Re: DIS: A proto

[Edward Murphy via agora-discussion]

juan wrote:


Jason Cobb via agora-discussion [2022-08-29 13:23]:

We now have a player who is directly responsible for three FAGEs. I
believe that it's time we discuss a mechanism similar to the one below.


Title: Unfortunately
Author: Jason
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 3.0

{

Amend Rule 869 by appending the following paragraph:
{

Banned is a secured negative boolean person switch. A person is
unwelcome if e is Banned or if at least one part of em is unwelcome.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an unwelcome person CANNOT
register or be registered, and e is immediately deregistered if e is
ever a player. Designations of unwelcomeness are secured.

[snip]

But it's not. In adopting it, we would be stating clearly that we
believe in ostracism, and, most worringly for me, that we believe in
punishment for life.

[snip]

* Bans should not be permanent. There should be a way to appeal them,
   and they should have time limits (though those can be unspecified and
   unlimited). Times change, and so should we.

* We should have formal processes that implement some form of
   restorative justice, upon whose failure, and only then, extreme
   measures such as ostracism should prevail.


I don't disagree with either of these points, but I do disagree with
your characterization of this proto as clearly going against them (at
least the first one). It doesn't add any specified mechanism for
actually flipping a person's Banned switch, in either direction;
presumably that would be left up to proposals of the form "Flip
's Banned switch to ". And presumably such a
proposal would generate plenty of careful discussion, but adopting
rules along the lines of "a Banned switch can only be flipped if
 was attempted and failed to achieve acceptable
resolution" may be a good idea; something similar to Defendant's
Rights, but addressing the rights of the people on both sides of
a "maybe this calls for a ban" dispute.

Re: DIS: A proto

[juan via agora-discussion]

nix via agora-discussion [2022-08-30 13:33]:
> On 8/29/22 16:28, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Concretely, I believe a self-moderated community should implement a form
> > of restorative justice. I am not well-versed in this area, but I see an
> > opportunity for us to create something new and valuable. I posit we
> > should invest in the idea of a just Agora. We should take this
> > seriously.
> 
> Restorative justice is a great idea. I wrote a few protos on it in the
> discord a while back, I'm sure someone can dig them up.
> 
> > Even more concretely, I point the following, just out of the top of my
> > head:
> >
> > * Bans should not be permanent. There should be a way to appeal them,
> >and they should have time limits (though those can be unspecified and
> >unlimited). Times change, and so should we.
> >
> > * We should have formal processes that implement some form of
> >restorative justice, upon whose failure, and only then, extreme
> >measures such as ostracism should prevail.
> >
> > I don't believe in punishment, fiction notwithstanding, and so I don't
> > believe ostracism to be a punishment. It is – it must be – only the
> > final, most bitter remedy for an injustice so grievous, and so
> > collective, that there is no possible restoration. It is grave. I'd even
> > come to the point of saying it needs to be a unanimous decision.
> 
> I admire your idealism, but I just think you're wrong about how grievous
> it has to be. Sometimes restoration isn't possible because someone
> involved refuses to engage in a restorative process. Madrid responded
> with "you shouldn't even be allowed to be mad at that, it's just who I
> am." So e's clearly not interested at this time in understanding how eir
> actions might have impacts.
> 
> If your idealism aligns with protecting the person that makes other
> people so uncomfortable that they quit, because they haven't done
> anything **too serious**, then congrats because that's what you
> currently have.
> 
> --
> nix

I'm sorry. I had no idea of the gravity of the situation. Also, as I've
said, I know very little about restorative justice. Honestly, I have no
idea how to deal with a situation such as this. Obviously, keeping
things as-is is unnaceptable. Something must be done to stop the pattern
of abuse, though I don't have much confidence in what that is.

That said, I prefer to err on the side of protecting victims. If no
better alternatives come up, I will support a ban.

-- 
juan

Re: DIS: A proto

[Sarah S. via agora-discussion]

Why do I always forget to send from.this damn email

On Thu, 1 Sep 2022, 10:25 Ned Strange,  wrote:

> I think that you don't need to ask 'hard questions' about why trans people
> are trans. I'm quite open about my gender and why I'm trans, but I don't
> think anything I have said in any way invited 'hard questions' to be posed
> about the subject. Sure, I have spoken from a more academic perspective
> about what I believe about gender and my own struggles with the subject -
> because I believed at that time I wouldn't receive absurd pushback from you
> or your ilk. I will not discuss those things again, which is actually quite
> sad for me because some of these people are my friends and I want to be
> open with my friends. There may be a forum for discussing 'hard questions'
> of gender and race - I believe the rest of us unanimously agree that any
> agora nomic forum is not it. Open discussion is one thing, but making
> strange insinuations about how trans women are actually men or randomly
> bringing up biological racial differences and blaming political correctness
> out of nowhere is not it, chief.
>
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022, 18:48 Madrid via agora-discussion, <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> Before I get dogpiled for being called a "racist" - different races, in a
>> very general way, have different medical needs.
>>
>> What I mainly wanted to bring up back then was that it puts those in a
>> racial minority at a disadvantage when general medical culture seems
>> (often
>> unintentionally) catered towards a particular racial majority and
>> 'political correctness' silences voices that want to bring up that these
>> minorities generally have different inborn vulnerabilities than the
>> majority. It seems racist to say "darker skinned people need more sunlight
>> to be healthy". But it's true. I'm darker skinned myself, I want to know
>> these things to get the vitamin D I need! This doesn't only apply to skin
>> color, but ultimately, what's more important, political correctness, or
>> people's health?
>>
>> About trans people, I think I'm the only guy making hard questions about
>> the phenomenon. I curious about these things that people seem so hushed
>> about. Like, for example:
>>
>> Why are the vast majority of women on Agora, trans?
>>
>> Stone me, burn me on the stake, I am legitimately curious.
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 31, 2022, Sarah S. via agora-discussion <
>> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 9:40 AM Sarah S. 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 3:32 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
>> > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> On 8/30/2022 9:25 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
>> > >> > On Tue, 2022-08-30 at 18:14 +0200, Madrid via agora-discussion
>> wrote:
>> > >> >> Its true that I don't care much about upholding ancient tradition.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> It's nomic, a game of change, and I'm very willing to see Spivak
>> > >> >> removed.
>> > >>
>> > >> [snip]
>> > >>
>> > >> > I probably wouldn't object to a widespread change to singular-they
>> if
>> > >> > the general view of the playerlist is that that would be
>> preferable,
>> > >> > but it would be likely to add a little extra confusion for no real
>> > >> > benefit (the distinction between singular "e" and plural "they"
>> makes
>> > >> > it easier to parse what a rule is saying).
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >> Just as a minor clarification, I'm not arguing for Spivak per se
>> based
>> > on
>> > >> "ancient tradition" but more along the lines you suggest here, of
>> > >> evaluating our community standards continuously but generally
>> > >> respectfully.  The important point for me is that this is not just an
>> > >> isolated quibble over a single instance of language use (and a single
>> > >> unfortunate comparison), but rather an inability to reach a
>> reasonable
>> > >> accommodation with the current community's longstanding/currently-
>> > standing
>> > >> practices.
>> > >>
>> > >> That stuff is just exhausting and not fun in any gaming group, beyond
>> > any
>> > >> historical points or future changes.
>> > >>
>> > >> -G.
>> > >>
>> > >> I personally support spivak - any change to referring to players
>> always
>> > > by the singular 'they' would probably offend me - I'm not a they, I'm
>> a
>> > > she. E/em pronouns, as something that are generally confined within
>> the
>> > > game, don't annoy me in the same way that 'they' would and I enjoy our
>> > odd
>> > > little game pronouns. That said, Agora Is A Nomic and people are free
>> to
>> > > advocate changing to the use of preferred pronouns if they like - this
>> > > doesn't bother me particularly much when Madrid does it. I too find
>> them
>> > > odd to adapt to (and get them wrong quite often), and blognomic did
>> start
>> > > with spivak then abolish them many years ago. And yes, I do think
>> > > traditions ought to be questioned - a substantial majority 

Re: DIS: A proto

[Ned Strange via agora-discussion]

I think that you don't need to ask 'hard questions' about why trans people
are trans. I'm quite open about my gender and why I'm trans, but I don't
think anything I have said in any way invited 'hard questions' to be posed
about the subject. Sure, I have spoken from a more academic perspective
about what I believe about gender and my own struggles with the subject -
because I believed at that time I wouldn't receive absurd pushback from you
or your ilk. I will not discuss those things again, which is actually quite
sad for me because some of these people are my friends and I want to be
open with my friends. There may be a forum for discussing 'hard questions'
of gender and race - I believe the rest of us unanimously agree that any
agora nomic forum is not it. Open discussion is one thing, but making
strange insinuations about how trans women are actually men or randomly
bringing up biological racial differences and blaming political correctness
out of nowhere is not it, chief.

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022, 18:48 Madrid via agora-discussion, <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> Before I get dogpiled for being called a "racist" - different races, in a
> very general way, have different medical needs.
>
> What I mainly wanted to bring up back then was that it puts those in a
> racial minority at a disadvantage when general medical culture seems (often
> unintentionally) catered towards a particular racial majority and
> 'political correctness' silences voices that want to bring up that these
> minorities generally have different inborn vulnerabilities than the
> majority. It seems racist to say "darker skinned people need more sunlight
> to be healthy". But it's true. I'm darker skinned myself, I want to know
> these things to get the vitamin D I need! This doesn't only apply to skin
> color, but ultimately, what's more important, political correctness, or
> people's health?
>
> About trans people, I think I'm the only guy making hard questions about
> the phenomenon. I curious about these things that people seem so hushed
> about. Like, for example:
>
> Why are the vast majority of women on Agora, trans?
>
> Stone me, burn me on the stake, I am legitimately curious.
>
> On Wednesday, August 31, 2022, Sarah S. via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 9:40 AM Sarah S. 
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 3:32 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
> > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> On 8/30/2022 9:25 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> > >> > On Tue, 2022-08-30 at 18:14 +0200, Madrid via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > >> >> Its true that I don't care much about upholding ancient tradition.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> It's nomic, a game of change, and I'm very willing to see Spivak
> > >> >> removed.
> > >>
> > >> [snip]
> > >>
> > >> > I probably wouldn't object to a widespread change to singular-they
> if
> > >> > the general view of the playerlist is that that would be preferable,
> > >> > but it would be likely to add a little extra confusion for no real
> > >> > benefit (the distinction between singular "e" and plural "they"
> makes
> > >> > it easier to parse what a rule is saying).
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Just as a minor clarification, I'm not arguing for Spivak per se based
> > on
> > >> "ancient tradition" but more along the lines you suggest here, of
> > >> evaluating our community standards continuously but generally
> > >> respectfully.  The important point for me is that this is not just an
> > >> isolated quibble over a single instance of language use (and a single
> > >> unfortunate comparison), but rather an inability to reach a reasonable
> > >> accommodation with the current community's longstanding/currently-
> > standing
> > >> practices.
> > >>
> > >> That stuff is just exhausting and not fun in any gaming group, beyond
> > any
> > >> historical points or future changes.
> > >>
> > >> -G.
> > >>
> > >> I personally support spivak - any change to referring to players
> always
> > > by the singular 'they' would probably offend me - I'm not a they, I'm a
> > > she. E/em pronouns, as something that are generally confined within the
> > > game, don't annoy me in the same way that 'they' would and I enjoy our
> > odd
> > > little game pronouns. That said, Agora Is A Nomic and people are free
> to
> > > advocate changing to the use of preferred pronouns if they like - this
> > > doesn't bother me particularly much when Madrid does it. I too find
> them
> > > odd to adapt to (and get them wrong quite often), and blognomic did
> start
> > > with spivak then abolish them many years ago. And yes, I do think
> > > traditions ought to be questioned - a substantial majority of the
> player
> > > base is newer and if they choose to revise something that doesn't work
> > for
> > > them, they should do so.
> > >
> > > What bothers me rather more is Madrid's attitude to trans people and
> > women
> > > expressed 

Re: DIS: A proto

[Madrid via agora-discussion]

Before I get dogpiled for being called a "racist" - different races, in a
very general way, have different medical needs.

What I mainly wanted to bring up back then was that it puts those in a
racial minority at a disadvantage when general medical culture seems (often
unintentionally) catered towards a particular racial majority and
'political correctness' silences voices that want to bring up that these
minorities generally have different inborn vulnerabilities than the
majority. It seems racist to say "darker skinned people need more sunlight
to be healthy". But it's true. I'm darker skinned myself, I want to know
these things to get the vitamin D I need! This doesn't only apply to skin
color, but ultimately, what's more important, political correctness, or
people's health?

About trans people, I think I'm the only guy making hard questions about
the phenomenon. I curious about these things that people seem so hushed
about. Like, for example:

Why are the vast majority of women on Agora, trans?

Stone me, burn me on the stake, I am legitimately curious.

On Wednesday, August 31, 2022, Sarah S. via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 9:40 AM Sarah S.  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 3:32 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
> > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 8/30/2022 9:25 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 2022-08-30 at 18:14 +0200, Madrid via agora-discussion wrote:
> >> >> Its true that I don't care much about upholding ancient tradition.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's nomic, a game of change, and I'm very willing to see Spivak
> >> >> removed.
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> > I probably wouldn't object to a widespread change to singular-they if
> >> > the general view of the playerlist is that that would be preferable,
> >> > but it would be likely to add a little extra confusion for no real
> >> > benefit (the distinction between singular "e" and plural "they" makes
> >> > it easier to parse what a rule is saying).
> >> >
> >>
> >> Just as a minor clarification, I'm not arguing for Spivak per se based
> on
> >> "ancient tradition" but more along the lines you suggest here, of
> >> evaluating our community standards continuously but generally
> >> respectfully.  The important point for me is that this is not just an
> >> isolated quibble over a single instance of language use (and a single
> >> unfortunate comparison), but rather an inability to reach a reasonable
> >> accommodation with the current community's longstanding/currently-
> standing
> >> practices.
> >>
> >> That stuff is just exhausting and not fun in any gaming group, beyond
> any
> >> historical points or future changes.
> >>
> >> -G.
> >>
> >> I personally support spivak - any change to referring to players always
> > by the singular 'they' would probably offend me - I'm not a they, I'm a
> > she. E/em pronouns, as something that are generally confined within the
> > game, don't annoy me in the same way that 'they' would and I enjoy our
> odd
> > little game pronouns. That said, Agora Is A Nomic and people are free to
> > advocate changing to the use of preferred pronouns if they like - this
> > doesn't bother me particularly much when Madrid does it. I too find them
> > odd to adapt to (and get them wrong quite often), and blognomic did start
> > with spivak then abolish them many years ago. And yes, I do think
> > traditions ought to be questioned - a substantial majority of the player
> > base is newer and if they choose to revise something that doesn't work
> for
> > them, they should do so.
> >
> > What bothers me rather more is Madrid's attitude to trans people and
> women
> > expressed on discord, which I think is quite consistently
> discriminatory. E
> > has also made remarks about racial differences (deleted by moderator)
> which
> > in my view were discriminatory. To be clear, I don't remotely feel
> > emotionally threatened by Madrid, nor do I feel like e
> > personally discriminates against or devalues other players including
> myself
> > - which is why I don't want to ban em. E is, perhaps unfortunately, quite
> > good at confining these conversations to the abstract. But I do want to
> > make it clear that I think women ought not be needlessly sexualised,
> trans
> > people should be accomodated, and ideologies that approach 'race-realism'
> > are pernicious and entirely beyond the pale. These are sentences that I
> > wouldn't think I would have to type to the agora nomic email server of
> all
> > places, but I want to make what I think clear. I think it would be quite
> > appropriate for agora as a whole to affirm in the rules that we are a
> > diverse place and will always welcome anyone from any minority group.
> This
> > is the sort of social norm I believe it would be appropriate to
> crystallise
> > and enshrine for all time.
> >
>
>
> Upon reflection I probably shouldn't have sent this email, except perhaps
> the last 

Re: DIS: A proto

[Sarah S. via agora-discussion]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 9:40 AM Sarah S.  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 3:32 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 8/30/2022 9:25 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2022-08-30 at 18:14 +0200, Madrid via agora-discussion wrote:
>> >> Its true that I don't care much about upholding ancient tradition.
>> >>
>> >> It's nomic, a game of change, and I'm very willing to see Spivak
>> >> removed.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > I probably wouldn't object to a widespread change to singular-they if
>> > the general view of the playerlist is that that would be preferable,
>> > but it would be likely to add a little extra confusion for no real
>> > benefit (the distinction between singular "e" and plural "they" makes
>> > it easier to parse what a rule is saying).
>> >
>>
>> Just as a minor clarification, I'm not arguing for Spivak per se based on
>> "ancient tradition" but more along the lines you suggest here, of
>> evaluating our community standards continuously but generally
>> respectfully.  The important point for me is that this is not just an
>> isolated quibble over a single instance of language use (and a single
>> unfortunate comparison), but rather an inability to reach a reasonable
>> accommodation with the current community's longstanding/currently-standing
>> practices.
>>
>> That stuff is just exhausting and not fun in any gaming group, beyond any
>> historical points or future changes.
>>
>> -G.
>>
>> I personally support spivak - any change to referring to players always
> by the singular 'they' would probably offend me - I'm not a they, I'm a
> she. E/em pronouns, as something that are generally confined within the
> game, don't annoy me in the same way that 'they' would and I enjoy our odd
> little game pronouns. That said, Agora Is A Nomic and people are free to
> advocate changing to the use of preferred pronouns if they like - this
> doesn't bother me particularly much when Madrid does it. I too find them
> odd to adapt to (and get them wrong quite often), and blognomic did start
> with spivak then abolish them many years ago. And yes, I do think
> traditions ought to be questioned - a substantial majority of the player
> base is newer and if they choose to revise something that doesn't work for
> them, they should do so.
>
> What bothers me rather more is Madrid's attitude to trans people and women
> expressed on discord, which I think is quite consistently discriminatory. E
> has also made remarks about racial differences (deleted by moderator) which
> in my view were discriminatory. To be clear, I don't remotely feel
> emotionally threatened by Madrid, nor do I feel like e
> personally discriminates against or devalues other players including myself
> - which is why I don't want to ban em. E is, perhaps unfortunately, quite
> good at confining these conversations to the abstract. But I do want to
> make it clear that I think women ought not be needlessly sexualised, trans
> people should be accomodated, and ideologies that approach 'race-realism'
> are pernicious and entirely beyond the pale. These are sentences that I
> wouldn't think I would have to type to the agora nomic email server of all
> places, but I want to make what I think clear. I think it would be quite
> appropriate for agora as a whole to affirm in the rules that we are a
> diverse place and will always welcome anyone from any minority group. This
> is the sort of social norm I believe it would be appropriate to crystallise
> and enshrine for all time.
>


Upon reflection I probably shouldn't have sent this email, except perhaps
the last two sentences. It is adding fuel that certainly didn't need to be
added.

Re: DIS: A proto

[Sarah S. via agora-discussion]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 3:32 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
> On 8/30/2022 9:25 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Tue, 2022-08-30 at 18:14 +0200, Madrid via agora-discussion wrote:
> >> Its true that I don't care much about upholding ancient tradition.
> >>
> >> It's nomic, a game of change, and I'm very willing to see Spivak
> >> removed.
>
> [snip]
>
> > I probably wouldn't object to a widespread change to singular-they if
> > the general view of the playerlist is that that would be preferable,
> > but it would be likely to add a little extra confusion for no real
> > benefit (the distinction between singular "e" and plural "they" makes
> > it easier to parse what a rule is saying).
> >
>
> Just as a minor clarification, I'm not arguing for Spivak per se based on
> "ancient tradition" but more along the lines you suggest here, of
> evaluating our community standards continuously but generally
> respectfully.  The important point for me is that this is not just an
> isolated quibble over a single instance of language use (and a single
> unfortunate comparison), but rather an inability to reach a reasonable
> accommodation with the current community's longstanding/currently-standing
> practices.
>
> That stuff is just exhausting and not fun in any gaming group, beyond any
> historical points or future changes.
>
> -G.
>
> I personally support spivak - any change to referring to players always by
the singular 'they' would probably offend me - I'm not a they, I'm a she.
E/em pronouns, as something that are generally confined within the game,
don't annoy me in the same way that 'they' would and I enjoy our odd little
game pronouns. That said, Agora Is A Nomic and people are free to advocate
changing to the use of preferred pronouns if they like - this doesn't
bother me particularly much when Madrid does it. I too find them odd to
adapt to (and get them wrong quite often), and blognomic did start with
spivak then abolish them many years ago. And yes, I do think traditions
ought to be questioned - a substantial majority of the player base is newer
and if they choose to revise something that doesn't work for them, they
should do so.

What bothers me rather more is Madrid's attitude to trans people and women
expressed on discord, which I think is quite consistently discriminatory. E
has also made remarks about racial differences (deleted by moderator) which
in my view were discriminatory. To be clear, I don't remotely feel
emotionally threatened by Madrid, nor do I feel like e
personally discriminates against or devalues other players including myself
- which is why I don't want to ban em. E is, perhaps unfortunately, quite
good at confining these conversations to the abstract. But I do want to
make it clear that I think women ought not be needlessly sexualised, trans
people should be accomodated, and ideologies that approach 'race-realism'
are pernicious and entirely beyond the pale. These are sentences that I
wouldn't think I would have to type to the agora nomic email server of all
places, but I want to make what I think clear. I think it would be quite
appropriate for agora as a whole to affirm in the rules that we are a
diverse place and will always welcome anyone from any minority group. This
is the sort of social norm I believe it would be appropriate to crystallise
and enshrine for all time.

Re: DIS: A proto

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 8/30/2022 9:25 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-08-30 at 18:14 +0200, Madrid via agora-discussion wrote:
>> Its true that I don't care much about upholding ancient tradition.
>>
>> It's nomic, a game of change, and I'm very willing to see Spivak
>> removed.

[snip]

> I probably wouldn't object to a widespread change to singular-they if
> the general view of the playerlist is that that would be preferable,
> but it would be likely to add a little extra confusion for no real
> benefit (the distinction between singular "e" and plural "they" makes
> it easier to parse what a rule is saying).
>

Just as a minor clarification, I'm not arguing for Spivak per se based on
"ancient tradition" but more along the lines you suggest here, of
evaluating our community standards continuously but generally
respectfully.  The important point for me is that this is not just an
isolated quibble over a single instance of language use (and a single
unfortunate comparison), but rather an inability to reach a reasonable
accommodation with the current community's longstanding/currently-standing
practices.

That stuff is just exhausting and not fun in any gaming group, beyond any
historical points or future changes.

-G.

