Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] can you believe nicknames are entirely undefined?
agora hasnt had one of these in a LONG time On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 2:57 PM Reuben Staley via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 2020-06-11 22:49, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 2020-06-11 22:26, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > >> -- From R. Lee > > > > Who the heck is "R. Lee"? > > While I'm at it, I change my nickname to "The Found and Lost Department" > > -- > The Found and Lost Department > -- >From proposal 8440
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] can you believe nicknames are entirely undefined?
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 2:49 PM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 2020-06-11 22:26, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > > -- From R. Lee > > Who the heck is "R. Lee"? > > -- > Trigon > true -- >From proposal 8440
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] can you believe nicknames are entirely undefined?
On 2020-06-11 22:26, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: -- From R. Lee Who the heck is "R. Lee"? -- Trigon
DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJs] on weird switch phrasing
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 1:15 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/11/20 10:46 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > I change my nickname to CFJ 3835. > > > Great. Your ruleset annotations have been updated [0]. > > [0]: https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr-fresh.txt > > -- > Jason Cobb > > please, please undo this -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJs] on weird switch phrasing
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 1:42 PM Alex Smith via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Friday, 12 June 2020, 03:48:06 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/11/2020 7:08 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > > > If the previous CFJ that I called was found TRUE, then that provides > > > evidence for the statement of this CFJ being TRUE: at some point, CFJ > > > 3835 "became" G. Nothing would have caused CFJ 3835 to cease being G., > > > which would imply that CFJ 3835 remains G. right now. > > > > I change my nickname to CFJ 3835. > > > > -CFJ 3835 > > This is confusing. I already use the nickname "callforjudgement" in many > non-Agoran contexts (and in some Agora-tangential contexts, such as one of > my email addresses). > > -- > ais523 (aka callforjudgement) > yes, i know you. you are a regular contributor to open setups on mafiascum. i used to play survivor on that site. -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJs] on weird switch phrasing
On Friday, 12 June 2020, 03:48:06 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > On 6/11/2020 7:08 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > > If the previous CFJ that I called was found TRUE, then that provides > > evidence for the statement of this CFJ being TRUE: at some point, CFJ > > 3835 "became" G. Nothing would have caused CFJ 3835 to cease being G., > > which would imply that CFJ 3835 remains G. right now. > > I change my nickname to CFJ 3835. > > -CFJ 3835 This is confusing. I already use the nickname "callforjudgement" in many non-Agoran contexts (and in some Agora-tangential contexts, such as one of my email addresses). -- ais523 (aka callforjudgement)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJs] on weird switch phrasing
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:50 PM Rebecca via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:48 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > On 6/11/2020 7:08 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > > > If the previous CFJ that I called was found TRUE, then that provides > > > evidence for the statement of this CFJ being TRUE: at some point, CFJ > > > 3835 "became" G. Nothing would have caused CFJ 3835 to cease being G., > > > which would imply that CFJ 3835 remains G. right now. > > > > I change my nickname to CFJ 3835. > > > > -CFJ 3835 > > > > > CFJs are judged as of the time they are called, this nickname change does > not affect the judgement > -- > From R. Lee > also it is silly and i refuse to use it -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJs] on weird switch phrasing
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:48 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/11/2020 7:08 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > > If the previous CFJ that I called was found TRUE, then that provides > > evidence for the statement of this CFJ being TRUE: at some point, CFJ > > 3835 "became" G. Nothing would have caused CFJ 3835 to cease being G., > > which would imply that CFJ 3835 remains G. right now. > > I change my nickname to CFJ 3835. > > -CFJ 3835 > > CFJs are judged as of the time they are called, this nickname change does not affect the judgement -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJs] on weird switch phrasing
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:33 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 6/11/20 10:08 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> > While I'm busy harassing the Arbitor...
> >
> > I CFJ: "On or about 16 May 2020, CFJ 3835 became G."
>
> > I CFJ: "CFJ 3835 is G."
>
> Whoops, just realized I never explicitly said this in my arguments:
>
> {
>
> CFJ 3835 was assigned to G. on 16 May 2020, and its judge has not been
> flipped since then.
>
> }
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
> this is classic agora
--
>From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] help help i'm prisoner in a proposal-writing factory
On 6/11/20 9:55 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > [Jason pointed out a while ago, that you could argue that when a judgement > option ceased to be defined (like UNDETERMINED has), it ceased to be a > judgement, so the case reverted to open. Not sure if that's true, but > this makes sure the "validity when assigned" is what matters]. Oh, I just started drafting a CFJ to ask whether this was the case (which is made me remember reading about the Pineapple Partnership being a judge...); I guess that's moot now. But don't worry, I've still got a few other ways to harass you :). -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 494 (Revision 1)
On 6/11/2020 6:43 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2020-06-11 19:25, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: >> Not a CoE, but the CFJ stating whether my Spanish thing actually >> transferred a coin to Agora hasn't been judged yet. > > It should have been judged here: > > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg36712.html > no, it wasn't linked. Different issue. It's assigned to me. Due Sun, but I'll probably have a draft tomorrow-ish.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 494 (Revision 1)
On 6/11/20 9:43 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2020-06-11 19:25, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: >> Not a CoE, but the CFJ stating whether my Spanish thing actually >> transferred a coin to Agora hasn't been judged yet. > It should have been judged here: > > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg36712.html > That judgment didn't find that a coin was transferred, it found that a previous CFJ was about a coin being transferred. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 494 (Revision 1)
On 2020-06-11 19:25, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: Not a CoE, but the CFJ stating whether my Spanish thing actually transferred a coin to Agora hasn't been judged yet. It should have been judged here: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg36712.html -- Trigon
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets
On 6/11/20 8:20 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: >>> Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulets" with the following text: >>> Amulets are a class of assets, tracked by the Teasuror, which can be >>> owned by players. Each amulet has the following attributes: type, >>> effect, tier. The effect and tier are tied to the type of the >>> amulet, and are all defined elsewhere in the rules. >>> >>> Wearer is an amulet switch, with possible values of all active >>> players or none (the default). A player CAN wear (syn. put on, >>> equip) an amulet e owns by announcement, flipping the amulet's >>> wearer to emself. E is then said to be wearing that amulet. A player >>> CAN take off (syn. dequip) an amulet e is wearing, flipping the >>> amulet's wearer to none. Players CANNOT wear more than one amulet at >>> a time. An amulet with its wearer set to a player CANNOT be >>> transferred. >> Switches need to define which office tracks them (or they'll create a >> new one for it). I don't think the fact that the asset is tracked by the >> Treasuror makes this switch tracked by em too - although that might be a >> good idea. Needs "by announcement" for taking them off. >> >> There's a weird semantic thing happening with the CANNOT statement - you >> define wearing as an event (which flips the switch) not a state earlier >> in, so this reads like you can't flip two amulets' switches at the same >> time, not that you can't have two with their switch set to you. In fact >> if you swap it with the synonyms it becomes more obvious: "A player >> CANNOT*put on* more than one amulet at a time." Might want to change it >> to "if a player is the wearer of an amulet, e CANNOT wear another >> amulet." Though that sounds awkward. >> >> What stops someone from buying multiple active amulets and equipping, >> using and dequipping them at will? They don't circumvent the cooldowns, >> but they still get a lot of power that way. > Maybe just make it so a player can only own one amulet at a time? That > would get rid of the whole "wearing" thing too. > That may work. Another thing I should've mentioned here: I'd strongly encourage allowing contracts to own these. If players can only own one then they'd need an intermediary if they wanted to trade an amulet for someone else's, plus it'd allow for the complex trades NAX is designed to enable. -- nch Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets
On 6/11/2020 9:26 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: On Jun 11, 2020, at 21:20, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: On 6/11/2020 7:41 PM, nch wrote: On 6/10/20 11:54 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: I've been rattling this idea around in my mind for a bit. I decided to put together a proto-proposal to see what others think. Title: Amulets ver. 0.1 AI: 1.0 Author: ATMunn Co-author(s): Overall, I'm not sure I like this idea. This comes back to G. and I's discussion about farming. When you can create the items on your own, it destroys the trading aspect of the game. That said, you have a lot of limiters in here that are interesting and might mitigate that impact. I would vote AGAINST this for at least the first month or two of Sets, and maybe reconsider this later. It's too big of a change and seems to violate a fundamental goal of the economy's design (that trading should be important). That said, I'm just one voter, and here's some mechanical notes: Show Quoted Content On 6/11/2020 7:41 PM, nch wrote: On 6/10/20 11:54 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: I've been rattling this idea around in my mind for a bit. I decided to put together a proto-proposal to see what others think. Title: Amulets ver. 0.1 AI: 1.0 Author: ATMunn Co-author(s): Overall, I'm not sure I like this idea. This comes back to G. and I's discussion about farming. When you can create the items on your own, it destroys the trading aspect of the game. That said, you have a lot of limiters in here that are interesting and might mitigate that impact. I would vote AGAINST this for at least the first month or two of Sets, and maybe reconsider this later. It's too big of a change and seems to violate a fundamental goal of the economy's design (that trading should be important). That said, I'm just one voter, and here's some mechanical notes: Fair enough. The point was actually to create a special commodity to encourage trading more, but auctions were the only way I could think of to get them into the gamestate. What about having it be an auction with cards where the bids are sets of cards submitted secretly to the auctioneer and then some hidden set of rules is used to score them? That sounds interesting. I'm not exactly sure how it would work but it would be unique and cool if we figured it out.
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets
> On Jun 11, 2020, at 21:20, ATMunn via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On 6/11/2020 7:41 PM, nch wrote: >> On 6/10/20 11:54 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > I've been rattling this idea around in my mind for a bit. I decided to > put together a proto-proposal to see what others think. > > Title: Amulets ver. 0.1 > AI: 1.0 > Author: ATMunn > Co-author(s): Overall, I'm not sure I like this idea. This comes back to G. and I's discussion about farming. When you can create the items on your own, it destroys the trading aspect of the game. That said, you have a lot of limiters in here that are interesting and might mitigate that impact. I would vote AGAINST this for at least the first month or two of Sets, and maybe reconsider this later. It's too big of a change and seems to violate a fundamental goal of the economy's design (that trading should be important). That said, I'm just one voter, and here's some mechanical notes: >>> >>> Show Quoted Content On 6/11/2020 7:41 PM, nch wrote: > On 6/10/20 11:54 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: I've been rattling this idea around in my mind for a bit. I decided to put together a proto-proposal to see what others think. Title: Amulets ver. 0.1 AI: 1.0 Author: ATMunn Co-author(s): >>> Overall, I'm not sure I like this idea. This comes back to G. and I's >>> discussion about farming. When you can create the items on your own, it >>> destroys the trading aspect of the game. That said, you have a lot of >>> limiters in here that are interesting and might mitigate that impact. >>> I would vote AGAINST this for at least the first month or two of Sets, >>> and maybe reconsider this later. It's too big of a change and seems to >>> violate a fundamental goal of the economy's design (that trading should >>> be important). That said, I'm just one voter, and here's some mechanical >>> notes: > > Fair enough. The point was actually to create a special commodity to > encourage trading more, but auctions were the only way I could think of to > get them into the gamestate. What about having it be an auction with cards where the bids are sets of cards submitted secretly to the auctioneer and then some hidden set of rules is used to score them? Selecting things to quote it is a very useful feature: thanks for bringing it to my attention!
DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 494 (Revision 1)
Not a CoE, but the CFJ stating whether my Spanish thing actually transferred a coin to Agora hasn't been judged yet. On 6/11/2020 6:37 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-official wrote: FORBES FOUR HUNDRED NINETY-FOUR or TREASUROR'S WEEKLY REPORT Date of last official report: 05 Jun 2020 Date of this report: 11 Jun 2020 Date of first revision: 11 Jun 2020 (all times and dates in UTC) NOTES ON REPORT (contains no data) * This report does not include grok's shiny transfers (CFJ 3838). * This report does not include any purchases from THE MYSTICAL MENAGERIE that did not specify coin payment. * AS OF REVISION 1: All coin balances are updated with this week's changes (still can't believe I skipped that step). * As always, please check the accuracy of this report. ASSET INDEX (does not self-ratify) --- - Asset class Recordkeepor Ownership === = Coins Treasuror Agora, players, contracts Blots Referee Persons --- - COIN BALANCES (self-ratifies) - - Coins Active player = = 556 Aris 64 ATMunn 115 Baron Von Vaderham (BVV) 20 Bögtil 125 Cuddle Beam 1259 D. Margaux 98 Falsifian 793 G. 58 Gaelan 35 grok 582 Jason 240 Murphy 286 omd 118 nch 176 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus (PSS) 146 R. Lee 35 sukil 20 Telnaior 95 Trigon - - Coins Zombie = = 75 pikhq 47 Tcbapo - - Coins Non-player entity = = 2300 Agora 495 Dragon Corporation (Dragon Corp.) 575 Lost and Found Department (LFD) - - All other entities have 0 coins. RECENT HISTORY (does not self-ratify) Abbreviations used: --- Abbr Office === ADoP Associate Director of Personnel Abtr Arbitor Assr Assessor Cptr Comptrollor Dstr Distributor Hrld Herald Ntry Notary PM Prime Minister Pmtr Promotor Rfee Referee Rstr Registrar Rkpr Rulekeepor Spkr Speaker Tlor Tailor Tsor Treasuror --- --- - --- Entity Change Timestamp Reason === = === G. + 212c. 11 Jun 2020 20:14 Xfer twg (Zombie auction) twg - 212c. 11 Jun 2020 20:14 Xfer G. (Zombie auction) Agora + 323c. 11 Jun 2020 20:14 Xfer G. (Zombie auction) G. - 323c. 11 Jun 2020 20:14 Xfer Agora (Zombie auction) Falsifian + 5c. 09 Jun 2020 16:48 Transfer ATMunn (Report) ATMunn - 5c. 09 Jun 2020 16:48 Transfer Falsifian (Report) Cuddle Beam + 5c. 09 Jun 2020 01:24 Transfer Aris () Aris - 5c. 09 Jun 2020 01:24 Transfer Cuddle Beam () Cuddle Beam + 5c. 08 Jun 2020 17:54 Transfer Aris () Aris - 5c. 08 Jun 2020 17:54 Transfer Cuddle Beam () Cuddle Beam + 30c. 08 Jun 2020 17:21 Transfer Falsifian (龍) Falsifian - 30c. 08 Jun 2020 17:21 Transfer Cuddle Beam (龍) Cuddle Beam + 5c. 08 Jun 2020 15:40 Transfer G. () G. - 5c. 08 Jun 2020 15:40 Transfer Cuddle Beam () grok + 5c. 07 Jun 2020 17:46 Reward (CFJ 3837) Aris + 15c. 07 Jun 2020 14:51 R Glitter (Proposal 8402) nch + 13c. 07 Jun 2020 14:51 O Glitter (Proposal 8388) Jason + 13c. 07 Jun 2020 14:51 O Glitter (Proposal 8394) Jason + 13c. 07 Jun 2020 14:51 O Glitter (Proposal 8392) Aris + 7c. 07 Jun 2020 14:51 V Glitter (Long Service) Falsifian + 7c. 07 Jun
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets
On 6/11/2020 7:41 PM, nch wrote: On 6/10/20 11:54 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: I've been rattling this idea around in my mind for a bit. I decided to put together a proto-proposal to see what others think. Title: Amulets ver. 0.1 AI: 1.0 Author: ATMunn Co-author(s): Overall, I'm not sure I like this idea. This comes back to G. and I's discussion about farming. When you can create the items on your own, it destroys the trading aspect of the game. That said, you have a lot of limiters in here that are interesting and might mitigate that impact. I would vote AGAINST this for at least the first month or two of Sets, and maybe reconsider this later. It's too big of a change and seems to violate a fundamental goal of the economy's design (that trading should be important). That said, I'm just one voter, and here's some mechanical notes: Fair enough. The point was actually to create a special commodity to encourage trading more, but auctions were the only way I could think of to get them into the gamestate. It is probably a good idea to wait a little bit before introducing it. I just put this out there because I had the idea and didn't want to forget about it. Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulets" with the following text: Amulets are a class of assets, tracked by the Teasuror, which can be owned by players. Each amulet has the following attributes: type, effect, tier. The effect and tier are tied to the type of the amulet, and are all defined elsewhere in the rules. Wearer is an amulet switch, with possible values of all active players or none (the default). A player CAN wear (syn. put on, equip) an amulet e owns by announcement, flipping the amulet's wearer to emself. E is then said to be wearing that amulet. A player CAN take off (syn. dequip) an amulet e is wearing, flipping the amulet's wearer to none. Players CANNOT wear more than one amulet at a time. An amulet with its wearer set to a player CANNOT be transferred. Switches need to define which office tracks them (or they'll create a new one for it). I don't think the fact that the asset is tracked by the Treasuror makes this switch tracked by em too - although that might be a good idea. Needs "by announcement" for taking them off. There's a weird semantic thing happening with the CANNOT statement - you define wearing as an event (which flips the switch) not a state earlier in, so this reads like you can't flip two amulets' switches at the same time, not that you can't have two with their switch set to you. In fact if you swap it with the synonyms it becomes more obvious: "A player CANNOT *put on* more than one amulet at a time." Might want to change it to "if a player is the wearer of an amulet, e CANNOT wear another amulet." Though that sounds awkward. What stops someone from buying multiple active amulets and equipping, using and dequipping them at will? They don't circumvent the cooldowns, but they still get a lot of power that way. Maybe just make it so a player can only own one amulet at a time? That would get rid of the whole "wearing" thing too. If the rules define the effect of a type of amulet to be passive, then the effect takes place for as long as it is worn by a player. If the rules define the effect of a type of amulet to be active, then the wearer of the amulet CAN activate it, causing its effect to occur. Active amulets have a cooldown attribute, which unless specified otherwise, is 7 days after the time the amulet was most recently activated. Attempts to activate an amulet during its cooldown are INEFFECTIVE, even if the amulet's wearer has changed. If an amulet has existed for at least 3 months, and/or it is an active amulet and has been activated 5 or more times, it is considered to be expired. Expired amulets have no effect and CANNOT be activated. Any player CAN destroy an expired amulet by announcement. Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulet Types" with the following text: The following is a list of tier-1 amulet types and their effects: - Amulet of Victory (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week, the wearer of this amulet earns a Victory Point. - Amulet of Justice (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week, the wearer of this amulet earns a Blot-B-Gone. - Amulet of Legislation (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week, the wearer of this amulet earns a Pendant. - Amulet of Voting (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week, the wearer of this amulet earns an Extra Vote. - Amulet of Economy (passive): Every Payday, the wearer of this amulet earns an additional 10 coins. Making these passive makes them actually very powerful. One of these gives you 12 products by the time is expires, which is more
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Ribbons and Glitter] Re: OFF: [Deputy ADoP] Weekly Metareport
Did not know that. Very handy! On 6/11/2020 6:53 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: On 6/11/20 5:41 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: Can I gripe for a sec? Bottom-posting generally does help readability but can we maybe try to not quote entire 100+ line messages to add one comment at the bottom? At this point it's more of a nuisance that I am required to use my mouse to scroll down to read it. For convenience, most mail clients will automatically figure out quoting it you highlight a portion of the email and then hit reply.
