DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

>
>
> > 9118~   juniper 1.0   Recursion
>
> PRESENT (for the moment)
>
> I'm not following the train of thought for why the proposed rule wouldn't
> work. To me it reads like a sequence of events: 1) a player creates a
> proposal; 2) e does not vote for it; 3) it passes. (The proposed rule has
> steps 2 and 3 in the reverse order just by the flow of the sentence.)
> "Passes" isn't defined in the rules, but it has a clear everyday meaning
> and the SLR and FLR both literally list "Highest ID'd Proposal Passed" at
> the beginning.
>
>

- I'm not sure that "vote for eir own proposal" is equivalent to "vote FOR
eir own proposal"
- I believe that it's not using the correct verbal tenses to express what
it means. (I might be wrong, but I'm currently under that impression)

Aside from that, and that I should've also noted, is that it seems to put
the onus of keeping track of this on the Spendor, because the result just
automatically happens and the Spendor is compelled to keep the spendies
records straight. I don't believe that the Spendor should have to suddenly
concern themselves with checking every Proposal voting table just to check
for this. It should probably be an action By Announcement.

Re: DIS: Proto: Hats

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I wear the Armored Helm by announcement.

Incidentally, it is very big, and very shiny. Likely bigger and shinier
than anyone else's. Most probably the biggest, and shiniest. Incidentally.

On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 1:49 AM Mischief via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
> Proto-proposal ("Hats" AI=1):
>
> [The idea here is to have a playful mechanism that also serves as a straw
> poll of how players are feeling. Inspired by the self-reporting approach in
> the "Bang!" subgame, a player could include eir current hat in eir
> signature if e wished. The recordkeepor language is meant to 1) avoid
> requiring any work and also 2) avoid problems if someone's first post after
> changing eir hat is to agora-discussion.]
>
> Create a rule titled "Hats" reading:
>
> Hats are a secured player switch defaulting to "none" with the following
> possible values and associated meanings for the player's current focus:
>
>none: no particular focus
>
>armored helm: competing for wins and in sub-games
>
>dunce cap: expressing regret or acknowledging a mistake
>
>floral wreath: resolving conflict
>
>green eyeshade: maintaining accurate records
>
>hard hat: repairing problems in the rules
>
>jaunty beret: exploring creative expression
>
>jester's cap: bringing levity and humor
>
>judicial wig: ruling on CFJs and interpreting the rules
>
>knitted cap: finding loopholes and exploits
>
>plain hat: simplifying the rules
>
>rugged fedora: researching Agoran and Nomic history
>
>sleeping cap: reducing eir participation in Agora
>
>steampunk hat: creating new game mechanics
>
>traditional mortarboard: conducting research and writing theses
>
> A player CAN change eir hat at any time by notifying the recordkeepor for
> eir hat (publicly or privately). Unless otherwise specified by the rules:
> 1) the recordkeepor for a player's hat is the player emself, and 2)
> reporting on hats is OPTIONAL.
>
> Hats do not otherwise limit or restrict a player's actions in any way, and
> every player is ENCOURAGED to participate in all aspects of the game
> regardless of eir current hat.
>
> --
> Mischief
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] An Agoran Standoff

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

>
> The eliminated player has no obvious use for the granted bang, as it
> will be destroyed before they next become alive. Is this intended to
> give em something to trade with?
>

I believe so too, and I think that it's a good design because it gives
(dead) players something to keep playing the game with. It also encourages
more Eliminating and moving the game forwards, with the Bang surplus.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] An Agoran Standoff

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I like it.

" A ghostly player CAN incarnate by announcement, which means to flip eir
Vitality to Invulnerable"

I'd remove "means" from there and just use phrasing that already exists in
other rules, because I have the suspicion that it's very dangerous (or at
least, prone to bugs) to redefine the *mean*-ing of things.





On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 1:56 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> It seems like Agora could use some more gameplay right now, so I present
> this subgame that got drafted a while ago. It experiments with an
> officerless tracking system, where players should report their status in
> all their messages. For example (Alive, 3 Bangs) after a signature would
> suffice.
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {{{
> Title: A friendly game
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: snail
> Co-author(s): juan
>
> Enact the following rule with title "Bang!" and the following text:
>
> {
> Bangs are a fungible asset.
>
> Vitality is an untracked player Switch with possible values of
> Invulnerable, Alive, Unalive, or Ghostly (default). A player with a
> Vitality that is not Ghostly is called “corporeal”, else e is called
> "ghostly".
>
> A ghostly player CAN incarnate by announcement, which means
> to flip eir Vitality to Invulnerable, provided there are only
> Invulnerable or Ghostly players.
>
> Each corporeal player SHOULD list eir Vitality and Bang Balance in all eir
> messages.
>
> Any player CAN publish a report of all Bang Balances and Vitalities. Such a
> purported report is self-ratifying, and SHOULD be made as needed.
>
> Each Alive player CAN eliminate another specified Alive player by paying a
> fee of 1 bang. Eliminating a player makes em Unalive, and then grants em 1
> bang.
>
> Any Alive player CAN Stand Alone by announcement, if there are no other
> players that are Alive, and no person has won the game by doing so in the
> past 7 days. When a player Stands Alone, e wins the game. If a player won
> the game in this manner 4 days ago, then the match is reset.
>
> When the match is reset, each player is set to Ghostly, all bangs are
> destroyed, and then each player gains 1 bang.
>
> When 3 days have passed since the match is reset, all Invulnerable
> players have eir Vitality set to Alive.
>
> When 14 days have passed since a player was last eliminated, the match
> resets, and then each player that was alive immediately before the match
> reset gains 1 bang.
> }
>
> The match is hereby reset.
> }}}
> --
> snail
>

Re: DIS: Such Vile Calumny!

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

...Wrong forum. Posting it to Agora Discussions.

On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 7:26 PM Yachay Wayllukuq 
wrote:

> Assuming that you're "Not Guilty", it should be easy to use a Proposal to
> set your status to the right one. I'd support it.
>
> And if you are "Guilty", we could perhaps convert your sentence to its
> equivalent in Blots (with a Proposal), and then you can redeem yourself
> through the current Blot-removing mechanics.
>
> I am very willing to help with any formal procedure to solve this.
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 7:09 PM Joshua Boehme via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Nostalgic curiosity brings me to check in on Agora, only to find myself
>> (Elysion) branded a fugitive! This injustice cannot be permitted to
>> continue, and I demand satisfaction in the most Agoran way possible: a
>> pedantic logical argument.
>>
>>
>> (The statements here are true to the best of my knowledge based on my
>> good faith efforts to search the archives; however, as the events in
>> question took place nearly 15 years ago, I cannot rule out the possibility
>> that I overlooked some relevant piece of evidence.)
>>
>> The Scroll of Agora [1] lists me as a fugitive of the old law, defined as
>> "someone who last left Agora before completing eir penal sentence". As the
>> Scroll of Agora has been ratified at least once with that designation
>> listed ([1] ratification noted; [2] such ratified version), I concede that
>> in the view of the Agoran rules such statements as "Elysion last left Agora
>> before completing eir penal sentence" would presumably be judged true. I
>> argue that, absent ratification, such a statement should be judged false.
>>
>> Taken literally, it is straightforwardly false. My last deregistration
>> was 2009-04-07 [3]. Contemporaneous Insulator reports ([4] and [5]) do not
>> list me as a fugitive.
>>
>> A literal interpretation does not fully capture the spirit of the
>> designation, though, as one could deregister before a controversy is fully
>> decided, or indeed before another player can even initiate the process to
>> resolve the controversy. That does not apply in this case, though, as my
>> fugitive status arose as a side effect of the Blissful Solitude scam [6] in
>> September 2009, months after my deregistration. The Insulator reports
>> immediately prior [7] and after [8] (in particular, the recent event
>> "ais523 plays Stool Pidgeon to create a rest in PBA's possession (one rest
>> created in the possession of each first-class member of the basis)")
>> document the change in my status.
>>
>> Therefore, even assuming for now that the Blissful Solitude scam did
>> cause me to gain a rest when I was no longer a player -- a question I am
>> setting aside for now as arguing otherwise would require a detailed
>> understanding of the relevant rules at the time -- I was not currently or
>> imminently subject to any penal sentence at the time of my last
>> deregistration.
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg13854.html
>>
>> [2]
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg09593.html
>>
>> [3]
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg12958.html
>>
>> [4]
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg02963.html
>>
>> [5]
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg03010.html
>>
>> [6]
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg17498.html
>>
>> [7]
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg04015.html
>>
>> [8]
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg04103.html
>>
>

Re: DIS: Winpalooza

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

To expand on Ais' argument about me, I can still feel the long-term effects
of doing that, because people still have my Stamps after all of that time.
I can't repeat the same stunt (as easily) again. I was hoping they would've
spent them by now, but I overestimated how quickly Agora moved as a game.

On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 9:15 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 2024-05-09 at 09:11 -0500, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On 5/6/24 15:15, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> > > So ais523 has basically won 3 times, paradox, stones, and radiance,
> pretty
> > > much in a row.
> > >
> > > Just would like to point that out.
> >
> > A portion of this, at least the radiance portion, is because e's been
> > sitting on a large stockpile of stamps from before they had the value
> > they currently do. I wonder if we should do a one-time reduction in
> > stamp holdings, with enough warning for people to spend them before the
> > reduction happens.
>
> The large stockpile of ais523 stamps was fairly valuable back when I
> originally created it, too (and is not really enough for a win on its
> own; most of the Radiance I used for the win came from stamp trades in
> the intervening months).
>
> It's also been substantially crippling my gameplay ever since we
> switched to the new system – stamp creation is based on the number of
> stamps of your type that exist, so I haven't been able to create ais523
> stamps since the system was enacted, meaning I've been locked out from
> a portion of gameplay.
>
> (It is worth contrasting with Yachay's stamps-into-radiance win, which
> was achieved fairly quickly by a new player soon after registering –
> because Yachay stamps were easy for em to create and valuable, e was
> able to trade for stamps that gave enough radiance to win, with no pre-
> existing asset stockpile to use.)
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: (@Herald, Illuminator, Collector, Stonemason) BUS: A hat-trick

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I don't believe that awarding Radiance (or anything similarly threatening)
for those things is a good idea in the first place, because of that issue
you're saying.




On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 8:23 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2024-05-07 at 09:30 +0200, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > Perhaps, I'm personally not too sure about it, although I haven't
> > participated in Radiance yet, myself. I think it's good to have the
> > different subgames have different levels of risk and gameplay style. We
> > already have Stamps (and Ribbons) for relatively riskless grinds.
> >
> > To toss out more ideas, perhaps the "winning" threshold could be reduced
> by
> > half, which award you 1 Radium, and you can cash in 2 Radium for a win.
> Or
> > the threshold is reduced by a third, and you need 3 Radium.
> >
> > I think having to race for Radiance is exciting.
>
> The problem is that it makes it impossible to use radiance to reward
> things like judging CFJs and holding offices (and writing good
> proposals) – if people are racing for Radiance that gives them an
> incentive to try to hold other players back from Radiance by, e.g.,
> voting down their proposals.
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Humiliating Public Reminder for Proposals 9102-9110

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I am very humiliated.

(So much so that I voted)

On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 6:40 AM Agora amdw42 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I object to being humiliated
>
> ——
> Ben
> 
> From: agora-discussion  on
> behalf of 4st nomic via agora-discussion 
> Sent: Monday, May 6, 2024 11:39:19 PM
> To: Agora Nomic discussions (DF) 
> Cc: 4st nomic <4st.no...@gmail.com>
> Subject: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Humiliating Public Reminder for
> Proposals 9102-9110
>
> I would also like to help humiliate the so named. :P
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2024, 8:01 PM Janet Cobb via agora-official <
> agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > For each of Proposals 9102-9110, I hereby publish a humiliating public
> > reminder naming the following slackers:
> >
> > Gaelan, cuddlybanana, ais523, Aris, Yachay Wayllukuq, kiako, Kate, Goren
> > Barak, Ben, Jimmy, Liz Wake, Mercury, Maloney, mcdg, LegallyBearded,
> > Jackrabbit, Jaff, Quadrantal, Juniper, mqyhlkahu, omd.
> >
> > Please feel humiliated.
> >
> > --
> > Janet Cobb
> >
> > Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: (@Herald, Illuminator, Collector, Stonemason) BUS: A hat-trick

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Perhaps, I'm personally not too sure about it, although I haven't
participated in Radiance yet, myself. I think it's good to have the
different subgames have different levels of risk and gameplay style. We
already have Stamps (and Ribbons) for relatively riskless grinds.

To toss out more ideas, perhaps the "winning" threshold could be reduced by
half, which award you 1 Radium, and you can cash in 2 Radium for a win. Or
the threshold is reduced by a third, and you need 3 Radium.

I think having to race for Radiance is exciting.

On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 6:51 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 2024-05-06 at 17:47 +0100, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
> > My radiance is 100. This announcement causes me to win the game.
>
> …which reminds me that the radiance reset is still broken.
>
> I have been wondering if it would make more sense to cap the value of
> the reset, i.e. if you have less than 40 Radiance you lose half your
> radiance, but if you have more, you only lose 20. That way, players
> wouldn't be punished for gradually working towards a win over time (in
> particular, the relative timing of two players winning would continue
> to matter, but wouldn't matter to nearly the same extent).
>
> I also think that doing that would help decouple radiance wins between
> the various players to a sufficient extent that we could at least use
> radiance as officer and judge pay (although probably not proposal pay).
>
> --
> ais253
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New week, new push (attn Absurdor)

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

That's incredibly cool

On Sun, May 5, 2024 at 10:02 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 2024-05-05 at 21:38 +0200, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-
> discussion wrote:
> > It's crazy to me how they've made a whole video game based on an
> > Agoran subgame.
>
> BF Joust escaped its origins as an Agoran subgame and became something
> that received intermittent play for over seven years. I'm not sure
> whether or not it counts as a video game (but the submissions were
> moderated automatically by computer and we had visualisations for
> seeing how the various competing warriors did, so it's a video game in
> the sense of "a game played by interacting with a computer program that
> provides graphical feedback").
>
> You can see https://esolangs.org/wiki/BF_Joust_strategies for some of
> the nonsense we came up with over the years. (The rules were slightly
> different from the original ruleset that was run at Agora - the "flag
> zero" victory condition was changed to require the flag to be at two
> cycles rather than one, the tape was made shorter, and a command was
> added to wait for one cycle. Competitions also started to be run
> continuously, rather than in weekly batches, and with a draw being
> counted as a draw rather than a double loss. But most of the rules are
> still the same as in the Agoran original.)
>
> For those who weren't active in 2008, here's how it looked at Agora:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg10766.html
>
> --
> ais523
>

DIS: Re: BUS: New week, new push (attn Absurdor)

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

It's crazy to me how they've made a whole video game based on an Agoran
subgame.

On Sun, May 5, 2024 at 8:43 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I push the boulder.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy2mHfQBfLA
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4073 Judged TRUE by Yachay

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I do, sorry for the delay.

On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 5:47 PM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 3/19/24 16:06, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote:
> > That is a good point, I self-file a motion to reconsider.
>
> Do you intend to rejudge this yourself, or would you like it to be
> assigned to someone else?
>
> --
> nix
> Arbitor
>
>

DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Birthday Announcement

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Oh, double birthday!

Happy birthday to my twin and may they have many more.

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 8:07 PM juan via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
> ===
> Registrar: juan Birthday Announcement
> 2024-03-18
>
> ===
>
> Let all who read henceforth know:
>
>The 16th of March of 2024
>
>  is
>
>   cuddlybanana's 3th Agoran Birthday!
>
> Congratulations!
>
>
> ===
>
> --
> juan
> Registrar, Absurdor
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I favor this case, because I'd find it nice to do. I'd just like to judge
something and this seems interesting.

On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 5:38 AM Aris via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 8:33 PM Rowan Evans via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I register as LegallyBearded
> >
> > I grant myself 52 welcome packages, each containing 1 stamp.
> >
> > I pay 51 stamps of the same type to gain (51-1)*2 = 100 radiance.
> >
> > I observe that my radiance is 100, and win.
> >
> > 
> > CFJ
> > Does "granting" an asset cause it to be received?
> >
> > Brief explanation. By rule 2499: Any player CAN, by announcement, grant a
> > Welcome Package to any player if the grantee has neither received one
> since
> > e last registered nor in the last 30 days.
> >
> > By rule 2577: Granting an asset causes it to be "created in that entity's
> > possession". I take this to be meaningfully different from "receiving" an
> > asset, because granting is distinguished from the "transfer" of an asset
> in
> > this same rule.
> >
> > And as a point of interest: most other references to "receiving" in the
> > rules require the item to be sent.
> >
> > FOR: When you create an item in your own possession, it hardly makes
> sense
> > to say you received it. If I make a paper plane, can I say I received it?
> > From where? Doesn't make sense in plain English.
> > AGAINST: This scam ignores the intent of the clause it's trying to get
> > around.
> >
>
> Erm... that CFJ doesn't do what you want it to. CFJs are supposed to be
> statements, not questions, and interpreting something out of context is
> different from interpreting it in context.
>
> I CFJ, barring LegallyBearded: In the above message, LegallyBearded
> successfully granted emself 52 welcome packages.
>
> -Aris
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9068-9069

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Would this perhaps allow it to merit a non-AGAINST vote? My fingers are
crossed.

On Sun, Mar 3, 2024 at 10:32 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 3/3/24 16:30, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Janet wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/3/24 16:24, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:
>  9068~   Yachay 1.0   Agora of Empires
> >>> FOR (without 2 objections is a reasonable guard against trivial
> >>> wins, other issues can be ironed out later)
> >>
> >> That's not the only method to amend. There's also a "by announcement"
> >> method in the previous paragraph.
> > That's to add extraordinary feats, I was referring to winning as a
> > result of them.
>
>
> Ah, sorry, my eyes just completely missed that.
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal - Agora of Empires

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

On Sun, Mar 3, 2024 at 8:55 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 3/1/24 17:26, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote:
> > "There exists a document known as the Empireworld, which should describe
> in
> > some way a fictional world. Each player that has amended this document is
> > said to have their own Empire in the Empireworld, and such players are
> > Imperials.
> >
> > A player CAN amend the Empireworld once per week by announcement to
> > narratively progress the Empireworld in some reasonable fashion. The
> > message with this kind of announcement MUST include the latest form of
> the
> > Empireworld post-amendment. These amendments MUST follow relevant
> guidance
> > given in CfJs. Imperials are ENCOURAGED to shape this subgame through
> CfJs.
>
>
> "CFJ" is the Agoran style. "CfJ" is Blognomic style.
>
> What does "guidance given in CfJs" mean?


That seems like a good issue to raise in a CFJ.


> Arguments are not formally
> required or associated with CFJs; we just track them informally.
> Arguably this means that any guidance made in a CFJ statement MUST be
> followed, regardless of any judgement assigned to the case.


That interpretation seems interesting. I don't personally agree with it.


>
>
Also, this seems to potentially place heavy load on the Arbitor and
> judges who may have no interest or stake in this game.


Yes, I agree. I also acknowledged that issue already in the Proposal.


> Additionally, "reasonable" seems like an extremely weak requirement on a
> document that controls wins. Is amending it to simply add  "Janet has
> hereby accomplished an extraordinary feat at midnight 2024-03-04 UTC"
> unreasonable? Potentially that doesn't fulfill the "narratively"
> requirement, I guess. And, in any case, tying squishy standards like
> "reasonable" and "narratively progress" to CANs (rather than SHALLs)
> isn't generally a good idea; for instance, if someone's amendment is
> later found to have been, any future postings of the full document that
> included that amendment would be ILLEGAL.
>

I deliberately used ambiguous language like "reasonable" because of
the intent to offload what that means to CFJs, as per the game's design.
I'm open to suggestions on how else that can be phrased while keeping that
spirit.

Having the "chained message" thing break with an ILLEGAL seems like
something that is much more easily solved. I'll try to figure out something.


> >
> > Any person can amend the Empireworld without 2 objections and Imperials
> are
> > ENCOURAGED to attempt this action when ey believe it to be appropriate.
>
>
> "when they believe". The antecedent is "Imperials".
>

Despite my best efforts to write in proper English, I'm not always great at
it. I hope this won't significantly impact my ability to play Agora here or
in the future. I'll take your feedback into account.

