DIS: [Promotor] Draft Report
Here's a draft. While I obviously can't declare a deadline under the
current rules, it would be highly appreciated if people could refrain
from changing things for the next 24 hours or so.
-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 9, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
conditional votes).
IDAuthor(s)AITitle
---
8235 Jason Cobb 3.0 Unified fine creation syntax
8236 Jason Cobb, Aris 3.0 Definition de-capitalization
8237 Jacob Arduino, [1] 1.0 Repairing Defeated Spaceships v3
8238 Jacob Arduino, twg, G. 3.0 Cancelling Proposals (arr. for violin)
8239 Jason Cobb, [2] 1.0 The Editor (v2.0.1)
8240 Jason Cobb 3.0 Regulation clarification
8241 Falsifian3.0 Secured switches (v2.0)
8242 Falsifian3.0 Let the dead rest
[1] twg, Jason Cobb
[2] G., Aris, Trigon
The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
//
ID: 8235
Title: Unified fine creation syntax
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2555 ("Blots") by replacing the text "To Levy a Fine" with
the text "To levy a fine".
Amend Rule 2451 ("Executive Orders") by replacing the sentence
The Prime Minister levies a 2 Blot fine on a specified player.
with the sentence
The Prime Minister levies a fine of 2 on a specified player.
Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") by replacing the text "levying a
fine of up to 2 blots on em" with the text "levying a fine of (a value
not exceeding 2) on em".
//
ID: 8236
Title: Definition de-capitalization
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors: Aris
Amend Rule 1728 to read, in whole:
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.
Amend Rule 2595 as follows:
In the first sub-bullet under item 2 of the only list, replace the
text "with T Notice" with the text "with T notice".
In the second sub-bullet under item 2 of the only list, replace the
text "Without N Objections, With N Support, or With N Agoran
Consent" with the text "without N objections, with N support, or
with N Agoran Consent".
In the first sub-bullet under item 3 of the only list, replace the
text "With N Support" with the text "with N support".
In the second sub-bullet under item 3 of the only list, replace the
text "Without N Objections, With N Agoran Consent, or With Notice"
with the text "without N objections, with N Agoran consent, or with
notice".
In the third sub-bullet under item 3 of the only list, replace the
text "With T Notice" with the text "with T notice".
In the final paragraph, replace the text "with N Agoran Consent"
with the text "with N Agoran consent".
Amend the only list in Rule 2124 ("Agoran Satisfaction") to read:
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.
//
ID: 8237
Title: Repairing Defeated Spaceships v3
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors: twg, Jason Cobb
Amend Rule 2595 by replacing the text "Any player CAN, by
announcement, spend a coin to increase the Armour of a Pilotable
Spaceship e owns by 1." with the text "Any player CAN pay a fee of 1
coin to increase the Armour of a Pilotable Spaceship in eir possession
by 1 or pay a fee of 3 coins to increase the Armour of a Defeated
Spaceship by 1."
[Comment: Right now, Defeated Spaceships are effectively dead forever.
