Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment
BlogNomic almost actually passed something like that once. We sent someone over to caution them that such an unfortunate plan would result in an Agoran invasion (okay, ais actually did it sua sponte, but my version sounds better). -Aris On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:56 PM Madeline wrote: > Obviously, I'm just talking in hypotheticals. > > On 2019-02-16 09:55, Aris Merchant wrote: > > No one is doing anything that has any meaningful chance of destroying > > Agora. If there’s a bug in your mechanism, the stakes go from it being > > broken to the game dying permanently. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:52 PM Madeline wrote: > > > >> "If this Rule's power exceeds 4.0, then all other rules notwithstanding, > >> Agora is destroyed." > >> (Would any other rule need to actually change for such a clause to work > >> if an outside Power 3 rule is adjusting its power?) > >> > >> On 2019-02-16 09:47, D. Margaux wrote: > >>> Love it. > >>> > >>> You could have a separate power 3 rule that (1) changes the power of > the > >> Ritual rule and (2) causes itself to be repealed when the Ritual rule is > >> repealed. > >>> And I’d love to see the power of the Ritual rule increase, too, if the > >> Rule is left unappeased... and maybe increase at a higher rate than it > can > >> be decreased? > On Feb 15, 2019, at 5:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Actually I've been pondering something even fancier, like every time > it's appeased it decreases in Power and the Power is linked to the > Consent required. Or something. (of course you can't increase power > in the same way). > > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:08 PM D. Margaux > >> wrote: > > Any chance we can have it repeal with Agoran Consent or something > more > >> than notice? Or is that excessive? :-) > >> On Feb 15, 2019, at 3:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > >> Actually, one more time. Empty sacrifices are meaningless. > >> > >> I withdraw my proposal, The Ritual. > >> > >> I submit the following proposal, Ritual Sacrifice, AI-1: > >> > >> > >> Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following > >> text: > >> > >>Any player CAN perform The Ritual by paying a fee of 7 Coins, > >> thus appeasing > >>this Rule for a single instant. This Rule MUST be appeased > at > >> least once > >>in every Agoran week. > >> > >>If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive > >>Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it > to > >>repeal itself) with Notice. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:12 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >>> > >>> I withdraw the proposal I recently submitted, quoted below. > >>> > >>> I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1: > >>> > >> > >>> Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following > >>> text: > >>> > >>>Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement, thus > >> appeasing > >>>this Rule for a single instant. This Rule MUST be appeased > at > >> least once > >>>in every Agoran week. > >>> > >>>If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive > >>>Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause > it to > >>>repeal itself) with Notice. > >>> > >>> > >> > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:44 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1: > > >> > Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following > text: > > Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement. In > order > >> to > appease this Rule, at least one player MUST perform The > >> Ritual in > every Agoran week. > > If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 > successive > Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause > it > >> to > repeal itself) with Notice. > > > >> > >> > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment
Sounds cool but it’s not destructive enough. It should blow up ourselves too and all avocados IRL. On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 23:52, Madeline wrote: > "If this Rule's power exceeds 4.0, then all other rules notwithstanding, > Agora is destroyed." > (Would any other rule need to actually change for such a clause to work > if an outside Power 3 rule is adjusting its power?) > > On 2019-02-16 09:47, D. Margaux wrote: > > Love it. > > > > You could have a separate power 3 rule that (1) changes the power of the > Ritual rule and (2) causes itself to be repealed when the Ritual rule is > repealed. > > > > And I’d love to see the power of the Ritual rule increase, too, if the > Rule is left unappeased... and maybe increase at a higher rate than it can > be decreased? > > > >> On Feb 15, 2019, at 5:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > >> Actually I've been pondering something even fancier, like every time > >> it's appeased it decreases in Power and the Power is linked to the > >> Consent required. Or something. (of course you can't increase power > >> in the same way). > >> > >>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:08 PM D. Margaux > wrote: > >>> > >>> Any chance we can have it repeal with Agoran Consent or something more > than notice? Or is that excessive? :-) > >>> > On Feb 15, 2019, at 3:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Actually, one more time. Empty sacrifices are meaningless. > > I withdraw my proposal, The Ritual. > > I submit the following proposal, Ritual Sacrifice, AI-1: > > > > Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following > text: > > Any player CAN perform The Ritual by paying a fee of 7 Coins, > thus appeasing > this Rule for a single instant. This Rule MUST be appeased at > least once > in every Agoran week. > > If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive > Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to > repeal itself) with Notice. > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:12 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > I withdraw the proposal I recently submitted, quoted below. > > > > I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1: > > > > > > > Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following > > text: > > > > Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement, thus > appeasing > > this Rule for a single instant. This Rule MUST be appeased at > least once > > in every Agoran week. > > > > If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive > > Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to > > repeal itself) with Notice. > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:44 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1: > >> > > >> > >> Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following > >> text: > >> > >> Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement. In order > to > >> appease this Rule, at least one player MUST perform The > Ritual in > >> every Agoran week. > >> > >> If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive > >> Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it > to > >> repeal itself) with Notice. > >> > >> > > >> > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
