DIS: Straw poll: officers responsible for rewards?
There's been some comments lately on the degree of difficulty of some offices, notably Treasuror, and it's definitely of note that twg proposed to maintain the Glitter rewards in eir report. But it strikes me as odd that the rewards are largely the province of individual players, since it puts a lot of burden on the players to track all the goings-on and in some cases (such as Glitter) do the officers' jobs as well. And then it also puts the burden on the Treasuror to repeat this work to confirm that the awards are in fact valid. How would people feel about changing to a model where rewards are primarily awarded by officers in response to certain events? E.g. the Assessor would give proposal rewards, the Tailor Glitter rewards, the CotC judging rewards. In the past, Agora has often taken an extremely pragmatic approach, where the officers in question would be given the power to make such awards even if they were incorrect, with penalties for officers who abuse their position and possibly mechanisms to undo them. What are others' thoughts on moving towards this model? Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3792 Assigned to G.
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 17:10, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Alexis wrote: > > The only difference is the expectation that the officer, before > publishing > > the report, verify that no messages have been sent that would alter the > > contents of the report. I do not believe that this is an unreasonable > > expectation on an officer. Agora does not have the volume of messages > that > > would make this into a physically difficult limitation. So the only > reason > > an officer might realistically be concerned with this would be if e felt > e > > needed to recirculate another draft. > > While I'm sufficiently convinced by your argument from the text to agree > with your interpretation of the rules, I think you're writing off Aris's > concerns a little too hastily. It's entirely possible, when drafting a > report (whether or not the draft is circulated for peer review), for a > bunch of actions to come in, rendering the draft outdated, at an > inconvenient time when it's not practical for one to spend additional > time updating it to the new gamestate. To my knowledge, no player plays > Agora as a full-time job, and so I think it unreasonable to _require_ an > officer to add additional hard graft to eir existing work at a moment's > notice when e has already spent whatever time e allocated to tracking > the last ~week's worth of relevant actions. > I've been an officer many times on and off over the years, and it's been very rare that this has been a real problem. It's also okay for an officer to deliver eir reports late and ask for forgiveness if they need to, when this sort of thing happens. But it should be rare. If it's not rare, we need to make it easier for officers to do their jobs. > I take your point about the problems with ratifying very outdated > monthly reports, but most reports are not monthly. With weekly reports, > the maximum possible length of time between the date of publication and > the date of currency would be a week, and in practice it would almost > always be significantly less. I don't think that's an unreasonably long > length of time to allow gamestate recalculation over. In fact, there > have been several recent occasions where an officer's reports have been > doubted for multiple consecutive weeks as a result of lingering gamestate > uncertainties from open CFJs. If that's an acceptably high level of > gamestate uncertainty, I don't see why this would be significantly more > problematic. > This is different from the usual case of gamestate uncertainty, because when that happens, the nature of the uncertainty is usually clear up front. People know that the situation may be either A or B, and can act conditionally accordingly. But if a report can self-ratify *as of a date prior to the report*, then there may be a cascade of invalid or changed actions since that date. As an example within the current rules, right now, if the Tailor makes an error and lists Ribbon holdings incorrect, then players trying to use Glitter, who do so on the basis of the report, will be protected by self-ratification. But if the Tailor's report is published with an effective date of earlier in the week, then any Glitter awards since that date are changed. If the Treasuror's report was published before the Tailor's report, but listed current assets, then despite the Treasuror having done eir job 100% correctly, and having relied on the most recently accurate Treasuror's report, eir report was wrong. But wait, it was published before the Tailor's report, so it might have self-ratified, but might have not, ... it's a mess. Retroactive effect is *very* dangerous. Consequently, I would want to exclude non-current reports from self-ratification, even if they were to be permitted as a way to fulfill the officer's duties. Also, I will informally but non-bindingly pledge to abuse this if it is adopted into the rules.
