DIS: Proto-tournament: Nomaoic
[TL;DR: Nomic, but the ruleset isn’t published and proposals are private. The intention is that you’d make your proposal, and share the next with just enough people to get a majority voting for it.] Initial Set of Rules Immutable Rules 101. All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are in effect when the tournament beigins. The Initial Set consists of Rules 101-116 (immutable) and 201-216 (mutable). 102. Initially rules in the 100's are immutable and rules in the 200's are mutable. Rules subsequently enacted or transmuted (that is, changed from immutable to mutable or vice versa) may be immutable or mutable regardless of their numbers, and rules in the Initial Set may be transmuted regardless of their numbers. 103. A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa. 104. All rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes. 105. Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes. 106. All proposed rule-changes shall be sent to the Gamemaster before they are voted on. If they are adopted, they shall guide play in the form in which they were voted on. 107. No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule-change may have retroactive application. 108. Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted. If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. If an amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment. 109. Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if three quarters of the eligible voters, rounded up, vote for it. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect. 110. In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be entirely void. For the purposes of this rule a proposal to transmute an immutable rule does not "conflict" with that immutable rule. 111. The state of affairs that constitutes winning may not be altered from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. The magnitude of n and the means of earning points may be changed, and rules that establish a winner when play cannot continue may be enacted and (while they are mutable) be amended or repealed. When a player wins, the Gamemaster shall announce this fact, and the tournament ends with that player as the winner. 112. A player always has the option to forfeit the tournament rather than continue to play or incur a tournament penalty. No penalty worse than losing, in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed. 113. There must always be at least one mutable rule. The adoption of rule-changes must never become completely impermissible. 114. Rule-changes that affect rules needed to allow or apply rule-changes are as permissible as other rule-changes. Even rule-changes that amend or repeal their own authority are permissible. No rule-change or type of move is impermissible solely on account of the self-reference or self-application of a rule. 115. Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it. 116. All judgements about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule shall be made by the Gamemaster. Mutable Rules 201. Players may take turns at any time, but not more than 23 hours after a previous turn by the same plater. Parts of turns may not be omitted. All players begin with zero points. 202. One turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) proposing one rule-change, and (2) by the Gamemaster calculating a random number from one to six and adding that number of points to the player's score. A player takes a turn by privately communicating their intention to do so, along with the proposed rule-change, to the Gamemaster. When a player takes a turn, the Gamemaster shall announce the number of the proposed rule-change, a cryptographic hash of its contents, and the number of
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport
On 11/3/19 10:51 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: Only a comment, since this isn't self-ratifying: ais523 is only a player if CFJ 3776 is judged TRUE. Sorry, ais523 is only a /candidate/ if CFJ 3776 is judged TRUE. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport
On 11/3/19 1:41 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-official wrote: ELECTIONS Office Initiated Phase Candidates Prime Minister 2019-11-03 Nominating Murphy Speaker 2019-10-20 Post-nominating ais523, Falsifian Only a comment, since this isn't self-ratifying: ais523 is only a player if CFJ 3776 is judged TRUE. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Interested proposals
How did I end up co-author of that? Greetings, Ørjan. On Sun, 3 Nov 2019, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: Proposal: Interested proposals (co-author = Oerjan) Create a rule titled "Interested Proposals" with this text: Interest is an untracked proposal switch with values "disinterested" (default) and "interested". The author of a proposal in the Proposal Pool CAN flip its Interest to Interested by paying a fee of 5 coins, or by announcement if e most recently registered less than 3 months ago. Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing this text: * Being the author of an adopted proposal: with this text: * Being the author of an adopted interested proposal:
Re: DIS: Proto: review period
On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 12:44 AM Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> I am considering, as part of my plotting-to-become-rulekeepor work, some sort
> of automatic proposal generator (basically, some sort of web-based interface
> for editing the ruleset, get changes dumped into a human-readable proposal).