If a player goes all out and kills the other person's Spaceship, they
are effectively banished from the subgame forever. To solve this, a
slight penalty is added for repairing a Defeated spaceship. The number
of coins
Re: DIS: Draft Judgement in CFJ 3765
On 8/2/19 11:27 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: [This is only a draft.] Sorry if this way too long (I could probably trim it down a bit if necessary), but I did my best to cover all the ground that needs to be covered. Judgement in CFJ 3765: I should probably clarify: I'm asking for feedback. Does this look fine, or did I miss something obvious? Jason Cobb
DIS: Draft Judgement in CFJ 3765
[This is only a draft.] Sorry if this way too long (I could probably trim it down a bit if necessary), but I did my best to cover all the ground that needs to be covered. Judgement in CFJ 3765: I will begin by reading into the record this message from G. ([0]): A little gratuitous for CFJ 3765-3766: It's likely that an "arbitrary rule change" can be made by first making other rule changes to remove any impediments, and then making the arbitrary change. However, in judging whether some kind of change is POSSIBLE, we judge based on the current ruleset - not the hypothetical ruleset in which a few other changes have been made. This point (in what the judgement covers) is worth addressing explicitly. I agree that if a Rule 1698 were to specify that Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE "to cause arbitrary rule changes" (without specifying a time period), then we might have an issue. However, R1698 does not say such a thing, it instead reads: Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a four-week period. I note that there is a slight grammatical ambiguity here: the above quote could read as either "(to cause arbitrary rule changes to be made) and/or (arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a four-week period)" or "(to cause arbitrary rule changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted) within a four-week period". I believe the intent is the latter reading, and I use the "common sense" test in Rule 217 to impose this reading. Given this reading, the action in question is not "cause arbitrary rule changes", which would indeed be IMPOSSIBLE to perform under the current ruleset, thanks in part to Rule 1698 itself. The action in question is to "cause arbitrary rule changes _in a four-week period_". With the current proposal process, it is indeed possible to cause any such rule change in a four-week period: Day 0: A proposal that repeals any protections is distributed Day 0-7: Voting Day 7: Resolution of decision to adopt proposal that repeals any protections. Day 7: A proposal that makes any arbitrary rule changes is distributed. Day 7-14: Resolution of decision to adopt proposal that causes arbitrary rule changes. By this method, arbitrary rule-changes can be enacted. This also certainly constitutes a "reasonable combination of actions by players", and it would succeed even if a small number of days were to elapse between the endings of voting periods and the resolutions of decisions. For completeness, we consider each type of rule change outlined in Rule 105 and whether or not it is possible for the above process to cause them (after repealing any blocking protections): 1. enact a rule: this is possible with a proposal of any power 2. repeal a rule: this is possible with a proposal of sufficiently high power 3. reenact a rule: this is possible with a proposal of sufficiently high power 4. amend a rule: this is possible with a proposal of sufficiently high power 5. retitle a rule: this is possible with a proposal of sufficiently high power 6. change the power of a rule: this is possible with a proposal of sufficiently high power Furthermore, Rule 1698 is protected against possible future changes in the definition of "rule change", as we must interpret the Rules with the definitions currently in effect, and Rule 105 very explicitly states what a "rule change" is, so we must use this definition in our interpretation of Rule 1698. We thus do not need to consider any possible future changes to the definition of "rule change", even within the four-week period. To decide whether or not it is "IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes [...] within a four-week period", I consult the definition of "IMPOSSIBLE" in Rule 2152: 1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to perform the described action are unsuccessful. I have shown above how it is possible for an attempt to perform this action (causing arbitrary rule changes within a four-week period) could be successful. Thus, under Rule 1698, Agora is not ossified. FALSE. The caller provides some possible "rule changes" that e believes are IMPOSSIBLE to enact; for completeness, I will show that these are not in fact counterexamples to my above claims: One such example is: "Enact a power 100 Rule that provides, 'It is IMPOSSIBLE to change the Rules, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.' Leave the Ruleset otherwise unchanged." Per the definition of "rule change" provided in Rule 105, this is not a rule change, although it does contain a rule change: Enact a power 100 Rule that provides, 'It is IMPOSSIBLE to change the Rules, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.' This is indeed possible to enact in a four week period, with the method
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3761 Assigned to G.
On 8/2/19 9:03 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: The rule does not explicitly specify an agent, nor does it say that to ratify a public document is to cause the changes to the gamestate (in which case I would agree with you). Clarification: the Rules do not say that the performance of the ratification is the same as the performance of the causing of changes to the gamestate. The Rules only say that the changes are a side effect of the performance of the ratification Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3765 Assigned to Jason Cobb
On 8/2/19 9:03 PM, D. Margaux wrote: I think the Ossification judgement should address what it means to make a single rule "change," as opposed to multiple rule changes. That would help us know what it would mean for an arbitrary rule change to be IMPOSSIBLE. In particular, i would like to know: if I can draft a single new rule that is IMPOSSIBLE to enact, would that be sufficient to demonstrate Ossification? Because I am confident that I can draft such a rule. Or is it the case that the enactment of a single new rule might involve multiple "rule changes"? And if that's the case, then what does it mean to have a "single" or "multiple" rule change? Is each sentence of a new rule a separate "change"? Or each clause? Or is it divided into separate changes in some other way? In my opinion, when you have a single rule being enacted, then there really is no principled way to say whether it's a single rule change or multiple changes, except I guess if the new rule consisted of changing a single letter or number... I don't need to make anything up, the answer to the question of what a rule change is lies in R105. Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3761 Assigned to G.