DIS: Proto-proto: Findings of Law & Fact
Here's some outline I was thinking to move us towards a more pragmatic model of law: Any question that arises as part of a dispute can be categorized into one of the following: - Question of fact, divided into: - Questions of natural fact, being facts which are true without reference to the rules of Agora at all. Example: whether a player gave their consent to a contract. - Questions of legal fact, being facts which arise because of the rules of Agora. Example: the state of a switch. - Questions of law, being questions purely about the interpretation of the law. Example: which of two clauses of the rules takes precedence. - Questions of application (typically called "mixed fact and law" in real-world law), being questions about the application of the law to the facts. Example: whether or not an action is effective. A legal fact may be a legal fiction, which is a legal fact that overrides natural fact(s) or other legal fact(s). Legal fictions must be created explicitly and do not have indirect effects to ensure preconditions are satisfied, for instance, a legal fiction that an asset is owned by someone who cannot own it does not also create a legal fiction that they meet some other criterion that allows them to own it. If the rules do not provide a mechanism to get the fact out of the illegal state, it remains. [ This limited scope of legal fictions is intended to limit the complex recomputations they might require. In thinking about this, I saw a potential issue with the ratification rules as they exist: suppose an agoran decision self-ratifies listing a non-player as a voter. This could conceivably be argued to ratify that the person was a player at the time of its initiation. But, if we once again moved the right to not play the game to take precedence over ratification which is arguably an important change in its own right, then the entire ratification could fail because of their non-consent. Similarly, if a player's voting strength is listed wrong, does that ratify that conditions exist to give em the necessary voting strength? That could cause the ratification to fail if it is ambiguous, for instance a player with two blots incorrectly listied voting strength 2 could be ratified either as having a single blot or being Prime Minister. When actually we want to limit the scope of the ratification to just the value of the "voting strength" variable. ] Certain processes may give rise to Findings on questions. These amount to binding interpretations of the game and world, and apply retroactively. In particular: - Findings of Fact apply to the moment or period of time to which they refer. Their binding effect may, however, extend temporally because, for instance, a Finding that a player owns an asset necessarily implies that e continues to own the asset until something causes em to lose it, and may also imply that e has owned it for some period of time beforehand. [ As mentioned below, Findings of Fact subsume ratification. ] - Findings of Law are binding forwards in time. They may be persuasive to events that predate the Finding but do not necessarily bind their interpretation. They apply until the relevant law changes enough so that they no longer apply (whether a Finding of Law continues to apply is itself a question of law). [ The restriction of bindingness being forwards in time is to limit recalculation and to allow for precedents to change by way of Findings of Law. ] - Findings of Application are, like Findings of Fact, binding at the moment or period of time to which they refer. They are not, however, capable of creating legal fictions. Findings have some reasonable security property on them. Additionally, a Finding cannot remove a player's ability to seek recourse through Findings or otherwise make an inescapable change to the game. Ratification becomes a form Finding of Fact. A judge of an inquiry CAN, without objection, make Findings as part of the development of the arguments for their case. An objection does not, in and of itself, mean that the judge should change eir reasoning. [ The primary purpose of this minimal use of Findings is to a) provide a different basis for ratification and b) allow us to experiment with them in the context of CFJs, without making them mandatory or undermining the existing system. Wordsmithing on the anti-Lindrum protections would be appreciated, but I think it probably should come in primarily via amendment to R101. ] Alexis
Re: DIS: Proto: Bureaucratic Power
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 10:35, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 1/13/20 5:58 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: > > I agree that it would be good to have some way of giving officers extra > > votes on relevant proposals - this was also the goal of Trigon's > > "Interesting Chambers" proto - but I'm not sure that this system is > > workable in practice. There are currently 126 rules and 14 offices, so > > this adds 1764 values that need to be kept track of by someone. I also > > don't think it really works to just intuit the bureaucrats for each > > rule, because I guarantee you players will want some proof that their > > votes have been calculated correctly. I know I would. > > > > Realistically, the affinities would need to be calculated and published > > ahead of time, in order for players to know what their voting strength > > is going to be on any given proposal. I can only see three reasonable > > ways of doing that: > > > > 1. Put the burden on the proposal author to correctly specify which > > officers get extra votes on a proposal. This massively raises the > > barrier to writing proposals. Given that there was backlash even to > > the suggestion of making proposals' _titles_ mandatory, I don't > > think it would be likely to pass. > > > > 2. Require the list of bureaucrats to be specified in order to > > distribute a proposal. This probably involves the least amount of > > total work added, because not every rule has to have its affinities > > calculated at once and the ones that _are_ calculated can be noted > > for use in future distributions, but it piles more work on the > > Promotor, which is already a high-complexity office. > > > > 3. Have them tracked by the Rulekeepor. This would be a considerable > > one-time task for the Rulekeepor, even with machine assistance, and > > thereafter would add a whole load of additional information to the > > FLR. If you were to go this route, I think it would be incumbent > > on you to precalculate the affinities for existing rules to give > > the Rulekeepor a base to work from. (This perhaps applies less > > strongly if you still intend to take over Rulekeepor yourself.) > > > Oh god no, please no. As both Assessor and Rulekeepor (though I'm still > okay with getting rid of that), no. This is just so much to keep track > of, and I'm sure there would be lots of mistakes. > Requiring that someone do the work to pragmatically announce eir increased voting strength would help, but then it would spread the load around in terrible, awkward ways. It gets even worse with new rule proposals, I suspect. -Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] kamikaze
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 00:38, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > This doesn’t really do all that much—default voting strength is 3 and max > is 5, so it’s a little under a double vote. Maybe we need to increase the > range of allowed voting strengths? > > Gaelan > It's still significant on a high-AI proposal, but I'd suggest that perhaps an alternative would be to decrease the default to 2? The Prime Minister is also affected by the default being 3.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3792 Assigned to G.
