Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Rule: Onboarding of Newly Activated Players
On 7/27/2021 3:13 PM, Trigon via agora-discussion wrote: >> 2. Players that are Active less than one month MUST actively be educated >> when their Action is IMPOSSIBLE within the current Ruleset. > > I'm not sure this is the best way to phrase this. Again, MUST means that > it is a rules violation to fail to do the specified action. My best > interpretation of the wording as-is would probably mean that any player > who fails to explain the error, including the new player emself, would > be susceptible to punishment. I am unsure as to what could be done > instead, but throwing everyone under the bus at once rubs me the wrong > way, especially since there is a financial incentive for pointing out > the most crimes in a week (Rule 2478, last paragraph). With The Ritual two years ago, a judge found that collective MUSTs generally aren't punishable. Judge D. Margaux initially made a referee's decision aligning with what you said above, then thought differently when judging: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3730 -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: New Rule: Onboarding of Newly Activated Players
I think I like the direction you're going with this. With a bit of workshopping, I would definitely vote FOR it. For now, though, allow me to make some comments. On 27/07/2021 16:30, D. Wet via agora-business wrote: I propose to create a new Rule in the Agoran commmunity to be adopted according to the current rule adoption procedure. The Rule is: Onboarding of Newly Activated Players 1. Newly Activated Players MUST be requested to take their first Action in a timely fashion after being switched to Active. You use a "MUST" here. This means that it would become a crime to join the game and fail to post for a week (Rule 2152). I would contend that this has the opposite effect to what you probably intended: it would demoralize new players instead of encouraging them to become more active. 2. Players that are Active less than one month MUST actively be educated when their Action is IMPOSSIBLE within the current Ruleset. I'm not sure this is the best way to phrase this. Again, MUST means that it is a rules violation to fail to do the specified action. My best interpretation of the wording as-is would probably mean that any player who fails to explain the error, including the new player emself, would be susceptible to punishment. I am unsure as to what could be done instead, but throwing everyone under the bus at once rubs me the wrong way, especially since there is a financial incentive for pointing out the most crimes in a week (Rule 2478, last paragraph). 3. The education in referred to in 2. MUST contain references to N specific Rules numbers as to why their Action is ILLEGAL within the current Ruleset. N is at least 1 and at most 3 and NEED NOT to lead to a POSSIBLE Action when taken into account during the next try to act. Any particular reason for capping the number of cited rules at three? If it's just to not give the new player too much text to crawl through then that's fine; I'd just like to know. Let me reiterate that I do like this idea. Agora, however, is very picky about how rules are phrased, so picking each others' proposals apart is a step of the drafting process. Excited to see where this goes! -- Trigon ¸¸.•*¨*• Play AGORA QUEST I’m always happy to become a party to contracts. I LOVE SPAGHETTI transfer Jason one coin nch was here I hereby don't... trust... the dragon... don't... trust... the dragon... Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Rule: Onboarding of Newly Activated Players
On 7/27/2021 1:55 PM, Ned Strange via agora-discussion wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 2:31 AM D. Wet via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> I propose to create a new Rule in the Agoran commmunity to be adopted
>> according to the current rule adoption procedure. The Rule is:
>>
>> Onboarding of Newly Activated Players
>>
>> 1. Newly Activated Players MUST be requested to take their first Action
>> in a timely fashion after being switched to Active.
>>
>> 2. Players that are Active less than one month MUST actively be educated
>> when their Action is IMPOSSIBLE within the current Ruleset.
>>
>> 3. The education in referred to in 2. MUST contain references to N
>> specific Rules numbers as to why their Action is ILLEGAL within the
>> current Ruleset. N is at least 1 and at most 3 and NEED NOT to lead to a
>> POSSIBLE Action when taken into account during the next try to act.
>>
>
> I do believe this proposal is effective. It only needs to specify its
> text.
But was is its text? Is the first sentence part of the by-announcement
submission, or part of the proposal?
If the first sentence ("I propose...") is a proposal-submission statement,
then the rest of that sentence ("to create a new rule") is also part of
the submission statement, so not part of the proposal, so the proposal
would do nothing.
If "I propose" is part of the proposal, than the proposal wasn't submitted
to the pool, as that's not a clear by-announcement intent?
