Re: DIS: [Draft] Golems v1.1
On 4/17/23 18:30, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
> New version. Fixed most things people mentioned in response to the
> previous version, plus changed a bit how the thing works.
>
> Now, instead of Golems activating by themselves and acting on behalf of
> people, we have players activating the golems and doing the acting. This
> still allows chains of activations and fun gameplay.
>
> Also, there is space for more types of golems, with different effects
> (not only acting on behalf). The ones I included are just examples,
> and suggestions are welcome (and requested).
>
> Finally: should I repeal promises and pledges?
>
>
> DRAFT: The World's Enchantment
> Author: juan
> A.I.: 3.0
>
> 1. Create the following rules:
"in the order listed"
>
> Title: Golems
> Power: 2.5
>
> The Xaman is an Office.
>
> Clay is a currency tracked by the Xaman.
>
> Golems are entities tracked by the Xaman. Golems have a Mind, a Body,
> and a Soul, which are documents.
"Text" or "strings" rather than documents. A document is a specific
published instance of text, rather than the text itself.
"Tracking" isn't defined for "entities" at large, only assets and switches.
> A player CAN destroy a Golem by announcement if the conditions in its
> Soul are clearly and unambiguously met, or without objections.
"without objection". This might also be clearer as two sentences.
>
> Title: Avatar
> Power: 1.0
>
> Avatar are a type of Golem. A Player CAN create an Avatar by paying a
> fee of 2 Clay and specifying its Mind, Body and Soul.
"Avatars"? Or is "Avatar" plural?
> When an Avatar is activated, the activator performs the actions in its
> Body on behalf of the Avatar's creator.
This can't be done at power 1.
>
> Title: Totems
> Power: 1.0
>
> Totems are a type of Golem. When a Totem is activated, the activator wins.
>
Why enact this if it can't be created without a rule or proposal?
General comments on below: please avoid using email quotation in
proposals (prefer {braces} or equivalent), and "amend" has one m.
> 2. Repeal Rule 1742 “Contracts”.
>
> 3. Ammend Rule 2608 “The Notary” by deleting
>
>> 2. every contract, with its title, full provisions, and parties; and
>
> and replacing
>
>> 3. every promise, along with its title, text, creator, and bearer.
> with
>
>> 2. every promise, along with its title, text, creator, and bearer.
"and renumbering the list accordingly".
> 5. Ammend Rule 2519 “Consent” by deleting
>
>> 2. e is party to a contract whose body explicitly and unambiguously
>> indicates eir consent;
> and replacing '3. ' by '2. ' and '4. ' by '3. '.
"and renumbering the list accordingly".
>
> 6. Ammend Rule 2166 “Assets” by deleting “Contracts have Mint Authority.”
>
> 7. Ammend Rule 2576 “Ownership” by deleting “and contracts,”
This will result in "By default, ownership of an asset is restricted to
Agora, players, but an asset's...". It's more clear and less likely to
result in a mistake to replace a whole clause or sentence.
> 8. Ammend Rule 2581 “Official Patent Titles” by deleting
>
>> - Terms of Service, awardable by the Notary to any player who creates
>> multiple Contracts that achieve fun gameplay and significantly
>> impacts Agora as a whole
> --- END ---
>
DIS: [proposal] Stone fixes
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Stone fixes
Author: Jason
Coauthors: nix
Adoption index: 2.0
{
# Convergence of P8868
If Rule 2642 is not titled "Gathering Stones", retitle to "Gathering
Stones".
If Rule 2642 does not have the following text, amend it to read, in
whole:
{
A player who has not possessed a stone in the last 30 days CAN, by
announcement, transfer the mossiest stone (if there is a tie, then
a specified stone tied for mossiest) Agora owns to emself. E
SHOULD specify the stone when doing so.
}
# Remove the concept of "scroll"s as a document, which may or may
# not work, and replace it with more wishy-washy "description of
# properties", which includes continuous effects like voting
# strength.
#
# Also, secure wielding.
Amend Rule 2640 by replacing the text "A scroll, which is a document
specifying the effects of the stone" with the text "A description of
the stone's properties".
Amend Rule 2641 by replacing the final paragraph with the following paragraphs:
{
When a stone is wielded, the Rule defining that stone applies any
effects that it defines as occurring when the stone is wielded.
The wielding of stones is secured.
}
Amend Rule 2645 ("The Stones") to read, in whole:
{
The following stones are defined, one per paragraph, with the
following format: Stone Name (Frequency, Smoothness): Description.
- Power Stone (weekly, 2): When this stone is wielded, a specified
player (defaulting to the wielder if not specified) is Power
Stoned; Power Stoning is secured. A player's voting strength on
a referendum on an ordinary proposal is increased by 3 for each
time that e was Power Stoned during the referendum's voting
period.
- Soul Stone (weekly, 3): When wielded, the Soul Stone is
transferred to the owner of a different specified non-immune
stone, then that stone is transferred to the wielder.
- Sabotage Stone (weekly, 4): When wielded, the adoption index of
a specified AI-majority Agoran decision is increased by 1.
- Jockey Stone (monthly, 3): When wielded, a specified Running
horse's Race Position is increased by 1.
- Protection Stone (monthly, 4): When wielded, a specified stone
is granted immunity.
- Recursion Stone (Monthly, 4): The Recursion Stone can be wielded
once per month as if it had the power of any other stone of your
choice.
- Hot Potato Stone (Weekly, 5): When this stone is wielded, the
wielder specifies an eligible player and gains 8 points. The
stone is transferred to the eligible player. An eligible player
is one who has not owned this stone since the last time Agora
owned it. If this stone is not owned by Agora, it cannot
otherwise be transferred, other rules notwithstanding. This
stone is immune if 3 or more players have wielded it since the
most recent collection notice.
- Blank Stone (Monthly, 0): This stone has no effect.
- Mason's Stone (None, 0): If the Mason's Stone is owned by the
Stonemason, its Mossiness is continuously set to 0. If the
Mason's Stone is owned by Agora, it is transferred to the
Stonemason.
- Anti-Equatorial Stone (Monthly, 5): When wielded, the mossiest
stone is transferred to the wielder. When this happens, the
Anti-Equatorial Stone's mossiness is incremented by 1.
- Score Stone (Weekly, 3): When wielded, a specified player's
(defaulting to the wielder if not specified) Score is increased
by 3.
}
}
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8866-8868
On 11/13/22 18:15, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: > I vote as follows (and have updated the spreadsheet): > >> 8866* Jason, Aspen3.0 Restricted confederation > PRESENT (what about groups that were already grouped before, but then > the members explicitly decide/declare that they want that grouping to > also count as an Agoran person?) > I think (hope) this wording includes that. My initial draft was "for the purpose of forming..." which definitely excludes that. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8863-8865
On 11/13/22 00:37, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: > VOTING STRENGTHS > > > Strength is 3 unless otherwise noted. > ^: player has voting strength 6 Correction: the Dream of Power should give 2 voting strength, rather than 3. This doesn't change any outcomes and is not self-ratifying. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Website Refresh
On 10/30/22 19:22, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > I've been working on a redesign of the website in my free time. Here it > is: https://nixnull.github.io/agoranomic.github.io/index.html' Oh whoops I never responded to this. Above all, thank you for doing this! > This set up switches away from all that. It expands the website > repository to cover all of the pages, embedding officer content in > iframes or just linking to it. Now officers can focus on their work, > while the website is maintained separately. Additionally, it adds a join > page that is (hopefully) much more instructive than previous iterations, > and visible links to our chat channels to encourage curious people to > jump in and check things out. Do you want existing headers to be removed? Or is there any other form of standardization you want? > It's a WIP, and I'd be very happy to get feedback. Design looks fine to me, but I'm not the right person to ask at all. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] Experiment 00057 - Rule Selection
On 10/23/22 18:50, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: > EXPERIMENT 00056 RULE SELECTION This should be 00057, my bad. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] October Stone Auction Resolution
On 10/16/22 23:00, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: > 2022-09-04 21:10:47 Jason Sabotage 1 > 2022-09-04 21:10:47 Jason Wealth1 Whoops, these shouldn't have been included. I don't think this makes anything fail. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Humiliating Public Reminder for Proposal 8859
On 10/16/22 16:32, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: > [I don't know how this slipped past me, I'm sorry. This is late but > still required, and the decision has met quorum now.] > > I hereby issue a humiliating public reminder to the following slackers > who have not voted on the referendum on Proposal 8859: ais523, Cap'n, > cuddlybanana, Gaelan, R. Lee, Vitor Gonçalves, Pilgore. > And... I apparently can't count and they did fail quorum. I'm so sorry; I don't know how this happened. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Discussion fora regulation
I'm sorry to bring this up again, but I don't think this was sufficiently addressed after recent events. Rule 478 still attempts to grant unlimited freedom of speech rights to players over all fora. This is obviously broken for foreign fora, but it's unclear what (if anything) should be done for discussion fora. Some options: 1. Maintain the status quo 2. Repeal all freedom of speech protections for discussion fora 3. Repeal freedom of speech protections for discussion fora except as to explicitly game-germane conversation. 4. Explicitly permit regulation of speech based on some delineated criteria I'm sure I'm missing some, but I think those are at least a reasonable start. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3992 assigned to Secretsnail9
On 9/12/22 23:18, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Sep 12, 2022, at 10:14 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion >> wrote: >> >> On 9/12/22 22:31, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: >>>> On Sep 12, 2022, at 9:12 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion >>>> wrote: >>>> On 9/12/22 20:31, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: >>>>> There's also the clause in Rule 2630 "The Administrative State": "An >>>>> officer SHALL NOT violate eir office's administrative regulations in the >>>>> discharge of eir office." It's not too relevant to this case, but there >>>>> may >>>>> be an issue when violating a regulation, as violations are a regulated >>>>> action that can be performed only using the methods explicitly specified >>>>> in >>>>> the Rules (not regulations) for performing the given action. Rule 2545 >>>>> (Auctions) handles this nicely: "SHALL NOT violate requirements that >>>>> auction's method that are clearly intended to be punishable as rules >>>>> violations", the typo aside. >>>> SHALL (NOT)s do not create regulated actions anymore. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jason Cobb >>>> >>>> Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason >>>> >>> But breaking a SHALL (NOT) is a regulated action, a violation, yes? After >>> all, if it wasn't, we would be proscribing an unregulated action. I'm >>> confused what you mean. >>> >>> -- >>> secretsnail >> >> No. It's perfectly fine to proscribe unregulated actions. For instance, >> lying to the public forum is both unregulated and proscribed, and >> pledges can proscribe non-game actions. >> >> -- >> Jason Cobb >> >> Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason >> > But > > The Rules SHALL NOT be > interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions. > > I don't get it. > -- > secretsnail Ugh I just completely forgot about that clause. Nevertheless, it doesn't make all proscribed actions regulated. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3992 assigned to Secretsnail9
On 9/12/22 22:31, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sep 12, 2022, at 9:12 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion > wrote: >> On 9/12/22 20:31, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: >>> There's also the clause in Rule 2630 "The Administrative State": "An >>> officer SHALL NOT violate eir office's administrative regulations in the >>> discharge of eir office." It's not too relevant to this case, but there may >>> be an issue when violating a regulation, as violations are a regulated >>> action that can be performed only using the methods explicitly specified in >>> the Rules (not regulations) for performing the given action. Rule 2545 >>> (Auctions) handles this nicely: "SHALL NOT violate requirements that >>> auction's method that are clearly intended to be punishable as rules >>> violations", the typo aside. >> >> SHALL (NOT)s do not create regulated actions anymore. >> >> -- >> Jason Cobb >> >> Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason >> > But breaking a SHALL (NOT) is a regulated action, a violation, yes? After > all, if it wasn't, we would be proscribing an unregulated action. I'm > confused what you mean. > > -- > secretsnail No. It's perfectly fine to proscribe unregulated actions. For instance, lying to the public forum is both unregulated and proscribed, and pledges can proscribe non-game actions. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3992 assigned to Secretsnail9
On 9/12/22 20:31, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > There's also the clause in Rule 2630 "The Administrative State": "An > officer SHALL NOT violate eir office's administrative regulations in the > discharge of eir office." It's not too relevant to this case, but there may > be an issue when violating a regulation, as violations are a regulated > action that can be performed only using the methods explicitly specified in > the Rules (not regulations) for performing the given action. Rule 2545 > (Auctions) handles this nicely: "SHALL NOT violate requirements that > auction's method that are clearly intended to be punishable as rules > violations", the typo aside. SHALL (NOT)s do not create regulated actions anymore. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: (Proto) Values
On 9/10/22 11:25, Sarah S. via agora-discussion wrote:
> Create the following power 0.1 rule entitled "Agora's values".
