrote: You're really the only good target that I wouldn't have to go halfway across the map to reach :( I spend one coin to repair the Armour of my Spaceship by 1. I initiate a Space Battle between my Spaceship and Trigon's Spaceship, specifying twg as the resolver. -- Trigon -- Trigon -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate
On 2/5/2019 10:07 PM, Madeline wrote: At what point do we just power-4 "Persons CANNOT be Instruments"? This is a philosophical rules-reading puzzle mostly - I was wrong to call it a "security hole". If someone passes a power-3 rule that says "I am a power-3 instrument" then they have certain, odd powers we can argue about. But if the rule says instead "I CAN turn any published document into a power-3 instrument by announcement, and that document's changes are then applied to the game" then it works fine, and has been done in the past. So it's really just a wording debate, of how minimally you have to phrase a Dictatorship rule for it to work properly. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer goes pew pew pew
I have too, just waiting right now. On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 23:38, D. Margaux wrote: > I have communicated my choice to the Astronomor > > > On Feb 4, 2019, at 4:15 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > > > I initiate a Space Battle between my (only) ship and D.Margaux’s (only) > > ship, and I specify the Astronomor as the resolver. >
