Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On 1/28/2020 8:16 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 1/28/20 11:12 PM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 7:47 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business >> wrote: >>> I earn 5 coins for assessing a proposal. >> You can't, because P8295 made it so the ADoP has to do this. (And is >> also broken, so nobody can do it.) > > > Well, dammit. > double dammit just read further
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On 1/28/20 11:12 PM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 7:47 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business > wrote: >> I earn 5 coins for assessing a proposal. > You can't, because P8295 made it so the ADoP has to do this. (And is > also broken, so nobody can do it.) Well, dammit. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 7:47 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > I earn 5 coins for assessing a proposal. You can't, because P8295 made it so the ADoP has to do this. (And is also broken, so nobody can do it.)
DIS: On old CFJs
Rule 991 states: > At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or > assigned exactly one judgement. What exactly does it mean for a CFJ to be "assigned exactly one judgement"? Specifically, does this include judgements that are not listed as "valid judgements" by Rule 591, such as UNDETERMINED? If it does not, then we potentially have a situation where every CFJ that doesn't have a judgement listed in the current rules reverts back to being either open or suspended, which might be a mess to untangle. Potentially relevant: CFJ 3638 [0], which found that something that is not a "valid Notice of Honour" can nevertheless be a "Notice of Honour". [0]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3638 -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Reply-To Headers
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 4:07 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > The list is what sends out the final messages, not your provider. The list is currently configured to append the list address to Reply-To rather than overwriting it; I could change this. Looking at the archives, it seems like twg's messages, as originally received by the list, have a redundant Reply-To header containing the same value as the From header.
DIS: [Reporter] Last Week in Agora
Archived at https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Reporter/tree/master/weekly_summaries (Sorry for the repeat email; I forgot the subject line the frist time.) For the week 2020-01-20..26: # Victory * G. wins the game by paying a fee of 1000 coins, and tells the story of eir coins. Thread: "bored of liquidity, need to invest" # Voting * The H. Assessor resolves Proposals 8280-8286. Proposals 8281 and 8283 are adopted. The first is an attempt by Gaelan to outsmart Rule 1030 and grant emself a patent title with a power-0.1 rule. The second, by Alexis, is a change to the rule text about earning a Red ribbon. * Alexis CoEs the resolution message, on the basis that it does not record several of eir votes as endorsements. Jason denies the CoE on the grounds that this is what e normally does and others haven't complained. * Voting begins on Proposals 8287-8307. This is a long list of proposals, some of which would make significant changes: * Delete some possibly-obsolete text: remove the quarterly decay of blots, and remove a provision about a no-longer defined proposal switch called "Imminence". * Either amend or repeal Glitter (Rule 2602). * Increase the maximum voting strength. * A long-in-the-making organization of the rules into "ministries". * Falsifian identifies a possible bug and submits a proposal in an attempt to fix it. * Remove the possibility for a CFJ to count as a doubt that blocks self-ratification (everyone seems to use the other method, claims of error, anyway). * A proposal called "CFJ Bait" which raises many questions about what it would do. * Amend Rule 217 so that "authorial intent" is to be considered when interpreting the rules. * Many people object to this. * Make officers responsible for granting rewards and glitter rather than having each player claim eir rewards. For example, the Arbitor would reward judges rather than the judges announcing their own rewards. * Also, a follow-up to this that would define a notion called "in an officially timely fashion". * Remove the notion of a "convergence", and instead relax the standard to which the Rulekeepor is held for eir historical annotations. * Some proposals that give officers expanded powers, intended to be used when there's confusion about the rules or gamestate. The proposals would give officers the power to: * Issue documents called memoranda, presumably to be used when there is confusion about the rules or gamestate. * G. raises concerns about the details of how the proposal would work. One concern is how and whether they would interact with the existing CFJ numbering and archive. * Issue "adjustments" without three objections, which take effect in a manner similar to proposals. * There is some concern about this power being too dangerous. Based on twg's concerns, the author, Aris, votes against the proposal. * Issue "patches", which are regulations which have some power to override the rules. * There are some concerns about the details of how the proposal would work. One concern is about a provision that obsolete patches CAN be repealed: whether a patch is "obsolete" may be a vague consideration. * Make the Rulekeepor responsible for tracking regulations as part of eir regular reports. * G. raises concerns about the clarity of the new rule text, and about whether it makes sense for regulations to be tracked in the Rulekeepor's weekly report (Short Logical Ruleset). * Replace the petition process for patent titles with a more general one. * A long-in-the-making re-working of the rules for contracts (and pledges). It includes the introduction of a new officer called the Notary who tracks contracts and pledges, and as Notary installs Gaelan, who has volunteered. * Replace gendered degree names with gender-neutral versions. * An attempt by Gaelan to deregister two less-active players, and in response to that, a proposal by one of those players (D. Margaux) to deregister Gaelan. # Culture * twg submits a thesis titled "Letter to an Anti-Scamster: On the Importance of Loopholes in Agoran Culture" in the form of a detailed message declining Aris's request that e promise eir proposals contain no scams, and detailed reasoning about why e feels that "warranties against scams and loopholes should not be given on a blanket basis". Thread: "Warranty" * There is a side discussion about what should qualify for a J.N. degree. * G. awards twg a new patent title, "Orator", based on twg's thesis, after announcing eir intent and receiving support. Thread: "[Herald] Hear, hear!" * After taking over as