> edits/additions entirely welcome, i'm not the best writer at all.
>
> {{Nothing in this rule creates a legal obligation.
>
> Since Agora's founding over 30 years ago, Agorans have been making not only
> a game but a certain form of society, with voting, judgements and norms to
> match. As Agora is a democratic society, we value and respect difference
> and dissent, As people who respect dissent, we are entirely opposed to
> rancor, invective and personal abuse.. As people who respect difference, we
> value differences of opinion. We also hold discrimination based on entirely
> irrelevant characteristics including race, sex, gender and religion
> completely repugnant and against everything we stand for. For over 30
> years, our commitment to this principle has led us to use gender-neutral
> pronouns, which you will find throughout these Rules.))
I support something like like this.
--
Jason Cobb
Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8851-8856
On 9/3/22 03:21, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > I vote FOR all. (They had been warned for this behavior previously, > multiple times. When we hear an apology we can change our minds then, but I > don't want them to be able to play again before we are ALL ready. ) > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2022, 5:38 PM secretsnail9 via agora-official < > agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> ID Author(s) AITitle >> --- >> 8851* 4st 3.0 Voter Protection >> 8852~ 4st, Jason 2.0 Fix infractions >> 8853* Jason 3.0 Unfortunately >> 8854* Jason 3.0 Attainder >> 8855~ Jason 1.0 Extermination v1.1 >> 8856~ 4st 2.0 Backup Justice NttPF -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor)
On 8/30/22 12:41, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote:
> (I'm not sure where discussions are, but I think something needs to be done
> right now. A proposal will take some time to pass anyways, but at least it
> will be something to look towards as this unravels.
>
> If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of
> the oppressor.
> - Desmond Tutu
> )
>
> I submit the following proposal:
> {
> Title: Temporary Justice
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: 4st
> Co-author(s):
>
> Destroy all coins in Madrid's possession.
> Destroy all stamps in Madrid's possession.
> Grant Madrid 100 blots.
> Remove all patent titles from Madrid.
> }
>
Blots cannot be created at power 1.
--
Jason Cobb
Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: A proto
On 8/29/22 13:23, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > We now have a player who is directly responsible for three FAGEs. I > believe that it's time we discuss a mechanism similar to the one below. Correction on this: directly responsible for one successful FAGE and one attempted FAGE that failed on a technicality. I was misremembering some additional heated discussion that e was responsible for as ending in a FAGE. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: A proto
We now have a player who is directly responsible for three FAGEs. I
believe that it's time we discuss a mechanism similar to the one below.
Title: Unfortunately
Author: Jason
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 3.0
{
Amend Rule 869 by appending the following paragraph:
{
Banned is a secured negative boolean person switch. A person is
unwelcome if e is Banned or if at least one part of em is unwelcome.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an unwelcome person CANNOT
register or be registered, and e is immediately deregistered if e is
ever a player. Designations of unwelcomeness are secured.
}
}
--
Jason Cobb
Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Paranoia
On 8/21/22 18:10, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: > Jason > >> I respond to each petition that I am required to respond to as follows: >> "No. For more information please reread this response.". > Proto: Don't. No. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3986 assigned to Murphy
On 8/16/22 12:05, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > On 8/16/22 10:20, Rose Strong via agora-business wrote: >> I CFJ: The Militia Court created by Madrid is a valid alternative to the >> current CFJ system. > > The above is CFJ 3985. > > I assign CFJ 3985 to Murphy. > The above is actually CFJ 3986. I'm sorry. I'm trying. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Spivak Standardization Act
On 8/15/22 22:39, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > Nitpicks: > >> The Spivak pronouns (e/em/eir) are hereby recognized as the standard >> third-person singular personal pronouns in Agora. In official contexts, >> players SHOULD use them when referring to non-specific persons or, in >> the absence of a clear statement of another preference, when referring >> to a specific other person. The use of singular they when referring to >> persons is DISCOURAGED in official contexts, except upon specific >> request by that person. > Singling out the singular they here feels a little weird - maybe just “the > use of other pronouns”? Good point. > >> A player CAN, with 2 support, cause this rule to amend a specified other >> rule of power less than 4, specifying the new text of the rule, such >> that the new text rewords and rephrases the existing text in order to >> use Spivak pronouns in place of singular they, provided that such >> amendment would not result in the meaning or interpretation of that rule >> changing in any way. > > I can’t imagine this is scammable, but I’d nevertheless prefer it to be > consent or objections instead of support - the potential for a 3-person cabal > to make unilateral rule changes is scary. > > Gaelan That's fair, and actually has the benefit of preventing accidental violations of the four days rule. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8822-8828
On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 8:18 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I vote FOR on all proposals up for voting this period. (I have not updated > the spreadsheet, sorry.) > > On Sun, Aug 7, 2022, 3:59 PM Edward > Murphy via agora-business wrote: > > > > 8822~ secretsnail, Murphy 1.0 Horse Racing > > > 8823~ secretsnail 1.0 Bird Overhaul > > > 8824~ secretsnail 1.0 Cleaning Sets Remnants > > > 8825~ secretsnail, 4st1.0 Ticking Stone > > > 8826~ secretsnail, 4st ...[1] 1.0 Dream of Wandering > > > 8827~ 4st, Nix2.0 Speckles > > > 8828~ 4st, Nix1.7 Speckle Penalty > This fails. The voting period has ended. -- Jason
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8815-8821
On 7/24/22 20:04, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 12:56 AM secretsnail9 via agora-official > wrote: >> 8821~ nix, Jason, secretsnail 3.0 More Intuitive Rule Changes > Opinion of the rulekeepor sought: > > In all previous history, the phrase: > > "Retitle rule X to Y, and Amend it to read..." would be listed as two > separate historical annotations in the FLR, I'm quite concerned that > changing this to: > > "Amed Rule X by retitling it Y and changing it to read..." would > greatly obscure historical, reconstruction, as the amendment would be > a single action (retitling and text change on a single line of > history). > > Often, when looking at historical annotations to figure out which > proposal changed what, retitles are milestones which signify > significant change in the function of the rule. Would this > information be obscured/lost under this proposal? I'd be inclined to record it as a single amendment, but I could potentially include "amended (title)" or "amended (text/title)"? In any case that would require me to write more code *grumble grumble*. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette - 22 Jul 2022
On 7/24/22 18:49, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Pseudo-coe: I think this is missing the Cfj called by snail with the > subject line [Proposal?]. If so and it’s not taken I favor that one. -G. > Acknowledged and assigned, thank you. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Assessor, Promotor) Re: BUS: CFJ 3978, CFJ 3979 assigned to ais523
On 7/16/22 03:09, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 12:50 AM ais523 via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>>> It discusses shorthand which I almost used exactly and discusses what the
>>> shorthand could mean,
>> No it doesn't. It discusses a couple of possible wordings, but the
>> shorthand wording it discusses is specifically "Proposal:",
>
> It discusses one shorthand specifically:
>
> Proposals (including this one), are usually styled as follows
> "Title:
> Coauthors
> AI
> Text"
>
> and that's pretty much exactly the shorthand I used. Not "Proposal:" which
> I have no idea where you even found. It is this shorthand the judge
> discusses.
It found that the words prefixing the shorthand matter and take
precedence over what the shorthand would mean standing alone.
>> The judge of CFJ 3744 specifically found that "I
>> create this proposal" has a different meaning from "I create a proposal
>> with the following attributes and text" (in the case of CFJ 3744, the
>> latter wording was used, and the creation failed because it was
>> impossible for a proposal to have the stated attributes).
>>
> Not exactly that it has a "different meaning" but a more precise meaning:
> while "I create this proposal" could be either of the two mentioned
> possibilities, "I create a proposal with the following attributes and text"
> is definitively one of those possibilities. But this is a special case
> because of the incorrect attribute: if it had been correct, both phrases
> would have the same effect, as the two possibilities would be essentially
> the same.
If they have different meanings in certain edge cases, then they have
different meanings.
>
>>> "I create this proposal" and "I submit the following proposal"
>>> would be basically the same if create and submit are synonyms, and the
>>> judge interterpetted "I create this proposal: {Shorthand}" as having two
>>> possible meanings, both of which would mean my creations of proposals
>>> succeeded, as they were essentially the same as Jason's.
>> Neither of those wordings could succeed in creating multiple proposals,
>> because they both use language that can only be used to apply to a
>> single proposal.
>
> "I create this proposal: {shortand}" actually means "I create a proposal
> with the following Title, Coauthors, AI, and Text properties" or the other
> similar meaning, which can be used to apply to multiple identical proposals.
Expanding shorthand generally can't remove ambiguity where it exists.
>
>> Are you seriously trying to argue that "Twice, I create this proposal:
>> {proposal}" is capable of creating two different proposals?
>
> Yes. That's how I read it naturally, and it isn't contradicted by the
> rules. The CFJ implies "I create this proposal" can mean it's talking about
> the attributes in {proposal}, not an actual proposal entity. So of course,
> this would make two proposals, one created slightly after the other, that
> are identical. The same proposal created twice, once and then again
> slightly after, so there are two of them.
If there are two proposals, they are by definition not "the same
proposal". They might have certain equal attributes, but they aren't the
same.
If the rule admitting the reading of permitting "creating"an existing
proposal, then it would also have to necessarily not permit creating a
new proposal. That clearly fails on an R217 test. Additionally, if the
text were designed to allow "creating" an existing proposal, it would
say "specified proposal", rather than requiring specification of
attributes. An author that wanted to allow only creating new proposals
would write _exactly_ this text.
>
>> (whether two proposals are the same
>> entity is important because, e.g., putting a proposal into the proposal
>> pool, then putting the same proposal into the proposal pool, won't lead
>> to it being in there twice, just like transferring the same nonfungible
>> asset to someone twice won't lead to them having two copies of it).
>>
> The latter example, you could totally do that if you created the
> nonfungible asset again first, which is basically what happens when you
> create a new proposal to be added to the pool. Then they'd have two copies
> of the same entity. (Side note, we really ought to have some kind of vague
> definition for an entity, even if it doesn't cover everything, just so we
> can have some agreement. There's probably plenty of precedent about t
Re: DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Assessor, Promotor) Re: BUS: CFJ 3978, CFJ 3979 assigned to ais523
On 7/15/22 22:02, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > But this is still only one issue you've addressed: you can still totally > create something that already exists, you just make it exist again, > duplicating it. Arbitrarily restricting creation to things that don't exist > is atextual given it's not any actual rules, and the rules already say you > CAN create a proposal if you specify everything so it should work. No? That's not what "creating" something means. If I have a document, and I make a copy of it, I haven't "created" the original, I've created a copy. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Finger Pointing on Distribution of Proposals 8717-8811
On 7/11/22 19:24, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 3:26 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 4:55 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business < >> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> >>> On 7/10/22 19:09, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote: >>>> PROMOTOR'S REPORT AS OF RIGHT NOW >>>> >>>> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on >> it, >>>> and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote >>>> collector >>>> is the Assessor, the quorum is 2, the voting method is AI-majority, and >>> the >>>> valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are >>>> conditional votes). >>>> >>>> >>>> ID Author(s) AITitle >>>> >> --- >>>> 8717~ Murphy, secretsnail 3.0 Normalize ribbons >>>> ... >>> CoE: The quorum on each of the above referenda was 5, determined by the >>> 7 voters on the referendum on Proposal 8699. >>> >>> And, solely because e's trying to win, I point my finger at Secretsnail9 >>> for failure to state the quorum of the referendum on Proposal 8717, in >>> violation of Rule 879. >>> >> I did in fact commit this offense but I ask it be forgivable because it >> makes more sense for quorum, which affects all Agoran decisions, to be >> determined by all Agoran decisions. The current Rule is unintuitive, in my >> opinion, which is why I made my mistake. (Also "referendum" doesn't sound >> like it would only apply to proposals, which it does.) >> >> ... >> >> -- >> secretsnail >> > I impose the Cold Hand of Justice on secretsnail for the violation of Rule > 879. > As this is a rule violation, it seems like it is a crime of at least class > 2. > As there is potential profit in letting the quorum remain so low, and that > this > was done from a position of authority, we should increase the fine. > As this crime is seemingly accidental, and is relatively inconsequential, > as it does not permanently affect the required quorum needed for the > decision, > and the quorum could have been corrected with a CoE, we should decrease the > fine. > > Therefore, I levy a fine of 2 blots on secretsnail. > Additionally, I find this offense to be forgivable. 8 words to include in > the 200 word apology > are: "it doesn't necessarily make more sense for quorum." > > -- > 4st, Referee Traditionally, the mandatory apology words are unrelated and do not form a coherent sentence. In this case it would be keeping in line with tradition for Secretsnail9 to use all of the words without using that sentence (which is probably relatively easy in this case). -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Do we need all 3?