Re: DIS: A proto

[grok via agora-discussion]

this sucks, so i guess it's as good a time as any to stop watching the
distros. thanks for the memories everyone


On Tue, Aug 30, 2022, 11:14 AM Madrid via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> Its true that I don't care much about upholding ancient tradition.
>
> It's nomic, a game of change, and I'm very willing to see Spivak removed.
>
> On Tuesday, August 30, 2022, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > [I apologize in advance to others - I don't want to prolong this
> > further/at all, but I think the specific Agoran context is important to
> > lay out.]
> >
> > Madrid wrote:
> > > - To further illustrate how the current push for
> neopronouns/neolanguage
> > > isn't natively Spanish but (mostly) orginated in the US as a movement,
> >
> > This is an Agoran thing, not a broader language question.  Back in 1993,
> > well before it was a big "U.S." thing, Agorans collectively decided to
> use
> > e and eir, for specific and conscious reasons.  It is part of the
> *Agoran*
> > culture (if it matters, the game at the time was dominated by Aus/NZ
> > players, not the US).  It was also out of specific respect to Grand Hero
> > of Agora Douglas Hofstadter, who, back in the 1980s, dedicated Scientific
> > American columns (the same column in which e popularized Nomic) to the
> > pernicious effects of inherent linguistic sexism. It was a subject e was
> > passionate about, and one that we found important back in the 1990s when
> > almost nobody else did.
> >
> > In 2017, when we had several new players, we gently corrected those
> > who joined, when they didn't use the lingo. Just as others have been,
> > including myself, for the whole history of the game.  Yours is the only
> > response I remember that was basically "I'm going to keep using it
> because
> > my convenience as a new player is more important that your long-running
> > culture":
> >
> > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/
> > agora-business/2017-June/035225.html
> >
> > And nix called you out then, too:
> >
> > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/
> > agora-business/2017-June/035228.html
> >
> > After 5 years of this not getting any better.  Literally no one else
> since
> > I joined again in 2001, in my memory, has had any issues once it was
> > explained.  I'm really really tired of arguing the point, it's not why I
> > come here to play this game.
> >
> > Madrid wrote:
> > > To someone who isn't in the neopronouns/neolanguage camp, it feels like
> > > some external ideology (be it Sharia Law or neopronouns) barging in to
> > > claim that they're correct to some degree and that certain things need
> > > to change to a certain amount to accommodate them.
> >
> > You're partially correct, except for the key point that this is
> *internal*
> > not *external*.  A voluntary group that has been running for over 27
> years
> > is asking a single relative newcomer to respect its traditions,
> traditions
> > that were carefully thought out and defended for years when it was a
> weird
> > oddity and harder to explain.  I'm glad the cultural zeitgeist has caught
> > up in some places.
> >
> > And no other newcomer has had issues, or if they have they've quietly
> > ducked out.  If you want to compare that to a oppressive regime - well
> the
> > difference (and what makes it an insulting comparison) is that unlike
> many
> > under Sharia Law, you are 100% free and privileged to leave with no
> > consequences.
> >
> > This is just a simple matter:  THIS IS HOW THIS PARTICULAR GAME IS
> > PLAYED.  If you don't like it, there's plenty of other games to enjoy.
> > This one probably just isn't a good fit.
> >
> > -G.
> >
>

Re: DIS: A proto

[ais523 via agora-discussion]

On Tue, 2022-08-30 at 18:14 +0200, Madrid via agora-discussion wrote:
> Its true that I don't care much about upholding ancient tradition.
> 
> It's nomic, a game of change, and I'm very willing to see Spivak
> removed.

I would prefer to keep Spivak, not so much due to the tradition, but
due to the effects on conversation we'd have if we removed it.

Gender is something that generally doesn't, and almost certainly
shouldn't, matter at Agora, so the only benefit to using gendered
pronouns would be to force constant reminders of people's genders on us
for no obvious reason, and that's something that tends to make me
uncomfortable (i.e. being forced to think about people as genders,
rather than thinking about people as individuals). This is a problem in
a wide number of contexts, but Agora's solution is very simple and
straightforward.

(I also note that the problem is more complicated at Agora than
elsewhere, because Agora sometimes has non-sentient persons, typically
legal fictions, in addition to the humans. Normally these would be "it"
but we need to try to cover them with the same pronouns as the human
players.)

I probably wouldn't object to a widespread change to singular-they if
the general view of the playerlist is that that would be preferable,
but it would be likely to add a little extra confusion for no real
benefit (the distinction between singular "e" and plural "they" makes
it easier to parse what a rule is saying).

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: A proto

[Madrid via agora-discussion]

(I agree with the other points though. My perspective was/is largely mostly
concerned with the recent context and I suspect that it has a similar
significant influence on others too, because this historical arcana isn't
obvious. Although if the argument ever was 'this is tradition, that's why
it has to stay like this' I'm not for that either regardless.)

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022, Madrid  wrote:

> Its true that I don't care much about upholding ancient tradition.
>
> It's nomic, a game of change, and I'm very willing to see Spivak removed.
>
> On Tuesday, August 30, 2022, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> [I apologize in advance to others - I don't want to prolong this
>> further/at all, but I think the specific Agoran context is important to
>> lay out.]
>>
>> Madrid wrote:
>> > - To further illustrate how the current push for neopronouns/neolanguage
>> > isn't natively Spanish but (mostly) orginated in the US as a movement,
>>
>> This is an Agoran thing, not a broader language question.  Back in 1993,
>> well before it was a big "U.S." thing, Agorans collectively decided to use
>> e and eir, for specific and conscious reasons.  It is part of the *Agoran*
>> culture (if it matters, the game at the time was dominated by Aus/NZ
>> players, not the US).  It was also out of specific respect to Grand Hero
>> of Agora Douglas Hofstadter, who, back in the 1980s, dedicated Scientific
>> American columns (the same column in which e popularized Nomic) to the
>> pernicious effects of inherent linguistic sexism. It was a subject e was
>> passionate about, and one that we found important back in the 1990s when
>> almost nobody else did.
>>
>> In 2017, when we had several new players, we gently corrected those
>> who joined, when they didn't use the lingo. Just as others have been,
>> including myself, for the whole history of the game.  Yours is the only
>> response I remember that was basically "I'm going to keep using it because
>> my convenience as a new player is more important that your long-running
>> culture":
>>
>> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora
>> -business/2017-June/035225.html
>>
>> And nix called you out then, too:
>>
>> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora
>> -business/2017-June/035228.html
>>
>> After 5 years of this not getting any better.  Literally no one else since
>> I joined again in 2001, in my memory, has had any issues once it was
>> explained.  I'm really really tired of arguing the point, it's not why I
>> come here to play this game.
>>
>> Madrid wrote:
>> > To someone who isn't in the neopronouns/neolanguage camp, it feels like
>> > some external ideology (be it Sharia Law or neopronouns) barging in to
>> > claim that they're correct to some degree and that certain things need
>> > to change to a certain amount to accommodate them.
>>
>> You're partially correct, except for the key point that this is *internal*
>> not *external*.  A voluntary group that has been running for over 27 years
>> is asking a single relative newcomer to respect its traditions, traditions
>> that were carefully thought out and defended for years when it was a weird
>> oddity and harder to explain.  I'm glad the cultural zeitgeist has caught
>> up in some places.
>>
>> And no other newcomer has had issues, or if they have they've quietly
>> ducked out.  If you want to compare that to a oppressive regime - well the
>> difference (and what makes it an insulting comparison) is that unlike many
>> under Sharia Law, you are 100% free and privileged to leave with no
>> consequences.
>>
>> This is just a simple matter:  THIS IS HOW THIS PARTICULAR GAME IS
>> PLAYED.  If you don't like it, there's plenty of other games to enjoy.
>> This one probably just isn't a good fit.
>>
>> -G.
>>
>

Re: DIS: A proto

[Madrid via agora-discussion]

Its true that I don't care much about upholding ancient tradition.

It's nomic, a game of change, and I'm very willing to see Spivak removed.

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> [I apologize in advance to others - I don't want to prolong this
> further/at all, but I think the specific Agoran context is important to
> lay out.]
>
> Madrid wrote:
> > - To further illustrate how the current push for neopronouns/neolanguage
> > isn't natively Spanish but (mostly) orginated in the US as a movement,
>
> This is an Agoran thing, not a broader language question.  Back in 1993,
> well before it was a big "U.S." thing, Agorans collectively decided to use
> e and eir, for specific and conscious reasons.  It is part of the *Agoran*
> culture (if it matters, the game at the time was dominated by Aus/NZ
> players, not the US).  It was also out of specific respect to Grand Hero
> of Agora Douglas Hofstadter, who, back in the 1980s, dedicated Scientific
> American columns (the same column in which e popularized Nomic) to the
> pernicious effects of inherent linguistic sexism. It was a subject e was
> passionate about, and one that we found important back in the 1990s when
> almost nobody else did.
>
> In 2017, when we had several new players, we gently corrected those
> who joined, when they didn't use the lingo. Just as others have been,
> including myself, for the whole history of the game.  Yours is the only
> response I remember that was basically "I'm going to keep using it because
> my convenience as a new player is more important that your long-running
> culture":
>
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/
> agora-business/2017-June/035225.html
>
> And nix called you out then, too:
>
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/
> agora-business/2017-June/035228.html
>
> After 5 years of this not getting any better.  Literally no one else since
> I joined again in 2001, in my memory, has had any issues once it was
> explained.  I'm really really tired of arguing the point, it's not why I
> come here to play this game.
>
> Madrid wrote:
> > To someone who isn't in the neopronouns/neolanguage camp, it feels like
> > some external ideology (be it Sharia Law or neopronouns) barging in to
> > claim that they're correct to some degree and that certain things need
> > to change to a certain amount to accommodate them.
>
> You're partially correct, except for the key point that this is *internal*
> not *external*.  A voluntary group that has been running for over 27 years
> is asking a single relative newcomer to respect its traditions, traditions
> that were carefully thought out and defended for years when it was a weird
> oddity and harder to explain.  I'm glad the cultural zeitgeist has caught
> up in some places.
>
> And no other newcomer has had issues, or if they have they've quietly
> ducked out.  If you want to compare that to a oppressive regime - well the
> difference (and what makes it an insulting comparison) is that unlike many
> under Sharia Law, you are 100% free and privileged to leave with no
> consequences.
>
> This is just a simple matter:  THIS IS HOW THIS PARTICULAR GAME IS
> PLAYED.  If you don't like it, there's plenty of other games to enjoy.
> This one probably just isn't a good fit.
>
> -G.
>

Re: DIS: A proto

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

[I apologize in advance to others - I don't want to prolong this
further/at all, but I think the specific Agoran context is important to
lay out.]

Madrid wrote:
> - To further illustrate how the current push for neopronouns/neolanguage
> isn't natively Spanish but (mostly) orginated in the US as a movement, 

This is an Agoran thing, not a broader language question.  Back in 1993,
well before it was a big "U.S." thing, Agorans collectively decided to use
e and eir, for specific and conscious reasons.  It is part of the *Agoran*
culture (if it matters, the game at the time was dominated by Aus/NZ
players, not the US).  It was also out of specific respect to Grand Hero
of Agora Douglas Hofstadter, who, back in the 1980s, dedicated Scientific
American columns (the same column in which e popularized Nomic) to the
pernicious effects of inherent linguistic sexism. It was a subject e was
passionate about, and one that we found important back in the 1990s when
almost nobody else did.

In 2017, when we had several new players, we gently corrected those
who joined, when they didn't use the lingo. Just as others have been,
including myself, for the whole history of the game.  Yours is the only
response I remember that was basically "I'm going to keep using it because
my convenience as a new player is more important that your long-running
culture":

https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-June/035225.html

And nix called you out then, too:

https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-June/035228.html

After 5 years of this not getting any better.  Literally no one else since
I joined again in 2001, in my memory, has had any issues once it was
explained.  I'm really really tired of arguing the point, it's not why I
come here to play this game.

Madrid wrote:
> To someone who isn't in the neopronouns/neolanguage camp, it feels like
> some external ideology (be it Sharia Law or neopronouns) barging in to
> claim that they're correct to some degree and that certain things need
> to change to a certain amount to accommodate them.

You're partially correct, except for the key point that this is *internal*
not *external*.  A voluntary group that has been running for over 27 years
is asking a single relative newcomer to respect its traditions, traditions
that were carefully thought out and defended for years when it was a weird
oddity and harder to explain.  I'm glad the cultural zeitgeist has caught
up in some places.

And no other newcomer has had issues, or if they have they've quietly
ducked out.  If you want to compare that to a oppressive regime - well the
difference (and what makes it an insulting comparison) is that unlike many
under Sharia Law, you are 100% free and privileged to leave with no
consequences.

This is just a simple matter:  THIS IS HOW THIS PARTICULAR GAME IS
PLAYED.  If you don't like it, there's plenty of other games to enjoy.
This one probably just isn't a good fit.

-G.

Re: DIS: A proto

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 8/30/2022 6:33 AM, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 8/29/22 16:28, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
>> Concretely, I believe a self-moderated community should implement a form
>> of restorative justice. I am not well-versed in this area, but I see an
>> opportunity for us to create something new and valuable. I posit we
>> should invest in the idea of a just Agora. We should take this
>> seriously.
> 
> Restorative justice is a great idea. I wrote a few protos on it in the
> discord a while back, I'm sure someone can dig them up.
> 
>> Even more concretely, I point the following, just out of the top of my
>> head:
>>
>> * Bans should not be permanent. There should be a way to appeal them,
>>and they should have time limits (though those can be unspecified and
>>unlimited). Times change, and so should we.
>>
>> * We should have formal processes that implement some form of
>>restorative justice, upon whose failure, and only then, extreme
>>measures such as ostracism should prevail.
>>
>> I don't believe in punishment, fiction notwithstanding, and so I don't
>> believe ostracism to be a punishment. It is – it must be – only the
>> final, most bitter remedy for an injustice so grievous, and so
>> collective, that there is no possible restoration. It is grave. I'd even
>> come to the point of saying it needs to be a unanimous decision.
> 
> I admire your idealism, but I just think you're wrong about how grievous
> it has to be. Sometimes restoration isn't possible because someone
> involved refuses to engage in a restorative process. Madrid responded
> with "you shouldn't even be allowed to be mad at that, it's just who I
> am." So e's clearly not interested at this time in understanding how eir
> actions might have impacts.
>
> If your idealism aligns with protecting the person that makes other
> people so uncomfortable that they quit, because they haven't done
> anything **too serious**, then congrats because that's what you
> currently have.

I would also like to note for newer players that this is a long-running
pattern going back to 2017, not a single incident.

The issue we have is a parade of single incidents, never quite "bad
enough" for action but also never really backed off from - to the point
that others (including me) also just avoid/leave discord on a regular
basis to avoid.  It is specific incidents with Madrid that led to making
formal forum rules in the first place, and at some point "repeat repeat
warnings" get very tiring, and make it no longer a comfortable place to be.

-G.

Re: DIS: A proto

[nix via agora-discussion]

On 8/29/22 16:28, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
> Concretely, I believe a self-moderated community should implement a form
> of restorative justice. I am not well-versed in this area, but I see an
> opportunity for us to create something new and valuable. I posit we
> should invest in the idea of a just Agora. We should take this
> seriously.

Restorative justice is a great idea. I wrote a few protos on it in the
discord a while back, I'm sure someone can dig them up.

> Even more concretely, I point the following, just out of the top of my
> head:
>
> * Bans should not be permanent. There should be a way to appeal them,
>and they should have time limits (though those can be unspecified and
>unlimited). Times change, and so should we.
>
> * We should have formal processes that implement some form of
>restorative justice, upon whose failure, and only then, extreme
>measures such as ostracism should prevail.
>
> I don't believe in punishment, fiction notwithstanding, and so I don't
> believe ostracism to be a punishment. It is – it must be – only the
> final, most bitter remedy for an injustice so grievous, and so
> collective, that there is no possible restoration. It is grave. I'd even
> come to the point of saying it needs to be a unanimous decision.

I admire your idealism, but I just think you're wrong about how grievous
it has to be. Sometimes restoration isn't possible because someone
involved refuses to engage in a restorative process. Madrid responded
with "you shouldn't even be allowed to be mad at that, it's just who I
am." So e's clearly not interested at this time in understanding how eir
actions might have impacts.

If your idealism aligns with protecting the person that makes other
people so uncomfortable that they quit, because they haven't done
anything **too serious**, then congrats because that's what you
currently have.

--
nix

Re: DIS: A proto

[nix via agora-discussion]

On 8/30/22 02:51, Madrid via agora-discussion wrote:
> I know that nix has been offended by my 4chan-adjacent way of talking in
> the past. If it's about that, I accept the guilt.
>
> But if it's about my political arguments, I don't think that a Fage should
> be summoned because of that. In the same way that the US people are heavily
> influenced by their own anglosphere and local ideologies, I'm just some guy
> who is also heavily influenced by my own local ideologies. We won't always
> agree, and I don't mind that.

My "local ideology" was firmly firmly conservative. I grew up in the
rural midwest. The US isn't the ideological monolith you paint it as. I
suspect Spain isn't either. I don't blame my upbringing on my values, I
choose my own. Shame you can't seem to do the same.

--
nix

Re: DIS: A proto

[Madrid via agora-discussion]

I know that nix has been offended by my 4chan-adjacent way of talking in
the past. If it's about that, I accept the guilt.

But if it's about my political arguments, I don't think that a Fage should
be summoned because of that. In the same way that the US people are heavily
influenced by their own anglosphere and local ideologies, I'm just some guy
who is also heavily influenced by my own local ideologies. We won't always
agree, and I don't mind that.

You can check the Discord's #very-serious-agoran-business for what went
down, but here's my report on what I understand to be, at the moment, nix's
final straw. I believe there may have been some accidental
misinterpretation from nix (some others have pointed it out eg. what I said
in regards to feminism), so I'll go more in depth in what I said and wanted
to argue.

- So I was conversing with Aspen about language

- I brought up the Real Academia Española, which is basically the Spanish
office of Spanish Language for what is officially Actually Spanish
Language. They publish dictionaries and grammar stuff regularly. It's the
closest thing to an objective way to determine what is *correct* Spanish
and what isn't, it's been considered that for years by Spanish schools and
academia and whatnot. And the RAE does not support gender-neutral Spanish
as actual Spanish.

- Then I got a reply from Aspen which I found it to be misguided and
holier-than-thou. I disliked it. But at the end of the day, I really don't
mind. I am OK with them thinking and arguing that way:

"I guess, my point is, there's probably some period of time when (some)
people understand a word but it isn't officialized yet."

"And if people use e, just because it hasn't been officialized, that
doesn't make it *incorrect.*"

- I compared this to Sharia Law, because Aspen's argument seems to imply
that there's some new, 'correct' rule (or at least, 'not incorrect') to
things that other people just haven't caught onto yet. That, it's alright
and 'not incorrect' to use Spivak. Well, I argue that yes, sure, and the
Sharia Law supporters feel similarly, that other nations are misguided and
that Sharia Law in their jurisdiction is 'not incorrect'. To someone who
isn't in the neopronouns/neolanguage camp, it feels like some external
ideology (be it Sharia Law or neopronouns) barging in to claim that they're
correct to some degree and that certain things need to change to a certain
amount to accommodate them. This is related to, but still separate from my
next point, which is more about culture rather than what rules are correct
or not.
- To further illustrate how the current push for neopronouns/neolanguage
isn't natively Spanish but (mostly) orginated in the US as a movement, I
also explained how other things have arrived to Spain by US cultural
export, like modern feminism, and how Spain lagged behind it by 1-2 years
after it got really big in the US. There's truth in the Spanish lover
stereotype where shirtless handsome men on a horse treat doe-eyed women as
helpless children and sweep them off their feet to carry them off - Spain
is extremely sexist (it's very "machista"). Feminism is prevalent in Europe
nowadays and instead of focusing on nourishing and empowering women with
education and employment opportunity like Nordic countries do, Spain
focuses more on victimizing and protecting women and giving them direct
financial aid. I find it babying, in comparison to Nordic countries, but I
get why they do it, because Spain is still very machista. Regardless of if
its good or bad, it's just how the culture here is. In any case, modern
feminism is a foreign-imported idea to Spain. And so neolanguage. Beyond
how interconnected we all are always, both are movements that most heavily
originated in the US and are foreign cultural import to Spain. That was my
point.


On Tuesday, August 30, 2022, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 8/29/22 13:23, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> > We now have a player who is directly responsible for three FAGEs. I
> > believe that it's time we discuss a mechanism similar to the one below.
>
>
> Correction on this: directly responsible for one successful FAGE and one
> attempted FAGE that failed on a technicality.
>
> I was misremembering some additional heated discussion that e was
> responsible for as ending in a FAGE.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
> Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason
>
>

Re: DIS: A proto

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 8/29/22 13:23, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> We now have a player who is directly responsible for three FAGEs. I
> believe that it's time we discuss a mechanism similar to the one below.


Correction on this: directly responsible for one successful FAGE and one
attempted FAGE that failed on a technicality.

I was misremembering some additional heated discussion that e was
responsible for as ending in a FAGE.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: DIS: A proto

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 8/29/2022 2:28 PM, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
> I'll argue the following in principle. My only assumption is that there
> has been an injustice commited by some member of our community against
> another one.

To keep this a brief and neutral explanation, this happened in the Discord
forum.  The moderators there have (following Discord rules generally) a
set of forum rules[0] by consensus with those who use the Discord server.
 One player has had to be warned repeatedly and more than most, and posted
something yesterday that led to nix (a moderator) deregistering from Agora
in a writ of FAGE, earlier today.  The player in question was temporarily
kicked (not banned).

Identities and all the interactions are visible on discord; I'm personally
not posting details (there are several others who can) because I don't
want to drag people in who don't want to be involved without some warning
through this email - fair warning after this email, I suppose.

> Above all, if people are getting hurt, we must take this seriously.
100% agree.  Anytime there's a writ of FAGE, I think Agora needs to take a
bit of time, care, effort, and introspection into making the game
welcoming for all.

[0]
For reference, here are the Discord forum rules:

Welcome to the Agora Nomic Discord server! This server was created as a
place to discuss Agora, but anyone is welcome here.

RULES
1. Violations of rules may receive a warning from a moderator. Multiple
warnings may result in a ban. If you see a violation @Moderator. If you
disagree with a warning, take it up with the moderators in DMs.

2. Take all potentially sensitive conversations to threads. When in doubt,
make a thread. A moderator may make a thread for you. All rules must still
be followed in threads.

3. No discrimination, derogatory comments, or objectification of any
person or group based on identity. This includes devil's advocacy, or
other insincere or bad faith arguments.