DIS: (no subject)
Archived at https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Reporter/tree/master/weekly_summaries For the week 2020-01-20..26: # Victory * G. wins the game by paying a fee of 1000 coins, and tells the story of eir coins. Thread: "bored of liquidity, need to invest" # Voting * The H. Assessor resolves Proposals 8280-8286. Proposals 8281 and 8283 are adopted. The first is an attempt by Gaelan to outsmart Rule 1030 and grant emself a patent title with a power-0.1 rule. The second, by Alexis, is a change to the rule text about earning a Red ribbon. * Alexis CoEs the resolution message, on the basis that it does not record several of eir votes as endorsements. Jason denies the CoE on the grounds that this is what e normally does and others haven't complained. * Voting begins on Proposals 8287-8307. This is a long list of proposals, some of which would make significant changes: * Delete some possibly-obsolete text: remove the quarterly decay of blots, and remove a provision about a no-longer defined proposal switch called "Imminence". * Either amend or repeal Glitter (Rule 2602). * Increase the maximum voting strength. * A long-in-the-making organization of the rules into "ministries". * Falsifian identifies a possible bug and submits a proposal in an attempt to fix it. * Remove the possibility for a CFJ to count as a doubt that blocks self-ratification (everyone seems to use the other method, claims of error, anyway). * A proposal called "CFJ Bait" which raises many questions about what it would do. * Amend Rule 217 so that "authorial intent" is to be considered when interpreting the rules. * Many people object to this. * Make officers responsible for granting rewards and glitter rather than having each player claim eir rewards. For example, the Arbitor would reward judges rather than the judges announcing their own rewards. * Also, a follow-up to this that would define a notion called "in an officially timely fashion". * Remove the notion of a "convergence", and instead relax the standard to which the Rulekeepor is held for eir historical annotations. * Some proposals that give officers expanded powers, intended to be used when there's confusion about the rules or gamestate. The proposals would give officers the power to: * Issue documents called memoranda, presumably to be used when there is confusion about the rules or gamestate. * G. raises concerns about the details of how the proposal would work. One concern is how and whether they would interact with the existing CFJ numbering and archive. * Issue "adjustments" without three objections, which take effect in a manner similar to proposals. * There is some concern about this power being too dangerous. Based on twg's concerns, the author, Aris, votes against the proposal. * Issue "patches", which are regulations which have some power to override the rules. * There are some concerns about the details of how the proposal would work. One concern is about a provision that obsolete patches CAN be repealed: whether a patch is "obsolete" may be a vague consideration. * Make the Rulekeepor responsible for tracking regulations as part of eir regular reports. * G. raises concerns about the clarity of the new rule text, and about whether it makes sense for regulations to be tracked in the Rulekeepor's weekly report (Short Logical Ruleset). * Replace the petition process for patent titles with a more general one. * A long-in-the-making re-working of the rules for contracts (and pledges). It includes the introduction of a new officer called the Notary who tracks contracts and pledges, and as Notary installs Gaelan, who has volunteered. * Replace gendered degree names with gender-neutral versions. * An attempt by Gaelan to deregister two less-active players, and in response to that, a proposal by one of those players (D. Margaux) to deregister Gaelan. # Culture * twg submits a thesis titled "Letter to an Anti-Scamster: On the Importance of Loopholes in Agoran Culture" in the form of a detailed message declining Aris's request that e promise eir proposals contain no scams, and detailed reasoning about why e feels that "warranties against scams and loopholes should not be given on a blanket basis". Thread: "Warranty" * There is a side discussion about what should qualify for a J.N. degree. * G. awards twg a new patent title, "Orator", based on twg's thesis, after announcing eir intent and receiving support. Thread: "[Herald] Hear, hear!" * After taking over as Herald, Alexis solicits discussion on which degrees are appropriate for
Re: DIS: Reply-To Headers
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 18:47, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I wrote: > > Alexis wrote: > > > Is it intentional that the Reply-To headers for messages include the > > > original author? I always take them out. > > > > To my knowledge, this isn't a general list problem - it only happens to > > messages from me. Still unclear exactly why, although I blame my email > > provider, which has historically done some crazy shit wrt Agora. > > Incidentally, nch, who used the same provider, had the same problem, so > my blame is not just based on a general feeling of antipathy... > > -twg > The list is what sends out the final messages, not your provider.