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 19:05, Aris Merchant via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 1:28 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-official > wrote: > > > > The below CFJ is 3792. I assign it to G. > > > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3792 > > > > === CFJ 3792 > === > > > > The above-quoted message contained a valid Promotor's weekly > > report. > > > > > == > > Gratuitous: > Responding Arguments: > > I'm pretty sure we've allowed this in the past by game custom. It was, > I believe, part of the intent of Proposal 8245 to allow the Promotor > to report on only the things at the beginning of the week. I also > believe I've seen other officer reports with effective dates other > than the time of their publication. At any rate, I've certainly done > something like this on at least one prior occasion, and no one > complained. [1] > I do not believe that we can read too strongly into history here, unless the possibility that this was a violation had actually been raised and considered. Furthermore, I would argue that Proposal 8245 actually indicates that the previous interpretation of that rule was that the Promotor was bound to, at some time during the week, to distribute all Proposals then in the Proposal Pool. It took a proposal to change the interpretation to refer to a single point in time. Additionally, I think Alexis's reading of the rule isn't mandated by > the text. It is true that the Promotor's report includes "a list of > all proposals in the Proposal Pool, along with their text and > attributes". Certainly, I'll grant that the most common sense > interpretation of the that is that it means the list of all proposals > *currently* in the pool, but the word "currently" appears nowhere in > the text, and must be supplied by the reader. I propose an alternate > interpretation: the report being talked about is the Promotor's weekly > report, and so it must be current as of some point *in the week* in > which it is published. This interpretation has numerous advantages: It > gives officers time in which to make sure their reports are accurate, > by publishing and receiving comments on drafts, and thus is in the > interest of the game. Furthermore, it is in accordance with game > custom on the matter. I argue that these concerns are sufficient that > we must set aside our first reading of the text and read it in the > manner I proposed. > The Promotor must, at some point in the week, publish the the abstract information "a list of all Proposals in the Proposal Pool, along with their text and attributes". There is no need for the word "currently" simply because it is implied. English grammar treats this as an elided a conjunction and copula here: "a list of all Proposals [that are] in the Proposal Pool". A list of Proposals that were in the Proposal Pool yesterday is not a list of Proposals in the Proposal Pool today. We would require a clear contextual basis for a different time reference to be inferred, like "a list of all Proposals [then] in the Proposal Pool". Moreover, other officers' reporting requirements do contain clear references to the present. Switches, for instance, include "the value of each instance of that switch whose value is not its default value" in officers' reports. There is no reasonable way to interpret this as "for some point in time in the week, the value of each instance of that switch whose value was not, at that point, its default value". Aris's argument can thus only be grounded in Rule 2143, and apply equally to all reports of officers. But again, this is a massive stretch. "If any information is defined by the rules as part of that person's weekly report, then e SHALL maintain all such information, and the publication of all such information is part of eir weekly duties." Aris's interpretation would mean that an officer could, at the end of a month, publish the state of eir tracked information as of the beginning of the month. This would imply that they did not have an up to date copy of the information, in violation of eir duties to maintain it. But the duty is clearly to publish the information which they maintain, so Aris's interpretation would require an officer to maintain up-to-date information but to publish outdated information. Alternatively, Aris's argument is basically that a document can be considered to be a Promotor's report at some point during the week, and thus publishing it at another point meets the requirement. But Rule 2143 makes no reference to a document being a report. A report, for the purpose of Rule 2143, is merely a specification of the information which must be published. Finally, Rule 217 does not permit us to consider alternative interpretations on the same footing as the text. The text can only be supplanted where it is "silent,
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3783 Assigned to Alexis