4. If someone expresses discomfort with a conversation, immediately stop
engaging them in it.

Re: DIS: A proto

[juan via agora-discussion]

Jason Cobb via agora-discussion [2022-08-29 13:23]:
> We now have a player who is directly responsible for three FAGEs. I
> believe that it's time we discuss a mechanism similar to the one below.
> 
> 
> Title: Unfortunately
> Author: Jason
> Coauthors:
> Adoption index: 3.0
> 
> {
> 
> Amend Rule 869 by appending the following paragraph:
> {
> 
> Banned is a secured negative boolean person switch. A person is
> unwelcome if e is Banned or if at least one part of em is unwelcome.
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an unwelcome person CANNOT
> register or be registered, and e is immediately deregistered if e is
> ever a player. Designations of unwelcomeness are secured.
> 
> }
> 
> }

I'll argue the following in principle. My only assumption is that there
has been an injustice commited by some member of our community against
another one.

We are all dreaming.

Agora is a colletive dream. As are all games, in fact. But games, of
Nomic or otherwise, invariably involve people, and people live real
lives. That creates a strange liminal space where fiction meets reality,
and rules for any longstanding game must legislate on actions that are
not bound by the limits of its fiction.

That is the case for rules defining concepts such as “people”, which
must by necessity conjure a bit of ontology. Or rules stipulating how
players are to be registered, or in which forums the matters of the game
are to be discussed. Or, as is the case, rules, or the abscence thereof,
that cristalize our community's position on injustice and its remedies.

That brings us to the proposal. It saddens and surprises me that we
should need something like it. In my innocence, I chose to believe a
game where all is possible would also be free from the messy politics of
the real world. But everything is political.

So be it. And so we must tread in choosing our policy on injustice:
politically. Not the fictional kind, but the real one, the one that
hurts.

I admire the simplicity of the proposal, as it lets the polis decide how
justice is to be carried out. It would seem to be neutral, atemporal.

But it's not. In adopting it, we would be stating clearly that we
believe in ostracism, and, most worringly for me, that we believe in
punishment for life.

I'm not arguing against these values, though I might in due opportunity,
but I'm stressing this: we are not dealing with fiction any more. This
is real. And so, we must not play.

Concretely, I believe a self-moderated community should implement a form
of restorative justice. I am not well-versed in this area, but I see an
opportunity for us to create something new and valuable. I posit we
should invest in the idea of a just Agora. We should take this
seriously.

Even more concretely, I point the following, just out of the top of my
head:

* Bans should not be permanent. There should be a way to appeal them,
  and they should have time limits (though those can be unspecified and
  unlimited). Times change, and so should we.

* We should have formal processes that implement some form of
  restorative justice, upon whose failure, and only then, extreme
  measures such as ostracism should prevail.

I don't believe in punishment, fiction notwithstanding, and so I don't
believe ostracism to be a punishment. It is – it must be – only the
final, most bitter remedy for an injustice so grievous, and so
collective, that there is no possible restoration. It is grave. I'd even
come to the point of saying it needs to be a unanimous decision.

Above all, if people are getting hurt, we must take this seriously.

-- 
juan

DIS: A proto

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

We now have a player who is directly responsible for three FAGEs. I
believe that it's time we discuss a mechanism similar to the one below.


Title: Unfortunately
Author: Jason
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 3.0

{

Amend Rule 869 by appending the following paragraph:
{

Banned is a secured negative boolean person switch. A person is
unwelcome if e is Banned or if at least one part of em is unwelcome.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an unwelcome person CANNOT
register or be registered, and e is immediately deregistered if e is
ever a player. Designations of unwelcomeness are secured.

}

}

-- 
Jason Cobb

Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

DIS: Fwd: [proto] The Firm

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

[Seems like a good time to bring this back -G. ]

Proto: The Firm v2

[A change in the way vote cards lead to votes]
[v2. vote cards => coins].

Enact a Rule, "The Firm" (Power 2), with this text:
  The Firm is a secured ordered list of players. HR is an office;
  the firm as it was at the beginning of the week is part of HR's
  weekly report.  A player's position on the list is their Employee
  Number.

  If a player is not on the list, or their position on the list
  is indeterminate, they are unemployed. Whenever a set of players
  becomes unemployed, HR CAN by announcement, and SHALL in a
  timely fashion, add them to the bottom of the firm in random
  order. [*]

  The Nth position in the firm is held by the player in the Nth
  ordinal position on the list.  To promote someone is to move em
  up one position in the firm (towards the lowest ordinal position
  on the list), to demote someone is the opposite.

  All active players are board members. A board member CAN, as a
  board action, promote a specified player for a fee of N times 5
  boatloads of coins, where N is one plus the number of board
  actions that member has previously performed in the week.

[* this mechanism probably needs wording work.  Intent is that if Alice
becomes unemployed, than later Bob and Carol simultaneously, then finally
Dan, that HR would add Alice first, then Bob in random order, then
Dan.  On adoption, all players would become unemployed so the first
addition would be completely random].

[TODO: rename Extra Votes and Vote Cards to Extra Shares and Share Cards -
take into account possible Votives name switch]


Enact a Rule, "Org Chart" (Power 2), with this text:

  The employee positions (Employee #s) in the firm are named as
  follows and are in the indicated categories:

  Top Brass
1.  President
2.  CEO

  Middle Management
3.  Executive Assistant
4.  Marketing
5.  R & D
6.  Logistics

  All other positions are in the category "Staff" and are staff
  members.  Employee #7 is also known as the owner's nephew.

  The Bonus for each position is set at the beginning of each week
  as +6 for top brass, +3 for middle management, -1 for the owner's
  nephew, and 0 for all other staff and the unemployed.  On an
  ordinary referendum, the voting strength of a board member is
  adjusted by their bonus at the time the referendum was initiated.
  Notwithstanding the rest of this paragraph, the bonus for the holder
  of HR is +2.


Enact a Rule, "Performance Reviews" (Power 2):

  A valid Notice of Promotions is a public document that:
 * is clearly labelled as a notice of promotions;
 * is published by a person explicitly authorized by the rules
   to do so; and
 * clearly specifies one player in the top brass, one player in
   middle management, and one player in staff.

  Upon the publication of a valid notice of promotions:
 1. the indicated top brass player is moved to the bottom of
the firm;
 2. then the indicated middle management player is moved to the
position in the firm formerly held by that top brass player;
 3. and finally, the indicated staff player is moved to the
position in the firm formerly held by that middle management
player.

  Once per month, the HR CAN and SHALL publish a notice of promotions.


Enact a Rule, Strikes (Power 2):

  If no strikes have been initiated or resolved in the last 30 days,
  a staff member (the instigator) CAN Trigger a Strike with Notice,
  optionally specifying a single different staff member as eir
  lieutenant.

  A player who announces intent to trigger a strike, or supports such
  an intent, becomes a Striker ("goes on strike") for the purposes of
  that strike intent.  When a strike intent is announced, any
  specified lieutenant goes on strike a moment after the instigator.
  When a player goes on strike, e is demoted.

  After a strike is triggered, HR CAN once and SHALL in a timely
  fashion resolve the strike by randomly determining and publishing
  whether the strike succeeds.  The
  strike succeeds with probability (S/P) where S is the number of
  strikers and P is the number of players, as calculated when the
  strike is triggered.

  If the strike fails, all strikers are demoted, in reverse order
  to the order they went on strike.

  If a strike succeeds, the following happens in sequence:
1.  All players become unemployed;
2.  Strikers are added to the list in the order they went on
strike.
3.  An election for HR is initiated, if one is not ongoing.
[The remainder of the unemployed would be added randomly as
 described in the previous rule, though 

DIS: [Treasuror] [Proto-Auction Regulations] various fixes

[Trigon via agora-discussion]

I intend to apply the following, with 2 Agoran consent, as a single 
amendment to Regulation AM0:


---

[ Comment: Makes the post-auction phase a lot more convenient for all
  involved. ]

In AM0, replace the paragraph beginning "DISTRIBUTION:" with the
following two paragraphs:

  RESOLUTION: The auctioneer for an auction SHALL, during that
  auction's retrieval period, create a public message (henceforth
  the "resolution message") that contains a full history of bids on
  the auction and withdrawals from the auction. It must also clearly
  indicate who each awardee would be if all players were funded, as
  well as the lot each one would recieve. Failing to publish a
  resolution message constitutes the Class 3 Crime of Auction
  Negligence.

  DISTRIBUTION: In a timely fashion after the retrieval period for
  an auction ends, that auction's auctioneer CAN and SHALL, for each
  awardee in that auction, destroy the amount to be paid from the
  inventory of that awardee and transfer to that player (or create
  in eir possession if the item is new) the set of assets associated
  with the lot e won. Failing to create or transfer items as
  described in this paragraph constitutes the Class 3 Crime of
  Auction Abandonment.

[ Comment: Fixes an issue introduced in the last round of amendments
  which removed the requirement to specify an amount of currency in a
  bid. It is almost certainly meaningless because all the regulations
  dealing with what the bid means specify "that bid's amount," so any
  bids not specifying an amount of currency don't really mean anything.
  If that doesn't protect us, the good faith clause does. ]

In that same regulation, replace the text of the paragraph beginning 
"BIDDING:" with:


  BIDDING: Players CAN place a bid on an auction in its bidding
  period by creating a public message (henceforth a "bid message")
  specifying an amount of that auction's currency. Players CAN
  withdraw from an open auction by announcement.

--
Trigon

 ¸¸.•*¨*• Play AGORA QUEST





I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.
I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

DIS: [Treasuror] [Proto-Auction Regulations] various fixes

[Trigon via agora-discussion]

Submitting these in 24 hours if I don't receive any comments.

---

[ Comment: Makes the post-auction phase a lot more convenient for all
  involved. ]

In AM0, replace the paragraph beginning "DISTRIBUTION:" with the
following two paragraphs:

  RESOLUTION: The auctioneer for an auction SHALL, during that
  auction's retrieval period, create a public message (henceforth
  the "resolution message") that contains a full history of bids on
  the auction and withdrawals from the auction. It must also clearly
  indicate who each awardee would be if all players were funded, as
  well as the lot each one would recieve. Failing to publish a
  resolution message constitutes the Class 3 Crime of Auction
  Negligence.

  DISTRIBUTION: In a timely fashion after the retrieval period for
  an auction ends, that auction's auctioneer CAN and SHALL, for each
  awardee in that auction, destroy the amount to be paid from the
  inventory of that awardee and transfer to that player (or create
  in eir possession if the item is new) the set of assets associated
  with the lot e won. Failing to create or transfer items as
  described in this paragraph constitutes the Class 3 Crime of
  Auction Abandonment.

[ Comment: Fixes an issue introduced in the last round of amendments
  which removed the requirement to specify an amount of currency in a
  bid. It is almost certainly meaningless because all the regulations
  dealing with what the bid means specify "that bid's amount," so any
  bids not specifying an amount of currency don't really mean anything.
  If that doesn't protect us, the good faith clause does. ]

In that same regulation, replace the text of the paragraph beginning 
"BIDDING:" with:


  BIDDING: Players CAN place a bid on an auction in its bidding
  period by creating a public message (henceforth a "bid message")
  specifying an amount of that auction's currency. Players CAN
  withdraw from an open auction by announcement.

--
Trigon

 ¸¸.•*¨*• Play AGORA QUEST





I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.
I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

DIS: Fwd: [proto] Retroactive Events: a refactor of ratification

[Falsifian via agora-discussion]

Here's my old retroactive events proto, for reference. (I brought it up
in the thread "Ratification Rewrite".) I couldn't find it in the
archive for some reason.

-- Forwarded message -
From: James Cook 
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 16:17
Subject: [proto] Retroactive Events: a refactor of ratification
To: Agora Nomic discussions (DF) 


This is a counter-proto to Alexis's "Ratification by Legal Fiction", in
the sense that I think it also fixes the problem of ratification
failing due to minimal gamestate changes being ambiguous. It is a more
radical change and makes the use of ratification less concise, but in
my opinion the reward is that it greatly increases simplicity and
certainty in what the effect of ratification actually is.

I proposed something like this in July when I was arguing for
"ratification via closed timelike curves". At the time, Aris argued
that this makes complicated (see
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-July/055130.html
--- search for "Also, how is this a rules simplification?"). To be
fair, I had claimed in my that thread that what I was proposing was a
rules simplification, and in this case, I'm not exactly making that
argument. I'm arguing that it makes the rules simpler to understand,
even if it makes the text longer and forces us to describe different
cases explicitly.

I am curious to hear people's opinions. I personally would be much more
comfortable if ratification worked like this, but I'm not sure others
will feel the same way.

The bit added to Rule 2034 about setting the list of voters is rough;
probably it would be better to change the quorum rules to make it
clear that "number of voters" can be a fictional number associated
with a decision, and then in R2034 just say the number of voters is
set to whatever was indicated.


Title: Retroactive Events
AI: 3
Chamber: Efficiency
Text:

[Comment: The purpose of this proposal is to replace the "minimally
modified" language of Rule 1551 with something easier to determine. It
accomplishes this by replacing ratification of documents with
ratification of explicitly-specified events, which may be cumbersome to
use, but should be easier to interpret. It also eliminates the use of
ratifying "portions" of documents, which I think is was bit vaguely
specified.]

Amend Rule 1551 (Ratification) to read in full:

  A "retroactive event" is a change to the gamestate, or other
  hypothetical event (the "event"), together with a time in the
  past (the "event time"). If not otherwise specified, the event
  time defaults to the time at which the retroactive event was
  originally published.

  When a retroactive event is ratified, rules to the contrary
  notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified to what it would be if
  the event had occurred at the event time. Such a modification
  cannot add inconsistencies between the gamestate and the rules,
  and it cannot include rule changes unless the message or rule
  describing the event explicitly and unambiguously recites either
  the changes or the resulting properties of the rule(s).

  If the description of a retroactive event is too ambiguous or
  convoluted for its effect at the event time be reasonably
  determined, or the description internally inconsistent, that
  event cannot be ratified.

  Ratification is secured with power threshold 3.

Amend rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing the text from "When a
public document" through "contents of the message" inclusive with:

  When a public document is continuously undoubted for one week
  after publication and the rules associate any "self-ratifying"
  retroactive events with that document, those retroactcive events
  are ratified. If the document specifies a time before its own
  publication as the time at which was accurate, that is used as
  the event time; otherwise, it is the time at which the document
  was published.

Amend Rule 2162 (Switches) by replacing item 3 in the only list with:

  3. Optionally, exactly one office whose holder tracks instances
 of that switch. That officer's (weekly, if not specified
 otherwise) report includes the value of each instance of that
 switch whose value is not its default value. A public document
 purporting to be that officer's report is associated with the
 following self-ratifying event: flip all instances of the
 switch to the values listed in the report, or to their default
 value if they are not listed in the report.

Amend Rule 1607 (Distribution) by replacing the last sentence with:

A public document purporting to be a Promotor's report is
associated with the following self-ratifying retroactive event:
modify the proposal pool to contain exactly the proposals listed in
the report, with exactly the text and attributes listed in the
report.

Amend Rule 107 

DIS: Re: [proto] simplify indictments

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 3/29/2021 10:31 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 
> Proto:  fix and simplify indictments
> AI: 1.7
> coauthor: nix

Forgot to mention that the "fix" part is due to some uncertainty with the
power of the Indictment rule just now discussed on Discord.  It needs to
be power-1.7 to work (because levying fines is secured-1.7) but the SLR
lists it as 1.0, which may or may not be in error, depending on
interpretation of an error in the proposal that adopted it.

Re: DIS: [Contract Proto] Press revisions

[Falsifian via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 08:20:41PM +, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 08:17:04PM +, Falsifian via agora-discussion 
> wrote:
> > Partly based on lucidiot's proto from November.
> > 
> > Changes from current contract:
> > 
> > - You can report on any past week that hasn't been reported on yet.
> > 
> > - Replace the Weekly Assignment with "Dibs". Just call dibs on a week
> >   then report on it. If nobody called dibs, you can just report on it
> >   anyway.
> > 
> > - Instead of inflation-protected Credits, you get Coins Owed which can
> >   be traded 1:1 for Coins (as long as this contract has some).
> > 
> > Replace the whole text with:
> > 
> > {{{
> > -- Joining and leaving --
> > 
> > Parties to this contract are called Reportors.
> > 
> > Any person CAN become a party to this contract by publicly consenting.
> > 
> > Any person CAN cease to be a party by announcement, unless e is
> > responsible for publishing a weekly summary that e has not yet
> > published.
> 
> Errata:
> 
> * Joining/leaving should be unrestricted. "Any person CAN join or leave this
>   contract by announcement." or similar.
> 
> * I dropped the Editor unintentionally. We still need someone to track
>   ownership of Coins Owed.
> 
> -- 
> Falsifian

Revision:

- Simplified dibs

- Simplified reporting rules (you can't go back more than a year; make
  a new Historian charity if you want to do that).

- Added back officer (now voluntary).

- Changed amendment: now non-consenting parties are removed.


-- Joining and leaving --

Parties to this contract are called Reportors.

Any person CAN join or leave this contract by announcement.

-- Reporting --

A Weekly Report is a summary of notable events for a given Agoran Week.
Notability, and what must be included in a summary, are at the author's
discretion.

Any player can Report on a past Agoran week by publishing a Weekly
Report for it, as long as all the following are true:

* No other player has dibs on that week, as described below.

* No other Weekly Report has been published for that week.

* It's at most one year in the past.

-- Dibs --

A players can call dibs on a specified week by announcement. That
player then has dibs on that week, unless another player already had
it.

A player can release dibs on a week by announcement: then they no
longer have dibs.

When a player's continuously had dibs on a week for 14 days, e
automatically releases dibs on that week.

-- Payment --

Coins Owed are a currency. Whenever a player Reports on an Agoran week,
e earns 5 boatloads of Coins Owed.

Whenever this contract owns at least N Coins (for any nonnegative
integer N), any player CAN transfer N Coins from this contract to
emself by paying a fee of N Coins Owed.

To "Redeem N Coins Owed" is to pay N Coins Owed to transfer N Coins
from this contract to oneself.

-- Conversion --

Credits are a currency. If any Credits exist, each Credit is
immediately replaced with 5 Boatloads of Coins Owed (with the same
owner). In particular, this happens immediately after the contract is
first amended to include this provision.

-- Accounting --

Any player can become The Editor or cease being The Editor by
announcement. In other words, The Editor is the last person to
claim the role, if e has not left it since.

The Editor is the recordkeepor for Coins and Credits.

-- Amendment --

Any Reportor can propose an amendment to this contract by announcement.
If an amendment was proposed at least 2 days ago, at least two thirds
(rounded up) of all Reportors consent to it, and it has not yet been
applied, then any Reportor can enact it by announcement. When it is
enacted, first, non-consenting players cease to be parties to this
contract, and then it is applied.


-- 
Falsifian

Re: DIS: [Contract Proto] Press revisions

[Falsifian via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 08:17:04PM +, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
> Partly based on lucidiot's proto from November.
> 
> Changes from current contract:
> 
> - You can report on any past week that hasn't been reported on yet.
> 
> - Replace the Weekly Assignment with "Dibs". Just call dibs on a week
>   then report on it. If nobody called dibs, you can just report on it
>   anyway.
> 
> - Instead of inflation-protected Credits, you get Coins Owed which can
>   be traded 1:1 for Coins (as long as this contract has some).
> 
> Replace the whole text with:
> 
> {{{
> -- Joining and leaving --
> 
> Parties to this contract are called Reportors.
> 
> Any person CAN become a party to this contract by publicly consenting.
> 
> Any person CAN cease to be a party by announcement, unless e is
> responsible for publishing a weekly summary that e has not yet
> published.

Errata:

* Joining/leaving should be unrestricted. "Any person CAN join or leave this
  contract by announcement." or similar.

* I dropped the Editor unintentionally. We still need someone to track
  ownership of Coins Owed.

-- 
Falsifian

DIS: [Contract Proto] Press revisions

[Falsifian via agora-discussion]

Partly based on lucidiot's proto from November.

Changes from current contract:

- You can report on any past week that hasn't been reported on yet.

- Replace the Weekly Assignment with "Dibs". Just call dibs on a week
  then report on it. If nobody called dibs, you can just report on it
  anyway.

- Instead of inflation-protected Credits, you get Coins Owed which can
  be traded 1:1 for Coins (as long as this contract has some).

Replace the whole text with:

{{{
-- Joining and leaving --

Parties to this contract are called Reportors.

Any person CAN become a party to this contract by publicly consenting.

Any person CAN cease to be a party by announcement, unless e is
responsible for publishing a weekly summary that e has not yet
published.

-- Reporting --

A Weekly Report is a summary of notable events for a given Agoran Week.
Notability, and what must be included in a summary, are at the author's
discretion.

Any player can Report on an Agoran week by publishing a Weekly Report
for it, as long as all the following are true:

* No other player has Dibs on that week, as described below.

* No other Weekly Report has been published for that week.

* No similar summary has published covering part or all of that week
  under a past scheme for rewarding Agoran journalism. Since it may be
  hard to determine this, any player can waive this requirement for a
  specified week without 3 objections.

* The week has ended.

* The week is not entirely before the birth of Agora.

-- Dibs --

For every Agoran week, the Dibs on that week is an asset which can be
owned by players and this contract. The Dibs on every week always
exists. To "have Dibs" on a week is to own the Dibs on that week.

If the owner of the Dibs on a week is not otherwise determined, this
contract owns it. If this contract has Dibs on a week, any player CAN
transfer that Dibs to emself by announcement.

If a player has continuously had Dibs on a particular week for 14 days,
any player CAN transfer that Dibs to emself by announcement.

To "call dibs" on a week is to transfer the Dibs on that week to
oneself.

-- Payment --

Coins Owed are a currency. Whenever a player Reports on an Agoran week,
e earns 5 boatloads of Coins Owed.

Whenever this contract owns at least N Coins (for any nonnegative
integer N), any player CAN transfer N Coins from this contract to
emself by paying a fee of N Coins Owed.

To "Redeem N Coins Owed" is to pay N Coins Owed to transfer N Coins
from this contract to oneself.

-- Conversion --

Credits are a currency. If any Credits exist, each Credit is
immediately replaced with 5 Boatloads of Coins Owed (with the same
owner). In particular, this happens immediately after the contract is
first amended to include this provision.

-- Amendment --

Any Reportor can propose an amendment to this contract by announcement.
If an amendment was proposed at least 2 days ago, at least two thirds
(rounded up) of all Reportors consent to it, and it has not yet been
applied, then any Reportor can apply it by announcement, causing this
contract to be amended according to it.

}}}


-- 
Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: [Proto] Justice for All

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 9:05 AM Falsifian via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> >   The Referee is by default the investigator for all Finger
> >   Pointing. When the Referee's Finger is Pointed or the Referee
> >   is the perp, the Arbitor is the investigator.
> >
> >   The Referee CANNOT Point eir Finger at the Arbitor, and the Arbitor
> >   CANNOT point eir finger the Referee.
>
> "eir finger the Referee"

Fixed.

> >   A high crime is any crime specified as being class 4 or greater.
> >   The Referee CANNOT levy the Cold Hand of Justice to punish a high crime,
> >   notwithstanding the other provisions of this rule.
>
> Other than that, looks good, except I don't think I'm ever going to get
> used to the backward meaning of the word "notwithstanding".