> An Imperial can, by announcement, win the game without 2 objections if the
> > Empireworld shows that ey have accomplished at least 3 extraordinary
> feats
> > in the fictional world that the Empireworld describes since ey last won
> the
> > game in this way. This rule does not describe what qualifies as an
> > extraordinary feat."
>
>
> "that e has accomplished".
>
> This *really* seems like an infinite free win generation machine. At the
> *very* least there should be some cooldown between wins (I'd argue for a
> global 30 day cooldown at minimum)
>

I'm flattered that my incompetence is mistaken for some kind of plot. The
suggestion seems good and easy to implement to me.


> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [@Herald] Re: ALT: (@Herald) Thesis still needs review/feedback/corrections/additions

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I believe that it would be useful to have an introduction to Infinite Nomic
in the thesis for the people that (like myself) don't know much about it.
Same with the opinion on the current ribbons, you should mention what those
current "insane" ribbons are about; and for the mentioning that "some
awards might not be difficult as exemplified by (...)", it would help to
explain what those things are for future readers.

Besides adding more context, I think the thesis is fine and very
interesting.



On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 1:55 AM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 2/26/24 18:52, nix via agora-business wrote:
> > On 11/15/23 17:17, 4st nomic wrote:
> >> -- Forwarded message -
> >> From: *4st nomic* <4st.no...@gmail.com >
> >> Date: Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 1:30 PM
> >> Subject: (@Herald) Thesis still needs
> review/feedback/corrections/additions
> >> To: Agora Business  >> >
> >>
> >
> > I petition the Herald to assign a review board for this thesis.
> >
>
>
> The original post can be seen here:
> https://agoranomic.groups.io/g/main/message/124
>
> --
> nix
>
>

DIS: Re: OFF: [Proposal] Objecting to Objections

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

This seems dangerous.

On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 4:46 AM secretsnail9 via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {{{
> Title: Objection Security
> Adoption Index: 2.0
> Author: snail
> Co-authors:
>
> Amend Rule 2645 (The Stones) by appending the following:
>
> {
>   - Objection Stone (Quarterly, 3): When wielded, a specified player
> is walled from a specified tabled intent. A player CANNOT
> object or support an intent e is walled from.
> }
>
>
> }}}
> --
> snail
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Speaker] A speech

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I'd enjoy something like this

On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 5:53 PM juan via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> secretsnail9 via agora-business [2023-11-21 04:39]:
> > As speaker of Agora, I believe we should enact more rules. More things to
> > play around with means more opportunities for fun gameplay! We should
> > strive for new subsystems to be added to the game, focusing on simplicity
> > and high depth of content, and light loads on officers (if any at all).
> >
> > If you have a simple addition to the game, any idea that seems like it
> > could be fun, throw it out there! There's plenty of people (including me)
> > who will help turn that idea into a proposal, to hopefully become
> reality.
> >
> > Nomic is a game of change. Agora is much more deliberate with its change,
> > but that doesn't mean we can't have plenty of it! All it means is change
> > will take a bit of effort and support, and if you have a good idea, I'm
> > sure you can garner it.
> >
> > Let's shake things up, Agora! (You can handle it!)
>
> I realized recently I really like collecting things. So, I'm thinking
> a kind of TCG. Depending on the rules, in can be quite simple and yet
> have much content (as we could create more cards over time). In a sense,
> it's like stamps but doing something. Maybe combining them in some way?
>
> Oh, let's have a *crafting* game! We'd have a tech tree and a
> collect-craft cycle. We don't need automation, as all actions could be
> triggered by the players.
>
> If less officer work is desired, we could have the requirement that
> everyone publish their whole deck in every message where some action
> is taken on this subgame.
>
> --
> juan
>

Re: DIS: What're Ya Playin?

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I've been thinking of doing a similar survey too, I think this is a good
idea.

I've been playing Polybridge 3 (physics-based bridge builder), Night of the
Full Moon (deckbuilder roguelike) and Balatro (poker deckbuilder roguelike).

It seems like all three of us so far have interest in deckbuilder games.
Perhaps we'd be interested in some kind of deckbuilder autochess? So that
we wouldn't require a lot of back and forwards by having to play individual
turns.

Going to throw out an idea for this:

Gameplay could consist in rounds that last real life trimesters, where at
the end of a round, there is a tournament where each player submits their
deck and they all autofight each other until there is a winner.

During a round, you periodically earn income, for example 5 gold, with
Offices and certain Dreams allowing you to gain more. Then, by paying 10
gold, you can choose between one of several packs and get a random
selection of cards to add to your collection. Collections are public, and
cards can be traded, up to X days before the tournament.

A battle between two players would pit their collections and deckbuilding
abilities. Both players submit their decklists to the relevant Officer, or
they could just post a hash, and then those decks battle each other.

On Friday, November 3, 2023, nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> Brainstorming subgame ideas and I realized I should just ask people -
> what have you been playing, or wanting to play recently? Can be as
> specific or general as you want. Might be helpful to generate ideas for
> what people might want to do.
>
> Personally, lately I've been really into roguelikes of all types,
> especially rougelike deckbuilders. I'm also replaying Mass Effect.
>
> --
> nix
>
>

DIS: Re: ALT: THIS IS A PUBLIC MESSAGE FOR ALL PLAYERS OF AGORA

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Yes, hello. I am still around. I probably should subscribe to "gio".

Are the mailing lists unstable in some way right now?

On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 8:29 AM Aris 
wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 11:24 PM Aris via groups.io
>  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 6:08 PM Aspen via groups.io
>  wrote:
> >>
> >> [This is a repeat of nix's message, manually sent to each player to
> >> ensure its validity. It appears Yachay isn't subscribed to ALT, and
> >> I'd really like us to have at least one working forum. Apologies for
> >> the duplicate emails.]
> >>
> >> This is a public message for all players of Agora. I intend to ratify,
> >> without objection, the following:
> >>
> >> { The publicity switch of the forum at the email list
> >> m...@agoranomic.groups.io is public. }
> >>
> >> Despite this being untrue, it is in Agora's best interest for it to be
> >> true, both because it's only untrue by accident and because the main
> >> fora are struggling.
> >>
> >> -Aris
>
>
> Oops. I forgot to repeat the "this is a public message" boilerplate.
> Trying again with that.
>
> This is a public message for all players of Agora
>
> Without objection, I do so. Note the accuracy disclaimer above.
>
> For those who have been holding off on playing, Gio is as safe as it
> can reasonably get without the existing lists being up. I recommend
> resuming normal gameplay (reports and so forth) at this point.
>
> -Aris
>

DIS: [Agoran't] Mutual role reveal offer

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

This is a salted SHA-256 hash of my
role: c06bc8d4ffecc7f35cced2965ce3eeae5e427e2e0cc239803b1adbd30d1219d1

I hashed it with this site:
https://emn178.github.io/online-tools/sha256.html

I am open to revealing my role to anyone who reveals their role to me.

I'm eager to collaborate with others for our mutual benefit, if possible.
In the case that I'm a role with an antagonist role and we happen to reveal
that we are antagonists to each other, it's a symmetrical situation for us
and we don't really lose anything anyways. So, regardless of my role, I'm
very motivated to mutually trade role information. And finding allies would
be nice too.

My inbox is open for your messages.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Hi, please put me as interested Judge

On Saturday, August 19, 2023, Kerim Aydin via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
> Fri 18 Aug 2023
>
>
> DEADLINES (details below)
> ---
> [none]
>
>
> INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
> ---
> 4041 Janet
> 4032 ais523
> 4043 G.
> 4044 4st
> 4048 Murphy
> 4049 snail
>
>
> OPEN CASES
> ---
> [none]
>
>
> RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
> ---
> 4049 Judged TRUE by snail [Sat 12 Aug 2023]
>  https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4049
>  In the above-quoted message, G. noted an infraction.
>
> 4048 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 16 Jul 2023]
>  https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4048
>  The ruleset violated 2683.
>
> 4047 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 16 Jul 2023]
>  https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4047
>  Every player violated rule 2683.
>
> 4046 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 16 Jul 2023]
>  https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4046
>  4st violated rule 2683.
>
> 4045 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 16 Jul 2023]
>  https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4045
>  Juan, the Absurdor, violated rule 2683.
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4032 Assigned to 4st

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Rule 2519, point 4; sorry.

On Sunday, May 28, 2023, Yachay Wayllukuq  wrote:

> Just to add, I believe that consent is able to be "withdrawn", or at least
> not longer applicable, because of Rule 2519, point 5; where it allows us
> to infer if consent is present or not depending on context. I believe the
> context can include factors such as what time it is, or simply explicit
> desire for the consent to no longer apply. "Reasonable context" is a very
> broad thing.
>
> I think the references to sex in the judgement are amusing but gaudy. I
> hope that they're avoided in future versions of the Judgement. We could
> probably use "intimacy" or just "hugging", or something, instead.
>
> On Saturday, May 27, 2023, Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 10:40 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > (similar steps occur for withdrawal of consent.)
>>
>> I intend to file a Motion to Reconsider this judgement with 2 Support.
>> There is absolutely no mechanism or arguments presented that
>> withdrawal of consent is POSSIBLE, and this throwaway phrase is not
>> enough to convince me that withdrawal works.  Overall it is beyond the
>> scope of this judgement as it is not required to determine how
>> withdrawal works to answer the question.
>>
>> -G.
>>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4032 Assigned to 4st

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Just to add, I believe that consent is able to be "withdrawn", or at least
not longer applicable, because of Rule 2519, point 5; where it allows us to
infer if consent is present or not depending on context. I believe the
context can include factors such as what time it is, or simply explicit
desire for the consent to no longer apply. "Reasonable context" is a very
broad thing.

I think the references to sex in the judgement are amusing but gaudy. I
hope that they're avoided in future versions of the Judgement. We could
probably use "intimacy" or just "hugging", or something, instead.

On Saturday, May 27, 2023, Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 10:40 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business
>  wrote:
> >
> > (similar steps occur for withdrawal of consent.)
>
> I intend to file a Motion to Reconsider this judgement with 2 Support.
> There is absolutely no mechanism or arguments presented that
> withdrawal of consent is POSSIBLE, and this throwaway phrase is not
> enough to convince me that withdrawal works.  Overall it is beyond the
> scope of this judgement as it is not required to determine how
> withdrawal works to answer the question.
>
> -G.
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Ricemastor] Rice Game Report

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Crazy coincidence, I just made a CfJ about it

On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 9:19 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/22/23 07:15, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-official wrote:
> > --
> >RICE GAME REPORT
> >  Ricemastor's Report
> > --
> > Date of this report: 22 May 2023
> > Date of last report: (Never)
> > (all times UTC)
> >
> > COMMENTARY
> > ==
> > Hi, this is my first report ever as an Officer, please let me know if I'm
> > doing this all correctly. I intend to post reports every Monday, or close
> > to it.
> >
> > There were two strong contenders for the Harvest, although both snail's
> and
> > juan's
> > Rice Plans got (presumably) the same amount of Signatures. I'm aware that
> > consent might not work in the way we think it does, but I need to post a
> > report regardless, so this report is based on speculation that it all
> > worked.
> >
> > Assuming that a number of players do indeed now have 1 Rice, it becomes a
> > matter
> > of now defeating the (deliberate) deadlock that the game has. How do you
> get
> > enough people to agree to a Rice Plan that would let you (or anyone) win?
> >
> > I look forward to what our astute Agorans may come up with.
> >
> >
> > RICE PLANS
> > ==
> > H   Date   Creator{Rice Up}, {Rice Down} | Signatures
> > -   -  -  -
> > 18 May 23  Janet  {Janet},{} | Janet
> > !   18 May 23  snail  {4st, beokirby, blob, inalienableWright, nix,
> > snail, Yachay},
> >   {Aspen, ais523, cuddlybanana, G., Janet, juan,
> > Murphy}
> >   | snail, Yachay, 4st, beokirby
> > 19 May 23  beokirby   {inalienableWright, beokirby, blob},{} |
> beokirby
> > 19 May 23  juan   {},{} | juan, Janet, ais523, 4st
> >
> > (!) Indicates that this Rice Plan had the most Signatures, or in the case
> > of a tie, was created earliest, and was therefore Harvested (H).
> >
> > No Rice Plans exist currently.
> >
> >
> > RICE HOLDINGS
> > ==
> > PlayerRice
> >   ---
> > 4st   1
> > beokirby  1
> > blob  1
> > iWright*  1
> > nix   1
> > snail 1
> > Yachay1
> >
> > *inalienableWright
> > (All others have 0 Rice)
>
>
> CoE on the above rice balances: no rice was created because no rice plan
> was harvested.
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason
>
>

DIS: Re: (@Collector, Herald) BUS: The Never-Ending Dance

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

This fails, because conditionals need to be reasonably unambiguous (Rule 2518).
I don't think that a CfJ in the middle of a Moot qualifies as sufficient
evidence to make this doable, yet.

On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 2:03 AM nix via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/17/23 16:45, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
> > My radiance is 100 or more (specifically 100). The announcement in the
> > previous sentence causes me to win the game.
>
> If I can do so (based on the current moot, which is leaning towards
> yes), I award ais623 the title of Champion.
>
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Herald
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Actually, I was asked by ais523 to add to a CfJ a clarification on
something, a 'sub-Judgement' of a sort.

Would've it been possible for me to, for example, Judge TRUE, but also add
a sub-Judgement that from here on, we should play according to the
interpretation that would make it FALSE (that is, that you can only anoint
once)? Like that, we would avoid the blindside issue, but also end up with
the newer interpretation established.

On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 9:51 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:44 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
> >
> > Yes, but wouldn't certain CfJs be likely to enter into Moot Tennis if we
> > don't take the opinion of the majority as a tiebreaker as Judges? We can
> > keep going back and forth with Moots, because 2+N Support seems fairly
> easy
> > to pull off.
> >
> > How is the Moot Tennis supposed to end?
>
> If a Moot ends up being really close/split, the best thing is to fix
> it by voting on legislation (a proposal) that clarifies it absolutely
> one way or the other.  Including possibly by-proposal saying that
> ais523 wins even if the "clarification" goes in the opposite way
> overall.  Of course, if the clarification has to be made in an power
> 2+ rule, you could get a situation whether neither side can pass a
> clarification in their direction.  So far, we've managed to eke out a
> compromise in the rare rare times that has happened.
>
> -G.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 9:32 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
> > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On 5/22/23 15:25, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> > > > CfJ 3890 puts it into nicer words ("Where there is no obvious way to
> > > solve
> > > > a given problem, judges are free to apply their own life experience
> > > > (...)"), but seems to line up with what I had to end up with, simply
> > > > applying my own personal opinion.
> > > >
> > > > But also, yes, I agree that it's not explicit; but I hope that my
> reasons
> > > > for approaching judging in that way seems sensible. Maybe it could
> become
> > > > customary if enough people tend to resort to justifying themselves in
> > > that
> > > > way. I think that the opinion of the consensus at the time, even if
> it
> > > > doesn't align with my personal opinion, is a better basis for
> delivering
> > > > judgement than just, well, my personal opinion. Especially when Rule
> 911
> > > > and Moots exist.
> > >
> > >
> > > If judges always or often judge based on what the majority wants, a lot
> > > of the point of a judiciary separate from the proposal system is
> > > diminished. If a judge fully and truly believes the outcome of a case
> is
> > > the opposite of what the majority wants (after hearing all the
> > > arguments), then, in my view, they should judge that way. If they can
> > > make a convincing argument then all is well, and if they can't then the
> > > majority has motions and moots to deal with it.
> > >
> > > If the majority is wrong, let them be wrong, but make them work for it.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Janet Cobb
> > >
> > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
> > >
> > >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Yes, but wouldn't certain CfJs be likely to enter into Moot Tennis if we
don't take the opinion of the majority as a tiebreaker as Judges? We can
keep going back and forth with Moots, because 2+N Support seems fairly easy
to pull off.

How is the Moot Tennis supposed to end?

On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 9:32 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/22/23 15:25, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> > CfJ 3890 puts it into nicer words ("Where there is no obvious way to
> solve
> > a given problem, judges are free to apply their own life experience
> > (...)"), but seems to line up with what I had to end up with, simply
> > applying my own personal opinion.
> >
> > But also, yes, I agree that it's not explicit; but I hope that my reasons
> > for approaching judging in that way seems sensible. Maybe it could become
> > customary if enough people tend to resort to justifying themselves in
> that
> > way. I think that the opinion of the consensus at the time, even if it
> > doesn't align with my personal opinion, is a better basis for delivering
> > judgement than just, well, my personal opinion. Especially when Rule 911
> > and Moots exist.
>
>
> If judges always or often judge based on what the majority wants, a lot
> of the point of a judiciary separate from the proposal system is
> diminished. If a judge fully and truly believes the outcome of a case is
> the opposite of what the majority wants (after hearing all the
> arguments), then, in my view, they should judge that way. If they can
> make a convincing argument then all is well, and if they can't then the
> majority has motions and moots to deal with it.
>
> If the majority is wrong, let them be wrong, but make them work for it.
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason
>
>

DIS: Re: OFF: [@all] Confirming birthdays

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

1996, wow

On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 9:10 PM juan via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I have compiled every player's birthday according to the records. But,
> just in case, I'd love for y'all to take a look and tell me if yours
> (or elseplayer's) is wrong. Thanks.
>
> 1996-01-23 Murphy
> 2023-02-06 tb148
> 2022-03-14 juan
> 2021-03-16 cuddlybanana
> 2023-03-16 Yachay
> 2008-04-28 ais523
> 2007-05-01 omd
> 2009-05-04 G.
> 2023-05-16 inalienableWright
> 2023-05-18 blob
> 2023-05-18 beokirby
> 2015-05-27 Gaelan
> 2019-06-02 Janet
> 2017-06-07 R. Lee
> 2022-06-25 4st
> 2013-08-14 nix
> 2016-09-13 Aspen
> 2022-10-19 Aced7
> 2020-11-11 Shy Owl
> 2022-11-27 Marb
>
> --
> juan
> Registrar
>

DIS: Re: Moot Intent (Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay)

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Yeah, the rules aren't particularly amenable to avoiding blindsides like
this. Maybe there's a way to solve that, I'll think about it.

On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 9:13 PM juan via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> nix via agora-business [2023-05-22 14:04]:
> > That aside, I overall think you did a good job, and it's a well-reasoned
> > judgment. I just don't agree with it, and I think the harm that these
> > kinds of moon-logic readings due to Agora aggregates into our
> > arbitrarily high learning curve, so I'm still going to try to overturn
> it.
> >
> > I intend, with 2 support, to enter this judgment into moot.
>
> I support.
>
> While the judgment is (mostly) sound, it seems to me the favored reading
> is so specific to Agora that for it to be upheld would require codifying
> in the rules, *even if* it is game custom. Also, since it's not in the
> rules, the most applicable way to overturn it is via CFJ.
>
> --
> juan
>

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

CfJ 3890 puts it into nicer words ("Where there is no obvious way to solve
a given problem, judges are free to apply their own life experience
(...)"), but seems to line up with what I had to end up with, simply
applying my own personal opinion.

But also, yes, I agree that it's not explicit; but I hope that my reasons
for approaching judging in that way seems sensible. Maybe it could become
customary if enough people tend to resort to justifying themselves in that
way. I think that the opinion of the consensus at the time, even if it
doesn't align with my personal opinion, is a better basis for delivering
judgement than just, well, my personal opinion. Especially when Rule 911
and Moots exist.