> Obviously something like that catching on would benefit me (because I can
> parse the proposals back into a set of changes with no human intervention),
> but could also be convenient for you. To be clear, if this ever happens, it
> wouldn’t be coming for another few weeks at least.
That would be amazing! Most of the stuff in my style guide should be
pretty easy to add in to a generator like that. I'm not much of a
programmer, but I'd be happy to help however I can (testing and
comments, for instance).
> Also, while we’re at it, I’ve long campaigned for a list somewhere of common
> mistakes that show up in lots of proposals. (Extremely common: CAN/MAY
> confusion, lack of “by announcement,” switches dumped on the {registrar,
> prime minister, fat controllor, proposal author}.) In the past I’ve proposed
> this a time or two as a regulation with some sort of mechanism for ensuring
> players at least claim they checked it before submitting proposals, but maybe
> it’d work as just an unofficial document (or an official one that players
> only SHOULD read).
Hmm, that could work. I could add a section on that to my style guide,
right now it's just formatting stuff.
-Aris
-Aris
Re: DIS: Test of a-d
On Sun, 2019-11-03 at 10:58 -0800, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: > This is a test of what happens if I don't add "DIS:" to the subject > line ahead of time. I received this (and the a-b and a-o versions too). The mailing list rewrote the "From:" line in order to prevent a DMARC mismatch. -- ais523
DIS: Test of a-d
This is a test of what happens if I don't add "DIS:" to the subject line ahead of time.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8253-8265
I note that I’m actively working on producing an updated ruleset—if anyone is
doing the same, please get in touch so we can avoid duplicating work.
Gaelan
> On Nov 3, 2019, at 8:57 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> I find that the Agoran decisions on whether to adopt proposals 8257 and 8259
> were never properly initiated. If this turns out to be incorrect, those
> decisions can be resolved later.
>
>
> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8253-8265
> =
>
> I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals.
>
> The quorum for all below decisions was 5.
>
> Voting strengths (3 unless otherwise noted):
> G. has voting strength 4 (PM)
>
>
> PROPOSAL 8253 ("Clarify salary")
> FOR (11): ATMunn, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, G., Gaelan, Jason Cobb, Rance,
> nch, omd, pikhq
> AGAINST (0):
> PRESENT (1): twg
> BALLOTS: 12
> AI (F/A): 34/0 (AI=2.0)
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
>
> PROPOSAL 8254 ("Anything is POSSIBLE")
> FOR (12): ATMunn, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, G., Gaelan, Jason Cobb, Rance,
> nch, omd, pikhq, twg
> AGAINST (0):
> PRESENT (0):
> BALLOTS: 12
> AI (F/A): 37/0 (AI=3.0)
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
>
> PROPOSAL 8255 ("Possibly-Indeterminate Switches")
> FOR (10): ATMunn, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, G., Gaelan, Jason Cobb, Rance,
> pikhq, twg
> AGAINST (0):
> PRESENT (2): nch, omd
> BALLOTS: 12
> AI (F/A): 31/0 (AI=3.0)
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
>
> PROPOSAL 8256 ("Yes, Prime Minister")
> FOR (0):
> AGAINST (8): Aris, Bernie, G., Gaelan, Jason Cobb, Rance, nch, pikhq
> PRESENT (4): ATMunn, Falsifian, omd, twg
> BALLOTS: 12
> AI (F/A): 0/25 (AI=2.0)
> OUTCOME: REJECTED
>
> PROPOSAL 8258 ("Elections Fix")
> FOR (12): ATMunn, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, G., Gaelan, Jason Cobb, Rance,
> nch, omd, pikhq, twg
> AGAINST (0):
> PRESENT (0):
> BALLOTS: 12
> AI (F/A): 37/0 (AI=2.0)
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
>
> PROPOSAL 8260 ("The Low Zombie")
> FOR (3): Bernie, Jason Cobb, nch
> AGAINST (7): Aris, G., Gaelan, Rance, omd, pikhq, twg
> PRESENT (2): ATMunn, Falsifian
> BALLOTS: 12
> AI (F/A): 9/22 (AI=1.0)