DIS: proto: the eternal spirit (was The Very Worst Thing That Could Possibly Happen)
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 23:54, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Falsifian wrote:
> > I was hesitent to raise this morbid concern, but now that the subject
> > has been broached, are dead former players persons? R869 would seem to
> > say no. This may affect the accuracy of Tailor reports.
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg45140.html
>
> (petered out with no conclusion)
>
> -twg
proto:
Title: The Eternal Sprit
AI: 3
Co-authors: twg
Text: {
Amend Rule 869 by inserting the sentence "Any entity that was ever a
person under that definition remains a person forever." after the
first sentence.
}
Alternative: simply replace "is a person" with "is eternally a
person", but I'm not sure whether that covers entities that stopped
being persons before the rule was amended.
- Falsifian
Re: DIS: The Very Worst Thing That Could Possibly Happen (Attn. Distributor)
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM James Cook wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 15:46, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Also relevant: CFJs 3411-3412. > > I was hesitent to raise this morbid concern, but now that the subject > has been broached, are dead former players persons? R869 would seem to > say no. This may affect the accuracy of Tailor reports. At least since 2001, I'm pretty sure none have been confirmed or alleged. With so many former players I'm not sure what the odds are that there's at least one. And I've just decided to make some kinda dead switch - not to tell y'all if I died, but to keep automatically posting zombie-prevention messages forever so you can argue if I'm real or whether messages from beyond the grave are outside my technical domain of control.
Re: DIS: The Very Worst Thing That Could Possibly Happen (Attn. Distributor)
Falsifian wrote: > I was hesitent to raise this morbid concern, but now that the subject > has been broached, are dead former players persons? R869 would seem to > say no. This may affect the accuracy of Tailor reports. https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg45140.html (petered out with no conclusion) -twg
Re: DIS: The Very Worst Thing That Could Possibly Happen (Attn. Distributor)
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 23:18, omd via agora-discussion wrote: > I can at least put it through the formal proposal process, by > submitting a proposal expressing the sense of Agora that it's okay to > publish players' email addresses on the web. However, that only > accounts for current active players. If I published a copy of the > list archives, it would probably be everything going back to 2002 > (when the Mailman list was created, under a previous Distributor), so > it would expose former players' addresses. In theory I could split > the archives – a static obfuscated zip file for the past, unobfuscated > files for the present onward – but ugh, I really don't want to do > that. Agoran historical records have enough fragmentation as it is. I'm in favour of clarifying this in the rules. Might as well turn it into a more general clarification in R478 (Fora) setting the expectation that public messages are public, including sender and other headers. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: The Very Worst Thing That Could Possibly Happen (Attn. Distributor)
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 15:46, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: > Also relevant: CFJs 3411-3412. I was hesitent to raise this morbid concern, but now that the subject has been broached, are dead former players persons? R869 would seem to say no. This may affect the accuracy of Tailor reports. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Reply-To Headers
I wrote: > Alexis wrote: > > Is it intentional that the Reply-To headers for messages include the > > original author? I always take them out. > > To my knowledge, this isn't a general list problem - it only happens to > messages from me. Still unclear exactly why, although I blame my email > provider, which has historically done some crazy shit wrt Agora. Incidentally, nch, who used the same provider, had the same problem, so my blame is not just based on a general feeling of antipathy... -twg
Re: DIS: Reply-To Headers
Alexis wrote: > Is it intentional that the Reply-To headers for messages include the > original author? I always take them out. To my knowledge, this isn't a general list problem - it only happens to messages from me. Still unclear exactly why, although I blame my email provider, which has historically done some crazy shit wrt Agora. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
It is interesting to consider changing our use of pronouns, but if
we're not changing anything, is there any reason to cover pronouns in
the editorial guidelines at all? I don't see any confusion or
inconsistency related to them, and I expect any new player who has
given the rules even a cursory reading will pick up on the Spivak
pronouns. The shorter the guidelines are, the more likely people are
to read and follow them
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 05:07, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> This is a good point. Suggested reword: {
> The singular non-gendered pronoun is "e" in the nominative, and "em" in
> the accusative. Do not use "he/him/his," or "she/her/her,” or
> “they/them/their”
> as a singular pronoun when referring to a person of unknown gender.