On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 9:08 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/21/23 13:35, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote:
> > I am personally convinced that this is a reasonable interest that a
> number
> > of people may have, as clearly shown by nix and G. Being myself familiar
> > with board games and their customs being reasonably easy for people check
> > for themselves, I permit this as evidence for the case as well for what
> > would be "in the best interests of the game" and don't believe I require
> > any further investigation into this.
> >
> > So, presented with these two conflicting views, unfortunately Rule 217
> > doesn't establish some kind of priority between the different
> alternatives
> > to the text of the rule. There is no priority between "custom" and "the
> > best interests of the game", leaving me at an apparent impasse with the
> > evidence presented. I cannot simply DIMISS this case either, given this
> > apparent tie, because I believe that there is enough that indicates that
> I
> > nonetheless have to tiebreak and deliver a Judgement regardless as the
> > Judge for this case.
> >
> > In this case, it would be easy to deliver Judgement to if there was an
> > overwhelming majority that wanted this Judgement to be Judged in a
> certain
> > way, because of the mechanic in Rule 911 of Moots and Motions to
> > Reconsider, which seem to reasonably imply that it's ultimately in the
> > choice of popular Agoran opinion which Judgements end up being delivered
> > and which not. However, with just 3 participating voices from the rest of
> > players, it's difficult for me to make a reasonable assumption - plus, I
> > personally believe that ais523 is correct, as it seems to be a more
> > mechanistic and austere reading of that rule without needing to be
> > augmented by fairly specific linguistic presumptions, leaving it at a 2 v
> > 2. I recognize that those are very reasonable presumptions to have, but I
> > don't see them as being sufficiently linguistically dominant; nor do I
> see
> > what seems to be a last-minute change in interpretation to be in the
> "best
> > interests of the game" either, even if the new interpretation would be
> > itself in the "best interests of the game". If it was sufficiently
> > announced, sure. But I don't feel like it's fair to blindside a player
> like
> > that.
> >
> > So,
> >
> > Unable to reach a conclusion by study of Rule 217, (appeal to game
> custom /
> > best interests of the game)
> > Unable to reach a conclusion by study of Rule 911, (appeal to the opinion
> > of the majority)
> > And nonetheless believe that it is my duty deliver judgement regardless,
> >
> > I Judge TRUE, forced to play my last card and merely appeal to my
> personal
> > opinion.
>
>
> The current guidance on this is CFJ 3890
> (https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3890).
>
> Also, judges generally don't explicitly appeal to what the majority
> wants for matters of law (though that would be reasonable for things
> like communication standards which are more squishy), and Rule 911 does
> not direct judges to. Rule 217 is the primary authority on ruleset
> interpretation.
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Rice disarmament

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I think the main time-consuming activity in the Rice Game would be
navigating its particularly challenging endgame (how do you get that last
Rice? diplomacy? scam?), rather than grinding for large amounts of Rice.
Even if we do end up going with this, and you end up getting 4 Rice, that
last fifth Rice (or sixth/seventh/etc, if needed) seems like it's going to
be a lot harder to obtain than the previous 4 combined.

On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 7:38 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Rice disarmament
>
> Adoption index: 1.0
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coauthors:
>
> {
>
> Amend the rule entitled "The Rice Game" by replacing "at least 2 rice"
> with "at least 5 rice".
>
> [Ensure each round takes at least a month. This works under both the
> original rule and the rewrite.]
>
> }
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason
>
>

Re: DIS: Proto - Labor Tokens

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I was actually thinking of "Daydreams" as well, before settling on Labor
Tokens and trying to keep it in its isolated bubble (a design philosophy
which might just be pointless, I'm realizing).

I think it's fine, nothing in particular really stands out to me that needs
to be fixed. Perhaps the guarantee that I had in the original that players
are ENCOURAGED to ensure payment and such? It's not essential, but it would
help ensure that Labor gets paid regardless of scams or being blindsided by
our poor wording in some way or what have you.

On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 8:27 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> Here's a go at incorporating all these thoughts:
>
> =
> Proto: Human Resources v0.02
> AI: 2
>
> Retitle Rule 2632 (Complexity) to "Office Worth".
>
> Amend Rule 2632 to read in full:
>
>   Complexity is a natural office switch reflecting how complex it is
>   to fulfill the duties of its office. It has a default of 10 and
>   a maximum value of 40.
>
>   Perkiness is a natural office switch reflecting the degree of game
>   advantage an officer might legally realize through discretionary
>   choices made during the exercise of eir office.  It has a default
>   of 0 and a maximum value of 40.
>
>   The Worth of an office is its Complexity minus its Perkiness, with
>   a minimum of 0.
>
>   The ADoP tracks Complexity and Perkiness, and CAN, with 2 Agoran
>   consent, flip the Complexity or Perkiness (or both simultaneously)
>   of an office to specified possible values.
>
> [I translated the current 0-3 range to 0-40 instead of 0-30, because
> if we go with weekly rewards like setting dreams, the maximum could be
> scaled to earning that ability 4 weeks of the month with a 40 Unit
> payout]
>
> BE IT RESOLVED:  The complexity of each office is hereby set to 10
> times the complexity of that office as defined immediately before this
> proposal took effect.
>
> BE IT RESOLVED:  The ADoP is hereby PETITIONED to lead a discussion on
> appropriate values for Perkiness for each office, and to then set
> perkinessess as able via the tabled action process and as guided by
> the discussion.
>
> Enact the following Rule, Wages.
>
>   Labor Tokens are a fixed currency tracked by the ADoP, with
>   ownership entirely restricted to Players.
>
>   Each time a player performs an Act of Labor, the [officer or self-
>   service?] associated with the condition CAN once by announcement,
>   and SHALL in an officially timely fashion, grant the associated
>   number of labor tokens to the player.
>
>   Below is a list of Acts of Labor, their associated office, and
>   number of labor tokens:
>
>   * Publishing an office's weekly or monthly report, provided that
> publication was the first report published for that office in
> the relevant time period (week or month respectively) to fulfill
> an official weekly or monthly duty: 1 labor token times
> the worth of the office (ADoP).
>
>   * Resolving a referendum, provided that no other referendum had
> been resolved earlier in that Agoran week: 1 labor token times the
> worth of the office of Assessor (ADoP).
>
>   * Judging a CFJ that e was assigned to without violating a time
> limit to do so, unless at the time of judgement the case was
> open due to self-filing a motion to reconsider it: 4 labor tokens
> (Arbitor).
>
> [The language above is from when we rewarded tasks via Coins, which is
> reasonably well tested in terms of equating relative effort of
> different tasks.  In terms of absolute amounts there's bound to be a
> bunch of tweaking/discussion before the next draft...]
>
> Enact a Rule, Daydreams, with Power=2 and the following text:
>
>   A player CAN daydream, specifying a dream, for a fee of 10 labor
>   tokens.
>
>   If exactly one wandering has occurred since a player last
>   daydreamed, that player is subject to the effects of having eir
>   dream set to eir last specified daydream, in addition to being
>   subject to any effects of eir current dream.
>
> [that "subject to the effects of ... in addition to any effects" is
> hopefully clear in intent, though may need some technical wordsmithing
> either here or on a per-dream basis in order to function.]
>
> [On purpose, this doesn't stack - one bonus daydream per wandering is
> the max buy.]
>
> [Needs to be power=2 because it enables a voting strength bonus.]
>
> [Just noticed the "If exactly one wandering has occurred" has a bit of
> a bug if a player daydreams on two successive weeks - noting that for
> later.]
>
>
> TODO: add Labor Token Decay to one of the above rule texts.
>
> =
>

Re: DIS: (Proto) Raybots

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Maybe we can keep "persons" as is, and make a new definition that pretty
much encompasses everything persons can do? For example, adding something
like "If a person CAN do something, an Agent CAN do so as well, other rules
notwithstanding", and just refer to Agents for the Raybots.

On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 5:44 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/20/23 23:30, Janet Cobb wrote:
> >> In rule 2618, amend
> >> {{{
> >> A consenting player CAN, by announcement, grant a specified entity a
> >> promise, specifying its text and becoming its creator.
> >> }}}
> >> to
> >> {{{
> >> A Raybot or a consenting player CAN, by announcement, grant a specified
> >> entity a promise, specifying its text and becoming its creator.
> >> }}}
> >> [It's an interesting philosophical question as to whether Raybots can
> >> consent to things, so avoid the issue by making it possible for Raybots
> >> to create promises by announcement even if they don't consent to them.
> >> For what it's worth, rule 2519(3) means that the Raybot probably is
> >> consenting, but it's better to make it clear.]
> > What happens to such promises when the Raybot ceases to exist?
> >
> >
>
> Actually, in general persons ceasing to exist is likely to cause
> problems, and the current ruleset is careful to avoid it (R869/51's "is
> or ever was"; you remain an Agoran person after you die).
>
> I'm not sure there's a good solution here. Having disabled Raybots just
> sit around doing nothing isn't ideal. Auditing the whole ruleset for
> issues caused by this is probably good to do anyway but error-prone (and
> future proposals are reasonably likely to introduce new problems).
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason
>

DIS: Re: (@CotC, Yachay) BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4030 Assigned to Yachay

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Oh, I just finished writing/posting my Judgement when I saw this. I don't
think it's essential for the case and I'd rather not bite more than I can
chew for my CfJ. It felt very difficult as it is.

You could always just call a new one for that though.

On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 6:44 PM ais523 via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 2023-05-21 at 07:06 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-official
> wrote:
> > The below CFJ is 4030.  I assign it to Yachay.
> >
> > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4030
> >
> >   CFJ 4030  
> >
> >Per Rule 2680, a player can anoint a ritual number multiple times
> >for a single instance of a ritual act.
> >
> > 
>
> Gratuitous arguments:
>
> I request the judge to consider whether there's a relevant difference
> between "When X, a player CAN Y" (the situation the arguments so far
> are discussing), and "When X, a player CAN, within Z days, Y" (the
> actual situation that's in question).
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Proto - Labor Tokens

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 4:22 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I like the overall idea!  Some comments:
>
> On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 4:24 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
> >
> > Labor Tokens are a fixed asset, tracked by the (ADoP?).
> I could see either fixed or liquid working here, though on first read
> I agree with you on fixed, as it limits how transactional this could
> be.  OTOH, in the bigger picture using labor as the basis of a trading
> economy makes a lot of sense too.
>
>
Labor Tokens could support an economy I suppose (as long as there's a
reasonable way for the unemployed non-officers to get significant amounts
of Labor Tokens as well) but my intent is that Labor Tokens is a safe
little bubble that can ensure payment to officers regardless of what's
happening outside of it. It is intended to be agnostic. But, it's just a
matter of aesthetics in the end, I suppose; because we can just amend
anything to anything else.


> > Professionals CAN
> Maybe include judges as professionals - a reward for judging of some kind?
>

 That seems OK to me, sure.

> by announcement gain once per month an amount of Labor Tokens equal to the
> > complexity of eir Office times ten, with that amount being affected
> Should a person get tokens if they hold an office very briefly?   One
> way we did it before was like a salary:  "If a player held an office
> for 16+ days in the previous month, and was not found guilty of any
> unforgivable crimes associated with eir office during that month, e
> CAN gain..."  Another option we used before was "N Labor tokens per
> report published".
>

I like a lot the N Labor Tokens per report published idea. I like how
proportional it would make the rewards.


> > multiplicatively by the following:
> > - x0.85 if the Office has a Special Privilege
> Rather than scaling by privilege, maybe combine the concepts under
> complexity?  (turn "complexity" into "wage" and make it equal to
> complexity minus privilege level).  Overall this "privilege" idea is a
> bit uncertain for me - what looks like a perk from the outside (e.g.
> Assessor's duties) is not really a useful thing that often.  But if we
> use the idea, the privileges definitely aren't equal so making it
> binary seems pretty coarse.  If we go with the "wage" of using
> (complexity - privilege), the level of privilege for each office could
> be subject to consensus discussion, like complexity was/is, or
> (complexity - privilege) could be just discussed as a whole.
>

Yeah, I think that's a good idea.

> - x1.5 if the Officer hasn't committed any Monthly or Weekly Tardiness
> > crimes since they last gained Labor Tokens or became the current holder
> of
> > their Office.
> The tardiness part should probably not be platonic, the ADoP/other
> players shouldn't need to look for unnoticed crimes?  Alternatively,
> if the reward level is scaled by number of reports/making reports,
> this takes care of itself without being entangled with the justice
> system.
>

 Yeah, the number of reports thing seems to work better than this.

> If a certain Labor Token has existed for more than 2 months, any player
> CAN
> > destroy it by announcement and are ENCOURAGED to.
> This means Labor Tokens aren't fungible and the recordkeepor would
> have to track every one separately - and the user would have to
> remember to specify "spend the older tokens not the newer ones".
> Seems like more complication than it's worth?  Though I wholly agree
> we don't want endless accumulation of these things - maybe some kind
> of quarterly reduction, taxes, or forced handsize reduction like: "if
> a player has more than N tokens, any player CAN spend them on that
> player's behalf with Notice, and the ADoP is ENCOURAGED to do so" or
> something.
>

I think the forced handsize reduction is probably good, or perhaps there is
just a strict limit of how many Labor Tokens (as a fixed asset) you can own
at any time.


> > If, for some reason, Officers cannot be reasonably retributed in Labor
> > Tokens, players are ENCOURAGED to propose ways to amend it so that they
> are.
> We've often talked about awarding people for one-off jobs (example:
> anyone could offer a major contribution to the website).  Maybe a pool
> of tokens that could be awarded by some kind of Tabled Action for
> specific labors (this might be an add-on expansion for a later
> proposal).
>

I think this can be good too. Maybe a 'Bounty' for X Tokens can be created
with Y support/consent/something, and Bounties are tracked by the... ADoP?
Hopefully this isn't all too much for them.


> > Labor Tokens can 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I do agree with that Officers should be rewarded somehow, but my main issue
here is how the democracy is run, not Officer rewards.

Maybe we could keep those rewards somehow without any nerfs while limiting
or nerfing other things?

I've attempted a "Officer salary" proto, anyways.

I'm also sorry if I got too negative

On Friday, May 19, 2023, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 11:47 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
> > So, only someone who already is in power and a beneficiary of the system
> > should be entitled to propose change things?
>
> Er, I never said you couldn't propose.  I was giving you feedback on
> how I felt about voting for it.
>
> It's a generally interesting point you raise, in that we've (over the
> years) frequently discussed about not being too entrenched, and giving
> new players the ability to jump right in without huge handicaps.  That
> said, we are a small community, that takes some service to maintain
> via officers, and it makes sense to give longer-serving players at
> least something of a boost - it's not fair to their genuine effort
> over months to achieve a certain position (become "already in power"),
> to say a brand-new player jumps in with equal footing.  Also, in
> particular, rule changes often impact officers' jobs, so it seems
> quite reasonable to give them a bit more say in changes that could
> include their office duties.
>
> And the thing with my "accusation" is - you've already done it once,
> to be fair.  We'd been playing with proposal-based radiance awards for
> about a year, which were seen as fairly minor rewards for encouraging
> the writing of good proposals.  But within a short time of joining the
> game, your own voting patterns - making something uncomfortably
> "political" that was never intended or played that way - became
> onerous enough that you basically crashed the system (brought us to
> the point of repealing it, rather than deal with your voting
> patterns).  In doing so, the collateral damage included removing
> radiance awards for Judges, so Judges no longer get a little bonus for
> judging.  I honestly thought that was a bit thoughtless.  This is
> exactly what I want to avoid again, so I'm quite skeptical about
> arguments to repeal something that gives bonuses or reward-for-labor
> (especially longstanding 'service' offices where people aren't just
> running their own subgame for less than a week :) ) when there's no
> concrete proposal of anything to compensate.
>
> But enough negativity there (sorry) - I don't mean for this to express
> any actual metagame annoyance, just thoughts about power tradeoffs and
> design, and I very much look forward to seeing if nix's ideas might
> work.
>
> -G.
>

DIS: Proto - Labor Tokens

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I'd love to hear your thoughts and opinions on this proto Proposal text.
The Xs are just placeholders. I believe that a big Pro to this is how it
should ensure fair payment to officers (with some tinkering with the
numbers and values) even if there is no real economy going on, but a Con is
how it adds more bureaucracy.

/*This intends to standardize officer rewards, as well as give Officers
choice in how they want to be recompensated, so that they can be paid in
something that they actually value. For example, some Officers may value
higher voting strength, but others might just not care as much about that
and would prefer something else instead in order to feel rewarded. This
also would help ensure that Officers continue being paid even if there is
no clear economic scheme for the game, or even some kind of crisis, by
giving them the option to take placeholder tokens that can be exchanged for
benefits later on. Although there is a limit to how many tokens you can
save up to prevent stockpiling problems, problems such as situations where
the presence of a stockpile of tokens is leveraged (without spending them)
rather than spending the tokens themselves. The Special Privilege thing is
intended to recognize that some Officers have special, unique actions that
others just don't get to have and that these should be seen as a sort of
reward/payment for holding the Office as well (the Gray Ribbon is an
obvious one, the Assessor's unique ability to resolve Proposals - which are
central to any nomic - is circumstantially extremely powerful, etc)*/

Create a new rule called "Human Resources" at power X with the following
content:

If an Officer has held eir Office for more than 30 days, that Officer is a
Professional. Officers with a Special Privilege are the following: Tailor,
Prime Minister, Assessor, Arbitor.

Labor Tokens are a fixed asset, tracked by the (ADoP?). Professionals CAN
by announcement gain once per month an amount of Labor Tokens equal to the
complexity of eir Office times ten, with that amount being affected
multiplicatively by the following:
- x0.85 if the Office has a Special Privilege
- x1.5 if the Officer hasn't committed any Monthly or Weekly Tardiness
crimes since they last gained Labor Tokens or became the current holder of
their Office.
If a certain Labor Token has existed for more than 2 months, any player CAN
destroy it by announcement and are ENCOURAGED to.

If, for some reason, Officers cannot be reasonably retributed in Labor
Tokens, players are ENCOURAGED to propose ways to amend it so that they are.

Labor Tokens can be spent by announcement for the following benefits:
- "Voting Strength", for 10 Labor Tokens: The Officer gains 1 Voting
Strength for the next 30 days.
- "Blot Removal", for X Labor Tokens: The Officer, upon purchasing this
benefit, also expunges X blots from a person.
- "Subgame benefit X", for X Labor Tokens: You gain X Gold, X Men-At-Arms
and X Large Burritos.
- etc

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) Consent

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

*Blows smoke off gun, spins pistol back into holster*

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 10:42 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 1:40 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I think it could, because I believe they are providing context which
> > reasonably indicates that they want their consent to be applied in that
> > way. The 4st point in Rule 2519 seems to allow it.
> >
> > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 10:31 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
> > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On 5/19/23 16:16, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote:
> > > > I consent to all rice plans that have my player in the Rice Up list
> and
> > > do
> > > > not have my player in the Rice Down list. I also consent to all rice
> > > plans
> > > > that have no players in the Rice Up list and I am not in the Rice
> Down
> > > list.
> > > >
> > > > (Consent is different than intent, so this is forward looking, so I
> > have
> > > > now played the rice game for as long as I am active.)
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't think this can provide consent for rice plans that do not yet
> > > exist.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Janet Cobb
> > >
> > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> B-)
>
> nice
>
> --
> 4st
> Referee
> Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) Consent

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I think it could, because I believe they are providing context which
reasonably indicates that they want their consent to be applied in that
way. The 4st point in Rule 2519 seems to allow it.

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 10:31 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/19/23 16:16, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote:
> > I consent to all rice plans that have my player in the Rice Up list and
> do
> > not have my player in the Rice Down list. I also consent to all rice
> plans
> > that have no players in the Rice Up list and I am not in the Rice Down
> list.
> >
> > (Consent is different than intent, so this is forward looking, so I have
> > now played the rice game for as long as I am active.)
> >
>
> I don't think this can provide consent for rice plans that do not yet
> exist.
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason
>
>

Re: DIS: (Proto) Raybots

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I think the general idea could be interesting. It's similar to juan's golem
idea, which I was also fond of.

I'm likely not the best to help with wording but, "Raybots agree to abide
by the Rules." seems weird to me. How can it 'agree' to anything?