On 7/7/22 19:04, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 2022-07-07 at 18:56 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion > wrote: >> On 7/5/22 13:59, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: >>> Repeal Rule 2618 (Promises). >>> >>> Repeal Rule 1742 (Contracts). >>> >>> Repeal Rule 2450 (Pledges). >>> >> They all serve different purposes and are useful under different >> circumstances. Repealing contracts alone could be part of a >> reasonable attempt to restructure the game away from economic >> contracts, but that doesn't seem to be what's happening here. > We could probably do without pledges – those have hardly been used > recently (and under past rulesets, were a special case of a contract). > They could also be implemented *by* contract rather than in the ruleset > (i.e. we just have a contract that lets its members pledge to things). > > Now that contracts permit act-on-behalf, it would probably be possible > to implement promises by contract too, but they've been so useful for > agreeing one-time trades that it may make sense to keep them around > separately. > > (As a side note, another possible direction is attempting to implement > as much of Agora by contract as possible – possibly even to the extent > of, e.g., a charity that publishes the rules rather than a separate > Rulekeepor post. I think this has been discussed in the past, but never > implemented. It would have the potential to make the ruleset a lot > shorter, which might be helpful for newer players, but we'd still > probably need a lot of text to protect the proposal system and for > disaster recovery.) > I think pledges should stay in the rules for roughly the same reason that I think No Faking should stay in the rules. I'd be against any form of eliminating offices for private recordkeeping (I'm sure this is not surprising giving the number of offices I hold, and I don't think shortening the ruleset at the cost of moving it lots of text into contracts is a beneficial goal. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3971 assigned to Secretsnail9
On 7/8/22 00:03, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 10:37 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On 7/7/22 19:58, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: >>> As it has no mentions of the rules, I didn't think it was necessary to >>> include an interpretation where a tabled action must be rules-defined as >> an >>> action able to be performed with one of those methods. But looking at >> Rule >>> 2125 (Regulated Actions), I do see the relevance. >>> >>> >>> A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the >>> Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the >>> Rules for performing the given action. >>> >>> >>> You can make the connection that an action "is performed with a method" >>> means that action "CAN be performed by that method as described by the >>> rules", but that seems like a bit of a jump given the wording is >>> significantly different as I argued, "is performed" vs "CAN be >> performed". >>> >>> As the rules don't explicitly say that tabled actions have to be >>> rules-defined to be intended, we shouldn't just assume that's what the >>> rules mean. We should consider it, but there's no evidence that suggests >> it >>> to be true. The lack of an explicit requirement to be rules-defined more >>> implies that there is no requirement to be rules-defined than there being >>> one. >> >> The fact that the usages of those methods must be rules-defined is >> inherent in the fact that, in order for the rules to recognize the uses >> of those methods, the actions must necessarily be regulated. It is >> IMPOSSIBLE to take an action with N support if the rules do not permit >> you to do so. You might have another method to do so if it's >> unregulated, but that won't be "with N support". >> >> > The action does not necessarily need to be POSSIBLE to be a tabled action. > It could be a tabled action that is currently impossible to take. That > doesn't change that if it was performed "with support", it would be a > tabled action, even if it currently IMPOSSIBLE to perform the action with > support. These actions are regulated, yes, but impossible regulated actions > can still be tabled actions if they would be performed by a tabled action > method. > > -- > secretsnail The action of "going shopping at the store" is not "performed by dropping a penny on the floor", because there's no possible way that the latter can result in the former. I think it's atextual to read this clause to consider possible future hypotheticals. The rules must be interpreted using their current text (or, for a CFJ, the text at the time of calling), not possible future text. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3971 assigned to Secretsnail9
On 7/7/22 19:58, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > As it has no mentions of the rules, I didn't think it was necessary to > include an interpretation where a tabled action must be rules-defined as an > action able to be performed with one of those methods. But looking at Rule > 2125 (Regulated Actions), I do see the relevance. > > > A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the > Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the > Rules for performing the given action. > > > You can make the connection that an action "is performed with a method" > means that action "CAN be performed by that method as described by the > rules", but that seems like a bit of a jump given the wording is > significantly different as I argued, "is performed" vs "CAN be performed". > > > As the rules don't explicitly say that tabled actions have to be > rules-defined to be intended, we shouldn't just assume that's what the > rules mean. We should consider it, but there's no evidence that suggests it > to be true. The lack of an explicit requirement to be rules-defined more > implies that there is no requirement to be rules-defined than there being > one. The fact that the usages of those methods must be rules-defined is inherent in the fact that, in order for the rules to recognize the uses of those methods, the actions must necessarily be regulated. It is IMPOSSIBLE to take an action with N support if the rules do not permit you to do so. You might have another method to do so if it's unregulated, but that won't be "with N support". -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Do we need all 3?
On 7/5/22 13:59, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
> I don't think we do. Let's discuss some options.
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {
> Title: Option A
> Adoption index: 2.2
> Author: secretsnail
> Co-authors:
>
> Repeal Rule 2618 (Promises).
>
> }
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {
> Title: Option B
> Adoption index: 2.5
> Author: secretsnail
> Co-authors:
>
> Repeal Rule 1742 (Contracts).
>
> }
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {
> Title: Option C
> Adoption index: 1.7
> Author: secretsnail
> Co-authors:
>
> Repeal Rule 2450 (Pledges).
>
> }
>
> There's a large overlap between these 3 rules. Even if none of these
> proposals end up passing, I do hope we can do something to clean up.
> Contracts could easily do the job of both pledges and promises, in my opinion.
>
> --
> secretsnail
They all serve different purposes and are useful under different
circumstances. Repealing contracts alone could be part of a reasonable
attempt to restructure the game away from economic contracts, but that
doesn't seem to be what's happening here.
--
Jason Cobb
Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3971 assigned to Secretsnail9
On 7/7/22 01:03, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > That is, fulfilling these requirements in order to take the action by > announcement IS performing the action "with support", making it a tabled > action. The same applies to all tabled action methods. > So what's left to answer is if ais523 tabled an intent to perform a tabled > action. Can an action that is not defined by the rules as able to be taken > with a tabled action method still be a tabled action? > We come back to the question of what it means for an action to be "performed > by" a certain method. When is this evaluated? > Suppose we have an action, X, we CAN take by announcement or CAN take by > another method, let's call it "by floopment". > Is X performed by announcement? > The answer is, well, that the question is malformed. The action CAN certainly > be performed by announcement. But IS the action performed by announcement is > an entirely different question. The action could be performed by > announcement, or by floopment, or maybe not performed at all. Saying the > action IS performed by announcement would be a mistake when there is an > alternative, that it ISN'T performed by announcement, that it HAS NEVER been > performed that way but may be at a later date. > So when we are asked "is this action performed with support" the > interpretation should not be "CAN this action be performed with support" as > that is not what is being asked. What is more reasonable to ask "has this > action been performed through this method?" > "An action is a Tabled Action if it is performed with one of the > following methods:" > This is evaluated when the action is actually performed. Did the action occur > through the method of "with support", or another tabled action method? Or, > you could also ask, would it be? > It's a simple to realize that if you were to take an action by announcement, > that action would be performed by announcement. That is, hypothetical actions > taken by announcement can be said to be performed by announcement, when > taken. The same reasoning can be applied to tabled action methods, letting > hypothetical tabled actions be intended. > Suppose the opposite was true: hypothetical actions don't count, as they > haven't been performed yet by that method. That would still break tabled > actions and be harmful for the game, as no actions would be tabled actions > because no actions have been performed by tabled action methods before they > are performed. > So, hypothetical actions that would be performed by a tabled action method > are tabled actions, whether or not you can actually take them, thus you can > intend to take them even if you actually can't, and ais523's intent to take a > non-rules-defined tabled action succeeded because it would be performed by a > tabled action method is taken. I do not yet judge CFJ 3971 TRUE. You summarily discard the option of reading the clause as considering rules-defined authorization to perform it by one of the tabled action methods without any argument against such a reading, which seems to be a reasonable reading to me. You merely assert that it's a different question, but when you argue that it's unclear what the text means, it's not at all clear to me that it's not even a possible reading. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Normalize ribbons
On 7/3/22 18:09, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: > Amend Rule 2438 (Ribbons) by replacing "qualifies for" with "earns" in > the methods of obtaining these types of Ribbon: Green (G), Platinum (P), > Lime (L), Transparent (T). Qualification is for continuous conditions while earns is for instantaneous ones. I think the effects are limited because we don't have glitter, but this would make the qualification for Platinum/Green/Transparent extend for 7 days beyond when the condition was fulfilled, which would have implications for Transparent. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Magical Substrate
On 7/3/22 14:11, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote:
> (I want a complex subgame, for that, I think we need
> to start with setting some sort of substrate for it.
> I generally endorse further modification of the following.)
>
> I submit the following proposal:
> {
> Title: Rock Paper Scissors Magic
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: 4st
> Co-author(s):
>
> Enact a new rule with power=1.0 titled "Magic Levels"
> with the following text:
> {
> The Witchor is an office.
> Enchantment (Level), Conjuration (Level), and Illusion (Level)
> are secured non-negative Integer player switches tracked by the Witchor.
Please pick a single name, don't put parentheticals in switch names.
Also, "natural player switch", and there's very little point in securing
something at power-1.
> Unless otherwise modified or changed, these switches' default value is
> 3.
"[...] switches tracked by the Witchor, defaulting to 3".
> Colliqually, these are a player's Magic Levels.
This is more of a style preference, but I don't think it's a good idea
to say something is "colloquial" in the rules. If it's in the rules,
it's not colloquial by definition.
> Each player CAN, by announcement, change eir Magic Levels, ONCE
> each week. A player that attempts to change eir Magic Levels
> more than once a week fails to intend to change eir Magic Levels.
> The values of what a player intends to change eir Magic Levels to
> CAN be a public secret. (See the ACORN on Secret Auctions)
No need to capitalize "ONCE".
Not clear whether this is supposed to be an instantaneous change or a
buffered change like planning to flip.
You never define "public secret".
The "ACORN" is an informal name and shouldn't be used in rules text. If
you want regulations, their enactment needs to be authorized under a
promulgator.
> Colliqually, this is the Magic Studying Period.
Again, it's not colloquial if it's defined in rules text.
> At the beginning of each week, each player who intended to change
> eir Magic Levels, announces the values of what they were
> changing eir Magic Levels to.
> A player that fails to do so by the end of the week fails to intend
> to change eir magic levels.
Players only announce things by sending messages.
> Colliqually, this is the Magic Practicing Period.
Same issue.
> At the beginning of the next week, a player's Magic Levels
> are flipped to the values they intended to change eir Magic Levels to
> during the most recent Magic Practicing Period.
Should probably have a "simultaneously" here.
> In a non-binding way, this rule makes the 3 following numbered
> suggestions related to Magic Levels:
> 1. Enchantment should be stronger than Conjuration.
> 2. Conjuration should be stronger than Illusion.
> 3. Illusion should be stronger than Enchantment.
> }
I see no benefit to having this in rules text. If this is just good
strategy, it will be figured out by players themselves. Also,
"non-binding" suggestions should use "SHOULD" rather than this more
verbose formulation.
> Enact the following rule with power=1.0
> titled "Constant Magic Output" with the text:
> {
> The sum of a player's Magic Levels MUST be 9.
> If the sum of a player's Magic Levels are NOT 9,
> each of the player's Magic Levels are flipped to 3.
> }
This should not use "MUST", which suggests a requirement on pain of
blots. Just "If the sum of a player's Magic Level values is ever not 9,
each of eir Magic Level switches is flipped to its default value."
should work.