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets
On 6/11/20 2:38 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > This has a lot in common with G.'s "stones" proto. Last posted in > September, I think: > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-September/055498.html > > I thought the rules about stones escaping were fun. Also, there were > some creative kinds of stone which you might want to combine with your > list. Oh yeah, I still want to see stones happen (although this is probably a bad time...). -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets
On 6/10/20 11:54 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > I've been rattling this idea around in my mind for a bit. I decided to > put together a proto-proposal to see what others think. > > Title: Amulets ver. 0.1 > AI: 1.0 > Author: ATMunn > Co-author(s): Overall, I'm not sure I like this idea. This comes back to G. and I's discussion about farming. When you can create the items on your own, it destroys the trading aspect of the game. That said, you have a lot of limiters in here that are interesting and might mitigate that impact. I would vote AGAINST this for at least the first month or two of Sets, and maybe reconsider this later. It's too big of a change and seems to violate a fundamental goal of the economy's design (that trading should be important). That said, I'm just one voter, and here's some mechanical notes: > > Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulets" with the following text: > Amulets are a class of assets, tracked by the Teasuror, which can be > owned by players. Each amulet has the following attributes: type, > effect, tier. The effect and tier are tied to the type of the > amulet, and are all defined elsewhere in the rules. > > Wearer is an amulet switch, with possible values of all active > players or none (the default). A player CAN wear (syn. put on, > equip) an amulet e owns by announcement, flipping the amulet's > wearer to emself. E is then said to be wearing that amulet. A player > CAN take off (syn. dequip) an amulet e is wearing, flipping the > amulet's wearer to none. Players CANNOT wear more than one amulet at > a time. An amulet with its wearer set to a player CANNOT be > transferred. Switches need to define which office tracks them (or they'll create a new one for it). I don't think the fact that the asset is tracked by the Treasuror makes this switch tracked by em too - although that might be a good idea. Needs "by announcement" for taking them off. There's a weird semantic thing happening with the CANNOT statement - you define wearing as an event (which flips the switch) not a state earlier in, so this reads like you can't flip two amulets' switches at the same time, not that you can't have two with their switch set to you. In fact if you swap it with the synonyms it becomes more obvious: "A player CANNOT *put on* more than one amulet at a time." Might want to change it to "if a player is the wearer of an amulet, e CANNOT wear another amulet." Though that sounds awkward. What stops someone from buying multiple active amulets and equipping, using and dequipping them at will? They don't circumvent the cooldowns, but they still get a lot of power that way. > > If the rules define the effect of a type of amulet to be passive, > then the effect takes place for as long as it is worn by a player. > If the rules define the effect of a type of amulet to be active, > then the wearer of the amulet CAN activate it, causing its effect to > occur. Active amulets have a cooldown attribute, which unless > specified otherwise, is 7 days after the time the amulet was most > recently activated. Attempts to activate an amulet during its > cooldown are INEFFECTIVE, even if the amulet's wearer has changed. > > If an amulet has existed for at least 3 months, and/or it is an > active amulet and has been activated 5 or more times, it is > considered to be expired. Expired amulets have no effect and CANNOT > be activated. Any player CAN destroy an expired amulet by > announcement. > > Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulet Types" with the following text: > The following is a list of tier-1 amulet types and their effects: > > - Amulet of Victory (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week, > the wearer of this amulet earns a Victory Point. > > - Amulet of Justice (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week, > the wearer of this amulet earns a Blot-B-Gone. > > - Amulet of Legislation (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran > week, the wearer of this amulet earns a Pendant. > > - Amulet of Voting (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week, > the wearer of this amulet earns an Extra Vote. > > - Amulet of Economy (passive): Every Payday, the wearer of this > amulet earns an additional 10 coins. Making these passive makes them actually very powerful. One of these gives you 12 products by the time is expires, which is more than you get from 4 cards. > > The following is a list of tier-2 amulet types and their effects: > > - Amulet of Drawing (passive): The wearer of this amulet CAN specify > at any time, by announcement, a type of card e wishes to earn from > this amulet. At the beginning of each Agoran week, e earns one of > that type of card. If no type is specified, the type defaults to >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Finger Pointing] Pineapples aren't people
On 6/11/2020 4:27 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 6/11/2020 4:05 PM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Thursday, 11 June 2020, 23:32:12 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-business >> wrote: >>> Gratuitous: >>> >>> The Pineapple Partnership was judged to be a person at the time the case >>> was assigned, and the Rules of the time made em a person [cites later]. >>> So it was a legal judgement of the time (which closed the case). Making >>> the PP cease to be a person (which happened later) did not re-open the case. >> >> Gratuitous: The case isn't open, but nothing says that only /open/ cases >> require a judge. Closed cases also require a judge, if they don't have one. >> >> This is likely a bug that should be fixed. >> > > Well, it's down to Switches again. > > The PP history is unclear, but it definitely ceased being a person by 2014 > (when personhood for contracts was removed). Judicial assignment at the > time read: > > At any time, a judicial case either has no judge assigned to it > (default) or has exactly one entity assigned to it as judge. > This is a persistent status that changes only according to the > rules. > > When a judicial case is open and has no judge assigned, the CotC > CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by announcement, > and SHALL do so in a timely fashion. > > Now, there were other rules that said the CotC could only *assign* an > eligible player to judge. But once assigned, the "one entity" made it > pretty clear that personhood didn't matter and the assigned entity stayed > the judge even if e ceased to be a person. This seems to be true up > through late 2018 - then (my fault of course!!!) I proposed making it a > switch. > >> Amended(30) by P8134 'The judge switch' (G.), 02 Dec 2018 > > Here's the full text of that proposal, note the "explicit setting" of the > judge switch after the rule change. (Of course that setting would have > reverted to default for non-persons, making my final comment inside this > proposal a bit untrue, to say the least!) > > How about an amendment that change "person" to "current or former person" > in the possible switch values? (and retroactively makes those non-persons > judges again). > > - > Amend R991 (Calls for Judgement) by replacing the paragraph beginning > "When a CFJ has no judge assigned" with the following text: > > Judge is an untracked CFJ switch with possible values of any > person or "unassigned" (default). To "assign" a CFJ to a person > is to flip that CFJ's judge to that person. To "remove" or > "recuse" a person from a being the judge of a CFJ is to flip that > CFJ's judge from that person to unassigned. > > When a CFJ's judge is unassigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any > eligible player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so > in a timely fashion. The players eligible to be assigned as judge > are all active players except the initiator and the person barred > (if any). The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all > interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge. > If a CFJ has no judge assigned, then any player eligible to judge > that CFJ CAN assign it to emself Without 3 Objections. > > > [I think all instances of judge assignment/removal work with the > above definitions, without further modification]. > > For every CFJ that was assigned to a judge immediately before this > proposal took effect, that CFJ's judge switch is flipped to that > judge. > > [Note: all old cases - however old - are still considered to have > their last-assigned judge (judges are not "removed" when a case is > closed). This is true both before and after this proposal]. > > Additional comment: the reason for the change in 2018 was in fact a bug - that the previous version didn't explicitly limit CFJs from having more than one judge. The Arbitor could only *assign* a judge to a case without a judge, so it hadn't come up, but then Certiorari was introduced which allowed the PM to make emself a judge - but nothing in the rules said that Cert removed the previous judge. Hence the uniqueness of switch values for tracking a judge seemed useful, it made Cert work without amending it :)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Finger Pointing] Pineapples aren't people
On 6/11/2020 4:05 PM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thursday, 11 June 2020, 23:32:12 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: >> Gratuitous: >> >> The Pineapple Partnership was judged to be a person at the time the case >> was assigned, and the Rules of the time made em a person [cites later]. >> So it was a legal judgement of the time (which closed the case). Making >> the PP cease to be a person (which happened later) did not re-open the case. > > Gratuitous: The case isn't open, but nothing says that only /open/ cases > require a judge. Closed cases also require a judge, if they don't have one. > > This is likely a bug that should be fixed. > Well, it's down to Switches again. The PP history is unclear, but it definitely ceased being a person by 2014 (when personhood for contracts was removed). Judicial assignment at the time read: At any time, a judicial case either has no judge assigned to it (default) or has exactly one entity assigned to it as judge. This is a persistent status that changes only according to the rules. When a judicial case is open and has no judge assigned, the CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so in a timely fashion. Now, there were other rules that said the CotC could only *assign* an eligible player to judge. But once assigned, the "one entity" made it pretty clear that personhood didn't matter and the assigned entity stayed the judge even if e ceased to be a person. This seems to be true up through late 2018 - then (my fault of course!!!) I proposed making it a switch. > Amended(30) by P8134 'The judge switch' (G.), 02 Dec 2018 Here's the full text of that proposal, note the "explicit setting" of the judge switch after the rule change. (Of course that setting would have reverted to default for non-persons, making my final comment inside this proposal a bit untrue, to say the least!) How about an amendment that change "person" to "current or former person" in the possible switch values? (and retroactively makes those non-persons judges again). - Amend R991 (Calls for Judgement) by replacing the paragraph beginning "When a CFJ has no judge assigned" with the following text: Judge is an untracked CFJ switch with possible values of any person or "unassigned" (default). To "assign" a CFJ to a person is to flip that CFJ's judge to that person. To "remove" or "recuse" a person from a being the judge of a CFJ is to flip that CFJ's judge from that person to unassigned. When a CFJ's judge is unassigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any eligible player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so in a timely fashion. The players eligible to be assigned as judge are all active players except the initiator and the person barred (if any). The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge. If a CFJ has no judge assigned, then any player eligible to judge that CFJ CAN assign it to emself Without 3 Objections. [I think all instances of judge assignment/removal work with the above definitions, without further modification]. For every CFJ that was assigned to a judge immediately before this proposal took effect, that CFJ's judge switch is flipped to that judge. [Note: all old cases - however old - are still considered to have their last-assigned judge (judges are not "removed" when a case is closed). This is true both before and after this proposal].
