Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ruleset Ratification
> Indeed, but I thought I'd point it out so that people were aware. > > In general, rule 1698 triggers should be avoided as much as possible. > The problem is that it (intentionally) defeats Agora's existing > mechanisms for ensuring that we know what the gamestate is; it's better > to have an unknown but playable gamestate, than a known but ossified > gamestate. However, when it does trigger, it can take a lot of effort > to figure out what the resulting gamestate is. That makes sense! Glad my understanding of the rule is correct. The everyone-has-blots scenario is interesting. > On another note, whose idea was it to put rule 1698 as the second rule > in the Ruleset? That was really clever, as it manages to serve as a > fundamental "protection of Agora" rule, and an explanation to new > players as to what the game is all about, at the same time. It is nice!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ruleset Ratification
On Sun, 2019-03-03 at 05:16 +, James Cook wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 05:23, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
> wrote:
> > That said, there is a possible failure state: if every player has at
> > least 13 Blots, and nobody has any Ribbons, the adoption of a proposal
> > within four weeks would require someone with fewer Blots than that to
> > register.
>
> Wouldn't the gamestate part of Rule 1698 ("If any other single
> change...") prevent that situation from arising? I agree it would be
> nice to close it off, but I don't see how it affects the ruleset
> ratification.
Indeed, but I thought I'd point it out so that people were aware.
In general, rule 1698 triggers should be avoided as much as possible.
The problem is that it (intentionally) defeats Agora's existing
mechanisms for ensuring that we know what the gamestate is; it's better
to have an unknown but playable gamestate, than a known but ossified
gamestate. However, when it does trigger, it can take a lot of effort
to figure out what the resulting gamestate is.
On another note, whose idea was it to put rule 1698 as the second rule
in the Ruleset? That was really clever, as it manages to serve as a
fundamental "protection of Agora" rule, and an explanation to new
players as to what the game is all about, at the same time.
--
ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ruleset Ratification
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 05:23, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> That said, there is a possible failure state: if every player has at
> least 13 Blots, and nobody has any Ribbons, the adoption of a proposal
> within four weeks would require someone with fewer Blots than that to
> register.
Wouldn't the gamestate part of Rule 1698 ("If any other single
change...") prevent that situation from arising? I agree it would be
nice to close it off, but I don't see how it affects the ruleset
ratification.
Re: DIS: Non-email public fora
On 2/26/2019 3:34 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: Do you happen to know which MUD platform Nomic World was based on? Some - LambdaMOO comes to mind - are far more amenable to this sort of use case than, say, Diku or River would have been. I don't remember - this was a time where there was an active MUD/MOO development community and many forks (I was involved in a project porting one to VAX/VMS, of all things)- I know we called the Nomic World platform a MUD not a MOO. The hosts were very restrictive on permissions - there were only a couple of people with mod/wizard powers, so most of us never worked with the code at all. This caused many gameplay issues, as Steve notes in eir Final Verdict here, with the opinion that email play is better than MUD play: http://www.nomic.net/deadgames/nomicworld/norrish/ Though I think the problems e mentions are surmountable with Rules that better account for the "physical reality" of the MUD environment. It regularly saddens me that modern internet social spaces are so viscerally non-programmable in the way things like IRC and MUDs once were. Not everyone is at ease expressing themselves in code, but excluding people from doing so entirely both limits expressiveness and sharply limits communities’ ability to reshape their spaces to suit their needs. Worth noting then a little more-lost history then! In 2004-2005 (I think) one of the players - I forget whom - set up a LambdaMOO flavor as an Agoran MOO. This was the other end of the permissions spectrum - all players were wizards. We started it as a Discussion forum only. Then (about 5-6 of us) started to build. and learn lambdamoo code. and program. and debug. and build some more. We had an Agoran town square (complete with Fountain), groves, a marketplace, and pleasant avenues, and the de rigueur mysterious cave system. And lots of Agora-themed programmed objects to play with. But basically we spent so much time programming and showing off our toys to each other in sandbox mode that we never got around to making Rules changes to allow actual Agoran play to go on over there. Eventually it just went like IRC, people stopped hanging out there. The presence of all the unused buildings, when almost no one was there, made it feel even *more* abandoned than IRC. Eventually the host lost interest and took it down. Though it *was* great fun for the builders while we were doing it! So between Steve's experience and that later MOO, there's definitely some balance to be struck! -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ruleset Ratification
On 3/1/2019 9:22 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: It might, however, be a good idea to close off even this theoretical possibility via some sort of global expungement mechanism (e.g. reintroduce Solitude as a victory condition and have it do a global expunge during the cleanup). Going way back, my favorite method for this was for the criminals to Rebel: Rule 1664/20 (Power=2) Rebellion A Rebellious player may Call for a Revolt at any time by publicly announcing e does so. A Call for Revolt is only effective if no other Call for Revolt has been made that week and no successful Revolt has occurred for a month or more. As soon as possible after an effective Call for Revolt has been posted, the Registrar must determine whether the Revolt succeeds, as outlined below, and publicly announce the result. The Registrar shall select a random integer from 1 to the number of players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne). If this number is less than or equal to the number of Rebellious players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne by a Rebellious player), then the Revolt succeeds; otherwise it fails. All numbers used in this calculation are determined at the time of the Call for Revolt. If a Revolt succeeds, then the following events occur in order: - The Registrar shall expunge the Blots of each Rebellious player - The Registrar shall pay out 8 Stems to each Rebellious player - The GWotO shall remove all Abiding Oligarchs from the Oligarchy - Each Abiding player that is the Electee to an Office is retired from that Office. - All Rebellious players become Abiding again - The Registrar shall levy a 75% Indulgence tax. For this levy, the Bearor of the Patent Title "Robespierre" is tax-exempt. - A Speaker Transition occurs - Any Indulgence Auction in progress is cancelled If a Revolt does not succeed, then: - All Rebellious players gain 2 Blots. - The player who Called for Revolt gains 2 (additional) Blots The effects of a Call for Revolt shall be based on the Political Status, Oligarchy membership, and Indulgence holdings of players at the time of the Call. The Registrar shall notify the Herald of all Blots gained or expunged as a result of this Rule.