> OUTCOME: REJECTED
>
> PROPOSAL 8261 ("The High Zombie")
> FOR (8): Bernie, G., Gaelan, Jason Cobb, Rance, nch, pikhq, twg
> AGAINST (1): omd
> PRESENT (3): ATMunn, Aris, Falsifian
> BALLOTS: 12
> AI (F/A): 25/3 (AI=3.0)
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
>
> PROPOSAL 8262 ("trick candles")
> FOR (7): Bernie, G., Jason Cobb, Rance, nch, pikhq, twg
> AGAINST (3): Aris, Gaelan, omd
> PRESENT (2): ATMunn, Falsifian
> BALLOTS: 12
> AI (F/A): 22/9 (AI=1.0)
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
>
> PROPOSAL 8263 ("Persistent")
> FOR (6): Aris, Bernie, Gaelan, Jason Cobb, nch, twg
> AGAINST (4): G., Rance, omd, pikhq
> PRESENT (2): ATMunn, Falsifian
> BALLOTS: 12
> AI (F/A): 18/13 (AI=3.0)
> OUTCOME: REJECTED
>
> PROPOSAL 8264 ("Encouraging Democracy Through Capitalism or Who Pays Subs
> Full Wages Anyway")
> FOR (2): omd, pikhq
> AGAINST (7): Aris, Bernie, G., Gaelan, Jason Cobb, Rance, twg
> PRESENT (3): ATMunn, Falsifian, nch
> BALLOTS: 12
> AI (F/A): 6/22 (AI=1.0)
> OUTCOME: REJECTED
>
> PROPOSAL 8265 ("")
> FOR (7): Aris, Bernie, Gaelan, Jason Cobb, nch, omd, twg
> AGAINST (5): ATMunn, Falsifian, G., Rance, pikhq
> PRESENT (0):
> BALLOTS: 12
> AI (F/A): 21/16 (AI=3.0)
> OUTCOME: REJECTED
>
>
> The full text of each ADOPTED proposal is included below:
> [Provides an escape hatch so that rules can allow their switches to have
> indeterminate values. This has come up in protos by both me and
> Falsifian. It is useful to have these possibly-indeterminate properties
> be switches, since switches have useful properties and precedent, so the
> always-determinate system cuts off some use-cases.]
>
> //
> ID: 8253
> Title: Clarify salary
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Murphy
> Co-authors: G., Jason Cobb
>
>
> Amend Rule 2559 (Paydays) by replacing this text:
>
> 2. For each office, if a single player held that office for 16 or
> more days in the previous month and no unforgivable fines were
> levied on em for eir conduct in that office during that time,
> that player earns 5 coins.
>
> with this text:
>
> 2. For each office, if a single player held that office for 16 or
> more days in the previous month and no unforgivable fines were
> levied on em during that month for eir conduct in that office,
> that player earns 5 coins.
>
> [Legislates based on the judgement of CFJ 3774, but also covers edge
> cases like "do something in late September, get dinged for it in early
> October": you still earn your salary for September, but forfeit it for
> October. Covering corner cases like "exit office in early October,
> no October salary to forfeit, impose fine/debt against September salary"
> is left as an exercise for future proposal authors.]
>
> //
> ID: 8254
> Title: Anything is POSSIBLE
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Jason Cobb
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 2152 ("Mother,
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
On 11/3/19 2:18 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: ID Author(s)AITitle --- 8266 nch 1.0 Glitter 8267 Jason Cobb 3.0 Emerald Ribbons 8268 Jason Cobb 3.0 Deputisation fix 8269 omd 3.0 Clean up distribution mechanisms 8270 omd 3.0 Self-ratifying statements 8271 G. 3.0 Doctorate expectations I believe that proposals 8257 and 8259 may still both be in the proposal pool. 8257 because its text was mislabeled in the full section, and 8259 because it apparently included the wrong text. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
8271 G. 3.0 Doctorate expectations I withdrew 8271 and submitted a new version - the text of this one is the old text. https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-November/041621.html
Re: DIS: Proto: review period
I am considering, as part of my plotting-to-become-rulekeepor work, some sort
of automatic proposal generator (basically, some sort of web-based interface
for editing the ruleset, get changes dumped into a human-readable proposal).
