DIS: Re: BUS: (@Notary) A Contractual Obligation to Play Nim (grammar)
On Mon, 2022-02-28 at 19:36 -0600, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > I cease to be a party to the contract "Nim", causing it to terminate. > > I create, consent to, and become party to a contract titled "Nim" > with the following provisions: I might be missing something, but this seems to lack any method of setting the Stack switches? So they'll all start at 0, making the game a little pointless. -- ais523
Re: DIS: [proto] TIME Act
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: On 2/28/22 22:11, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote: I am not sure that the above definition corresponds _either_ to what a retroactive change intuitively is or to what ratification platonically does. It might correspond to a pragmatic view, which is close to saying that Agora's gamestate _is_ its records. We granted Falsifian a law degree for a thesis arguing otherwise [0]. [0]: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-June/040456.html Argh. I'm getting too old to understand Agora... I would strongly suggest that this only restrict rule changes in the minimal modification, and not any later changes following logically from it. Otherwise the discrepancies between the intuitive interpretation of retroactively fixing an old error and the platonic result could be mind-wrecking. Greetings, Ørjan. I don't understand. If rule changes would follow from the minimal modification, they must be part of the minimal modification, right? For example, if the ratification changes whether a proposal is successfully enacted, changing the present and past rules must necessarily be part of the minimal modification in order to be as accurate as possible, right? I am thinking here of cases where something _long_ in the past is ratified, to fix an old serious error that has unwittingly been missed for years, and which as an indirect result has caused certain _other_ rule changes not to happen in the way everyone had been assuming - and everything's so complicated that no one's quite sure they've caught all of them. And now I've put it into words it sounds like something that probably doesn't happen much given that proposals self-ratify. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're not understanding. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason My mind is going, I can feel it. Ørjan.
Re: DIS: [proto] TIME Act
On 2/28/22 22:11, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>
>> I present the following draft to clean up the ratification rule.
>>
>> The only intended semantic change is securing all retroactive
>> modification, everything else is just mean to make the existing text
>> much more clear.
>>
>>
>> Title: Temporal Incursion Modification and Exclusion Act
>> Author: Jason
>> Coauthors: Aspen
>> Adoption index: 3.0
>>
>> Amend Rule 1551 (Ratification) to read, in whole:
>> {
>> A retroactive change is one that changes the game's record of
>> past events. Retroactive changes are secured with power
>> threshold 3.
> Ratification is purposefully defined so as _not_ to do any retroactive
> changes in the intuitive sense, but only simulate their effects by
> changing the gamestate in the present.
>
> I see it as the continuation of a long tradition of keeping Agora in a
> style where platonic and pragmatic interpretations of the rules lead to
> the same result.
>
> I am not sure that the above definition corresponds _either_ to what a
> retroactive change intuitively is or to what ratification platonically
> does. It might correspond to a pragmatic view, which is close to saying
> that Agora's gamestate _is_ its records.
We granted Falsifian a law degree for a thesis arguing otherwise [0].
[0]:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-June/040456.html
>
>> When a document or statement (hereafter "document") is to be ratified,
>> the following definitions apply:
>> * The publication time is the instant at which the document to be
>> ratified was published.
>> * The truth time is the instant at which the document specifies
>> that it was true, or the publication time if such an instant
>> is not specified.
>> * The application time is the instant at which the document to be
>> ratified is ratified.
>>
>> Ratification CANNOT occur if the truth time would be after the application
>> time, or if the publication time would be after the application time.
>>
>> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, when a document is ratified,
>> the gamestate is modified to what it would be if, at the truth time,
>> the gamestate had been minimally modified to make the ratified
>> document as true and accurate as possible.
>>
>> Ratification CANNOT occur if it would add inconsistencies between
>> the gamestate and the rules.
>>
>> Ratification CANNOT occur if it would cause past or present rule changes,
>> unless the ratified document explicitly and unambiguously recites either
>> the changes or the resulting properties of the rule(s).
> I would strongly suggest that this only restrict rule changes in the
> minimal modification, and not any later changes following logically from
> it. Otherwise the discrepancies between the intuitive interpretation of
> retroactively fixing an old error and the platonic result could be
> mind-wrecking.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
I don't understand. If rule changes would follow from the minimal
modification, they must be part of the minimal modification, right?
For example, if the ratification changes whether a proposal is
successfully enacted, changing the present and past rules must
necessarily be part of the minimal modification in order to be as
accurate as possible, right?
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: [proto] TIME Act
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
I present the following draft to clean up the ratification rule.
The only intended semantic change is securing all retroactive
modification, everything else is just mean to make the existing text
much more clear.