> }
>
> Personally, I’m vaguely of the opinion that we should switch to they/them
> instead of Spivak in general. Our use of Spivak now feels like using Betamax
> in 1990—sure, it was probably better, but the other one won and it’s silly to
> keep doing our own thing. That being said, I know this is probably an
> unpopular opinion (and I know there are some reasonable arguments in favor of
> Spivak, such as support for legal persons).
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Jan 27, 2020, at 8:04 PM, Tanner Swett via agora-discussion
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 18:43 Jason Cobb via agora-business <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >> [Informal title: "Pronouns"]
> >>
> >> {
> >>
> >> The singular non-gendered pronoun is "e" in the nominative, and "em" in
> >> the accusative. Do not use "they" as a singular pronoun. Do not use
> >> "he/him/his" or "she/her/her" as a singular pronoun when referring to a
> >> person of unknown gender.
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >
> > I informally object. I agree that we should use e/em as the generic
> > third-person singular pronoun (as we have been doing for decades), but when
> > rules refer to specific individuals (which is uncommon but not all *that*
> > rare), there's no reason at all to proscribe using "they" for a particular
> > individual if that's the pronoun that they prefer to use in such contexts.
> >
> > —Warrigal
> >
> >>
>
DIS: The Very Worst Thing That Could Possibly Happen (Attn. Distributor)
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 3:26 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > omd wrote: > > However, I vaguely remember having proposed this in the past, and > > someone objecting to it. But I can't find the thread; searching for > > "scrapers", only this thread comes up. I could be misremembering. > > Is this it? > > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg29597.html > If it was that, I wasn't worried about it or objecting - I was just mentioning that at one point, someone had been worried about email harvesting, (which was my memory for why the security had been put there).
DIS: Reply-To Headers
H. Distributor, Is it intentional that the Reply-To headers for messages include the original author? I always take them out. Alexis
Re: DIS: The Very Worst Thing That Could Possibly Happen (Attn. Distributor)
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 18:26, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > omd wrote: > > However, I vaguely remember having proposed this in the past, and > > someone objecting to it. But I can't find the thread; searching for > > "scrapers", only this thread comes up. I could be misremembering. > > Is this it? > > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg29597.html > > -twg > I mean... https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg09786.html
Re: DIS: The Very Worst Thing That Could Possibly Happen (Attn. Distributor)
omd wrote: > However, I vaguely remember having proposed this in the past, and > someone objecting to it. But I can't find the thread; searching for > "scrapers", only this thread comes up. I could be misremembering. Is this it? https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg29597.html -twg
Re: DIS: The Very Worst Thing That Could Possibly Happen (Attn. Distributor)
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 12:47 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > Couldn't someone just zip the files and put them in a public GitHub > repo? If we really cared, the zip files could be encrypted and the > password could be put in the README, since I think most of the major > operating systems have builtin support for encrypted ZIPs. Putting everything in one zip file would require Git to store a separate copy of the file for each revision, since Git doesn't do binary diffing. There are alternatives, like one zip file per message or per month or something; they're just a bit inconvenient. But personally, I think the idea of keeping email addresses hidden from spammers is pretty outdated at this point. I'd rather abandon it, and then be able to use the standard maildir format for the Git repo. However, I vaguely remember having proposed this in the past, and someone objecting to it. But I can't find the thread; searching for "scrapers", only this thread comes up. I could be misremembering. I can at least put it through the formal proposal process, by submitting a proposal expressing the sense of Agora that it's okay to publish players' email addresses on the web. However, that only accounts for current active players. If I published a copy of the list archives, it would probably be everything going back to 2002 (when the Mailman list was created, under a previous Distributor), so it would expose former players' addresses. In theory I could split the archives – a static obfuscated zip file for the past, unobfuscated files for the present onward – but ugh, I really don't want to do that. Agoran historical records have enough fragmentation as it is.