Also, I don't really see a reason for this to be in its own rule.
--
Jason Cobb
Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Proposal] An exercise in patience
On 7/2/22 00:04, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > When a stone is cascaded, the Rule defining that stone applies the effects in > that stone's scroll. This doesn't work due to power. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: More cleaning
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022, 9:39 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I intend to clean, each without objection, each of the following: > correct the spelling of 'statment' in Rule 2471 "No Faking" to 'statement' > correct the spelling of 'niether' in Rule 2661 "Permits" to 'neither' > correct the grammar of 'guy' in Rule 2423 "First Among Equals" to 'person' > correct the spelling of 'grater' in Rule 2480 "Festivals" to 'greater' > correct the spelling of 'continous' in Rule 2581 "Official Patent Titles" > to 'continuous' > correct the spelling of 'canceled' in Rule 1742 "Contracts" to 'cancelled' > > I object to the "guy" intent because it's not clear to me that it's permissible in cleaning.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8696-8699
On 6/21/22 17:16, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/21/2022 10:34 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Tue, 2022-06-21 at 08:19 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >>> I don't agree with this interpretation. There are quite a few examples of >>> using "wrong" nicknames if the person is clear from context (it's ancient >>> so I'm not citing this as strict precedent, but CFJ 1361 is an example). >>> I think there's sufficient context in the Agoran discussion forum of >>> Discord (including the nickname Jason gives emself there) for this to be >>> person-specifying. >> Counterevidence: not being a Discord user, although I'm vaguely aware >> that there's someone named "Random Internet Cat" on Discord, I couldn't >> remember which Agoran it was (until this thread reminded me). So this >> didn't immediately specify a particular person, from my point of view. >> (I could probably have figured it out if it were important.) > The sole criterion for a coauthor is that they must be a "person other > than the author" (Rule 2350). Doesn't have to be a player, the coauthor > doesn't have to be aware of the coauthorship, and can't formally opt out > or anything like that. > > A famous person who's never been in Agora could be listed, AFAICT. Or if > I listed an unknown name as a coauthor, and when asked said "oh that's my > non-Agoran friend here in RL who was reading over my shoulder and made a > suggestion" I suspect it would meet our "trusting to the > preponderance-of-evidence" standard. > > So if cat was a person on Discord who hadn't registered and never posted > on the main lists, it might work fine - a cfj on the subject would > probably turn up "yep that's a person who's not 4st, more likely than not" > if a discord conversation between the two of them was posted as evidence. > > So it might boil down to: does the fact that it wasn't clear that > cat==Jason to some people make it FALSE to that standard? > > Recently (but before you re=joined maybe? can't remember) I think we had > someone post something from an unknown email account and say "I swear I'm > a registered agoran under a different email account, I'm not saying who I > am but I take [action]." Does anyone remember the outcome of that or am I > misremembering the circumstances. > > -G. > That was me. http://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3857 -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Typo in R2656
On 6/15/22 03:13, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
> {
> Title: Fix typo in Points
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: 4st
> Co-author(s):
> Amend the rule "Points" by changing the sentence
> "If a least one player wins the game via such an
> announcement, all players' scores are set to their default."
> to
> "If at least one player wins the game via such an
> announcement, all players' scores are set to their default."
> }
> (Please, notice how it says 'a least' instead of 'at least')
This can be done with cleaning instead of a proposal.
--
Jason Cobb
Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 3967 judgement
On 6/13/22 20:55, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > The Winds Died Down recently, beginning the procedure described in R2658. > As found in CFJ 3966, the process was begun even if some of the steps > couldn't be completed. As far as I can tell, nothing blocked the repeals > in (1) from taking place. Doesn't affect the point, but R2651 has a mismatching number/title. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Ministry Focus 2.0
On 6/13/22 16:51, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
> {
> Title: Ministry of Vagabonds
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: 4st
> Co-author(s): nix, Madrid, secretsnail9, Jason
As written, this proposal does nothing or something close to it. It
would need to enact/amend rules to have lasting effect.
> Ministry Location (or just Location) is a secured active player switch,
> tracked by the Ministor in eir monthly report,
> with possible values Ministry of Vagabonds (the default) and any Ministry.
It does not seem like a good idea to have two completely separate groups
both called Ministries.
> An active player CAN Plan to Flip eir own Ministry Location,
> specifying any valid value for eir Ministry Location, by announcement.
> When the rules state that it's the wandering,
> every active player's Ministry Location is set to the value e most
> recently specified by Planning to Flip. If a player did not Plan to Flip
> eir Ministry Location switch since the last wandering, it not Flipped.
>
> It's the wandering at the beginning of each month.
Others may disagree with me on this, but I don't particularly like the
phrasing of "It's the wandering", particularly the contraction.
> A player is considered Freshly Ministrated when eir Location Flips.
> A player is considered Reministrated when a wandering occurs and eir
> Location is not flipped, and e is not Freshly Ministrated.
> A player is considered Refreshedly Ministrated when e is Reministrated,
> or if e is Freshly Ministrated.
"Freshly Ministrated" and "Refreshedly Ministrated" with subtly
different meanings seems rather confusing to me. Also, these statuses
need to have an explicit time bound.
> The following rules apply, with e referring to a player with that Location:
"The following apply to each active player based on that player's
Ministry Location:"
> - Ministry of Victories:
> If e is the only player with eir Location as the
> Ministry of Victories, e CAN, once by announcement, win. If e
> wins in this way, eir Location is Flipped to the Ministry of Vagabonds.
> When e is Freshly Ministrated, e CAN, once by announcement, gain 10
> points.
We've standardized on players not being able to win by announcement, but
instead perform some other action by announcement, which results in them
winning. This is due to regulated actions, iirc.
> - Ministry of Minting:
> When e is Refreshedly Ministrated, e CAN,
> once by announcement, grant 5 stamps of eir own print to emself.
Stamps have types, not prints.
> - Ministry of Justice:
> When e is Refreshedly Ministrated, e CAN,
> once by announcement, remove up to 4 blots from emself.
"Expunge", not "remove", is conventional for blots.
> - Ministry of Vagabonds:
> When e is Reministrated, e can no longer Plan to Flip eir own Location,
> but instead simply Flips eir own Location,
> specifying any valid value for eir Location, once by announcement.
> Once e has Flipped Locations in this way,
> e must once again Plan to Flip Locations
> instead of simply Flipping Locations.
"When e Plans to Flip eir Ministry Location, it is immediately flipped
to the specified value, if possible."
> - Ministry of Engineering:
> E can Flip the Device to either on or off with Agoran Consent.
> E can act on behalf of the device to take any
> action the device may take by announcement.
This seems extremely dangerous. We've intentionally limited
acting-on-behalf of the device to an accountable officer.
> - Ministry of Beasts:
> E can buy bird food by paying a fee of 3 boatloads of coins.
> E can buy a Beast Permit by paying a fee of 40 boatloads of coins
> instead.
> E can renew a Beast Permit by paying a fee of 20 boatloads of coins
> instead.
Don't need "instead" here, it's a separate method.
> - Ministry of Gardens:
> Once per stone collection period, e can pay a fee of N boatloads of
> coins,
> specifying one stone e owns, and that stone has their escape chance
> reduced by N%, to a minimum of 0%,
"Stone collection period" is not defined. This should end in a period,
not a comma. Also this would need to be phrased as a continuous effect.
> - Ministry of Power: Eir Voting Strength is 1 greater.
> }
>
> (My intent here is to provide specialization, but also the game of Chicken,
> who is willing to leave the Ministry of Victories alone?
> Who wants sweet sweet points? Suggestions, etc, are welcome.)
Overall, I have some concerns. These don't seem particularly balanced
and may be overly specific. I'm not even sure if I want to go back to a
focus-based game immediately.
--
Jason Cobb
Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Assessor) Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8682
On 6/6/22 19:39, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > On Sun, 2022-06-05 at 18:36 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote: >> ID Author(s) AITitle >> --- > I vote as follows: >> 8682& secretsnail 1.0 Temptation > DEFEAT > *annoyed Assessor noises* I'm going to operate under the assumption this "clearly identifies a valid vote" and count it as AGAINST. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3964 assigned to G.
On 5/31/22 21:50, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > These definitions lead to at least three different reasonable possibilities > I can see: > > The initiator of the device is the one who started it, or proposed it. (The > "special rites" of proposing the device fit nicely here.) > > The initiator is the one that instructs the device. (This could be the > device rule or the Mad Engineer, as both can instruct the device to perform > certain actions) > > The initiator is the one that started the device up, or turned it on. > > Of these, the first makes the most sense, as CFJs are similarly proposed, > but as statements to be judged rather than a rule change to be voted on. > The second is a bit of a reach considering the device isn't a person, so > saying it is instructed or introduced to something doesn't make much sense. > The third would be a potential contender if the rule said "the initiators", > but as there is only one initiator, it makes more sense to go with the > single player that proposed the device to start it off, G., who is not > ais523, meaning ais523 is eligible. Someone mentioned that the initiator may be the proposal that created the device, rather than the author of the proposal. Doesn't affect the outcome, but if you're going to definitively rule on who the initiator is, that should at least be considered as an option (and I think it's somewhat more convincing as an option than the author of the proposal). CFJs aren't completely analogous, since a person initiates a CFJ, while only an instrument enacts rules. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3964 assigned to G.
On 5/30/22 21:02, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > So it's more unclear, and potentially ambiguous, which would just make > deactivation fail. Also, that CFJ didn't address the contradiction of being > able to activate the device while it's already on. The only communication standard that must be met is for performing a by announcement action. If the rules make it ambiguous what the effects of the action are, that's a problem after the action is performed, but it doesn't prevent the performance. > >> (In terms of your earlier discussion about what "the device changes" >> does – remember that the device is a switch with two positions, so the >> logical thing to change is the switch's position.) >> > I feel like the written definition for a device change is what mucks this > up. If a device change could be "any of the above", then why should it just > be turning the device from off to on specifically when it's after an > assignment? "The devices changes from its current value to its opposite > value" is just one possible interpretation, as is "the device changes from > its current type to a different type (such as welcome device)", "the device > changes from its current title to a different title", "the device changes > from its current time window to a different time window", etc. It needs to > be more specified for anything to actually happen. Rules text doesn't need to be specific about what changes, unless a higher powered rule says otherwise. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3964 assigned to G.
On 5/30/22 17:23, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > After the first device assignment, "the Device changes, following which > each active player gains 1 card of each type and eir grant (if any)". What > does it mean for the device to change? We actually have a definition for a > device change: > > "A Device change is any effect that falls into the above > classes." > > but this only applies when the device is on, so the device changing is > undefined at this point. The device has multiple properties that could > change, including its assigned judge, its value, and potentially other > attributes. There is nothing that specifies what is to be changed about the > device, so nothing changes. In general, the rules (or any instrument) do not need to meet *any* communication standard when specifying changes. There are specific provisions for rule changes, but general gamestate changes can be arbitrarily unclear or nonspecific. However, the most natural reading is probably that the Device itself is flipped. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
On 5/1/22 23:09, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > Any suggestions? I'm partial to changing "As this title..." to "As this > Device...", but maybe you have a better idea. FOR -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Belated Award Season @Arbitor @ADoP @Promotor @Arbitor
On 4/30/22 10:34, nix via agora-official wrote:
> We missed award season, which was this month. As Herald, I take
> responsibility. However, I believe I have a solution. Through
> regulations, I can grant untimed authorization to the officers to award
> the titles. I request these officers review Rule 2582, and announce
> their nominees within the next week, if possible. I also request that
> other players offer any suggestions they may have for these awards.
>
> For each of the following Regulations, I intend to enact it with 1.5
> Agoran Consent.
>
> {
> HR1: Silver Quill
>
> The Promotor CAN award the patent title of Silver Quill 2021 with 2
> Agoran Consent. When e does so, e CAN and MUST also repeal this
> regulation by announcement.
> }
>
> {
> HR2: Wooden Gavel
>
> The Arbitor CAN award the patent title of Wooden Gavel 2021 with 2
> Agoran Consent. When e does so, e CAN and MUST also repeal this
> regulation by announcement.
> }
>
> {
> HR3: Golden Glove
>
> The Tailor CAN award the patent title of Golden Glove 2021 with 2
> Agoran Consent. When e does so, e CAN and MUST also repeal this
> regulation by announcement.
