DIS: Rulekeeping Request (Attn. Rulekeepor)
For rule cleanings, it would be nice (IMHO) to have who cleaned the rule be part of the annotation, for the historical record. One could tack something like “on the application of ” onto the end of the annotation so that we’d know who did it. Obviously, this wouldn’t apply retroactively unless someone wanted to go back and find the information. H. Rulekeepor, what do you think? -Aris
Re: DIS: On old CFJs
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 04:00, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > 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 One thought: Rule 217, power 3, refers to "past judgements". I think Rule 591 (which defines the valid judgements) to define what a "judgement" is would go beyond a "reasonable clarification". I'm not sure if that logic extends to Rule 591 not being allowed to clarify Rule 991's notion of judgement, though. The text "At any time, each CFJ is either ..." feels more technical to me than R17's simple "past judgements", so R591 might be able to clarify the meaning without triggering R217's "...do not overrule common-sense interpretations or common definitions" clause. I don't see why the precedent in CFJ 3638 wouldn't apply here, though. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Zombie proposals
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 9:45 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Wed., Jan. 29, 2020, 23:35 Luke Tyler via agora-discussion, <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > > Amend Rule 2532 (Zombies) by:
> > > - appending "A player CAN, without 3 objections, flip eir own master
> > switch
> > > to any other player. Other players SHOULD NOT object unless they
> believe
> > > that the intent is part of an attempt to flood Agora with the undead."
> >
> > > Amend Rule 2574 (Zombie Life Cycle) by:
> > > - replacing the first two paragraphs with: {
> > > Any player CAN, with notice, putrefy player who has not made a public
> > > announcement in the past 60 days. When a player is putrefied:
> > > - if e is not a zombie, eir master switch is flipped to Agora; and then
> > > - eir integrity is set to 2.
> >
> > It seems that since the amendment to Rule 2532 does not classify a player
> > flipping eir master switch to another player as becoming putrified, and
> the
> > amendment Rule 2574 removes the default value of a zombies' integrity
> > unless the player is putrified, that this could cause ambiguity to the
> > player's integrity value after flipping eir own switch?
> >
>
> The default value is "well-maintained", which is what it ends up as in this
> case.
>
> If this is the case, it could be that a zombies' integrity drops to 0, and
> > before becoming deregistered, the zombie switches eir master switch back
> to
> > emselves. Then if later on that player flips eir master switch to another
> > player, eir integrity would not be reset back to 2 and remain 0, causing
> > that player to be available for immediate deregisteration.
> >
>
> E ceases to have one when e stops being a zombie, so thereby it will become
> the default.
>
> > Whenever a zombie's master switch is
> > > flipped from Agora to a player other than emself, eir integrity is
> > > decreased by 1.
> >
> > Another potential issue could be if a player flips eir own switch to
> > another player, that eir integrity would be immediately be decreased by
> 1.
> >
>
> Good catch. Only if e is owned by Agora though, and e can freely avoid this
> or reset it by flipping it back to emself, so it's probably not worth a fix
> now.
>
> I'm not sure if these points should be raised in the discussion forum or if
> > it would be more appropriate as a CFJ. I also apologize in advance if
> I've
> > misunderstood things as I'm still new and getting used to the ruleset
> >
> > -- Tcbapo
>
>
> This is just a proposal, so discussion is appropriate. CFJs are commonly
> used for things in the rules, but they aren't needed and there's nothing
> wrong with asking questions and calling a CFJ if they happen to turn out to
> be relevant.
>
If you’re going to do a revision, I’d appreciate it if you made the zombie
trust apply to all assets.
-Aris
>
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Zombie proposals
On Wed., Jan. 29, 2020, 23:35 Luke Tyler via agora-discussion, <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > Amend Rule 2532 (Zombies) by:
> > - appending "A player CAN, without 3 objections, flip eir own master
> switch
> > to any other player. Other players SHOULD NOT object unless they believe
> > that the intent is part of an attempt to flood Agora with the undead."
>
> > Amend Rule 2574 (Zombie Life Cycle) by:
> > - replacing the first two paragraphs with: {
> > Any player CAN, with notice, putrefy player who has not made a public
> > announcement in the past 60 days. When a player is putrefied:
> > - if e is not a zombie, eir master switch is flipped to Agora; and then
> > - eir integrity is set to 2.
>
> It seems that since the amendment to Rule 2532 does not classify a player
> flipping eir master switch to another player as becoming putrified, and the
> amendment Rule 2574 removes the default value of a zombies' integrity
> unless the player is putrified, that this could cause ambiguity to the
> player's integrity value after flipping eir own switch?
>
The default value is "well-maintained", which is what it ends up as in this
case.
If this is the case, it could be that a zombies' integrity drops to 0, and
> before becoming deregistered, the zombie switches eir master switch back to
> emselves. Then if later on that player flips eir master switch to another
> player, eir integrity would not be reset back to 2 and remain 0, causing
> that player to be available for immediate deregisteration.
>
E ceases to have one when e stops being a zombie, so thereby it will become
the default.
> Whenever a zombie's master switch is
> > flipped from Agora to a player other than emself, eir integrity is
> > decreased by 1.
>
> Another potential issue could be if a player flips eir own switch to
> another player, that eir integrity would be immediately be decreased by 1.
>
Good catch. Only if e is owned by Agora though, and e can freely avoid this
or reset it by flipping it back to emself, so it's probably not worth a fix
now.
I'm not sure if these points should be raised in the discussion forum or if
> it would be more appropriate as a CFJ. I also apologize in advance if I've
> misunderstood things as I'm still new and getting used to the ruleset
>
> -- Tcbapo
This is just a proposal, so discussion is appropriate. CFJs are commonly
used for things in the rules, but they aren't needed and there's nothing
wrong with asking questions and calling a CFJ if they happen to turn out to
be relevant.
-Alexis
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Zombie proposals
> Amend Rule 2532 (Zombies) by:
> - appending "A player CAN, without 3 objections, flip eir own master switch
> to any other player. Other players SHOULD NOT object unless they believe
> that the intent is part of an attempt to flood Agora with the undead."
> Amend Rule 2574 (Zombie Life Cycle) by:
> - replacing the first two paragraphs with: {
> Any player CAN, with notice, putrefy player who has not made a public
> announcement in the past 60 days. When a player is putrefied:
> - if e is not a zombie, eir master switch is flipped to Agora; and then
> - eir integrity is set to 2.
It seems that since the amendment to Rule 2532 does not classify a player
flipping eir master switch to another player as becoming putrified, and the
amendment Rule 2574 removes the default value of a zombies' integrity unless
the player is putrified, that this could cause ambiguity to the player's
integrity value after flipping eir own switch?
If this is the case, it could be that a zombies' integrity drops to 0, and
before becoming deregistered, the zombie switches eir master switch back to
emselves. Then if later on that player flips eir master switch to another
player, eir integrity would not be reset back to 2 and remain 0, causing that
player to be available for immediate deregisteration.
> Whenever a zombie's master switch is
> flipped from Agora to a player other than emself, eir integrity is
> decreased by 1.
Another potential issue could be if a player flips eir own switch to another
player, that eir integrity would be immediately be decreased by 1.
I'm not sure if these points should be raised in the discussion forum or if it
would be more appropriate as a CFJ. I also apologize in advance if I've
misunderstood things as I'm still new and getting used to the ruleset
-- Tcbapo
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 8:27 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 23:08, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > Here's a draft report. Comments are, as always, highly appreciated. > > > > -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 7, 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 > > > --- > > 8308* Falsifian3.0 Imposing order on the order > > > > Unless I'm mistaken, this proposal (and possibly others as well) has no > class, as it was submitted prior to the creation of class. Oh, yeah, I’ll go back and check that. > > > > 8312# Alexis 1.0 On Possibility > > > I intend, with 2 Agoran consent, to flip the chamber of this proposal to > Efficiency. > > > 8317# Alexis 2.0 Zombie trade > > > I intend, with 2 Agoran consent, to flip the chamber of this proposal to > Economy. > > -Alexis > You can do it by announcement by retracting and resubmitting the proposal. I won’t mind (especially given that we’re all just getting used to the new order). -Aris
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
Yet another error: "Clearer Resolutions" is democratic. Gosh that's a
lot for the first 10 minutes.
-Aris
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 8:16 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> Another error: The title of the proposal "Sergeant-at-Arms" was not in
> the full text section.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 8:13 PM Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> >
> > I caught an error: Rewards Patch & Equitable Remedy is AI 1.0.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 8:08 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Here's a draft report. Comments are, as always, highly appreciated.
> > >
> > > -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 7, 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
> > > ---
> > > 8308* Falsifian3.0 Imposing order on the order
> > > 8309* Alexis 3.0 A Degree of Inefficiency
> > > 8310* Jason, Alexis3.0 Deputisation timeliness
> > > 8311e twg, omd 3.0 Rewards Patch & Equitable Remedy
> > > 8312# Alexis 1.0 On Possibility
> > > 8313* Alexis, G. 3.0 Support of the Person
> > > 8314e Aris 1.0 Finite Gifting
> > > 8315# Alexis 3.0 Clearer Resolutions
> > > 8316* Alexis 3.0 Zombie voting package
> > > 8317# Alexis 2.0 Zombie trade
> > > 8318f Aris 1.0 Notorial Economy
> > > 8319l Aris 2.0 Sergeant-at-Arms
> > > 8320l Aris 2.0 Promotorial Assignment
> > > 8321l Aris 2.0 Untying Quorum
> > >
> > > The proposal pool is currently empty.
> > >
> > > Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
> > > # : Ordinary proposal, unset chamber.
> > > e : Economy ministry proposal.
> > > f : Efficiency ministry proposal.
> > > j : Justice ministry proposal.
> > > l : Legislation ministry proposal.
> > > p : Participation ministry proposal.