You're right, it's weird as all hell, even if it works. Also fixed.

Thanks for the comments!

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: [Proto] Justice for All

[Falsifian via agora-discussion]

>   The Referee is by default the investigator for all Finger
>   Pointing. When the Referee's Finger is Pointed or the Referee
>   is the perp, the Arbitor is the investigator.
> 
>   The Referee CANNOT Point eir Finger at the Arbitor, and the Arbitor
>   CANNOT point eir finger the Referee.

"eir finger the Referee"

>   A high crime is any crime specified as being class 4 or greater.
>   The Referee CANNOT levy the Cold Hand of Justice to punish a high crime,
>   notwithstanding the other provisions of this rule.

Other than that, looks good, except I don't think I'm ever going to get
used to the backward meaning of the word "notwithstanding".

-- 
Falsifian

DIS: Re: [Proto] Justice for All

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 9:51 PM Aris Merchant
 wrote:
>
> Here's a proto to get rid of Summary Judgement and tweak the finger
> pointing rules to match. There's a longer comment in the proto itself.
>
> -Aris
>
> ---
> Title: Justice for All
> Adoption index: 1.7
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors:


Here's a new proto. The only real difference is that I've restored the
provisions that stopped anyone from ever ending up as a judge in their
own case.

-Aris

---
Title: Justice for All
Adoption index: 1.7
Author: Aris
Co-authors: G., Jason

[This is OP and was only used twice in the whole of last year. We could
reform it so that the Referee could only use it for just reasons,
but honestly I don't think that's a priority — this feels like
a waste of space on something that's dangerous and almost unused.]

Repeal Rule 2479, "Official Injustice".

Amend Rule 2478, "Vigilante Justice", by replacing:

  The Referee is by default the investigator for all Finger
  Pointing. If the Referee is the perp, then the Arbitor CAN
  become the investigator of that Finger Pointing by announcement.

  The Referee CANNOT Point eir Finger. The Arbitor CANNOT Point eir
  Finger at the Referee. A high crime is any crime specified as
  being class 4 or greater. The Referee CANNOT levy the Cold Hand of
  Justice to punish a high crime, notwithstanding Rule 2478.

with:

  The Referee is by default the investigator for all Finger
  Pointing. When the Referee's Finger is Pointed or the Referee
  is the perp, the Arbitor is the investigator.

  The Referee CANNOT Point eir Finger at the Arbitor, and the Arbitor
  CANNOT point eir finger the Referee.

  A high crime is any crime specified as being class 4 or greater.
  The Referee CANNOT levy the Cold Hand of Justice to punish a high crime,
  notwithstanding the other provisions of this rule.

DIS: Re: [Proto] SLR Ratification

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

Just, for clarity, I meant "the 1st of December". Fixed in my local copy.

-Aris

On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 6:52 PM Aris Merchant
 wrote:
>
> Here is a proposal to ratify the SLR, as we do from time to time. I
> want to submit this in time for Read the Ruleset week, but am
> publishing a proto so people can review the referenced ruleset for
> errors.
>
> -Aris
> ---
> Title: SLR Ratification
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-author(s):
>
> Ratify the Short Logical Ruleset published on the 1st December, 2020, 
> available
> here [1].
>
> [1] 
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2020-December/014441.html

Re: DIS: [Treasuror] [Proto-Regulation-Amendment] Unlimited claim window

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 12/30/2020 9:54 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 09:01:53PM -0700, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion 
> wrote:
>> I originally set arbitrary limits on when a termination message for an
>> auction could be posted and when lots could be claimed. It has caused
>> several victory auctions to not actually award anything because of
>> negligence on my part and forgetfulness on the part of the auctions'
>> participants. I no longer think this design choice is correct. The following
>> is a draft amendment. Look it over and tell me what you think.
>>
>> ---
>> Amend Auction Regulation AM0 such that the following bullet points read
>> as stated:
>>
>> A. The final bullet point under "4. AWARDING":
>> * The auctioneer of an auction SHALL, as soon as possible after
> 
> "as soon as possible" could be interpreted pretty harshly. Are you
> trying to make this more or less permissive than the current four days?

I would be completely unsurprised, based on some old precedent or
other[0], if a judge found that "as soon as possible" meant exactly "four
days".

[0] It would be a deep dive to find, but the history of the w/o objection
4 days and the R105 "at least 4 days" is on the principle "always give
people the weekend" - thus, in the absence of an exact specification, four
days (Fri - Mon inclusive) was fastest time it was generally reasonable to
require a response from someone (the implied Service Level Agreement of
Agora?).[1]

[1] Notwithstanding the fact that "as soon as possible" used to mean
literally 7 days, by rule definition.

Re: DIS: [Treasuror] [Proto-Regulation-Amendment] Unlimited claim window

[Falsifian via agora-discussion]

On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 09:01:53PM -0700, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion 
wrote:
> I originally set arbitrary limits on when a termination message for an
> auction could be posted and when lots could be claimed. It has caused
> several victory auctions to not actually award anything because of
> negligence on my part and forgetfulness on the part of the auctions'
> participants. I no longer think this design choice is correct. The following
> is a draft amendment. Look it over and tell me what you think.
> 
> ---
> Amend Auction Regulation AM0 such that the following bullet points read
> as stated:
> 
> A. The final bullet point under "4. AWARDING":
> * The auctioneer of an auction SHALL, as soon as possible after

"as soon as possible" could be interpreted pretty harshly. Are you
trying to make this more or less permissive than the current four days?

>   the ending of that auction, create a public message
>   (henceforth the "termination message") that contains a full
>   history of bids on the auction and withdrawals from the
>   auction. It should also clearly indicate each awardee and the
>   lot e recieves.
> B. The bullet point under "5. CLAIMING":
> * After an auction ends, each awardee of that auction CAN
>   transfer (or create in eir own possession if the item is new)
>   the set of assets associated with the lot e won by paying a
>   fee corresponding to eir winning bid.

I think there should be some time limit. Otherwise someone could dig up
a months- or years-old forgotten auction and claim eir lot. That would
be confusing enough on its own, but what if someone else had won the
lot in a different auction in the meantime? (I'm imagining stones or
talismans here.)

-- 
Falsifian

Re: DIS: [Treasuror] [Proto-Regulation-Amendment] Unlimited claim window

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 12/30/2020 8:01 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:
> I originally set arbitrary limits on when a termination message for an 
> auction could be posted and when lots could be claimed. It has caused 
> several victory auctions to not actually award anything because of 
> negligence on my part and forgetfulness on the part of the auctions' 
> participants. I no longer think this design choice is correct. The 
> following is a draft amendment. Look it over and tell me what you think.
> 
> ---
> Amend Auction Regulation AM0 such that the following bullet points read
> as stated:
> 
> A. The final bullet point under "4. AWARDING":
>  * The auctioneer of an auction SHALL, as soon as possible after
>the ending of that auction, create a public message
>(henceforth the "termination message") that contains a full
>history of bids on the auction and withdrawals from the
>auction. It should also clearly indicate each awardee and the
>lot e recieves.
> B. The bullet point under "5. CLAIMING":
>  * After an auction ends, each awardee of that auction CAN
>transfer (or create in eir own possession if the item is new)
>the set of assets associated with the lot e won by paying a
>fee corresponding to eir winning bid.
> 

Loophole I'd definitely think about trying for Stones:  I bid and win it,
but never pay.  It's auctioned again or goes on to a new owner.  I can
grab it by finally paying, any time I want.  And with inflationary coins
now, I just wait until the bid amount is negligible before claiming.

Maybe allow claiming "up to 14 days after the termination message" will be
enough?

minor edit:  "as soon as possible"?

Re: DIS: [Treasuror] [Proto-Regulation-Amendment] Unlimited claim window

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 12/30/20 9:55 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:

On 12/30/20 11:01 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:

B. The bullet point under "5. CLAIMING":
  * After an auction ends, each awardee of that auction CAN
transfer (or create in eir own possession if the item is new)
the set of assets associated with the lot e won by paying a
fee corresponding to eir winning bid.


Probably need a "once" or something here. Otherwise lgtm.


Noted, though the extra grants or transfers might fail anyway because of 
the auction rules themselves.


--
Trigon

 ¸¸.•*¨*• Play AGORA QUEST

I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.
I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

Re: DIS: [Treasuror] [Proto-Regulation-Amendment] Unlimited claim window

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 12/30/20 11:01 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:
> B. The bullet point under "5. CLAIMING":
>  * After an auction ends, each awardee of that auction CAN
>transfer (or create in eir own possession if the item is new)
>the set of assets associated with the lot e won by paying a
>fee corresponding to eir winning bid.


Probably need a "once" or something here. Otherwise lgtm.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason

DIS: [Treasuror] [Proto-Regulation-Amendment] Unlimited claim window

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

I originally set arbitrary limits on when a termination message for an 
auction could be posted and when lots could be claimed. It has caused 
several victory auctions to not actually award anything because of 
negligence on my part and forgetfulness on the part of the auctions' 
participants. I no longer think this design choice is correct. The 
following is a draft amendment. Look it over and tell me what you think.


---
Amend Auction Regulation AM0 such that the following bullet points read
as stated:

A. The final bullet point under "4. AWARDING":
* The auctioneer of an auction SHALL, as soon as possible after
  the ending of that auction, create a public message
  (henceforth the "termination message") that contains a full
  history of bids on the auction and withdrawals from the
  auction. It should also clearly indicate each awardee and the
  lot e recieves.
B. The bullet point under "5. CLAIMING":
* After an auction ends, each awardee of that auction CAN
  transfer (or create in eir own possession if the item is new)
  the set of assets associated with the lot e won by paying a
  fee corresponding to eir winning bid.

--
Trigon

 ¸¸.•*¨*• Play AGORA QUEST

I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.
I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

Re: DIS: [Revised Proto] Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

> On Aug 30, 2020, at 03:28, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> Here's a revised version of Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant. I first
> protoed this back at the end of June. I've made a few changes here and
> there, such as rolling the notion of unconcealment into the idea of
> clarity, in line with more recent precedent.
> 
> -Aris
> ---
> 
> Title: Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors: nch, G., Jason
> 
> 
> Amend Rule 2202, "Ratification Without Objection", by deleting:
> 
>  A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message.
> 
> Amend Rule 478, "Fora", by changing the portion of the Rule from
> "A public message is a message" to the end to read as follows:
> 
>  A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent to
>  all players and containing a clear designation of intent to be
>  public. A document is part (possibly all) of a message. To "publish" or
>  "announce" something is to send a public message whose body contains that
>  thing. To do something "publicly" is to do that thing within a public
>  message.
> 
>  Where the rules define an action that a person CAN perform "by
>  announcement", that person performs that action by specifying the
>  action and announcing that e performs it, all unambiguously, clearly,
>  and without concealment.
> 
>  A notice is a document specifying conspicuously, clearly, and without
>  obfuscation all information which the rules require that type of notice to
>  contain to be valid. A notice must be public, unless a recipient is
>  specified by the enabling rule. If someone accomplishes an action by
>  sending a notice, e accomplishes that action "by notification".
> 
I’m not sure how I feel about this new method because it reads clumsily in 
practice below.

>  Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time
>  date-stamped on that message. Actions in messages (including their contained
>  documents) are performed in the order they appear in the message, unless
>  otherwise specified. If an action in a message is being taken by someone
>  who has been a player within the last month, it must be clear, either
>  from the message itself or from context, which person is performing the
>  action; if it is not, the action is canceled and does not occur.
> 
> 
> Retitle Rule 2518 from "Determinacy" to "Don't Even Think About It".
> 
> Amend Rule 2518, "Don't Even Think About It", by changing it to read in full:
> 
> The following terms are defined:
> 
>  1.  If something is reasonably obvious (especially, as applicable, by
>  being reasonably visible and easy to understand), it is clear, otherwise
>  it is unclear.
>  2.  If something has multiple reasonable interpretations that are
>  substantively different and non-trivial to select between,
>  it is ambiguous, otherwise it is unambiguous.
>  3.  If a text stands out so as to be visible with little effort, it is
>  conspicuous, otherwise it is inconspicuous.
>  4.  If a text has been rendered hard to understand at a glance,
>  it is obfuscated, otherwise it is unobfuscated.
>  5.  If a value CANNOT be reasonably determined (without circularity or
Should this be lowercased?
>  paradox) from information reasonably available, or if it
>  alternates indefinitely between values, then the value is
>  considered to be indeterminate, otherwise it is determinate.
> 
For this rule (above), I’m concerned by the defaulting towards clear, 
determinate, etc. I think it would be better to flip each of these definitions 
to avoid a situation where we can’t document that something is indeterminate 
under this rule, but it still is.
> 
> Amend Rule 208, "Resolving Agoran Decisions", by replacing:
> 
>  The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve
>  it by announcement, indicating the outcome. If it was required to
>  be initiated, then e SHALL resolve it in a timely fashion after
>  the end of the voting period. To be EFFECTIVE, such an attempt
>  must satisfy the following conditions:
> 
>  1. It is published after the voting period has ended.
> 
>  2. It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.
> 
>  3. It specifies the number of voters (or a list of the voters).
> For these purposes and for determining quorum, a "voter" is
> someone who submitted a ballot on the decision that was valid
> when it was submitted and also valid (i.e. not withdrawn or
> otherwise invalidated) at the end of the voting period.
> 
>  4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there
> was more than one valid option, provides a tally of the voters'
> valid ballots.
> 
> with:
> 
>  The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve
>  it by notification. If it was required to be initiated, then e SHALL resolve
>  it in a timely fashion after the end of the voting period. To be valid,
>  the notice of resolution must satisfy the 

DIS: [Revised Proto] Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

Here's a revised version of Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant. I first
protoed this back at the end of June. I've made a few changes here and
there, such as rolling the notion of unconcealment into the idea of
clarity, in line with more recent precedent.

-Aris
---

Title: Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors: nch, G., Jason


Amend Rule 2202, "Ratification Without Objection", by deleting:

  A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message.

Amend Rule 478, "Fora", by changing the portion of the Rule from
"A public message is a message" to the end to read as follows:

  A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent to
  all players and containing a clear designation of intent to be
  public. A document is part (possibly all) of a message. To "publish" or
  "announce" something is to send a public message whose body contains that
  thing. To do something "publicly" is to do that thing within a public
  message.

  Where the rules define an action that a person CAN perform "by
  announcement", that person performs that action by specifying the
  action and announcing that e performs it, all unambiguously, clearly,
  and without concealment.

  A notice is a document specifying conspicuously, clearly, and without
  obfuscation all information which the rules require that type of notice to
  contain to be valid. A notice must be public, unless a recipient is
  specified by the enabling rule. If someone accomplishes an action by
  sending a notice, e accomplishes that action "by notification".

  Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time
  date-stamped on that message. Actions in messages (including their contained
  documents) are performed in the order they appear in the message, unless
  otherwise specified. If an action in a message is being taken by someone
  who has been a player within the last month, it must be clear, either
  from the message itself or from context, which person is performing the
  action; if it is not, the action is canceled and does not occur.


Retitle Rule 2518 from "Determinacy" to "Don't Even Think About It".

Amend Rule 2518, "Don't Even Think About It", by changing it to read in full:

 The following terms are defined:

  1.  If something is reasonably obvious (especially, as applicable, by
  being reasonably visible and easy to understand), it is clear, otherwise
  it is unclear.
  2.  If something has multiple reasonable interpretations that are
  substantively different and non-trivial to select between,
  it is ambiguous, otherwise it is unambiguous.
  3.  If a text stands out so as to be visible with little effort, it is
  conspicuous, otherwise it is inconspicuous.
  4.  If a text has been rendered hard to understand at a glance,
  it is obfuscated, otherwise it is unobfuscated.
  5.  If a value CANNOT be reasonably determined (without circularity or
  paradox) from information reasonably available, or if it
  alternates indefinitely between values, then the value is
  considered to be indeterminate, otherwise it is determinate.



Amend Rule 208, "Resolving Agoran Decisions", by replacing:

  The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve
  it by announcement, indicating the outcome. If it was required to
  be initiated, then e SHALL resolve it in a timely fashion after
  the end of the voting period. To be EFFECTIVE, such an attempt
  must satisfy the following conditions:

  1. It is published after the voting period has ended.

  2. It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.

  3. It specifies the number of voters (or a list of the voters).
 For these purposes and for determining quorum, a "voter" is
 someone who submitted a ballot on the decision that was valid
 when it was submitted and also valid (i.e. not withdrawn or
 otherwise invalidated) at the end of the voting period.

  4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there
 was more than one valid option, provides a tally of the voters'
 valid ballots.

with:

  The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve
  it by notification. If it was required to be initiated, then e SHALL resolve
  it in a timely fashion after the end of the voting period. To be valid,
  the notice of resolution must satisfy the following conditions:

1. It is published after the voting period has ended.

2. It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.

3. It specifies the number of voters (or a list of the voters).
   For these purposes and for determining quorum, a "voter" is
   someone who submitted a ballot on the decision that was valid
   when it was submitted and also valid (i.e. not withdrawn or
   otherwise invalidated) at the end of the voting period.

4. If there was more than one valid option, it provides a tally of the
   voters' valid ballots.

5. It specifies the 

Re: DIS: [Proto-proto] Webmastor

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 5/14/20 1:48 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:

On Thursday, May 14, 2020 2:42:18 PM CDT James Cook via agora-discussion
wrote:


FYI, there's a sort of Registrar home page at
https://agoranomic.org/Registrar/ but I never looked into adding it to
the homepage. (Also, it would be nice it actually had a list of
players or something.)

I see now Gaelan set up a repo called "Header" that I should be
playing with if I want it linked. If our new Webmastor doesn't do that
I might do it time permitting.

- Falsifian


Happy to look into adding the header this weekend. Adding it should be easy
but getting it to look nice might need some experimenting since everyone's
repos seem to be set up a little differently.


Looks like the Registrar page has no styling whatsoever. You should just 
be able to create a _layouts/default.html file including a basic 
bootstrap template and it should work fine.


--
Trigon

Re: DIS: [Proto-proto] Webmastor

[nch via agora-discussion]

On Thursday, May 14, 2020 2:42:18 PM CDT James Cook via agora-discussion 
wrote:
> 
> FYI, there's a sort of Registrar home page at
> https://agoranomic.org/Registrar/ but I never looked into adding it to
> the homepage. (Also, it would be nice it actually had a list of
> players or something.)
> 
> I see now Gaelan set up a repo called "Header" that I should be
> playing with if I want it linked. If our new Webmastor doesn't do that
> I might do it time permitting.
> 
> - Falsifian

Happy to look into adding the header this weekend. Adding it should be easy 
but getting it to look nice might need some experimenting since everyone's 
repos seem to be set up a little differently.

-- 
nch

Re: DIS: [Proto-proto] Webmastor

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 04:50, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> I think we should consider creating an office of the Webmastor,
> responsible for maintenance of agoranomic.org. It's a
> slightly-exciting hodgepodge of individual officers' sites, and
> there's very poor navigation. I think that fixing the navigation is a
> real task that should be undertaken, and having someone coordinate
> with changing officers to update individual sites, ensure they're all
> linked, make sure that the navigation template remains, etc. might be
> good.
>
> (note that https://agoranomic.org/ and
> https://agoranomic.org/Treasuror/ have slightly different formatting
> on the navbar, https://agoranomic.org/wiki/ has a completely different
> one that links to out-of-date reports including one for an office that
> no longer exists, and I could only find
> https://agoranomic.org/assessor/ by searching the mailing list, which
> is what prompted this whole mess.
>
> -Alexis

FYI, there's a sort of Registrar home page at
https://agoranomic.org/Registrar/ but I never looked into adding it to
the homepage. (Also, it would be nice it actually had a list of
players or something.)

I see now Gaelan set up a repo called "Header" that I should be
playing with if I want it linked. If our new Webmastor doesn't do that
I might do it time permitting.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: [Proto-Proto] Freeform regulations

[Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion]

On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 18:28, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> I very much like this idea! I request that interpretations not be
> installed, at least in the first version, since those are
> controversial.
>
> Also, to clarify, would this include allowing other persons to act on
> behalf of the officer to exercise eir official powers? If not, it
> should.
>
> -Aris

That's an excellent suggestion!

-Alexis

Re: DIS: [Proto-Proto] Freeform regulations

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 10:57 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> Now that it looks like the statute reform proposal is going to squeak
> through, I started thinking about where we might first want to create
> non-statute bodies of law. Contracts are the natural choice, but on
> reflection, I think that the first test of new fundamental rules of
> the game should not be opening them up to a realm where players can
> create arbitrary law, and most importantly can do so unilaterally
> without review.
>
> So a better choice is in regulations, I think, and I want to see if
> maybe we can bring the idea of official regulations and the work on
> administrative interpretations together.
>
> So I propose that we allow every officer to create a body of
> regulation governing the execution of eir office. This can include:
>
> - How the officer will exercise discretionary power. For instance, as
> Herald I would put in rules governing thesis peer review, and perhaps
> some guidelines about other patent titles as well since they are
> largely done by discretion of the Herald these days.
> - Anything specifically delegated to it by rule, for instance, using
> the Herald example again, the rules could allow the Herald's
> regulations to authorize patent title awards directly.
> - Rules of interpretation over areas of the rules within the officer's
> purview. Initially, I think we shouldn't go with making them
> platonically binding, because we would need to be careful about the
> difference between an interpretation of the rules and outright
> ignoring them. Given the discussion that came up around my proposal to
> amend Power Controls Mutability, best to be cautious here.
>   So instead I would suggest that we could have the interpretation
> provisions not be binding, but act as guidance, including by
> explicitly permitting judges to rely on them where their correctness
> isn't explicitly challenged. This wouldn't change the underlying
> platonism, but would encourage consensus as to what the perceived
> state of affairs is. A change to pragmatic judgments would be much
> more radical, and requires more work in the area of legal fictions.
> (Incidentally, for all that discussion on fixing ratification, we
> never did it, did we? Signs that we've become very pragmatic; Wooble
> would be disappointed.)
> - Recommendations to other players on how to interact with the office,
> such as editorial guidelines for the rules.

I very much like this idea! I request that interpretations not be
installed, at least in the first version, since those are
controversial.

Also, to clarify, would this include allowing other persons to act on
behalf of the officer to exercise eir official powers? If not, it
should.

-Aris

Re: DIS: [Proto-Proto] Freeform regulations

[Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion]

On Mon., Mar. 16, 2020, 07:12 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion,  wrote:

> This makes a lot of sense. I really like the situation with the Prime
> Minister and Agoran consent of officeholders because it improves the
> nature of the cabinet, but I think we will need to include a safeguard
> against concentration of offices and create some structure for waiting
> people's support or objection in such an Agoran consent according to
> the number of offices they hold, similar to voting strength. I also
> think that with the regulations, we should include some method by
> which they could be changed automatically upon being elected or
> otherwise coming to hold the office (either by deputisation or
> imposition) to avoid the risk of binding obligations carrying over.
>

Interesting idea against concentration: not a bad one in general though.
Perhaps a requirement that a player with a certain number of offices can
only permanently deputise with notice?