Or maybe it should be parsed: "I propose (to create a new Rule...)"; that
is, the proposal text begins "to create a new Rule". With some charity,
that could be called a Rules creation, but I'm not sure it passes
heightened R105 requirements for rule change specification?
-G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Rule: Onboarding of Newly Activated Players
On Wed, 2021-07-28 at 06:55 +1000, Ned Strange via agora-discussion wrote: > I do believe this proposal is effective. It only needs to specify its text. > > For future reference, proposals usually have a title and an adoption index > equal to the power of what it does. Power is essentially a ranking of how > important rules are and when creating a new rule it's important to note > whether it is power 1 2 or 3. The default is 1, though, and I think this rule works at power 1; it's just telling people to do things, rather than trying to alter gamestate that might need higher power to change. That said, it probably doesn't do what the author intended: because it's written in the passive voice, this means that if nobody chooses to help out the new player, it's technically the new player who gets punished for not being educated correctly, which seems very harsh. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: New Rule: Onboarding of Newly Activated Players
I do believe this proposal is effective. It only needs to specify its text. For future reference, proposals usually have a title and an adoption index equal to the power of what it does. Power is essentially a ranking of how important rules are and when creating a new rule it's important to note whether it is power 1 2 or 3. On Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 2:31 AM D. Wet via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I propose to create a new Rule in the Agoran commmunity to be adopted > according to the current rule adoption procedure. The Rule is: > > Onboarding of Newly Activated Players > > 1. Newly Activated Players MUST be requested to take their first Action > in a timely fashion after being switched to Active. > > 2. Players that are Active less than one month MUST actively be educated > when their Action is IMPOSSIBLE within the current Ruleset. > > 3. The education in referred to in 2. MUST contain references to N > specific Rules numbers as to why their Action is ILLEGAL within the > current Ruleset. N is at least 1 and at most 3 and NEED NOT to lead to a > POSSIBLE Action when taken into account during the next try to act. >
DIS: [Proto] Independence Day
[This is a draft based on our team’s Survivor entry. It’s a bit rough, not sure
if some of the changes I made are worth the trouble, but better to get
something out there and not keep sitting on it]
Title: Independence Day
Adoption Index: 3.0
Author: Gaelan
Co-authors: G., Telna, nix, CuddleBeam, cuddlybanana
{
Amend Rule 1728 "Dependent Action Methods" to read as follows: {
A person CAN, by announcement, create an intent (syn. "table an
intent", "intend") to perform a tabled action, conspicuously and
without obfuscation specifying the action, the tabled action method
(including non-default parameter values), and optionally,
conditions.
A person is a sponsor of an intent if e tabled it, or if e is
authorized to perform its action due to holding a rule-defined
position previously held by the person who tabled the intent.
The decisionmakers for an intent default to all players,
modifiable by the document enabling the action. For a given
tabled intent, a decisionmaker CAN, by announcement:
* Become a supporter ("support" it), unless e tabled or previously
supported it
* Become an objector ("object to" it), unless e previously
objected to it;
* Cease to be a supporter or objector ("withdraw" support/objection)
An intent is mature if it was tabled at least 4 days ago and nobody
withdrew objections from it in the past 24 hours.
An intent is ripe if was tabled within the past 14 days, it is
not spent, the Speaker hasn't objected to it in the past 48 hours,
and its conditions, if any, are met.
A rule purporting to allow a person to perform an action (a "tabled
action") using one of the following methods ("tabled action
methods") allows em to do so by announcement, if, for that
action/method combination:
* Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer: e is a
sponsor of a mature ripe intent with less than N objectors.
* With N Support, where N is a positive integer: e is a
supporter of a ripe intent with at least N supporters.
* With N Agoran Consent, where N is a positive integer multiple of
0.1: e owns or supports a mature ripe intent with supporters
greater than N times its objectors (e SHOULD list supporters and
objectors).
* With T notice: e owns a ripe intent created at least T ago.
Upon eir doing so, the intent becomes spent.
The parameters N and T, if omitted, default to "1" and "4 days"
respectively (e.g. "without objection" means N=1). If a rule
defines N as less than 1 or greater than 8, it is instead treated as
1 or 8, respectively.