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 18:12, Jason Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > Notice of Honour: > > -1 Karma to Jason Cobb for calling a CFJ on eir own scam and presenting > no > > arguments about the most critical aspects of eir case. > > +1 Karma to omd for the detailed additional arguments. > > Yeah, that's fair; I absolutely had just assumed I was able to > repeatedly win the election, probably just because it felt obvious to > me, since that was the entire purpose of my proposal. FWIW, I would have > also argued that being able to reinstall an old uncontested winner would > work (and that was in fact my original idea for a scam, but I thought it > would be too destructive). > I didn't bring the proposal into the judgment itself, but you didn't change the basic parameters of what elections were eligible for acclamation. If I had found that the past elections remained eligible to be acclaimed again, I probably would have ruled in favour of you even without your proposal. Your proposal definitely made that certain. I think that arguing that old uncontested winners would still work would have been completely in line with the scam. Certainly, if the text had been a bit more clear, that would have been an inescapable conclusion and I would have had no choice but to rule in your favour. As for R2602, I had just taken it at face value, so it hadn't even > crossed my mind that it would require being addressed in a judgement. > Yes, the frustration was mostly aimed at the bit about the elections. The R2602 thing was clearly a side-story, but one that I felt needed addressing once I realized the lack of clarity in that rule, and the potential, even if unlikely, for your scam to have succeeded anyway. I personally take the view that Agora's inquiry system requires judges to do their best to investigate all aspects of a judgment, even ones that weren't obviously in dispute to begin with. That definitely moves away from platonism, though, and it can definitely be fun when a judge ends up with a surprising ruling about something that had been taken for granted. My own most memorable one was ruling that conditional votes didn't work at all. Notice of Honour: > > -1 Jason Cobb: managing to keep the gamestate uncertain for ~1 month > with this scam attempt (sorry, H. Treasuror). > > +1 Alexis: amazing judgement > > -- > Jason Cobb >
DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] Request
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 11:12, Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > Like with [Proposal], please put/edit [CFJ] into subject lines > when you call a CFJ, if you think about it :). > I can appreciate the use of this, but changing subject lines always leaves me wary. Though given that the mailing lists already do it, perhaps it's not so bad. Unless we get BUS: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Re: DIS: ...
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3783 Assigned to Alexis
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 01:25, James Cook wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 06:13, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 01:07, James Cook wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 06:05, James Cook wrote: > >> > However, the use of the word "it" in the text "but already owned it" > >> > in R2602 indicates to me that the text of the rule is written with the > >> > point of view that there's only one of each ribbon colour. Otherwise > >> > it could have been written "but already owned a ribbon of that > >> > colour". > >> > >> Or, maybe, there's at most one ribbon of each colour per player. > >> > >> - Falsifian > > > > > > The critical distinction is that "once for each time the condition is > fulfilled" is not very well defined for a continuous condition. The > condition "If a player has earned a ribbon in the past 7 days but already > owned it" becomes true the moment the ribbon is earned and ceases to be > true 7 days later. And it definitely doesn't become "true twice" if e earns > a ribbon a second time; it just extends the period of time for which it is > true. > > I don't think this is a case of "once for each time the condition is > fulfulled". > > If "(until e earns another ribbon)" were deleted from the text of the > rule, what you're saying would make sense to me. But to me it seems > obvious that the intended meaning of the text "(until e earns another > ribbon)" is something close to "here, the word 'once' means that after > a player triggers this rule, e CANNOT trigger it again until e earns > another ribbon". Can you suggest any other interpretation that the > author of the rule could plausibly have intended? > > - Falsifian > The intent of the rules is excluded entirely from the list of considerations in Rule 217. At this point I am primarily concerned with determining the interpretations permitted by the text, from which point I can use the other factors in Rule 217 to narrow it down. The "until e earns another ribbon" parenthetical does complicate this. It could also reasonably be interpreted as an additional form of time limit. But I think you're close to convincing me that the parenthetical at least forces the "once per time" interpretation is permissible. (Interestingly, though, I'm still unsure that it remains permissible for Rule 2350. Ideally I'd be able to sort that out too.)