On 8/2/19 8:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > === CFJ 3761 === > > A party to the contract in evidence CAN create a gift by some > method. > > == Judgement Yes, a player CAN by some method, the method being ratification w/o objection. TRUE. [Not part of judgement: it was not as relevant to CFJ 3765-3766 as I thought a few minutes ago - sorry about that. Still, this is a technicality and not what you wanted to get at, I think.] I may very much be wrong here, but does that count as the player creating it? Specifically, what is the agent that causes changes to the gamestate during ratification? I would argue that the agent is not the player. Rule 2202 says: Any player CAN, without objection, ratify a public document, specifying its scope. I certainly agree that when a person does RWO, that person is the one doing the ratification. However, ratification is not defined as an action itself. Instead, the action of ratification is given certain side effects. Rule 1551 says: When a public document is ratified, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified to what it would be if, at the time the ratified document was published, the gamestate had been minimally modified to make the ratified document as true and accurate as possible This rule says that when a public document happens to be ratified, there happens to be a side effect of changing the gamestate. The rule does not explicitly specify an agent, nor does it say that to ratify a public document is to cause the changes to the gamestate (in which case I would agree with you). Perhaps the best claim for an agent for the changes to the gamestate would be R1551 itself? Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3765 Assigned to Jason Cobb
I think the Ossification judgement should address what it means to make a single rule "change," as opposed to multiple rule changes. That would help us know what it would mean for an arbitrary rule change to be IMPOSSIBLE. In particular, i would like to know: if I can draft a single new rule that is IMPOSSIBLE to enact, would that be sufficient to demonstrate Ossification? Because I am confident that I can draft such a rule. Or is it the case that the enactment of a single new rule might involve multiple "rule changes"? And if that's the case, then what does it mean to have a "single" or "multiple" rule change? Is each sentence of a new rule a separate "change"? Or each clause? Or is it divided into separate changes in some other way? In my opinion, when you have a single rule being enacted, then there really is no principled way to say whether it's a single rule change or multiple changes, except I guess if the new rule consisted of changing a single letter or number... > On Aug 2, 2019, at 8:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > A little gratuitous for CFJ 3765-3766: > > It's likely that an "arbitrary rule change" can be made by first > making other rule changes to remove any impediments, and then making the > arbitrary change. However, in judging whether some kind of change is > POSSIBLE, we judge based on the current ruleset - not the hypothetical > ruleset in which a few other changes have been made. This point (in what > the judgement covers) is worth addressing explicitly.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3765 Assigned to Jason Cobb
A little gratuitous for CFJ 3765-3766: It's likely that an "arbitrary rule change" can be made by first making other rule changes to remove any impediments, and then making the arbitrary change. However, in judging whether some kind of change is POSSIBLE, we judge based on the current ruleset - not the hypothetical ruleset in which a few other changes have been made. This point (in what the judgement covers) is worth addressing explicitly. On 8/2/2019 5:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: The below CFJ is 3765. I assign it to Jason Cobb. === CFJ 3765 === Agora is ossified. ==
Re: Cheap first wins (Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo)
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:14 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> How exactly would the Rules specify different methods of victory? I've
> seen that Victory Conditions were a thing in the past, but they don't
> exist any more.
It's ultimately up to the Herald's discretion and some degree of
consensus, but the "winning method" can be strongly suggested using
"by" the way we do for methods in general. Since it's a "suggestion",
you can do it by putting it in the title ("Win by Apathy", "Win by
Paradox") or we could edit it into a rule: "If a winner of a
tournament is determined within within 3 months of its initiation,
that person or persons win the game by Tournament".
It's also worth mentioning that these titles group common "types" of
wins over a long period of time. For example, "Tournaments" used to
be called "Contests". So for a long time, that category was
"Contest". When the Tournament rules were adopted (there was a break
in between with no win type in that sort of category in the Rules) the
old Contest category was re-labeled "Tournament" including
retroactively.
-G.