> > >
> > >
> > > The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
> > >
> > >
> > > //
> > > ID: 8308
> > > Title: Imposing order on the order
> > > Adoption index: 3.0
> > > Author: Falsifian
> > > Co-authors:
> > >
> > >
> > > If Proposal 8291 has been passed, and Rule 2350 does not have the list
> > > item "* A chamber to which the proposal shall be assigned upon it
> > > creation.", add that list item to the end of the list. If the list
> > > item is present, but it is not at the end of the list, or it is
> > > unclear or otherwise difficult or impossible to determine where in the
> > > list it is, put it at the end of the list.
> > >
> > > //
> > > ID: 8309
> > > Title: A Degree of Inefficiency
> > > Adoption index: 3.0
> > > Author: Alexis
> > > Co-authors:
> > >
> > >
> > > Amend Rule 2595 (Performing a Dependent Action) by inserting ", and did
> > > not
> > > subsequently withdraw, " immediately after "published" in the first
> > > paragraph.
> > >
> > > //
> > > ID: 8310
> > > Title: Deputisation timeliness
> > > Adoption index: 3.0
> > > Author: Jason
> > > Co-authors: Alexis
> > >
> > >
> > > Amend Rule 2160 to read, in whole:
> > >
> > > {
> > >
> > > A player acting as emself (the deputy) CAN perform an action ordinarily
> > > reserved for an office-holder as if e held the office if
> > >
> > > 1. the player does not hold that office;
> > >
> > > 2. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, other than
> > > by deputisation, if e held the office;
> > >
> > > 3. either (i) there exists an obligation on the holder of that office,
> > > by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action, or (ii) the
> > > office is vacant;
> > >
> > > 4. either (i) a time limit applicable to that obligation has been
> > > violated, and the end of that time limit was fewer than 90 days ago, or
> > > (ii) the office is vacant;
> > >
> > > 5. if the office is not interim, the deputy announced between two and
> > > fourteen days earlier that e intended to deputise for that office for
> > > the purposes of the particular action; and
> > >
> > > 6. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e is doing so
> > > by deputisation or by temporary deputisation.
> > >
> > >
> > > When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the holder of
> > > that
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
Another error: The title of the proposal "Sergeant-at-Arms" was not in
the full text section.
-Aris
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 8:13 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> I caught an error: Rewards Patch & Equitable Remedy is AI 1.0.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 8:08 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> >
> > Here's a draft report. Comments are, as always, highly appreciated.
> >
> > -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 7, 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
> > ---
> > 8308* Falsifian3.0 Imposing order on the order
> > 8309* Alexis 3.0 A Degree of Inefficiency
> > 8310* Jason, Alexis3.0 Deputisation timeliness
> > 8311e twg, omd 3.0 Rewards Patch & Equitable Remedy
> > 8312# Alexis 1.0 On Possibility
> > 8313* Alexis, G. 3.0 Support of the Person
> > 8314e Aris 1.0 Finite Gifting
> > 8315# Alexis 3.0 Clearer Resolutions
> > 8316* Alexis 3.0 Zombie voting package
> > 8317# Alexis 2.0 Zombie trade
> > 8318f Aris 1.0 Notorial Economy
> > 8319l Aris 2.0 Sergeant-at-Arms
> > 8320l Aris 2.0 Promotorial Assignment
> > 8321l Aris 2.0 Untying Quorum
> >
> > The proposal pool is currently empty.
> >
> > Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
> > # : Ordinary proposal, unset chamber.
> > e : Economy ministry proposal.
> > f : Efficiency ministry proposal.
> > j : Justice ministry proposal.
> > l : Legislation ministry proposal.
> > p : Participation ministry proposal.
> >
> >
> > The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
> >
> >
> > //
> > ID: 8308
> > Title: Imposing order on the order
> > Adoption index: 3.0
> > Author: Falsifian
> > Co-authors:
> >
> >
> > If Proposal 8291 has been passed, and Rule 2350 does not have the list
> > item "* A chamber to which the proposal shall be assigned upon it
> > creation.", add that list item to the end of the list. If the list
> > item is present, but it is not at the end of the list, or it is
> > unclear or otherwise difficult or impossible to determine where in the
> > list it is, put it at the end of the list.
> >
> > //
> > ID: 8309
> > Title: A Degree of Inefficiency
> > Adoption index: 3.0
> > Author: Alexis
> > Co-authors:
> >
> >
> > Amend Rule 2595 (Performing a Dependent Action) by inserting ", and did not
> > subsequently withdraw, " immediately after "published" in the first
> > paragraph.
> >
> > //
> > ID: 8310
> > Title: Deputisation timeliness
> > Adoption index: 3.0
> > Author: Jason
> > Co-authors: Alexis
> >
> >
> > Amend Rule 2160 to read, in whole:
> >
> > {
> >
> > A player acting as emself (the deputy) CAN perform an action ordinarily
> > reserved for an office-holder as if e held the office if
> >
> > 1. the player does not hold that office;
> >
> > 2. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, other than
> > by deputisation, if e held the office;
> >
> > 3. either (i) there exists an obligation on the holder of that office,
> > by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action, or (ii) the
> > office is vacant;
> >
> > 4. either (i) a time limit applicable to that obligation has been
> > violated, and the end of that time limit was fewer than 90 days ago, or
> > (ii) the office is vacant;
> >
> > 5. if the office is not interim, the deputy announced between two and
> > fourteen days earlier that e intended to deputise for that office for
> > the purposes of the particular action; and
> >
> > 6. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e is doing so
> > by deputisation or by temporary deputisation.
> >
> >
> > When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the holder of
> > that office, unless the action being performed would already install
> > someone into that office, and/or unless the deputisation is temporary.
> >
> > }
> >
> > [
> >
> > Added a prohibition on someone for deputising for an office that e
> > already holds (this was something I thought of, but then I realized it
> > violate all of the exacerbating factors in R2557.
> >
> > Rephrased the time limit checks based on
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
I caught an error: Rewards Patch & Equitable Remedy is AI 1.0.
-Aris
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 8:08 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> Here's a draft report. Comments are, as always, highly appreciated.
>
> -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 7, 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
> ---
> 8308* Falsifian3.0 Imposing order on the order
> 8309* Alexis 3.0 A Degree of Inefficiency
> 8310* Jason, Alexis3.0 Deputisation timeliness
> 8311e twg, omd 3.0 Rewards Patch & Equitable Remedy
> 8312# Alexis 1.0 On Possibility
> 8313* Alexis, G. 3.0 Support of the Person
> 8314e Aris 1.0 Finite Gifting
> 8315# Alexis 3.0 Clearer Resolutions
> 8316* Alexis 3.0 Zombie voting package
> 8317# Alexis 2.0 Zombie trade
> 8318f Aris 1.0 Notorial Economy
> 8319l Aris 2.0 Sergeant-at-Arms
> 8320l Aris 2.0 Promotorial Assignment
> 8321l Aris 2.0 Untying Quorum
>
> The proposal pool is currently empty.
>
> Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
> # : Ordinary proposal, unset chamber.
> e : Economy ministry proposal.
> f : Efficiency ministry proposal.
> j : Justice ministry proposal.
> l : Legislation ministry proposal.
> p : Participation ministry proposal.
>
>
> The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
>
>
> //
> ID: 8308
> Title: Imposing order on the order
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Falsifian
> Co-authors:
>
>
> If Proposal 8291 has been passed, and Rule 2350 does not have the list
> item "* A chamber to which the proposal shall be assigned upon it
> creation.", add that list item to the end of the list. If the list
> item is present, but it is not at the end of the list, or it is
> unclear or otherwise difficult or impossible to determine where in the
> list it is, put it at the end of the list.
>
> //
> ID: 8309
> Title: A Degree of Inefficiency
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Alexis
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 2595 (Performing a Dependent Action) by inserting ", and did not
> subsequently withdraw, " immediately after "published" in the first
> paragraph.
>
> //
> ID: 8310
> Title: Deputisation timeliness
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Jason
> Co-authors: Alexis
>
>
> Amend Rule 2160 to read, in whole:
>
> {
>
> A player acting as emself (the deputy) CAN perform an action ordinarily
> reserved for an office-holder as if e held the office if
>
> 1. the player does not hold that office;
>
> 2. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, other than
> by deputisation, if e held the office;
>
> 3. either (i) there exists an obligation on the holder of that office,
> by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action, or (ii) the
> office is vacant;
>
> 4. either (i) a time limit applicable to that obligation has been
> violated, and the end of that time limit was fewer than 90 days ago, or
> (ii) the office is vacant;
>
> 5. if the office is not interim, the deputy announced between two and
> fourteen days earlier that e intended to deputise for that office for
> the purposes of the particular action; and
>
> 6. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e is doing so
> by deputisation or by temporary deputisation.
>
>
> When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the holder of
> that office, unless the action being performed would already install
> someone into that office, and/or unless the deputisation is temporary.
>
> }
>
> [
>
> Added a prohibition on someone for deputising for an office that e
> already holds (this was something I thought of, but then I realized it
> violate all of the exacerbating factors in R2557.
>
> Rephrased the time limit checks based on Alexis's suggested wording,
> also adding a 90-day statute of limitations.
>
> Removed the requirement for prior announcement for most deputisations,
> only kept it for non-interim holders (also per Alexis's suggestion).
>
> ]
>
> //
> ID: 8311
> Title: Rewards Patch & Equitable Remedy
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: twg
> Co-authors:
>
>
>
DIS: [Promotor] Draft
Here's a draft report. Comments are, as always, highly appreciated.
-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 7, 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
---
8308* Falsifian3.0 Imposing order on the order
8309* Alexis 3.0 A Degree of Inefficiency
8310* Jason, Alexis3.0 Deputisation timeliness
8311e twg, omd 3.0 Rewards Patch & Equitable Remedy
8312# Alexis 1.0 On Possibility
8313* Alexis, G. 3.0 Support of the Person
8314e Aris 1.0 Finite Gifting
8315# Alexis 3.0 Clearer Resolutions
8316* Alexis 3.0 Zombie voting package
8317# Alexis 2.0 Zombie trade
8318f Aris 1.0 Notorial Economy
8319l Aris 2.0 Sergeant-at-Arms
8320l Aris 2.0 Promotorial Assignment
8321l Aris 2.0 Untying Quorum
The proposal pool is currently empty.
Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
# : Ordinary proposal, unset chamber.
e : Economy ministry proposal.
f : Efficiency ministry proposal.
j : Justice ministry proposal.
l : Legislation ministry proposal.
p : Participation ministry proposal.
The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
//
ID: 8308
Title: Imposing order on the order
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Falsifian
Co-authors:
If Proposal 8291 has been passed, and Rule 2350 does not have the list
item "* A chamber to which the proposal shall be assigned upon it
creation.", add that list item to the end of the list. If the list
item is present, but it is not at the end of the list, or it is
unclear or otherwise difficult or impossible to determine where in the
list it is, put it at the end of the list.
//
ID: 8309
Title: A Degree of Inefficiency
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Alexis
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2595 (Performing a Dependent Action) by inserting ", and did not
subsequently withdraw, " immediately after "published" in the first
paragraph.
//
ID: 8310
Title: Deputisation timeliness
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason
Co-authors: Alexis
Amend Rule 2160 to read, in whole:
{
A player acting as emself (the deputy) CAN perform an action ordinarily
reserved for an office-holder as if e held the office if
1. the player does not hold that office;
2. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, other than
by deputisation, if e held the office;
3. either (i) there exists an obligation on the holder of that office,
by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action, or (ii) the
office is vacant;
4. either (i) a time limit applicable to that obligation has been
violated, and the end of that time limit was fewer than 90 days ago, or
(ii) the office is vacant;
5. if the office is not interim, the deputy announced between two and
fourteen days earlier that e intended to deputise for that office for
the purposes of the particular action; and
6. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e is doing so
by deputisation or by temporary deputisation.
When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the holder of
that office, unless the action being performed would already install
someone into that office, and/or unless the deputisation is temporary.
}
[
Added a prohibition on someone for deputising for an office that e
already holds (this was something I thought of, but then I realized it
violate all of the exacerbating factors in R2557.
Rephrased the time limit checks based on Alexis's suggested wording,
also adding a 90-day statute of limitations.
Removed the requirement for prior announcement for most deputisations,
only kept it for non-interim holders (also per Alexis's suggestion).
]
//
ID: 8311
Title: Rewards Patch & Equitable Remedy
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: twg
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2496, "Rewards", by replacing "CAN once" with "CAN once by
announcement".
Amend Rule 2602, "Glitter", by replacing "CAN once" with "CAN once by
announcement".
For the purposes of this proposal, the "recession" is defined as the
period of time starting at 03:00 am UTC on 29th January 2020 and ending
the instant before the adoption of this proposal.
For each time a
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 22:23, omd via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 5:52 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business > wrote: > > [Note that the existing "more than one option" text is basically > > tautologically true and practically useless anyway. PRESENT is an option, > > so only a decision with no other options would only have one. And even if > > we changed it, we short-circuit single-candidate elections so we might as > > well just drop that text. > > PRESENT is a valid vote, not a valid option. > Ah, good point. Regardless, we shouldn't have one-option decisions at the moment. -Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Help with Forgotten Announcements, Support Improvements
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 21:46, omd via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 1:45 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business > wrote: > > Enact a new power-1 rule entitled "Default Mechanisms" reading as > follows: > > I feel like this makes more sense in a high-power rule so it doesn't > break with secured actions. > In some ways, I think the opposite; at a lower power it's less likely to accidentally cause a secured action to be performable inadvertently, at least while we're testing it out. > The broad wording also makes me very nervous about scams. Admittedly, > after a cursory search, I can't find anything in the ruleset that > would be clearly scammable. But I did find this: > > A rule can also designate that a part of one public > message is considered a public message in its own right. > > Can any person, by Agoran Consent, cause a rule to designate that part > of a public message is considered a public message in its own right? > If not, where do the Rules "state the mechanism by which" a rule can > do so? Admittedly, the intended mechanism is clear, but it's not > explicitly mentioned in connection with this clause. Is it implicitly > "stated" as part of the sentence as a whole? Or perhaps some of the > wording in Rule 2141's first paragraph (e.g. "A rule's content takes > the form of a text, and is unlimited in scope.") counts as "stating" a > mechanism? The latter sounds more plausible to me, and I think I'd > judge that it does, but it's still a close call. > > That said, being able to pull off a scam with Agoran Consent would not > be the end of the world either. > Yes, I think that making it Agoran consent makes it more difficult to scam. I had considered w/o objection, even, before deciding that consent was likely enough. For that specific case, I would interpret "designate" as being part of the textual effect of a rule, and therefore not typically an action. But I can certainly see some awkwardness between it. Certainly where the rules allow other rules to define something, that's not an action. -Alexis
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 5:52 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote: > [Note that the existing "more than one option" text is basically > tautologically true and practically useless anyway. PRESENT is an option, > so only a decision with no other options would only have one. And even if > we changed it, we short-circuit single-candidate elections so we might as > well just drop that text. PRESENT is a valid vote, not a valid option.
Re: DIS: [Proto-Proposals] The beginnings of reform
Love the concept—I imagine many players (including me) had some vague plan of
writing this up at some point.
Feedback inline.
Gaelan
> On Jan 25, 2020, at 5:32 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
> This proto marks the beginning of my quests for reform in two large
> areas of the game, administrative discretion and ratification, as
> discussed previously. I may choose to write up a plan at some point
> and submit it as a thesis, but I may just fly by the seat of my pants.
>
> Proposal: Administrative Discretion. I. Statutory Instrumentation (AI=3)
> {{{
> [This first proposal is a reform to the core rules defining what rules
> are, with an aim to better supporting subordinate legal documents. The
> intent is to enact very little change to the game as it is actually
> played, and to operate mostly in the realm of supporting definitions.]
>
> If this proposal has had any provision vetoed, then the entire
> proposal has no effect.
>
> In this proposal, "I->S" is to amend a rule within the scope specified
> by replacing each instance of "an Instrument" with "a statute", and
> each other instance of "Instrument" with "statute". This is not a
> case-sensitive match, however, if the text being replaced has a
> leading capital, then so does the replacement.
>
> Enact a new power-3.01 rule entitled "Statutory Instrumentation
> Simultaneity", reading "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the
> proposal which enacted this rule CAN effect multiple rule changes,
> which it could otherwise effect individually, simultaneously. When it
> attempts to do so, if any single rule change it attempts is
> INEFFECTIVE, then so is the entire attempt." [This proposes to make
> multiple interlocking amendments to critical rules defining rules and
> the interactions between themselves. This mitigates a real risk that,
> during a series of sequential changes, the rules would be in a
> nonsensical or otherwise broken state. I considered trying to put in a
> special clause preserving the effect of the current rules on rule
> changes for the duration of the proposal, but that wouldn't preclude
> the possibility of some other aspect of the game, such as asset
> holdings, doing something weird in the in-between state. And only a
> persistent rule could elegantly paper over that small weird gap in
> time. I think simultaneity is the better choice.]
>
> Set the power of all non-rule entities, other than this proposal, to
> 0. [This is an important safety as the change to the definition of a
> rule would potentially cause old non-rule instruments to become rules.
> Best not to consider that.]
>
> Apply the following rule changes simultaneously:
>
> {{
> Amend Rule 1688 (Power) by replacing "An Instrument is an entity with
> positive Power." with "A statute is a document with positive Power."
> Apply I->S throughout the remainder of the rule.
>
> Amend rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability) by replacing "set or
> modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument with power
> greater than its own. A 'substantive' aspect of an instrument is any
> aspect that affects the instrument's operation." with "set or modify
> any other substantive aspect of an instrument with power greater than
> its own except that, for greater certainty, the provisions of a rule
> with respect to what actions are and are not possible apply even to
> higher-powered ephemeral statutes except to the extent that they are
> overridden in accordance with other rules." and applying I->S
> throughout the rest of the rule.
>
> [I don't want to consider what it would mean if PCM prevents rules
> from interfering with higher-powered proposal. Let's pretend this is
> just clarifying something super obvious to everyone.]
>
> Apply I->S throughout Rule 105 (Rule Changes).
>
> Enact a new power-3 Rule entitled "Instruments" reading:
> {
> An instrument is a type of document, either ephemeral or enduring,
> that is defined as such by a body of law. An instrument's text, where
> otherwise permitted, can be amended from time to time.
>
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an instrument other than a
> statute CANNOT become binding on a person without eir willful consent,
> however, consent can be given by implication. In particular,
> consenting to be bound to an instrument can imply consent to be bound
> by amendments to it and consent to be bound by other instruments.
I believe we state that registration is consent to be bound by the rules, so I
don’t think we need this exception. Maybe it’s useful as a failsafe?