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 5:52 AM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> Here's an idea I had as a way to a) shake things up in a way that's
> likely to lead to lots of interesting CFJs for the next few months (I
> came up with it after reading the CFJ archives for cases that looked
> interesting), and b) let us experiment with mechanisms for awarding
> Radiance that don't need a whole proposal cycle to go through.
>
> The basic idea is to reintroduce the idea of artificial / legal-fiction
> persons, but this time, instead of treading back over the old ground of
> "let's let players create new persons that they have control over more
> or less at will", the new persons are created with 2 Agoran Consent and
> are effectively "powered by promises", so everyone knows what the new
> persons will and won't do, and any abusive or unfair design can be
> objected to. (Using Promises rather than having things happen
> platonically makes things easier to track, as the Raybots won't do
> anything unless someone cashes the promises.)
>
> In addition to being powered by promises, they serve as a source of
> Radiance, being created with some and being able to transfer it to
> other players. So the basic economic idea is that if you have a good
> Radiance award condition in mind, you can try it out without needing to
> go through a whole proposal cycle, and it disappears naturally after
> paying out a certain amount of Radiance so there isn't too much cost to
> experimentation. In addition to the economic side of things, I'm hoping
> there'll be a lot of gameplay simply stemming from trying to create
> weird situations, e.g. can we get a Raybot to play the game as a semi-
> autonomous player (with the only human action being to cash its
> promises when they become cashable)? Could we get one to win? Could we
> (and should we) get one to do the duties of an office?
>
> 
> In rule 869, amend
> {{{
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no other entities are persons.
> }}}
> to
> {{{
> No other entity can be a person, unless explicitly defined to be so by
> a rule with power at least 3.
> }}}
> [Makes it possible to create legal-fiction players again.]
>
> Create a new power-3 rule, "Raybots":
> {{{
> A Raybot is a type of entity that has been created using the process
> described in this rule. Raybots CANNOT be created except as specified
> by this rule, and entities that came to exist by any other means are
> not Raybots.
>
> Raybots are persons. Raybots are created with their Citizenship switch
> set to Registered and their Radiance switch set to 40. Raybots agree to
> abide by the Rules.
>
> Motivation is an untracked Raybot switch whose possible values are
> texts, and whose default value is "I deregister."
>
> A player CAN create a Raybot with a specified Motivation with 2 Agoran
> Consent, unless a Raybot with an identical Motivation was created
> within the previous 14 days, and SHOULD specify a name for the Raybot
> when doing so.
>
> If, for any given Raybot, at least one of the following conditions is
> continuously true for at least 10 seconds, that Raybot ceases to exist:
> * e is not a player, and/or
> * e is not the creator of any currently existing Promises, and/or
> * eir Radiance is 0.
>
> When a Raybot is created, it grants the Library a promise, becoming the
> creator of that promise, and whose text is that Raybot's Motivation.
>
> Raybots CANNOT support or object to tabled actions. The voting strength
> of a Raybot on an Agoran Decision is 0.
>
> Players SHALL NOT cause Raybots to perform ILLEGAL actions.
> }}}
> [The basic mechanic: Raybots are created with 2 Agoran Consent, and act
> only as a consequence of players cashing their promises. The idea is
> that the Motivation – the initial promise – will specify everything
> that the Raybot can do, probably by creating more promises. The
> Motivation is untracked because it has no effect beyond the Raybot's
> initial creation.
>
> Being players, Raybots are (under this version of the proposal) tracked
> by the Registrar. It doesn't seem like that should be enough additional
> work to require a new officer?
>
> Raybots are made unable to support/object/meaningfully vote as a
> precaution, in order to prevent them being used to flood our consensus
> mechanisms if someone finds a way to mass-produce them.
>
> The starting value of 40 Radiance is a guess.]
>
> In rule 2618, amend
> {{{
> A consenting player CAN, by announcement, grant a specified entity a
> promise, specifying its text and becoming its creator.
> }}}
> to
> {{{
> A Raybot or a consenting player CAN, by announcement, grant a specified
> entity a promise, specifying its text and becoming its creator.
> }}}
> 

Re: Very Proto Economy (Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization_

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

- I like the Focuses idea.
- I think you'd really just want to use your Stamps to win rather than
anything else. Maybe instead you can only Focus on something if you have
the right Stamp or combination of Stamps in your possession? For example,
something like: Voting Focus [Requirement: Ownership of 3 or more different
Stamps], Justice Focus [Requirement: Ownership of a Stamp type that only up
to 2 other players have]; etc

On Friday, May 19, 2023, nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/19/23 11:50, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
>
>> I'd much rather take the route of trying to get the Radiance/Stamps
>> system functional again, than of trying to repeal it. (Stamps in
>> particular are one of the most powerful "new player perks" we've seen,
>> and I suspect that that's a good thing.) I'd especially be against
>> repealing it without a replacement.
>>
> I do somewhat regret the *full* repeal we did, tho it was an interesting
> experiment (that got my a Silver Quill). I've been trying to be more hands
> off with economic writing because I want to see other ideas (and I've
> written two of the recent ones), but I have had some ideas floating around
> that would at least incorporate Stamps. The idea is basically:
>
> * replace dreams with focuses, and have 3 or 4 focuses. Something like
> Voting, Proposing, etc.
>
> * each stamp type inherits a focus from the person it's minted by, with
> stamps belonging to non-players being wildcards for focus
>
> * players automatically get stamps of eir type, maybe at a rate similar
> wealth dream (2 when there's less than 8 total of your type, 1 when there's
> less than 16 total, 0 otherwise)
>
> * cash stamps in sets, where each stamp in the set is of the same class
> (or wildcard) to get the associated bonus. Cash voting stamps and get a
> voting power increase, cash proposing stamps and get the ability to pend X
> proposals. Scale it to large payouts for larger cashing sets, and also
> larger payouts for the number of *different* stamps used.
>
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Herald
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

You could say that to anyone disadvantaged who wants to change how things
are, it's not particularly insightful (or accurate, in this case).

So, only someone who already is in power and a beneficiary of the system
should be entitled to propose change things?

I don't think my situation is as bad, though, since I'm an Officer with a
Voting Strength bonus myself, and I have enough pocket change to afford
fielding the Dream of Power if I wanted to. I think I'm reasonably close to
a neutral position in how much I lose or gain from this. Still, it's an
interesting accusation.

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 6:49 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 9:43 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
> >
> > I don't intend to design an economy, because I don't think I'm competent
> > enough to do so. I'll try to contribute where I can, though.
> >
>
> Ah, the typical take-away power with a promise, but an unfulfilled
> one.  No worries.  Power grabs are fine with me, but let's not cloak
> it as some kind of "I'm doing this altruistically to solve a bigger
> design problem."
>
> -G.
>

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) Rice contract

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

There's danger in a contract like this. If you have 0 Rice, and say, I have
1 Rice, and I submit a Rice Plan that gives us both 1 Rice and it ends up
being the Rice Plan that passes, then you lose that round and I win that
round, and we're both set back to 0 Rice.

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 7:21 PM Beokirby via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I create and become party to the following contract:
> {
> Parties to this contract consent to be signatories to all Rice Plans
> with beokirby in the Rice Up list
> }
>
> -Beokirby
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemaster) Solidarity

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Technically you need to "consent" to having your "Signature" on a "Rice
Plan", but given how lenient consent rules are (Rule 2519, point 4
especially), I believe this and the others like it are fine. It just needs
to be "reasonably clear from context".

I think it's a great advantage that the consent rules have, for general
playability.

I'm going to assume that this and others like it are valid ways to give
Signatures on Rice Plans, when I eventually post my report as Ricemastor.

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 6:46 PM Beokirby via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 2023-05-19 1:33 AM, Katie Davenport via agora-business wrote:
> > I create and consent to the following rice plan.
> >
> > [
> > Rice Up: [inalienableWright, beokirby, blob]
> > Rice Down: [ ]
> > ]
> >
> > -inalienableWright (Katie)
> I consent to this list
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I don't intend to design an economy, because I don't think I'm competent
enough to do so. I'll try to contribute where I can, though.

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 6:40 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 9:26 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > With radiance and Stamps seemingly on their way out, I believe that your
> > Officer salary problem is part of a larger problem of Agora overall
> needing
> > a proper economy again, not a voting strength problem.
>
> So offer that as a package?  In my experience, when things are taken
> away with the promise of new things to be added later, those things
> stay taken away, and the new things never arrive.
>
> -G.
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Most newer players aren't going to know how to navigate the game and
competently use mechanics like Stones or Dreams (I still don't know how
Stones are meant to work). And even then, there's an opportunity cost in it
all. A player that already is well-off can afford to use their Dream for
things other than the Wealth one, a new, poor one, has to make a much
harder choice.

But, yes, this would nerf Voting Strength bonuses across the board, which
aligns with my intent of wanting to equalize it all.

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 6:28 PM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/19/23 11:26, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> > But, no. I don't think that any player deserves ~4 times the voting
> > strength of a newbie, regardless of the reason. I want other players to
> be
> > able to play nomic, especially newbies, and they need a relevant amount
> of
> > voting strength in order to do so. I want them to matter.
> To be clear, being an officer only gives you at most twice as much. The
> players with more than that have more because of things unrelated to
> having an office, like the Power Stone and dream.
>
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Herald
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 5:28 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 5:51 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
> >
> > > Let's give everyone a more equal chance to be relevant.
> > >
>
> So right now, Officers' only reward is increased voting strength (I
> believe), and the game is growing with lots of new players so
> officers' work is getting harder.


Yes, and as a (new) Officer, I'm aware of that.

Fortunately, other offices have other advantages. The Tailor can
arbitrarily hand out Gray Ribbons, the Assessor gets an exceptional
first-move advantage on scamming new rules, the Arbitor can subtly but
significantly mold the whole game itself through interpretation by fudging
who gets which CfJ. Other offices get other similar advantages through
their own special actions, some, like Ricemastor (which only tracks and has
no special actions of its own), arguably gets none of that kind. But *even
then*, they still get ribbon benefits as well (eg. Green, Emerald; which
may not be attractive for the hyper-veterans, but they are still benefits
which may motivate newer players and serve as 'payment' still, like myself).

None of those things would change.


> And of course, an influx of new
> players *already* dilutes that strength.  What do you have in mind to
> compensate for their time & effort if you nerf their only benefit?
>
> -G.
>

It's curious that you'd take that position.

But, no. I don't think that any player deserves ~4 times the voting
strength of a newbie, regardless of the reason. I want other players to be
able to play nomic, especially newbies, and they need a relevant amount of
voting strength in order to do so. I want them to matter.

With radiance and Stamps seemingly on their way out, I believe that your
Officer salary problem is part of a larger problem of Agora overall needing
a proper economy again, not a voting strength problem.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Strengths for Proposals 8965-8970

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Holy shit that's a lot of voting power

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 6:52 AM Janet Cobb via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> STRENGTHS FOR PROPOSAL 8965
> ===
>
> Strengths for person G.
> ---
> 3 | Initial
> 5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power
> 7 | Complexity bonus for offices Arbitor
>
> Strengths for person Aspen
> --
> 3 | Initial
> 5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power
>
> Strengths for person 4st
> 
> 3 | Initial
> 5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power
> 7 | Complexity bonus for offices Referee
>
> Strengths for person Janet
> --
>  3 | Initial
>  5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power
>  8 | Increased by 3 due to Power Stone
> 11 | Complexity bonus for offices Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason;
> clamped to 3
>
> Strengths for person Murphy
> ---
> 3 | Initial
> 5 | Complexity bonus for offices ADoP, Tailor
>
> Strengths for person snail
> --
> 3 | Initial
> 6 | Complexity bonus for offices Collector, Dream Keeper, Notary,
> Promotor, Speaker; clamped to 3
>
> Strengths for person omd
> 
> 3 | Initial
>
> Strengths for person nix
> 
> 3 | Initial
> 6 | Complexity bonus for offices Herald, Prime Minister, Webmastor
>
> Strengths for person juan
> -
> 3 | Initial
> 4 | Complexity bonus for offices Registrar
>
> STRENGTHS FOR PROPOSAL 8966
> ===
>
> STRENGTHS FOR PROPOSAL 8967
> ===
>
> Strengths for person G.
> ---
> 3 | Initial
> 5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power
> 7 | Complexity bonus for offices Arbitor
>
> Strengths for person Aspen
> --
> 3 | Initial
> 5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power
>
> Strengths for person 4st
> 
> 3 | Initial
> 5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power
> 7 | Complexity bonus for offices Referee
>
> Strengths for person Janet
> --
>  3 | Initial
>  5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power
>  8 | Increased by 3 due to Power Stone
> 11 | Complexity bonus for offices Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason;
> clamped to 3
>
> Strengths for person Murphy
> ---
> 3 | Initial
> 5 | Complexity bonus for offices ADoP, Tailor
>
> Strengths for person snail
> --
> 3 | Initial
> 6 | Complexity bonus for offices Collector, Dream Keeper, Notary,
> Promotor, Speaker; clamped to 3
>
> Strengths for person omd
> 
> 3 | Initial
>
> Strengths for person nix
> 
> 3 | Initial
> 6 | Complexity bonus for offices Herald, Prime Minister, Webmastor
>
> Strengths for person juan
> -
> 3 | Initial
> 4 | Complexity bonus for offices Registrar
>
> STRENGTHS FOR PROPOSAL 8968
> ===
>
> Strengths for person G.
> ---
> 3 | Initial
> 5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power
> 7 | Complexity bonus for offices Arbitor
>
> Strengths for person Aspen
> --
> 3 | Initial
> 5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power
>
> Strengths for person 4st
> 
> 3 | Initial
> 5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power
> 7 | Complexity bonus for offices Referee
>
> Strengths for person Janet
> --
>  3 | Initial
>  5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power
>  8 | Increased by 3 due to Power Stone
> 11 | Complexity bonus for offices Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason;
> clamped to 3
>
> Strengths for person Murphy
> ---
> 3 | Initial
> 5 | Complexity bonus for offices ADoP, Tailor
>
> Strengths for person snail
> --
> 3 | Initial
> 6 | Complexity bonus for offices Collector, Dream Keeper, Notary,
> Promotor, Speaker; clamped to 3
>
> Strengths for person omd
> 
> 3 | Initial
>
> Strengths for person nix
> 
> 3 | Initial
> 6 | Complexity bonus for offices Herald, Prime Minister, Webmastor
>
> Strengths for person juan
> -
> 3 | Initial
> 4 | Complexity bonus for offices Registrar
>
> STRENGTHS FOR PROPOSAL 8969
> ===
>
> Strengths for person G.
> ---
> 3 | Initial
> 5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power
> 7 | Complexity bonus for offices Arbitor
>
> Strengths for person Aspen
> --
> 3 | Initial
> 5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power
>
> Strengths for person 4st
> 
> 3 | Initial
> 5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power
> 7 | Complexity bonus for offices Referee
>
> Strengths for person Janet
> --
>  3 | Initial
>  5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power
>  8 | Increased by 3 due to Power Stone
> 11 | Complexity bonus for offices Assessor, Rulekeepor, 

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Scamster

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I think this will fail but, I think it could be interesting regardless to
have an unofficial (or official) record of the methods for how each win was
achieved.

On Thursday, May 18, 2023, nix via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/18/23 14:06, Forest Sweeney via agora-official wrote:
>
>> I intend to, with 2 Agoran Consent, award ais523 the patent title of
>> Scamster for their recent 4pocalypse intent. All scams should be awarded!
>>
> I object.
>
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Herald
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BUS (@Rulekeepor) Clean rule 2675

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Just to advertise myself a bit here, these kind of situations is what my
Invocation Proposal is trying to alleviate.

On Thursday, May 18, 2023, nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/18/23 14:06, Beokirby via agora-business wrote:
>
>> I intent to clean Rule 2675 ("Dream Wandering") by replacing " ore " with
>> " or "
>> Sorry for the trouble.
>>
> No trouble at all! The rules will always have some level of learning
> curve, but it's also incumbent on the more experienced players to think
> about when that learning curve is necessary/good for the game, and when
> it's due to traditions/conventions we've developed that maybe we should
> shed. When a new player makes a mistake, it can be just as much a fault of
> the experienced players for making something needlessly difficult.
>
> I do think in this case the required explicitness is helpful. Hiding the
> details of an intent, especially one about rules, can be used for nefarious
> things. So they're held to high standards.
>
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Herald
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Rulekeepor) Clean rule 2675

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I don't think that "re-submission" or "editting" intents are a thing but
the language seems to refer to just one single possible outcome, even if
its not worded precisely.

I want this to be good enough to work, but I'm not sure if CfJs are on my
side on this.

On Thursday, May 18, 2023, beokirby agora via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I re-submit my intent but edited to be replacing " ore " with " or "
>
> -Beokirby
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 2:38 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On 5/18/23 14:36, beokirby agora via agora-business wrote:
> > > I intend to clean Rule 2675 ("Dream of Wandering") by replacing "ore"
> > with
> > > "or"
> > >
> > > -Beokirby
> >
> >
> > I object. There are multiple instances of "ore" in that text (some part
> > of other words), and not all of them should be replaced.
> >
> > --
> > Janet Cobb
> >
> > Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Collector, Dream keeper) Intent to Register to Agora

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Maybe we could use a metaphor or just something similar and illustrative?

"A player may begin to Chant for a particular action (...) When a player
has been Chanting for (...)"

"Chant", "Spellcast" or "Summon"; perhaps. Fantasy-themed things for
'charging up' to do something. Could be any other theme too. Just to open
up more words we could resort to.

On Thursday, May 18, 2023, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> There's a bit of a discussion on Discord right now, that "intend" (or
> synonyms like "plan") have an implication of "doing in future, not
> now" in many contexts, which adds to the confusion for registration -
> and has specifically called out in the past in terms of "consent now"
> versus "consent later". A verb like "desire" as in "desires to become
> a player at that time" might work better as it better indicates "wants
> to/consents to right now".
>
> -G.
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 11:33 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hm. We should probably use different words for registration "intents" and
> > tabled "intents".
> >
> > In fact, I think it could be good to keyword things in the ruleset, sort
> of
> > like how MTG and plenty of other games do it, like; [Lifesteal] or
> [Flash].
> > I believe we already have something like it in "Mother, May I?", but
> > perhaps it could be productive to expand it to the ruleset's terms in
> > general. Like that, it's much more obvious that it's some agora-specific
> > language for a certain mechanic and it doesn't mean what it reads on the
> > tin.
> >
> > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 8:22 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
> > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 11:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > > > hehe we can still fool old players sometimes - "intend" has a
> > > > "specific meaning" for registration as well as for other contexts, so
> > > > beokirby registered exactly as per the rules:
> > > >
> > > > >  An Unregistered person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or
> > > > >  prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that
> > > > >  indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously
> that e
> > > > >  intends to become a player at that time.
> > >
> > > It's still worth warning the new players, though, because "intend"
> > > wording works for registration, and (for a different reason) for the
> > > first step in taking a tabled action, but doesn't work for anything
> > > else.
> > >
> > > IIRC the reason it works for registration is partly that new players
> > > kept getting it wrong, and partly because we wanted to change the
> > > registration rules to have an entire new set of "did my registration
> > > work?" CFJs. That change was ages ago now, though, so I might be
> > > misremembering the details.
> > >
> > > --
> > > ais523
> > >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Collector, Dream keeper) Intent to Register to Agora

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Hm. We should probably use different words for registration "intents" and
tabled "intents".

In fact, I think it could be good to keyword things in the ruleset, sort of
like how MTG and plenty of other games do it, like; [Lifesteal] or [Flash].
I believe we already have something like it in "Mother, May I?", but
perhaps it could be productive to expand it to the ruleset's terms in
general. Like that, it's much more obvious that it's some agora-specific
language for a certain mechanic and it doesn't mean what it reads on the
tin.

On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 8:22 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 11:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> > hehe we can still fool old players sometimes - "intend" has a
> > "specific meaning" for registration as well as for other contexts, so
> > beokirby registered exactly as per the rules:
> >
> > >  An Unregistered person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or
> > >  prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that
> > >  indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e
> > >  intends to become a player at that time.
>
> It's still worth warning the new players, though, because "intend"
> wording works for registration, and (for a different reason) for the
> first step in taking a tabled action, but doesn't work for anything
> else.
>
> IIRC the reason it works for registration is partly that new players
> kept getting it wrong, and partly because we wanted to change the
> registration rules to have an entire new set of "did my registration
> work?" CFJs. That change was ages ago now, though, so I might be
> misremembering the details.
>
> --
> ais523
>

DIS: Wow, so many new players

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Where are all of you coming from?

DIS: Re: [CFJ] Re: (@Collector, Herald) BUS: The Never-Ending Dance

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I speculate that some (contrived) interpretations might've become custom
because of a vested interest for it to be so. "I'll win the game just if I
convince enough people that this is the interpretation that we should all
go by!". And with enough time, a contrived interpretation becomes game
custom.

I don't think this is one of these cases.