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
I don't see any errors in this draft, but I've just noticed that the previous
Promotor report omitted CuddleBeam's proposal "And the next thing you know,
Space Ships are going to have more rights than people", which has now been
self-ratified out of existence.
It was submitted in this message:
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33384.html.
Not sure what the appropriate procedure is, does Cuddles want to submit it
again?
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, March 2, 2019 5:37 AM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Salvete omnes! Here's my not very weekly draft. I'm sorry it's so
> late. I've been busy IRL (and still am, actually). If everyone's okay
> with it, I'll publish it soon.
>
> -Aris
>
> --
>
> 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, the
> quorum is 5, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
> options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
> conditional votes).
>
> ID Author(s) AI Title
>
> --
>
> 8165 D Margaux, Gaelan 3.0 Dependent Action Cleanup Act
> 8166 D Margaux, twg 2.0 Politics Election Bug Fix
> 8167 G. 1.0 Ritual Sacrifice
> 8168 G. 1.0 No more meh
> 8169 twg, [1] 1.0 Spaceship Armour Defaults
> 8170 G. 1.0 line-item veto 2.02
> 8171 G. 1.0 The Tiger Team
> 8172 Aris 3.0 SLR Ratification
>
> [1] D Margaux, Telnaior
>
> The proposal pool is currently empty.
>
> The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
>
> //
> ID: 8165
> Title: Dependent Action Cleanup Act
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: D Margaux
> Co-authors: Gaelan
>
> Retitle Rule 1728 to “Dependent Action Methods.”
>
> Amend Rule 1728 to replace its entire text with the following:
>
> {
>
> The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent actions":
>
> 1. Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no greater than 8
> ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this method with N = 1);
>
> 2. With N Support, where N is a positive integer ("With Support" is shorthand
> for this method with N = 1);
>
> 3. With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1 with a
> minimum
> of 1 ("With Agoran Consent" is shorthand for this method with N = 1);
>
> 4. With Notice; or
> 5. With T Notice, where T is a time period.
>
> N is 1 unless otherwise specified.
>
> }
>
> Enact a new rule (power=3) entitled “Performing a Dependent Action” with
> this
> text:
>
> {
>
> A rule that purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform an
> action by
> a set of one or more dependent actions identified in Rule 1728 thereby
> allows em
> to perform the action by announcement if all of the following are true:
>
> 6. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent that
> unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without obfuscation specified
> the action intended to be taken and the method(s) to be used;
>
> 7. The announcement referenced in paragraph (1) of this Rule
> unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without obfuscation states:
>
> - the value of T, if the action is to be taken with T Notice; and
> - the value of N, if N is not equal to 1 and the action is to be taken
> Without N Objections, With N Support, or With N Agoran Consent;
>
> 8. The announcement referenced in paragraph (1) of this Rule was published:
>
> - within the 14 days preceding the action, if the action is to be
> performed With N Support;
>
> - between 4 and 14 days preceding the action, if the action is to be
> performed Without N Objections, With N Agoran Consent, or With Notice;
> or
>
> - between T and 14 days preceding the action, if the action is to be
> performed With T Notice;
>
> 9. At least one of the following is true:
>
> - the performer is the initiator;
> - the initiator was authorized to perform the action due to holding a
> rule-defined position now held by the performer; or
>
> - the initiator is authorized to perform the action, the action
> depends on support, the performer has supported the intent, and the
> rule authorizing the performance does not explicitly prohibit
> supporters
>