Re: DIS: The Very Worst Thing That Could Possibly Happen (Attn. Distributor)
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 17:48, omd via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 7:29 AM Matthew Berlin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > A custom Agora blockchain for the ruleset and BUS actions? I'd > > certainly be up for running a node...and could help with dev, > > I mean, Git is a blockchain. :) > This reminds me of a contract idea I had... (the actual relationship to cryptocurrency is mostly puns, though)
Re: DIS: The Very Worst Thing That Could Possibly Happen (Attn. Distributor)
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 7:29 AM Matthew Berlin via agora-discussion wrote: > A custom Agora blockchain for the ruleset and BUS actions? I'd > certainly be up for running a node...and could help with dev, I mean, Git is a blockchain. :)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I register
Come back soon! On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 13:31, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > > I deregister > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 8:12 PM Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > Aris wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Rebecca via agora-business > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I, R. Lee, do register > > > > > > > > > > Welcome back! I cause R. Lee to receive a Welcome Package. > > > > Err. I find no evidence that R. Lee deregistered since e was last here, > > so I think this fails. E isn't even a zombie yet... > > > > -twg > > > > > -- > From R. Lee
Re: DIS: [cotc] state of the cfj archives
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 22:04, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Over time I've managed to backfill in about half the cases in the > 3400s, but took time off in the 3500-3600s, so there's still gaps > there. Getting 10-20 old cases up per month or so, generally working > backwards. When I first read about Agora, many years ago, I remember lazily poking around the CFJ archive a bit to get a sense of what it was all about. And of course as a player now it's very useful. Thanks for working on it. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 21:53, James Cook wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 21:54, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > wrote: > > However, it can be blocked by only three objections, and the > > rule refuses to apply any abusive change, which on its own prevents it > > from being used as part of a scam. > > Isn't it a memorandum's decision what it finds in the best interests? > If it said "The game of Agora being Too Old and quite exhausting to > continue playing, for the game's own good, its rules and gamestate are > hereby frozen forever by the enactment of the following rule...", > wouldn't we say that memorandum found the change to be in the game's > best interest? (I know you changed your vote to AGAINST, but still > interested in thoughts.) (R1698 would presumably block this example, of > course.) Sorry, just saw your new proposal which addresses this more explicitly. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: The Very Worst Thing That Could Possibly Happen (Attn. Distributor)
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 12:47 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 1/28/20 2:14 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 12:03 AM omd via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > > >> I suppose I could mirror the archives on GitHub, which would be less > >> idiosyncratic and more resilient to me getting hit by a bus. That > >> would, however, imply giving up on obfuscating email addresses, unless > >> I made the repo private (which defeats the purpose of resilience) or > >> obfuscated the repo contents somehow (which defeats the purpose of > >> avoiding idiosyncracy). Thoughts? > > You can share a private repo with three people (they've started > > letting people do that recently-ish). If one picked three Agorans > > who've been playing relatively steadily for a long while, it would > > make things much safer (the possibility of four Agorans getting > > incapacitated at once is decidedly low, absent a global crisis, in > > which case we have bigger problems). > > > > -Aris > > > Couldn't someone just zip the files and put them in a public GitHub > repo? If we really cared, the zip files could be encrypted and the > password could be put in the README, since I think most of the major > operating systems have builtin support for encrypted ZIPs. > > This would allow people who actually cared to easily access the archives > (as long as the ZIP specification survives, which it probably will), > while preventing all but the most dedicated automatic scanners from > getting to it. I don't really care as long as there's a way of updating them regularly automatically. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 21:54, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > However, it can be blocked by only three objections, and the > rule refuses to apply any abusive change, which on its own prevents it > from being used as part of a scam. Isn't it a memorandum's decision what it finds in the best interests? If it said "The game of Agora being Too Old and quite exhausting to continue playing, for the game's own good, its rules and gamestate are hereby frozen forever by the enactment of the following rule...", wouldn't we say that memorandum found the change to be in the game's best interest? (I know you changed your vote to AGAINST, but still interested in thoughts.) (R1698 would presumably block this example, of course.) - Falsifian
Re: DIS: The Very Worst Thing That Could Possibly Happen (Attn. Distributor)