As mentioned, the protagonist is this clause: "When a ritual act is
performed, any player CAN, within 7 days, by announcement anoint a ritual
number, specifying the ritual act and the new ritual number. The anointed
ritual number must be 0 or not more than 1 greater than the greatest
previously anointed ritual number."

As I understand it, from what I assume to be a layman reading:
- After a ritual act happens, there's a 7 day margin of time.
- Within that 7 day margin, you CAN anoint by announcement by specifying a
few variables.
- These variables have restrictions.

Of course, it could've been the intent for it to be otherwise, but if I
were to read that clause in a vacuum, without knowing the larger context of
the game that it's in, my first assumption would be that you can just
anoint as much as you want *as long as* you fulfill the restrictions on
anointed ritual numbers.

It just so happens that fulfilling that restriction is incredibly easy.

I do feel a gut reaction towards trying to foil scams, "there has to be
something wrong", "a win shouldn't come this easy"; but - being honest with
myself is more important to me than that. I don't know about what other
rules or insights might come to screw with the scam, but ais'
interpretation of this protagonist clause, and what I read to be Agoran
custom, seems to line up with how I believe (and now realize) it should be
read.

On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 1:36 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 4:14 PM nix via agora-business wrote:
> > I CFJ on the following statement: "Per Rule 2680, a player can anoint a
> > ritual number multiple times for a single instance of a ritual act."
> >
> > Gratuitous thoughts:
> >
> > To me, the intuitive reading of "When [event] happens, a player CAN
> > [verb]" is that a player can do the verb one time per event. This is the
> > way I would mean this is plain speech, and it's the way the rules of
> > pretty much any board game are written. "When [event] happens, draw a
> > card" doesn't usually mean you can draw more than one card. Nothing in
> > the rules (that I see) seems to suggest any reason that Agora would
> > interpret this differently than plain speech or analogous situations in
> > other games.
> >
> > --
> > nix
> > Prime Minister, Herald
> >
>
> Gratuitous:
>
> In any board game, if a rule said "When you place your meeple, you can
> draw a card", I don't think any board game group in the world would
> interpret it as meaning you can empty the deck.  I wholly agree that
> the "whole deck" interpretation is Agoran current custom and that,
> barring minor technical issues, this win was obtained totally fairly
> under that assumption.  But I sure am interested in how the assumption
> came to be - so I might ask the judge to look into details or first
> principles if e's willing to pursue it a bit, instead of just saying
> "it's our common custom" (which is a totally fair reason to uphold the
> win).
>
> For example, tabled actions are written continuously - a player can
> perform the tabled action "if e is [currently] a sponsor" of an
> appropriate intent.  Some of the "multiple wins from one trigger"
> successes were based on Apathy intents.  If the precedent was written
> originally for the tabled action case, and depended on the continuity
> of the condition, it might have been an error to extend it to "When X
> happens, a player CAN Y" language.
>

Re: DIS: [proto] Judicial overhaul

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Hm. If we're trying to go the other way and make it as quick as possible,
we could have the Arbitor's weekly report include a randomly selected
"Dredd" Judge for that week (with some Dredds on the bench if the current
Dredd themselves is being accused) that can simultaneously once a crime is
noted: post a proper investigation, assign judgement and penalize
immediately; with a window for appeals open afterwards that is able to undo
whatever penalty was initially applied.

It's probably not the best solution, but it would cut it down from 5 weeks
to 1 week + 1 to possibly appeal.

On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 2:18 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 2:59 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> >
> > A proto to revive the criminal court, revive the appellate court (but
> > only for criminal cases), and fix investigators' obligations with
> > respect to alleged infractions:
>
> So, for a full criminal trial resulting in Blots, in this draft I
> count 5 "timely fashion" delays: 1 for Referee to respond to a Note
> with a CFJ, 1 for Arbitor to assign the CFJ, 1 for judgement time, 1
> (fixed full week) for the judgement to be in effect to allow for
> appeals, and 1 for the Arbitor to execute the penalty.  Did I get that
> right?  And that's before any appeals, extensions, motions - wow.  If
> this were a real world life-changing criminal matter, absolutely - the
> wheels of justice should grind slowly.  But is that what we want here?
>  As a defendant, I might take a plea deal and ask the referee for
> "guilty via investigation" no matter what I thought, just so I could
> pay off the fine and not have it suddenly appear weeks later.
>
> The timeline can probably be condensed a bit, but more generally, I
> was not a huge fan of the earlier Criminal Court (I was not Arbitor
> until after it was repealed, so this is an "as a general player at the
> time" opinion, at least as much as possible from this distance).  It
> tended to drag out resolution through a cumbersome criminal trial,
> which tended to exacerbate/prolong tensions long after most people had
> stopped caring and wanted to move on.  It might be fun to roleplay a
> criminal trial on occasion, but that was outweighed by the fact that
> it generally left people at odds with each other (genuinely bristling
> at each other) longer than need be.  Even if the referee is a first
> filter as in this draft, such that most cases don't go to trial, it's
> an awful lot of rules complication/length for something that happens
> relatively rarely?
>
> I think I'd want to have a better discussion of what we are actually
> trying to achieve by criminal penalties that involve full trials (if
> the achievement is "it's fun to try some criminal procedure in our
> game" that's fine, but it's worthy of getting on the same page about).
> In particular, one lack of the current system in my mind is no
> effective way to prevent immediate "cheating to win" - but this draft
> exacerbates that issue, as a defendant has a much longer time window
> without blots to win while the trial is unfolding.
>
> I absolutely think, following the recent discussion, that we need to
> let the investigator "pause" an investigation to defer to CFJ, or
> otherwise procedurally make the pieces work more smoothly.  And it
> would be nice to bring Apologies back, for when the sentencing is
> finished.  And better address "illegal" wins.  But the current CFJ
> (inquiry case) model feels like it gets to the bottom of the
> controversy fairly quickly; at least, it did for the instances of the
> past week that have been resolved, with the only real issue being the
> investigator's weird timing issues.  Does some version of a full trial
> and appeals system get us there in a better way, do you think?
>
> -G.
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4028 Assigned to G., Judged FALSE

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

The "investigator", "investigation" names are pretty misleading. Maybe it
could be reworded to something like "umpire", "assignation", etc?

I might draft something later

On Sunday, May 14, 2023, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/13/23 15:47, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-05-12 18:51]:
> >> In Agora, the rules are clear. The clock starts running when the
> >> infraction actually occurred, not when it was discovered or reasonably
> >> could have been discovered.
> > I'd argue this is a problem. If the investigation is to determine if
> there
> > was an infraction, we couldn't possibly start counting from “when the
> > infraction actually occurred”. We should instead count it from the
> > moment the *alledged* infraction occurred.
> >
> > If there is doubt whether there was an infraction, a CFJ must be called
> > and the deadline should be postponed (i.e., the Investigator can resolve
> > the pointed infraction by deferring to a CFJ).
> >
> > There's some serious issues with Rule 2478.
>
>
> An investigation explicitly does not involve determining whether an
> infraction occurred. Only an actual, non-forgiven infraction can be
> investigated.
>
> Rule 2478 functions, though it does result in there being no duty for an
> investigator to respond to a purported noting of a non-infraction.
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8972-8979

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

It's helpful for me, as a player, who is particularly invested in Proposals.

On Saturday, May 13, 2023, juan via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> secretsnail9 via agora-official [2023-05-13 05:07]:
> > PROMOTOR'S REPORT AS OF RIGHT NOW
>
> I vote as follows.
>
> > 8972*   Janet   3.0   Yes we are EFFECTIVE!
> PRESENT
>
> > 8973~   Janet   1.0   Not so welcome anymore
> FOR
>
> > 8974~   Janet   1.0   Plan B
> AGAINST
>
> > 8975*   Janet   3.0   De-regulating
> FOR
>
> > 8976*   Janet   3.0   Ruleset convergance
> FOR
>
> > 8977~   snail   2.0   Expedited Proposals
> PRESENT
>
> > 8978*   Janet   3.0   Authorized initiation
> FOR
>
> > 8979~   Yachay  1.0   Rationalized Impartial
> Commencement Equality
> PRESENT
>
> I also petition the Promotor to explain how filling the spreadsheet is
> helpful for eir duties.
>
> --
> juan
>

DIS: Re: (@Arbitor) BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4026 Assigned to ais523

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Actually, Arbitor willing, you could pass this problem to me if you'd like.
Because atm, I don't fear the SHOULDN'Ts and whatnot and I'll barge through
crimes in order to give a Judgement that I feel is right.

On Saturday, May 13, 2023, ais523 via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 2023-05-08 at 09:54 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote:
> > The below CFJ is 4026.  I assign it to ais523.
> >
> > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4026
> >
> > ===  CFJ 4026
> ===
> >
> >   In Rule 2125, the phrase 'The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as
> >   to proscribe unregulated actions' proscribes unregulated actions.
> >
> > 
> ==
>
> Here's an excerpt from a proposal (8867) that was adopted recently:
>
> > [
> > The goal of this is to expand on our banning system and implement some
> > clearly defined values into the rules of Agora. This comprises two main
> > changes.
> >
> > The first removes the "free speech" clause from R478 and replaces it
> > with a bill of expectations that largely seek to maximize participation
> > while recognizing ways in which that might reasonably be abridged.
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > Amend R478 by deleting the following text:
> >
> > Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of
> > any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player
> shall
> > be prohibited from participating in the Fora
> [snip]
>
> The resulting rule change broke a long-standing protection that
> prevented the rules accidentally making it ILLEGAL to participate in
> gameplay generally (see CFJ 1738). This has a chilling effect on
> various forms of participation in Agora as a whole: this CFJ is asking
> me to interpret the rules, but if I discover that the statement of the
> CFJ is TRUE, that in turn means that I SHALL NOT give that verdict.
> Additionally, I can't even work out whether the statement of the CFJ is
> true or not without attempting to interpret the rules, something which
> might turn out to be illegal (and for which I can't know, before
> attempting it, whether it's illegal or not).
>
> Normally, when judging a CFJ whose statement has been posed
> incorrectly, I provide arguments to let people know the truth or
> otherwise of the statement that they probably meant to ask. However,
> with the protections that would normally be provided to me repealed, I
> do not wish to attempt that in this case. Instead, I will simply note
> that the caller has asked the wrong question: this is a question of
> interpretation, and various parts of the ruleset affect the meaning of
> various other parts of the ruleset. It isn't relevant to the game
> whether a hypothetical action might or might not breach a *particular*
> rule if, e.g., the same action is permitted by a different rule.
>
> When trying to judge this CFJ, I got as far as "OK, there's a
> distinction between 'the rules proscribe this action' and 'rule 2125
> proscribes this action' – does that matter here", looked at the other
> rules that might matter, discovered that one of them had had the
> relevant sentence fragment repealed, and realised I was on dangerous
> ground even attempting to understand the rule to the extent that I
> could judge, so I stopped. I did, however, realise that it doesn't
> matter whether or not rule 2125 bans an action if the same action is
> permitted by a rule that outprecedences it (and that there are some
> rules that might, e.g. the last paragraph of rule 217). So the relevant
> question here is whether the *Rules as a whole* are proscribing
> unreglated actions. This is not the question that the caller asked.
>
> I judge CFJ 4026 IRRELEVANT. I note that there's no point in calling a
> corrected CFJ under the current ruleset: rule 591 doesn't actually
> require CFJ judges to give appropriate rulings to judgements, and rule
> 2125 could easily make it illegal to judge a corrected CFJ as TRUE
> (judging a CFJ is a regulated action, thus a prohibition on proscribing
> unregulated actions wouldn't affect that), so if the judge of the
> resulting CFJ wanted to ensure e was following the rules, eir safest
> course of action would be to judge it FALSE without actually attempting
> to interpret the rules in question – and as such, the CFJ verdict would
> not be of any use in resolving the controversy.
>
> We should probably amend rule 2125 to have the wording that was
> probably intended (something along the lines of "the correct
> interpretation of the rules is one that does not proscribe unregulated
> actions") and/or to reinstate a protection against the rules
> accidentally making it illegal to, e.g., honestly judge a CFJ. Then it
> would be possible for judges to attempt to determine what the rule in
> question meant without risking a rules violation in the process.
>
> --
> ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4028 Assigned to G., Judged FALSE

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Ah, alright

On Friday, May 12, 2023, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> Oh sure - no worries if that’s the only thing - I was giving my logic so it
> didn’t come across as arbitrary, but didn’t mean to imply it was anything
> but my best (conjectural) guess at this time.
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 9:51 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > Easy, you could state that you're basing yourself off mere conjecture and
> > that's the best you can do for now rather than using using language that
> > states your position as a matter of fact.
> >
> > On Friday, May 12, 2023, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
> > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 8:59 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to mention that I don't feel like you're exercising the
> > "highest
> > > > reasonably possible standard of care" if your basis for if the crime
> > has
> > > > been committed or not is that it doesn't match the arcana, unless you
> > > prove
> > > > first that the arcana has survived and still has legal effect to this
> > > day.
> > > > Or at least, give it a shot to convince people about it, because it
> > seems
> > > > clear to me that the arcana's survival and legal power is just
> > > speculation
> > > > at the moment.
> > >
> > > I can still perform the investigation if a crime exists, so I'm not
> > > closing out any arguments whatsoever.  This "care" only matters if I
> > > don't get a CFJ answer in time, and the CFJ finds "crime" after the
> > > "Favoritism" deadline passes a week from now.
> > >
> > > So a question to you: if an investigator, with good and honest intent
> > > doesn't believe that a crime has been committed, and the 1-week
> > > Favoritism deadline for the investigation is approaching with the CFJ
> > > unresolved, how exactly do you think I (or anyone) should exert care
> > > in that circumstance, to avoid the charge of Favoritism?  What
> > > can/should any investigator do to follow their belief with integrity
> > > while at the same time not committing a crime of late investigation?
> > >
> > > This is not a question unique to this crime - it applies to any
> > > alleged infraction where the investigator has a reasonably legit
> > > reason to believe "no crime" but there's still some controversy over
> > > it and a cfj is raised.  I believe that (within the 1-week deadline)
> > > the investigator stating eir belief (and arguments for that belief)
> > > provides evidence of a level of care, and that it's unavoidable to do
> > > otherwise due to eir conscience.  Otherwise they'd have to act against
> > > their belief and conscience in a criminal matter *just in case* it was
> > > a crime, which isn't a reasonable request.  How (in your opinion)
> > > should the investigator go about it, when the investigation might only
> > > exist (in essence) retroactively and a CFJ answer is late in coming?
> > >
> > > -G.
> > >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4028 Assigned to G., Judged FALSE

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Easy, you could state that you're basing yourself off mere conjecture and
that's the best you can do for now rather than using using language that
states your position as a matter of fact.

On Friday, May 12, 2023, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 8:59 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to mention that I don't feel like you're exercising the "highest
> > reasonably possible standard of care" if your basis for if the crime has
> > been committed or not is that it doesn't match the arcana, unless you
> prove
> > first that the arcana has survived and still has legal effect to this
> day.
> > Or at least, give it a shot to convince people about it, because it seems
> > clear to me that the arcana's survival and legal power is just
> speculation
> > at the moment.
>
> I can still perform the investigation if a crime exists, so I'm not
> closing out any arguments whatsoever.  This "care" only matters if I
> don't get a CFJ answer in time, and the CFJ finds "crime" after the
> "Favoritism" deadline passes a week from now.
>
> So a question to you: if an investigator, with good and honest intent
> doesn't believe that a crime has been committed, and the 1-week
> Favoritism deadline for the investigation is approaching with the CFJ
> unresolved, how exactly do you think I (or anyone) should exert care
> in that circumstance, to avoid the charge of Favoritism?  What
> can/should any investigator do to follow their belief with integrity
> while at the same time not committing a crime of late investigation?
>
> This is not a question unique to this crime - it applies to any
> alleged infraction where the investigator has a reasonably legit
> reason to believe "no crime" but there's still some controversy over
> it and a cfj is raised.  I believe that (within the 1-week deadline)
> the investigator stating eir belief (and arguments for that belief)
> provides evidence of a level of care, and that it's unavoidable to do
> otherwise due to eir conscience.  Otherwise they'd have to act against
> their belief and conscience in a criminal matter *just in case* it was
> a crime, which isn't a reasonable request.  How (in your opinion)
> should the investigator go about it, when the investigation might only
> exist (in essence) retroactively and a CFJ answer is late in coming?
>
> -G.
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4028 Assigned to G., Judged FALSE

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I'd like to mention that I don't feel like you're exercising the "highest
reasonably possible standard of care" if your basis for if the crime has
been committed or not is that it doesn't match the arcana, unless you prove
first that the arcana has survived and still has legal effect to this day.
Or at least, give it a shot to convince people about it, because it seems
clear to me that the arcana's survival and legal power is just speculation
at the moment.

On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 5:27 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 7:58 AM nix via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
> >
> > On 5/12/23 08:24, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote:
> > > Sure,
> > >
> > > I note the infraction of Invisibilitating performed by 4st for
> jaywalking
> > > without a license, compounded by having dangerous levels of swagger.
> > >
> > > I CfJ: "There was an infraction noted in this message."
> > AFAICT Invisibilitating, if it does anything, only impacts anyone who
> > writes an adopted proposal that alters gamestate without tracking it.
> > Not sure if anyone has done so in recent memory.
> >
> > Also not sure it does anything at all, since the resolution uses a
> > lowercase "shall" that would not necessarily be interpreted the same way
> > as the uppercase under the modern MMI rules.
>
> Pseudo-investigation:  Since investigation is weirdly platonic (the
> investigation doesn't exist if there was no infraction), I'm just
> noting publicly that, as the *alleged* investigator, I agree with nix
> that the cited behavior neither fits the ancient description of the
> crime, nor does it fit any crime definition that I could infer for
> invisibilitating outside of that ancient text, so I'm (informally,
> with no legal effect[0]) stating 'not guilty' at this time.
>
> I submit my "investigation" above, as well as the below-linked note,
> as gratuitous arguments for the CFJ:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg44780.html
>
> [0] This may have one legal effect - should this turn out to be a
> crime anyway, it's reasonably plausible that I'm exercising the
> "highest reasonably possible standard of care" by not investigating it
> in a timely fashion and making the above statement.
>
> -G.
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] now you don't see it

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Having such an unwieldy amount of arcana puts a lot of power in being able
to give out 'hedonistic' Judgements; ones that are heavily based on "well
this is best for the game"/"this makes it playable"/etc, especially ones
that have to be that way because of ambiguity. Because we don't know for
sure everything that has even happened until now, and even then, we're
likely to have more disagreements the more arcana that we have to consider
in order to compute the current gamestate.

It's probably not so bad then, because the longer back you go, the harder
it is to be sure of it, and the easier it seems that a hedonistic Judgement
will just overwrite it.

On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 4:47 PM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/12/23 06:59, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote:
> > - Why would we make a special case just for Invisibilitating
> specifically?
> > What about other ancient things that may affect how other*current*
> things
> > of the game work too?
>
> There might be. There's nothing that prevents us from looking back, nor
> any game custom that says not to. In fact it's encouraged. Less of a
> look-back, but see also Janet recently noticing various proposal issues
> from the last two years. We try to curb these things by having stuff
> ratify, but it doesn't catch everything (and blindly ratify everything
> has its own drawbacks).
>
> > - Are we even sure that the secret Invisibilitating instrument still
> exists
> > or works as intended?
>
> Probably not.
>
> > - It takes agency away from newer players and puts more into older ones
> > which are more familiar with this obscure ancient arcana which has now
> > supposedly been made relevant, which feels terrible.
>
> It's a game with a continuous 30 year history, the history is going to
> impact that game and having more experience and knowledge about a thing
> will give you advantage on the thing. There wasn't some explicit goal of
> hurting new players. G. rediscovered some old arcana (which anyone could
> do if they wanted to look through old archives, it's how I know anything
> from before my time), and wanted to toy around with it. To my knowledge
> it's not deeper than that.
>
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Herald
>
>

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8960-8964

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

What is "Invisibilitating"?

I feel like I'm being left out of something here.