As for automatic changes when a player becomes an officer, like I said, I'd
support that somewhat, but I don't think we need a separate mechanism as
nothing stops a candidate from posting an intent during the election and
then immediately resolving it when elected. In the unlikely event that
someone doesn't feel comfortable having even a brief window where they are
subject to the existing regulations, I think that the PM's ability to amend
them could act as a decent out.

-Alexis

>

Re: DIS: [Proto-Proto] Freeform regulations

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

This makes a lot of sense. I really like the situation with the Prime
Minister and Agoran consent of officeholders because it improves the
nature of the cabinet, but I think we will need to include a safeguard
against concentration of offices and create some structure for waiting
people's support or objection in such an Agoran consent according to
the number of offices they hold, similar to voting strength. I also
think that with the regulations, we should include some method by
which they could be changed automatically upon being elected or
otherwise coming to hold the office (either by deputisation or
imposition) to avoid the risk of binding obligations carrying over.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

DIS: [Proto-Proto] Freeform regulations

[Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion]

Now that it looks like the statute reform proposal is going to squeak
through, I started thinking about where we might first want to create
non-statute bodies of law. Contracts are the natural choice, but on
reflection, I think that the first test of new fundamental rules of
the game should not be opening them up to a realm where players can
create arbitrary law, and most importantly can do so unilaterally
without review.

So a better choice is in regulations, I think, and I want to see if
maybe we can bring the idea of official regulations and the work on
administrative interpretations together.

So I propose that we allow every officer to create a body of
regulation governing the execution of eir office. This can include:

- How the officer will exercise discretionary power. For instance, as
Herald I would put in rules governing thesis peer review, and perhaps
some guidelines about other patent titles as well since they are
largely done by discretion of the Herald these days.
- Anything specifically delegated to it by rule, for instance, using
the Herald example again, the rules could allow the Herald's
regulations to authorize patent title awards directly.
- Rules of interpretation over areas of the rules within the officer's
purview. Initially, I think we shouldn't go with making them
platonically binding, because we would need to be careful about the
difference between an interpretation of the rules and outright
ignoring them. Given the discussion that came up around my proposal to
amend Power Controls Mutability, best to be cautious here.
  So instead I would suggest that we could have the interpretation
provisions not be binding, but act as guidance, including by
explicitly permitting judges to rely on them where their correctness
isn't explicitly challenged. This wouldn't change the underlying
platonism, but would encourage consensus as to what the perceived
state of affairs is. A change to pragmatic judgments would be much
more radical, and requires more work in the area of legal fictions.
(Incidentally, for all that discussion on fixing ratification, we
never did it, did we? Signs that we've become very pragmatic; Wooble
would be disappointed.)
- Recommendations to other players on how to interact with the office,
such as editorial guidelines for the rules.

The regulations would not be capable of imposing obligations on anyone
not holding (or deputising for) the office, except as specifically
delegated. They can impose obligations on the officer, but the officer
can always resign to get out of them.

Promulgation is done by an officer by Agoran consent except that the
Prime Minister can veto. The Prime Minister can also promulgate
regulations for an office with Agoran consent among officeholders and
provided that neither the Speaker nor the officer in question object.

I would be very amenable to a campaign-style system where an officer
can propose amendments to the regulations alongside eir election, but
I think that could be a separate proposal. Because it would be more
limited than Campaign Proposals were, I imagine it could be much
lighter weight.

-Alexis

Re: DIS: [Proto-proto] Webmastor

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

I’d be happy to take that on.

Gaelan

> On Mar 15, 2020, at 9:49 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> I think we should consider creating an office of the Webmastor,
> responsible for maintenance of agoranomic.org. It's a
> slightly-exciting hodgepodge of individual officers' sites, and
> there's very poor navigation. I think that fixing the navigation is a
> real task that should be undertaken, and having someone coordinate
> with changing officers to update individual sites, ensure they're all
> linked, make sure that the navigation template remains, etc. might be
> good.
> 
> (note that https://agoranomic.org/ and
> https://agoranomic.org/Treasuror/ have slightly different formatting
> on the navbar, https://agoranomic.org/wiki/ has a completely different
> one that links to out-of-date reports including one for an office that
> no longer exists, and I could only find
> https://agoranomic.org/assessor/ by searching the mailing list, which
> is what prompted this whole mess.
> 
> -Alexis

DIS: [Proto-proto] Webmastor

[Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion]

I think we should consider creating an office of the Webmastor,
responsible for maintenance of agoranomic.org. It's a
slightly-exciting hodgepodge of individual officers' sites, and
there's very poor navigation. I think that fixing the navigation is a
real task that should be undertaken, and having someone coordinate
with changing officers to update individual sites, ensure they're all
linked, make sure that the navigation template remains, etc. might be
good.

(note that https://agoranomic.org/ and
https://agoranomic.org/Treasuror/ have slightly different formatting
on the navbar, https://agoranomic.org/wiki/ has a completely different
one that links to out-of-date reports including one for an office that
no longer exists, and I could only find
https://agoranomic.org/assessor/ by searching the mailing list, which
is what prompted this whole mess.

-Alexis

Re: DIS: Proto-proto: Findings of Law & Fact

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 4:06 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 18:52, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > My gut feeling is that this is a bit overcomplicated. There are too
> > many categories. Additionally, I dislike this sort of pragmatization.
> > The generally platonic model has served Agora well the vast majority
> > of the time. I don't have extended reasoning here, those are just my
> > initial reactions.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
>
> I think that the never-ending issues with our approach to ratification
> indicate flaws.

I agree that ratification is in need of substantial modification. I
think that the mechanism you provide for legal fictions would be a
reasonable way out of the problem.


-Aris

Re: DIS: Proto-proto: Findings of Law & Fact

[Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 18:52, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> My gut feeling is that this is a bit overcomplicated. There are too
> many categories. Additionally, I dislike this sort of pragmatization.
> The generally platonic model has served Agora well the vast majority
> of the time. I don't have extended reasoning here, those are just my
> initial reactions.
>
> -Aris
>

I think that the never-ending issues with our approach to ratification
indicate flaws.

Re: DIS: Proto-proto: Findings of Law & Fact

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

My gut feeling is that this is a bit overcomplicated. There are too
many categories. Additionally, I dislike this sort of pragmatization.
The generally platonic model has served Agora well the vast majority
of the time. I don't have extended reasoning here, those are just my
initial reactions.

-Aris

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 11:14 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> Here's some outline I was thinking to move us towards a more pragmatic
> model of law:
>
> Any question that arises as part of a dispute can be categorized into one
> of the following:
>
> - Question of fact, divided into:
>   - Questions of natural fact, being facts which are true without reference
> to the rules of Agora at all. Example: whether a player gave their consent
> to a contract.
>   - Questions of legal fact, being facts which arise because of the rules
> of Agora. Example: the state of a switch.
> - Questions of law, being questions purely about the interpretation of the
> law. Example: which of two clauses of the rules takes precedence.
> - Questions of application (typically called "mixed fact and law" in
> real-world law), being questions about the application of the law to the
> facts. Example: whether or not an action is effective.
>
> A legal fact may be a legal fiction, which is a legal fact that overrides
> natural fact(s) or other legal fact(s). Legal fictions must be created
> explicitly and do not have indirect effects to ensure preconditions are
> satisfied, for instance, a legal fiction that an asset is owned by someone
> who cannot own it does not also create a legal fiction that they meet some
> other criterion that allows them to own it. If the rules do not provide a
> mechanism to get the fact out of the illegal state, it remains.
>
> [ This limited scope of legal fictions is intended to limit the complex
> recomputations they might require. In thinking about this, I saw a
> potential issue with the ratification rules as they exist: suppose an
> agoran decision self-ratifies listing a non-player as a voter. This could
> conceivably be argued to ratify that the person was a player at the time of
> its initiation. But, if we once again moved the right to not play the game
> to take precedence over ratification which is arguably an important change
> in its own right, then the entire ratification could fail because of their
> non-consent.  Similarly, if a player's voting strength is listed wrong,
> does that ratify that conditions exist to give em the necessary voting
> strength? That could cause the ratification to fail if it is ambiguous, for
> instance a player with two blots incorrectly listied voting strength 2
> could be ratified either as having a single blot or being Prime Minister.
> When actually we want to limit the scope of the ratification to just the
> value of the "voting strength" variable. ]
>
> Certain processes may give rise to Findings on questions. These amount to
> binding interpretations of the game and world, and apply retroactively. In
> particular:
>
> - Findings of Fact apply to the moment or period of time to which they
> refer. Their binding effect may, however, extend temporally because, for
> instance, a Finding that a player owns an asset necessarily implies that e
> continues to own the asset until something causes em to lose it, and may
> also imply that e has owned it for some period of time beforehand.
>
> [ As mentioned below, Findings of Fact subsume ratification. ]
>
> - Findings of Law are binding forwards in time. They may be persuasive to
> events that predate the Finding but do not necessarily bind their
> interpretation. They apply until the relevant law changes enough so that
> they no longer apply (whether a Finding of Law continues to apply is itself
> a question of law).
>
> [ The restriction of bindingness being forwards in time is to limit
> recalculation and to allow for precedents to change by way of Findings of
> Law. ]
>
> - Findings of Application are, like Findings of Fact, binding at the moment
> or period of time to which they refer. They are not, however, capable of
> creating legal fictions.
>
> Findings have some reasonable security property on them. Additionally, a
> Finding cannot remove a player's ability to seek recourse through Findings
> or otherwise make an inescapable change to the game.
>
> Ratification becomes a form Finding of Fact. A judge of an inquiry CAN,
> without objection, make Findings as part of the development of the
> arguments for their case. An objection does not, in and of itself, mean
> that the judge should change eir reasoning.
>
> [ The primary purpose of this minimal use of Findings is to a) provide a
> different basis for ratification and b) allow us to experiment with them in
> the context of CFJs, without making them mandatory or undermining the
> existing system. Wordsmithing on the anti-Lindrum protections would be
> appreciated, but I think it probably should come in primarily via amendment
> to R101. ]
>
> 

Re: DIS: Proto-proto: Findings of Law & Fact

[Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 14:14, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> Here's some outline I was thinking to move us towards a more pragmatic
> model of law:
>

Any opinions? Buehler?

Agora

DIS: Proto-proto: Findings of Law & Fact

[Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion]

Here's some outline I was thinking to move us towards a more pragmatic
model of law:

Any question that arises as part of a dispute can be categorized into one
of the following:

- Question of fact, divided into:
  - Questions of natural fact, being facts which are true without reference
to the rules of Agora at all. Example: whether a player gave their consent
to a contract.
  - Questions of legal fact, being facts which arise because of the rules
of Agora. Example: the state of a switch.
- Questions of law, being questions purely about the interpretation of the
law. Example: which of two clauses of the rules takes precedence.
- Questions of application (typically called "mixed fact and law" in
real-world law), being questions about the application of the law to the
facts. Example: whether or not an action is effective.

A legal fact may be a legal fiction, which is a legal fact that overrides
natural fact(s) or other legal fact(s). Legal fictions must be created
explicitly and do not have indirect effects to ensure preconditions are
satisfied, for instance, a legal fiction that an asset is owned by someone
who cannot own it does not also create a legal fiction that they meet some
other criterion that allows them to own it. If the rules do not provide a
mechanism to get the fact out of the illegal state, it remains.

[ This limited scope of legal fictions is intended to limit the complex
recomputations they might require. In thinking about this, I saw a
potential issue with the ratification rules as they exist: suppose an
agoran decision self-ratifies listing a non-player as a voter. This could
conceivably be argued to ratify that the person was a player at the time of
its initiation. But, if we once again moved the right to not play the game
to take precedence over ratification which is arguably an important change
in its own right, then the entire ratification could fail because of their
non-consent.  Similarly, if a player's voting strength is listed wrong,
does that ratify that conditions exist to give em the necessary voting
strength? That could cause the ratification to fail if it is ambiguous, for
instance a player with two blots incorrectly listied voting strength 2
could be ratified either as having a single blot or being Prime Minister.
When actually we want to limit the scope of the ratification to just the
value of the "voting strength" variable. ]

Certain processes may give rise to Findings on questions. These amount to
binding interpretations of the game and world, and apply retroactively. In
particular:

- Findings of Fact apply to the moment or period of time to which they
refer. Their binding effect may, however, extend temporally because, for
instance, a Finding that a player owns an asset necessarily implies that e
continues to own the asset until something causes em to lose it, and may
also imply that e has owned it for some period of time beforehand.

[ As mentioned below, Findings of Fact subsume ratification. ]

- Findings of Law are binding forwards in time. They may be persuasive to
events that predate the Finding but do not necessarily bind their
interpretation. They apply until the relevant law changes enough so that
they no longer apply (whether a Finding of Law continues to apply is itself
a question of law).

[ The restriction of bindingness being forwards in time is to limit
recalculation and to allow for precedents to change by way of Findings of
Law. ]

- Findings of Application are, like Findings of Fact, binding at the moment
or period of time to which they refer. They are not, however, capable of
creating legal fictions.

Findings have some reasonable security property on them. Additionally, a
Finding cannot remove a player's ability to seek recourse through Findings
or otherwise make an inescapable change to the game.

Ratification becomes a form Finding of Fact. A judge of an inquiry CAN,
without objection, make Findings as part of the development of the
arguments for their case. An objection does not, in and of itself, mean
that the judge should change eir reasoning.

[ The primary purpose of this minimal use of Findings is to a) provide a
different basis for ratification and b) allow us to experiment with them in
the context of CFJs, without making them mandatory or undermining the
existing system. Wordsmithing on the anti-Lindrum protections would be
appreciated, but I think it probably should come in primarily via amendment
to R101. ]

Alexis

DIS: Forgotten proto collection

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

I just went through my email archives looking for old protos that, AFIAK, never 
got passed, but look interesting. That list is here: 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fwkCVGpETexQtCkD3fxiP0jk5gtSQj0pDwxUXBmxhTA/edit#
 


Feel free to propose any of these, or add to the list. At some point, I might 
set up a proposal competition and/or contract to incentivize revising some of 
these.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Rough Proto: Break the Rules Week

[Gaelan Steele]

> On Oct 29, 2018, at 1:24 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> The general idea of a sandbox isn't a bad one.  But I don't think
> "making and destroying a copy of Agora" is straightforward if you
> intent that the copy starts with the same players/gamestate.
> 
> The first red flag to me is that this drafts current players into a 
> sandbox Agora (i.e. a new agreement) without their consent, which
> would need to override R869 (power-3).
> It would also draft the Officers without consent (I assume you'd
> expect Officers to do double-duty?), contrary to R1006.

This could probably be solved with some mildly convoluted language explaining 
that while Sandbox rules can be enforced within the sandbox, they’re not REAL 
obligations. (Although the rules don’t admit this, this is also true in 
Agora—nobody’s going to sue somebody else over a rule violation.)

> 
> It's also pretty clear that you can't override the PF, at least not
> at power-1.  Whether or not a message is "assumed to be intended"
> for the sandbox, if you post a move to a PF, there's no way of
> stopping it from being a message to the original Agora without
> overriding R478 (also power-3).

True. Think we need a power-3 rule to implement the forum switch, keeping 
everything else at 1.

> 
> Finally, if a copy of Agora is created, it comes with a copy of
> Rule 1698 (Agora Is A Nomic, power=4) which would prevent it from
> ceasing to exist at the end of the week (or ever).

That’s why I say “This rule governs the Sandbox, and no rules or other legal 
instruments in the Sandbox can override this rule.” Not sure if it works, but 
my intent is something like a VM in userspace—the kernel in the VM has absolute 
power within the VM, but the outer userspace can still do whatever it wants to 
the VM. 

I considered implementing this with a very-high power instrument that reverted 
Agora to original state at the end of the week, but that seems more likely to 
go wrong. 

Gaelan

> 
> 
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> Title: Break the Rules Week
>> Power: 1
>> 
>> The _th week of _ is known as Break the Rules Week.
>> 
>> At the beginning of Break the Rules Week, a copy of Agora, known as the 
>> Sandbox, is created; the copy does not include this rule. Within this rule, 
>> Agora refers only to the original copy, and not to the Sandbox.
>> This rule governs the Sandbox, and no rules or other legal instruments in 
>> the Sandbox can override this rule. Actions taken in the Sandbox CANNOT 
>> affect Agora in any way, except for as specified by this rule or other rules 
>> in Agora.
>> 
>> If a forum is public in both Agora and the Sandbox, messages to the forum 
>> are assumed to be intended for the Sandbox unless specified otherwise. [Can 
>> we do this at Power 1?] Players SHOULD NOT send messages to Agora during 
>> Break the Rules Week.
>> 
>> At the end of Break the Rules Week, the Sandbox ceases to exist.
>> 
>> [Rough idea: a time to have fun with scams that would make such a big mess 
>> that we wouldn’t want to try them in the “real” Agora. TODO: A way to speed 
>> up proposals so that we can create and pass them within the week.]
>> 
>> Gaelan

Re: DIS: Rough Proto: Break the Rules Week

[Kerim Aydin]

On the plus side, speeding up all aspects of the game is surprisingly
easy.  Just re-write or override Rule 1023 (Agoran Time, power-2) to
indicate that time in the sandbox moves X times faster than baseline
time (a pain to recordkeep, but conceptually easy and seamless).

[It's come up a couple times in the last year or so that the concept
of time in Agora is surprisingly vulnerable to corruption compared
to some of the other things protected at high power].

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: 
> The general idea of a sandbox isn't a bad one.  But I don't think
> "making and destroying a copy of Agora" is straightforward if you
> intent that the copy starts with the same players/gamestate.
> 
> The first red flag to me is that this drafts current players into a 
> sandbox Agora (i.e. a new agreement) without their consent, which
> would need to override R869 (power-3).
> 
> It would also draft the Officers without consent (I assume you'd
> expect Officers to do double-duty?), contrary to R1006.
> 
> It's also pretty clear that you can't override the PF, at least not
> at power-1.  Whether or not a message is "assumed to be intended"
> for the sandbox, if you post a move to a PF, there's no way of
> stopping it from being a message to the original Agora without
> overriding R478 (also power-3).
> 
> Finally, if a copy of Agora is created, it comes with a copy of
> Rule 1698 (Agora Is A Nomic, power=4) which would prevent it from
> ceasing to exist at the end of the week (or ever).
> 
> 
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > Title: Break the Rules Week
> > Power: 1
> > 
> > The _th week of _ is known as Break the Rules Week.
> > 
> > At the beginning of Break the Rules Week, a copy of Agora, known as the 
> > Sandbox, is created; the copy does not include this rule. Within this rule, 
> > Agora refers only to the original copy, and not to the Sandbox.
> > 
> > This rule governs the Sandbox, and no rules or other legal instruments in 
> > the Sandbox can override this rule. Actions taken in the Sandbox CANNOT 
> > affect Agora in any way, except for as specified by this rule or other 
> > rules in Agora.
> > 
> > If a forum is public in both Agora and the Sandbox, messages to the forum 
> > are assumed to be intended for the Sandbox unless specified otherwise. [Can 
> > we do this at Power 1?] Players SHOULD NOT send messages to Agora during 
> > Break the Rules Week.
> > 
> > At the end of Break the Rules Week, the Sandbox ceases to exist.
> > 
> > [Rough idea: a time to have fun with scams that would make such a big mess 
> > that we wouldn’t want to try them in the “real” Agora. TODO: A way to speed 
> > up proposals so that we can create and pass them within the week.]
> > 
> > Gaelan
>

Re: DIS: Rough Proto: Break the Rules Week

[Kerim Aydin]

The general idea of a sandbox isn't a bad one.  But I don't think
"making and destroying a copy of Agora" is straightforward if you
intent that the copy starts with the same players/gamestate.

The first red flag to me is that this drafts current players into a 
sandbox Agora (i.e. a new agreement) without their consent, which
would need to override R869 (power-3).

It would also draft the Officers without consent (I assume you'd
expect Officers to do double-duty?), contrary to R1006.

It's also pretty clear that you can't override the PF, at least not
at power-1.  Whether or not a message is "assumed to be intended"
for the sandbox, if you post a move to a PF, there's no way of
stopping it from being a message to the original Agora without
overriding R478 (also power-3).

Finally, if a copy of Agora is created, it comes with a copy of
Rule 1698 (Agora Is A Nomic, power=4) which would prevent it from
ceasing to exist at the end of the week (or ever).


On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Title: Break the Rules Week
> Power: 1
> 
> The _th week of _ is known as Break the Rules Week.
> 
> At the beginning of Break the Rules Week, a copy of Agora, known as the 
> Sandbox, is created; the copy does not include this rule. Within this rule, 
> Agora refers only to the original copy, and not to the Sandbox.
> 
> This rule governs the Sandbox, and no rules or other legal instruments in the 
> Sandbox can override this rule. Actions taken in the Sandbox CANNOT affect 
> Agora in any way, except for as specified by this rule or other rules in 
> Agora.
> 
> If a forum is public in both Agora and the Sandbox, messages to the forum are 
> assumed to be intended for the Sandbox unless specified otherwise. [Can we do 
> this at Power 1?] Players SHOULD NOT send messages to Agora during Break the 
> Rules Week.
> 
> At the end of Break the Rules Week, the Sandbox ceases to exist.
> 
> [Rough idea: a time to have fun with scams that would make such a big mess 
> that we wouldn’t want to try them in the “real” Agora. TODO: A way to speed 
> up proposals so that we can create and pass them within the week.]
> 
> Gaelan

DIS: Rough Proto: Break the Rules Week

[Gaelan Steele]

Title: Break the Rules Week
Power: 1

The _th week of _ is known as Break the Rules Week.

At the beginning of Break the Rules Week, a copy of Agora, known as the 
Sandbox, is created; the copy does not include this rule. Within this rule, 
Agora refers only to the original copy, and not to the Sandbox.

This rule governs the Sandbox, and no rules or other legal instruments in the 
Sandbox can override this rule. Actions taken in the Sandbox CANNOT affect 
Agora in any way, except for as specified by this rule or other rules in Agora.

If a forum is public in both Agora and the Sandbox, messages to the forum are 
assumed to be intended for the Sandbox unless specified otherwise. [Can we do 
this at Power 1?] Players SHOULD NOT send messages to Agora during Break the 
Rules Week.

At the end of Break the Rules Week, the Sandbox ceases to exist.

[Rough idea: a time to have fun with scams that would make such a big mess that 
we wouldn’t want to try them in the “real” Agora. TODO: A way to speed up 
proposals so that we can create and pass them within the week.]