Re: Cheap first wins (Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo)
On Fri, 2019-08-02 at 14:56 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:17 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk > wrote: > > A bug exploit could /be/ a win as intended, if the bug had been > > placed there intentionally by the proposer. "Convince people to > > adopt a buggy victory condition and win immediately" is one of the > > more common winning techniques at BlogNomic. > > Rant: This right here is the reason we almost never get around to > actually playing by the intent of many subgames. We just crash them > until we're sick of all the CFJs and then repeal. It really > discourages me from bothering to write a long sub-game - debugging in > play-mode is usually necessary, and I don't see much pride/point in > "hey, I won because there was a misplaced comma or because a certain > set of moves is fundamentally completely imbalanced, isn't that > clever." I mean it's fine on occasion but having that be the outcome > of Every. Single. Subgame. just gets tiring. > > Well, I guess the test mechanism is "Tournament" - where you can put > a "judge by the intent" clause in there. BlogNomic normally (not always) starts its subgames without any victory condition, and only adds one after they've had several iterations of nomicky changes applied to them. It works a bit better than what we normally do in Agora, but has problems of its own (especially in relation to people positioning themselves in an attempt to anticipate what the victory condition would be). Perhaps what we need is some sort of escalating milestone system: run games in multiple iterations, with the first "win" (which may be trivial) being worth one point, the second two points, the third three points, and so on, with the rules for the subgame being amendable only between iterations. A scam could give you an advantage, but consistently good gameplay would be worth more. -- ais523
Re: Cheap first wins (Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo)
On 8/2/19 4:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:17 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: A bug exploit could /be/ a win as intended, if the bug had been placed there intentionally by the proposer. "Convince people to adopt a buggy victory condition and win immediately" is one of the more common winning techniques at BlogNomic. Rant: This right here is the reason we almost never get around to actually playing by the intent of many subgames. We just crash them until we're sick of all the CFJs and then repeal. It really discourages me from bothering to write a long sub-game - debugging in play-mode is usually necessary, and I don't see much pride/point in "hey, I won because there was a misplaced comma or because a certain set of moves is fundamentally completely imbalanced, isn't that clever." I mean it's fine on occasion but having that be the outcome of Every. Single. Subgame. just gets tiring. Well, I guess the test mechanism is "Tournament" - where you can put a "judge by the intent" clause in there. I think subgames should be pausable somehow. I think right now sometimes people 'crash the game' because they see a thing and want to do it before anyone else does, assuming someone else *will* if they don't. Pointing out a problem publicly, even in a fix proposal, just makes it more likely someone else does it. The pausing method could vary from game to game, whether it's an Office that doesn't get to play and can do it on eir own, or maybe a vote of a few trusted players. Either one lets the coordination happen privately so the game can be paused until it's fixed.
Re: Cheap first wins (Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo)
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:17 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > A bug exploit could /be/ a win as intended, if the bug had been placed > there intentionally by the proposer. "Convince people to adopt a buggy > victory condition and win immediately" is one of the more common > winning techniques at BlogNomic. Rant: This right here is the reason we almost never get around to actually playing by the intent of many subgames. We just crash them until we're sick of all the CFJs and then repeal. It really discourages me from bothering to write a long sub-game - debugging in play-mode is usually necessary, and I don't see much pride/point in "hey, I won because there was a misplaced comma or because a certain set of moves is fundamentally completely imbalanced, isn't that clever." I mean it's fine on occasion but having that be the outcome of Every. Single. Subgame. just gets tiring. Well, I guess the test mechanism is "Tournament" - where you can put a "judge by the intent" clause in there.