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 15:47, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 1/28/20 2:14 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 12:03 AM omd via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > > >> I suppose I could mirror the archives on GitHub, which would be less > >> idiosyncratic and more resilient to me getting hit by a bus. That > >> would, however, imply giving up on obfuscating email addresses, unless > >> I made the repo private (which defeats the purpose of resilience) or > >> obfuscated the repo contents somehow (which defeats the purpose of > >> avoiding idiosyncracy). Thoughts? > > You can share a private repo with three people (they've started > > letting people do that recently-ish). If one picked three Agorans > > who've been playing relatively steadily for a long while, it would > > make things much safer (the possibility of four Agorans getting > > incapacitated at once is decidedly low, absent a global crisis, in > > which case we have bigger problems). > > > > -Aris > > > Couldn't someone just zip the files and put them in a public GitHub > repo? If we really cared, the zip files could be encrypted and the > password could be put in the README, since I think most of the major > operating systems have builtin support for encrypted ZIPs. > > This would allow people who actually cared to easily access the archives > (as long as the ZIP specification survives, which it probably will), > while preventing all but the most dedicated automatic scanners from > getting to it. Just put them anywhere archive.org can get.
Re: DIS: The Very Worst Thing That Could Possibly Happen (Attn. Distributor)
On 1/28/20 2:14 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 12:03 AM omd via agora-discussion > wrote: > >> I suppose I could mirror the archives on GitHub, which would be less >> idiosyncratic and more resilient to me getting hit by a bus. That >> would, however, imply giving up on obfuscating email addresses, unless >> I made the repo private (which defeats the purpose of resilience) or >> obfuscated the repo contents somehow (which defeats the purpose of >> avoiding idiosyncracy). Thoughts? > You can share a private repo with three people (they've started > letting people do that recently-ish). If one picked three Agorans > who've been playing relatively steadily for a long while, it would > make things much safer (the possibility of four Agorans getting > incapacitated at once is decidedly low, absent a global crisis, in > which case we have bigger problems). > > -Aris Couldn't someone just zip the files and put them in a public GitHub repo? If we really cared, the zip files could be encrypted and the password could be put in the README, since I think most of the major operating systems have builtin support for encrypted ZIPs. This would allow people who actually cared to easily access the archives (as long as the ZIP specification survives, which it probably will), while preventing all but the most dedicated automatic scanners from getting to it. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: The Very Worst Thing That Could Possibly Happen (Attn. Distributor)
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 12:03 AM omd via agora-discussion wrote: > I suppose I could mirror the archives on GitHub, which would be less > idiosyncratic and more resilient to me getting hit by a bus. That > would, however, imply giving up on obfuscating email addresses, unless > I made the repo private (which defeats the purpose of resilience) or > obfuscated the repo contents somehow (which defeats the purpose of > avoiding idiosyncracy). Thoughts? You can share a private repo with three people (they've started letting people do that recently-ish). If one picked three Agorans who've been playing relatively steadily for a long while, it would make things much safer (the possibility of four Agorans getting incapacitated at once is decidedly low, absent a global crisis, in which case we have bigger problems). -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear, ye! Hear, ye! A new Champion!
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 9:26 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 12:12, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 8:24 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-official > > wrote: > > > NOW KNOW YOU that we, by the Powers granted to us under Winning the > > > Game, being the two thousand and forty-fourth Rule of Agora, do hereby > > > bestow upon G. the Patent Title of Champion; and > > > > Thanks! I'm curious what you think about win category. We don't > > really have a "win by economic activity" category. On the other hand, > > we're pretty much using these as Points not economy - High Score is > > the most traditional there (encompasses wins like this even when the > > accumulated objects weren't called 'points'). No preference myself. > > Off the top of my head, our categories are largely based on the rules' > descriptions and not the mechanics. I think we have some redundant > ones. But I don't have time to check really at the moment. No hurry it can be changed anytime. One that is most generic High Score - it's been used for multiple "flavors" of points - as long as the win condition is generally "accumulate points/coins/whatever we call them for a range of various typical agoran activities (e.g. proposing, getting proposals adopted, officering) and win when you get enough points." it fits there. This particular win condition started out much more economic (the end goal of the Land game being to eventually create coin factories) but now is pretty much like high score. Just a professional Herald's interest, a while ago I was wondering where to put it.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
G. wrote: > CoE on coin balances: missing blackjack payments? Oh yes. Somehow it didn't register with me that those were actual game actions. :P Revision forthcoming. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear, ye! Hear, ye! A new Champion!