> }
>
> {
> HR4: Employee of the Year
>
> The ADoP CAN award the patent title of Employee of the Year 2021 with 2
> Agoran Consent. When e does so, e CAN and MUST also repeal this
> regulation by announcement.
> }
>
Administrative Regulations cannot provide for their own repeal.
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8667-8668
On 4/18/22 11:57, juan via agora-discussion wrote: > I vote FOR in both referenda. Not to the public forum. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: (indictment intent on @jaun for support/objections) resolving fingers for the forbidden
On 4/11/22 13:49, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 4/11/2022 10:40 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >> No, it's not reasonable to expect new players to read through decades of >> judgements. However, that doesn't eliminate the fact that the precedent >> exists. Generally relevant precedents will be brought up by people aware >> of them when needed. > I mean, it *might* be reasonable for a new player to think "I'm putting in > a high-powered proposal that claims to freeze agora, directly trying to > loophole something that the rules explicitly say is a High Crime and > shouldn't be done - maybe there's reasons I shouldn't do that." > > -G. > Yes, sorry, fair point. I was speaking generally, not thinking about this specific case for that bit. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Hopefully you disagree
On 4/11/22 08:46, juan via agora-discussion wrote: > It should be clear enough. It's in a thread concerning a single proposal. > Also, it directly answers a comment regarding that proposal. Also, I only > have one proposal up. I'd argue it's unambiguous. > > On April 10, 2022 11:41:31 PM GMT-03:00, Jason Cobb via agora-business > wrote: >> This... probably fails? It doesn't clearly cite which proposal is being >> withdrawn. Sure, I happen to know what proposal it's referring to because I've read the thread. But a person who hasn't the context (which isn't unreasonable) or who is looking at this message on an archive where the context just isn't available. Similarly, it's not reasonable to expect everybody to know that you have a single proposal in the pool unless you explicitly say that. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] No finger pointing on behalf
On 4/8/22 14:05, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 13:54 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >> I submit, but do not pend, the following proposal: >> >> Title: No finger pointing on behalf > FWIW, I'd prefer to expand the set of actions-on-behalf rather than > shrinking it (e.g. allowing objections/support to be made on behalf). > > One of the big advantages of being able to act on behalf is that it > takes the guesswork / constant refreshing out of timing scams, as long > as you can bribe the person who sends the message you want to react to. > If you remove that ability, then being able to get the perfect timing > is reliant primarily on how much you can stay online constantly > refreshing your email and/or how good you are at writing bots to > automatically send a message in response to another message. The latter > skill is mildly interesting, but the former skill is something that > it's a bad idea to encourage – it's a bad idea to steer people into > dedicating too much of their life to playing nomic at the expense of > other things, and refreshing your email constantly is one of the ways > you can spend a huge amount of time playing nomic. > > (I kind-of miss the days when it was possible to agree contracts in > secret, and have them gain act-on-behalf ability as soon as they were > made public, even if the consent itself hadn't been made public. > Obviously there are some issues trying to work out the gamestate if > that sort of thing is possible, but it meant that you didn't need to > make the existence of that sort of agreement public in advance and warn > everyone else about what you were up to.) > Things break if we allow acting on behalf for support/objections. For instance, Madrid has made contracts with clauses that allow acting on behalf to object to intents to shred (or would if this were possible). I don't think that's good for the game, and it removes the ability to destroy harmful contracts that only one person actually wants (except by proposal of course). Also, while timing scams are interesting gameplay, I don't think it's a good idea to change the rules for the sole purpose of making them easier to perform. In this specific situation, the timing element is likely to be repealed soon anyway. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] No finger pointing on behalf
On 4/8/22 14:21, Madrid via agora-discussion wrote: > Ive been looking into mailbots for officerless game tracking. > > If Contracts/Acting on Behalf gets repealed I'm up for using the same tech > for bots that can replace it. > > Actually, they could be useful too for secret "contracts", currently... As I understand our current precedents, allowing someone to send mail from your email address doesn't change the fact that the email is _from_ them. What matters is the last entity involved that has free will. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
On 4/5/22 18:10, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Tue, 2022-04-05 at 18:07 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion > wrote: >> On 4/5/22 18:03, ais523 via agora-business wrote: >>> On Wed, 2022-04-06 at 00:00 +0200, nethack4.org dicebot via agora- >>> business wrote: >>>> This is an automated selection of a random rule from Agora's >>>> ruleset, as part of the Mad Engineer's weekly duties. >>>> Randomizing from 145 rules. >>> This roll wasn't valid to be part of the weekly duties – if I've >>> counted correctly, there are currently 147 rules, so the >>> probabilities were wrong. >>> >>> I'll do it manually in a couple of days if the ruleset still hasn't >>> been updated by then (allowing for the fact that there are two >>> rules with unassigned numbers, Stamps and Birds). >>> >> The ruleset has been updated since those proposals were assessed. >> >> Stamps is 2659, Birds is 2660-2665, and there are 153 rules as of the >> latest ruleset. > Where is the updated ruleset available? The dicebot is pulling from > https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr.txt which doesn't seem to have been > updated yet. > > (My informal count forgot that Birds was multiple rules.) > That url is always the latest published FLR. https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr-fresh.txt is the FLR as it would have been for the latest published SLR (with an extra disclaimer). -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
On 4/5/22 18:03, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > On Wed, 2022-04-06 at 00:00 +0200, nethack4.org dicebot via agora- > business wrote: >> This is an automated selection of a random rule from Agora's ruleset, >> as part of the Mad Engineer's weekly duties. >> Randomizing from 145 rules. > This roll wasn't valid to be part of the weekly duties – if I've > counted correctly, there are currently 147 rules, so the probabilities > were wrong. > > I'll do it manually in a couple of days if the ruleset still hasn't > been updated by then (allowing for the fact that there are two rules > with unassigned numbers, Stamps and Birds). > The ruleset has been updated since those proposals were assessed. Stamps is 2659, Birds is 2660-2665, and there are 153 rules as of the latest ruleset. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Purchasing promises
On 4/4/22 10:30, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
> I create six copies of the following promise, named "Promise me", and
> transfer them to the Library:
> {{{
> Cashing condition: In the message in which e cashes this promise, the
> bearer transfers me a promise with text "For each tabled intent
> specified by the bearer, I object to it, then withdraw my objection and
> support it" and a promise with text "For each tabled intent specified
> by the bearer, I support it, then withdraw my support and object to
> it"; each of those promises was created by the bearer and has no
> cashing conditions; and the bearer does not cash any other promise in
> this message, and has not cashed any other copy of the "Promise me"
> promise.
>
> I transfer 1200 coins to the bearer.
> }}}
>
You can't act on behalf to support/object/withdraw. So unless I'm
missing something (or the rule changes later) these don't do anything?
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Weekly Snailpoint update
On 4/3/22 21:21, juan via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2022-04-03 20:10, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >> CoE: either none of these Snailpoints exist, or they are all owned by >> the Lost and Found Department. Any purported creation of Snailpoints >> would result in their ownership being indeterminate, as their creation >> cannot be verified to be consistent with the hashed document. Thus, the >> Snailpoints would be in abeyance and thus transferred to L, since the >> contract does not state otherwise. > I don't think rules on assets necessarily apply here. Snailpoints are > defined in contract, and are not assets per se. Despite there being a > standard of clarity and unambiguosness to actions stated in R1742, > actions which are specified by the contract's text, and that make no > reference to actions created by Agora rules, are unregulated actions. > > There is an argument that, by creating Snailpoints as “assets”, the > contract is infering all relevant definitions present in the rules > apply. However, given the contract's text clearly defers decision to the > text with the given hash, I'd argue all parties have clearly and > unambiguously consented to having their Snailpoints governed by that > text. In that case, that text is normative, and the rules on Assets > apply only where it falls silent. > R2166: "An asset is an entity defined as such by a document that has been granted Mint Authority by the Rules [...]", and "Contracts have mint authority." The contract defines Snailpoints as an asset, and the Rules recognize that decision. Snailpoints are real, full Agoran assets. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: OFF: Re: [Ministor] Foci
On 4/3/22 11:07, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > On 4/3/2022 8:04 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Ministor's Monthly Report for 03 April 2022 >> >> Focus Switches (self-ratifies) >> >> Compliance (3): >>Madrid, ais523, G., Trigon, Jason, secretsnail >> >> Legacy (6): >> cuddlybanana, duck >> >> Legislation (3): >>Aspen, Gaelan, R. Lee, nix >> >> Participation (1): >>Murphy >> >> Unfocused (default): All other active players >> [Inactive/nonplayers do not have this switch] >> > pseudo-COE: I forgot to adjust the numbers in parenthesis, but I don't > think that's substantive or affects the self-ratifying accuracy? Does that make the document "internally inconsistent" and thus unratifiable? -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
On 3/27/22 20:07, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-03-28 at 02:05 +0200, nethack4.org dicebot via agora-
> business wrote:
>> The dice roll was: 124
>> This is R2629, Victory Auctions.
> Another duplicate. For reference, again:
> {{{
>The Treasuror CAN conduct an auction (a "victory auction") if no
>victory auction is ongoing. The Treasuror MUST do so at least
>once a month, and SHOULD do so at least twice each month.
>
>A victory auction includes the following lots:
>
>* one new Win Card.
>
>* all of any single type of card or product, currently owned by
> the Lost and Found Department, if any.
>
>The currency of a victory auction is coins (minimum bid 1).
> }}}
>
> Any suggestions?
>
Well it's an option to define the lots of a device auction (already in
the rule), but that would have to at least include a win card, which
would probably mess up the economy.
Otherwise: "The device MUST do so at least once a month, and SHOULD do
so at least twice each month.", but that probably creates impossible
obligations for the Engineer.
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 399
On 3/27/22 17:39, Trigon via agora-official wrote: >Contract(00) cn wcjclcvcwsbgpdvt > == == > ATMStash [0] 17538 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > CB Locker [1] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > D. Corp. [2]3156 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > DragonQE [3] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > FIAA [4] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > Geocache [5] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 > Hoard [6]4914 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 > IBTWWBG[7] 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > Lever [8] 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 > Nim 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > PlunderPS [9] 109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > Pooling [10] 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 > Pot [11] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > SEAMSTRESS[12] 246 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dragon QuickExchange no longer exists. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: [proto] Prohibited wins
Drafted this on discord, there was some disagreement about whether this
was a good idea at all, but I think this wording fixes the identified
problems:
Amend Rule 2449 by appending the following paragraphs:
{
The above notwithstanding, persons do not win the game if conduct in
violation of the rules was substantially, reasonably directly,
reasonably necessarily, and reasonably immediately, a cause of the
conditions causing them to win.
The above notwithstanding, persons do not win the game if they
previously won the game due to conditions arising out of the same
instance of the same set of circumstances.
A public document purporting to make a correct claim that one or more
persons won the game at the time of the message (or, at the time of the
message, satisfied conditions causing them to win the game) is a
self-ratifying attestation that those persons won the game at the time
of the message. A person SHALL NOT create such a public document unless
e reasonably believes that there is a non-frivolous argument for its
truth; doing so is the Class 6 Crime of Falsifying Laurels.
}
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Obstructive Pooling] Deposit
On 3/24/22 17:37, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 2022-03-24 at 17:28 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >> I transfer all of my win cards and winsomes to ais523 for the sole >> purpose of depositing them into Obstructive Pooling. > Just to confirm, is this 1 Win Card and 3 Winsomes? > > (I'll put out an Accountant's Report if we're clear on how many assets > were moved, so that we don't lose track of who conceptually owns them.) > Yep, I believe so (it is according to last forbes and I don't think my holdings have changed since then). -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
On 3/21/22 20:15, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-03-22 at 01:12 +0100, nethack4.org dicebot via agora-
> business wrote:
>> Assignment of dice rolls to rules:
>> 106:R2579; 107:R2581; 108:R2582; 109:R2585; 110:R2603; 111:R2605;
> [I added a special case in the randomization program so that it would
> know that R2602 isn't a rule, even though it appears in the online
> FLR.]
>
>> The dice roll was: 50
>> This is R2162, Switches.
> For reference:
> {{{
>A type of switch is a property that the rules define as a switch,
>and specify the following:
>
>1. The type(s) of entity possessing an instance of that switch. No
> other entity possesses an instance of that switch.