Re: Cheap first wins (Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo)
On Fri, 2019-08-02 at 14:02 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Actually, I wonder if we should think about some kind of "debugging" > mechanism for victories. Something like "when a win method is first > implemented (some mechanism, probably involving Agoran Consent, for > figuring out whether the first win was due to a win as intended or due > to finding a bug)". If it was "win as intended" then champion, > otherwise you get a "debugging" title. After a certain amount of time > that "debugging" goes away and it's a straight win - if you find a > loophole that nobody's spotted at the beginning, you deserve the full > win. > > (Now that I've written this, it's the sort of thing that's clear in > concept but really squishy to hard-code). A bug exploit could /be/ a win as intended, if the bug had been placed there intentionally by the proposer. "Convince people to adopt a buggy victory condition and win immediately" is one of the more common winning techniques at BlogNomic. -- ais523
Re: Cheap first wins (Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo)
On 8/2/19 5:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Fair point, and it's a matter of preference. This just seemed a bit experimental for a full win mechanism to me. Actually, I wonder if we should think about some kind of "debugging" mechanism for victories. Something like "when a win method is first implemented (some mechanism, probably involving Agoran Consent, for figuring out whether the first win was due to a win as intended or due to finding a bug)". If it was "win as intended" then champion, otherwise you get a "debugging" title. After a certain amount of time that "debugging" goes away and it's a straight win - if you find a loophole that nobody's spotted at the beginning, you deserve the full win. (Now that I've written this, it's the sort of thing that's clear in concept but really squishy to hard-code). I'm ambivalent about this - I see the case for a person deserving a win if they find a bug, but I also see the case that bugs happen and all of the consequences of a win shouldn't necessarily happen for a bug. It feels artificial to restrict it to the first win (time limit is fine, though) - there can be multiple bugs in a subgame or copycats (although it seems to me, in my limited time here, that copycats don't really happen). How exactly would the Rules specify different methods of victory? I've seen that Victory Conditions were a thing in the past, but they don't exist any more. Jason Cobb
Cheap first wins (Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo)
> > Fair point, and it's a matter of preference. This just seemed a bit > > experimental for a full win mechanism to me. Actually, I wonder if we should think about some kind of "debugging" mechanism for victories. Something like "when a win method is first implemented (some mechanism, probably involving Agoran Consent, for figuring out whether the first win was due to a win as intended or due to finding a bug)". If it was "win as intended" then champion, otherwise you get a "debugging" title. After a certain amount of time that "debugging" goes away and it's a straight win - if you find a loophole that nobody's spotted at the beginning, you deserve the full win. (Now that I've written this, it's the sort of thing that's clear in concept but really squishy to hard-code).
Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:48 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:46 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Aris wrote: > > > * I'd prefer an award of coins along with a SHOULD encouraging the Herald > > > to give the patent title of "Time Lord" > > > > Every other subgame has "win = Champion" (method of win could be noted > > as "Time Lord"). But not sure why we'd have a special-coded patent > > title for what's basically a win? > > Fair point, and it's a matter of preference. This just seemed a bit > experimental for a full win mechanism to me. Ah gotcha - interestingly I think of standalone patent titles like that as "more" precious than champion but I don't have a particular (i.e. rules-supported) reason for thinking that :).
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft Pool Revision
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:49 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > 8/2/19 4:42 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > Does this do the trick? > > > > -Aris > > > > --- > > CoE: The last Proposal Pool left out several proposals. > > > > Accepted. Revision: At ~20:45:03 UTC Jul 28, when the last > > non-revision proposal > > pool report was published, the proposal pool contained the following > > proposals: > > > > Author(s) AI Title > > --- > > Jason Cobb 3.0 Unified fine creation syntax > > Jason Cobb, Aris 3.0 Definition de-capitalization > > Jacob Arduino, [1] 1.0 Repairing Defeated Spaceships v3 > > Jacob Arduino, twg, G. 3.0 Cancelling Proposals (arr. for violin) > > > > [1] twg, Jason Cobb > > > I think this should also include "Contractual Delimitation", which was > in the summary in the previous report but not in the full text section. > > Jason Cobb Nah, I'd already retracted it. [1] [1] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-July/041116.html -Aris
Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo
On 7/31/19 11:04 AM, James Cook wrote: Whenever a player has not done so in the past 4 days, e CAN Commune with the Wheel by unconditional announcement, specifying Rock, Paper or Scissors. A player CAN Reach into the Past by unconditional announcement at any time. If a player Communes the Wheel at a time T, and does not Reach into the Past in the four days following T, then at time T I the value of the Roshambo Wheel is changed to the value e specified. Random "I" after "then at time T". Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft Pool Revision
8/2/19 4:42 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: Does this do the trick? -Aris --- CoE: The last Proposal Pool left out several proposals. Accepted. Revision: At ~20:45:03 UTC Jul 28, when the last non-revision proposal pool report was published, the proposal pool contained the following proposals: Author(s) AI Title --- Jason Cobb 3.0 Unified fine creation syntax Jason Cobb, Aris 3.0 Definition de-capitalization Jacob Arduino, [1] 1.0 Repairing Defeated Spaceships v3 Jacob Arduino, twg, G. 3.0 Cancelling Proposals (arr. for violin) [1] twg, Jason Cobb I think this should also include "Contractual Delimitation", which was in the summary in the previous report but not in the full text section. Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:46 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Aris wrote: > > * I'd prefer an award of coins along with a SHOULD encouraging the Herald > > to give the patent title of "Time Lord" > > Every other subgame has "win = Champion" (method of win could be noted > as "Time Lord"). But not sure why we'd have a special-coded patent > title for what's basically a win? Fair point, and it's a matter of preference. This just seemed a bit experimental for a full win mechanism to me. -Aris
Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo
Aris wrote: > * I'd prefer an award of coins along with a SHOULD encouraging the Herald > to give the patent title of "Time Lord" Every other subgame has "win = Champion" (method of win could be noted as "Time Lord"). But not sure why we'd have a special-coded patent title for what's basically a win?