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3783 Assigned to Alexis
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 01:07, James Cook wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 06:05, James Cook wrote: > > However, the use of the word "it" in the text "but already owned it" > > in R2602 indicates to me that the text of the rule is written with the > > point of view that there's only one of each ribbon colour. Otherwise > > it could have been written "but already owned a ribbon of that > > colour". > > Or, maybe, there's at most one ribbon of each colour per player. > > - Falsifian > The critical distinction is that "once for each time the condition is fulfilled" is not very well defined for a continuous condition. The condition "If a player has earned a ribbon in the past 7 days but already owned it" becomes true the moment the ribbon is earned and ceases to be true 7 days later. And it definitely doesn't become "true twice" if e earns a ribbon a second time; it just extends the period of time for which it is true.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3783 Assigned to Alexis
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 14:38, Kerim Aydin via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > I recuse omd from CFJ 3783 (I know you put forward some preliminary > thoughts on the case omd, which is why I waited a bit, but it's been a > long time on this case now). > > I assign CFJ 3783 to Alexis. > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3783 > > === CFJ 3783 === > >Jason Cobb has more than 2000 Coins. > > == > I would like to ask for arguments for an issue completely unaddressed in arguments: How does Rule 2602's use of a continuously-evaluated condition, as in Rule 2350 and part of Rule 103, affect the operation of the "once"? In particular, does it make the "once" redundant because the condition remains true and an action can be "performed once" any number of times? Arguably this is the only interpretation permitted by the text and, therefore, other factors do not apply. Other interpretations could include that the action can only be done once ever, that it can only be done once per triggering event (but this seems like a stretch given the language), and that it can only be done once each time the condition changes, meaning that multiple events in the last 7 days do not stack, and there must be a clear 7-day period between ribbons earned to allow the player to repeat the action. The rest of the judgment I'm quite confident on, but this is not something I feel confident ruling on without giving others time to consider.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 21:30, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 11:26 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 1/11/2020 10:53 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > > On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 13:25, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > >
> > >> I suppose. I was considering keeping them to try to bribe people, but
> > >> since they're pretty useless, that would be pointless. I perform the
> > >> following action 18 times: { If I have more than 1000 Coins, I pay a
> fee
> > >> of 1000 Coins to win the game. }.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Possibly too late now, but I think this really shouldn't be
> (possibly) 18
> > > wins. I feel quite strongly on this point, since I believe that's more
> > > wins than I've had, and I've had to work hard to have the most
> instances
> > > of Champion.
> >
> > Er, did you notice that the Scroll has this now:
> > Spaaace [...] Jason Cobb (x1000)
> > and this:
> > Proposal [...] D. Margaux(x501)
>
> TBH, I'd be for consolidating those and then giving another patent
> title that signified that one had found a way to get an infinite
> number of wins (I've suggested Infinite Jestor in the past, and
> presumably the Herald could mark it Infinite Jestor by Spaaace or the
> like).
>
> -Aris
>
Infinite wins are boring. They're trivial to achieve in most loophole scams
that get you wins. For instance, Jason Cobb could easily have chosen an
arbitrarily large number of coins to accumulate, and even chosen to
interleave declarations of victory in the event that there had been a reset
condition. Any proposal force-through can trivially result in an arbitrary
number, as can any dictatorship. Even the current condition for Apathy
allows it to be achieved an arbitrary number of times.
Speaking of which, did the proposal that authorized D. Margaux's victory
actually do that? The rules at the moment don't seem to allow victory by
proposal, nor are victories self-ratifying any more.
Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 14:26, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> On 1/11/2020 10:53 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 13:25, Jason Cobb wrote:
> >
> >> I suppose. I was considering keeping them to try to bribe people, but
> >> since they're pretty useless, that would be pointless. I perform the
> >> following action 18 times: { If I have more than 1000 Coins, I pay a
> fee
> >> of 1000 Coins to win the game. }.
> >>
> >
> > Possibly too late now, but I think this really shouldn't be (possibly)
> 18
> > wins. I feel quite strongly on this point, since I believe that's more
> > wins than I've had, and I've had to work hard to have the most instances
> > of Champion.
>
> Er, did you notice that the Scroll has this now:
> Spaaace [...] Jason Cobb (x1000)
> and this:
> Proposal [...] D. Margaux(x501)
>
>
No D:<
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 13:25, Jason Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I suppose. I was considering keeping them to try to bribe people, but
> since they're pretty useless, that would be pointless. I perform the
> following action 18 times: { If I have more than 1000 Coins, I pay a fee
> of 1000 Coins to win the game. }.