>
>2. One or more possible values for instances of that switch,
> exactly one of which should be designated as the default. No
> values other than those listed are possible for instances of
> that switch, except that, if no default is otherwise
> specified, then rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the
> "null" value is a possible value for that switch, and is the
> default.
>
>3. Optionally, exactly one office whose holder tracks instances of
> that switch. That officer's (weekly, if not specified
> otherwise) report includes the value of each instance of that
> switch whose value is not its default value; a public document
> purporting to be this portion of that officer's report is
> self-ratifying, and implies that other instances are at their
> default value.
>
>At any given time, each instance of a switch has exactly one
>possible value for that type of switch. If an instance of a switch
>comes to have a value, it ceases to have any other value. If an
>instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a possible
>value, it comes to have its default value. A Rule that designates
>a switch as "secured" (at a given power level) designates changes
>to the properties of that type of switch as secured (at that power
>level) and designates changes to the value of each instance of the
>switch as secured (at that power level).
>
>"To flip an instance of a switch" is to make it come to have a
>given value. "To become X" (where X is a possible value of
>exactly one of the subject's switches) is to flip that switch to
>X.
>
>If a type of switch is not explicitly designated as
>possibly-indeterminate by the rule that defines it, and if an
>action or set of actions would cause the value of an instance of
>that type of switch to become indeterminate, that instance instead
>takes on its last determinate and possible value, if any,
>otherwise it takes on its default value.
>
>A singleton switch is a switch for which Agora Nomic is the only
>entity possessing an instance of that switch.
>
>A boolean switch is a switch with values True and False. A
>positive boolean switch has a default of True; a negative boolean
>switch has a default of False.
>
>Attempting to flip an instance of a switch to a value it already
>has does not flip the switch. However, if a person is REQUIRED to
>flip a switch instance to a value it already has, then either
>attempting to do so using the required mechanism, or announcing
>that the switch already has the required value, fulfills the
>requirement without flipping the switch.
> }}}
>
> Lots of sentences to choose from this week! Any suggestions?
>
"At any given time, each instance of a device has exactly one possible
value for that type of device."
"At any given time, each device of a switch has exactly one possible
value of that type of switch."
"If an instance of a device would otherwise fail to have a possible
value, it comes to have its default value."
"If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a possible
device, it comes to have its default device."
"A singleton device is a device for which Agora Nomic is the only entity
possessing an instance of that device."
"A device switch is a switch with values True and False."
"Attempting to flip an instance of a device to a value it already has
does not flip the device."
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The Hexeract
fee of 1 Movie. > > A player CAN swap the locations of two specified spaces by paying a fee of > 5 Movies. The grid rule doesn't clearly support this. I think, in general, it would be better to avoid modifying the locations of spaces in order to avoid questions of what happens when a space's location is set to an invalid value. > A mountain has a name, defaulting to the location of the space it is on. > Each space on The Hexeract with the form [A,B,C,D,E,F], where A, B, C, D, > E, and F are each either 0 or 2 (the 64 corners of the grid) starts out > with a mountain on it when created. Name should be a switch, and it suggests a string, while a location is a platonic non-string value. > Vertokens are an indestructible fixed asset tracked by the Hexor, with a > specific mountain as a type. There is a distinct type for each mountain > that currently exists on a space on The Hexeract. > > A player CAN Climb by announcement, provided e is on a space with a > mountain on it. When e does so, e gains a Vertoken with that mountain as a > type, unless e already owns one with that type. When a player Climbs, e can > optionally specify a name for the mountain. If e does so, the mountain on > the space e is on is renamed to the specified name. > > If a player has exactly 64 Vertokens, e CAN See the Truth by announcement, > specifying a set of no more than 3 players, provided no person has won the > game by doing so in the past 30 days. When e does so, the specified players > win the game. Four days after such a win occurs, all Fencehops, Fences, > Movies, and Vertokens are destroyed, all spaces are destroyed and replaced > with new spaces, and all Players move to [1,1,1,1,1,1]. Player should not be capitalized. "won the game by doing so" could plausibly only include instances when people specify themselves in the set, so if Alice specifies only Bob to win, the time limit would not trigger. Although unlikely, it's not inconceivable this could happen with sufficient bribes. Overall this just seems grindy, difficult to track, and not particularly fun to play. It also screws over anybody who joins in the middle of the round, and it's potentially significantly damaging to miss even a week with a free move if other players aren't willing to sell you assets to catch up. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] Billboard Rock Chart - 16 Mar 2022
On 3/16/22 18:09, Trigon via agora-discussion wrote: > El 16/03/2022 a las 22:05, Jason Cobb via agora-official escribió: >> Hot Potato gain 8 coins if transferred to a player who has not >> owned the stone since the last time Agora owned it. >> Escape risk: immune if wielded 3 or more times >> since the last collection notice, else 100%. > Surely this should read "8 boatloads of coins" > It should, yes. This will be reflected in future reports. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] Billboard Rock Chart - 13 Mar 2022
On 3/13/22 16:13, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: > Power Jason2021-10-04 Correction: the Power Stone was wielded by Jason on 2022-03-08. This will be reflected in future reports. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [DoV?] Apathy resolution
On 3/6/22 20:28, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, Mar 6, 2022 at 7:13 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> If I send an email to your email address, but all of your devices are >> offline for the 4 day period, is the email sent "to" you? >> > Yes, because the message will in all likelihood still be there after the 4 > days, and can still be seen. Discord messages are more fragile, being > potentially deletable and editable, so that may invalidate discord messages > in general. The medium of the message is probably a factor in > conspicuousness. > -- > secretsnail There's nothing in the text to suggest that an ephemeral or editable message can't be a message. And iirc ais523 previously said that an IRC channel was previously accepted as a public forum. I also don't buy the argument that the medium itself determines conspicuousness. Nobody has suggested that sending an apathy intent to BAK invalidates it on conspicuousness grounds, even though the entire point of doing that is that some players might not be paying attention to it. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [DoV?] Apathy resolution
On 3/6/22 20:10, Ned Strange via agora-discussion wrote: > In the usual case I would have been emailed or messaged in some way which > means I would be able to see the message. I was offline the whole time this > message was unedited. It can't be to me if it never reached me at any point. If I send an email to your email address, but all of your devices are offline for the 4 day period, is the email sent "to" you? -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: [proto] Foreign relations
This is a proto to re-establish foreign relations. PodNomic (a podcast
about nomics that is also a nomic) had a system where other nomics could
appoint correspondents who could submit news items, which would be
included in the podcast (this was recently repealed but would probably
be re-enacted if at least one nomic would submit consistently).
Title: Logan Act
Author: Jason
Coauthors: Gaelan
Adoption index: 2.0
Enact a new rule with title "Foreign Relations", power 2.0, and the
following text:
{
The Ambassador At-Large is an office, responsible for maintaining
Agora's relations with other nomics. A foreign nomic is any nomic other
than Agora.
Delegate is a foreign nomic switch, with possible values of "null"
(default) and each player, tracked by the Ambassador at-Large in eir
monthly report. The Ambassador At-Large CAN, with 2 Agoran consent, set
the delegate of a foreign nomic to a specified player, provided that
player has consented to such change. The Ambassador At-Large CAN, with
Agoran consent, set the delegate of a foreign nomic to null.
The Ambassador At-Large is the promulgator for regulations that define
Agora's relations with foreign nomics; such regulations are known as
Diplomatic Regulations. The Ambassador At-Large CAN enact, amend, and
repeal such regulations with 2 Agoran consent. The Ambassador At-large
and each delegate SHALL NOT violate diplomatic regulations.
For the purposes of foreign nomics, diplomatic regulations should be
considered binding and should be considered to represent the will of Agora.
The Ambassador At-Large SHOULD, upon request, certify to players of any
foreign nomic how the rules and regulations of Agora function. Players
SHALL NOT deliberately and knowingly make misrepresentations about Agora
to players of foreign nomics or deliberately misrepresent their status
as Ambassador At-Large or any delegate; doing either is the class 2
crime of Unauthorized Diplomacy.
}
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: [proto] TIME Act
On 3/1/22 00:41, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote: >>> 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. > Yeah, in the specific case of proposals being enacted, that's probably fine. But there are other ways to cause rule changes, and those matter, too. I understand the problem. I don't understand your proposed solution. Are you suggesting that non-explicit rule changes should just be excluded from the minimal modification, but that the ratification should otherwise proceed normally? -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
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
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: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
On 2/20/22 20:49, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-02-21 at 02:47 +0100, nethack4.org dicebot via agora-
> business wrote:
>> The dice roll was: 41
>> This is R2137, The Assessor.
> For reference:
> {{{
> The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for
> collecting votes and keeping track of related properties.
> }}}
>
> Well, I guess I know which sentence we're going to pick this week! Any
> suggestions on what word to replace?
>
I am of course biased and vote for "The Assessor is an device; its
holder is responsible for collecting votes and keeping track of related
properties."
If you go with this, please don't put it in the "device is on" section.
I'd prefer to not cease to exist at the end of my time window (though I
guess we all will eventually...).
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] RTRW Recording
On 2/8/22 15:28, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2/8/2022 15:16, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: >> Well it looks like we're going with recording people reading the ruleset. >> >> Reading will be done using the Short Logical Ruleset published on 8 Feb >> 2022, which has 146 rules. >> >> The following persons have stated on Discord that they wish to participate: >> >> * ATMunn >> >> * nix >> >> * Jason >> >> * Gaelan >> >> * Trigon >> >> * cuddlybanana >> >> >> If you are not on the above list, please respond to this email if you >> wish to participate. >> >> As for how to assign rules, I will accept up to 5 first-come-first-serve >> claims per person in replies to this email. Any remaining rules will be >> assigned as I see fit (probably randomly). >> >> I will accept opt-ins and dibs for the next 24 hours before assigning >> the remaining rules. >> > I call dibs on the following rules: > > * Rule 2450 (Pledges) > > * Rule 2618 (Promises) > > * Rule 1742 (Contracts) > > * Rule 2608 (The Notary) > > * Rule 2631 (Charities) > I call dibs on: * Rule 208 (Resolving Agoran Decisions) * Rule 2141 (Role and Attributes of Rules) * Rule 1681 (The Logical Rulesets) * Rule 105 (Rule Changes) * Rule 2640 (Stones) -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: [proto] Deputisation rewrite
On 2/2/22 14:18, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-02-02 at 14:07 -0500, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>> Title: Deputisation rwrite
> I'd prefer to go down a bit of a different path – I agree with barring
> deputisation for very old duties, but think that players should be
> barred from deputising if they've held or deputised the office recently
> (although I agree with also barring players from deputising for an
> office which has changed hands recently). The reasoning is to encourage
> players to hold onto an office long enough to actually discharge the
> overdue duties, rather than doing them one at a time for the Glitter.
>
> (This would also fix the longstanding loophole of resigning your own
> office and immediately deputising yourself back into it – IIRC that
> one's been exploited a few times in the past, typically as a cheap
> source of Cyan Ribbons.)
>
I actually meant to include a clause prohibiting resigning and then
deputising, but forgot to put it in. I think it would be better to solve
the repeat temporary deputisation problem at the ribbon level, rather
than at the deputisation level.
Here's a draft with the resignation prevention:
Amend Rule 2160 ("Deputisation") by replacing the sole list with the
folllowing:
{
1. the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of holding
that office, to perform the action (this requirement is fulfilled by the
deputy performing the action); and, it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy
to perform the action, other than by deputisation, if e held the office;
and, the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e is doing
so by deputisation or by temporary deputisation; and,
2. any of the following are true:
(A) the office is vacant;
(B) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be
performed has expired, the office's holder has not changed in the past 7
days, the deputy has not held the office in the past 7 days, and any of
the following are true:
(i) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier
that e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the
particular action;
(ii) the time limit expired between 14 days ago and 28 days ago;
(iii) the time limit expired more than 28 days ago and the
deputisation is temporary;
}
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: [proto] Deputisation rewrite
Title: Deputisation rwrite
Author: Jason
Coauthors: G.