On Friday, May 12, 2023, Janet Cobb via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8960-8964
> =
>
> IDTitle  Result
> -
> 8960  Ritual disambiguation  ADOPTED
> 8961  now you don't see it   ADOPTED
> 8962  Please behave, Prime Minister  REJECTED
> 8963  hats   REJECTED
> 8964  Minty StoneADOPTED
>
> I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals.
>
> The quorum for all below decisions was 5.
>
> VOTING STRENGTHS
> 
>
> Strength is 3 unless otherwise noted.
> #: player has voting strength 3
> $: player has voting strength 4
> %: player has voting strength 5
> ^: player has voting strength 6
> &: player has voting strength 7
> *: player has voting strength 8
> +: player has voting strength 9
>
> PROPOSALS
> =
>
> PROPOSAL 8960 (Ritual disambiguation)
> AUTHOR: ais523
> CLASS: ORDINARY
> FOR (6): G.&, Janet+, Yachay Wayllukuq, ais523, nix%, snail^
> AGAINST (0):
> PRESENT (1): Murphy%
> BALLOTS: 7
> AI (F/A): 33/0 (AI=1.0)
> POPULARITY: 0.857
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
>
> PROPOSAL 8961 (now you don't see it)
> AUTHOR: G.
> CLASS: ORDINARY
> FOR (5): 4st*, G.&, Janet+, Murphy%, nix%
> AGAINST (3): Yachay Wayllukuq, ais523, snail^
> PRESENT (0):
> BALLOTS: 8
> AI (F/A): 34/12 (AI=1.0)
> POPULARITY: 0.250
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
> [
> Janet: Endorsement of G.
> ]
>
> PROPOSAL 8962 (Please behave, Prime Minister)
> AUTHOR: Yachay Wayllukuq
> CLASS: ORDINARY
> FOR (3): 4st*, G.&, Yachay Wayllukuq
> AGAINST (5): Janet+, Murphy%, ais523, nix%, snail^
> PRESENT (0):
> BALLOTS: 8
> AI (F/A): 18/28 (AI=1.0)
> POPULARITY: -0.250
> OUTCOME: REJECTED
> [
> G.: Conditional resolved: Yachay Wayllukuq has changed all of eir votes on
> this distribution to unconditional votes
> ]
>
> PROPOSAL 8963 (hats)
> AUTHOR: 4st
> CLASS: ORDINARY
> FOR (4): 4st*, G.&, Murphy%, Yachay Wayllukuq
> AGAINST (4): Janet+, ais523, nix%, snail^
> PRESENT (0):
> BALLOTS: 8
> AI (F/A): 23/23 (AI=1.0)
> POPULARITY: 0.000
> OUTCOME: REJECTED
>
> PROPOSAL 8964 (Minty Stone)
> AUTHOR: snail
> CLASS: ORDINARY
> FOR (7): G.&, Janet+, Murphy%, Yachay Wayllukuq, ais523, nix%, snail^
> AGAINST (1): 4st*
> PRESENT (0):
> BALLOTS: 8
> AI (F/A): 38/8 (AI=2.0)
> POPULARITY: 0.750
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
> [
> Janet: Endorsement of nix
> ais523: Conditional resolved: snail voted unconditionally FOR on P8960
> ]
>
> The full text of each ADOPTED proposal is included below:
>
> //
> ID: 8960
> Title: Ritual disambiguation
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: ais523
> Co-authors:
>
>
> In rule 2680, amend
> {{{
>   When a positive integral multiple of 41 is anointed as a ritual
>   number for the first time, the person who does so CAN, by
>   announcement, Raise the First Speaker in a powerful dance around
>   the Town Fountain. Doing so causes each player qualifying under
>   this Rule to gain 1 radiance.
> }}}
> to
> {{{
>   For each positive integral multiple of 41, when that number is
>   anointed as a ritual number for the first time, the person who
>   does so CAN, by announcement, Raise the First Speaker in a
>   powerful dance around the Town Fountain. Doing so causes each
>   player qualifying under this Rule to gain 1 radiance.
> }}}
>
> //
> ID: 8961
> Title: now you don't see it
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: G.
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Re-enact Rule 2056 (Invisibilitating) with the following text:
>
>   Invisibilitating is a Class 1 infraction.
>
>
> [
> Rule 2056 history (confirmed by checking archives):
>
> Enacted (Power=1) by Proposal 4513 "Invisibilitating" (Steve), 10 July
> 2003.
> Repealed by Proposal 4759 "Olive Repeals" (Manu, Sherlock), 15 May 2005.
> ]
>
> //
> ID: 8964
> Title: Minty Stone
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: snail
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 2645 (The Stones) by replacing
>
> {{
>   - Jockey Stone (monthly, 3): When wielded, a specified Running
> horse's Race Position is increased by 1.
> }}
> with
> {{
>   - Minty Stone (weekly, 4): When wielded, a specified Player gains a
> stamp of eir own type.
> }}
>
> //
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

* was never added in the first place because it would ossify the game.

On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 1:08 AM Yachay Wayllukuq 
wrote:

> Yep, pretty much; although that could also mean that the clause "*Any*
> ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be
> void and without effect." was never actually added in the first
> place, because that's another interpretation that keeps the game
> playable, just deferring to a different standard of what "ambiguity"
> should be.
>
> It's kind of hilarious how ambiguity itself, for Agora, is ambiguous.
>
> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 1:00 AM ais523 via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2023-05-11 at 00:55 +0200, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
>> wrote:
>> > Sorry, I meant practical for the purposes of applying  "*Any* ambiguity
>> in
>> > the specification of a rule change causes that change to be void and
>> > without effect."
>> >
>> > Of course, this compromise-based definition of how ambiguous something
>> > needs to be in order to be ambiguous for Agora can change and vary and
>> I'm
>> > not entirely sure what that definition is supposed to be right now, but
>> I
>> > do feel like it's very likely to fall into one that I don't agree with
>> > personally but that I have no problem playing along with, because it's
>> all
>> > compromise anyways.
>>
>> We have a rule about how to interpret the rules (rule 217); we need to
>> rely on that when determining what the "any ambiguity in the
>> specification of a rule change…" rule means. I agree that "any" has a
>> clear meaning, but "ambiguity" doesn't – and the rule 217 tests make it
>> clear that it should be interpreted in a way that makes the game
>> playable.
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Yep, pretty much; although that could also mean that the clause "*Any*
ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be
void and without effect." was never actually added in the first
place, because that's another interpretation that keeps the game
playable, just deferring to a different standard of what "ambiguity"
should be.

It's kind of hilarious how ambiguity itself, for Agora, is ambiguous.

On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 1:00 AM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 2023-05-11 at 00:55 +0200, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > Sorry, I meant practical for the purposes of applying  "*Any* ambiguity
> in
> > the specification of a rule change causes that change to be void and
> > without effect."
> >
> > Of course, this compromise-based definition of how ambiguous something
> > needs to be in order to be ambiguous for Agora can change and vary and
> I'm
> > not entirely sure what that definition is supposed to be right now, but I
> > do feel like it's very likely to fall into one that I don't agree with
> > personally but that I have no problem playing along with, because it's
> all
> > compromise anyways.
>
> We have a rule about how to interpret the rules (rule 217); we need to
> rely on that when determining what the "any ambiguity in the
> specification of a rule change…" rule means. I agree that "any" has a
> clear meaning, but "ambiguity" doesn't – and the rule 217 tests make it
> clear that it should be interpreted in a way that makes the game
> playable.
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Sorry, I meant practical for the purposes of applying  "*Any* ambiguity in
the specification of a rule change causes that change to be void and
without effect."

Of course, this compromise-based definition of how ambiguous something
needs to be in order to be ambiguous for Agora can change and vary and I'm
not entirely sure what that definition is supposed to be right now, but I
do feel like it's very likely to fall into one that I don't agree with
personally but that I have no problem playing along with, because it's all
compromise anyways.

On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 12:49 AM Yachay Wayllukuq 
wrote:

> And that's the compromise that Agora assumes for what ambiguity is, and
> that's fine with me. It's just that, if we take "ambiguity" by a
> sufficiently strict definition, everything technically ends up having some
> iota of ambiguity; which isn't very practical for a game.
>
> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 12:38 AM ais523 via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 22:04 +0200, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
>> wrote:
>> > I'd really just need to prove once that one singular point in the
>> mechanism
>> > is ambiguous, to any degree, to add "any ambiguity". It would help to
>> > define "ambiguous" as "capable of being understood in two or more
>> possible
>> > senses or ways".
>>
>> The unambiguity requirement is very narrow – it doesn't stop rule
>> changes on ambiguities in general, the ambiguity has to specifically be
>> an ambiguity in the way that the rule change is specified. That only
>> gives a very narrow area in which an ambiguity might occur, and most
>> rule changes are specified unambiguously by giving the old and new
>> text.
>>
>> The only situation I can remember where it was contentious as to
>> whether a rule change was specified ambiguously was proposal 8644 (see
>> <https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3950> for a
>> description of what happened). In that case, a judge found that the
>> specification was not in fact ambiguous. The vast majority of rule
>> changes are specified considerably less ambiguously than that.
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

And that's the compromise that Agora assumes for what ambiguity is, and
that's fine with me. It's just that, if we take "ambiguity" by a
sufficiently strict definition, everything technically ends up having some
iota of ambiguity; which isn't very practical for a game.

On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 12:38 AM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 22:04 +0200, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > I'd really just need to prove once that one singular point in the
> mechanism
> > is ambiguous, to any degree, to add "any ambiguity". It would help to
> > define "ambiguous" as "capable of being understood in two or more
> possible
> > senses or ways".
>
> The unambiguity requirement is very narrow – it doesn't stop rule
> changes on ambiguities in general, the ambiguity has to specifically be
> an ambiguity in the way that the rule change is specified. That only
> gives a very narrow area in which an ambiguity might occur, and most
> rule changes are specified unambiguously by giving the old and new
> text.
>
> The only situation I can remember where it was contentious as to
> whether a rule change was specified ambiguously was proposal 8644 (see
> <https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3950> for a
> description of what happened). In that case, a judge found that the
> specification was not in fact ambiguous. The vast majority of rule
> changes are specified considerably less ambiguously than that.
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

My argument can be applied to specific parts of the gamestate too. I'll
formulate it in a different way.

Be a "Janet Surprise" a moment like recently where we were blindsided by an
insightful player who found that we were actually wrong about what we
thought a specific part of the gamestate to be, we don't know if other
Janet Surprises exist.

I believe that we're pretty aware of our ignorance in regards to this.
Since we're ignorant to knowing what yet-unknown, surprising things might
entirely change our perception about some specific aspect of the game, that
is, what other "Janet Surprises" might surprise us in the future, the
possibility that that specific aspect of the game *could* be interpreted in
a different way always exists. We're just not omniscient. Since there
always is the possibility that that specific aspect of the game could be
interpreted in a different way,  the definition of what something needs to
be in order to be qualified as "ambiguous" is always fulfilled. So, that
(or any) specific aspect of the game is always ambiguous.

Of course, this isn't what I'd expect Agora to abide by. I'd much rather if
Agora didn't.


On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 12:04 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/10/23 16:42, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> > I extremely doubt that your perception isn't flawed for Plato's Cave
> > reasons, but I think you might mean as perception "the information you
> have
> > currently recorded through your senses/thought/etc"? I meant perception
> as
> > the mechanisms by the which you obtain that information, not the
> > information obtained itself.
> >
> > I also think that certainty is required for unambiguity. If you admit
> that
> > you're not certain, you're admitting that the game is *capable* of being
> > understood in some other way; which falls right into the requirement for
> > ambiguity.
> >
> > Of course, you could feel like you're absolutely certain, but be wrong
> > anyways.
>
>
> The R105 standard is about ambiguity in the specification of rule
> changes, not ambiguity in the gamestate as a whole.
>
> And, even if we are wrong about the rules or the gamestate, a rule
> change can be unambiguous. For instance, consider the recalculation of
> R2139 after P8423 [13]. P8423 removed a different paragraph than
> everyone thought it did, but the change itself is not at all ambiguous.
> It did what it said on the tin.
>
> [13]:
>
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2020-June/013796.html
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I extremely doubt that your perception isn't flawed for Plato's Cave
reasons, but I think you might mean as perception "the information you have
currently recorded through your senses/thought/etc"? I meant perception as
the mechanisms by the which you obtain that information, not the
information obtained itself.

I also think that certainty is required for unambiguity. If you admit that
you're not certain, you're admitting that the game is *capable* of being
understood in some other way; which falls right into the requirement for
ambiguity.

Of course, you could feel like you're absolutely certain, but be wrong
anyways.

On Wednesday, May 10, 2023, nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/10/23 15:04, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
>
>> I'd really just need to prove once that one singular point in the
>> mechanism
>> is ambiguous, to any degree, to add "any ambiguity". It would help to
>> define "ambiguous" as "capable of being understood in two or more possible
>> senses or ways".
>>
>
> This is already what ambiguous means. I don't understand what you seem to
> think it means if not "two or more possible interpretations."
>
>
>> I'll attempt to prove this based on the flaws of our perception (although
>> I
>> could keep bringing up more and more and I'd only need*one*  to qualify):
>> We can only perceive the game through our subjective perception, as
>> Janet's
>> announcement easily outlines. There might be things that we don't know
>> about.
>>
>> Since we don't ever know (and can't ever know) if we're entirely right
>> about if the gamepieces, including the ruleset, are what we think they
>> are;
>> because we're not omniscient or something, there's always some doubt that
>> the game could mean something else. Therefore enabling that the game is
>> "capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways"
>> because of that permanent uncertainty that we can't get rid of.
>>
>> The entire game*might*  be some other way, but we just don't know for sure
>> if it is or not, making the entire game ambiguous to us to some degree.
>>
> Just because I could have a flawed perception doesn't mean my perception
> *is* flawed. Even if it did, that's a question of doubt and certainty, not
> of ambiguity. Me being subjectively uncertain something is true doesn't
> mean there's objectively another interpretation.
>
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Herald
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I'd really just need to prove once that one singular point in the mechanism
is ambiguous, to any degree, to add "any ambiguity". It would help to
define "ambiguous" as "capable of being understood in two or more possible
senses or ways".

I'll attempt to prove this based on the flaws of our perception (although I
could keep bringing up more and more and I'd only need *one* to qualify):
We can only perceive the game through our subjective perception, as Janet's
announcement easily outlines. There might be things that we don't know
about.

Since we don't ever know (and can't ever know) if we're entirely right
about if the gamepieces, including the ruleset, are what we think they are;
because we're not omniscient or something, there's always some doubt that
the game could mean something else. Therefore enabling that the game is
"capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways"
because of that permanent uncertainty that we can't get rid of.

The entire game *might* be some other way, but we just don't know for sure
if it is or not, making the entire game ambiguous to us to some degree.

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 9:28 PM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/10/23 14:26, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> > "Any at all full stop" ambiguity is a whole lot of ambiguity, is my
> point.
> > It's incredibly easy for anything to gain any iota of ambiguity. But,
> yes,
> > I believe that we don't interpret it that way, rather, the ambiguity
> needs
> > to be "reasonable", but then the discussion becomes what*is*  reasonable
> > ambiguity? It's subjective and it depends on what the group deciding it
> > (Agora itself) feels like it should be.
> I'm still going to (politely) push back on this. It seems like your base
> assumption is everything is ambiguous, and we would need to prove it's
> not. I'm saying the opposite. if nobody provides an alternative reading,
> there's no reason to believe the rule change is ambiguous. I am applying
> the standard strictly, and expecting a burden of proof that it has been
> violated instead of just assuming it has been.
>
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Herald
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Sorry, that was probably a bad example. G. has much more eloquently
explained what I mean.

"Any at all full stop" ambiguity is a whole lot of ambiguity, is my point.
It's incredibly easy for anything to gain any iota of ambiguity. But, yes,
I believe that we don't interpret it that way, rather, the ambiguity needs
to be "reasonable", but then the discussion becomes what *is* reasonable
ambiguity? It's subjective and it depends on what the group deciding it
(Agora itself) feels like it should be.

And I'm fine with that.

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 9:15 PM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/10/23 14:13, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> > I didn't mean that, but as you can see now, we've just created ambiguity
> in
> > that I might mean what you believe I do, or not.
> >
> > It's too easy for "any" sort of ambiguity to happen.*Any*.
> That's not ambiguity in the rule change tho, it's ambiguity in a
> discussion adjacent to it.
>
> Even if it's "easy" for ambiguity to happen, I don't think that means it
> happens every single time. I think the ambiguity standard demands at
> least two plausible interpretations to be presented.
>
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Herald
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I didn't mean that, but as you can see now, we've just created ambiguity in
that I might mean what you believe I do, or not.

It's too easy for "any" sort of ambiguity to happen. *Any*.

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 9:08 PM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/10/23 13:42, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> > If I were to interpret the ruleset as strictly as I would like to, I
> > believe that no rule change whatsoever has happened since the clause "Any
> > ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be
> > void and without effect." was added to the game.
> >
> > I feel like the game culture specific to Agora is playing a large role in
> > preventing that clause from pseudo-ossifying the game from not being able
> > to make changes in a practical way unless we write hyper-eloquent yet at
> > the same time, hyper-pedantic Proposals. If not straight up ossifying it.
> I've seen a few variations of this. To me the word ambiguity means
> there's more than one plausible meaning. You're arguing that there's
> more than one plausible meaning for each and every rule change that has
> ever happened?
>
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Herald
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

If I were to interpret the ruleset as strictly as I would like to, I
believe that no rule change whatsoever has happened since the clause "Any
ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be
void and without effect." was added to the game.

I feel like the game culture specific to Agora is playing a large role in
preventing that clause from pseudo-ossifying the game from not being able
to make changes in a practical way unless we write hyper-eloquent yet at
the same time, hyper-pedantic Proposals. If not straight up ossifying it.

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 7:31 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/10/23 13:19, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Thank you for your copyediting, I know it's not an opinion you want
> > officialized.
> >
> > Hopefully the following draft is more amenable, as I have fully removed
> all
> > three offending sections.
> >
> >
> > (Draft ruling)
> > Summary of Evidence:
> >
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2022-February/015693.html
> > Rule 217/12 (Power=3)
> > Interpreting the Rules
> >
> >   When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules
> >   takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or
> >   unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past
> >   judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game.
> >
> >   Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied
> >   using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that
> >   can be concluded from the assumption that a statement about
> >   rule-defined concepts is false does not constitute proof that it
> >   is true. Definitions in lower-powered Rules do not overrule
> >   common-sense interpretations or common definitions of terms in
> >   higher-powered rules, but may constructively make reasonable
> >   clarifications to those definitions. For this purpose, a
> >   clarification is reasonable if and only if it adds detail without
> >   changing the underlying general meaning of the term and without
> >   causing the higher powered rule to be read in a way inconsistent
> >   with its text.
> >
> >   Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any rule change that would
> >   (1) prevent a person from initiating a formal process to resolve
> >   matters of controversy, in the reasonable expectation that the
> >   controversy will thereby be resolved; or (2) prevent a person from
> >   causing formal reconsideration of any judicial determination that
> >   e should be punished, is wholly void and without effect.
> >
> > Rule 105/23 (Power=3)
> > Rule Changes
> >
> >   When the rules provide that an instrument takes effect, it can
> >   generally:
> >  [...]
> >   6. change the power of a rule.
> >
> >   A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.
> >   Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.
> >
> >   Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
> >   change to be void and without effect. An inconsequential variation
> >   in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity
> >   for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does.
> >
> >   A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its
> >   full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear
> >   specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at
> >   least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise
> >   take effect.
> >
> >   This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be
> >   created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can become
> >   a rule or cease to be a rule.
> >
> > The conflict comes from "any ambiguity" in Rule 105. Could we construe
> > Janet's argument as "any ambiguity"?
> >
> > We could construe "Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by changing its power to 3."
> to
> > mean that we are starting a rule change, and that rule change is to
> change
> > the power of that rule.
> >
> > We could also construe "Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by changing its power to
> 3."
> > to mean nothing, because amending a rule is already has a definitive
> > definition under rule 105, and its definition is to change the text of
> the
> > rule, and the power is not part of the text of a rule.
> >
> > This second reading is unreasonable, and borders on bad-faith (despite
> the
> > good intentions of bringing this matter up): the player who wrote the
> > proposal had clear intentions of changing the rule based on further
> context
> > of the proposal, and provided further commentary that the power should be
> > at that level. Furthermore, this reading would also posit that the author
> > of the proposal violated No Faking: The commentary does not align with
> > "doing nothing", 

Re: DIS: Subgame ideas

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I haven't replied sooner because I had Stamps on my head.