Gaelan

DIS: Re: proto-Agoran People’s Party

[D. Margaux]

Thank you for the helpful comments. I clarify below.

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 8:34 PM Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> Feedback inline
>
> Gaelan
>
>
> > 103. Joining the Party.  Any active player CAN become a Member:
> >
> > (a)  by announcement consenting to be bound by this Charter, if the
> Party has 3 or fewer Members; or
> >
> > (b)  if the Party has 4 or more Members, by announcement Without X
> Active Member Objections consenting to be bound by this Charter, where X is
> equal to 1/2 the total number of active Members rounded down to the nearest
> integer.
>
> Ambiguity: are the objecting members consenting, or is the new member?
> Also, I don’t think you need to say “by announcement without
> objection”—just “without objection”
>

Good point. It is the joining member consenting to be bound. I’ll clarify
and omit the announcement language.

>

> > 106. Effective Date.  The provisions of this Charter become EFFECTIVE on
> the day that 3 players have become Members by announcement pursuant to §
> 102(a) (the "Effective Date”).
>
> If it isn’t effective, how does 103(a) work?
>

Thanks, yes—probably only Article 2 should go into effect on the Effective
Date, and Article 1 go into effect immediately.


> > 201.  Party Intents. The Agoran rules regarding the announcement of
> intent apply to announcements of intent under this Charter. For clarity’s
> sake, this Charter uses the phrase “Without N Active Member Objections” to
> refer to an intent to act Without N Objections where the eligible objectors
> are active Members.
>
> What’s an active member?
>

A non-zombie member. I’ll clarify. If a member becomes a zombie, they no
longer vote in the Party decisions, but the Party will continue to control
their votes in Agora decisions, is the idea.


> >
> > 202. Party Decisions. The Agoran rules relating to Agoran decisions
> apply to Party decisions under this Charter, except that notwithstanding
> any Agoran rule: (a) only active Members CAN cast valid votes in a Party
> Decision; (b) each active Member’s vote has a strength equal to 1; and (c)
> a Party Decision resolves to FAILED QUORUM unless a majority of all active
> Members cast the same valid unrescinded vote on that Party Decision.
>
> I think you need an “unless and only unless” here (or some better
> phrasing), or you could make an argument that a FAILED QUORUM also happens
> according to the normal Agoran rules (I.e. all players)
>

Yes, thank you.



> >
> > 203. Determining the Opinion of the Party.
> >
> > (a) Any Member may by announcement make a Motion to Determine the
> Opinion of the Party (“Motion”), specifying either (i) an Agoran decision
> for which at least 5 days remain for voting on the Agoran decision or (ii)
> a submitted proposal on which an Agoran decision has not yet begun.
>
> Support dependent actions too?



I tried to draft this but it was harder than I thought. I think I will
leave this for a later possible Amendment if the charter actually gets any
members and becomes operational.

>
>
>
> > (f) If there is an Opinion of the Party regarding an Agoran decision
> or proposal, a Member SHALL NOT cast on behalf of emself or eir zombie any
> unrescinded vote on that Agoran decision or proposal except for a vote
> identical to the Opinion of the Party.  Each Member authorizes each other
> Member to act on eir behalf and on behalf of eir zombie to vote in
> accordance with the Opinion of the Party on any Agoran decision for which
> the Party has an Opinion.
>
> I don’t think you can authorize acting on behalf of the zombies—you need
> to authorize other Members to act on behalf of the zombie holder to act on
> behalf of the zombies.



> Yes will reword it that way.

DIS: Re: proto-Agoran People’s Party

[Gaelan Steele]

Feedback inline

Gaelan

> On Oct 27, 2018, at 5:10 PM, D Margaux  wrote:
> 
> I had an idea for a perhaps fun game-within-a-game. Was curious what everyone 
> thinks. 
> 
> The idea is to have a contractual voting bloc or political party (different 
> from the political parties pun subgame of course).
> 
> Under the contract, people could join the party by announcement and leave 
> with, say, 10 days notice. There would be a voting procedure for determining 
> the Opinion of the Party with respect to a particular Agoran decision. (Maybe 
> voting on the party’s Opinion on a proposal could be permitted to begin 
> before the Agoran decision itself is distributed so that there’s sufficient 
> time to determine what the Opinion is.)
> 
> If the party has an Opinion, the contract would provide that the members 
> SHALL vote in accordance with the opinion and that the members authorize each 
> other to vote on their behalf in accordance with the Opinion of the Party (if 
> there is one).
> 
> 
> So with that in mind, here’s a proto contract. I’m sure it has lots of bugs. 
> But I welcome any comments!
> 
> DMx
> 
> *
> 
> THE CHARTER OF THE AGORAN PEOPLE’S PARTY
> 
> 
> Article 1 - Establishment of The Agoran People’s Party
> 
> 101.  Nature of This Instrument.  This instrument (the “Charter”) is a 
> contract.  It is binding upon the parties to the Charter (the “Members”). 
> 
> 102.  The Party.  This Charter establishes an entity to be known as the 
> Agoran People’s Party (the “Party”). The Party is a political organization 
> and voting bloc comprised of Members for the advancement of eir own interests 
> if not the interests of Agora as a whole. The Party SHOULD be treated Pretty 
> Good For a Long Time. 
> 
> 103. Joining the Party.  Any active player CAN become a Member:
> 
> (a)  by announcement consenting to be bound by this Charter, if the Party 
> has 3 or fewer Members; or
> 
> (b)  if the Party has 4 or more Members, by announcement Without X Active 
> Member Objections consenting to be bound by this Charter, where X is equal to 
> 1/2 the total number of active Members rounded down to the nearest integer. 

Ambiguity: are the objecting members consenting, or is the new member? Also, I 
don’t think you need to say “by announcement without objection”—just “without 
objection”

> 
> 104.  Leaving the Party.  A Member CAN cease to be a Member:
> 
> (a) by announcement with 10 days’ Notice:
> 
> (b) by announcement, if the Party has 3 or fewer active Members; or
> 
> (c)  Without X Active Members Objections, where X is equal to 1/2 the 
> total number of active Members and the eligible objectors are all active 
> Members rounded down to the nearest integer. 
> 
> 105. Expulsion from the Party.  A Member CAN cause another active Member to 
> cease to be a Member by announcement Without X Active Member Objections, 
> where X is 1/4 of the number of active Members rounded up to the nearest 
> integer. 
> 
> 106. Effective Date.  The provisions of this Charter become EFFECTIVE on the 
> day that 3 players have become Members by announcement pursuant to § 102(a) 
> (the "Effective Date”).

If it isn’t effective, how does 103(a) work?

> 
> 107. Termination.  This Charter will terminate automatically 90 days after 
> the Effective Date.
> 
> 108. Amendments.  This Charter CAN be amended by the unanimous consent of the 
> active Members expressed by announcement.  Notwithstanding any other 
> provision, the Party CANNOT have any Opinion regarding the adoption of any 
> amendment to the Charter. 
> 
> Article 2 - Decisions and The Opinion of the Party. 
> 
> 201.  Party Intents. The Agoran rules regarding the announcement of intent 
> apply to announcements of intent under this Charter. For clarity’s sake, this 
> Charter uses the phrase “Without N Active Member Objections” to refer to an 
> intent to act Without N Objections where the eligible objectors are active 
> Members.  

What’s an active member?

> 
> 202. Party Decisions. The Agoran rules relating to Agoran decisions apply to 
> Party decisions under this Charter, except that notwithstanding any Agoran 
> rule: (a) only active Members CAN cast valid votes in a Party Decision; (b) 
> each active Member’s vote has a strength equal to 1; and (c) a Party Decision 
> resolves to FAILED QUORUM unless a majority of all active Members cast the 
> same valid unrescinded vote on that Party Decision. 

I think you need an “unless and only unless” here (or some better phrasing), or 
you could make an argument that a FAILED QUORUM also happens according to the 
normal Agoran rules (I.e. all players)

> 
> 203. Determining the Opinion of the Party.  
> 
> (a) Any Member may by announcement make a Motion to Determine the Opinion 
> of the Party (“Motion”), specifying either (i) an Agoran decision for which 
> at least 5 days remain for voting on the Agoran decision or (ii) a submitted 
> proposal on which an Agoran decision has not yet 

Re: DIS: [Proto-proto] Refining space

[ATMunn]

Oh, who am I kidding.

I'm itching to write a proposal so I'll just go ahead and write the
proto now. If it still doesn't seem great, then I'll scrap it.

On 10/13/2018 9:01 AM, ATMunn wrote:

To be truthful, I hadn't thought much about how combat actually
works.

I'm at the point where I think I'm possibly trying to hard to make
this a thing, and so maybe I should just let it go.

On 10/13/2018 3:10 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I'm not sure about the Pirates. I'd tend to either just do NPCs or 
just do players for the first iteration. How does combat work?

Some rock-paper scissors type thing?

-Aris On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 6:22 AM ATMunn
 wrote:


Hm, I see what you're saying.

I think the problem is that recently I have been thinking a lot
about real-life board games, which generally require some amount
of complexity to be interesting. (Of course, there are those
games every now and then that manage to pull off something genius
with a tiny rulebook, but those are rare.)

What you've helped me realize here is that Agora is not about
that. Agora, as we all know, is a game about changing the rules,
not necessarily adding a ton of them at once. If a new system is
added, in order for it to be successful, it probably needs to
start small, and become larger as the community, not a single
player, chips in and makes it the best it can be. (I'm writing
this more as a reminder to myself than anything.)

Again, I'm still not super invested in this idea. I'd like it to
work, but if it's not going to, then there's no sense in moving
on to making an actual proposal. So, here's my attempt at
creating a one-paragraph summary, as simple as possible:

Every player has a spaceship, with which to fly around space and
fight space battles. Players also have Fame levels; defeating
most players lowers Fame, and defeating NPC "Pirates" and very
infamous players raises fame. Becoming either famous or infamous
can bring rewards (potentially even winning), but staying neutral
does not.

I think that captures the main things I wanted from this. I
hesitate if this might even still be too much, but I can't see
how to reduce it any more. Maybe I'm overthinking it.

I will say though that I was hesitant to include the "Pirates"
thing. Having NPC ships does seem like another layer of
complexity; however, I couldn't see how fame would be a viable
option otherwise. Maybe fame is simply attacking *any* infamous
player, and infamy is simply attacking *any* famous player, sort
of making two teams?

On 10/8/2018 11:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

Please forgive me, but, well... This still suffers from the
problems of complexity and and lack of focus that the current
system does.

I think the problem is that you’re trying too hard to be
intresting. In short, you’re enjoying the rules and ideas
you’re coming up with. That means that you want to come up with
more of them, because it’s fun. I've done that multiple times
in the past. It doesn't work very well. Look, for instance, at
my first contract system. A very flexible and detailed system 
that was also so complicated that no one wanted to figure out

how it worked.

I can't promise that this will work, but what you might try
doing is to start with a very simple idea and then add just
enough so it's not actively boring. So, basically, pick a
paragraph of your current plan (and, for the love of the light,
please, not the one you marked as arguable), and make that your
new plan. See if you can do it all in ~three rules, about two 
reasonably sized paragraphs each. Remember that brevity is a

virtue. Designing a large system that fits well together and
that is also simple and focused is extremely hard. I still
can't do it myself without a lot of help, although I'm getting
better after a ton of practice and mistakes. A small focused
system that can be expanded later is probably a better idea.

When I say that you should be able to come up with a reasonable
summary (that is, one that gives people enough background to
understand what's going on) that's a paragraph long, I meant
it. Examples: 1. There are politicians and political parties.
Players, through normal game activities, gain favors which they
can use to gain power and influence more politicians,
eventually allowing the player to win. Politicians also have
special powers which the players who control the build up 
political power. 2. There's a currency called stems with no

intrinsic utility. Players have one of three roles, which they
can only change rarely, and which allow them to bid with stems
for one of three more specialized currencies that help with
gameplay. One currency controls proposals, another provides
extra votes, and a third removes judicial punishments. Various
officers have the power to set economic policy for each
currency, setting the amount at auction and the taxation rate.

I'm not trying to shoot down your ideas; I just want to help
you come up with a strong proposal. The fact that it's supposed
to coexist with Politics makes 

Re: DIS: [Proto-proto] Refining space

[ATMunn]

To be truthful, I hadn't thought much about how combat actually works.

I'm at the point where I think I'm possibly trying to hard to make this 
a thing, and so maybe I should just let it go.


On 10/13/2018 3:10 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:

I'm not sure about the Pirates. I'd tend to either just do NPCs or
just do players for the first iteration. How does combat work? Some
rock-paper scissors type thing?

-Aris
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 6:22 AM ATMunn  wrote:


Hm, I see what you're saying.

I think the problem is that recently I have been thinking a lot about
real-life board games, which generally require some amount of complexity
to be interesting. (Of course, there are those games every now and then
that manage to pull off something genius with a tiny rulebook, but those
are rare.)

What you've helped me realize here is that Agora is not about that.
Agora, as we all know, is a game about changing the rules, not
necessarily adding a ton of them at once. If a new system is added, in
order for it to be successful, it probably needs to start small, and
become larger as the community, not a single player, chips in and makes
it the best it can be. (I'm writing this more as a reminder to myself
than anything.)

Again, I'm still not super invested in this idea. I'd like it to work,
but if it's not going to, then there's no sense in moving on to making
an actual proposal. So, here's my attempt at creating a one-paragraph
summary, as simple as possible:

Every player has a spaceship, with which to fly around space and fight
space battles. Players also have Fame levels; defeating most players
lowers Fame, and defeating NPC "Pirates" and very infamous players
raises fame. Becoming either famous or infamous can bring rewards
(potentially even winning), but staying neutral does not.

I think that captures the main things I wanted from this. I hesitate if
this might even still be too much, but I can't see how to reduce it any
more. Maybe I'm overthinking it.

I will say though that I was hesitant to include the "Pirates" thing.
Having NPC ships does seem like another layer of complexity; however, I
couldn't see how fame would be a viable option otherwise. Maybe fame is
simply attacking *any* infamous player, and infamy is simply attacking
*any* famous player, sort of making two teams?

On 10/8/2018 11:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

Please forgive me, but, well... This still suffers from the problems of
complexity and and lack of focus that the current system does.

I think the problem is that you’re trying too hard to be intresting. In
short, you’re enjoying the rules and ideas you’re coming up with. That
means that you want to come up with more of them, because it’s fun. I've
done that multiple times in the past. It doesn't work very well. Look, for
instance, at my first contract system. A very flexible and detailed system
that was also so complicated that no one wanted to figure out how it worked.

I can't promise that this will work, but what you might try doing is to
start with a very simple idea and then add just enough so it's not actively
boring. So, basically, pick a paragraph of your current plan (and, for the
love of the light, please, not the one you marked as arguable), and make
that your new plan. See if you can do it all in ~three rules, about two
reasonably sized paragraphs each. Remember that brevity is a virtue.
Designing a large system that fits well together and that is also simple
and focused is extremely hard. I still can't do it myself without a lot of
help, although I'm getting better after a ton of practice and mistakes. A
small focused system that can be expanded later is probably a better idea.

When I say that you should be able to come up with a reasonable summary
(that is, one that gives people enough background to understand what's
going on) that's a paragraph long, I meant it. Examples:
1. There are politicians and political parties. Players, through normal
game activities, gain favors which they can use to gain power and influence
more politicians, eventually allowing the player to win. Politicians also
have special powers which the players who control the build up political
power.
2. There's a currency called stems with no intrinsic utility. Players have
one of three roles, which they can only change rarely, and which allow them
to bid with stems for one of three more specialized currencies that help
with gameplay. One currency controls proposals, another provides extra
votes, and a third removes judicial punishments. Various officers have the
power to set economic policy for each currency, setting the amount at
auction and the taxation rate.

I'm not trying to shoot down your ideas; I just want to help you come up
with a strong proposal. The fact that it's supposed to coexist with
Politics makes the need for simplicity even greater, but most of this is
generally applicable. I hope that I've helped.

-Aris


On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 6:00 PM ATMunn  wrote:


After some feedback on my last 

Re: DIS: [Proto-proto] Refining space

[Aris Merchant]

I'm not sure about the Pirates. I'd tend to either just do NPCs or
just do players for the first iteration. How does combat work? Some
rock-paper scissors type thing?

-Aris
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 6:22 AM ATMunn  wrote:
>
> Hm, I see what you're saying.
>
> I think the problem is that recently I have been thinking a lot about
> real-life board games, which generally require some amount of complexity
> to be interesting. (Of course, there are those games every now and then
> that manage to pull off something genius with a tiny rulebook, but those
> are rare.)
>
> What you've helped me realize here is that Agora is not about that.
> Agora, as we all know, is a game about changing the rules, not
> necessarily adding a ton of them at once. If a new system is added, in
> order for it to be successful, it probably needs to start small, and
> become larger as the community, not a single player, chips in and makes
> it the best it can be. (I'm writing this more as a reminder to myself
> than anything.)
>
> Again, I'm still not super invested in this idea. I'd like it to work,
> but if it's not going to, then there's no sense in moving on to making
> an actual proposal. So, here's my attempt at creating a one-paragraph
> summary, as simple as possible:
>
> Every player has a spaceship, with which to fly around space and fight
> space battles. Players also have Fame levels; defeating most players
> lowers Fame, and defeating NPC "Pirates" and very infamous players
> raises fame. Becoming either famous or infamous can bring rewards
> (potentially even winning), but staying neutral does not.
>
> I think that captures the main things I wanted from this. I hesitate if
> this might even still be too much, but I can't see how to reduce it any
> more. Maybe I'm overthinking it.
>
> I will say though that I was hesitant to include the "Pirates" thing.
> Having NPC ships does seem like another layer of complexity; however, I
> couldn't see how fame would be a viable option otherwise. Maybe fame is
> simply attacking *any* infamous player, and infamy is simply attacking
> *any* famous player, sort of making two teams?
>
> On 10/8/2018 11:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Please forgive me, but, well... This still suffers from the problems of
> > complexity and and lack of focus that the current system does.
> >
> > I think the problem is that you’re trying too hard to be intresting. In
> > short, you’re enjoying the rules and ideas you’re coming up with. That
> > means that you want to come up with more of them, because it’s fun. I've
> > done that multiple times in the past. It doesn't work very well. Look, for
> > instance, at my first contract system. A very flexible and detailed system
> > that was also so complicated that no one wanted to figure out how it worked.
> >
> > I can't promise that this will work, but what you might try doing is to
> > start with a very simple idea and then add just enough so it's not actively
> > boring. So, basically, pick a paragraph of your current plan (and, for the
> > love of the light, please, not the one you marked as arguable), and make
> > that your new plan. See if you can do it all in ~three rules, about two
> > reasonably sized paragraphs each. Remember that brevity is a virtue.
> > Designing a large system that fits well together and that is also simple
> > and focused is extremely hard. I still can't do it myself without a lot of
> > help, although I'm getting better after a ton of practice and mistakes. A
> > small focused system that can be expanded later is probably a better idea.
> >
> > When I say that you should be able to come up with a reasonable summary
> > (that is, one that gives people enough background to understand what's
> > going on) that's a paragraph long, I meant it. Examples:
> > 1. There are politicians and political parties. Players, through normal
> > game activities, gain favors which they can use to gain power and influence
> > more politicians, eventually allowing the player to win. Politicians also
> > have special powers which the players who control the build up political
> > power.
> > 2. There's a currency called stems with no intrinsic utility. Players have
> > one of three roles, which they can only change rarely, and which allow them
> > to bid with stems for one of three more specialized currencies that help
> > with gameplay. One currency controls proposals, another provides extra
> > votes, and a third removes judicial punishments. Various officers have the
> > power to set economic policy for each currency, setting the amount at
> > auction and the taxation rate.
> >
> > I'm not trying to shoot down your ideas; I just want to help you come up
> > with a strong proposal. The fact that it's supposed to coexist with
> > Politics makes the need for simplicity even greater, but most of this is
> > generally applicable. I hope that I've helped.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 6:00 PM ATMunn  wrote:
> >
> >> After some feedback on 

Re: DIS: [Proto-proto] Refining space

[ATMunn]

Hm, I see what you're saying.

I think the problem is that recently I have been thinking a lot about 
real-life board games, which generally require some amount of complexity 
to be interesting. (Of course, there are those games every now and then 
that manage to pull off something genius with a tiny rulebook, but those 
are rare.)


What you've helped me realize here is that Agora is not about that. 
Agora, as we all know, is a game about changing the rules, not 
necessarily adding a ton of them at once. If a new system is added, in 
order for it to be successful, it probably needs to start small, and 
become larger as the community, not a single player, chips in and makes 
it the best it can be. (I'm writing this more as a reminder to myself 
than anything.)


Again, I'm still not super invested in this idea. I'd like it to work, 
but if it's not going to, then there's no sense in moving on to making 
an actual proposal. So, here's my attempt at creating a one-paragraph 
summary, as simple as possible:


Every player has a spaceship, with which to fly around space and fight 
space battles. Players also have Fame levels; defeating most players 
lowers Fame, and defeating NPC "Pirates" and very infamous players 
raises fame. Becoming either famous or infamous can bring rewards 
(potentially even winning), but staying neutral does not.


I think that captures the main things I wanted from this. I hesitate if 
this might even still be too much, but I can't see how to reduce it any 
more. Maybe I'm overthinking it.


I will say though that I was hesitant to include the "Pirates" thing. 
Having NPC ships does seem like another layer of complexity; however, I 
couldn't see how fame would be a viable option otherwise. Maybe fame is 
simply attacking *any* infamous player, and infamy is simply attacking 
*any* famous player, sort of making two teams?


On 10/8/2018 11:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

Please forgive me, but, well... This still suffers from the problems of
complexity and and lack of focus that the current system does.

I think the problem is that you’re trying too hard to be intresting. In
short, you’re enjoying the rules and ideas you’re coming up with. That
means that you want to come up with more of them, because it’s fun. I've
done that multiple times in the past. It doesn't work very well. Look, for
instance, at my first contract system. A very flexible and detailed system
that was also so complicated that no one wanted to figure out how it worked.

I can't promise that this will work, but what you might try doing is to
start with a very simple idea and then add just enough so it's not actively
boring. So, basically, pick a paragraph of your current plan (and, for the
love of the light, please, not the one you marked as arguable), and make
that your new plan. See if you can do it all in ~three rules, about two
reasonably sized paragraphs each. Remember that brevity is a virtue.
Designing a large system that fits well together and that is also simple
and focused is extremely hard. I still can't do it myself without a lot of
help, although I'm getting better after a ton of practice and mistakes. A
small focused system that can be expanded later is probably a better idea.