> }
>
> Enact a new power-3 Rule entitled "Bodies of Law" reading:
> {
> A body of law is a collection of related instruments and bodies of law
> whose effects are collective and possibly interdependent, and which is
> defined as such by a body of law. The statutes of Agora form a body of
> law with unlimited scope. All other bodies of law are defined by a
> different body of law, in such a way as to be able to trace their
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Finite Gifting
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 6:52 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 1/29/2020 5:14 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: > > G. wrote: > >> awww - i'd seen that and my birthday is Feb 4th > > > > Same, though it sounds like it wouldn't have gone unnoticed until May > > anyway... > > > > You can still use it, though! No chance of the proposal passing before > > then, barring shenanigans. > > I think it's an "Agoran ethics thing" to not do scams once a fix has been > proposed (unless I'd really really put in a lot of work to set it up, which I > haven't). If would-be fixers had to worry about disclosing exploits all the > time it would make things much harder. -G. Well, it clearly is if you didn't come up with it before seeing it pointed out. However, I'm unclear on our customs in the case where you saw it independently first. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Finite Gifting
On 1/29/2020 5:14 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: > G. wrote: >> awww - i'd seen that and my birthday is Feb 4th > > Same, though it sounds like it wouldn't have gone unnoticed until May > anyway... > > You can still use it, though! No chance of the proposal passing before > then, barring shenanigans. I think it's an "Agoran ethics thing" to not do scams once a fix has been proposed (unless I'd really really put in a lot of work to set it up, which I haven't). If would-be fixers had to worry about disclosing exploits all the time it would make things much harder. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: And in lighter news... [DoV]
On 1/29/2020 6:11 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 14:17, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > >> Having achieved a full set of 16 Ribbons, including the new Emerald >> Ribbon, I Raise a Banner, causing me to win the game. >> >> -twg >> > > Given that: > a) I'm genuinely uncertain about the status of various proposal resolutions. > b) The Lime award hinges on them. > c) Anyone could CoE those still. > d) I don't actually want to challenge them. > > I'm inclined to hold off on the awards for this win (Speakership and > Champion) until after the decisions have self-ratified, so as to minimize > disruption to the gamestate. > > Thoughts? I've regularly practiced Heraldic sitting-on-my-hands in such situations. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Help with Forgotten Announcements, Support Improvements
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 1:45 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote: > Enact a new power-1 rule entitled "Default Mechanisms" reading as follows: I feel like this makes more sense in a high-power rule so it doesn't break with secured actions. The broad wording also makes me very nervous about scams. Admittedly, after a cursory search, I can't find anything in the ruleset that would be clearly scammable. But I did find this: A rule can also designate that a part of one public message is considered a public message in its own right. Can any person, by Agoran Consent, cause a rule to designate that part of a public message is considered a public message in its own right? If not, where do the Rules "state the mechanism by which" a rule can do so? Admittedly, the intended mechanism is clear, but it's not explicitly mentioned in connection with this clause. Is it implicitly "stated" as part of the sentence as a whole? Or perhaps some of the wording in Rule 2141's first paragraph (e.g. "A rule's content takes the form of a text, and is unlimited in scope.") counts as "stating" a mechanism? The latter sounds more plausible to me, and I think I'd judge that it does, but it's still a close call. That said, being able to pull off a scam with Agoran Consent would not be the end of the world either.
Re: DIS: [Proto-Proposals] The beginnings of reform
A few comments:
* "Body of law" is a very long phrase for such an important concept.
Could we try to come up with something shorter? If not, we could
shorten it to "BoL", though that doesn't have quite the same ring as
"CoE".
* Your proposal titles are very long, and the Promotor's office would
really appreciate it if they could be shortened.
* The first proposal is extremely complicated, which gives me an urge
to oppose it on principle, but I think I like it.
* The first proposal represents a huge, utterly massive change to
Agoran law of the sort that could easily hit the ossification
protections; this isn't a reason to vote against it, but I encourage
everyone to apply the appropriate level of scrutiny.
-Aris
On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 5:32 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> This proto marks the beginning of my quests for reform in two large
> areas of the game, administrative discretion and ratification, as
> discussed previously. I may choose to write up a plan at some point
> and submit it as a thesis, but I may just fly by the seat of my pants.
>
> Proposal: Administrative Discretion. I. Statutory Instrumentation (AI=3)
> {{{
> [This first proposal is a reform to the core rules defining what rules
> are, with an aim to better supporting subordinate legal documents. The
> intent is to enact very little change to the game as it is actually
> played, and to operate mostly in the realm of supporting definitions.]
>
> If this proposal has had any provision vetoed, then the entire
> proposal has no effect.
>
> In this proposal, "I->S" is to amend a rule within the scope specified
> by replacing each instance of "an Instrument" with "a statute", and
> each other instance of "Instrument" with "statute". This is not a
> case-sensitive match, however, if the text being replaced has a
> leading capital, then so does the replacement.
>
> Enact a new power-3.01 rule entitled "Statutory Instrumentation
> Simultaneity", reading "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the
> proposal which enacted this rule CAN effect multiple rule changes,
> which it could otherwise effect individually, simultaneously. When it
> attempts to do so, if any single rule change it attempts is
> INEFFECTIVE, then so is the entire attempt." [This proposes to make
> multiple interlocking amendments to critical rules defining rules and
> the interactions between themselves. This mitigates a real risk that,
> during a series of sequential changes, the rules would be in a
> nonsensical or otherwise broken state. I considered trying to put in a
> special clause preserving the effect of the current rules on rule
> changes for the duration of the proposal, but that wouldn't preclude
> the possibility of some other aspect of the game, such as asset
> holdings, doing something weird in the in-between state. And only a
> persistent rule could elegantly paper over that small weird gap in
> time. I think simultaneity is the better choice.]
>
> Set the power of all non-rule entities, other than this proposal, to
> 0. [This is an important safety as the change to the definition of a
> rule would potentially cause old non-rule instruments to become rules.
> Best not to consider that.]
>
> Apply the following rule changes simultaneously:
>
> {{
> Amend Rule 1688 (Power) by replacing "An Instrument is an entity with
> positive Power." with "A statute is a document with positive Power."
> Apply I->S throughout the remainder of the rule.
>
> Amend rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability) by replacing "set or
> modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument with power
> greater than its own. A 'substantive' aspect of an instrument is any
> aspect that affects the instrument's operation." with "set or modify
> any other substantive aspect of an instrument with power greater than
> its own except that, for greater certainty, the provisions of a rule
> with respect to what actions are and are not possible apply even to
> higher-powered ephemeral statutes except to the extent that they are
> overridden in accordance with other rules." and applying I->S
> throughout the rest of the rule.
>
> [I don't want to consider what it would mean if PCM prevents rules
> from interfering with higher-powered proposal. Let's pretend this is
> just clarifying something super obvious to everyone.]
>
> Apply I->S throughout Rule 105 (Rule Changes).
>
> Enact a new power-3 Rule entitled "Instruments" reading:
> {
> An instrument is a type of document, either ephemeral or enduring,
> that is defined as such by a body of law. An instrument's text, where
> otherwise permitted, can be amended from time to time.
>
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an instrument other than a
> statute CANNOT become binding on a person without eir willful consent,
> however, consent can be given by implication. In particular,
> consenting to be bound to an instrument can imply consent to be bound
> by amendments to it and consent to be bound by other instruments.
> }
>
> Enact a
Re: DIS: Re: [CFJ] Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 6:08 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 20:45, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > Jason wrote: > > > On 1/28/20 10:26 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: > > > > > > > // > > > > ID: 8305 > > > > Title: Keeping Up With the Times > > > > Adoption index: 3.0 > > > > Author: Alexis > > > > Co-authors: > > > > > > > > Amend Rule 1367 (Degrees) by replacing "Bachelor" with "Baccalaureate" > > and > > > > by replacing "Master" with "Magisteriate". > > > > > > > > Rename every instance of the Patent Titles "Bachelor of Nomic" and > > "Master > > > > of Nomic" accordingly. > > > > // > > > > > > I award myself Indigo glitter. > > > > Sneaky! I like it. > > > > H. Arbitor, sorry to call two CFJs in such swift succession, but I > > don't particularly want this uncertainty lying around w/ all the stuff > > going on with glitter at the moment. CFJ, barring Jason: "Jason > > awarded emself Indigo Glitter today." > > > > (in contention is whether "renaming" a patent title means revoking it > > and awarding a new one; a TRUE verdict would also qualify Murphy and > > Alexis for Indigo) > > > > -twg > > > > Arguments: the only real argument in favour of treating renaming a patent > title as the same as awarding and revoking one is wishful thinking. Can we add this to the standard list of Agoran acronyms? TORAIFOTIWT = "the only real argument in favor of this is wishful thinking". -Aris
DIS: Re: BUS: And in lighter news... [DoV]
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 14:17, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Having achieved a full set of 16 Ribbons, including the new Emerald > Ribbon, I Raise a Banner, causing me to win the game. > > -twg > Given that: a) I'm genuinely uncertain about the status of various proposal resolutions. b) The Lime award hinges on them. c) Anyone could CoE those still. d) I don't actually want to challenge them. I'm inclined to hold off on the awards for this win (Speakership and Champion) until after the decisions have self-ratified, so as to minimize disruption to the gamestate. Thoughts? -Alexis
DIS: Re: [CFJ] Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 20:45, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > On 1/28/20 10:26 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: > > > > > // > > > ID: 8305 > > > Title: Keeping Up With the Times > > > Adoption index: 3.0 > > > Author: Alexis > > > Co-authors: > > > > > > Amend Rule 1367 (Degrees) by replacing "Bachelor" with "Baccalaureate" > and > > > by replacing "Master" with "Magisteriate". > > > > > > Rename every instance of the Patent Titles "Bachelor of Nomic" and > "Master > > > of Nomic" accordingly. > > > // > > > > I award myself Indigo glitter. > > Sneaky! I like it. > > H. Arbitor, sorry to call two CFJs in such swift succession, but I > don't particularly want this uncertainty lying around w/ all the stuff > going on with glitter at the moment. CFJ, barring Jason: "Jason > awarded emself Indigo Glitter today." > > (in contention is whether "renaming" a patent title means revoking it > and awarding a new one; a TRUE verdict would also qualify Murphy and > Alexis for Indigo) > > -twg > Arguments: the only real argument in favour of treating renaming a patent title as the same as awarding and revoking one is wishful thinking. -Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Help with Forgotten Announcements, Support Improvements
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 19:21, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > A bit messy, no? Most deferences in rules actually do something > significant; if it doesn't, it's likely to make people go "why is that > in there?" > > -Aris > It's also future-proofing; it defers to future rules of a similar nature too.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
Erm... you might want to check this list again. You have it going 3, 4, 6,
7.
-Aris
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 5:52 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 13:45, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > Jason Cobb wrote:
> > > RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8287-8307
> > > =
> > >
> > > I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals.