>
Possibly too late now, but I think this really shouldn't be (possibly) 18
wins. I feel quite strongly on this point, since I believe that's more wins
than I've had, and I've had to work hard to have the most instances of
Champion.
Alexis
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8277-8279
Well, the current contracts rules are very broken. But that's ok! :P
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 16:21, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> TBH, there's no real reason to disallow 1-member contracts. It doesn't
> make sense under real world contract law, but Agoran contracts can
> also function like corporations.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 1:10 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, the rules need to handle open-ended contracts better IMO.
> Contracts are written as entities that can gain and lose members at will,
> but there’s no clear way to bootstrap a contract.
> >
> > Gaelan
> >
> > > On Jan 8, 2020, at 12:34 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 11:38, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business <
> > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Gaelan wrote:
> > >>> TTttPF
> > >>>
> > >>> Also, I create the following contract: {
> > >>> Any person may become a party of this contract to act on Gaelan’s
> behalf
> > >> as described below.
> > >>>
> > >>> Any person may act on Gaelan’s behalf to perform a series of actions,
> > >> subject to the following conditions:
> > >>> * Gaelan attempted to perform those exact actions (verbatim) in a
> > >> message to a discussion forum
> > >>> * The message to the discussion forum occurred within the past 24
> hours
> > >>> * Gaelan's message was clearly an attempt to perform actions by
> sending
> > >> a message to a public forum (and, specifically, it was > not labelled
> as a
> > >> draft of a later public action, such as a “proto” proposal)
> > >>> * No actions have been performed by Gaelan, or on eir behalf, after
> the
> > >> message to the discussion forum
> > >>>
> > >>> Gaelan may terminate this contract at any time, by announcement.
> > >>> }
> > >>
> > >> I join/agree to this contract.
> > >>
> > >> -twg
> > >>
> > >
> > > I CFJ { As a result of the quoted messages, Gaelan and twg are parties
> to a
> > > contract with the text in Gaelan's message. }
> > >
> > > Arguments: The rules explicitly prohibit a contract with only party.
> > > Therefore, even if Gaelan's ISTID would succeed, e could not have made
> a
> > > contract containing only one party, and if e did, the rules would have
> > > destroyed it. On the other hand, e clearly expressed the intent to be
> bound
> > > by the contract, and therefore arguably twg's acceptance was actually
> what
> > > brought such a contract into existence.
> > >
> > > Alexis
> >
>
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 16:07, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Neither your votes, nor the promotor report, were to the public forum. > > Additionally, I ask that you reconsider your vote on 8281. I don’t have a > force-through scam up my sleeve, and I would like to find out if my scam > works. As far as I know, the rule should be fairly harmless. > > Gaelan > I'm not voting for an obvious scam if I don't get something from it!
Re: DIS: ratifying honour etc.
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 14:51, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 9:59 AM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > I’m intrigued by the idea. I’m a little concerned that it’s TOO > vague—are these rulings CFJ-like (a means of agreeing on what happened > platonically, but with no actual platonic effect) or ratification-like? How > is arbitrariness and capriciousness defined/judged? What about “official > area of concern?” > > I was afraid someone would say that. I just thought it might be fun to > have major, game altering precedents. Arbitrariness and capriciousness > kind of have to be vague (and is in the US legal system too), and it > wouldn't make much sense to write out the official areas of concern of > each office, though I could (maybe I'll put the current ones in a > comment). I was going to leave the platonic/pragmatic thing for CFJs, > but it would probably be better to just explicitly define it as > platonic. > My feeling was to go into the area of binding *interpretations*, which can't inherently change underlying facts, but become conclusive on questions of law and mixed law and fact (that is, how the law applies to the facts). So for instance, in my recent bid "for Bernie", the ruling would be binding that I was unsuccessful. It would represent a major departure from the rather pure philosophy of platonism that has characterized Agora for years, but one that in actual judicial philosophy is hardly controversial. If we want to do it gradually, probably the first step would be to figure out how to codify this into the ruleset, likely adjusting ratification and inquiry cases appropriately (and possibly codifying an approach to "is history part of the game state"). We could then proceed to devolve some interpretation power onto officers, likely in a very limited extent at first, without dislodging inquiry cases as being the final deciders if needed. Then we could expand the scope of