When I say that you should be able to come up with a reasonable summary
(that is, one that gives people enough background to understand what's
going on) that's a paragraph long, I meant it. Examples:
1. There are politicians and political parties. Players, through normal
game activities, gain favors which they can use to gain power and influence
more politicians, eventually allowing the player to win. Politicians also
have special powers which the players who control the build up political
power.
2. There's a currency called stems with no intrinsic utility. Players have
one of three roles, which they can only change rarely, and which allow them
to bid with stems for one of three more specialized currencies that help
with gameplay. One currency controls proposals, another provides extra
votes, and a third removes judicial punishments. Various officers have the
power to set economic policy for each currency, setting the amount at
auction and the taxation rate.

I'm not trying to shoot down your ideas; I just want to help you come up
with a strong proposal. The fact that it's supposed to coexist with
Politics makes the need for simplicity even greater, but most of this is
generally applicable. I hope that I've helped.

-Aris


On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 6:00 PM ATMunn  wrote:


After some feedback on my last message and some time outside earlier
today, I've refined my Putting Agora in Space idea. The biggest
"complaint" on that was that it was too broad and too much like the land
system which is likely about to be repealed. So, I've thought about it a
bit, and here is the new idea.

This system will be largely its own system, but will be interlinked with
the Politics system (assuming that passes). Its main focus will be on
space 

Re: DIS: [Proto-proto] Refining space

[Aris Merchant]

Please forgive me, but, well... This still suffers from the problems of
complexity and and lack of focus that the current system does.

I think the problem is that you’re trying too hard to be intresting. In
short, you’re enjoying the rules and ideas you’re coming up with. That
means that you want to come up with more of them, because it’s fun. I've
done that multiple times in the past. It doesn't work very well. Look, for
instance, at my first contract system. A very flexible and detailed system
that was also so complicated that no one wanted to figure out how it worked.

I can't promise that this will work, but what you might try doing is to
start with a very simple idea and then add just enough so it's not actively
boring. So, basically, pick a paragraph of your current plan (and, for the
love of the light, please, not the one you marked as arguable), and make
that your new plan. See if you can do it all in ~three rules, about two
reasonably sized paragraphs each. Remember that brevity is a virtue.
Designing a large system that fits well together and that is also simple
and focused is extremely hard. I still can't do it myself without a lot of
help, although I'm getting better after a ton of practice and mistakes. A
small focused system that can be expanded later is probably a better idea.

When I say that you should be able to come up with a reasonable summary
(that is, one that gives people enough background to understand what's
going on) that's a paragraph long, I meant it. Examples:
1. There are politicians and political parties. Players, through normal
game activities, gain favors which they can use to gain power and influence
more politicians, eventually allowing the player to win. Politicians also
have special powers which the players who control the build up political
power.
2. There's a currency called stems with no intrinsic utility. Players have
one of three roles, which they can only change rarely, and which allow them
to bid with stems for one of three more specialized currencies that help
with gameplay. One currency controls proposals, another provides extra
votes, and a third removes judicial punishments. Various officers have the
power to set economic policy for each currency, setting the amount at
auction and the taxation rate.

I'm not trying to shoot down your ideas; I just want to help you come up
with a strong proposal. The fact that it's supposed to coexist with
Politics makes the need for simplicity even greater, but most of this is
generally applicable. I hope that I've helped.

-Aris


On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 6:00 PM ATMunn  wrote:

> After some feedback on my last message and some time outside earlier
> today, I've refined my Putting Agora in Space idea. The biggest
> "complaint" on that was that it was too broad and too much like the land
> system which is likely about to be repealed. So, I've thought about it a
> bit, and here is the new idea.
>
> This system will be largely its own system, but will be interlinked with
> the Politics system (assuming that passes). Its main focus will be on
> space battles. This was something that I hesitated to have in the
> original idea; however, when Aris suggested narrowing down the idea to
> one main system, that was what e mentioned. I don't think e was
> specifically suggesting that and instead using it more as a suggestion,
> but I actually thought it could work. E also suggested having several
> smaller economic systems linked together as opposed to one main one, so
> I decided to make this work along those lines.
>
> Planets will likely still be a thing, however they won't be nearly as
> influential and important as they were going to be originally. Instead
> of being owned directly by players, planets are owned by political
> parties. Players can gain Favours with parties by defending the party's
> planets from invaders. There will probably be a fixed number of planets.
>
> (This part is debatable) There may be a select few planets owned by
> Agora instead of a party which are where players must travel to perform
> certain game actions, such as voting, making proposals, etc. This could
> create an interesting dynamic, but could also be annoying and too much
> of a hassle.
>
> Each player has a Spaceship. This is what allows em to travel around the
> galaxy, and is used to fight space battles. Upgrades can be bought for
> Spaceships to increase things like their fuel capacity, speed, attack
> strength, etc. There may be a limit to how many upgrades a Spaceship can
> have, causing players to either specialize in a particular thing, or
> have more of a "jack of all trades" Spaceship.
>
> There are also some non-player controlled Spaceships that will roam
> around the galaxy. There are friendly ships called Merchants; players
> can trade with these to sell unneeded things and potentially buy things
> at a lower price than normal, or even buy special things only available
> through Merchants. On the other end of the spectrum, there are 

DIS: [Proto-proto] Refining space

[ATMunn]

After some feedback on my last message and some time outside earlier
today, I've refined my Putting Agora in Space idea. The biggest
"complaint" on that was that it was too broad and too much like the land
system which is likely about to be repealed. So, I've thought about it a
bit, and here is the new idea.

This system will be largely its own system, but will be interlinked with
the Politics system (assuming that passes). Its main focus will be on
space battles. This was something that I hesitated to have in the
original idea; however, when Aris suggested narrowing down the idea to
one main system, that was what e mentioned. I don't think e was
specifically suggesting that and instead using it more as a suggestion,
but I actually thought it could work. E also suggested having several
smaller economic systems linked together as opposed to one main one, so
I decided to make this work along those lines.

Planets will likely still be a thing, however they won't be nearly as
influential and important as they were going to be originally. Instead
of being owned directly by players, planets are owned by political
parties. Players can gain Favours with parties by defending the party's
planets from invaders. There will probably be a fixed number of planets.

(This part is debatable) There may be a select few planets owned by
Agora instead of a party which are where players must travel to perform
certain game actions, such as voting, making proposals, etc. This could
create an interesting dynamic, but could also be annoying and too much
of a hassle.

Each player has a Spaceship. This is what allows em to travel around the
galaxy, and is used to fight space battles. Upgrades can be bought for
Spaceships to increase things like their fuel capacity, speed, attack
strength, etc. There may be a limit to how many upgrades a Spaceship can
have, causing players to either specialize in a particular thing, or
have more of a "jack of all trades" Spaceship.

There are also some non-player controlled Spaceships that will roam
around the galaxy. There are friendly ships called Merchants; players
can trade with these to sell unneeded things and potentially buy things
at a lower price than normal, or even buy special things only available
through Merchants. On the other end of the spectrum, there are Pirates
which will try to attack Merchants, players, and Planets.

Every player has a Fame switch. When a player's Fame is above a
particular threshold, e is considered Famous; when eir Fame is below a
particular negative threshold, e is considered Infamous. Fame is
increased by doing good deeds such as trading with Merchants, helping
players by giving them things or helping repair their ships, defeating
Pirates, or even defeating Infamous players. Fame is decreased mainly by
attacking Merchants and other players. Both fame and infamy can have
rewards, so players can choose either path.

I haven't actually thought much about how space battles will actually
work. I imagine it will be some sort of turn-based thing, where once a
player engages in a battle, e and the other ship will take turns
attacking (or defending) until one is defeated or retreats.

Another thing I'm unsure about is how one will actually encounter other
ships. Some battles will take place near a planet, but I imagine most
will occur in interplanetary space. I'm not really too thrilled about
having a big space map, as we just got done with having a map. Of
course, it would be very different then that was, but I feel like
there's some better way.

I think this is the main bulk of the idea at the moment. One other idea
I had is political parties giving players "side-quests" that they can
perform, such as transporting goods between planets. This could give
players another thing to specialize in.

Again, as always, thoughts greatly appreciated. I think I'm liking the
direction this is heading, though.

Re: DIS: [(Proto-?)proto-proto proposal] Putting Agora in Space

[ATMunn]

That is a good point. I could almost see my idea (much simplified) 
working with the Politics thing. Space politics? I dunno. It could work.


I will say that I can agree that it was maybe too overcomplicated. I'll 
think about it some more.


On 10/7/2018 10:26 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

Have we ever had an economy where we have multiple interlocking small
mini-games, rather than one very large one? That might be interesting
to try.

My motivation here is that everyone seems to have a different idea. I,
for one, really want to bring back the Politics system. However, that
system is relatively small and self-contained, and none of the other
systems have even been designed yet. What if we did more than one of
them at the same time, making sure that would all be fairly simple?
I'm not sure if it would work, but it is something to consider.

On the merits of this system: it seems a bit overcomplicated and also
very like our current land economy. If you decide to go ahead with it,
I'd encourage you to make it much more simple and focused. Maybe
something with just space battles, for instance.

-Aris
On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 5:59 PM ATMunn  wrote:


I was trying to think of some proposal ideas (as, of course, proposals
are the whole point of Agora). A few different ideas went through my
head, and then possibly the coolest/dumbest one came: space.

This is basically a big list of ideas for how space could work, probably
only some of which will end up making it into the final proposal (if
there even is one).

The main idea for this proposal is for it to be the new main economy
minigame, but, you know, in space. (this is a terrible idea isn't it)

So here are the ideas I've had:
-There are planets, lots of them
-Players can own planets
-Planets do lots of things like making stuff
-There are different types of planets
-Players have spaceships
-Spaceships are used to travel between planets
-Spaceships can also be used to explore space for more planets
-You can upgrade your spaceship
-Players can specialize their spaceships to do different cool stuff
-Space combat? (although this could be cool, I do kinda feel that direct
combat between players really doesn't fit Agora very well. maybe there
are some sort of NPC spaceships that you can fight with?)
-Some sort of main "Earth" planet that is owned by Agora and in which
stuff happens
-People might live on planets and require stuff to stay happy and not revolt
-Players get more planets through exploration, not sure if existing
planets can ever change hands
-The Admiral keeps track of spaceships, the Planeteer keeps track of
planets and the stuff on them (please suggest better names)
-The Treasuror probably still exists and keeps track of currencies like
normal
-Currencies are stuff like:
-Food and goods for keeping people happy
-Fuel to keep spaceships going
-Building materials for building
-Precious materials for being precious
-other stuff??
-Players can have things built on their planets, planets probably don't
do much unless stuff is built on them
-Players can probably build fleets of ships which can go around and do
stuff for them
-Aliens?
-Spaceships can be traded maybe

I've kind of run out of ideas at this point (Most of this stuff was made
up along the way). So yeah, there's my space proposal idea. Please give
feedback on what things should be added, changed, or removed, and of
course if this is even remotely a good idea in the first place. If you
think this is a terrible idea altogether and should be scrapped then say
that, I'm not invested in it at all at this point. But I do think it's
cool.

Re: DIS: [(Proto-?)proto-proto proposal] Putting Agora in Space

[Reuben Staley]

Yeah, I really just don't want another system where you can own things that
make things and it all culminates in a huge resource war. After land, a
system like that is just ugly.

On Sun, Oct 7, 2018, 18:59 ATMunn  wrote:

> I was trying to think of some proposal ideas (as, of course, proposals
> are the whole point of Agora). A few different ideas went through my
> head, and then possibly the coolest/dumbest one came: space.
>
> This is basically a big list of ideas for how space could work, probably
> only some of which will end up making it into the final proposal (if
> there even is one).
>
> The main idea for this proposal is for it to be the new main economy
> minigame, but, you know, in space. (this is a terrible idea isn't it)
>
> So here are the ideas I've had:
> -There are planets, lots of them
> -Players can own planets
> -Planets do lots of things like making stuff
> -There are different types of planets
> -Players have spaceships
> -Spaceships are used to travel between planets
> -Spaceships can also be used to explore space for more planets
> -You can upgrade your spaceship
> -Players can specialize their spaceships to do different cool stuff
> -Space combat? (although this could be cool, I do kinda feel that direct
> combat between players really doesn't fit Agora very well. maybe there
> are some sort of NPC spaceships that you can fight with?)
> -Some sort of main "Earth" planet that is owned by Agora and in which
> stuff happens
> -People might live on planets and require stuff to stay happy and not
> revolt
> -Players get more planets through exploration, not sure if existing
> planets can ever change hands
> -The Admiral keeps track of spaceships, the Planeteer keeps track of
> planets and the stuff on them (please suggest better names)
> -The Treasuror probably still exists and keeps track of currencies like
> normal
> -Currencies are stuff like:
>-Food and goods for keeping people happy
>-Fuel to keep spaceships going
>-Building materials for building
>-Precious materials for being precious
>-other stuff??
> -Players can have things built on their planets, planets probably don't
> do much unless stuff is built on them
> -Players can probably build fleets of ships which can go around and do
> stuff for them
> -Aliens?
> -Spaceships can be traded maybe
>
> I've kind of run out of ideas at this point (Most of this stuff was made
> up along the way). So yeah, there's my space proposal idea. Please give
> feedback on what things should be added, changed, or removed, and of
> course if this is even remotely a good idea in the first place. If you
> think this is a terrible idea altogether and should be scrapped then say
> that, I'm not invested in it at all at this point. But I do think it's
> cool.
>

Re: DIS: [(Proto-?)proto-proto proposal] Putting Agora in Space

[Aris Merchant]

Have we ever had an economy where we have multiple interlocking small
mini-games, rather than one very large one? That might be interesting
to try.

My motivation here is that everyone seems to have a different idea. I,
for one, really want to bring back the Politics system. However, that
system is relatively small and self-contained, and none of the other
systems have even been designed yet. What if we did more than one of
them at the same time, making sure that would all be fairly simple?
I'm not sure if it would work, but it is something to consider.

On the merits of this system: it seems a bit overcomplicated and also
very like our current land economy. If you decide to go ahead with it,
I'd encourage you to make it much more simple and focused. Maybe
something with just space battles, for instance.

-Aris
On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 5:59 PM ATMunn  wrote:
>
> I was trying to think of some proposal ideas (as, of course, proposals
> are the whole point of Agora). A few different ideas went through my
> head, and then possibly the coolest/dumbest one came: space.
>
> This is basically a big list of ideas for how space could work, probably
> only some of which will end up making it into the final proposal (if
> there even is one).
>
> The main idea for this proposal is for it to be the new main economy
> minigame, but, you know, in space. (this is a terrible idea isn't it)
>
> So here are the ideas I've had:
> -There are planets, lots of them
> -Players can own planets
> -Planets do lots of things like making stuff
> -There are different types of planets
> -Players have spaceships
> -Spaceships are used to travel between planets
> -Spaceships can also be used to explore space for more planets
> -You can upgrade your spaceship
> -Players can specialize their spaceships to do different cool stuff
> -Space combat? (although this could be cool, I do kinda feel that direct
> combat between players really doesn't fit Agora very well. maybe there
> are some sort of NPC spaceships that you can fight with?)
> -Some sort of main "Earth" planet that is owned by Agora and in which
> stuff happens
> -People might live on planets and require stuff to stay happy and not revolt
> -Players get more planets through exploration, not sure if existing
> planets can ever change hands
> -The Admiral keeps track of spaceships, the Planeteer keeps track of
> planets and the stuff on them (please suggest better names)
> -The Treasuror probably still exists and keeps track of currencies like
> normal
> -Currencies are stuff like:
>-Food and goods for keeping people happy
>-Fuel to keep spaceships going
>-Building materials for building
>-Precious materials for being precious
>-other stuff??
> -Players can have things built on their planets, planets probably don't
> do much unless stuff is built on them
> -Players can probably build fleets of ships which can go around and do
> stuff for them
> -Aliens?
> -Spaceships can be traded maybe
>
> I've kind of run out of ideas at this point (Most of this stuff was made
> up along the way). So yeah, there's my space proposal idea. Please give
> feedback on what things should be added, changed, or removed, and of
> course if this is even remotely a good idea in the first place. If you
> think this is a terrible idea altogether and should be scrapped then say
> that, I'm not invested in it at all at this point. But I do think it's
> cool.

Re: DIS: [(Proto-?)proto-proto proposal] Putting Agora in Space

[Cuddle Beam]

This feels largely the same as what we have now already.

I'm not too excited about it. It's not bad though. Just, well, lukewarm.

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 3:51 AM ATMunn  wrote:

> On 10/7/2018 9:16 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> > One random added idea—what if there was a temporal component to the space
> > travel, so that you wouldn’t move from place to place instantaneously but
> > instead might take a few days to traverse the galaxy or whatever?
> That could be interesting. I think the travel times would need to be
> relatively short so it doesn't get too annoying, though.
>
> > And what
> > if some Agoran actions could only be taken while you are in certain
> places?
> > For example (maybe) would need to be on the forum planet to cast a vote
> on
> > a proposal or call for judgement or pend a proposal, for example? Or
> > perhaps a player would be moved temporarily to a prison planet if e
> accrued
> > enough blots? Basically tying some game actions to location on the map,
> and
> > making it harder to move around instantaneously so that there’s some more
> > strategy and cost/benefit to where you are moving.
> This was definitely something I thought about. I didn't write it in the
> idea list because I thought it could be too annoying; and the idea that
> if you can't make it there in time then you just can't do a thing,
> especially voting and other time-sensitive things, could be problematic.
> >
> > And perhaps if a player couldn’t get to the proper place to take an
> action,
> > e could authorize a person who is there to act on eir behalf. Could
> create
> > some team-like play or interesting contractual arrangements.
> >
> Definitely. Maybe if players have fleets of spaceships, they could use
> them to go places to take actions instead of their "main" ship that they
> are actually on?
>

Re: DIS: [(Proto-?)proto-proto proposal] Putting Agora in Space

[ATMunn]

On 10/7/2018 9:16 PM, D. Margaux wrote:

One random added idea—what if there was a temporal component to the space
travel, so that you wouldn’t move from place to place instantaneously but
instead might take a few days to traverse the galaxy or whatever? 
That could be interesting. I think the travel times would need to be 
relatively short so it doesn't get too annoying, though.



And what
if some Agoran actions could only be taken while you are in certain places?
For example (maybe) would need to be on the forum planet to cast a vote on
a proposal or call for judgement or pend a proposal, for example? Or
perhaps a player would be moved temporarily to a prison planet if e accrued
enough blots? Basically tying some game actions to location on the map, and
making it harder to move around instantaneously so that there’s some more
strategy and cost/benefit to where you are moving.
This was definitely something I thought about. I didn't write it in the 
idea list because I thought it could be too annoying; and the idea that 
if you can't make it there in time then you just can't do a thing, 
especially voting and other time-sensitive things, could be problematic.


And perhaps if a player couldn’t get to the proper place to take an action,
e could authorize a person who is there to act on eir behalf. Could create
some team-like play or interesting contractual arrangements.

Definitely. Maybe if players have fleets of spaceships, they could use 
them to go places to take actions instead of their "main" ship that they 
are actually on?

Re: DIS: [(Proto-?)proto-proto proposal] Putting Agora in Space

[D. Margaux]

One random added idea—what if there was a temporal component to the space
travel, so that you wouldn’t move from place to place instantaneously but
instead might take a few days to traverse the galaxy or whatever? And what
if some Agoran actions could only be taken while you are in certain places?
For example (maybe) would need to be on the forum planet to cast a vote on
a proposal or call for judgement or pend a proposal, for example? Or
perhaps a player would be moved temporarily to a prison planet if e accrued
enough blots? Basically tying some game actions to location on the map, and
making it harder to move around instantaneously so that there’s some more
strategy and cost/benefit to where you are moving.

And perhaps if a player couldn’t get to the proper place to take an action,
e could authorize a person who is there to act on eir behalf. Could create
some team-like play or interesting contractual arrangements.

On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 8:59 PM ATMunn  wrote:

> I was trying to think of some proposal ideas (as, of course, proposals
> are the whole point of Agora). A few different ideas went through my
> head, and then possibly the coolest/dumbest one came: space.
>
> This is basically a big list of ideas for how space could work, probably
> only some of which will end up making it into the final proposal (if
> there even is one).
>
> The main idea for this proposal is for it to be the new main economy
> minigame, but, you know, in space. (this is a terrible idea isn't it)
>
> So here are the ideas I've had:
> -There are planets, lots of them
> -Players can own planets
> -Planets do lots of things like making stuff
> -There are different types of planets
> -Players have spaceships
> -Spaceships are used to travel between planets
> -Spaceships can also be used to explore space for more planets
> -You can upgrade your spaceship
> -Players can specialize their spaceships to do different cool stuff
> -Space combat? (although this could be cool, I do kinda feel that direct
> combat between players really doesn't fit Agora very well. maybe there
> are some sort of NPC spaceships that you can fight with?)
> -Some sort of main "Earth" planet that is owned by Agora and in which
> stuff happens
> -People might live on planets and require stuff to stay happy and not
> revolt
> -Players get more planets through exploration, not sure if existing
> planets can ever change hands
> -The Admiral keeps track of spaceships, the Planeteer keeps track of
> planets and the stuff on them (please suggest better names)
> -The Treasuror probably still exists and keeps track of currencies like
> normal
> -Currencies are stuff like:
>-Food and goods for keeping people happy
>-Fuel to keep spaceships going
>-Building materials for building
>-Precious materials for being precious
>-other stuff??
> -Players can have things built on their planets, planets probably don't
> do much unless stuff is built on them
> -Players can probably build fleets of ships which can go around and do
> stuff for them
> -Aliens?
> -Spaceships can be traded maybe
>
> I've kind of run out of ideas at this point (Most of this stuff was made
> up along the way). So yeah, there's my space proposal idea. Please give
> feedback on what things should be added, changed, or removed, and of
> course if this is even remotely a good idea in the first place. If you
> think this is a terrible idea altogether and should be scrapped then say
> that, I'm not invested in it at all at this point. But I do think it's
> cool.
>

DIS: [(Proto-?)proto-proto proposal] Putting Agora in Space

[ATMunn]

I was trying to think of some proposal ideas (as, of course, proposals
are the whole point of Agora). A few different ideas went through my
head, and then possibly the coolest/dumbest one came: space.

This is basically a big list of ideas for how space could work, probably
only some of which will end up making it into the final proposal (if
there even is one).