The person who will distribute the proposal has every intention of doing so. Thank you for point it out though. -Aris On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 5:10 PM James Cook wrote: > > Co-authors: ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk, D. Margaux > > "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" refers to the same person as ais523. I > suggest that the list of co-authors in this proposal be presented as > "ais523, D. Margaux" by anyone distributing the proposal. >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment
Obviously, I'm just talking in hypotheticals. On 2019-02-16 09:55, Aris Merchant wrote: No one is doing anything that has any meaningful chance of destroying Agora. If there’s a bug in your mechanism, the stakes go from it being broken to the game dying permanently. -Aris On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:52 PM Madeline wrote: "If this Rule's power exceeds 4.0, then all other rules notwithstanding, Agora is destroyed." (Would any other rule need to actually change for such a clause to work if an outside Power 3 rule is adjusting its power?) On 2019-02-16 09:47, D. Margaux wrote: Love it. You could have a separate power 3 rule that (1) changes the power of the Ritual rule and (2) causes itself to be repealed when the Ritual rule is repealed. And I’d love to see the power of the Ritual rule increase, too, if the Rule is left unappeased... and maybe increase at a higher rate than it can be decreased? On Feb 15, 2019, at 5:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Actually I've been pondering something even fancier, like every time it's appeased it decreases in Power and the Power is linked to the Consent required. Or something. (of course you can't increase power in the same way). On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:08 PM D. Margaux wrote: Any chance we can have it repeal with Agoran Consent or something more than notice? Or is that excessive? :-) On Feb 15, 2019, at 3:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Actually, one more time. Empty sacrifices are meaningless. I withdraw my proposal, The Ritual. I submit the following proposal, Ritual Sacrifice, AI-1: Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following text: Any player CAN perform The Ritual by paying a fee of 7 Coins, thus appeasing this Rule for a single instant. This Rule MUST be appeased at least once in every Agoran week. If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to repeal itself) with Notice. On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:12 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: I withdraw the proposal I recently submitted, quoted below. I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1: Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following text: Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement, thus appeasing this Rule for a single instant. This Rule MUST be appeased at least once in every Agoran week. If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to repeal itself) with Notice. On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:44 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1: Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following text: Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement. In order to appease this Rule, at least one player MUST perform The Ritual in every Agoran week. If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to repeal itself) with Notice.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment
No one is doing anything that has any meaningful chance of destroying Agora. If there’s a bug in your mechanism, the stakes go from it being broken to the game dying permanently. -Aris On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:52 PM Madeline wrote: > "If this Rule's power exceeds 4.0, then all other rules notwithstanding, > Agora is destroyed." > (Would any other rule need to actually change for such a clause to work > if an outside Power 3 rule is adjusting its power?) > > On 2019-02-16 09:47, D. Margaux wrote: > > Love it. > > > > You could have a separate power 3 rule that (1) changes the power of the > Ritual rule and (2) causes itself to be repealed when the Ritual rule is > repealed. > > > > And I’d love to see the power of the Ritual rule increase, too, if the > Rule is left unappeased... and maybe increase at a higher rate than it can > be decreased? > > > >> On Feb 15, 2019, at 5:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > >> Actually I've been pondering something even fancier, like every time > >> it's appeased it decreases in Power and the Power is linked to the > >> Consent required. Or something. (of course you can't increase power > >> in the same way). > >> > >>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:08 PM D. Margaux > wrote: > >>> > >>> Any chance we can have it repeal with Agoran Consent or something more > than notice? Or is that excessive? :-) > >>> > On Feb 15, 2019, at 3:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Actually, one more time. Empty sacrifices are meaningless. > > I withdraw my proposal, The Ritual. > > I submit the following proposal, Ritual Sacrifice, AI-1: > > > > Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following > text: > > Any player CAN perform The Ritual by paying a fee of 7 Coins, > thus appeasing > this Rule for a single instant. This Rule MUST be appeased at > least once > in every Agoran week. > > If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive > Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to > repeal itself) with Notice. > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:12 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > I withdraw the proposal I recently submitted, quoted below. > > > > I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1: > > > > > > > Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following > > text: > > > > Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement, thus > appeasing > > this Rule for a single instant. This Rule MUST be appeased at > least once > > in every Agoran week. > > > > If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive > > Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to > > repeal itself) with Notice. > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:44 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1: > >> > > >> > >> Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following > >> text: > >> > >> Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement. In order > to > >> appease this Rule, at least one player MUST perform The > Ritual in > >> every Agoran week. > >> > >> If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive > >> Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it > to > >> repeal itself) with Notice. > >> > >> > > >> > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment
"If this Rule's power exceeds 4.0, then all other rules notwithstanding, Agora is destroyed." (Would any other rule need to actually change for such a clause to work if an outside Power 3 rule is adjusting its power?) On 2019-02-16 09:47, D. Margaux wrote: Love it. You could have a separate power 3 rule that (1) changes the power of the Ritual rule and (2) causes itself to be repealed when the Ritual rule is repealed. And I’d love to see the power of the Ritual rule increase, too, if the Rule is left unappeased... and maybe increase at a higher rate than it can be decreased? On Feb 15, 2019, at 5:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Actually I've been pondering something even fancier, like every time it's appeased it decreases in Power and the Power is linked to the Consent required. Or something. (of course you can't increase power in the same way). On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:08 PM D. Margaux wrote: Any chance we can have it repeal with Agoran Consent or something more than notice? Or is that excessive? :-) On Feb 15, 2019, at 3:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Actually, one more time. Empty sacrifices are meaningless. I withdraw my proposal, The Ritual. I submit the following proposal, Ritual Sacrifice, AI-1: Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following text: Any player CAN perform The Ritual by paying a fee of 7 Coins, thus appeasing this Rule for a single instant. This Rule MUST be appeased at least once in every Agoran week. If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to repeal itself) with Notice. On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:12 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: I withdraw the proposal I recently submitted, quoted below. I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1: Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following text: Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement, thus appeasing this Rule for a single instant. This Rule MUST be appeased at least once in every Agoran week. If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to repeal itself) with Notice. On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:44 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1: Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following text: Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement. In order to appease this Rule, at least one player MUST perform The Ritual in every Agoran week. If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to repeal itself) with Notice.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment
Actually I've been pondering something even fancier, like every time it's appeased it decreases in Power and the Power is linked to the Consent required. Or something. (of course you can't increase power in the same way). On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:08 PM D. Margaux wrote: > > Any chance we can have it repeal with Agoran Consent or something more than > notice? Or is that excessive? :-) > > > On Feb 15, 2019, at 3:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Actually, one more time. Empty sacrifices are meaningless. > > > > I withdraw my proposal, The Ritual. > > > > I submit the following proposal, Ritual Sacrifice, AI-1: > > > > > > Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following > > text: > > > > Any player CAN perform The Ritual by paying a fee of 7 Coins, > > thus appeasing > > this Rule for a single instant. This Rule MUST be appeased at least > > once > > in every Agoran week. > > > > If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive > > Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to > > repeal itself) with Notice. > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:12 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > >> I withdraw the proposal I recently submitted, quoted below. > >> > >> I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1: > >> > >> > >> Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following > >> text: > >> > >> Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement, thus appeasing > >> this Rule for a single instant. This Rule MUST be appeased at least > >> once > >> in every Agoran week. > >> > >> If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive > >> Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to > >> repeal itself) with Notice. > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:44 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1: > >>> > >>> > >>> Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following > >>> text: > >>> > >>> Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement. In order to > >>> appease this Rule, at least one player MUST perform The Ritual in > >>> every Agoran week. > >>> > >>> If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive > >>> Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to > >>> repeal itself) with Notice. > >>> > >>> > >>>
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment
Any chance we can have it repeal with Agoran Consent or something more than notice? Or is that excessive? :-) > On Feb 15, 2019, at 3:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Actually, one more time. Empty sacrifices are meaningless. > > I withdraw my proposal, The Ritual. > > I submit the following proposal, Ritual Sacrifice, AI-1: > > > Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following > text: > > Any player CAN perform The Ritual by paying a fee of 7 Coins, > thus appeasing > this Rule for a single instant. This Rule MUST be appeased at least > once > in every Agoran week. > > If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive > Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to > repeal itself) with Notice. > > > > >> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:12 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> I withdraw the proposal I recently submitted, quoted below. >> >> I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1: >> >> >> Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following >> text: >> >> Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement, thus appeasing >> this Rule for a single instant. This Rule MUST be appeased at least >> once >> in every Agoran week. >> >> If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive >> Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to >> repeal itself) with Notice. >> >> >> >>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:44 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1: >>> >>> >>> Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following >>> text: >>> >>> Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement. In order to >>> appease this Rule, at least one player MUST perform The Ritual in >>> every Agoran week. >>> >>> If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive >>> Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to >>> repeal itself) with Notice. >>> >>> >>>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: testing collective punishment
Are you arguing that "In order to appease this Rule, at least one player MUST perform The Ritual in every Agoran week." is just a prerequisite (like, "In order to get the cookies, you have to reach the shelf"?)? I understand it as that the method of appeasement is via performing the Ritual but that's just me. On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 8:02 PM James Cook wrote: > Is it clear that a player CAN appease the rule by performing The Ritual? > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 18:14, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > > > Lmao, I love it. It reminds me of “the button” of Lost. > > > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 16:46, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1: > > > > > > > > > > Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following > > > text: > > > > > >Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement. In order to > > >appease this Rule, at least one player MUST perform The Ritual > in > > >every Agoran week. > > > > > >If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive > > >Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to > > >repeal itself) with Notice. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: testing collective punishment
The collective violation is by design. I thought about going further
and using the passive voice ("The rules MUST be appeased weekly"). I
don't want to use "each player MUST" - I want the implied violation to
be firmly on all of us, not each of us separately.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 11:08 AM D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 2019, at 2:02 PM, James Cook wrote:
> >
> > Is it clear that a player CAN appease the rule by performing The Ritual?
>
> I agree that this is ambiguous. Also, I think it was unclear who has the
> obligation to appease the Rule. Maybe it could say:
>
>
> Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement. Each player MUST
> perform The Ritual at least once in every Agoran week, unless another player
> performed The Ritual in that Agoran week. This Rule is appeased when The
> Ritual is preformed.
>
> If this rule has been appeased in 5 successive Agoran weeks, then any
> player CAN banish this rule (cause it to
> repeal itself) with Notice.
>
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: testing collective punishment
I personally think it would be more fun if it had to be removed by proposal lol. Or we give an award to whoever can remove it without a proposal and lift the curse off Agora. On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 8:07 PM D. Margaux wrote: > > > > On Feb 15, 2019, at 2:02 PM, James Cook wrote: > > > > Is it clear that a player CAN appease the rule by performing The Ritual? > > I agree that this is ambiguous. Also, I think it was unclear who has the > obligation to appease the Rule. Maybe it could say: > > > Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement. Each player MUST > perform The Ritual at least once in every Agoran week, unless another > player performed The Ritual in that Agoran week. This Rule is appeased when > The Ritual is preformed. > > If this rule has been appeased in 5 successive Agoran weeks, then > any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to > repeal itself) with Notice. > >
DIS: Re: BUS: testing collective punishment
Lmao, I love it. It reminds me of “the button” of Lost. On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 16:46, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1: > > > Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following > text: > >Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement. In order to >appease this Rule, at least one player MUST perform The Ritual in >every Agoran week. > >If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive >Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to >repeal itself) with Notice. > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 17:59 +, James Cook wrote: > Thanks to the listed co-authors. (AIS523, I didn't see you in the > directory; let me know if you're a player and I can polish your name > in the co-author list). I'm not currently a player, although I've been a player for fairly long periods of time (and made an ambiguous registration attempt a while back that was deemed to have failed). My usual Agoran nickname is "ais523" in lowercase (this email relay seems to be overriding the case for some reason; I had to switch relay because the email relay I was previously using stopped working with Agora). -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