DIS: [Promotor] Draft Pool Revision
Does this do the trick?
-Aris
---
CoE: The last Proposal Pool left out several proposals.
Accepted. Revision: At ~20:45:03 UTC Jul 28, when the last non-revision proposal
pool report was published, the proposal pool contained the following proposals:
Author(s)AITitle
---
Jason Cobb 3.0 Unified fine creation syntax
Jason Cobb, Aris 3.0 Definition de-capitalization
Jacob Arduino, [1] 1.0 Repairing Defeated Spaceships v3
Jacob Arduino, twg, G. 3.0 Cancelling Proposals (arr. for violin)
[1] twg, Jason Cobb
The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
//
Title: Unified fine creation syntax
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2555 ("Blots") by replacing the text "To Levy a Fine" with
the text "To levy a fine".
Amend Rule 2451 ("Executive Orders") by replacing the sentence
The Prime Minister levies a 2 Blot fine on a specified player.
with the sentence
The Prime Minister levies a fine of 2 on a specified player.
Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") by replacing the text "levying a
fine of up to 2 blots on em" with the text "levying a fine of (a value
not exceeding 2) on em".
//
Title: Definition de-capitalization
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors: Aris
Amend Rule 1728 to read, in whole:
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.
Amend Rule 2595 as follows:
In the first sub-bullet under item 2 of the only list, replace the
text "with T Notice" with the text "with T notice".
In the second sub-bullet under item 2 of the only list, replace the
text "Without N Objections, With N Support, or With N Agoran
Consent" with the text "without N objections, with N support, or
with N Agoran Consent".
In the first sub-bullet under item 3 of the only list, replace the
text "With N Support" with the text "with N support".
In the second sub-bullet under item 3 of the only list, replace the
text "Without N Objections, With N Agoran Consent, or With Notice"
with the text "without N objections, with N Agoran consent, or with
notice".
In the third sub-bullet under item 3 of the only list, replace the
text "With T Notice" with the text "with T notice".
In the final paragraph, replace the text "with N Agoran Consent"
with the text "with N Agoran consent".
Amend the only list in Rule 2124 ("Agoran Satisfaction") to read:
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.
//
Title: Repairing Defeated Spaceships v3
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors: twg, Jason Cobb
Amend Rule 2595 by replacing the text "Any player CAN, by
announcement, spend a coin to increase the Armour of a Pilotable
Spaceship e owns by 1." with the text "Any player CAN pay a fee of 1
coin to increase the Armour of a Pilotable Spaceship in eir possession
by 1 or pay a fee of 3 coins to increase the Armour of a Defeated
Spaceship by 1."
[Comment: Right now, Defeated Spaceships are effectively dead forever.
If a player goes all out and kills the other person's Spaceship, they
are effectively banished from the subgame forever. To solve this, a
slight penalty is added for repairing a Defeated spaceship. The number
of coins remains small because it is just a subgame.]
Amend Rule 2591 by replacing the text "Spaceships are a class of fixed
asset" with "Spaceships are a class of fixed indestructible asset".