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets
> I also contributed three stone videos in the original thread in May > 2019 (subject "the end never games"): s/videos/ideas/ Not sure how that happened. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets
> > This has a lot in common with G.'s "stones" proto. Last posted in > > September, I think: > > > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-September/055498.html > > > > I thought the rules about stones escaping were fun. Also, there were > > some creative kinds of stone which you might want to combine with your > > list. > > Ooh, this is definitely interesting. I will probably steal-er, take some > inspiration from some of these ideas. I also contributed three stone videos in the original thread in May 2019 (subject "the end never games"): Duplicity Stone (monthly, 50%): Specify a player and a contract they are party to. The player ceases to be a party to the contract. Sloth Stone (monthly, 70%): Wielding the stone fulfills all of the wielder's monthly duties, except any duty to publish a Collection Notice. Stone of Obligation (weekly, 25%): Specify a player. That player MUST perform The Ritual in the following Agoran week. (I'm not sure if this works, since the stone's power reverts to 0 after wielding.) (The last one doesn't make sense under the current ruleset. "Collection Notice" is a Stonekeepor duty.) - Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: [Finger Pointing] Pineapples aren't people
On Thursday, 11 June 2020, 23:32:12 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > Gratuitous: > > The Pineapple Partnership was judged to be a person at the time the case > was assigned, and the Rules of the time made em a person [cites later]. > So it was a legal judgement of the time (which closed the case). Making > the PP cease to be a person (which happened later) did not re-open the case. Gratuitous: The case isn't open, but nothing says that only /open/ cases require a judge. Closed cases also require a judge, if they don't have one. This is likely a bug that should be fixed. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Ribbons and Glitter] Re: OFF: [Deputy ADoP] Weekly Metareport
On 6/11/20 5:41 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > Can I gripe for a sec? Bottom-posting generally does help readability > but can we maybe try to not quote entire 100+ line messages to add one > comment at the bottom? At this point it's more of a nuisance that I am > required to use my mouse to scroll down to read it. For convenience, most mail clients will automatically figure out quoting it you highlight a portion of the email and then hit reply. -- nch Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
DIS: Re: BUS: [Ribbons and Glitter] Re: OFF: [Deputy ADoP] Weekly Metareport
On 2020-06-11 16:17, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business wrote: On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 6:07 AM Rebecca via agora-official wrote: =Metareport= This is the ADoP’s weekly report, which I deputise for ADoP to publish, having intended to do so more than 2 days earlier (and the ADoP having missed a week) Date of last report: 2020-05-24 Date of this report: 2020-06-07 MISCELLANEOUS INFO -- Filled offices: 15/15 (100%) Total officers: 9 Consolidation[1]: 1.67 Late reports: 1/14 -- [1] This is the number of filled offices divided by the number of officers. Each officer, on average, holds this many offices. OFFICES Office Holder Since Last Election -- ADoP *R. Lee 2020-06-072019-07-02 ArbitorG. 2019-06-112019-11-23 Assessor Jason 2019-07-092019-11-11 Distributoromd2018-06-15imposed Herald PSS2020-05-032020-05-16 Notary*R. Lee 2020-04-282020-06-06 Prime Minister Aris 2020-03-072020-03-07 Promotor Aris 2016-10-212017-09-21 RefereePSS2020-03-292020-04-19 Registrar Falsifian 2019-05-042020-02-26 Rulekeepor Jason 2019-12-062020-03-07 SpeakerTrigon 2020-04-28imposed Tailor PSS2020-04-192020-04-19 Treasuror Trigon 2020-05-012020-05-01 Webmastor *nch2020-03-06not yet elected -- * = Interim office (vacant or holder not elected) WEEKLY REPORTS Office Report Last Published Late[1] -- ADoP Offices 2020-05-24[2] ! ArbitorJudicial matters 2020-05-31 Herald Matters of Honour2020-05-31 Notary Contracts2020-06-03 Promotor Proposal pool2020-06-03 RefereeRule violations 2020-05-31 Registrar Players, Fora2020-06-02 Rulekeepor Short Logical Ruleset2020-06-03 Treasuror Coins, other currencies 2020-06-05 -- [1] ! = 1 period missed, !! = 2, !!! = 3+ [2] Not including this report MONTHLY REPORTS Office ReportLast Published Late -- Herald Patent titles 2020-05-31 Registrar Player history2020-05-30 Rulekeepor Full Logical Ruleset 2020-05-24 Tailor Ribbons 2020-05-31 Webmastor Web resources 2020-06-03 -- ELECTIONS Office Initiated Phase Candidates -- Prime Minister 2020-06-06 Nomination [1] Notary 2020-05-31 Nomination R. Lee[2], ATMunn -- [1]R. Lee, ATMunn, nch [2]R. Lee does not consent to being elected Notary, and will therefore not take the position if elected. STARTABLE ELECTIONS[1] Office Last Election -- Promotor 2017-09-21 ADoP 2019-07-02 Assessor 2019-11-11 Arbitor 2019-11-23 Registrar2020-02-26 -- [1] Anyone can start an election (with 2 support and also becoming a candidate) 90 days after the previous one (or if it's interim and no election is ongoing). This section lists the offices for which anyone could start an election this way. INTERESTS - Office Interest -- ADoP Efficiency ArbitorJustice Assessor Efficiency, Legislation DistributorParticipation Herald Participation Notary Economy Prime Minister Every Ministry Promotor Legislation RefereeJustice Registrar Efficiency Rulekeepor Legislation, Participation SpeakerEvery Ministry Tailor Participation Treasuror Economy, Economy Webmastor None
DIS: Re: BUS: [Finger Pointing] Pineapples aren't people
On 6/11/2020 3:37 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > On 6/11/20 6:29 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >> Gratuitous: >> >> The Pineapple Partnership was judged to be a person at the time the case >> was assigned, and the Rules of the time made em a person [cites later]. >> So it was a legal judgement of the time (which closed the case). Making >> the PP cease to be a person (which happened later) did not re-open the case. > > > The case being "open" is orthogonal to it being "unassigned". Since > Judge can only have values of persons and "unassigned", and the > Pineapple Partnership is unambiguously not a person now (and is the only > other value the Judge of the CFJ might have), it is definitely > unassigned now. Yah I responded too quickly, but I just dropped in a fix. >> Secondarily, if e wasn't a person, than the deadline for assignment long >> passed and I wasn't the Arbitor then. R991 says "in a timely fashion" for >> the assignment but the question is, "in a timely fashion after what >> exactly?" The only reasonable answer is "after it first comes to be >> unassgined" (if the "when" is evaluated continuously, the "timely fashion" >> would never end). >> >> -G. > > > I'm not sure about this point. I think the phrasing is weird with the > time limit not having a definite start point. This one might need an > actual CFJ to figure out (and we might want to clarify the phrasing > regardless). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Finger Pointing] Pineapples aren't people
On 6/11/2020 3:11 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 6:09 PM Jason Cobb wrote: >> >> I point my finger at the H. Arbitor for failing to assign a judge to CFJ >> 1706 in a timely fashion, although I request that the H. Referee not >> punish em too harshly. >> >> CFJ 1706 [0] was judged by the Pineapple Partnership, which at the time, >> was legally a person and thus eligible to judge judicial cases. However, >> Rule 869 does not currently define any partnerships as persons: >> >>> Any organism that is generally capable of freely originating and >>> communicating independent thoughts and ideas is a person. Rules to >>> the contrary notwithstanding, no other entities are persons. >> >> >> Rule 991 says: >> >>> Judge is an untracked CFJ switch with possible values of any >>> person or "unassigned" (default). >> >> and >> >>> When a CFJ's judge is unassigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any >>> eligible player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so >>> in a timely fashion. >> >> >> Because the Pineapple Partnership is not a person, at some point in the >> past, CFJ 1706's Judge came to have the default value of "unassigned" by >> Rule 2162: >> >>> If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a possible value, >>> it comes to have its default value. >> >> >> Seeing as CFJ 1706 is unassigned, the Arbitor SHALL assign an eligible >> player to it in a timely fashion. E has not done so in the previous >> week, and this has failed to meet this requirement. >> >> >> [0]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1706 >> >> -- >> Jason Cobb >> > > I need to conduct a more thorough investigation before resolving this, > but on a first pass, R911 is poorly drafted because it imposes a > requirement to do something "in a timely fashion" after every > continuous moment in a series, which makes me wonder whether G. has > violated this rule infinitely many times. Obviously, that's not the > intent and not an interpretation I plan to take, but I do think we > should rephrase it. > Conversely, perhaps I never violated it. It's always "SHALL in a timely fashion after now" so the deadline is never met.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: indirect wins
On 6/11/2020 2:48 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/11/20 3:29 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >> >> I submit the following proposal, "win indirection", AI-1: >> >> Amend Rule 2553 (Win by Paradox) by replacing: >> >> that case's initiator CAN, by announcement, win the game. >> >> with: >> >> that case's initiator, CAN, by announcement, Transcend Logic. When >> a person transcends logic, e wins the game. >> >> >> [This should make all wins in the rules indirect: Ribbons, >> Tournaments, and Apathy are indirect already] >> >> >> > Unfortunately I think Sets breaks this style. > Yah I figured a Sets win was at least a month away (I hope!) so there would be time - was thinking about the "proposals for a not-even-adopted yet system" thing. :) But interestingly, if Falsifian's theory is correct, exactly 1 win method would be allowed to be "direct", which would stop any other "direct" win methods but still allow for indirect ones. So even if it isn't changed, it's fine for now if the above proposal is adopted. -G.
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On 6/11/20 2:28 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > Actually, that could be a use for a limited asset. Call them Fingers, > you pay one to point a finger, at most N Fingers exist at any given > time, and they're gradually replenished somehow when there are fewer > than N (auctions?). Not actually advocating for doing this now, but > maybe if Referee load actually became an issue... If anything this discourages pointing fingers, which feels like the wrong direction. I'd rather punish people for too many shenanigans (like I suggested in the Competitive Finger Pointing proto) than do this. -- nch Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
DIS: Re: BUS: [Finger Pointing] Pineapples aren't people
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 6:09 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > > I point my finger at the H. Arbitor for failing to assign a judge to CFJ > 1706 in a timely fashion, although I request that the H. Referee not > punish em too harshly. > > CFJ 1706 [0] was judged by the Pineapple Partnership, which at the time, > was legally a person and thus eligible to judge judicial cases. However, > Rule 869 does not currently define any partnerships as persons: > > > Any organism that is generally capable of freely originating and > > communicating independent thoughts and ideas is a person. Rules to > > the contrary notwithstanding, no other entities are persons. > > > Rule 991 says: > > > Judge is an untracked CFJ switch with possible values of any > > person or "unassigned" (default). > > and > > > When a CFJ's judge is unassigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any > > eligible player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so > > in a timely fashion. > > > Because the Pineapple Partnership is not a person, at some point in the > past, CFJ 1706's Judge came to have the default value of "unassigned" by > Rule 2162: > > > If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a possible value, > > it comes to have its default value. > > > Seeing as CFJ 1706 is unassigned, the Arbitor SHALL assign an eligible > player to it in a timely fashion. E has not done so in the previous > week, and this has failed to meet this requirement. > > > [0]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1706 > > -- > Jason Cobb > I need to conduct a more thorough investigation before resolving this, but on a first pass, R911 is poorly drafted because it imposes a requirement to do something "in a timely fashion" after every continuous moment in a series, which makes me wonder whether G. has violated this rule infinitely many times. Obviously, that's not the intent and not an interpretation I plan to take, but I do think we should rephrase it.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Finger Pointing] Pineapples aren't people
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 3:09 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I point my finger at the H. Arbitor for failing to assign a judge to CFJ > 1706 in a timely fashion, although I request that the H. Referee not > punish em too harshly. > > CFJ 1706 [0] was judged by the Pineapple Partnership, which at the time, > was legally a person and thus eligible to judge judicial cases. However, > Rule 869 does not currently define any partnerships as persons: > > > Any organism that is generally capable of freely originating and > > communicating independent thoughts and ideas is a person. Rules to > > the contrary notwithstanding, no other entities are persons. > > > Rule 991 says: > > > Judge is an untracked CFJ switch with possible values of any > > person or "unassigned" (default). > > and > > > When a CFJ's judge is unassigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any > > eligible player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so > > in a timely fashion. > > > Because the Pineapple Partnership is not a person, at some point in the > past, CFJ 1706's Judge came to have the default value of "unassigned" by > Rule 2162: > > > If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a possible > value, it comes to have its default value. > > > Seeing as CFJ 1706 is unassigned, the Arbitor SHALL assign an eligible > player to it in a timely fashion. E has not done so in the previous > week, and this has failed to meet this requirement. > > > [0]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1706 > > -- > Jason Cobb I strongly recommend everyone vote for my new defense proposals, which would minimize this sort of thing. > >