Title: Temporal Incursion Modification and Exclusion Act
Author: Jason
Coauthors: Aspen
Adoption index: 3.0
Amend Rule 1551 (Ratification) to read, in whole:
{
A retroactive change is one that changes the game's record of
past events. Retroactive changes are secured with power
threshold 3.
Ratification is purposefully defined so as _not_ to do any retroactive
changes in the intuitive sense, but only simulate their effects by
changing the gamestate in the present.
I see it as the continuation of a long tradition of keeping Agora in a
style where platonic and pragmatic interpretations of the rules lead to
the same result.
I am not sure that the above definition corresponds _either_ to what a
retroactive change intuitively is or to what ratification platonically
does. It might correspond to a pragmatic view, which is close to saying
that Agora's gamestate _is_ its records.
When a document or statement (hereafter "document") is to be ratified,
the following definitions apply:
* The publication time is the instant at which the document to be
ratified was published.
* The truth time is the instant at which the document specifies
that it was true, or the publication time if such an instant
is not specified.
* The application time is the instant at which the document to be
ratified is ratified.
Ratification CANNOT occur if the truth time would be after the application
time, or if the publication time would be after the application time.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, when a document is ratified,
the gamestate is modified to what it would be if, at the truth time,
the gamestate had been minimally modified to make the ratified
document as true and accurate as possible.
Ratification CANNOT occur if it would add inconsistencies between
the gamestate and the rules.
Ratification CANNOT occur if it would cause past or present rule changes,
unless the ratified document explicitly and unambiguously recites either
the changes or the resulting properties of the rule(s).
I would strongly suggest that this only restrict rule changes in the
minimal modification, and not any later changes following logically from
it. Otherwise the discrepancies between the intuitive interpretation of
retroactively fixing an old error and the platonic result could be
mind-wrecking.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
Ratification CANNOT occur if the required modification to the gamestate
is not possible or if multiple substantially distinct possible
modifications would be equally appropriate.
An internally inconsistent document generally CANNOT be ratified;
however, if such a document can be divided into a summary section
and a main section, where the only purpose of the summary section
is to summarize information in the main section, and the main
section is internally consistent, ratification of the document
proceeds as if it contained only the main section.
Text purportedly about previous instances of ratification (e.g. a
report's date of last ratification) is excluded from ratification.
The rules may define additional information that is considered to
be part of the document for the purposes of ratification; such
definitions are secured with power threshold 3.
Ratification is secured with power threshold 3.
}
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: [proto] TIME Act
I present the following draft to clean up the ratification rule.
The only intended semantic change is securing all retroactive
modification, everything else is just mean to make the existing text
much more clear.
Title: Temporal Incursion Modification and Exclusion Act
Author: Jason
Coauthors: Aspen
Adoption index: 3.0
Amend Rule 1551 (Ratification) to read, in whole:
{
A retroactive change is one that changes the game's record of
past events. Retroactive changes are secured with power
threshold 3.
When a document or statement (hereafter "document") is to be ratified,
the following definitions apply:
* The publication time is the instant at which the document to be
ratified was published.
* The truth time is the instant at which the document specifies
that it was true, or the publication time if such an instant
is not specified.
* The application time is the instant at which the document to be
ratified is ratified.
Ratification CANNOT occur if the truth time would be after the application
time, or if the publication time would be after the application time.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, when a document is ratified,
the gamestate is modified to what it would be if, at the truth time,
the gamestate had been minimally modified to make the ratified
document as true and accurate as possible.
Ratification CANNOT occur if it would add inconsistencies between
the gamestate and the rules.
Ratification CANNOT occur if it would cause past or present rule changes,
unless the ratified document explicitly and unambiguously recites either
the changes or the resulting properties of the rule(s).
Ratification CANNOT occur if the required modification to the gamestate
is not possible or if multiple substantially distinct possible
modifications would be equally appropriate.
An internally inconsistent document generally CANNOT be ratified;
however, if such a document can be divided into a summary section
and a main section, where the only purpose of the summary section
is to summarize information in the main section, and the main
section is internally consistent, ratification of the document
proceeds as if it contained only the main section.
Text purportedly about previous instances of ratification (e.g. a
report's date of last ratification) is excluded from ratification.
The rules may define additional information that is considered to
be part of the document for the purposes of ratification; such
definitions are secured with power threshold 3.
Ratification is secured with power threshold 3.