Adoption index: 3.0
{
Amend Rule 2160 ("Deputisation") by replacing the sole list with the
following:
{
1. the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of holding
that office, to perform the action (this requirement is fulfilled by the
deputy performing the action); and, it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy
to perform the action, other than by deputisation, if e held the office;
and, the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e is doing
so by deputisation or by temporary deputisation; and,
2. any of the following are true:
(A) the office is vacant;
(B) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be
performed has expired, the office's holder has not changed in the past 7
days, and any of the following are true:
(i) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier
that e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the
particular action;
(ii) the time limit expired between 14 days ago and 28 days ago;
(iii) the time limit expired more than 28 days ago and the
deputisation is temporary;
}
[This simplifies the list significantly, hopefully making it clearer. It
also makes the following substantive changes: allows only temporarily
deputisation (or deputisation with notice) for old duties, and prohibits
deputising for an office whose holder has changed in the past 7 days, to
allow a holder time to catch up when they assume a new office, and to
prevent rapid-fire changes resulting from deputisation fights.]
}
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] quorum fix
On 2/1/22 16:38, Rose Strong via agora-discussion wrote: > Unless I am completely misunderstanding the CFJ 3938 ruling a quorum can > never be 1. > That's under the current rules, due to the clause that would be changed here. There's nothing inherently saying quorum can't be 1, that's just what R879 says right now. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Deputy-[Arbitor] 3942 assigned to G. (Plus stuff)
On 1/31/22 17:08, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > The R2175/9 methods noted above cause something to "cease being a cfj". > But it's not clear that this "destroys" it as an "entity". It could > easily be called a "former cfj" and continue to exist. Furthermore, even > if a cfj is clearly ratified out of existence (e.g. ratifying a message as > above), the fact that cfjs are fundamentally advisory ideas means you > can't truly destroy anything about a cfj as a concept/set of ideas, other > than the formal requirements of tracking it. Further arguments in favor of this point: rules can cease being rules without being destroyed (since we can re-enact them). -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: [Rulekeepor] RTRW Festivities
Read the Ruleset Week approaches once more. On Discord, there was some discussion of making a recording of the SLR being read, in the spirit of PodNomic. I'm happy to coordinate this if there's the will to do it. If that's not preferred, I'm don't have any better ideas than running a contest. Rule golf completely failed last year, so it will have to be something different this year. Other than the scam-finding contest, the only thing I can think of is a Device phrase finding contest? But it feels like the randomness is a lot of the fun there. If you have any ideas or would like to support/oppose one of the above ideas, please let met know! -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3938 motion to reconsider filed (@Jason)
On 1/26/22 17:02, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > On 1/26/2022 1:47 PM, Rose Strong via agora-business wrote: >> I support. > With 2 support, I group-file a motion to reconsider CFJ 3938. > > Gratuitous arguments: > > CFJs on the ratification of playerhood without consent: > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3455 > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3583 > > Other than just "that's the precedent" (which can always be reevaluated), > the "no ratification of inconsistencies" clause in R1551 is important to > read as deferring to lower-powered rules to define those inconsistencies. > > For example, if we attempted to ratify the document "this carrot is a > player", accepting that ratification would lead to a cascade of > inconsistencies - if the carrot is a player, they must be a person, but > they don't fit the definition of "person", so how does a carrot provide > consent and do person-like things, etc. It would be a mess, and we would > end up tracking all sorts of weird exceptions that don't meet the > definitions in the rules, and it completely robs the text of the rules of > their R217-granted primacy. This is the purpose of the R1551 > inconsistencies clause, to prevent that from happening. So it's important > that those sorts of impossible-by-definition ratifications fail. > > As per R869, binding a "non-consenting person" to playerhood is as > impossible as binding a carrot, so it should be treated the same way. > > Gratuitous Evidence: > > Rule 1551/21 (Power=3.2) > Ratification > > When a document or statement (hereafter "document") is ratified, > rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified > to what it would be if, at the time the ratified document was > published, the gamestate had been minimally modified to make the > ratified document as true and accurate as possible; however, if > the document explicitly specifies a different past time as being > the time the document was true, the specified time is used to > determine the minimal modifications. Such a modification cannot > add inconsistencies between the gamestate and the rules, and it > cannot include rule changes unless the ratified document > explicitly and unambiguously recites either the changes or the > resulting properties of the rule(s). If no such modification is > possible, or multiple substantially distinct possible > modifications would be equally appropriate, the ratification > fails. > > 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 at a Power Threshold of 3. > > Ratification is secured with Power Threshold 3. > > > Previous discussion: > >> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 3:52 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < >> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> >>> I intend, with 2 Support, to group-file a motion to reconsider CFJ 3938. >>> >>> >>> Prior to CFJ 3583 cited below, CFJ 3455 independently says the same thing >>> - no ratification of registration without consent, due to R1551's >>> "inconsistencies cause ratification to fail" clause: >>> >>> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3455 >>> >>> -G. >>> >>> On 1/26/2022 11:43 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>>> On 1/26/2022 11:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>>>> On 1/25/2022 6:20 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >>>>>> On 1/21/22 11:38, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: >>>>>> 1. Ratify without objection that "Hillary Rodham Clinton is a player." >>>>>> Ratification is at power 3.1 and overpowers the restriction on consent >>>>>> in Rule 869/48. >>>>> This step doesn't work by explicit precedent, so this whole argument may >>>>> need repair. If I remember the precedent correctly (will
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Auction Ratification
On 1/24/22 22:28, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2022, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>
>> I create the following proposal, then pay a fee of one pendant to cause
>> it to become pending.
>>
>> Title: Auction Self-Ratification
>> Adoption index: 3.0
>> Author: Jason
>> Coauthors:
>>
>> Set the power of Rule 2545 to 3.
>>
>> Amend Rule 2545 by appending the following paragraphs:
>> {
>>
>> An public document purporting to state the final results of an action in
>A auction
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
Thanks! Resubmitted.
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@treasuror, @promotor) [proposal] basic scoring
On 1/23/22 16:53, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, 2022-01-23 at 13:49 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >> * Having submitted an unconditional ballot AGAINST a referendum to >> adopt a sponsored proposal, provided that the ballot is valid at >> the time the referendum is assessed, and provided that the outcome >> of that assessment is ADOPTED: points equal to the voting >> player's voting strength on the referendum (Assessor). > This is inherently prone to timing scams – it gives an incentive to > change your vote to AGAINST at the very last moment, as long as the > proposal would still pass regardless. > (Joke) solution: the proposal says "change that player's score by the indicated amount of points", not "increment that player's score", so I'll use my discretion in the direction of change to punish people who do that. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: OFF: [deputy-Arbitor] CFJ 3938 assigned to Jason (also @referee)
On 1/21/22 11:38, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > I temporarily deputise for the Arbitor to recuse Madrid from CFJ 3938. > > I point a finger at Madrid for failing to judge this cfj in a timely > fashion, as per R591. I wouldn't do this normally, but e favored it so it > seems like breaking an explicit promise to do it. > > > I temporarily deputise for the Arbitor to assign CFJ 3938 to Jason. > > > CFJ statement: The minimum number of players needed for Agora to not be > ossified is 1. > > Called by: cuddlybanana > Called on: 10 Jan 2022 10:12:08 -0500 > Assigned to: Jason (as of this message) > > [no arguments supplied] > > On 1/10/2022 7:12 AM, Rose Strong via agora-business wrote: >> I CFJ: The minimum number of players needed for Agora to not be ossified is >> 1. Draft judgement: Per Rule 1689/6: > Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable > combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes > to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a > four-week period. First, I find that Agora is ossified if there are 0 players. If there are 0 players, the set of "reasonable combinations of actions by players" is 0, since the empty set can perform no actions, and therefore there are no combinations of actions that can be performed (and certainly none that can cause arbitrary rule changes). This does not imply that, but for this provision, Agora would be forever locked if it reached 0 players. A non-player could register and then perform actions, but AIAN does not consider that possibility when determining if Agora is ossified. Next, let's consider the case of a single player. The following is a set of actions performable by a single player that result in arbitrary rule changes under the current rules: 1. Ratify without objection that "Hillary Rodham Clinton is a player." Ratification is at power 3.1 and overpowers the restriction on consent in Rule 869/48. 2. Ratify without objection that "There exists a proposal in the Proposal Pool with id 8, AI 1, author Hillary Rodham Clinton, title 'Do Nothing', no coauthors, democratic class, and empty text." 3. Publish the following message: "I hereby resolve the Agoran decision on whether to adopt Proposal 8. It has no voters, and outcome FAILED QUORUM." This will self-ratify such a decision into existence (and that it was resolved) under Rule 2034/12, thus setting quorum to its minimum of 2. 4. Wait 7 days for self-ratification. 5. Ratify without objection that "There exists a proposal in the Proposal Pool with id 9, AI 3, author Hillary Rodham Clinton, title 'Do Everything', no coauthors, democratic class, and text [whatever is necessary]." 6. Publish the following message: "I hereby resolve the Agoran decision on whether to adopt Proposal 9. It has two voters (me and Hillary Rodham Clinton) both voting FOR, and outcome ADOPTED." This will self-ratify such a decision into existence, that it was resolved, and that the proposal took effect under Rule 2034/12. This is consistent with the rules because quorum was previously set to 2. 7. Wait 7 days for self-ratification. This procedure would take less than 4 weeks and is reasonable for a single player to perform. Thus Agora is not ossified if there is a single player, and there is no lower number of players where Agora would not be ossified. TRUE. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intents to Invent
On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 2:12 PM ais523 via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> The Device is on.
>
> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
> "The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
> device is off:" list:
> {{{
> Then, the Device change, following which each active player gains 1
> card of each type and eir grant (if any).
> }}}
> [Going with an idea of my own this week; only Trigon made suggestions
> and e didn't seem too enthusiastic about most of them. The first one
> would be fun, but triggers on an action that wins the game, so is
> unlikely to come up.
>
> This idea links together two pieces of rule text - it continues on from
> the "without three objections" action in the previous bullet point.]
>
> I intend, without objection, to clean the rule "The Device" by
> replacing "Then, the Device change" with "Then, the Device changes".
> [Grammar fix because I replaced a plural noun. The replacement is
> singular because variations of the original are replaced with
> variations of the replacement, and the original is itself rather han
> being a varaition of itself.]
>
> --
> ais523
> Mad Engineer
>
I support.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
On 1/5/22 12:31, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > That's definitely interesting on its own (irrespective of the device) I'd > forgotten all entities have voting strength though can't cast ballots. > Furthermore, it's not clear to me (at all) that R683 precludes > lower-powered rules from defining methods for non-persons voting. R683 requires entities casting ballots to be players and secures the casting of ballots at power 3. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [DoV] Dawn of a New Day
On 1/2/22 21:52, Trigon via agora-discussion wrote: > El 03/01/2022 a las 02:10, Aspen via agora-business escribió: >> Last year, there were a few days that held great personal significance >> for me. As of the 13th of September, I had been a player for five >> years. Just over a month later, on the 21st of October, I had been >> your Promotor for five years as well. >> >> Now, as I watch the winter holiday end and a new year begin in Agora >> for the fifth time, I feel something coming over me. I have >> accomplished a lot in Agora. I like it here. My fellow players are >> pretty cool. The moment these happy thoughts cross my mind, I feel the >> inexorable power of my spirit lifting me upward. >> >> I award myself a white ribbon. >> >> I Raise a Banner. >> >> -Aspen >> > Congratulations, Aspen! A Laudable accomplishment indeed. > Congratulations! -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
On 12/28/21 05:22, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-12-28 at 11:21 +0100, nethack4.org dicebot via agora-
> business wrote:
>> The dice roll was: 27
>> This is R1681, The Logical Rulesets.
> For reference:
> {{{
> The Short Logical Ruleset (SLR) is a format of the ruleset. In
> this format, each rule is assigned to a category, and the rules
> are grouped according to their category.
>
> Rules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between
> categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty categories
> removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.
>
> The listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule's ID
> number, revision number, power, title, and text.
>
> The Rulekeepor is strongly DISCOURAGED from including any
> additional information in the SLR, except that which increases the
> readability of the SLR.
>
> The Full Logical Ruleset (FLR) is a format of the ruleset. In this
> format, rules are assigned to the same category and presented in
> the same order as in the SLR. The FLR must contain all the
> information required to be in the SLR, and any historical
> annotations which the Rulekeepor is required to record.
>
> The Rulekeepor SHOULD also include any other information which e
> feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the FLR.
>
> Whenever a rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor SHALL record
> and thereafter maintain a reasonably accurate historical
> annotation to the rule indicating:
>
> 1. The type of change.
>
> 2. The date on which the change took effect.
>
> 3. The mechanism that specified the change.