> >
> > NB: The F/A ratios on several of Proposals 8292-8307, and on the second
> > attempt at 8290, are incorrect because they do not take into account the
> > amendments to voting strength made by Proposal 8291. To be specific,
> > Alexis's voting strength falls to 3 because the Prime Minister now only
> > receives a bonus (which itself is now of 2, not 1) on proposals with a
> > ministry set, which none of these do, and G.'s voting strength rises to
> > 4 because the Speaker now receives a bonus on all decisions.
> >
> > This is not a formal CoE because I don't believe it changes the
> > outcome of any of the votes.
> >
> > -twg
> >
>
> Because there are multiple contradictory proposals in this batch (trying to
> change the voting strength range to different things), and because of the
> change of voting strengths, I would like to insist on correct resolutions.
>
> However, it's not clear to me that they're actually invalid, because of the
> serious ambiguity of what constitutes a "tally".
>
> Therefore, I instead submit the following proposal:
>
> Proposal: Clearer Resolutions (AI=3)
> {{{
> Amend Rule 208 (Resolving Agoran Decisions) by replacing the third and
> fourth items in the list with the following:
> {
> 3. It specifies the quorum of the decision.
>
> 4. It specifies all the valid ballots, and no invalid ballots, on that
> decision, as of the end of the voting period, including each ballot's
> author, eir voting strength, its vote, and, if the vote is a conditional
> one, the unconditional vote to which it is evaluated.
>
> 6. The total strength of all ballots cast for each non-PRESENT option.
>
> 7. It specifies the outcome, as defined by other rules.
> }
>
> [Note that the existing "more than one option" text is basically
> tautologically true and practically useless anyway. PRESENT is an option,
> so only a decision with no other options would only have one. And even if
> we changed it, we short-circuit single-candidate elections so we might as
> well just drop that text.
>
> This is the main point of the proposal; I apologize to the Assessor that e
> does perhaps not wish to do the additional work here, but it was a
> longstanding Assessor practice and, as we are getting into the space of
> highly variable voting power again, quite necessary.]
>
> Amend Rule 683 (Voting on Agoran Decisions) by appending the following
> paragraph to the end of the rule:
> {
> When used in reference to a person who has cast a vote on an Agoran
> decision, rather than to a person who is eligible to or otherwise might
> cast a vote, the term "voter" refers only to a person who has a valid
> ballot on that decision.
> }
>
> [This is slightly different from the existing definition, as it includes
> people whose votes were not valid but became valid, but such a scenario
> shouldn't happen and in any case, this lines up with existing language so
> as to prevent a weird situation where a person's vote counts towards the
> result but not quorum.]
>
> Amend Rule 955 (Determining the Will of Agora) by replacing the text "The
> outcome of a decision is determined when it is resolved, and cannot change
> thereafter." with "The outcome of a decision is fixed at the end of its
> voting period, after evaluating all votes whose values are determined only
> at the end of the voting period, and cannot change thereafter."
>
> [This prevents manipulation of voting strength post-decision from affecting
> the result because that's an absurd amount of power to offer an Assessor,
> to be able to delay or otherwise manipulate the timing of resolutions so as
> to modify voting strength after a resolution. It also simplifies eir job
> considerably by not requiring em to take into account the effects of
> proposals on voting strength as e resolves them, especially if a CoE
> results in different ordering of proposals.]
> }}}
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Weekly report
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 20:50, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 29, 2020, at 5:35 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > Gaelan wrote:
> >> NOTARY'S REPORT OF JANUARY 29 2020
> >
> > Ooh, just occurred to me you don't have a Ministry set! That probably
> > wants doing. I reckon Economy probably fits best, since the Ministries
> > rule specifically calls out contracts ("private enterprise") as falling
> > under Economy.
> >
> > Only the ADoP can do that though, which might be tricky with Murphy
> > absent (hope e's ok). Proposal, or is this not that urgent?
>
> Proposals? Urgent? Are you sure we’re playing the same nomic?
>
> Seriously, IMO we should propose now, then withdraw/vote AGAINST if Murphy
> shows up again.
>
> Gaelan
>
> >
> > -twg
>
An alternative would be someone taking on the duties of ADoP... it's a
relatively easy office too.
-Alexis
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Weekly report
> On Jan 29, 2020, at 5:35 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business
> wrote:
>
> Gaelan wrote:
>> NOTARY'S REPORT OF JANUARY 29 2020
>
> Ooh, just occurred to me you don't have a Ministry set! That probably
> wants doing. I reckon Economy probably fits best, since the Ministries
> rule specifically calls out contracts ("private enterprise") as falling
> under Economy.
>
> Only the ADoP can do that though, which might be tricky with Murphy
> absent (hope e's ok). Proposal, or is this not that urgent?
Proposals? Urgent? Are you sure we’re playing the same nomic?
Seriously, IMO we should propose now, then withdraw/vote AGAINST if Murphy
shows up again.
Gaelan
>
> -twg
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
Jason wrote: > I know this is probably unnecessarily pedantic You are talking to a group of people who spend an appreciable fraction of their free time arguing about the proper interpretation of a twenty-seven-year-old set of rules governing the allowable use of a mailing list. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Finite Gifting
G. wrote: > awww - i'd seen that and my birthday is Feb 4th Same, though it sounds like it wouldn't have gone unnoticed until May anyway... You can still use it, though! No chance of the proposal passing before then, barring shenanigans. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: And in lighter news... [DoV]
apathy is the most noble On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:14 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 11:44 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > > > On 1/29/2020 11:17 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business wrote: > > > Having achieved a full set of 16 Ribbons, including the new Emerald > > > Ribbon, I Raise a Banner, causing me to win the game. > > > > Congratulations!! > > I echo those congratulations; ribbons are, without a doubt, the > hardest and most noble way to win the game. > > > -Aris > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Finite Gifting
awww - i'd seen that and my birthday is Feb 4th On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 4:36 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > I submit the following proposal. *winces* > > -Aris > --- > Title: Finite Gifting > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: > > Amend Rule 2585, Birthday Gifts, by changing the text > > "Every time it is a player's Agoran Birthday, each of the other players > CAN grant em 3 coins by announcement." > > to read > > "Every time it is a player's Agoran Birthday, each of the other players > CAN once grant em 3 coins by announcement."
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On 1/29/20 7:27 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 4:23 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>> On 1/28/20 10:26 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:
>>> Amend Rule 2438 ("Ribbons") as follows:
>>>
>>> Replace the paragraph starting "While a person qualifies..." with
>>> the following:
>>
>> I know this is probably unnecessarily pedantic, but does this work with
>> the "..." being inside the quotation marks?
> May I direct your attention to Rule 105, which says in part "An
> inconsequential variation in the quotation of an existing rule does
> not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other
> variation does."
>
> To be honest, I'd suspect it would probably work without that, but
> with it I think it's
> practically guaranteed.
>
>
>
> -Aris
Oh, thank you!
--
Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 4:23 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On 1/28/20 10:26 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:
> > Amend Rule 2438 ("Ribbons") as follows:
> >
> > Replace the paragraph starting "While a person qualifies..." with
> > the following:
>
>
> I know this is probably unnecessarily pedantic, but does this work with
> the "..." being inside the quotation marks?
May I direct your attention to Rule 105, which says in part "An
inconsequential variation in the quotation of an existing rule does
not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other
variation does."
To be honest, I'd suspect it would probably work without that, but
with it I think it's
practically guaranteed.
-Aris
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On 1/28/20 10:26 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:
> Amend Rule 2438 ("Ribbons") as follows:
>
> Replace the paragraph starting "While a person qualifies..." with
> the following:
I know this is probably unnecessarily pedantic, but does this work with
the "..." being inside the quotation marks?
--
Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Help with Forgotten Announcements, Support Improvements
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 2:38 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 17:34, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 29, 2020, at 1:46 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Proposal: On Possibility (AI=1)
> > > {{{
> > > Enact a new power-1 rule entitled "Default Mechanisms" reading as
> > follows:
> > > {
> > > If the Rules other than this one, as a whole, provide that a person CAN
> > > perform an action, but do not state the mechanism by which e can do so, e
> > > CAN perform it by announcement.
> > >
> > > If the Rules other than this one, as a whole, provide that a non-person
> > > entity CAN perform an action, but do state the mechanism by which e can
> > do
> > > so, any person CAN cause that entity to perform that action with Agoran
> > > Consent.
> >
> > AFIACT, this exists even if the rule already has a mechanism for causing
> > that entity to do things. For example, we have provisions that allow
> > contracts and instruments to do things—this would make those things
> > performable with consent (in practice, those things are largely too high
> > powered, but the bug could still exists).
> >
>
> Oops, that's a typo. It should be "not".
>
> I withdraw the proposal "On Possibility" and submit one that is identical
> except that, in the second paragraph, the "but do state" is replaced by
> "but do not state".
>
> >
> > > If the Rules other than this one, as a whole, provide that an action CAN
> > be
> > > performed but do not specify any entities as being capable of performing
> > > that action, any person CAN perform that action with Agoran Consent.
> > >
> > > For the purposes of this Rule, the Rules provide a mechanism for an
> > action
> > > to be performed even if they specify a mechanism with a precondition
> > which
> > > is not currently met, and they specify that an entity can perform that
> > > action even if no appropriate entity currently exists. This Rule defers
> > to
> > > all Rules which permit actions to be performed by specific mechanisms.
> >
> > Oh, I hadn’t noticed this clause. But I’m not sure if it works. I’d argue
> > that providing an alternate mechanism to do something isn’t a conflict
> > between the rules, so I’m not sure this deference does anything.
> >
>
> I agree, but I'd rather have the clause in there in case I'm wrong.
A bit messy, no? Most deferences in rules actually do something
significant; if it doesn't, it's likely to make people go "why is that
in there?"
-Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: And in lighter news... [DoV]
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 11:44 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 1/29/2020 11:17 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business wrote: > > Having achieved a full set of 16 Ribbons, including the new Emerald > > Ribbon, I Raise a Banner, causing me to win the game. > > Congratulations!! I echo those congratulations; ribbons are, without a doubt, the hardest and most noble way to win the game. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Deputisation timeliness
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 17:35, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > What about different mechanisms? I think we have rules where the officer > CAN do it by announcement, but everyone else needs CONSENT. > > Gaelan > Sounds like a fun CFJ. ;) -Alexis
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Deputisation timeliness
What about different mechanisms? I think we have rules where the officer CAN do
it by announcement, but everyone else needs CONSENT.
Gaelan
> On Jan 29, 2020, at 1:49 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 18:03, Jason Cobb via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> Title: Deputisation timeliness
>>
>> AI: 3
>>
>> Author: Jason Cobb
>>
>> Co-authors: Alexis
>>
>> {
>>
>> Amend Rule 2160 to read, in whole:
>>
>> {
>>
>> A player acting as emself (the deputy) CAN perform an action ordinarily
>> reserved for an office-holder as if e held the office if
>>
>> 1. the player does not hold that office;
>>
>
> I have two other suggestions after thinking about how to reduce Cyan
> Ribbon shenanigans and make it a more interesting thing to obtain that
> genuinely requires working the officer's duties. First, make it so that a
> player cannot have held the office in the preceding 14 days either; this
> gives a space for another player to take the office so that a player cannot
> immediately unresign and, more importantly, prevents a player from
> resigning an office then immediately deputizing back into it for a Cyan
> Ribbon. Suggested wording "The player has not at any point in the last 14
> days held the office."
>
>>
>> 2. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, other than
>> by deputisation, if e held the office;
>>
>
> Second, make it so that the person must not be already able to perform the
> action. Suggested wording: "it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform
> the action, other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and, except
> where the action is to publish information, would not be possible
> otherwise;"
>
> -Alexis
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Help with Forgotten Announcements, Support Improvements
> On Jan 29, 2020, at 1:46 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business
> wrote:
>
> Proposal: On Possibility (AI=1)
> {{{
> Enact a new power-1 rule entitled "Default Mechanisms" reading as follows:
> {
> If the Rules other than this one, as a whole, provide that a person CAN
> perform an action, but do not state the mechanism by which e can do so, e
> CAN perform it by announcement.
>
> If the Rules other than this one, as a whole, provide that a non-person
> entity CAN perform an action, but do state the mechanism by which e can do
> so, any person CAN cause that entity to perform that action with Agoran
> Consent.
AFIACT, this exists even if the rule already has a mechanism for causing that
entity to do things. For example, we have provisions that allow contracts and
instruments to do things—this would make those things performable with consent
(in practice, those things are largely too high powered, but the bug could
still exists).
>
> If the Rules other than this one, as a whole, provide that an action CAN be
> performed but do not specify any entities as being capable of performing
> that action, any person CAN perform that action with Agoran Consent.
>
> For the purposes of this Rule, the Rules provide a mechanism for an action
> to be performed even if they specify a mechanism with a precondition which
> is not currently met, and they specify that an entity can perform that
> action even if no appropriate entity currently exists. This Rule defers to
> all Rules which permit actions to be performed by specific mechanisms.
Oh, I hadn’t noticed this clause. But I’m not sure if it works. I’d argue that
providing an alternate mechanism to do something isn’t a conflict between the
rules, so I’m not sure this deference does anything.
> }
> }}}
>
> Proposal: Support of the Person (AI=3, coauthors=G.)
> {{{
> Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by:
>
> 1. Replacing "However, the previous sentence notwithstanding, the initiator
> of the intent is not eligible to support it." with "Announcing intent to
> perform an action implicitly announces support for that action; such
> support may be withdrawn as per usual."
> 2. Replacing "The action is to be performed With N support, and there are
> fewer
> than than N Supporters of that intent." with "The action is to be performed
> With N support, and there equal to or fewer than than N Supporters of that
> intent."
> 3. Replacing "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." with "The action is to be performed with N Agoran
> consent, and the number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal
> to O or less than N * O, where O is the number of Objectors to the intent."
> }}}
>
> -Alexis
Re: DIS: Some thoughts on pragmatism and accounting
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 1:48 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > The officer was under a > SHALL to check all transactions, but any that got missed (after a > certain time limit) succeeded "for free". The Rule for this was reasonably self-contained and seems similar to what you're talking about, so figured I'd post it: Rule 1941/2 (Power=1) Fees If the Rules associate a non-negative cost, price, charge, or fee with an action, that action is a fee-based action. If the specified cost is not an integer, the actual fee is the next highest integer. To perform a fee-based action, a Player (the Actor) who is otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e is performing the action and announce that there is a fee for that action. Upon said announcement, the action is performed, the Actor's kudos are decreased by the fee, and Agora's kudos are increased by the fee. Any Player (hereafter the challenger) may announce that the Actor possessed insufficient Honor (kudos) to perform the action, provided e issues eir challenge within 7 days of the attempted action. As soon as possible after such a challenge, the Herald shall confirm or deny whether the Actor possessed kudos equal to or greater than the fee at the time e attempted the action. If the Actor in fact possessed insufficient honor, or the honor of the Actor cannot be determined by reasonable effort, the action shall be deemed to have not occurred and the kudos of the Actor (and Agora) shall be deemed to have not been changed by the fee. If a Player issues a challenge as above, but more than 7 days have passed since the attempted action, then the action shall be permitted to stand. As soon as possible after a late challenge is issued, the Herald shall confirm or deny its correctness. But in this case the Fee shall be recorded even if the Actor is left with negative kudos.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Deputisation timeliness
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 18:03, Jason Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Deputisation timeliness
>
> AI: 3
>
> Author: Jason Cobb
>
> Co-authors: Alexis
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2160 to read, in whole:
>
> {
>
> A player acting as emself (the deputy) CAN perform an action ordinarily
> reserved for an office-holder as if e held the office if
>
> 1. the player does not hold that office;
>
I have two other suggestions after thinking about how to reduce Cyan
Ribbon shenanigans and make it a more interesting thing to obtain that
genuinely requires working the officer's duties. First, make it so that a
player cannot have held the office in the preceding 14 days either; this
gives a space for another player to take the office so that a player cannot
immediately unresign and, more importantly, prevents a player from
resigning an office then immediately deputizing back into it for a Cyan
Ribbon. Suggested wording "The player has not at any point in the last 14
days held the office."
>
> 2. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, other than
> by deputisation, if e held the office;
>
Second, make it so that the person must not be already able to perform the
action. Suggested wording: "it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform
the action, other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and, except
where the action is to publish information, would not be possible
otherwise;"
-Alexis
Re: DIS: Some thoughts on pragmatism and accounting
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 1:22 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 12:32 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Warrigal's proposal of pragmatic validation is an interesting one, and one > > that I haven't really seen Agora use before if memory serves. The one I'm > > familiar with is having actions be POSSIBLE but ILLEGAL where they would > > create platonic problems. Oh! And I'm reminded of a different sort of pragmatism we had circa 2004. At that time we weren't using accumulated currencies, we were using "action points" (i.e. you got action points that reset monthly so you could perform N actions per month baseline, but they didn't accumulate). The system there was "assume success unless the Officer says you didn't have enough action points". The officer was under a SHALL to check all transactions, but any that got missed (after a certain time limit) succeeded "for free".
Re: DIS: Some thoughts on pragmatism and accounting
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 12:32 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > Warrigal's proposal of pragmatic validation is an interesting one, and one > that I haven't really seen Agora use before if memory serves. The one I'm > familiar with is having actions be POSSIBLE but ILLEGAL where they would > create platonic problems. For instance, with Coins, we could imagine a > world where everyone has a ledger that can go negative freely. But if a > player is caught with a negative balance, then they can be put in the > Penalty Box and suffer consequences for it (including the inability to > spend Coins until they have a positive balance again). Perhaps there could > be a hard lower limit where things start to fail. Apropos to the ruleset I just posted, we had a ruthlessly pragmatic system in 2001. Almost nothing happened "automatically" (e.g. the creation of monthly salaries), it all needed an officer or player propagate it. And we had is the concept of Debt. If you transferred something you didn't have, you incurred a debt and were under a SHALL to pay it in a timely fashion. If you, for example, tried to perform a fee-based action, but the action wasn't POSSIBLE for other reasons, you still paid the fee even if the action failed, but then Agora incurred a debt back to you for the fee. I don't think there was a hard lower limit, I do remember the penalties for non-payment - blots for every week you were delinquent I think - were severe enough that it wasn't a good game strategy to stay in debt). And even the debts were pragmatic - a debt wasn't actually created until someone announced it (e.g. said something like "Since CFJ XXX found my fee-based action failed, Agora incurs a debt of Y to me.") This was so debts couldn't be created "in secret" or automatically and used to punish people for not paying, when they never heard about the debt. However, we couldn't pragmatize completely! This system still gave you the "ability to create a debt" when trigger conditions were met (e.g. following the aforementioned CFJ). This was instrumental to the Town Fountain scam. A reset proposal was written to "set all currency holdings to 0 and cancel all debts." This would seem to catch everything. However, with the Assessor in on the scam, the scammers attempted to perform a set of (not POSSIBLE) fee-based actions just before the proposal took effect. So their funds were transferred to Agora. But they didn't announce the failures, so no debts were created. Then the proposal took effect destroyed the whole economy, cancelling all existing debts. THEN the scammers said "because those fee-based actions failed, Agora now incurs a debt back to us." (Since those currencies increased voting power, that resulted in enough voting power to create the Town Fountain). This isn't to suggest I'm against trying it again, but maybe it's a cautionary tale? -G.
Re: DIS: Some thoughts on pragmatism and accounting
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 16:19, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Regardless, there are simple ways to implement Warrigal's proposal on > top of assets, and I'm simply saying that I'd prefer that we use those > instead. For allowing negative balances, for instance, we could > declare that a person who transfers nonexistent coins creates them but > also incurs a debt. This is a bit less obvious than it would be in the > other model, but it's still doable. In this way, we would keep using > the asset system, which is already thoroughly tested, decreasing the > chance of bugs. > > > -Aris > Personally, I think bugs are more likely when you try to glue extra pieces on top of things like that, for instance your approach there would lead to possibly-weird effects around things cancelling each other out.