Obviously something like that catching on would benefit me (because I can parse
the proposals back into a set of changes with no human intervention), but could
also be convenient for you. To be clear, if this ever happens, it wouldn’t be
coming for another few weeks at least.
Also, while we’re at it, I’ve long campaigned for a list somewhere of common
mistakes that show up in lots of proposals. (Extremely common: CAN/MAY
confusion, lack of “by announcement,” switches dumped on the {registrar, prime
minister, fat controllor, proposal author}.) In the past I’ve proposed this a
time or two as a regulation with some sort of mechanism for ensuring players at
least claim they checked it before submitting proposals, but maybe it’d work as
just an unofficial document (or an official one that players only SHOULD read).
Gaelan
> On Nov 3, 2019, at 12:00 AM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 6:03 PM Gaelan Steele > wrote:
>>
>> Replies inline.
>>
>> Gaelan
>>
>>> On Oct 31, 2019, at 5:38 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/31/19 8:28 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
{
Amend rule 2350 “Proposals” as follows:
* replace “A player CAN create a proposal by announcement“ with “A player
CAN create a proposal With 23 Hours Notice.”
* after the list, add a new paragraph: “Additionally, a player CAN, but
SHALL NOT, create a proposal by announcement, specifying the same
information required above.
}
Explanation: reduce promotor work by reducing the number of proposals
created and soon retracted in favor of a minorly-fixed version. It’s 23
hours so people don’t have to count minutes, just do it at about the same
time on the next day. The CAN but SHALL NOT mechanism is there to avoid
ossification if dependent actions break.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not completely convinced that this would be significantly better than
>>> the status quo, but I will of course defer to the H. Promotor's judgement.
>
> Thanks, both of you. I really appreciate it when people think of
> reducing my (not inconsiderable) workload. However, I don't think this
> change would really help. Firstly, as a player, I tend to oppose any
> change that makes it harder to submit proposals. As Promotor, I note
> that a rapidly retracted proposals don't tend to create that much
> extra work. Sure, they can be confusing, but I almost always catch
> them quickly before doing the full write up. Furthermore, having to
> check if people had actually given intent and gone through the
> deadline would actually add to my workload, although admittedly I'd
> probably just trust that people were following the requisite rule. For
> these reasons, I don't think this particular change would be a good
> idea, though I really appreciate the thought.
>
> On a semi-related note, I keep thinking of publishing an informal
> style guide for how to format proposals (not the rule content, which
> is more the Rulekeepor's domain, just the proposal itself). If people
> followed it, it would save me some time. Would people be averse to the
> idea?
>
> -Aris
DIS: [Promotor] Draft
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)AITitle
---
8266 nch 1.0 Glitter
8267 Jason Cobb 3.0 Emerald Ribbons
8268 Jason Cobb 3.0 Deputisation fix
8269 omd 3.0 Clean up distribution mechanisms
8270 omd 3.0 Self-ratifying statements
8271 G. 3.0 Doctorate expectations
The proposal pool is currently empty.
The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
//
ID: 8266
Title: Glitter
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: nch
Co-authors:
Enact a Power-1 rule titled "Glitter" with the following text {
If a player has earned a ribbon in the past 7 days but already owned it e CAN
once (until e earns another ribbon), by announcement, earn N+1 coins where
N is the number of current players that do not own the same ribbon.
}
//
ID: 8267
Title: Emerald Ribbons
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2438 ("Ribbons") by appending the following paragraph:
Emerald (E): When a person wins an election, e earns an Emerald Ribbon.
[There's already a ribbon for deputisation, so why shouldn't there be
one for the other way to acquire an office? Also, this is an incentive
to initiate and become candidates in elections.]
//
ID: 8268
Title: Deputisation fix
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2160 ("Deputisation") by replacing the text "acting on eir
own behalf" with the text "acting as emself".