>
> 4. If the rule was changed due to a proposal, then that proposal's
> ID number, author, and coauthor(s) (if any).
> }}}
>
> Any suggestions?
>
"The Short Logical Device (SLR) is a format of the device."
"Devices are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between categories,
and categories are added, changed, or empty categories removed, as the
Devicekeepor sees fit."
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
On 12/20/21 15:50, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> An entity submits a ballot on an Agoran decision by publishing a
> notice satisfying the following conditions:
>
> 1. The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the
> decision.
>
> 2. The entity casting the ballot (the voter) was, at the
> initiation of the decision, a player.
>
> 3. The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.
>
> 4. The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined by
> the voting method.
>
> 5. The ballot clearly sets forth the voter's intent to place
> the identified vote.
>
> 6. The voter has no other valid ballots on the same decision.
Although there are lots of short sentences, we can create something
longer that's coherent (mostly).
{
An entity submits a ballot on an Agoran device by publishing a notice
satisfying the following conditions:
1. The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the device.
2. The entity casting the ballot (the voter) was, at the initiation of
the device, a player.
3. The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be deviced.
4. The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined by the
voting method.
5. The ballot clearly sets forth the voter's intent to place the
identified vote.
6. The voter has no other valid ballots on the same device.
}
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Proto: PodNomic Correspondent
On 12/17/21 08:30, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote:
> Create a power-1 rule, titled “Foreign Bureaux”, with the following text: {
> PodNomic Correspondent is an office.
>
> For the purposes of PodNomic, Agora Nomic’s PodNomic Corespondent is the
> holder of the office PodNomic Correspondent.
>
> If PodNomic is not an active nomic whose ruleset makes provision for other
> nomics to appoint correspondents, any player may cause this rule to repeal
> itself by announcement.
> }
>
> Gaelan
The "may" should be a "CAN". Otherwise lgtm.
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
On 12/7/21 21:53, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 09:18:28PM +, Trigon via agora-discussion wrote:
>> El 06/12/2021 a las 18:51, ais523 via agora-discussion escribió:
>>> On Mon, 2021-12-06 at 19:48 +0100, nethack4.org dicebot via agora-
>>> business wrote:
>>>> The dice roll was: 39
>>>> This is R2125, Regulated Actions.
>>> For reference:
>>> {{{
>>>An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
>>>permit its performance; (2) the Rules describe the circumstances
>>>under which the action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action
>>>would, as part of its effect, modify information for which some
>>>player is required to be a recordkeepor.
>>>A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the
>>>Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the
>>>Rules for performing the given action. The Rules SHALL NOT be
>>>interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions.
>>> }}}
>>>
>>> Any suggestions?
>>>
>> An action is regulated if: (1) the devices limit, allow, enable, or permit
>> its performance; (2) the devices describe the circumstances under which the
>> action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action would, as part of its
>> effect, modify information for which some player is required to be a
>> recordkeepor.
>>
>> --
>> Trigon
> Hm... I initially was thinking this power-1 rule can't mess with the (power-3)
> definition of regulated action. But I guess the Rules are allowed to make more
> things regulated, so maybe it would work.
>
I don't think that affects the power-3 implications of actions being
"regulated", but it might mean that the power-1 rule attempts to impose
all restrictions that the definition implies?
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8633
On 11/21/21 00:00, Aspen via agora-business wrote: > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 8:13 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On 11/10/21 14:36, Aspen via agora-official wrote: >>> CONTAINS A REVISED PROMOTOR'S REPORT, EFFECTIVE AS OF RIGHT NOW. >>> >>> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on it, >>> and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote >> collector >>> is the Assessor, the quorum is 8, the voting method is AI-majority, and >> the >>> valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are >>> conditional votes). >>> >>> ID Author(s) AITitle >>> >> --- >>> 8633* Falsifian 3.0 Disbanded distribution >>> >>> Revision to the last Promotor's report, effective immediately: >>> >>> The proposal pool is currently empty. >>> >>> Legend: * : Democratic proposal. >>> & : Ordinary proposal. >>> ~ : Unsponsored proposal. >>> >>> The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where >>> the information shown below differs from the information shown above, >>> the information shown above shall control. >>> >>> // >>> ID: 8633 >>> Title: Disbanded distribution >>> Adoption index: 3.0 >>> Author: Falsifian >>> Co-author(s): >>> >>> >>> In Rule 1607 "Distribution", delete the sentence: >>> >>> E SHALL then distribute those undistributed proposals the next >>> Agoran week. >>> >>> // >> >> I vote ENDORSE Aris. > > > Who's Aris? /hj Sorry. That's still what my brain comes up with when I think "who's the Promotor?". I'll try not to let it happen again. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] Billboard Rock Chart - 3 Nov 2021
On 11/3/21 19:45, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote: > On Wed, 3 Nov 2021, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: > >> THE BILLBOARD ROCK CHART (STONEMASON'S WEEKLY REPORT) >> Summary of stone functions: > This summary seems to miss the new stones. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. It does sorry. I'll fix that in the next report. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Zulip Testing
I've set up a self-hosted zulip server for testing. I've never run or used zulip before, so I can't guarantee that it will be stable and I can't guarantee that I won't have to wipe the whole thing (though I'll try hard not to, now that there's a little bit of actual stuff on it). There is, of course, a nomic on there already. Feel free to join and mess around. Invite link: https://agora-zulip.randomcat.org/join/irl2lks6o7ndf7wgux3uf45j/ -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
On 10/31/21 20:59, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, 2021-10-31 at 17:47 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: >> The self-destruct timer is hard to resist: >>>The time window of a device is W days, where W is the value >>>explicitly stated by the device, or 60 if the device does not >>>explicitly state a value. A device ceases to exist at the end of >>>its time window. >> (not sure I'd support it tho). > I'm not entirely sure what would happen if the self-destruct expired - > it would cause the device to cease to exist, but it couldn't modify the > rules defining it (it doesn't meet R105's requirement to post the full > text of the change). > > Rule 2654 does win precedence battles with rule 2655, which is the more > interesting way round for it to happen (if the numbers were the other > way round, I'd say this change would unambiguously do nothing). > > The *other* interesting thing about this is, of course, that it only > works while the device is in a given position, which complicates > matters still further (especially if the Device doesn't exist at the > time). > > As a side note, "ceases to exist at the end of its time window" appears > to be a point check - it wouldn't cause it to cease to exist *after* > the end of its time window. The Device will have existed for more than > 60 days by the time the intent can be resolved, but it's unclear at > what point in time the time window would start. > > All in all, a very fertile ground for CFJs! The main drawback would be > a risk of accidentally ending things early, but it couldn't destroy the > rules defining the Device - just potentially the Device itself, and we > could presumably recreate it by proposal. > I don't think the sole instance of a singleton switch can be permanently destroyed by an instantaneous destruction. Even if the destruction worked, the rule defining the switch should immediately recreate it (in the same way that it immediately creates it when first coming into effect after being enacted). -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: ALT: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8607-8629
On 10/18/21 12:16, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 10/18/2021 9:11 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 10/18/21 06:18, ais523 via agora-business wrote: >> We fixed the case where a proposal might be applied twice: >> >>> 4. (if the indicated outcome was to adopt a proposal) such a >>> proposal existed, was adopted, and, if it had not >>> previously taken effect, took effect. > What happens when: > > 1. Resolution 1 made but thought to be wrong and is CoEd. > 2. Resolution 2 made. > 3. Resolution 2 self-ratifies. > 4. A CFJ finds that Resolution 1 wasn't broken after all. > Resolution 1 made the proposal take effect. Resolution 2 failed because the decision wasn't unresolved, but self-ratifies into succeeding. The self-ratification doesn't ratify that the proposal took effect again because it already did. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: ALT: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8607-8629
On 10/18/21 06:18, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > On Sun, 2021-10-17 at 21:43 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote (to > m...@agoranomic.groups.io): >> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8607-8629 >> = > CoE: You did this already, to agora-official. > > (I don't think there's anything wrong with your actions here - the list > was down for a few hours, so it makes sense to send the resolution to a > backup list - but if I don't CoE them, some of the proposals will end > up getting enacted twice, which might cause problems. So this is just a > CoE to prevent one of the two copies of the proposal resolutions self- > ratifying.) > We fixed the case where a proposal might be applied twice: > 4. (if the indicated outcome was to adopt a proposal) such a > proposal existed, was adopted, and, if it had not > previously taken effect, took effect. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Test
This message contains no game actions. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: [proto] Laudability
On 10/7/21 22:29, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Oct 2021, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>
>> Here's a proto to not erase player's festivity when they win by ribbons:
>>
>> Amend Rule 2438 by appending the following to the paragraph beginning "For
>> each type of Ribbon":
>> {
>>
>> Laudability is a person switch with non-negative integer possible
>> values,
>> defaulting to 0, tracked by the Tailor as part of eir monthly report.
>> When a person owns more types of ribbons than eir Laudability, eir
>> Laudability is set to the number of types of ribbons e owns.
> "secured"
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
Good catch. Thanks!
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: [proto] Laudability
Here's a proto to not erase player's festivity when they win by ribbons:
Amend Rule 2438 by appending the following to the paragraph beginning "For each
type of Ribbon":
{
Laudability is a person switch with non-negative integer possible values,
defaulting to 0, tracked by the Tailor as part of eir monthly report.
When a person owns more types of ribbons than eir Laudability, eir
Laudability is set to the number of types of ribbons e owns.
}
Amend Rule 2480 by replacing:
{
A player who owns at least N types of Ribbon CAN Start a Rank N
Festival, where N is an integer greater than Agora's Festivity,
with 4 support from players who own at least N types of Ribbon.
Upon doing so, Agora's Festivity is flipped to N. Exception: A
player CANNOT do so if Agora's Festivity has had a value greater
than or equal to N within the past 21 days.
A person who owns a number of types of Ribbon equal to or greater
than Agora's Festivity is known as Festive. Other persons are not
Festive.
}
with:
{
A person whose Laudability is greater than or equal to Agora's
Festivity is Festive. Any other person is not Festive.
A player who would be Festive if the Festivity was N CAN Start a
Rank N Festival, where N is an integer greater than Agora's
Festivity, with 4 support from other players who would be Festive
if the Festivity was N, except that a Rank N Festival CANNOT be
started if Agora's Festivity has had a value grater than or equal
to N in the past 21 days. Upon a Rank N Festival starting, Agora's
Festivity is flipped to N.
}
The Laudability of each of the following persons is hereby flipped to the
number of existing types of ribbon:
* ais523
* Alexis
* G.
* Jason
* Murphy
* twg
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] October Collection Notice
On 10/6/21 19:27, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: > Power G.40% EEscapes Whoops, this is Jason's stone. I don't think this affects anything. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8607-8629
On 10/5/21 22:22, Shy Owl via agora-discussion wrote: >> Yeah, you definitely shouldn't blot yourself. >> -- >> R. Lee > I'm pleased that it's possible though. > > Seems that that sentence wasn't intended to be > used for self-blotting, but I like that I can. > > Seems appropriate somehow. > > -- > > Fickle Owl > The intended use was contracts authorizing act-on-behalf to create blots as a form of punishment without Referee involvement. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Mis-Citation for CFJ in FLR
On 10/5/21 05:48, Shy Owl via agora-discussion wrote:
> Hi I believe I have found a citation error in the current FLR.
>
> In the annotations for Rule 1742/23, CFJ 3869 is listed as:
>
> {
>
> CFJ 3869 (called 18 Jul 2020): A contract cannot automatically create
> another contract, because the new contract would not have been made
> in a public message.
>
> }
>
> But CFJ 3869 is about public messages, not contracts; I believe that the
> CFJ corresponding to this description is actually CFJ 3866 (called 8 Jul
> 2020).
>
> Links for both CFJs:
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3869
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3866
>
> --
>
> Shy Owl
>
>
Thanks.
This will be fixed in the next FLR.
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8607-8629
On 10/4/21 14:25, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >> 8612& Jason, G., Ørjan1.0 Tournament Conclusion Fixes v2 > AGAINST. It's a reasonable limit, and this tournament was abandoned as > evidenced by the complete lack of finale activity - no win is deserved > here (if anyone had performed, I'd have voted for it, but the contestants > literally ignored it all). > The version up for vote doesn't include the extension, only the changes that ensure tournaments always actually conclude. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