Re: DIS: Some thoughts on pragmatism and accounting
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 12:31 PM Alexis Hunt wrote: > > On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 15:22, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > wrote: >> >> Oh, light, no. Last time we tried to store money as accounts it was an >> infernal mess. It lead to a never ending series of bugs and >> counterintuitive results. >> >> For the implementation, please in the name of all that's holy >> implement it on top of assets. This is simple; you just have to set a >> rule that the Treasuror's ruling on who has which transactions >> succeeded is dispositive, and the coins platonically update themselves >> so they are distributed in the manner e says they are. >> >> I think I prefer the current system personally; the platonic nature of >> reality and need for convergences keeps things interesting. However, >> my concerns about the implementation are much greater than my >> objection the content. >> >> -Aris > > > I think that Warrigal's concerns are valid. The only reason that the asset > rules work so well is because they've been well-tested and worked out. > Changing the base away from them to something else is entirely viable; it > would require care and likely plenty of time while things get worked out, but > there's no reason it couldn't be done. And more importantly, perhaps, a > highly pragmatic system would make this less of a concern. > > Warrigal's proposal of pragmatic validation is an interesting one, and one > that I haven't really seen Agora use before if memory serves. The one I'm > familiar with is having actions be POSSIBLE but ILLEGAL where they would > create platonic problems. For instance, with Coins, we could imagine a world > where everyone has a ledger that can go negative freely. But if a player is > caught with a negative balance, then they can be put in the Penalty Box and > suffer consequences for it (including the inability to spend Coins until they > have a positive balance again). Perhaps there could be a hard lower limit > where things start to fail. > > I agree that the need to handle platonic analysis of actions is interesting, > but I also think that it can get in the way of other gameplay. It's hard to > build a fun game system on top of something when that thing keeps breaking > regularly and that's considered a feature. Meh, I think that the asset system has some conceptual features that make it less vulnerable to bugs. But, as twg points out, that may just be testing. Regardless, there are simple ways to implement Warrigal's proposal on top of assets, and I'm simply saying that I'd prefer that we use those instead. For allowing negative balances, for instance, we could declare that a person who transfers nonexistent coins creates them but also incurs a debt. This is a bit less obvious than it would be in the other model, but it's still doable. In this way, we would keep using the asset system, which is already thoroughly tested, decreasing the chance of bugs. -Aris
Re: DIS: Some thoughts on pragmatism and accounting
Aleixs wrote: > I think that Warrigal's concerns are valid. The only reason that the asset > rules work so well is because they've been well-tested and worked out. > Changing the base away from them to something else is entirely viable; it > would require care and likely plenty of time while things get worked out, > but there's no reason it couldn't be done. And more importantly, perhaps, a > highly pragmatic system would make this less of a concern. While I agree the asset rules' smoothness is a result of their maturity rather than some inherent benefit of the model itself, I don't think it's reasonably possible for fault people for not wanting to change something that is proven to work when new things so rarely work properly at the first time of asking. In my opinion, both this and Warrigal's initial complaint about parallel gamestates sometimes having to be recorded share the root cause that when bugs make it past the proposal process, it's not possible to fix them quickly enough to stop inconsistencies from propagating. We desperately need some way of testing rule changes, especially complex ones, before they are enacted. -twg
Re: DIS: Some thoughts on pragmatism and accounting
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 15:22, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Oh, light, no. Last time we tried to store money as accounts it was an > infernal mess. It lead to a never ending series of bugs and > counterintuitive results. > > For the implementation, please in the name of all that's holy > implement it on top of assets. This is simple; you just have to set a > rule that the Treasuror's ruling on who has which transactions > succeeded is dispositive, and the coins platonically update themselves > so they are distributed in the manner e says they are. > > I think I prefer the current system personally; the platonic nature of > reality and need for convergences keeps things interesting. However, > my concerns about the implementation are much greater than my > objection the content. > > -Aris > I think that Warrigal's concerns are valid. The only reason that the asset rules work so well is because they've been well-tested and worked out. Changing the base away from them to something else is entirely viable; it would require care and likely plenty of time while things get worked out, but there's no reason it couldn't be done. And more importantly, perhaps, a highly pragmatic system would make this less of a concern. Warrigal's proposal of pragmatic validation is an interesting one, and one that I haven't really seen Agora use before if memory serves. The one I'm familiar with is having actions be POSSIBLE but ILLEGAL where they would create platonic problems. For instance, with Coins, we could imagine a world where everyone has a ledger that can go negative freely. But if a player is caught with a negative balance, then they can be put in the Penalty Box and suffer consequences for it (including the inability to spend Coins until they have a positive balance again). Perhaps there could be a hard lower limit where things start to fail. I agree that the need to handle platonic analysis of actions is interesting, but I also think that it can get in the way of other gameplay. It's hard to build a fun game system on top of something when that thing keeps breaking regularly and that's considered a feature. -Alexis
Re: DIS: Some thoughts on pragmatism and accounting
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 11:46 AM Tanner Swett via agora-discussion wrote: > > I've been thinking about what makes Agora difficult to play as compared to > other games. > > Something I've noticed about the current rules is that lots of game actions > and effects are all woven together in such a way that if a mistake is made > with any piece of it, the mistake can quickly propagate and "infect" a > large portion of the state of the game, leading to large-scale confusion. > Sometimes a sort of "fork" occurs and we find ourselves playing two games > in parallel (and thereby taking double the effort) until some ambiguity is > resolved. > > "Real life," however, by and large does not behave this way. Consider the > following scenario: > > Alice has a bank account with a balance of $0. She deposits a check for > $100, then goes to a store and buys a Bluetooth speaker for $100 using a > debit card. Soon after this, she decides she doesn't like it, so she sells > the speaker to her neighbor Bob for $50 in cash. A few days later, the > check Alice deposited bounces. > > If something similar to the above were to occur under rules similar to > today's rules, then we would find that Alice actually never had the money > to buy the speaker with, so the speaker still belongs to the store. Then, > when she sells the speaker to Bob, the sale is illegitimate, and so the > speaker *still* belongs to the store, but now it's in Bob's possession; > meanwhile, Alice now possesses $50 of cash that actually belong to Bob. > > In real life, however, none of the above happens. The initial sale of the > speaker still stands; the speaker is successfully sold to Alice and the > store receives $100. The subsequent sale also succeeds, meaning Bob now > owns the speaker and Alice now owns the cash. When the check bounces, the > credit to Alice's account is simply reversed, leaving her with a debit > balance of $100. > > The difference here is that Alice's bank account is decoupled from her > interactions with the store. Her ability to buy things does not depend on > the legitimacy of the funds in her account; instead, her ability to buy > things depends on what the bank tells the store, and what the bank tells > the store depends on the bank's *beliefs* about the legitimacy of the funds > in her account. > > How could we make Agora that way? > > Currently, the rules state that each player has some number of coins, as > part of the gamestate, and the Treasuror is responsible for keeping track > of this part of the gamestate. When a player attempts to spend coins, the > attempt succeeds if e has the coins and fails if e does not. > > Instead, I suggest amending the rules to state that the Treasuror is > responsible for maintaining accounts of coins; each account represents the > number of coins that each player is considered to have, but having or not > having coins is not actually part of the gamestate. When a player attempts > to spend coins, the Treasuror either approves or declines the attempt. For > particularly important transactions (such as winning the game), the Referee > and Arbitor must approve the attempt as well. Oh, light, no. Last time we tried to store money as accounts it was an infernal mess. It lead to a never ending series of bugs and counterintuitive results. For the implementation, please in the name of all that's holy implement it on top of assets. This is simple; you just have to set a rule that the Treasuror's ruling on who has which transactions succeeded is dispositive, and the coins platonically update themselves so they are distributed in the manner e says they are. I think I prefer the current system personally; the platonic nature of reality and need for convergences keeps things interesting. However, my concerns about the implementation are much greater than my objection the content. -Aris
DIS: Some thoughts on pragmatism and accounting
I've been thinking about what makes Agora difficult to play as compared to other games. Something I've noticed about the current rules is that lots of game actions and effects are all woven together in such a way that if a mistake is made with any piece of it, the mistake can quickly propagate and "infect" a large portion of the state of the game, leading to large-scale confusion. Sometimes a sort of "fork" occurs and we find ourselves playing two games in parallel (and thereby taking double the effort) until some ambiguity is resolved. "Real life," however, by and large does not behave this way. Consider the following scenario: Alice has a bank account with a balance of $0. She deposits a check for $100, then goes to a store and buys a Bluetooth speaker for $100 using a debit card. Soon after this, she decides she doesn't like it, so she sells the speaker to her neighbor Bob for $50 in cash. A few days later, the check Alice deposited bounces. If something similar to the above were to occur under rules similar to today's rules, then we would find that Alice actually never had the money to buy the speaker with, so the speaker still belongs to the store. Then, when she sells the speaker to Bob, the sale is illegitimate, and so the speaker *still* belongs to the store, but now it's in Bob's possession; meanwhile, Alice now possesses $50 of cash that actually belong to Bob. In real life, however, none of the above happens. The initial sale of the speaker still stands; the speaker is successfully sold to Alice and the store receives $100. The subsequent sale also succeeds, meaning Bob now owns the speaker and Alice now owns the cash. When the check bounces, the credit to Alice's account is simply reversed, leaving her with a debit balance of $100. The difference here is that Alice's bank account is decoupled from her interactions with the store. Her ability to buy things does not depend on the legitimacy of the funds in her account; instead, her ability to buy things depends on what the bank tells the store, and what the bank tells the store depends on the bank's *beliefs* about the legitimacy of the funds in her account. How could we make Agora that way? Currently, the rules state that each player has some number of coins, as part of the gamestate, and the Treasuror is responsible for keeping track of this part of the gamestate. When a player attempts to spend coins, the attempt succeeds if e has the coins and fails if e does not. Instead, I suggest amending the rules to state that the Treasuror is responsible for maintaining accounts of coins; each account represents the number of coins that each player is considered to have, but having or not having coins is not actually part of the gamestate. When a player attempts to spend coins, the Treasuror either approves or declines the attempt. For particularly important transactions (such as winning the game), the Referee and Arbitor must approve the attempt as well. Of course, there should be SHALLs mandating that the Treasuror make a good-faith effort to maintain fair and accurate accounts and to approve and decline transactions in accordance with those accounts. Any thoughts? —Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: And in lighter news... [DoV]
On 1/29/2020 11:17 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business wrote: > Having achieved a full set of 16 Ribbons, including the new Emerald > Ribbon, I Raise a Banner, causing me to win the game. Congratulations!!