Thanks to the listed co-authors. (AIS523, I didn't see you in the directory; let me know if you're a player and I can polish your name in the co-author list). I edited several parts of the text to make in clear that any reference to supporters or objectors is in terms of a particular intent. Note that this change means Rule 2124 no longer defines the notions of Supporter or Objector to an action, only an intent to perform an action. On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 17:57, James Cook wrote: > > I withdraw my previous proposal (Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, > Version 1.1.3) and submit a proposal as follows: > > Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.2 > Co-authors: ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk, D. Margaux > Adoption Index: 2 > Text: > Replace the text of Rule 2124 with: > > A Supporter of an intent to perform an action is an eligible > entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. > "consent") for an announcement of that intent. An Objector to an > intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly > posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of > that intent. > > The entities eligible to support or object to an intent to perform > an action are, by default, all players, subject to modification by > the document authorizing the dependent action. However, the > previous sentence notwithstanding, the initiator of the intent is > not eligible to support it. > > Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action > unless at least one of the following is true: > > 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and there > are at least N Objectors to that intent. > > 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and there are > fewer than than N Supporters of that intent. > > 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the > number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal to N > times the number of Objectors to the intent. > > The above notwithstanding, if an action depends on objections, and > an objection to an intent to perform it has been withdrawn within > the past 24 hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with that intent. > > The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with an intent > if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours. > > A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent > before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the same > type of response.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
> I also like this version. > > However, there's another problem: a dangling "it". (This is also in the > present version of the rules, which I noticed during RTRW.) You should > make it clear whether the objectors and supports are to the /intent/, > or to the /action/. (Based on the way the other rules are worded, it > should be the intent; you wouldn't want, e.g., objections to wins by > apathy to be forever. I have some sympathy for allowing a blanket > objection to all currently existing intents to perform a particular > type of action, but we normally allow that as valid shorthand anyway.) Right now, the rule says "A Supporter of a dependent action is...", which seems to define what the supporter of an action is, not the supporter of an intent, unless I'm misreading. Do you think we should change that part too? E.g. First paragraph: A Supporter of an *intent to perform an action* is An Objector to *an intent to perform an action* is... Second paragraph: ...to support or object to *an intent to perform an action* and then (incorporating D. Margaux's change in #3 as well) Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action unless at least one of the following is true: 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, there are at least N Objectors to that intent. 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and there are fewer than than N Supporters for of that intent. 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal to N times the number of Objectors to the intent.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
> On Feb 15, 2019, at 10:04 AM, James Cook wrote: > > 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, there are > at least N Objectors to that intent. This needs an “and,” but otherwise looks good to me!
DIS: Missing CFJ - attn D. Margaux
H. Arbitor D. Margaux: Third check on this missing CFJ? On 2/13/2019 6:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: In terms of the common definition for "declare", it makes perfect sense. In fact I called a CFJ on a similar issue (substituting "state" for "declare") a couple weeks back, but I'm realizing it's not in the Gazette. D. Margaux, did the following CFJ get missed or am I just not finding the assignment? https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-January/039834.html
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 03:02 -0500, D. Margaux wrote:
> > On Feb 14, 2019, at 11:14 PM, James Cook
> > wrote:
> >
> > Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
> > unless at least one of the following is true:
> >
> > 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it
> > has
> > at least N objectors.
> >
> > 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and it has
> > fewer
> > than N supporters.
> >
> > 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and
> > the number of supporters is at most N times the number of
> > objectors.
> >
> > After the bug fix, does anyone besides me find the second
> > ("unless")
> > version more clear?
>
> I like this version with “unless” the best.
I also like this version.
However, there's another problem: a dangling "it". (This is also in the
present version of the rules, which I noticed during RTRW.) You should
make it clear whether the objectors and supports are to the /intent/,
or to the /action/. (Based on the way the other rules are worded, it
should be the intent; you wouldn't want, e.g., objections to wins by
apathy to be forever. I have some sympathy for allowing a blanket
objection to all currently existing intents to perform a particular
type of action, but we normally allow that as valid shorthand anyway.)
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
> On Feb 14, 2019, at 11:14 PM, James Cook wrote:
>
> Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
> unless at least one of the following is true:
>
> 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has
> at least N objectors.
>
> 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and it has fewer
> than N supporters.
>
> 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and
> the number of supporters is at most N times the number of objectors.
>
> After the bug fix, does anyone besides me find the second ("unless")
> version more clear?
I like this version with “unless” the best.
I like that there are no if clauses in the numbered paragraphs. The original
says “if and only if: if A, then B; ...”, and the double “if” seems weird to me.
I think 3 should be something like this: “... and the number of supporters is
less than or equal to N times the number of objectors.” (So, it’s unsatisfied
if 0 supporters and 0 objectors, or if X supporters and Y * N objectors where
X<=Y.)