[Change from the original: "pay... 1 coin increase" -> "pay... 1 coin to
increase"]
//
Title: Cancelling Proposals (arr. for violin)
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jacob Arduino
Co-authors: twg, G.
[ This has bugged me for a while (no pun intended): if a broken proposal makes
it to its voting period, even if the error is then discovered, it
Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 8:04 AM James Cook wrote: > > That's a good point. Maybe we could add "as long as the announcement > > is not conditioned on anything". It's possible that R478's requirement > > that "by announcement" actions must be unambiguous would imply this > > anyway. > > > > -- > > - Falsifian > > I have realized the value of the Roshambo Wheel switch will often > become "indeterminate", and thus be reset to the default. So, I agree > with Aris that some sort of higher-powered rule change would be needed > to have changes to switches depend on the future. > > Fortunately, I can get around it by not making the Roshambo Wheel a > switch. Updated draft, with the following changes: > * Defined and used "by unconditional announcement". > * The Roshambo Wheel is not a switch. I hope the new text works. > * I removed With Notice from winning. I see Spaaace has it, but I'm not > sure why. I'll put it back if someone explains it. > * Change "Spin" to "Commune" and "Change eir Mind about spinning" into > "Reach into the Past". > * A player CANNOT play Roshambo if e has Communed in the past 4 days. > * Default the Roshambo Wheel to Rock. > * Add a delay between playing and updating a player's score, to keep the > score determinate. Add an officer to track the scores. > > AI: 1 > Co-authors: Jason Cobb > Text: > Enact a new power-0.5 rule titled "Clairvoyant Roshambo", with the > following text. > > At every time, the Roshambo Wheel is set to exactly one of Rock, > Paper or Scissors. When the Rules do not say that its value > changes, it stays the same. If it would otherwise not be set to a > value, it is set to Rock. > > To perform an action "by unconditional announcement" is to perform > it by announcement and not specify any condition upon which the > action depends in that announcement. > > Whenever a player has not done so in the past 4 days, e CAN > Commune with the Wheel by unconditional announcement, specifying > Rock, Paper or Scissors. A player CAN Reach into the Past by > unconditional announcement at any time. If a player Communes the > Wheel at a time T, and does not Reach into the Past in the four > days following T, then at time T I the value of the Roshambo Wheel > is changed to the value e specified. > > The Medium is an office. Roshambo Score is a player switch with > possible values all integers, tracked by the Medium. To increase > a player's Roshambo Score is to flip it to a value one greater > than it was, and to decrease it is to flip it to a value one less > than it was. > > Rock beats Scissors, Scissors beats Paper, and Paper beats Rock. > > Once per Agoran week, each player CAN Play Roshambo by > unconditional announcement, specifying Rock, Paper or Scissors. > When e does so: > * If e specifies a value that beats the current value of the Roshambo > Wheel, then 4 days later, eir Roshambo Score is increased. > * If e specifies a value that is beaten by the current value of the > Roshambo Wheel, then 4 days later, eir Roshambo Score is > decreased. > > A player with a Roshambo Score of at least 10 CAN Transcend Time > by announcement. When e does so, e wins the game, and all > instances of the Roshambo Score switch are flipped to 0. > > -- > - Falsifian > Okay, a few things. * Defining “unconditional announcement” is probably overkill; any sane judge would arrive at that that anyway, and it adds a bit to bloat. * You should probably say "Roshambo Score is an integer player switch" (R 2509) * You should probably say "increased by 1" and "decreased by 1" (or incremented and decremented) instead of redefining those terms. (R2509) * I'd prefer an award of coins along with a SHOULD encouraging the Herald to give the patent title of "Time Lord" * I agree that this almost certainly works in this limited case. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Monthly report, with correction to previous
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 at 16:08, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 8/1/2019 8:59 AM, James Cook wrote: > > Note: The previous monthly report incorrectly listed the deregistration > > dates of 天火狐 and pokes as January 2019. The correct month is February > > 2019, as listed in this report. > > Can you list Tenhigitsune as an alternative (transliteration) for 天火狐? > > -G. Done, thanks. The next monthly report will add a footnote "Alternative/transliteration: Tenhigitsune". https://agoranomic.org/Registrar/monthly/fresh.txt -- - Falsifian