[Per CFJ 2637, taking actions within a public message is not acting on
the behalf of oneself, so it may currently be impossible to deputise
without some shenanigans. "Acting as emself" appears to be the standard
way of phrasing this requirement.]
//
ID: 8269
Title: Clean up distribution mechanisms
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: omd
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 1607 (Distribution) by replacing;
The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal
Pool at any time, by announcement.
with:
The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal
Pool at any time.
[The "by announcement" is redundant with Rule 107's 'notice publication'
method, and IIRC there was a judgement that the two rules actually provide two
separate mechanisms for distributing proposals.]
//
ID: 8270
Title: Self-ratifying statements
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: omd
Co-authors:
[Create a mechanism for a public message to be defined as self-ratifying a
statement that's not in the message.
Currently, Rule 2034 does this in a strange implicit way, by saying that the
message "constitutes self-ratifying claims that" such-and-such. I'd call it
dubious, but according to CFJ 3618 as recorded in a FLR annotation (I can't
find the original judgement), it does work, even if the message in question
*explicitly disclaims* the such-and-such. Still, it's better to organize
things in a way that avoids counterfactual assumptions.
Convert two rules to use the new mechanism: Rule 2034, and Rule 107, which
previously vaguely mentioned an error being "correctly identified within one
week". The new wording also requires clarity, as I also proposed separately
(if both proposal pass, this overwrites the wording from the other).]
Amend Rule 1551 (Ratification) by replacing:
When a public document is ratified
with:
When a document or statement (hereafter "document") is ratified
and by replacing:
Ratifying a public document is secured with power threshold 3.
with:
Ratification is secured with power threshold 3.
and by removing:
A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message.
[moved to R2202]
Amend Rule 2202 (Ratification Without Objection) by prepending the paragraph:
A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message.
Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing:
A public document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is
ratified when it is continuously undoubted for one week.
A doubt is an explicit public challenge via one of the following
methods, identifying a document and explaining the scope and
nature of a perceived error in it:
with:
When a public document is continuously undoubted for one week
after publication:
- If the rules
Re: DIS: Proto: review period
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 6:03 PM Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> Replies inline.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Oct 31, 2019, at 5:38 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> >
> > On 10/31/19 8:28 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> >> {
> >> Amend rule 2350 “Proposals” as follows:
> >> * replace “A player CAN create a proposal by announcement“ with “A player
> >> CAN create a proposal With 23 Hours Notice.”
> >> * after the list, add a new paragraph: “Additionally, a player CAN, but
> >> SHALL NOT, create a proposal by announcement, specifying the same
> >> information required above.
> >> }
> >>
> >> Explanation: reduce promotor work by reducing the number of proposals
> >> created and soon retracted in favor of a minorly-fixed version. It’s 23
> >> hours so people don’t have to count minutes, just do it at about the same
> >> time on the next day. The CAN but SHALL NOT mechanism is there to avoid
> >> ossification if dependent actions break.
> >
> >
> > I'm not completely convinced that this would be significantly better than
> > the status quo, but I will of course defer to the H. Promotor's judgement.
Thanks, both of you. I really appreciate it when people think of
reducing my (not inconsiderable) workload. However, I don't think this
change would really help. Firstly, as a player, I tend to oppose any
change that makes it harder to submit proposals. As Promotor, I note
that a rapidly retracted proposals don't tend to create that much
extra work. Sure, they can be confusing, but I almost always catch
them quickly before doing the full write up. Furthermore, having to
check if people had actually given intent and gone through the
deadline would actually add to my workload, although admittedly I'd
probably just trust that people were following the requisite rule. For
these reasons, I don't think this particular change would be a good
idea, though I really appreciate the thought.
On a semi-related note, I keep thinking of publishing an informal
style guide for how to format proposals (not the rule content, which
is more the Rulekeepor's domain, just the proposal itself). If people
followed it, it would save me some time. Would people be averse to the
idea?
-Aris