I think the game is alright. There is an infinite combo in accumulating
different kinds of discounts and then gaining unlimited cards by paying a
fee of 0 cards to get a card that requires a fee consisting of no more than
1 of the same kind of card, and a couple different cards, like the Tortoise
card. Maybe we could limit how many times per day/week you can make new
cards, or limit how many discounts you can hold at the same time.

Other than that, I'm eager to play.

On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 2:31 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 4:59 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > Forgot to add that it could be nice to have dragons start with 3-4 cards
> to
> > play with
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 11:16 AM Yachay Wayllukuq <
> > yachaywayllu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 5:25 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion <
> > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 7:36 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
> <
> > >> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > ...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Only certain things are doable by contract. Secondly, I want to be
> able
> > to
> > >> only report on this once a week, and not have to deal with randomness
> > more
> > >> than that.
> > >> All good ideas though, and good copyediting.
> > >> To accommodate this being a contract, I modified the "win" condition
> to
> > be
> > >> pretty good zombification, without unduly allowing players to opt-out
> if
> > >> something is notoriously egregious (20 blots is a hefty penalty but
> may
> > be
> > >> necessary depending on the actor).
> > >>
> > >> Here's an updated draft:
> > >> {
> > >> =Joining and Leaving=
> > >> Players on this contract are called Dragons.
> > >> Any player who was not party to this contract within the past 2 weeks
> > can
> > >> join this contract by announcement.
> > >> Any dragon can leave this contract by announcement.
> > >> All card effects a party to this contract are under are voided by
> > leaving
> > >> the
> > >> contract, however, all cards in eir possession are destroyed.
> > >>
> > >> =The Dealer=
> > >> The Dealer MUST be a dragon.
> > >> If possible, The Dealer is 4st.
> > >>
> > >> =Dealer Responsibilities=
> > >> Once each week, The Dealer MUST distribute cards.
> > >> To distribute cards, The Dealer, for each other current dragon,
> > >> randomly chooses a base card, and creates it in that dragon's
> ownership
> > if
> > >> possible.
> > >> If The Dealer does not distribute in a given week, e creates 2 blots
> in
> > >> eir
> > >> possession.
> > >>
> > >> Once each week, The Dealer MUST report on this contract, and assets
> > >> defined
> > >> by it.
> > >> If The Dealer does not in a given week, e creates 1 blot in eir
> > >> possession.
> > >> (Ideally, distribution and reporting are the same message.)
> > >>
> > >> =Cards=
> > >> The Dealer is the tracker of the liquid private category of asset
> Cards,
> > >> ownable by
> > >> dragons. The Dealer cannot own or play cards. Cards of the same kind
> are
> > >> fungible.
> > >>
> > >> There is a max hand size of 7, otherwise the dragon cannot have a card
> > >> created in eir ownership.
> > >>
> > >> =Disputes=
> > >> Card playing is first come, first serve.
> > >> Failed card plays do not spend cards.
> > >> The Dealer arbitrates disputes involving this contract.
> > >>
> > >> =Updates=
> > >> The Dealer, with 14 days notice, CAN update the text of this contract.
> > >> Any dragon CAN update the text of this contract without objection
> from a
> > >> dragon.
> > >>
> > >> ==Gameplay==
> > >> =Base Cards=
> > >> - Metal - The specified dragon will endorse you or change eir vote to
> > >> endorse you on the specified proposal,
> > >> el

Re: DIS: [Draft Proposal] You can't just call points radiance and not have them do

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Overall I like the proposal and its intent. It seems fun. I like the Bright
ability system a lot.

- We might want there to be some kind of activated countdown for
Bright-win-resets so that it doesn't take people by surprise and makes them
suddenly lose a whole lot of their hard-earned Brights. Maybe something
like "with notice..."
- Who tracks what rules are Radiant? Even then, it can be subverted by just
amending rules to say nothing rather than repealing them. I'm not too sure
about this ability.
- We might want to add, just in case, speed limits for Radiance/Bright/win
gains just in case some kind of infinite loop scam exists. For example, "A
person can only earn at most 100 Radiance a day, 10 Brights a day...". I'm
also kind of concerned about the seemingly plausible 1/0 thing in the
1/(7-X) equation.
- We might want to also limit how many 10 Bright wins per week/month are
possible because of how much "win raw material" it can easily produce (you
could produce more Brights than you spend via winning). Maybe make it just
once per month?
- It could be good to have an anti Bright-hoarding mechanic. It felt
oppressive to have ais/Aspen/etc sit on massive piles of Stamps, I'd rather
not have to feel that again. Maybe you can create an Unstable Star with 1
Bright, which after 1 month goes supernova and resets everyone's Bright to
0 except your own?
- I'm fine with the outshining the sun thing. It seems like an alright
super endgame goal for those that are into that, without being too broken.

On Monday, May 8, 2023, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> {{{
> Title: cool shiny things!
> Adoption Index: 2.0
> Author: snail
> Co-author(s):
>
> [First let's change how radiance resets work. This should reduce the timing
> woes of the current system, and encourage spending stamps:]
>
> Amend Rule 2656 (Radiance) to read, in full:
> {
>   A player's Radiance is an integer player switch defaulting to 0,
>   tracked by the Herald. When a player is "granted" or "gains" a
>   specified amount of radiance, eir radiance is increased by that
>   amount.
>
>   Brights are a currency, tracked by the Herald. When a player wins the
> game, e gains 1 Bright. A player with a radiance of 50 or more CAN, by
> announcement, gain 1 bright, thereby decreasing eir radiance by 50.
>
>   At the start of each quarter, the player(s) with the highest radiance
> each gain 5 brights, and then each player gains X/50 brights, rounded down,
> where X is eir radiance. Then, all radiance switches are set to
>   0, and all unsealed stamps are destroyed.
>
> If a player would gain radiance in the 7 days before the beginning of a
> Quarter, e instead gains 1/(7-X) times that amount, rounded down, where X
> is the number of full days before the beginning of the Quarter.
> }
>
> [So you get brights when the quarter ends, if you have enough radiance.
> What can you do with them? Lots of things!]
>
> Enact a new rule titled "Bright Abilities" at power 2, with the following
> text:
> {
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 1 bright, increase eir Base Rockiness by
> 1.
>
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 1 bright, grant a specified pure player 3
> blots.
>
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 1 bright, seal up to 5 specified stamps.
>
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 2 brights, transfer a specified asset from
> the Lost and Found Department to emself.
>
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 2 brights, increase eir voting strength on
> ordinary referenda by 2 for a period of 7 days, provided eir voting
> strength is not currently increased this way.
>
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 2 brights, increase the radiance of 5
> different specified players by 10 each.
>
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 2 brights, expunge up to 3 blots from a
> specified player.
>
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 3 brights, wield a specified stone, rules
> to the contrary notwithstanding.
>
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 5 brights, turn a specified rule Radiant.
> A radiant rule CANNOT be repealed. The player that turned a rule Radiant
> CAN, by announcement, make it cease being Radiant.
>
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 10 brights, win the game. When a player
> wins the game this way, all brights are destroyed, and then each player is
> granted 1 bright.
>
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 20 brights, Outshine the Sun. The voting
> strength of a player on ordinary referenda is increased by 1 if e has ever
> Outshined the Sun. This bonus SHOULD be compensated if repealed.
> }
>
> [What's this about sealed stamps? You can protect your stamps from the
> quarterly reset by paying brights or radiance, in exchange for only being
> able to use them for the non-radiance wincon.]
>
> Amend Rule 2659 (Stamps) to read, in full:
> {
>   Stamps are a category of asset ownable by players . The
>   Collector is an office. The Collector tracks Stamps in eir weekly
>   report.
>
>   For each person 

DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Plan B

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I believe that a few things contributed to me winning:

- It's very easy to find trades that are net beneficial for the traders.
Most people seem to agree that trading Stamps 1-for-1 is generally
reasonable and a good trade. Just have the same person do that enough times
with different people and they'll end up winning fairly unimpeded.
- The economy, in ideal conditions, produces enough 'raw materials' for two
people to win /every week/ (everyone sets their Dream to Wealth and then
two people are given one of each Stamp and use it to win with the 'pay many
different Stamps as active players' wincon). We're a good distance away
from those conditions, but we might need to throttle how much 'win raw
materials' is being pumped into us per week. The massive stockpiles of
Stamps are an issue too.
- Apathy. A lot of people didn't seem to be as engaged as I am with Stamps,
so I just didn't have to worry about certain things.

On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 7:25 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Plan B
>
> Adoption index: 1.0
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coauthors:
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2657 by, as a single amendment, removing the list items and
> bullet points for the list items starting with each of the following:
> "Charity", "Sharing, "Wealth".
>
> Repeal Rule 2499 ("Welcome Packages").
>
> Repeal Rule 2659 ("Stamps").
>
> Repeal Rule 2680 ("Ritual Paper Dance").
>
> Repeal Rule 2656 ("Radiance").
>
>
> [Given a new player winning within a month and a half by stamps by
> simply trading, something needs to change, and with no other radiance
> conditions existing, something needs to change. It doesn't need to be
> this, and I don't necessarily *want* it to be this, but the status quo
> is clearly not working.]
>
> }
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Prime Minister/@Herald) Proper Congratulations

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Thanks!

Yeah, I had to speed up quite a few things because of the blot thing, but
I'm relieved that it all worked out in the end.

On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 8:11 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I petition the Prime Minister to assign Yachay to the office of Speaker and
> award em a platinum ribbon.
> I petition the Herald to award em Champion and award em an ultraviolet
> ribbon.
>
> (it's a shame the thoughtcrime wasn't properly investigated yet. Tsk tsk!)
> --
> 4st
> Referee
> Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Collector, @Herald) Stamps for Radiance 2

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Thank you ais and snail, and thank you for your help!

On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 8:06 AM secretsnail9 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Sun, May 7, 2023 at 7:08 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2023-05-08 at 02:01 +0200, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business
> > wrote:
> > > I pay 5 different Stamps (ais523, nix, snail, Yachay, murphy) to gain
> > > 20 radiance ( 5^2 - 5 = 20 )
> > > I pay 5 of the same Stamp (ais523) to gain 8 radiance ( (5-1)*2 = 8 )
> > >
> > > I announce that I have 100 radiance. I therefore win the game.
> >
> > Congratulations!
> >
> > --
> > ais523
> >
>
> Congrats Yachay! This is a pretty quick win. Normally wins are marked with
> [DoV] in the subject (Date of Victory) btw.
> --
> snail
>

DIS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon award

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Thanks!

On Monday, May 8, 2023, Edward Murphy via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I award a Gray Ribbon to Yachay.
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Notary) Contract Creation - GUNDAM-YACHAY

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

To be frank, I haven't done a good job at explaining how it works.

The intent is that other contacts deliberately interface with my contract
and have a similar Signal/Task system. Like that, we can send "Signals"
between each other and presumably "Tasks", while neither of us is a member
of the other's contract, protecting from the contract being possibly
malicious or it unintentionally traps you or something, but still having
contract-like functionality.

On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 5:09 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 4:20 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > So, I was thinking about the Mousetrap scam and how to possibly protect
> > myself from that kind of thing while still interacting with potentially
> > dangerous contracts. I initially thought about making a "Hazmat Suit"
> > contract which would work similarly to this Gundam one, but I found that
> > this kind of contact is *also* useful for things that you can't Act on
> > Behalf for, which has come up a few times during my Stamp trade
> > discussions. So I re-themed it to a giant mecha suit, which keeps the
> > aesthetic of keeping me protected, but it now also has that robotic
> flavor
> > which lets it "do" things as well, as detailed in its Task mechanism and
> > the Driving the Gundam action.
> >
> > I'd appreciate feedback on how to deal with the amendment of Gundam. I
> was
> > thinking that I could perhaps only do it with the consent of all Clients
> of
> > Pending Tasks, but I'm not entirely sure yet.
> >
> > I'm not sure either about how useful this "Gundam" contract will be, but
> > giant mechas are cool, and hopefully this contract is too.
> >
> >
> > I create the following contract titled "GUNDAM-YAXAY"
> > {
> > This is the Yaxay-model Gundam (the "GUNDAM-YAXAY", "GD-YAXAY", "GD-YXY"
> or
> > other similar variants), and Yachay is its Pilot and only party.
> >
> > SIGNALS
> > This Gundam has Signals, which are tracked by the Pilot. Signals have a
> > Content, which is text.
> >
> > The Pilot can create a Signal by announcement.
> >
> > TASKS
> > This Gundam has Tasks, which are tracked by the Pilot. Tasks are either
> > Pending or Completed, defaulting to Pending. Tasks have an Assignment,
> > which are a specific action or sequence of actions, and a Client, which
> is
> > a person. All Tasks must be Pre-Approved.
> >
> > To Drive the Gundam is to, for each Pending Task in the order of oldest
> to
> > earliest, perform their Assignment and then set them to Completed.
> >
> > PRE-APPROVAL
> > This Gundam has Pre-Approved Tasks, which have Conditions, and all of
> this
> > is tracked by the Pilot. The Pilot can create Pre-Approved Tasks and
> their
> > Conditions with eir consent and the consent of who would be its Client.
> >
> > The Pilot can destroy Pre-Approved Tasks with the consent of its Client.
> >
> > When the Condition of a Pre-Approved Task becomes true, once instance of
> > its Task is created.
> >
> > It is ENCOURAGED that these Conditions are other 'Signals'.
> > }
> >
> > I create the following Signal from my Gundam: "Hello World, this is the
> > GUNDAM-YXY"
> >
>
>
> As the only party, you are free to amend your contract unanimously as long
> as you are considered to have consented to.
> Similarly, I don't think this really protects you from such a "mousetrap"
> scam. If you join a bad contract, I don't think another contract will fix
> it, in fact, it will only grant you more blots since you will be violating
> the new contract? That's my understanding at least.
>
> For example, if I have this malicious contract, which I have somehow made
> you a member of (eg by unwillingly forcing you to join original mousetrap
> style, or by amending an existing contract):
> {
> By being in this contract, you consent to actions this contract would have
> you make. 4st CAN act on behalf of parties to this contract to create blots
> in those parties' possession. FURTHERMORE, parties to this contract
> explicitly and unambiguously consent to 4st creating arbitrary promises and
> pledges on eir behalf, and voting on eir behalf. Parties to this contract
> CANNOT place or change eir votes otherwise.
> Players cannot leave this contract, and 4st can amend this contract at any
> time.
> }
> then I think Gundam doesn't protect you? (pardon if the contract is doing
> things in little ways that are incorrect, it is simply to illustrate a
> malicious contract)
> --
> 4st
> Referee
> Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Review Board for 4st's Thesis @Yachay @G. @Janet

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Oh, I probably misunderstood the acronyms, I thought AN was the lowest kind
of degree (for any subject), then JN, then BN, etc

A starting-to-mid tier degree seems good to me for this, and whatever fits
for Philosophy

On Friday, May 5, 2023, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/4/23 16:00, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> > I think Philosophy would fit, and one of AN/JN/BN
>
>
> JN is for law theses, which this definitely is not.
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8960-8964

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I just realized that proposal radiance got repealed, so I change my votes
to this:

> 8960~   ais523  1.0   Ritual disambiguation
FOR

> 8961~   G.  1.0   now you don't see it
AGAINST

> 8962~   Yachay  1.0   Please behave, Prime Minister
FOR

> 8963~   4st 1.0   hats
FOR

> 8964~   snail   2.0   Minty Stone
FOR

On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 8:56 AM Yachay Wayllukuq 
wrote:

> I appreciate it, while I don't think I will change my vote, this feels a
> lot more amenable.
>
> On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 1:28 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 3:42 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 12:30 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> > > > 8962~   Yachay  1.0   Please behave, Prime Minister
>> >
>> > I change my vote on 8962 to AGAINST, because I disagree with the
>> > author's principle of forcing radiance give-ups in exchange for votes.
>>
>>
>> Oops my bad - this makes it sound like it’s about principles when it’s
>> really not at all - it’s just friendly political transactionalism.  I
>> change my vote on the above proposal to a conditional vote: if Yachay has
>> changed all eir votes on referenda in this distribution to unconditional
>> votes then FOR, otherwise AGAINST. -G.
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Review Board for 4st's Thesis @Yachay @G. @Janet

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I think Philosophy would fit, and one of AN/JN/BN

On Thursday, May 4, 2023, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> Thanks for reviewing! You make some very good points, I'll be sure to
> address some of them in my resubmission. You use a unique criterion to
> determine your nomination. I'm curious to what degree you think this
> qualifies for once it does get resubmitted. Is it an Art degree for the
> opinion and the weird ideas? is it Philosophy due to the brief mentions of
> philosophy? Is it history for the cited sources? And further, what level?
> Does it match what you expect from an Associates, Bachelor's, etc? is this
> level based on prior theses or just general expectations? And, did you
> properly take into account that I'm the Referee and I WILL collect your
> taxes?! PONDER FURTHER YE MORTAL AND PERISH YOUR PRIOR THOUGHTS TO THE
> REALM OF SHADOW!
>
> (OOC: no really, thanks and I was planning to resubmit anyways)
>
> On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 11:01 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I'll grade based on the following marks:
> >
> > 30 marks, Introductions: How well-presented the main topic/s are, the
> > rationale for the thesis, the background, etc.
> > 30 marks, Body: How well the topic is argued, researched and discussed.
> > 30 marks, Conclusions: How reasonable the conclusions are based on what
> has
> > been presented and their utility and relevance to Agora.
> > 10 mark, Originality: How novel and different it is.
> > 0 marks, My personal opinion on the subject matter:
> >
> > For a grand total of 100 marks. If you get 50% or more, I'll vouch for
> the
> > relevant degree.
> >
> >
> > -- Introductions: 10/30
> > Part 0 and the TL;DR is useful, but terrible. It's short and could be
> > expressed much better, imagine how a player reading this 20 years in the
> > future would read it. What's the context? What are you going for? Its
> > presentation isn't great either. You could've put the chapter titles in
> > there too and introduce the chemistry theme shebang earlier.
> >
> > Later on, even if you don't back up your claims with much evidence, I
> think
> > quite a lot of the stuff you later talk about is pretty self-evident to
> > most player's experience on Agora (or nomics in general) anyways, so it's
> > not as much of a problem as it could be.
> >
> >
> > -- Body: 15/30
> > You make up new vocabulary and creatively assign words to different
> > concepts, like having certain things be "ideas" or "opinions". I'm
> largely
> > OK with it, because I understand what you're referring to even if I don't
> > entirely agree with the specific word you've assigned to it, but others
> > might not have the same comfort with something like that.
> >
> > I have to address that there's a lot of other kinds of literary
> showmanship
> > in the thesis as well:
> > "Even time cannot escape the grasp of triggers, as officers must make
> their
> > reports weekly or face the wrath of disgruntledness."
> > I'm not giving or removing any marks for those specifically, because I
> feel
> > like it's mostly a matter of aesthetic preference.
> >
> > You highlight some very compelling issues, like how people really want
> > their own opinion to matter, which I appreciate. However, I felt like it
> > was missing more discussion and contrast, like how Agora specifically has
> > them in comparison to other nomics, for example.
> >
> > I think 2) is interesting but probably goes too far into overexplaining a
> > simple input-output mechanism and "memory".
> >
> > 3) and 4) are fine. A lot of literary acrobatics as mentioned before, but
> > the poetic style is readable (and fun).
> >
> > 5) I don't know enough about these events, but as far as I understand,
> you
> > would've preferred a quicker solution rather than the more methodic and
> > calculated one. I'm honestly not sure which would be better, but that
> > doesn't matter, because what does is how well you argue what you do - and
> > you leave us hanging and just get into speculation instead. I wasn't too
> > happy about it.
> >
> >
> > -- Conclusions: 0/30
> > There's a very serious problem in that you don't really connect your
> > solutions much to the rest of the thesis. You offer up nice things, sure,
> > but why would they work? Why those things and not something else? How do
> > they relate to the things you've spent most of the thesis talking a

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Active Player Tax

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

It's fine, I'm kind of curious myself too.