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 2:18 PM ATMunn via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/11/2020 3:28 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > >>> What is the advantage of arbitration by contract over just having the > >>> Referee / CFJ system handle things? > >> > >> The Referee and judges didn't necessarily opt in to being involved in > >> every possible contract dispute (and it allows more flexibility than the > >> rules currently do). And, if we end up using contracts more, then it > >> allows spreading dispute resolution between more people than shunting it > >> all onto the Referee. > > > > I like the idea of relieving the Referee's burden. I wonder if we > > should actually encode some relief in the rules somehow, because as I > > understand it, taking the burden off the Referee with a contract like > > this is an entirely voluntary measure. I don't know how that would > > work. Maybe finger-pointing fees? > > > > Actually, that could be a use for a limited asset. Call them Fingers, > > you pay one to point a finger, at most N Fingers exist at any given > > time, and they're gradually replenished somehow when there are fewer > > than N (auctions?). Not actually advocating for doing this now, but > > maybe if Referee load actually became an issue... > > > > +1, the idea of auctioning fingers amuses me > I'm sorry to rain on the parade, but TBH it makes me really uncomfortable and I'd strongly prefer we didn't.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: indirect wins
On 2020-06-11 15:48, nch via agora-discussion wrote: -- nch Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager I love this. "Needlessly Abstract Exchange Exchange Manager" -- Trigon
DIS: Re: BUS: indirect wins
On 6/11/20 3:29 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > I submit the following proposal, "win indirection", AI-1: > > Amend Rule 2553 (Win by Paradox) by replacing: > > that case's initiator CAN, by announcement, win the game. > > with: > > that case's initiator, CAN, by announcement, Transcend Logic. When > a person transcends logic, e wins the game. > > > [This should make all wins in the rules indirect: Ribbons, > Tournaments, and Apathy are indirect already] > > > Unfortunately I think Sets breaks this style. -- nch Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On 6/11/2020 3:28 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: What is the advantage of arbitration by contract over just having the Referee / CFJ system handle things? The Referee and judges didn't necessarily opt in to being involved in every possible contract dispute (and it allows more flexibility than the rules currently do). And, if we end up using contracts more, then it allows spreading dispute resolution between more people than shunting it all onto the Referee. I like the idea of relieving the Referee's burden. I wonder if we should actually encode some relief in the rules somehow, because as I understand it, taking the burden off the Referee with a contract like this is an entirely voluntary measure. I don't know how that would work. Maybe finger-pointing fees? Actually, that could be a use for a limited asset. Call them Fingers, you pay one to point a finger, at most N Fingers exist at any given time, and they're gradually replenished somehow when there are fewer than N (auctions?). Not actually advocating for doing this now, but maybe if Referee load actually became an issue... +1, the idea of auctioning fingers amuses me
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On 6/11/2020 2:15 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: On 6/11/2020 10:55 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: When an Arbitration Case is unassigned, the Head Arbitrator CAN by announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, flip its Arbitrator to any other value. The Arbitrator SHALL NOT assign an Arbitration Case to a person who has a manifest interest in the case, whether monetary or otherwise. This puts the Arbitrator in a tough spot if everyone has an interest. (I think it was mentioned equity cases in the past had a problem where almost everyone had an interest.) What is the advantage of arbitration by contract over just having the Referee / CFJ system handle things? Referee (or perhaps better, Notary) hasn't been tried and would be really interesting to do IMO. But that could easily be private contract, too. future Notary here, I would definitely be interested in this.
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets
thank you for actually making some comments on this, i was beginning to get concerned that it would just get overlooked :) On 6/11/2020 2:38 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: I've been rattling this idea around in my mind for a bit. I decided to put together a proto-proposal to see what others think. This has a lot in common with G.'s "stones" proto. Last posted in September, I think: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-September/055498.html I thought the rules about stones escaping were fun. Also, there were some creative kinds of stone which you might want to combine with your list. Ooh, this is definitely interesting. I will probably steal-er, take some inspiration from some of these ideas. Title: Amulets ver. 0.1 AI: 1.0 Author: ATMunn Co-author(s): Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulets" with the following text: Amulets are a class of assets, tracked by the Teasuror, which can be owned by players. Each amulet has the following attributes: type, effect, tier. The effect and tier are tied to the type of the amulet, and are all defined elsewhere in the rules. Wearer is an amulet switch, with possible values of all active players or none (the default). A player CAN wear (syn. put on, equip) an amulet e owns by announcement, flipping the amulet's wearer to emself. E is then said to be wearing that amulet. A player CAN take off (syn. dequip) an amulet e is wearing, flipping the amulet's wearer to none. Players CANNOT wear more than one amulet at a time. An amulet with its wearer set to a player CANNOT be transferred. If the rules define the effect of a type of amulet to be passive, then the effect takes place for as long as it is worn by a player. If the rules define the effect of a type of amulet to be active, then the wearer of the amulet CAN activate it, causing its effect to This CAN needs a method. Also this is in conflict with the last paragraph about expired amulets (though it's clear the last paragraph is intended to override it). occur. Active amulets have a cooldown attribute, which unless specified otherwise, is 7 days after the time the amulet was most recently activated. Attempts to activate an amulet during its cooldown are INEFFECTIVE, even if the amulet's wearer has changed. If an amulet has existed for at least 3 months, and/or it is an active amulet and has been activated 5 or more times, it is considered to be expired. Expired amulets have no effect and CANNOT be activated. Any player CAN destroy an expired amulet by announcement. Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulet Types" with the following text: The following is a list of tier-1 amulet types and their effects: - Amulet of Victory (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week, the wearer of this amulet earns a Victory Point. This is pretty powerful compared to G.'s proposal of auctioning card per week. I think it's roughly equivalent to winning half those auctions for free. Yeah, I felt like these were a bit too powerful. Maybe a card a month for 6 months? I may also implement something like G.'s "escaping" mechanism instead of a set lifespan; that might fix the problem. - Amulet of Justice (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week, the wearer of this amulet earns a Blot-B-Gone. - Amulet of Legislation (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week, the wearer of this amulet earns a Pendant. - Amulet of Voting (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week, the wearer of this amulet earns an Extra Vote. - Amulet of Economy (passive): Every Payday, the wearer of this amulet earns an additional 10 coins. The following is a list of tier-2 amulet types and their effects: - Amulet of Drawing (passive): The wearer of this amulet CAN specify at any time, by announcement, a type of card e wishes to earn from this amulet. At the beginning of each Agoran week, e earns one of that type of card. If no type is specified, the type defaults to Victory Cards. The wearer MAY change the type of card specified, even if e has already earned cards of a different type. - Amulet of Influence (active): Upon activation, the wearer's voting strength on any one proposal that e specifies is increased by two. Jason suggestedout last month that voting strength is evaluated continuously, and instantaneous changes like this won't do anything. Thread: "Sets v0.9" https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-May/057669.html G.'s stones proto had the same problem. Sets v1.4 amends R2422 to explicitly cover the case of paying an Extra Vote. Maybe you could piggy-back on that by using the Buy Strength action? That might work. I'll look into
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: criminal behavior
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 2:50 PM James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 22:27, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via > agora-business wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 6:06 PM nch via agora-business > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 6/10/20 4:22 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > > > > > > > I ossify Agora. > > > > > > > I point my finger at G. for Faking. At least one person believed e had > > > ossified Agora, and acted on it. > > > > > > > > > > I find this finger pointing to be valid; I impose the Cold Hand of > > Justice by levying an unforgivable fine of 1 blot on G. because this > > was clearly intentional but inconsequential. However, as a result of > > this, I believe that any attempt to impose a fine for the Indictment > > would be INEFFECTIVE because it is the same conduct for which e is > > being fined here. In other words, the plot thickens. > > I'm not convinced it was made with the intent to mislead. It looked to > me like an obvious attempt to test DADA with an action that doesn't > actually do anything. > > So now we have a buggy indictment process and a lesser fine which may > or may not have been successfully levied and so may or may not block > the indictment process from leading to a fine. > > - Falsifian The appropriate means to appeal would be to CFJ on whether my fine was EFFECTIVE. If it were found to be INEFFECTIVE, we would then fine em through the Indictment, but I've realized that the Indictment process probably still has to occur even though the fine at the end couldn't be imposed.
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 3:29 PM James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > > > What is the advantage of arbitration by contract over just having the > > > Referee / CFJ system handle things? > > > > The Referee and judges didn't necessarily opt in to being involved in > > every possible contract dispute (and it allows more flexibility than the > > rules currently do). And, if we end up using contracts more, then it > > allows spreading dispute resolution between more people than shunting it > > all onto the Referee. > > I like the idea of relieving the Referee's burden. I wonder if we > should actually encode some relief in the rules somehow, because as I > understand it, taking the burden off the Referee with a contract like > this is an entirely voluntary measure. I don't know how that would > work. Maybe finger-pointing fees? > > Actually, that could be a use for a limited asset. Call them Fingers, > you pay one to point a finger, at most N Fingers exist at any given > time, and they're gradually replenished somehow when there are fewer > than N (auctions?). Not actually advocating for doing this now, but > maybe if Referee load actually became an issue... I would strongly oppose this because it could lead to a situation in which people couldn't be punished. If we were going to limit this, I'd go more in the direction of giving the Referee to designate excess finger-pointings or grant Fingers at will. > > > > Here's a thought. Punishing contract members with blots is a net loss > > > to parties to that contract. Maybe a contract would wish to have its > > > own punishment mechanism where the loss of the convicted is the gain > > > of the other parties*. They would need some way to make decisions on > > > that. They could use the CFJ system to determine whether an infraction > > > occurred, but the Arbitration contract offers discretion in the size > > > of the penalty which could be an advantage. > > > > Interesting idea, but I don't think that needs to be in version 1. > > Agreed, if you have customers for version 1 as written. > > - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On 6/11/2020 1:01 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 12:58 PM James Cook via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >>> In general, defining one method for doing something excludes >> "unregulated" >>> methods from working, but doesn't exclude other regulated methods in the >>> rules from working. >>> >>> For example, saying (under certain conditions) that the Herald CAN award >>> Champion by announcement (Rule 2449) doesn't prevent the Herald from >>> awarding Champion using the generic w/2 Agoran Consent method for patent >>> titles (R649). >>> >>> The wording I used was "A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em >> 100 >>> barrels." which could be read as "any time a player CAN win the game >>> (under any win method) it will additionally cost em 100 barrels." Saying >>> "A player CAN win the game by paying a fee of 100 barrels" doesn't stop >>> other regulated methods in the rules from working independently (but it >>> does put "win the game" into the "regulated" category which blocks wholly >>> unregulated methods from succeeding). >> >> I don't understand how the first phrasing could give R2579 any more >> force compared to the second phrasing. In both cases, the sole reason >> R2579 comes into effect is because payment of a set of assets has been >> associated with the action of winning the game. >> >> R2579 clearly says what *must* be done to perform a fee-based action. >> It is not written as if it's designed to provide an additional method. >> "To perform a fee-based action, an entity ... must ... indicate intent >> to pay that fee" and later "Otherwise ... the action is not >> performed". If another rule claims that it's possible to perform such >> an action a different way, then the rules are in conflict. >> >> Responding to Jason re R2125: yes, R2125 implies the possibility of >> multiple methods, but ultimately, it defers to the body of law (i.e. >> other rules): "that body of law prevents the action from being >> performed except as described within it". The "including by limiting >> the methods" part is in addition to that. > > > This all presumes that the fee-based action is winning the game, rather > than winning the game by barrels. > -Aris Oh, also, "Winning the game" isn't actually defined as an action in Rule 2449, and actually the explicit definition sounds like it's *not* an action: "When the Rules state that a person or persons win the game, those persons win the game" (This is a high-level definition so maybe overrides implications that winning the game is an action). So it's something that just "happens" when conditions are fulfilled?