}
Retitle Rule 1728 to "Tabled Actions".
Repeal rules 2595 ("Performing a Dependent Action") and 2124 ("Agoran
Satisfaction").
}
DIS: Timing experiment
I am sending this email with the following procedure, using my normal mail client (Apple Mail): 1. Turning off my computer's wifi connection 2. Sending this message, allowing it to sit in the Outbox, at around 10:52 AM Pacific 3. A while later, turning on my wifi I suspect this message's Date header will be around 10:52, despite me delaying its sending, and without me actually "forging" any headers. Not sure this would change anything if it's the case, but I'm curious. Gaelan
Re: DIS: proto on datestamps
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 8:35 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 7/26/2021 11:09 PM, Aspen via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 2:56 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> Proto: dating standards > >> > >> Amend Rule 478 (Fora) by replacing: > >>performed at the time date-stamped on that message > >> with: > >>performed at the earliest credible time date-stamped on that message > >> > >> ["earliest" because that's closest to hitting the send key, "credible" to > >> make it clear that it's a matter of evidence not logic. In practice, this > >> means go with the Date: field unless there's evidence that it's not > >> credible in some way, in which case go with the next earliest - likely the > >> first forum stamp]. > >> > > > > I'd prefer to leave this more open. I do agree that "the time > > date-stamped on that message" is actively confusing, and should be > > changed. However, I don't think the right solution is to legislate a > > standard for something that game custom can (IMO) just do a better > > chance of handling. > > > > Here are a few alternatives that preserve our current way of handling this: > > > > "performed at exactly one of the times date-stamped on that message" > > > > "performed at exactly one of the times date-stamped on that message; > > selecting which one is a matter of game custom" > > > > The first one may prompt questions from new players, but is perhaps > > stylistically cleaner. The later one is a nearly verbatim copy of the > > current rule annotation. > > I'm really not keen on this approach. It doesn't clarify, instead it > suggests there's an arbitrary menu of options, which is worse than now. I > think, fairly strongly, we should suggest in the text of a rule that we're > actually trying to get close to the time of sending (time the 'send' key > is hit). > > If my options were leaving it as now, and making it "one of the > timestamps", I'd leave it as now, because the 100% natural reading of the > current language is that the "date" is the time of send, and it's only due > to our over-technical knowledge (that it can be forged, potentially) that > we worry about other readings. > I'm okay with leaving it the way it is too. I just don't like trying to clarify, because if you clarify meaningfully you're also limiting the range of possible judicial interpretations, and I don't think that's a good thing here. -Aspen
Re: DIS: proto on datestamps
On 7/26/2021 11:09 PM, Aspen via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 2:56 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: >> >> >> Proto: dating standards >> >> Amend Rule 478 (Fora) by replacing: >>performed at the time date-stamped on that message >> with: >>performed at the earliest credible time date-stamped on that message >> >> ["earliest" because that's closest to hitting the send key, "credible" to >> make it clear that it's a matter of evidence not logic. In practice, this >> means go with the Date: field unless there's evidence that it's not >> credible in some way, in which case go with the next earliest - likely the >> first forum stamp]. >> > > I'd prefer to leave this more open. I do agree that "the time > date-stamped on that message" is actively confusing, and should be > changed. However, I don't think the right solution is to legislate a > standard for something that game custom can (IMO) just do a better > chance of handling. > > Here are a few alternatives that preserve our current way of handling this: > > "performed at exactly one of the times date-stamped on that message" > > "performed at exactly one of the times date-stamped on that message; > selecting which one is a matter of game custom" > > The first one may prompt questions from new players, but is perhaps > stylistically cleaner. The later one is a nearly verbatim copy of the > current rule annotation. I'm really not keen on this approach. It doesn't clarify, instead it suggests there's an arbitrary menu of options, which is worse than now. I think, fairly strongly, we should suggest in the text of a rule that we're actually trying to get close to the time of sending (time the 'send' key is hit). If my options were leaving it as now, and making it "one of the timestamps", I'd leave it as now, because the 100% natural reading of the current language is that the "date" is the time of send, and it's only due to our over-technical knowledge (that it can be forged, potentially) that we worry about other readings. -G.