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 12:12, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 8:24 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-official > wrote: > > NOW KNOW YOU that we, by the Powers granted to us under Winning the > > Game, being the two thousand and forty-fourth Rule of Agora, do hereby > > bestow upon G. the Patent Title of Champion; and > > Thanks! I'm curious what you think about win category. We don't > really have a "win by economic activity" category. On the other hand, > we're pretty much using these as Points not economy - High Score is > the most traditional there (encompasses wins like this even when the > accumulated objects weren't called 'points'). No preference myself. Off the top of my head, our categories are largely based on the rules' descriptions and not the mechanics. I think we have some redundant ones. But I don't have time to check really at the moment.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear, ye! Hear, ye! A new Champion!
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 8:24 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-official wrote: > NOW KNOW YOU that we, by the Powers granted to us under Winning the > Game, being the two thousand and forty-fourth Rule of Agora, do hereby > bestow upon G. the Patent Title of Champion; and Thanks! I'm curious what you think about win category. We don't really have a "win by economic activity" category. On the other hand, we're pretty much using these as Points not economy - High Score is the most traditional there (encompasses wins like this even when the accumulated objects weren't called 'points'). No preference myself.
Re: DIS: The Very Worst Thing That Could Possibly Happen (Attn. Distributor)
Matthew Berlin wrote: > A custom Agora blockchain for the ruleset and BUS actions? It seems to me that an equally efficient, and somewhat lower-tech, solution would be for several different people to keep copies of the archives using the link omd provided upthread. Of course this doesn't protect against a situation where every person who plays the game dies simultaneously, but there are limits to what we can make contingencies for. Also relevant: CFJs 3411-3412. -twg
Re: DIS: The Very Worst Thing That Could Possibly Happen (Attn. Distributor)
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 21:59:44 -0800 Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > To the best of my knowledge, we have no contingency plans for > preserving Agoran history in such an eventuality. Our Distributor is > amazing, but sooner or later e will die, and that death may come > before e has transferred control of the archives to a successor. > Perhaps e even has backups in secure locations, and has left > instructions for what to do with them, but what if a fire destroys > all copies, or some other grave misfortune occurs? > A custom Agora blockchain for the ruleset and BUS actions? I'd certainly be up for running a node...and could help with dev, Your use of "hard-fork" got the gears turning, - Matt
Re: DIS: The Very Worst Thing That Could Possibly Happen (Attn. Distributor)
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:12 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > Speaking of which, last I checked, the link (at the top of the mailman > archive) to download the full archive is broken. Fixed. Seems like a Mailman bug introduced in this commit [1], which nobody has noticed in over a year... I guess I should report it. But a long time ago I set up an alternate way to download the archives, directly through the web server so it supports range requests etc.: https://agora:no...@mailman.agoranomic.org/archives/ Each mbox file is append-only, so you can use the "continue download" option of your favorite tool to sync without having to redownload the whole thing: wget -c https://agora:no...@mailman.agoranomic.org/archives/agora-business.mbox The authentication was added out of concern for ancient etiquette rules about exposing email addresses to web scrapers. Almost certainly pointless these days. Especially, in our case, considering that Registrar's report is published on the web, and includes all players' email addresses, obfuscated only by replacing "@" with " at ", which I doubt stops any scrapers (but who knows). I suppose I could mirror the archives on GitHub, which would be less idiosyncratic and more resilient to me getting hit by a bus. That would, however, imply giving up on obfuscating email addresses, unless I made the repo private (which defeats the purpose of resilience) or obfuscated the repo contents somehow (which defeats the purpose of avoiding idiosyncracy). Thoughts? [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-checkins@python.org/msg09051.html