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:56 PM James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > > When an Arbitration Case is unassigned, the Head Arbitrator CAN by > > announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, flip its Arbitrator to any > > other value. The Arbitrator SHALL NOT assign an Arbitration Case to a > > person who has a manifest interest in the case, whether monetary or > > otherwise. > > This puts the Arbitrator in a tough spot if everyone has an interest. > (I think it was mentioned equity cases in the past had a problem where > almost everyone had an interest.) > > What is the advantage of arbitration by contract over just having the > Referee / CFJ system handle things? It gives more freedom to contracts. > > I agree with ais523 that it would be cool to do more things by contract. > > Here's a thought. Punishing contract members with blots is a net loss > to parties to that contract. Maybe a contract would wish to have its > own punishment mechanism where the loss of the convicted is the gain > of the other parties*. They would need some way to make decisions on > that. They could use the CFJ system to determine whether an infraction > occurred, but the Arbitration contract offers discretion in the size > of the penalty which could be an advantage. This makes sense. What I think would be a solution would be to make the arbitration process more abstract but set the current limitations as the default while allowing contracts to set up other systems. > > I'm not sure we've been using contracts heavily enough yet for any of > these complicated things to make sense to use. > > *E.g. pseudo-blots that can be paid off by paying Coins to the > contract, with the threat of real blots if you don't pay them off. I like this idea. > > - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 12:58 PM James Cook via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > In general, defining one method for doing something excludes > "unregulated" > > methods from working, but doesn't exclude other regulated methods in the > > rules from working. > > > > For example, saying (under certain conditions) that the Herald CAN award > > Champion by announcement (Rule 2449) doesn't prevent the Herald from > > awarding Champion using the generic w/2 Agoran Consent method for patent > > titles (R649). > > > > The wording I used was "A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em > 100 > > barrels." which could be read as "any time a player CAN win the game > > (under any win method) it will additionally cost em 100 barrels." Saying > > "A player CAN win the game by paying a fee of 100 barrels" doesn't stop > > other regulated methods in the rules from working independently (but it > > does put "win the game" into the "regulated" category which blocks wholly > > unregulated methods from succeeding). > > I don't understand how the first phrasing could give R2579 any more > force compared to the second phrasing. In both cases, the sole reason > R2579 comes into effect is because payment of a set of assets has been > associated with the action of winning the game. > > R2579 clearly says what *must* be done to perform a fee-based action. > It is not written as if it's designed to provide an additional method. > "To perform a fee-based action, an entity ... must ... indicate intent > to pay that fee" and later "Otherwise ... the action is not > performed". If another rule claims that it's possible to perform such > an action a different way, then the rules are in conflict. > > Responding to Jason re R2125: yes, R2125 implies the possibility of > multiple methods, but ultimately, it defers to the body of law (i.e. > other rules): "that body of law prevents the action from being > performed except as described within it". The "including by limiting > the methods" part is in addition to that. This all presumes that the fee-based action is winning the game, rather than winning the game by barrels. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
> In general, defining one method for doing something excludes "unregulated" > methods from working, but doesn't exclude other regulated methods in the > rules from working. > > For example, saying (under certain conditions) that the Herald CAN award > Champion by announcement (Rule 2449) doesn't prevent the Herald from > awarding Champion using the generic w/2 Agoran Consent method for patent > titles (R649). > > The wording I used was "A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 > barrels." which could be read as "any time a player CAN win the game > (under any win method) it will additionally cost em 100 barrels." Saying > "A player CAN win the game by paying a fee of 100 barrels" doesn't stop > other regulated methods in the rules from working independently (but it > does put "win the game" into the "regulated" category which blocks wholly > unregulated methods from succeeding). I don't understand how the first phrasing could give R2579 any more force compared to the second phrasing. In both cases, the sole reason R2579 comes into effect is because payment of a set of assets has been associated with the action of winning the game. R2579 clearly says what *must* be done to perform a fee-based action. It is not written as if it's designed to provide an additional method. "To perform a fee-based action, an entity ... must ... indicate intent to pay that fee" and later "Otherwise ... the action is not performed". If another rule claims that it's possible to perform such an action a different way, then the rules are in conflict. Responding to Jason re R2125: yes, R2125 implies the possibility of multiple methods, but ultimately, it defers to the body of law (i.e. other rules): "that body of law prevents the action from being performed except as described within it". The "including by limiting the methods" part is in addition to that. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On 6/11/2020 11:19 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > The Referee and judges didn't necessarily opt in to being involved in > every possible contract dispute (and it allows more flexibility than the > rules currently do). And, if we end up using contracts more, then it > allows spreading dispute resolution between more people than shunting it > all onto the Referee. I'd forgotten this point on the CFJ side. We had a problem with judges tending to punt/recuse on equity cases because they didn't want to take the time to dive into a whole new legal code for each case (makes sense). We ended up allowing judges to express judging interest on a finer scale (i.e. we had the rotation of inquiry judges, equity judges, and trial judges tracked separately) but with our small community the voluntary equity judges - not many - were overburdened and this contributed to the procedural difficulty of these cases. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: criminal behavior
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 11:50 AM James Cook via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 22:27, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via > agora-business wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 6:06 PM nch via agora-business > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 6/10/20 4:22 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > > > > > > > I ossify Agora. > > > > > > > I point my finger at G. for Faking. At least one person believed e had > > > ossified Agora, and acted on it. > > > > > > > > > > I find this finger pointing to be valid; I impose the Cold Hand of > > Justice by levying an unforgivable fine of 1 blot on G. because this > > was clearly intentional but inconsequential. However, as a result of > > this, I believe that any attempt to impose a fine for the Indictment > > would be INEFFECTIVE because it is the same conduct for which e is > > being fined here. In other words, the plot thickens. > > I'm not convinced it was made with the intent to mislead. It looked to > me like an obvious attempt to test DADA with an action that doesn't > actually do anything. > > So now we have a buggy indictment process and a lesser fine which may > or may not have been successfully levied and so may or may not block > the indictment process from leading to a fine. > What I really like about Agora is that Agorans keep everything so simple. Gameplay is so concrete and grounded, and the players tale a common sense approach to the game, avoiding complexities such as hypotheticals and paradoxes. ;) -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Prime Minister Election Voting Phase
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 19:09, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 00:05, Rebecca via agora-official > wrote: > > I initiate an agoran decision for the election of the Prime Minister. The > > quorum is 7, the vote collector is the ADoP, the method is IRV, and the > > valid options are any candidates for PM, which currently are R. Lee, nch > > and ATMunn. > > > > I vote [R. Lee, nch] > > > > -- > > From R. Lee > > I vote [nch]. > > (nch has put a lot of effort into Sets so I expect e'd work hard to > get our new economy working. I think R. Lee and ATMunn would be great > too but haven't decided on a preference between them so did not list > them.) > > - Falsifian Oops, sorry for sending to agora-official. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On 6/11/2020 12:17 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: >>> In fact, I'm a little worried that associating a fee with winning the >>> game might mean you always need to pay that fee to perform that action. >>> E.g. even if you had 20 more victory cards than anyone else, R2579 would >>> *still* require you to pay 100 barrels to win, because that's the fee. I >>> think the fact that R478, which defines "by announcement", takes >>> precedence over R2579 prevents that problem, but I'm not sure. >> >> Ah, that *is* a problem with that wording I used - best argument I've seen >> against using it. (I think it's the wording, not the association in >> general - we've got the association of winning with a fee in R2483: "A >> player CAN win the game by paying a fee of 1,000 Coins.") > > Why does the wording make a difference? > > I thought my comment applied to the 1,000 Coin rule as well, but > didn't bring it up because that's about to be repealed. In general, defining one method for doing something excludes "unregulated" methods from working, but doesn't exclude other regulated methods in the rules from working. For example, saying (under certain conditions) that the Herald CAN award Champion by announcement (Rule 2449) doesn't prevent the Herald from awarding Champion using the generic w/2 Agoran Consent method for patent titles (R649). The wording I used was "A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels." which could be read as "any time a player CAN win the game (under any win method) it will additionally cost em 100 barrels." Saying "A player CAN win the game by paying a fee of 100 barrels" doesn't stop other regulated methods in the rules from working independently (but it does put "win the game" into the "regulated" category which blocks wholly unregulated methods from succeeding). -G.