officers' interpretation powers, eventually giving them exclusive primary jurisdiction once we're sure that, as G. warns, we have sufficient protections in place that we can't get Lindrumed (or that if we do, it was a genuinely skilled scam and not just lazily copying Lindrum's arguments). A parallel effort that would likely help would be unifying limited-scope legal documents, along the lines of Jason Cobb's ideas. I don't think the exact ideas there capture what I'm thinking of, but more along the idea of "scoped" law. Regulations are a form of scoped public law, while contracts are private law scoped to the parties. This might allow a framework for e.g. contracts defining things that are like-assets-but-don't-quite-follow-the-asset-rules, or for more experimenting with different types of proposal voting schemes without having to worry about the risk that the core rules become too much under the control of one or more players. One common feature of administrative law is that administrative actors can't make rulings of general importance, such as on the interpretation of a nation's constitution. A good scoping system could be used to help make this explicit, such as by providing some limited scoping of an officer's authority to interpret rules that, while they directly affect the area of the game for which they are responsible, are fundamentally questions about the core rules generally. Alexis
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
On Tue., Jan. 7, 2020, 23:34 Aris Merchant via agora-discussion, < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > 8280 Murphy, Jason Cobb 3.0 Resolve the troubles v1.1 > AGAINST > 8281 Gaelan 1.0 Nothing to see here, Rule 1030 v2 > AGAINST > 8282 Falsifian1.0 Let's do this the hard way v1.1 > AGAINST > 8283 Alexis 3.0 Ex Post Ribbon > FOR > 8284 Alexis 3.0 Line-Item Power > PRESENT > 8285 Alexis 3.0 Line-Item Roulette > FOR > 8286 Aris 1.0 I Forbid Vetos! > PRESENT
Re: DIS: ratifying honour etc.
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 18:12, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:00 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion > wrote: > > This gets me thinking of a potential big and maybe-interesting-maybe-not > > big change to the order of things... what if officers presumptively had > the > > ability to rule on their areas of gamestate, in a more active manner than > > our ratification system? Possibly a bit more of a shift towards a > pragmatic > > philosophy as well. > > We've had a couple conversations along similar lines in the last year > or two and people were generally positive. Specifically two ideas > came up: (1) making each officer the "primary judge" on disputes > about their reports, with some language that judges can only overrule > the officers if their decisions are "arbitrary and capricious" (or > some other legal standard of choice that we can set precedents about - > "arbitrary and capricious" is one used in U.S. government > regulations). (2) dividing the ruleset itself so that rule categories > are more binding, and rules precedence works as "category then power" > (e.g. any rule in the "economy" category has precedence over > "non-economy" category when it comes to coins; then within the economy > category you look at power, and the officer has some extra abilities > within their defining category). > > I think the only barrier is no one sat down and did the deep work of > implementation... > > -G. > It's really tempting to try to implement Canada's Doré framework, since the only people who seemed to understand it were the judges on the Supreme Court who wrote it. :P
Re: DIS: ratifying honour etc.
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 16:13, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:56 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > Would anyone complain/object if I ratified a "false" Herald's Report > > that claims the Notices of Honor received during the Troubles were > > successful? > > > > Looking at the message list that Murphy nicely assembled for Proposals > > 8278-8279, I kinda feel like the easiest way is for officers to just > > ratify individual reports in the "fairest" way - e.g. coins for work > > done were actually earned, honor was actually changed, etc., but > > elections that were perturbed didn't happen/can be restarted (as > > that's more fair). Generally leaving it up to each officer to figure > > out what's the "most fair"? Saves all monkeying around with fora. > > > > -G. > > It sounds reasonable to me. Also, a reminder to everyone (well, mostly > the H. Herald and H. Referee) that it's a new quarter. > > H. Assessor, I'm sorry for leaving you with a mess; if there's > anything the Promotor's office can do to help, let me know. > > -Aris > This gets me thinking of a potential big and maybe-interesting-maybe-not big change to the order of things... what if officers presumptively had the ability to rule on their areas of gamestate, in a more active manner than our ratification system? Possibly a bit more of a shift towards a pragmatic philosophy as well. Alexis
DIS: Re: BAK: [RWO] List Patch (attn. Arbitor)
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 at 12:31, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > *sigh* > > CFJ: "Alexis is a player." > Gratuitous: I agree with twg's arguments.