On Thursday, May 4, 2023, Forest Sweeney via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 2:51 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I note this infraction made by 4st. The infracted rule is rule 2471 (No
> > Faking), because after reviewing the rules I've found that taxes actually
> > don't exist, and 4st should've known it before posting something as
> > misleading as this; this is the incident.
> >
> > On Saturday, April 29, 2023, Forest Sweeney via agora-official <
> > agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Under penalty of no faking, as Referee, I do the following game action
> > > for each active player:
> > > I collect that player's taxes that are owed to the office of Referee.
> > > (The active players being 4st, Aspen, G.,Janet, Murphy, Yachay, ais523,
> > > cuddlybanana, juan, nix, and snail.)
> > >
> > > Please make any disputes about this individually, as taxes are done on
> a
> > > case by case basis.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, I intend to, without objection, declare apathy, specifying
> > all
> > > players.
> > >
> > > --
> > > 4st
> > > Referee and Deputy(AKA FAKE) webmastor
> > > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
> > >
> >
>
> YOU FELL INTO MY TRAP! I NOW COLLECT YOUR TAXES!
> I note this infraction made by Yachay, for violation of Rule 2125. Arbitor,
> I'm sure you will find that e did indeed commit the crime of proscribing an
> unregulated action at this point in time. And even if e didn't indeed
> commit that crime, then how will the Justice system handle my outrageous
> claim that e had done so?
> MUAHAHAHAHA!
>
> (OOC: I don't think you had any scams lined up that probably two blots
> profoundly affects your plans? And I'm really sorry in advance if you
> actually do...
> Also it is probably equally likely that I will be found to commit another
> crime of No Faking by claiming to once again collect your taxes.)
> --
> 4st
> Referee
> Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Review Board for 4st's Thesis @Yachay @G. @Janet

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I'll grade based on the following marks:

30 marks, Introductions: How well-presented the main topic/s are, the
rationale for the thesis, the background, etc.
30 marks, Body: How well the topic is argued, researched and discussed.
30 marks, Conclusions: How reasonable the conclusions are based on what has
been presented and their utility and relevance to Agora.
10 mark, Originality: How novel and different it is.
0 marks, My personal opinion on the subject matter:

For a grand total of 100 marks. If you get 50% or more, I'll vouch for the
relevant degree.


-- Introductions: 10/30
Part 0 and the TL;DR is useful, but terrible. It's short and could be
expressed much better, imagine how a player reading this 20 years in the
future would read it. What's the context? What are you going for? Its
presentation isn't great either. You could've put the chapter titles in
there too and introduce the chemistry theme shebang earlier.

Later on, even if you don't back up your claims with much evidence, I think
quite a lot of the stuff you later talk about is pretty self-evident to
most player's experience on Agora (or nomics in general) anyways, so it's
not as much of a problem as it could be.


-- Body: 15/30
You make up new vocabulary and creatively assign words to different
concepts, like having certain things be "ideas" or "opinions". I'm largely
OK with it, because I understand what you're referring to even if I don't
entirely agree with the specific word you've assigned to it, but others
might not have the same comfort with something like that.

I have to address that there's a lot of other kinds of literary showmanship
in the thesis as well:
"Even time cannot escape the grasp of triggers, as officers must make their
reports weekly or face the wrath of disgruntledness."
I'm not giving or removing any marks for those specifically, because I feel
like it's mostly a matter of aesthetic preference.

You highlight some very compelling issues, like how people really want
their own opinion to matter, which I appreciate. However, I felt like it
was missing more discussion and contrast, like how Agora specifically has
them in comparison to other nomics, for example.

I think 2) is interesting but probably goes too far into overexplaining a
simple input-output mechanism and "memory".

3) and 4) are fine. A lot of literary acrobatics as mentioned before, but
the poetic style is readable (and fun).

5) I don't know enough about these events, but as far as I understand, you
would've preferred a quicker solution rather than the more methodic and
calculated one. I'm honestly not sure which would be better, but that
doesn't matter, because what does is how well you argue what you do - and
you leave us hanging and just get into speculation instead. I wasn't too
happy about it.


-- Conclusions: 0/30
There's a very serious problem in that you don't really connect your
solutions much to the rest of the thesis. You offer up nice things, sure,
but why would they work? Why those things and not something else? How do
they relate to the things you've spent most of the thesis talking about?
It's jarring.


-- Originality: 10/10
I don't think there's anything written yet in a style that is this
eccentric, it felt to me like a like a cult acolyte explaining religious
arcana which, behind the veil of metaphors and meaning, it artistically
traces the silhouette of some really hard-hitting nomic matters. You get
full marks for it.


-- My personal opinion on the subject matter: 0/0
You get the minimum, shame on you for not agreeing with me. Rejecting
bugfixes? Madness. To the guillotine with you.


-- Final marks: 35/100
Which is unfortunate, but it needs quite a lot of work still. But I
wholeheartedly support its style and look forwards to a revision.

REVISE & RESUBMIT

On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 6:59 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 9:44 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
> > In response:
> > I had written this thesis with exactly as you say also in mind. We take
> > conclusions to their logical extremes without first testing and
> confirming
> > via CFJ or otherwise if the Truth that we'd found ACTUALLY holds up in
> > court. And we therefore move through the motions of accepting and
> adopting
> > bugfixes that may not actually be necessary. For example, in Time B Safe,
> > it doesn't make ANY sense at all whatsoever, to me, in most scenarios, to
> > interpret that Agora would stop Time Itself before becoming ossified, as
> > this actually feels like a paradox to me: Agora would still be ossified
> > that way, since time would be stopped and that itself would ossify Agora
> > just as much, even if the interpretation of time were different.
>
> Just on the minor point of Time B Safe, this was in fact the result of
> a CFJ.  The judgement could always be wrong/reconsidered etc., but it
> was "CFJ-tested" (albeit via a fairly hypothetical CFJ statement) in
> the 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Herald) Referee is Submitting a Thesis anyways WHAAAAT

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I think I'm underqualified but, sure.

On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 6:15 PM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/4/23 03:32, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> > I like a lot the new vocabulary that the thesis introduces as well as the
> > themes that it tackles, and I'd like to give a response to its
> conclusions.
> > This isn't intended to be a review, just a reply.
> Would you like to be added to the review board? Getting ready to assign
> this.
>
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Herald
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Herald) Referee is Submitting a Thesis anyways WHAAAAT

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Oop, I didn't mean to send that just yet. Oh well, it's good enough.

In any case, I'm very happy to see your thesis, and I enjoyed reading it. I
hope to see more sometime.

On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 10:32 AM Yachay Wayllukuq 
wrote:

> I like a lot the new vocabulary that the thesis introduces as well as the
> themes that it tackles, and I'd like to give a response to its conclusions.
> This isn't intended to be a review, just a reply.
>
> - "Firstly, let's experiment with holistic offices and gameplay (...)":
> I'm very open to experimentation, but I think that resorting to our "code
> libraries" isn't a bad idea. Not using switches or established mechanics
> seems fine to do for fun to see what happens, but I don't think that
> routinely ignoring them is a better approach than just simply using them.
> We also don't have infinite time and effort to write cod- I mean ruletext,
> and it's often much more economical to just use what already exists and
> seems to work well.
>
> - "Secondly, reject bugfixes when you can. (...)": I don't think that this
> is a good idea, because bugfixes are fun - for me at least. Proposals
> currently have a negligible cost and seeing the rules tinkered around and
> observing the attempts to improve them is entertaining for me. It might not
> be entirely required or practical, but neither are most things that
> people do for fun. I also don't see how this point emerges from the
> previous ones in your thesis.
>
> - "Thirdly, be clear and unambiguous in your statements when YOU interpret
> it. Your opinion matters, don't get rolled over by Agora. (...)": This
> seems important for any nomic, although I understand the motivation as to
> why traditionalists or other kinds of factionalism may emerge. There's
> power and safety in being in a group (and we instinctively know this at an
> unga bunga ape level, as social animals), and because of the arguments in
> the third paragraph in "Agoran Chemistry", people want power. In any case,
> it's reassuring to see this hammered down in a thesis, because I'm a bit
> anxious sometimes about it as a newer player.
>
> - "Fourstly, play a role in this game.": If that's what's fun for you,
> sure, although I wouldn't prescribe it to everyone in general. I don't
> think everyone would benefit as much from feeling like they fit into some
> kind of archetype, some just wouldn't care and I think that's fine. I also
> don't see how "playing a role" emerges from your main body of arguments.
>
> - "Fifthly, express your opinion, and express it hard.": I feel like this
> was already covered in the third point.
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 1:01 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> I submit the following horribly long thesis specifically to qualify for a
>> degree, AND, AS REFEREE, also because I am a great antagonist that hates
>> you all, especially the people who signed up to read thesises!
>> MWAHAHAHAHA!
>> <3
>> (Maybe I should change my registered name to Sithrak... Hmm...)
>>
>> (OOC: Just kidding, y'all are great, and thanks for being here and coming
>> to my TED talk.)
>>
>> {
>> Agoran Particle Physics:
>> A collection of Agoran Theories
>> and A case against Platonism
>>
>> (AKA one big pointless opinion)
>>
>> 0) Too Long, Didn't Read!
>>
>> For those of you uninterested in specifics:
>> 1 posits that Agora is a game of expression, but it is also pretty
>> platonic. (Yes, this is completely in contrast to nomic being a game of
>> Self-Amendment.)
>> 2 elaborates on what could be some basic atomic categories of a completely
>> platonic system.
>> 3 builds upon 2, and I attempt to identify all potential atoms of those
>> categories.
>> 4 is a whole section is probably garbage I decided to keep in, and
>> therefore, represents my namesake. :D
>> 5 argues we shouldn't strive for total platonism, so I present some
>> theories on why it currently is that way.
>> 6 has my opinions on ways to fix the current situation based on the prior
>> evidence. Arguably the most contentious part, so the only one worth
>> reading.
>> 7 has some summaries of other theses (and drafts), and links to sources.
>>
>> 1) Agoran Chemistry
>>
>> Proposals are one of two things: most are expressions of opinion, and some
>> are expressions of idea. Expressions of opinion tend to fix something:
>> either the game wasn't working, the game wasn't working as intended, or
>> the
>> game's intentions were misaligned. And yes, these are all opinions: the
>> first two are opinions of the majority of players in alignment: that the
>> game's text is completely wrong, and something to be formally fixed. This
>> is generally a platonic view of things: the rules' text is the rules text.
>> And I've heard many Agorans agree: if the ruleset were to be ossified in a
>> way that couldn't start again, even if all other players were to agree to
>> unossify it, rewind time, what have you, that this would no longer be a
>> game worth playing, 

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Herald) Referee is Submitting a Thesis anyways WHAAAAT

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I like a lot the new vocabulary that the thesis introduces as well as the
themes that it tackles, and I'd like to give a response to its conclusions.
This isn't intended to be a review, just a reply.

- "Firstly, let's experiment with holistic offices and gameplay (...)": I'm
very open to experimentation, but I think that resorting to our "code
libraries" isn't a bad idea. Not using switches or established mechanics
seems fine to do for fun to see what happens, but I don't think that
routinely ignoring them is a better approach than just simply using them.
We also don't have infinite time and effort to write cod- I mean ruletext,
and it's often much more economical to just use what already exists and
seems to work well.

- "Secondly, reject bugfixes when you can. (...)": I don't think that this
is a good idea, because bugfixes are fun - for me at least. Proposals
currently have a negligible cost and seeing the rules tinkered around and
observing the attempts to improve them is entertaining for me. It might not
be entirely required or practical, but neither are most things that
people do for fun. I also don't see how this point emerges from the
previous ones in your thesis.

- "Thirdly, be clear and unambiguous in your statements when YOU interpret
it. Your opinion matters, don't get rolled over by Agora. (...)": This
seems important for any nomic, although I understand the motivation as to
why traditionalists or other kinds of factionalism may emerge. There's
power and safety in being in a group (and we instinctively know this at an
unga bunga ape level, as social animals), and because of the arguments in
the third paragraph in "Agoran Chemistry", people want power. In any case,
it's reassuring to see this hammered down in a thesis, because I'm a bit
anxious sometimes about it as a newer player.

- "Fourstly, play a role in this game.": If that's what's fun for you,
sure, although I wouldn't prescribe it to everyone in general. I don't
think everyone would benefit as much from feeling like they fit into some
kind of archetype, some just wouldn't care and I think that's fine. I also
don't see how "playing a role" emerges from your main body of arguments.

- "Fifthly, express your opinion, and express it hard.": I feel like this
was already covered in the third point.



On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 1:01 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I submit the following horribly long thesis specifically to qualify for a
> degree, AND, AS REFEREE, also because I am a great antagonist that hates
> you all, especially the people who signed up to read thesises! MWAHAHAHAHA!
> <3
> (Maybe I should change my registered name to Sithrak... Hmm...)
>
> (OOC: Just kidding, y'all are great, and thanks for being here and coming
> to my TED talk.)
>
> {
> Agoran Particle Physics:
> A collection of Agoran Theories
> and A case against Platonism
>
> (AKA one big pointless opinion)
>
> 0) Too Long, Didn't Read!
>
> For those of you uninterested in specifics:
> 1 posits that Agora is a game of expression, but it is also pretty
> platonic. (Yes, this is completely in contrast to nomic being a game of
> Self-Amendment.)
> 2 elaborates on what could be some basic atomic categories of a completely
> platonic system.
> 3 builds upon 2, and I attempt to identify all potential atoms of those
> categories.
> 4 is a whole section is probably garbage I decided to keep in, and
> therefore, represents my namesake. :D
> 5 argues we shouldn't strive for total platonism, so I present some
> theories on why it currently is that way.
> 6 has my opinions on ways to fix the current situation based on the prior
> evidence. Arguably the most contentious part, so the only one worth
> reading.
> 7 has some summaries of other theses (and drafts), and links to sources.
>
> 1) Agoran Chemistry
>
> Proposals are one of two things: most are expressions of opinion, and some
> are expressions of idea. Expressions of opinion tend to fix something:
> either the game wasn't working, the game wasn't working as intended, or the
> game's intentions were misaligned. And yes, these are all opinions: the
> first two are opinions of the majority of players in alignment: that the
> game's text is completely wrong, and something to be formally fixed. This
> is generally a platonic view of things: the rules' text is the rules text.
> And I've heard many Agorans agree: if the ruleset were to be ossified in a
> way that couldn't start again, even if all other players were to agree to
> unossify it, rewind time, what have you, that this would no longer be a
> game worth playing, despite this being the pragmatic approach to nomic.
> When we delve even further on how these fixes work, and how CFJ's work, we
> even see this difference of interpretation despite having the same
> conclusion: for example, a recent discord conversation about how paying
> fees works: it works, but people had different theories about how it
> worked.
>
> 

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8960-8964

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I appreciate it, while I don't think I will change my vote, this feels a
lot more amenable.

On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 1:28 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 3:42 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 12:30 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > > > 8962~   Yachay  1.0   Please behave, Prime Minister
> >
> > I change my vote on 8962 to AGAINST, because I disagree with the
> > author's principle of forcing radiance give-ups in exchange for votes.
>
>
> Oops my bad - this makes it sound like it’s about principles when it’s
> really not at all - it’s just friendly political transactionalism.  I
> change my vote on the above proposal to a conditional vote: if Yachay has
> changed all eir votes on referenda in this distribution to unconditional
> votes then FOR, otherwise AGAINST. -G.
>

Re: DIS: Gray Ribbon reminder

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I grovel at the tailor's feet by announcement, and intend to beg for a gray
ribbon without objection

On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 6:17 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> A little reminder: those of you who wanted a gray ribbon, now is the time
> to go grovelling at the tailor's feet again. :)
>
> --
> 4st
> Referee
> Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal - The Rice Game

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Ah! Thank you. I'll amend that along with anything else you (or others) may
see, in one go then, once time has passed or more comments have come in.

On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 5:35 PM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/2/23 05:06, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote:
> > if ey haven't done so
> I'll read the rest soon, but just to note: the version of spivak Agora
> iplements uses "e [singular agreement]" not "ey [plural agreement]"
> which I understand that some similar systems use. So this should be "if
> e hasn't done so" and so on for the other uses of "ey" in the proposal.
>
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Herald
>
>

Re: DIS: (Draft) Blot overhaul

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I appreciate the consideration but I'd suggest a different implementation,
perhaps using something different than blots.

On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 5:57 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 8:36 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > @Yachay/Juan: both of you expressed interest in something a little less
> > grounded and more "dramatic" (EG play battles), hopefully this can
> > incorporate that, whilst also allowing for the "oops/ouch" mechanism to
> > function properly.
> >
> > {
> > Title: It's now called Drama
> >
>
> No one submit this, I want none of it also. (but I do want the
> conversation.)
> --
> 4st
> Referee
> Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Hrm, now that you mention it I think that would be better, yeah.

On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 9:38 PM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/1/23 14:36, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Ideally, I think, everything is doable with automation. In practice tho,
> > I'm not sure what that looks like.
>
> Crucial typo. I think ideally everything is doable *without* automation.
>
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Herald
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Oh, I see now, that's very good.

Hm. I wonder if there was a way to make offices significantly easier so
that we didn't need to rely on these things or the apparent elitism that
some offices require.

But besides resorting to just having everyone play on Google Sheets in
parallel to the regular mailing lists, I'm pretty stumped. Maybe a mailbot
that you can access through the fora like a command prompt?

On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 9:17 PM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/1/23 14:04, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> > That seems to alludes that officers prefer to keep their tools to
> > themselves or they don't design them to be easily shared in the first
> > place, which I don't think is the best practice for Agora overall.
> >
> > Maybe we can encourage officers to make/use public tools and tutorials
> that
> > anyone can contribute to and build upon. (Maybe there can be an office
> > solely for maintaining and making such tools for the benefit of
> everyone?)
>
> On the contrary most officers keep public repositories on github [0] of
> their tools. But teaching someone how to use a script you wrote,
> regardless of whether it's public, takes time.
>
> [0] https://github.com/AgoraNomic
>
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Herald
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

That seems to alludes that officers prefer to keep their tools to
themselves or they don't design them to be easily shared in the first
place, which I don't think is the best practice for Agora overall.

Maybe we can encourage officers to make/use public tools and tutorials that
anyone can contribute to and build upon. (Maybe there can be an office
solely for maintaining and making such tools for the benefit of everyone?)

On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:56 PM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/1/23 13:49, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> > I was actually about to post the same thing about #2 in an election
> getting
> > the bench lol. It seems like the most effort-economic way to do it.
> >
> > And yeah, I think it could work as per-office.
>
> My main concern is still the time this adds. Instead of an officer
> informally coming to an agreement with someone, a bench system means
> each person on the bench needs time to decide whether they want to do
> it. Then if there's automation or information that needs to be
> exchanged, that needs to happen. I'm worried this process makes taking a
> vacation too difficult to be worth it.
>
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Herald
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I was actually about to post the same thing about #2 in an election getting
the bench lol. It seems like the most effort-economic way to do it.

And yeah, I think it could work as per-office.

On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:45 PM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/1/23 13:38, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Perhaps a "bench" system like in team sports, where there is a main
> > officer, but if they can't do their roles, or want to take a vacation,
> the
> > person on the bench takes the spot until they come back.
> >
> > The bench positions are elected or otherwise offered to everyone equally
> > somehow.
>
> One bench for each office? Or one bench total. We could automatically
> fill the benches from the election results. Whoever got 2nd place gets
> first option to the office, then 3rd gets second option. When you run
> out, then the officer can just pick someone.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Herald
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Perhaps a "bench" system like in team sports, where there is a main
officer, but if they can't do their roles, or want to take a vacation, the
person on the bench takes the spot until they come back.

The bench positions are elected or otherwise offered to everyone equally
somehow.

On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:35 PM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/1/23 13:32, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> > I'm not sure if my main point is coming across that the problem would be
> > the "dynasty" thing, where the veteran gets to hand-pick themselves how
> the
> > office continues rather than having a process that is more impartial.
>
> Oh I see. The reason for picking the delegate was intended to allow the
> officer to feel assured there was someone going to do it. Having to do
> some sort of mini-election before they leave seems stressful. I was
> imagining that in practice most officers would just go "anyone willing
> to do this for a month?" and choose whoever said yes.
>
> What alternative would you suggest?
>
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Herald
>
>