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
> > What is the advantage of arbitration by contract over just having the > > Referee / CFJ system handle things? > > The Referee and judges didn't necessarily opt in to being involved in > every possible contract dispute (and it allows more flexibility than the > rules currently do). And, if we end up using contracts more, then it > allows spreading dispute resolution between more people than shunting it > all onto the Referee. I like the idea of relieving the Referee's burden. I wonder if we should actually encode some relief in the rules somehow, because as I understand it, taking the burden off the Referee with a contract like this is an entirely voluntary measure. I don't know how that would work. Maybe finger-pointing fees? Actually, that could be a use for a limited asset. Call them Fingers, you pay one to point a finger, at most N Fingers exist at any given time, and they're gradually replenished somehow when there are fewer than N (auctions?). Not actually advocating for doing this now, but maybe if Referee load actually became an issue... > > Here's a thought. Punishing contract members with blots is a net loss > > to parties to that contract. Maybe a contract would wish to have its > > own punishment mechanism where the loss of the convicted is the gain > > of the other parties*. They would need some way to make decisions on > > that. They could use the CFJ system to determine whether an infraction > > occurred, but the Arbitration contract offers discretion in the size > > of the penalty which could be an advantage. > > Interesting idea, but I don't think that needs to be in version 1. Agreed, if you have customers for version 1 as written. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 18:16, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/11/2020 10:55 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > >> When an Arbitration Case is unassigned, the Head Arbitrator CAN by > >> announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, flip its Arbitrator to any > >> other value. The Arbitrator SHALL NOT assign an Arbitration Case to a > >> person who has a manifest interest in the case, whether monetary or > >> otherwise. > > > > This puts the Arbitrator in a tough spot if everyone has an interest. > > (I think it was mentioned equity cases in the past had a problem where > > almost everyone had an interest.) > > > > What is the advantage of arbitration by contract over just having the > > Referee / CFJ system handle things? > > Referee (or perhaps better, Notary) hasn't been tried and would be really > interesting to do IMO. But that could easily be private contract, too. Oh, I just meant relying on the Referee and CFJ system as already encoded in the rules. A contract can already defer punishment to the Referee just by describing things as violations of the contract. (And the CFJ system can come in when the Referee's levy is INEFFECTIVE under R2531.) - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On 6/11/20 3:17 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > Why does the wording make a difference? > > I thought my comment applied to the 1,000 Coin rule as well, but > didn't bring it up because that's about to be repealed. > > - Falsifian R2125 permits multiple methods and strongly implies that any of them can be used to perform the action: > If a body of law regulates an action, then to the extent that > doing so is within its scope, that body of law prevents the action > from being performed except as described within it, including by > limiting the methods to perform that action to those specified > within it. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 17:36, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/11/2020 10:12 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > >> On Tuesday, 9 June 2020, 20:16:09 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > >> wrote: > >>> On 6/9/2020 11:21 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: > I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: > > A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels. > This is unusual wording for this, and it looks a lot like it would > permit a player to win the game without having 100 barrels. > >>> > >>> Using what method? > >> > >> The rule states that a player CAN win the game. It doesn't specify a > >> mechanism. So on a straightforward reading, either players can win the > >> game, or they can't due to a lack of mechanism, but neither seems to > >> have a dependency on their barrel quantities. (In particular, the rule > >> states that players in general CAN win the game, not just players who > >> have 100 barrels.) > >> > >> I guess the sentence in question is meant to be a) insufficiently > >> precise to define a mechanism in its own right, thus preventing players > >> who are short on barrels winning the game because they have no way short > >> of an ISIDTID fallacy to attempt to do so; but b) sufficiently precise > >> to trigger rule 2579, which provides the mechanism. By rule 2152, "CAN" > >> means "Attempts to perform the described action are successful"; most > >> rules that want players to be able to perform an action under certain > >> circumstances state that attempts succeed under only those > >> circumstances, whereas this rule is apparently defined so that > >> attempting to perform the action is automatically successful, but limits > >> the performance of the action by restricting what would count as an > >> attempt. That's an almost unprecedented situation (and very unintuitive > >> because it relies on the rule being reinterpreted into something other > >> than the obvious reading by a higher-powered rule). > >> > >> For what it's worth, I think using ISIDTID to try to win the game > >> without 100 barrels might actually work here. Assuming you think it > >> works (or maybe even if you don't), an announcement "I win the game, but > >> this costs me 100 barrels" is clearly an /attempt/ to win the game, and > >> thus by the new rule, and rule 2152, the attempt succeeds. The > >> announcement didn't actually trigger anything within the rules directly; > >> but it was evidence of an attempt to trigger them, and by the rules, it > >> succeeded! > >> > >> -- > >> ais523 > > > > Doesn't R2125 (Regulated Actions) stop that ISIDTID from working? > > Assuming G.'s proposal is precise enough to trigger R2579 (Fee-based > > Actions) (it looks that way to me), then I think the rules (specifically > > the conditions in R2579) make winning the game a regulated action. So, > > R2125 says the rules prevent the action from occurring except as laid > > out by the rules. > > > > In fact, I'm a little worried that associating a fee with winning the > > game might mean you always need to pay that fee to perform that action. > > E.g. even if you had 20 more victory cards than anyone else, R2579 would > > *still* require you to pay 100 barrels to win, because that's the fee. I > > think the fact that R478, which defines "by announcement", takes > > precedence over R2579 prevents that problem, but I'm not sure. > > Ah, that *is* a problem with that wording I used - best argument I've seen > against using it. (I think it's the wording, not the association in > general - we've got the association of winning with a fee in R2483: "A > player CAN win the game by paying a fee of 1,000 Coins.") Why does the wording make a difference? I thought my comment applied to the 1,000 Coin rule as well, but didn't bring it up because that's about to be repealed. - Falsifian
DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Prime Minister Election Voting Phase
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 00:05, Rebecca via agora-official wrote: > I initiate an agoran decision for the election of the Prime Minister. The > quorum is 7, the vote collector is the ADoP, the method is IRV, and the > valid options are any candidates for PM, which currently are R. Lee, nch > and ATMunn. > > I vote [R. Lee, nch] > > -- > From R. Lee I vote [nch]. (nch has put a lot of effort into Sets so I expect e'd work hard to get our new economy working. I think R. Lee and ATMunn would be great too but haven't decided on a preference between them so did not list them.) - Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer sets up tripwire
On 6/11/20 2:58 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > I’m unsure how much power we have in “defining an entity” for the purposes > of contract-defined Assets, but eh life is short, I’ll give it a shot. > Also, this doesn’t violate DADA, rather, it aims to exploit it seeing how > G. was punished for Dark Arts recently. It maybe even has support from AIAN > but I have no idea. Anyways baby, let’s go. > > > (About the Bazinga: it didn't exist as gamestate before this contract > existed, right? With that specific name and all, which is a lot different > from just the set alone, namelessly. So it exists by virtue of the > contract. That's important for R2166.) > > I create the following contract called “Humble Agoran Moral Tripwire”: > > > > The set consisting of Cuddlebeam’s Master Switch and Agora’s Ruleset is > defined to be the Bazinga entity. And, of course, there is only one > Bazinga. > > The Bazinga is a destructible asset that can only be owned by Cuddlebeam > and is owned by Cuddlebeam. > > The Bazinga is destroyed whenever any event described in the Big Evil List > happens. If you're arguing that the Bazinga is a new entity and that it somehow "is" a set, then go ahead and destroy it. Destroying a set of entities does not necessarily imply destroying each of its elements. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [Proto] Competitive Finger Pointing
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 22:14, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > This is a very early proto, but I figured I'd throw it out there for > consideration while other criminal reforms are being discussed. > > The idea is: > > * Shenanigans is a 0+X crime, where X is the number of times in the last > 7 days e has previously committed Shenanigans. > > * The player who did the most fingerpointing that resulted that results > in fines in the last calendar week may once create a Blot-B-Gone card in > eir possession. If their is a tie, only the first player to attempt to > do so is successful. I love it. Let's enforce the rules! - Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: criminal behavior
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 22:27, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 6:06 PM nch via agora-business > wrote: > > > > > > On 6/10/20 4:22 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > > > > > I ossify Agora. > > > > > I point my finger at G. for Faking. At least one person believed e had > > ossified Agora, and acted on it. > > > > > > I find this finger pointing to be valid; I impose the Cold Hand of > Justice by levying an unforgivable fine of 1 blot on G. because this > was clearly intentional but inconsequential. However, as a result of > this, I believe that any attempt to impose a fine for the Indictment > would be INEFFECTIVE because it is the same conduct for which e is > being fined here. In other words, the plot thickens. I'm not convinced it was made with the intent to mislead. It looked to me like an obvious attempt to test DADA with an action that doesn't actually do anything. So now we have a buggy indictment process and a lesser fine which may or may not have been successfully levied and so may or may not block the indictment process from leading to a fine. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets
> I've been rattling this idea around in my mind for a bit. I decided to > put together a proto-proposal to see what others think. This has a lot in common with G.'s "stones" proto. Last posted in September, I think: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-September/055498.html I thought the rules about stones escaping were fun. Also, there were some creative kinds of stone which you might want to combine with your list. > Title: Amulets ver. 0.1 > AI: 1.0 > Author: ATMunn > Co-author(s): > > Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulets" with the following text: > Amulets are a class of assets, tracked by the Teasuror, which can be > owned by players. Each amulet has the following attributes: type, > effect, tier. The effect and tier are tied to the type of the > amulet, and are all defined elsewhere in the rules. > > Wearer is an amulet switch, with possible values of all active > players or none (the default). A player CAN wear (syn. put on, > equip) an amulet e owns by announcement, flipping the amulet's > wearer to emself. E is then said to be wearing that amulet. A player > CAN take off (syn. dequip) an amulet e is wearing, flipping the > amulet's wearer to none. Players CANNOT wear more than one amulet at > a time. An amulet with its wearer set to a player CANNOT be > transferred. > > If the rules define the effect of a type of amulet to be passive, > then the effect takes place for as long as it is worn by a player. > If the rules define the effect of a type of amulet to be active, > then the wearer of the amulet CAN activate it, causing its effect to This CAN needs a method. Also this is in conflict with the last paragraph about expired amulets (though it's clear the last paragraph is intended to override it). > occur. Active amulets have a cooldown attribute, which unless > specified otherwise, is 7 days after the time the amulet was most > recently activated. Attempts to activate an amulet during its > cooldown are INEFFECTIVE, even if the amulet's wearer has changed. > > If an amulet has existed for at least 3 months, and/or it is an > active amulet and has been activated 5 or more times, it is > considered to be expired. Expired amulets have no effect and CANNOT > be activated. Any player CAN destroy an expired amulet by > announcement. > > Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulet Types" with the following text: > The following is a list of tier-1 amulet types and their effects: > > - Amulet of Victory (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week, >the wearer of this amulet earns a Victory Point. This is pretty powerful compared to G.'s proposal of auctioning card per week. I think it's roughly equivalent to winning half those auctions for free. > - Amulet of Justice (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week, >the wearer of this amulet earns a Blot-B-Gone. > > - Amulet of Legislation (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran >week, the wearer of this amulet earns a Pendant. > > - Amulet of Voting (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week, >the wearer of this amulet earns an Extra Vote. > > - Amulet of Economy (passive): Every Payday, the wearer of this >amulet earns an additional 10 coins. > > The following is a list of tier-2 amulet types and their effects: > > - Amulet of Drawing (passive): The wearer of this amulet CAN specify >at any time, by announcement, a type of card e wishes to earn from >this amulet. At the beginning of each Agoran week, e earns one of >that type of card. If no type is specified, the type defaults to >Victory Cards. The wearer MAY change the type of card specified, >even if e has already earned cards of a different type. > > - Amulet of Influence (active): Upon activation, the wearer's voting >strength on any one proposal that e specifies is increased by two. Jason suggestedout last month that voting strength is evaluated continuously, and instantaneous changes like this won't do anything. Thread: "Sets v0.9" https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-May/057669.html G.'s stones proto had the same problem. Sets v1.4 amends R2422 to explicitly cover the case of paying an Extra Vote. Maybe you could piggy-back on that by using the Buy Strength action? - Falsifian