Re: DIS: Proto-corporation: the TCC Corporation
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 9:41 PM Tanner Swett via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 12:06 AM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: > > [...] > > > On Jan 23, 2020, at 8:36 PM, Tanner Swett via agora-discussion > > > wrote: > > > Of course, "TCC" stands for "the TCC Corporation." > > > > Shouldn’t this be TTC, then? (As a bonus, that means it doesn’t have to > > share room in my acronym namespace with the Tacoma Community College.) > > Are you telling me that "TCC" doesn't start with "C"? You may be right > about that... > > Thanks to everyone for their feedback. I may post a new proto this weekend. > > By the way, it's starting to seem awfully inconvenient that any > contract must have at least two people on whose behalf the contract > can effectively act. It's also inconvenient that a contract can't > allow non-parties to take assets from it. Oh well; that can all be > worked around. Not true anymore! Contract Patency v3 passed. Contracts can now get by with only 1 member. Additionally, my earlier about acting on behalf is also dealt with by a new explicitness requirement. Do you think you might have a new proto out soon? -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On 1/29/20 1:45 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: > Jason Cobb wrote: >> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8287-8307 >> = >> >> I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals. > NB: The F/A ratios on several of Proposals 8292-8307, and on the second > attempt at 8290, are incorrect because they do not take into account the > amendments to voting strength made by Proposal 8291. To be specific, > Alexis's voting strength falls to 3 because the Prime Minister now only > receives a bonus (which itself is now of 2, not 1) on proposals with a > ministry set, which none of these do, and G.'s voting strength rises to > 4 because the Speaker now receives a bonus on all decisions. > > This is not a formal CoE because I don't believe it changes the > outcome of any of the votes. > > -twg Yep, you're right. I had completely failed to consider the fact that the voting strengths changed after P8291. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
Jason Cobb wrote: > RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8287-8307 > = > > I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals. NB: The F/A ratios on several of Proposals 8292-8307, and on the second attempt at 8290, are incorrect because they do not take into account the amendments to voting strength made by Proposal 8291. To be specific, Alexis's voting strength falls to 3 because the Prime Minister now only receives a bonus (which itself is now of 2, not 1) on proposals with a ministry set, which none of these do, and G.'s voting strength rises to 4 because the Speaker now receives a bonus on all decisions. This is not a formal CoE because I don't believe it changes the outcome of any of the votes. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 12:31 Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > You kids and your timely fashions. When I was young, we did things as soon > as possible both ways and we liked it! > You know, I *still* think of VVLOP and second-class persons (and second-class persons with nonzero VVLOP) as being part of Agora's heart and soul—presumably just because those two things happened to be in the rules at the time that I joined. I'm still sad that we changed "first-class person" to "person" and simply did away with "second-class person" with no replacement. —Warrigal >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On 1/29/2020 9:25 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: > (then again, there's also this:) > >> Judgments in Nomic are not bound by rules of precedent, for that would >> require a daunting amount of record-keeping for each game. Well, e's not wrong...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On 1/29/2020 9:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 1/29/2020 9:25 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: >> (then again, there's also this:) >> >>> Judgments in Nomic are not bound by rules of precedent, for that would >>> require a daunting amount of record-keeping for each game. > > Well, e's not wrong... > also, reading it now, the full context is pretty important on this one! "Judgments in Nomic are not bound by rules of precedent, for that would require a daunting amount of record-keeping for each game. But the doctrine of stare decisis may be imposed at the players' option, or may arise without explicit amendment as successive judges feel impelled to treat like cases alike. Without stare decisis players are put upon to draft their rules carefully, make thoughtful adjudications, overrule poor judgments, and amend defective rules. This is one way in which Nomic teaches basic principles and exigencies of law, even while it vastly simplifies."
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 12:25, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Aris wrote: > > For the record, I strongly disagree. I think Spivak is part of Agoran > > culture at this point, like the “or” suffixes at the end of offices. It’s > > part of what makes Agora different and unique. In short, it’s a dialectal > > variation, and I think Agora having its own dialect, not just its own > > terminology, is pretty awesome. > > Yeah, I'm with you on this one. Tbh I think Falsifian expressed it well > when e talked about seeing the ruleset as some sort of ancient relic - > the things like "-or" suffixes, Spivak pronouns, CAN/SHOULD/MUST, "in a > timely fashion", etc. are all pieces of history reflecting how the game > came to be the way it is. Heck, even a very small amount of the language > from the prototypical Nomic is still in the current ruleset! > You kids and your timely fashions. When I was young, we did things as soon as possible both ways and we liked it!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
Aris wrote: > For the record, I strongly disagree. I think Spivak is part of Agoran > culture at this point, like the “or” suffixes at the end of offices. It’s > part of what makes Agora different and unique. In short, it’s a dialectal > variation, and I think Agora having its own dialect, not just its own > terminology, is pretty awesome. Yeah, I'm with you on this one. Tbh I think Falsifian expressed it well when e talked about seeing the ruleset as some sort of ancient relic - the things like "-or" suffixes, Spivak pronouns, CAN/SHOULD/MUST, "in a timely fashion", etc. are all pieces of history reflecting how the game came to be the way it is. Heck, even a very small amount of the language from the prototypical Nomic is still in the current ruleset! > All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then > in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on > the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the > spirit of the game before applying other standards. https://web.archive.org/web/20200110101829/http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/nomic.htm (then again, there's also this:) > Judgments in Nomic are not bound by rules of precedent, for that would > require a daunting amount of record-keeping for each game. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
> On Jan 29, 2020, at 8:25 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 2:23 AM omd via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:07 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion >> wrote: >>> 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. > > > For the record, I strongly disagree. I think Spivak is part of Agoran > culture at this point, like the “or” suffixes at the end of offices. It’s > part of what makes Agora different and unique. In short, it’s a dialectal > variation, and I think Agora having its own dialect, not just its own > terminology, is pretty awesome. > > -Aris This is, IMO, the best counterpoint. Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 2:23 AM omd via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:07 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: > > 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. For the record, I strongly disagree. I think Spivak is part of Agoran culture at this point, like the “or” suffixes at the end of offices. It’s part of what makes Agora different and unique. In short, it’s a dialectal variation, and I think Agora having its own dialect, not just its own terminology, is pretty awesome. -Aris > >
Re: DIS: Fwd: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset [July 6 2001]
On 1/29/2020 2:21 AM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 11:36 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: >> I found a random old mbox in a personal archive a while back, that had >> Agoran emails from Jun - Aug 2001 (probably from a temporary filter >> setup, everything around that is lost). It was mostly ephemera but >> just realized from this discussion that an SLR snapshot might be >> useful to historians... close missing gaps a little. Strangely enough >> there were no FLRs I might have filtered them differently or >> something. > > Cool! Looking at Zefram's old archives, there's no mail from that > period; it's right after the end of agora_vanyel0. However... we do > have the ruleset from then already, because it's a few months after > the start of the 2001-2014 FLR RCS file: > > https://github.com/comex/flr/blob/824402746224bc64c2e6e695871450c75ecfcb2e/current_flr.txt > > But I'm interested in the rest of the mail, even if it is ephemera. > Any chance you can upload a copy of the mbox? Perhaps on GitHub for > safekeeping... Sure I'll get it up somewhere. That reminds me - do we have a backup of Zefram's archives up in case that goes away (I just found a local copy I made a while ago just in case).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 10:23, omd via agora-discussion wrote: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:07 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: > > 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. > > +1. I find the use of Spivak pronouns quirky and fun. Like when a science fiction or fantasy novel forces me to learn a few words of some invented language, drawing me a bit more into the author's constructed world. That said, I think my attitude partly comes from having thought of Agora's ruleset as some venerable ancient artifact when I first read it. I wouldn't be seriously opposed to the change, if the older players don't mind it. It would be nice if there were some clever way to embed some remnant of it in the rules somewhere as a memento, e.g. if there were just one capitalized phrase somewhere of ceremonial importance that had a traditional Spivak pronoun, which we could (correctly) say is written that way because it dates back to the "ancient" days when our language was slightly different from its modern form. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:07 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > 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. +1.
Re: DIS: Fwd: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset [July 6 2001]
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 11:36 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > I found a random old mbox in a personal archive a while back, that had > Agoran emails from Jun - Aug 2001 (probably from a temporary filter > setup, everything around that is lost). It was mostly ephemera but > just realized from this discussion that an SLR snapshot might be > useful to historians... close missing gaps a little. Strangely enough > there were no FLRs I might have filtered them differently or > something. Cool! Looking at Zefram's old archives, there's no mail from that period; it's right after the end of agora_vanyel0. However... we do have the ruleset from then already, because it's a few months after the start of the 2001-2014 FLR RCS file: https://github.com/comex/flr/blob/824402746224bc64c2e6e695871450c75ecfcb2e/current_flr.txt But I'm interested in the rest of the mail, even if it is ephemera. Any chance you can upload a copy of the mbox? Perhaps on GitHub for safekeeping...