}
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Scoring Integer Points
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 6:46 PM Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I knew the meaning from both math and programming, but I still think it > would look and flow better to express it as "rounded down". > > Greetings, > Ørjan. > The ruleset has no floors, walls, or ceilings, so I thought we could start from the ground up. Also "Each time a player fulfills a scoring condition, the officer associated with the condition CAN once by announcement, and SHALL in an officially timely fashion, add to that player's score the associated amount of points, rounded down" just sounds strange to me. -- secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
"Grant" seems interesting. Maybe we can give people devices. -- secretsnail
DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
For reference:
{{{
Each of the following Ministries has a Grant, listed below.
Ministry of Compliance: 1 Justice Card
Ministry of Legislation: 1 Legislative Card
Ministry of Participation: 1 Voting Card
Ministry of Legacy: 1 Winsome
A player CAN once a month grant eir Ministry Focus' Grant to a
specified player by announcement.
The Ministor CAN, once a month and by announcement, and SHALL, in
a timely manner from the beginning of the month, grant 1 Win Card
to a random player whose Ministry Focus is Legacy .
}}}
Any suggestions?
"Ministor" in the last paragraph would have the feature of clearly doing
something, although not something very new.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Scoring Integer Points
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Sarah S. via agora-discussion wrote:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:45 PM Aspen via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 1:41 AM Sarah S. via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 6:47 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
I submit the below proposal, and then pay a pendant to pend it:
Title: Scoring Integer Points
Author: secretsnail
Coauthors:
AI : 1.0
{
Amend Rule 2657 (Scoring) by replacing "add to that player's score the
associated amount of points" with "add to that player's score the floor
of
the associated amount of points".
(This would let players score points for proposals with non-integer
AIs.)
}
--
secretsnail
im telling on myself here but idk what 'the floor' means in this
context. i
assume it's mathematical?
"The floor of X" means "X rounded down to the nearest integer". Ceiling is
the same, but rounded up. They pop up in math and computer programming.
-Aspen
i'd prefer it written out like that because i wouldn't really understand
its meaning if i read it in the ruleset. but it has been pended already so
no big deal, it's just me being a word person instead of a numbers person.
obviously its a very necessary bugfix anyway.
I knew the meaning from both math and programming, but I still think it
would look and flow better to express it as "rounded down".
--
R. Lee
Greetings,
Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Scoring Integer Points
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:45 PM Aspen via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 1:41 AM Sarah S. via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 6:47 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I submit the below proposal, and then pay a pendant to pend it:
> > >
> > > Title: Scoring Integer Points
> > > Author: secretsnail
> > > Coauthors:
> > > AI : 1.0
> > >
> > > {
> > >
> > > Amend Rule 2657 (Scoring) by replacing "add to that player's score the
> > > associated amount of points" with "add to that player's score the floor
> > of
> > > the associated amount of points".
> > >
> > > (This would let players score points for proposals with non-integer
> AIs.)
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > > --
> > > secretsnail
> > >
> >
> > im telling on myself here but idk what 'the floor' means in this
> context. i
> > assume it's mathematical?
>
>
> "The floor of X" means "X rounded down to the nearest integer". Ceiling is
> the same, but rounded up. They pop up in math and computer programming.
>
> -Aspen
>
i'd prefer it written out like that because i wouldn't really understand
its meaning if i read it in the ruleset. but it has been pended already so
no big deal, it's just me being a word person instead of a numbers person.
obviously its a very necessary bugfix anyway.
--
R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Scoring Integer Points
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 1:41 AM Sarah S. via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 6:47 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I submit the below proposal, and then pay a pendant to pend it:
> >
> > Title: Scoring Integer Points
> > Author: secretsnail
> > Coauthors:
> > AI : 1.0
> >
> > {
> >
> > Amend Rule 2657 (Scoring) by replacing "add to that player's score the
> > associated amount of points" with "add to that player's score the floor
> of
> > the associated amount of points".
> >
> > (This would let players score points for proposals with non-integer AIs.)
> >
> > }
> >
> > --
> > secretsnail
> >
>
> im telling on myself here but idk what 'the floor' means in this context. i
> assume it's mathematical?
"The floor of X" means "X rounded down to the nearest integer". Ceiling is
the same, but rounded up. They pop up in math and computer programming.
-Aspen
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Scoring Integer Points
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 6:47 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I submit the below proposal, and then pay a pendant to pend it:
>
> Title: Scoring Integer Points
> Author: secretsnail
> Coauthors:
> AI : 1.0
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2657 (Scoring) by replacing "add to that player's score the
> associated amount of points" with "add to that player's score the floor of
> the associated amount of points".
>
> (This would let players score points for proposals with non-integer AIs.)
>
> }
>
> --
> secretsnail
>
im telling on myself here but idk what 'the floor' means in this context. i
assume it's mathematical?
--
R. Lee