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On 6/11/20 1:55 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: >> When an Arbitration Case is unassigned, the Head Arbitrator CAN by >> announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, flip its Arbitrator to any >> other value. The Arbitrator SHALL NOT assign an Arbitration Case to a >> person who has a manifest interest in the case, whether monetary or >> otherwise. > This puts the Arbitrator in a tough spot if everyone has an interest. > (I think it was mentioned equity cases in the past had a problem where > almost everyone had an interest.) Interesting point; I'll probably just weaken it to a SHOULD. > > What is the advantage of arbitration by contract over just having the > Referee / CFJ system handle things? The Referee and judges didn't necessarily opt in to being involved in every possible contract dispute (and it allows more flexibility than the rules currently do). And, if we end up using contracts more, then it allows spreading dispute resolution between more people than shunting it all onto the Referee. > Here's a thought. Punishing contract members with blots is a net loss > to parties to that contract. Maybe a contract would wish to have its > own punishment mechanism where the loss of the convicted is the gain > of the other parties*. They would need some way to make decisions on > that. They could use the CFJ system to determine whether an infraction > occurred, but the Arbitration contract offers discretion in the size > of the penalty which could be an advantage. Interesting idea, but I don't think that needs to be in version 1. > > I'm not sure we've been using contracts heavily enough yet for any of > these complicated things to make sense to use. Fair point. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On 6/11/2020 10:55 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: >> When an Arbitration Case is unassigned, the Head Arbitrator CAN by >> announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, flip its Arbitrator to any >> other value. The Arbitrator SHALL NOT assign an Arbitration Case to a >> person who has a manifest interest in the case, whether monetary or >> otherwise. > > This puts the Arbitrator in a tough spot if everyone has an interest. > (I think it was mentioned equity cases in the past had a problem where > almost everyone had an interest.) > > What is the advantage of arbitration by contract over just having the > Referee / CFJ system handle things? Referee (or perhaps better, Notary) hasn't been tried and would be really interesting to do IMO. But that could easily be private contract, too. Issues with CFJ system: - as soon as you give a judge the power to actually change a quantity (other than eir judgement) you have to have a whole system for undoing or staying the effects under moots and motions. - and we don't really want to subject equity settlements to mass voting like through a moot. Maybe an Appeals court would be fine there. - the CFJ system is set up for all the evidence generally being assembled by the first caller (with optional/unregulated gratuitous additions when practical). The multi-step process of "let the plaintiff speak, then let the defendant respond, etc." with 4 days between each step or whatever led to delays but also lacks of response. I think if you rephrase the process as a "referee-led mediation" it would allow the whole thing to be hashed out more naturally during discussion (possibly privately). - previously we included standing - random non-party couldn't start a CFJ that a contract had been breached if the parties were happy. But in Agora, people couldn't resist - you got overrides like third-party inquiry CFJs that said "true/false the contract has been platonically breached even if the parties are happy". I think keeping it in the referee (or Notary) domain would emphasize the separation. There were benefits and it was fun, don't get me wrong, but those are reasons I'd try out a more mediation-driven process (either rules based/notary led, or through contract - no bias there)
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
> When an Arbitration Case is unassigned, the Head Arbitrator CAN by > announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, flip its Arbitrator to any > other value. The Arbitrator SHALL NOT assign an Arbitration Case to a > person who has a manifest interest in the case, whether monetary or > otherwise. This puts the Arbitrator in a tough spot if everyone has an interest. (I think it was mentioned equity cases in the past had a problem where almost everyone had an interest.) What is the advantage of arbitration by contract over just having the Referee / CFJ system handle things? I agree with ais523 that it would be cool to do more things by contract. Here's a thought. Punishing contract members with blots is a net loss to parties to that contract. Maybe a contract would wish to have its own punishment mechanism where the loss of the convicted is the gain of the other parties*. They would need some way to make decisions on that. They could use the CFJ system to determine whether an infraction occurred, but the Arbitration contract offers discretion in the size of the penalty which could be an advantage. I'm not sure we've been using contracts heavily enough yet for any of these complicated things to make sense to use. *E.g. pseudo-blots that can be paid off by paying Coins to the contract, with the threat of real blots if you don't pay them off. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On 6/11/2020 10:12 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Tuesday, 9 June 2020, 20:16:09 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion >> wrote: >>> On 6/9/2020 11:21 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: > A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels. This is unusual wording for this, and it looks a lot like it would permit a player to win the game without having 100 barrels. >>> >>> Using what method? >> >> The rule states that a player CAN win the game. It doesn't specify a >> mechanism. So on a straightforward reading, either players can win the >> game, or they can't due to a lack of mechanism, but neither seems to >> have a dependency on their barrel quantities. (In particular, the rule >> states that players in general CAN win the game, not just players who >> have 100 barrels.) >> >> I guess the sentence in question is meant to be a) insufficiently >> precise to define a mechanism in its own right, thus preventing players >> who are short on barrels winning the game because they have no way short >> of an ISIDTID fallacy to attempt to do so; but b) sufficiently precise >> to trigger rule 2579, which provides the mechanism. By rule 2152, "CAN" >> means "Attempts to perform the described action are successful"; most >> rules that want players to be able to perform an action under certain >> circumstances state that attempts succeed under only those >> circumstances, whereas this rule is apparently defined so that >> attempting to perform the action is automatically successful, but limits >> the performance of the action by restricting what would count as an >> attempt. That's an almost unprecedented situation (and very unintuitive >> because it relies on the rule being reinterpreted into something other >> than the obvious reading by a higher-powered rule). >> >> For what it's worth, I think using ISIDTID to try to win the game >> without 100 barrels might actually work here. Assuming you think it >> works (or maybe even if you don't), an announcement "I win the game, but >> this costs me 100 barrels" is clearly an /attempt/ to win the game, and >> thus by the new rule, and rule 2152, the attempt succeeds. The >> announcement didn't actually trigger anything within the rules directly; >> but it was evidence of an attempt to trigger them, and by the rules, it >> succeeded! >> >> -- >> ais523 > > Doesn't R2125 (Regulated Actions) stop that ISIDTID from working? > Assuming G.'s proposal is precise enough to trigger R2579 (Fee-based > Actions) (it looks that way to me), then I think the rules (specifically > the conditions in R2579) make winning the game a regulated action. So, > R2125 says the rules prevent the action from occurring except as laid > out by the rules. > > In fact, I'm a little worried that associating a fee with winning the > game might mean you always need to pay that fee to perform that action. > E.g. even if you had 20 more victory cards than anyone else, R2579 would > *still* require you to pay 100 barrels to win, because that's the fee. I > think the fact that R478, which defines "by announcement", takes > precedence over R2579 prevents that problem, but I'm not sure. Ah, that *is* a problem with that wording I used - best argument I've seen against using it. (I think it's the wording, not the association in general - we've got the association of winning with a fee in R2483: "A player CAN win the game by paying a fee of 1,000 Coins.")
DIS: Re: BUS: [Notice of Honour]
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 21:06, nch via agora-business wrote: > > This is a Notice of Honour: > > +1 Falsifian (excellence in journalism) > > -1 Jason (to ensure eir ego doesn't grow too big up in the clouds above > the rest of us) Thanks, ATMunn and nch! I am glad you're enjoying the summaries. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
> On Tuesday, 9 June 2020, 20:16:09 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On 6/9/2020 11:21 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: > > > I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: > > >> A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels. > > > This is unusual wording for this, and it looks a lot like it would permit > > > a player to win the game without having 100 barrels. > > > > Using what method? > > The rule states that a player CAN win the game. It doesn't specify a > mechanism. So on a straightforward reading, either players can win the > game, or they can't due to a lack of mechanism, but neither seems to > have a dependency on their barrel quantities. (In particular, the rule > states that players in general CAN win the game, not just players who > have 100 barrels.) > > I guess the sentence in question is meant to be a) insufficiently > precise to define a mechanism in its own right, thus preventing players > who are short on barrels winning the game because they have no way short > of an ISIDTID fallacy to attempt to do so; but b) sufficiently precise > to trigger rule 2579, which provides the mechanism. By rule 2152, "CAN" > means "Attempts to perform the described action are successful"; most > rules that want players to be able to perform an action under certain > circumstances state that attempts succeed under only those > circumstances, whereas this rule is apparently defined so that > attempting to perform the action is automatically successful, but limits > the performance of the action by restricting what would count as an > attempt. That's an almost unprecedented situation (and very unintuitive > because it relies on the rule being reinterpreted into something other > than the obvious reading by a higher-powered rule). > > For what it's worth, I think using ISIDTID to try to win the game > without 100 barrels might actually work here. Assuming you think it > works (or maybe even if you don't), an announcement "I win the game, but > this costs me 100 barrels" is clearly an /attempt/ to win the game, and > thus by the new rule, and rule 2152, the attempt succeeds. The > announcement didn't actually trigger anything within the rules directly; > but it was evidence of an attempt to trigger them, and by the rules, it > succeeded! > > -- > ais523 Doesn't R2125 (Regulated Actions) stop that ISIDTID from working? Assuming G.'s proposal is precise enough to trigger R2579 (Fee-based Actions) (it looks that way to me), then I think the rules (specifically the conditions in R2579) make winning the game a regulated action. So, R2125 says the rules prevent the action from occurring except as laid out by the rules. In fact, I'm a little worried that associating a fee with winning the game might mean you always need to pay that fee to perform that action. E.g. even if you had 20 more victory cards than anyone else, R2579 would *still* require you to pay 100 barrels to win, because that's the fee. I think the fact that R478, which defines "by announcement", takes precedence over R2579 prevents that problem, but I'm not sure. - Falsifian