The main idea for this proposal is for it to be the new main economy
minigame, but, you know, in space. (this is a terrible idea isn't it)

So here are the ideas I've had:
-There are planets, lots of them
-Players can own planets
-Planets do lots of things like making stuff
-There are different types of planets
-Players have spaceships
-Spaceships are used to travel between planets
-Spaceships can also be used to explore space for more planets
-You can upgrade your spaceship
-Players can specialize their spaceships to do different cool stuff
-Space combat? (although this could be cool, I do kinda feel that direct
combat between players really doesn't fit Agora very well. maybe there
are some sort of NPC spaceships that you can fight with?)
-Some sort of main "Earth" planet that is owned by Agora and in which
stuff happens
-People might live on planets and require stuff to stay happy and not revolt
-Players get more planets through exploration, not sure if existing
planets can ever change hands
-The Admiral keeps track of spaceships, the Planeteer keeps track of
planets and the stuff on them (please suggest better names)
-The Treasuror probably still exists and keeps track of currencies like
normal
-Currencies are stuff like:
  -Food and goods for keeping people happy
  -Fuel to keep spaceships going
  -Building materials for building
  -Precious materials for being precious
  -other stuff??
-Players can have things built on their planets, planets probably don't
do much unless stuff is built on them
-Players can probably build fleets of ships which can go around and do
stuff for them
-Aliens?
-Spaceships can be traded maybe

I've kind of run out of ideas at this point (Most of this stuff was made
up along the way). So yeah, there's my space proposal idea. Please give
feedback on what things should be added, changed, or removed, and of
course if this is even remotely a good idea in the first place. If you
think this is a terrible idea altogether and should be scrapped then say
that, I'm not invested in it at all at this point. But I do think it's
cool.

DIS: Re: Proto: Hypothetical Patch

[Aris Merchant]

If anyone sees any holes in this, it would be nice if they would point them
out soon. I'm going to try to get some version of this into tomrorows
distribution.

-Aris

On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 7:01 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Alright, this is a bit terrifying, but it's reasonably clean, and
> should catch all of the problems brought up so far, as well as any
> others of the same class. It involves a large amount of dark magic
> unfortunately, including a nested hypothetical (hence the title), but
> it's better than the alternatives that I can think of:
>
> -  manually patching each error (and possibly missing some);
> -  worrying about having an inconsistent gamestate for an
> infinitesimal period, as we would if we just retroactively redid the
> proposal "as if" it worked; or
> - undoing everything and starting over, potentially invalidating ~1
> week's gameplay.
>
> This is v1. I expect to make revisions.
>
> Fix procedure (to be passed by proposal): {{
>
> Amend Rule 105 by removing the sentence "Rule changes always occur
> sequentially, never simultaneously." [Generally, an important safety
> measure. In this case, it gets in the way of my fix. I could adopt
> this as a rule above the power of that rule, but amending it out for a
> little bit is simpler.]
>
>  For the purposes of the rest of this proposal:
>
> - The "gamestate", includes the ruleset and all other parts of game itself;
> - An "effect" refers only to an effect directly prescribed by the rules;
> and
> - For something to "successfully" take effect is for it to have the
> result implied by its text, taking into account the context of the
> rules, but ignoring any rule that would directly block its action.
>
> No effect of the rest of this proposal causes it to fail or become
> non-existent or otherwise prevents it from successfully taking effect.
>
> Set the gamestate (including the ruleset) to whatever it would now be
> had every effect of Proposal 8014 been canceled and never occurred.
>
> [The above vastly simplifies record-keeping. No need to reason about
> what succeeded and what failed, because everything failed.]
>
> Set the gamestate to whatever it would now be if, in the infinitesimal
> period between the resolution of Proposal 8014 and the resolution of
> Proposal 8015, the gamestate had been set to whatever it would have
> been had Proposal 8014 successfully taken effect.
>
> [This portion is based on the observation that all inconsistencies of
> the proposal were internal to it, i.e. they did not persist after it's
> adoption. We can figure out what the gamestate should be at the end,
> presuming that they did indeed take effect. The problems are about
> errors like a rule existing momentarily without text, or it being
> unclear how many actions were being taken to get the rules into a
> certain state. All problems were in the transition, which this
> eliminates by setting everything all at once.]
>
> Amend Rule 105 to be in the same state it was before the passage of
> this proposal.
> }}
>
> -Aris
>

Re: DIS: proto-proto: zombie reform

[Kerim Aydin]

That's a really good point.  If I go further along this route I'll call
them golems.

But working on it earlier I'm going to stick with zombies very similar
to as they are now - going to try finish a proposal version that merges 
your earlier proto auction fixes with some other bugfixes in the next day
or so.

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Aren't these more like golems now than zombies? I'm not too familiar
> with the relevant traditions of nomenclature, although I know we've
> had golems at some point in the past, but it seems to me that an
> important characteristic of zombies is that they used to be "alive".
> 
> Also could we make them assets? They are property, and at this point
> are purely synthetic entities.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> > patching auctions, but think there should be a deeper change
> > because zombies are pretty powerful and unchecked right now.
> > Also, zombies from actual natural persons has a bit of baggage.
> >
> > But the bidding's pretty cool, so Outline for discussion.  This
> > nerfs them a bit but hopefully not so much that they're not worth
> > a bunch.
> >
> >   1.  Zombies are artificial persons named in the rules, not
> >   natural persons.  Total fixed at ~6.
> >
> >   2.  No one can own more than one zombie.
> >
> >   3.  zombies revert to Agora after (time), suggesting 60-90 days
> >   from end of auction.
> >
> >   4.  zombies CANNOT register/deregister, object/support, or
> >   enter contracts.  Everything else like persons.
> >
> >   5.  Registrar is encouraged to time auctions so as to conduct
> >   single auctions for multiple zombies (multiple lots).
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: proto-proto: zombie reform

[Aris Merchant]

Aren't these more like golems now than zombies? I'm not too familiar
with the relevant traditions of nomenclature, although I know we've
had golems at some point in the past, but it seems to me that an
important characteristic of zombies is that they used to be "alive".

Also could we make them assets? They are property, and at this point
are purely synthetic entities.

-Aris

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> patching auctions, but think there should be a deeper change
> because zombies are pretty powerful and unchecked right now.
> Also, zombies from actual natural persons has a bit of baggage.
>
> But the bidding's pretty cool, so Outline for discussion.  This
> nerfs them a bit but hopefully not so much that they're not worth
> a bunch.
>
>   1.  Zombies are artificial persons named in the rules, not
>   natural persons.  Total fixed at ~6.
>
>   2.  No one can own more than one zombie.
>
>   3.  zombies revert to Agora after (time), suggesting 60-90 days
>   from end of auction.
>
>   4.  zombies CANNOT register/deregister, object/support, or
>   enter contracts.  Everything else like persons.
>
>   5.  Registrar is encouraged to time auctions so as to conduct
>   single auctions for multiple zombies (multiple lots).
>
>
>

Re: DIS: proto-proto: zombie reform

[Kerim Aydin]

haha, when I said the 'person' couldn't register or deregister I took it for
granted that default state was "Registered" for em - of course it isn't -
yeah a non-player person that couldn't register is indeed nearly completely
useless...

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018, Madeline wrote:
> Okay, you said artificial person rather than artificial player. Guess that was
> just a slip of the fingers? And that's a good point about being able to do
> anytime, I definitely misinterpreted there. Perhaps changing it to
> one-per-month would be a better idea!
> 
> On 2018-02-23 12:03, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Where does it say one action per month?  The way I'm reading it, the second
> > paragraph of R2532 allows the owner to do anything anytime on behalf of the
> > zombie?  The scaring is once a month but that's a price of ownership not
> > a limit on non-scaring actions, I think.
> > 
> > That said, I just noticed that zombies are nearly worthless anyway but in
> > a different way, so maybe it doesn't matter :).  (not telling the reason
> > right this minute!)
> > 
> > I hear you on the "artificial is too artificial to be a person" part.
> > But I don't mean making them non-players, I mean making them permanent
> > (artificial) players.
> > 
> > On Fri, 23 Feb 2018, Madeline wrote:
> > > I mean in the current rules they can only perform one action a month, so I
> > > don't think they're that overpowered? Making them non-players seems like
> > > it'd
> > > make them entirely useless. And "artificial person" seems like it's
> > > distorting
> > > the definition of person that we've kind of agreed not to question too
> > > hard?
> > > 
> > > On 2018-02-23 05:37, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > > patching auctions, but think there should be a deeper change
> > > > because zombies are pretty powerful and unchecked right now.
> > > > Also, zombies from actual natural persons has a bit of baggage.
> > > > 
> > > > But the bidding's pretty cool, so Outline for discussion.  This
> > > > nerfs them a bit but hopefully not so much that they're not worth
> > > > a bunch.
> > > > 
> > > > 1.  Zombies are artificial persons named in the rules, not
> > > > natural persons.  Total fixed at ~6.
> > > > 
> > > > 2.  No one can own more than one zombie.
> > > > 
> > > > 3.  zombies revert to Agora after (time), suggesting 60-90 days
> > > > from end of auction.
> > > > 
> > > > 4.  zombies CANNOT register/deregister, object/support, or
> > > > enter contracts.  Everything else like persons.
> > > > 
> > > > 5.  Registrar is encouraged to time auctions so as to conduct
> > > > single auctions for multiple zombies (multiple lots).
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
>

Re: DIS: proto-proto: zombie reform

[Madeline]

Okay, you said artificial person rather than artificial player. Guess 
that was just a slip of the fingers? And that's a good point about being 
able to do anytime, I definitely misinterpreted there. Perhaps changing 
it to one-per-month would be a better idea!


On 2018-02-23 12:03, Kerim Aydin wrote:

Where does it say one action per month?  The way I'm reading it, the second
paragraph of R2532 allows the owner to do anything anytime on behalf of the
zombie?  The scaring is once a month but that's a price of ownership not
a limit on non-scaring actions, I think.

That said, I just noticed that zombies are nearly worthless anyway but in
a different way, so maybe it doesn't matter :).  (not telling the reason
right this minute!)

I hear you on the "artificial is too artificial to be a person" part.
But I don't mean making them non-players, I mean making them permanent
(artificial) players.

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018, Madeline wrote:

I mean in the current rules they can only perform one action a month, so I
don't think they're that overpowered? Making them non-players seems like it'd
make them entirely useless. And "artificial person" seems like it's distorting
the definition of person that we've kind of agreed not to question too hard?

On 2018-02-23 05:37, Kerim Aydin wrote:

patching auctions, but think there should be a deeper change
because zombies are pretty powerful and unchecked right now.
Also, zombies from actual natural persons has a bit of baggage.

But the bidding's pretty cool, so Outline for discussion.  This
nerfs them a bit but hopefully not so much that they're not worth
a bunch.

1.  Zombies are artificial persons named in the rules, not
natural persons.  Total fixed at ~6.

2.  No one can own more than one zombie.

3.  zombies revert to Agora after (time), suggesting 60-90 days
from end of auction.

4.  zombies CANNOT register/deregister, object/support, or
enter contracts.  Everything else like persons.

5.  Registrar is encouraged to time auctions so as to conduct
single auctions for multiple zombies (multiple lots).

Re: DIS: proto-proto: zombie reform

[Kerim Aydin]

Where does it say one action per month?  The way I'm reading it, the second
paragraph of R2532 allows the owner to do anything anytime on behalf of the
zombie?  The scaring is once a month but that's a price of ownership not
a limit on non-scaring actions, I think.

That said, I just noticed that zombies are nearly worthless anyway but in
a different way, so maybe it doesn't matter :).  (not telling the reason
right this minute!)

I hear you on the "artificial is too artificial to be a person" part.
But I don't mean making them non-players, I mean making them permanent
(artificial) players.

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018, Madeline wrote:
> I mean in the current rules they can only perform one action a month, so I
> don't think they're that overpowered? Making them non-players seems like it'd
> make them entirely useless. And "artificial person" seems like it's distorting
> the definition of person that we've kind of agreed not to question too hard?
> 
> On 2018-02-23 05:37, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > 
> > patching auctions, but think there should be a deeper change
> > because zombies are pretty powerful and unchecked right now.
> > Also, zombies from actual natural persons has a bit of baggage.
> > 
> > But the bidding's pretty cool, so Outline for discussion.  This
> > nerfs them a bit but hopefully not so much that they're not worth
> > a bunch.
> > 
> >1.  Zombies are artificial persons named in the rules, not
> >natural persons.  Total fixed at ~6.
> > 
> >2.  No one can own more than one zombie.
> > 
> >3.  zombies revert to Agora after (time), suggesting 60-90 days
> >from end of auction.
> > 
> >4.  zombies CANNOT register/deregister, object/support, or
> >enter contracts.  Everything else like persons.
> > 
> >5.  Registrar is encouraged to time auctions so as to conduct
> >single auctions for multiple zombies (multiple lots).
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

Re: DIS: proto-proto: zombie reform

[Madeline]

I mean in the current rules they can only perform one action a month, so 
I don't think they're that overpowered? Making them non-players seems 
like it'd make them entirely useless. And "artificial person" seems like 
it's distorting the definition of person that we've kind of agreed not 
to question too hard?


On 2018-02-23 05:37, Kerim Aydin wrote:


patching auctions, but think there should be a deeper change
because zombies are pretty powerful and unchecked right now.
Also, zombies from actual natural persons has a bit of baggage.

But the bidding's pretty cool, so Outline for discussion.  This
nerfs them a bit but hopefully not so much that they're not worth
a bunch.

   1.  Zombies are artificial persons named in the rules, not
   natural persons.  Total fixed at ~6.

   2.  No one can own more than one zombie.

   3.  zombies revert to Agora after (time), suggesting 60-90 days
   from end of auction.

   4.  zombies CANNOT register/deregister, object/support, or
   enter contracts.  Everything else like persons.

   5.  Registrar is encouraged to time auctions so as to conduct
   single auctions for multiple zombies (multiple lots).

DIS: proto-proto: zombie reform

[Kerim Aydin]

patching auctions, but think there should be a deeper change 
because zombies are pretty powerful and unchecked right now.
Also, zombies from actual natural persons has a bit of baggage.

But the bidding's pretty cool, so Outline for discussion.  This
nerfs them a bit but hopefully not so much that they're not worth
a bunch.

  1.  Zombies are artificial persons named in the rules, not
  natural persons.  Total fixed at ~6.

  2.  No one can own more than one zombie.

  3.  zombies revert to Agora after (time), suggesting 60-90 days 
  from end of auction.

  4.  zombies CANNOT register/deregister, object/support, or
  enter contracts.  Everything else like persons.

  5.  Registrar is encouraged to time auctions so as to conduct
  single auctions for multiple zombies (multiple lots).

Re: DIS: Re: Proto-Contract: Micro-Proposals

[Aris Merchant]

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> Alright, here’s a V2:
...
> 2. Upon the resolution, if the result of the resolution is FOR, the 
> micro-proposal takes effect, gaining power equal to its Adoption Index.

I think you mean ADOPTED.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: Proto-Contract: Micro-Proposals

[Gaelan Steele]

Alright, here’s a V2:

{
This contract accepts shinies as long as it has fewer than ((Pend Cost) + 1) 
shinies. It accepts no other assets.

This contract maintains a piece of state known as the Proposal Puddle, 
containing a set of micro-proposals each consisting of a title, adoption index, 
author, and body of 50 words or fewer.

A proposal cycle is the period between the publication of two Promotor reports 
containing the contents of the Proposal Pool.

Any player may add a micro-proposal to the Proposal Puddle by transferring one 
shiny to this contract if it is currently accepting shinies, or by announcement 
otherwise. Each player may do this no more than twice per proposal cycle.

Once per proposal cycle, Gaelan SHALL create and pend a proposal with the 
following properties:

Title: Any title containing “Micro-Proposals”
Author: Gaelan
Co-authors: The set of all players who authored one or more micro-proposals in 
the Proposal Puddle
Adoption Index: The maximum Adoption Index of any micro-proposal in the 
Proposal Puddle
Text: The below text, followed by the contents of the Proposal Puddle.
{
The micro-proposals below are not part of the effects of this proposal, and do 
not take effect as a result of this proposal except for as specified below.

For each of the micro-proposals below:
1. Gaelan SHALL resolve the votes cast on the micro-proposal as if it were an 
Agoran Decision for a full proposal, taking into account votes from all players.
2. Upon the resolution, if the result of the resolution is FOR, the 
micro-proposal takes effect, gaining power equal to its Adoption Index.
}

Once each proposal cycle after pending this proposal, Gaelan CAN and SHALL 
remove the contents of the Proposal Puddle. When this occurs, if the proposal 
was pended with shinies, this contract transfers the Pend Cost in shinies to 
Gaelan.

Any player may amend this contract with 2 Agoran Consent, as defined in the 
ruleset.
}

Changes:
- Changed proposal text to actually work (hopefully), as well as making me 
resolve the decisions.
- Actually clear out the Proposal Puddle each week.
- Added mechanism for amendment.

> On Feb 14, 2018, at 9:58 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> I disagree—just because a proposal provides the text of a document doesn’t 
>> mean that the document is part of the proposal and is evaluated when the 
>> proposal gains power. 
> 
> R2350:A proposal is a type of entity consisting of a body of text and
>  other attributes.
> 
> The "body of text" is the proposal.  The whole body of text.  You can't
> have something in there without it being part of the body of text, therefore
> part of the proposal.  I don't really know what it means for the whole body
> of text to have one power, and a sub-portion to have a different power.
> 
> So R106 requires you to step through the full proposal at the power of
> that proposal.
> 
> But really, the power's a red herring.  Let's step through your loop.  
> 
> For each of the micro-proposals below:
>  {
>  1. Resolve the votes cast on the micro-proposal as if it were an
> Agoran Decision for a full proposal, taking into account votes from all
> players.
>  2. If the result of the resolution is FOR, give the micro-proposal 
> power equal to its Adoption Index.
>  }
> 
> Ok, now your micro-proposals have power.  But so what?  They haven't
> actually done anything because they don't actually take effect until
> you get to them in sequence.  Now we go on.
> 
> Micro-Proposal 1:  Do X
> 
> Well, Rule 106 is still implementing the Proposal as a whole:
>  "a proposal that
>  takes effect CAN and does, as part of its effect, apply the
>  changes that it specifies."
> 
> The phrase "do X" is implemented by the Proposal at the power of the
> whole Proposal, whether or not it was FOR or AGAINST, and whether or not
> the "micro proposal" has power, because the 'Do X' is an assertive part
> of the main proposal and thus takes effect, regardless of its labeling.
> 
> In programming terms, if each micro-proposal is a Function, your loop
> sets some properties of each function (power) but doesn't actually
> call each function (doesn't say it takes effect).  Then you pass
> through and, missing a break statement, step through each function
> and it takes effect, still at the power of the original proposal
> (because R106 is driving the step-through until you reach the end
> or explicitly terminate).
> 
> Here's a re-writing that fixes it, I think:
> 
> For each of the micro-proposals below:
>  {
>  1. Resolve the votes cast on the micro-proposal as if it were an
> Agoran Decision for a full proposal, taking into account votes from all
> players.
>  2. If the result of the resolution is FOR, its clauses take effect as if
> they were taking effect at the power of the AI indicated for that 
> micro-proposal. Otherwise, its clauses do not take effect.
>  }
> The clauses 

Re: DIS: Re: Proto-Contract: Micro-Proposals

[Cuddle Beam]

This gives me the idea to make a master contract of a sort with a lot of
sub-contracts.

Nesting, ho!

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 6:09 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> I disagree—just because a proposal provides the text of a document doesn’t
> mean that the document is part of the proposal and is evaluated when the
> proposal gains power. For instance, when a proposal creates a rule, the
> text of the rule doesn’t gain power as part of the proposal (the proposal
> does use its power to grant the rule power, which is the same thing I do).
> That being said, I’ll adjust the wording to be more clear in my next
> iteration.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Feb 14, 2018, at 9:03 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > No, it doesn't.  If the full PROPOSAL is adopted,
> > .  r106 first gives power to the whole proposal, including all of its
> micro-proposals.
> > Then, if the proposal doesn't give power to a micro-proposal, that
> micro-proposal
> > still has the power it got from r106 and still goes into effect.
> >
> >> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> >> Yes, I know. The way the contract works is this:
> >> - People submit micro-proposals
> >> - Every week, I create and pend a proposal with all of the
> micro-proposals submitted that week
> >> - If adopted, the PROPOSAL simulates an Agoran Decision for each
> micro-proposal and “adopts” (gives power to) the ones which get enough votes
> >>
> >> Gaelan
> >>
> >>> On Feb 14, 2018, at 8:50 PM, Reuben Staley 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Contracts cannot do things on their own, which is why they have to
> have an
> >>> agent to effect any actual change. But they can obligate a player to do
> >>> something since they're basically a block of rule text that you get to
> >>> choose if you want to follow.
> >>>
>  On Feb 14, 2018 21:46, "Gaelan Steele"  wrote:
> 
>  Contract doesn’t give power. Contract obligates me to pend a proposal
>  which, if adopted, gives power to some or all of its sub-proposals.
> 
>  Gaelan
> 
> > On Feb 14, 2018, at 8:32 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Can a contract give power to anything?
> >
> >> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> >> Df
> >>
> >>> On Feb 14, 2018, at 7:58 PM, Gaelan Steele 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> This contract accepts shinies as long as it has fewer than ((Pend
>  Cost) + 1) shines. It accepts no other assets.
> >>>
> >>> This contract maintains a piece of state known as the Proposal
> Puddle,
>  containing a set of micro-proposals each consisting of a title,
> adoption
>  index, author, and body of 50 words or fewer.
> >>>
> >>> A proposal cycle is the period between the publication of two
> Promotor
>  reports containing the contents of the Proposal Pool.
> >>>
> >>> Any player may add a micro-proposal to the Proposal Puddle by
>  transferring one shiny to this contract if it is currently accepting
>  shinies, or by announcement otherwise. Each player may do this no
> more than
>  twice per proposal cycle.
> >>>
> >>> Once per proposal cycle, Gaelan SHALL create and pend a proposal
> with
>  the following properties:
> >>>
> >>> Title: Any title containing “Micro-Proposals”
> >>> Author: Gaelan
> >>> Co-authors: The set of all players who authored one or more
>  micro-proposals in the Proposal Puddle
> >>> Adoption Index: The maximum Adoption Index of any micro-proposal in
>  the Proposal Puddle
> >>> Text: The below text, followed by the contents of the Proposal
> Puddle.
> >>> {
> >>> For each of the micro-proposals below:
> >>> 1. Resolve the votes cast on the micro-proposal as if it were an
>  Agoran Decision for a full proposal, taking into account votes from
> all
>  players.
> >>> 2. If the result of the resolution is FOR, give the micro-proposal
>  power equal to its Adoption Index.
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> Once each proposal cycle after pending this proposal, Gaelan may
> cause
>  this contract to transfer to em the Pend Cost in shines.
> >>
> >>
> 
> 
> >>
> >>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: Proto-Contract: Micro-Proposals

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I disagree—just because a proposal provides the text of a document doesn’t 
> mean that the document is part of the proposal and is evaluated when the 
> proposal gains power. 

R2350:A proposal is a type of entity consisting of a body of text and
  other attributes.

The "body of text" is the proposal.  The whole body of text.  You can't
have something in there without it being part of the body of text, therefore
part of the proposal.  I don't really know what it means for the whole body
of text to have one power, and a sub-portion to have a different power.

So R106 requires you to step through the full proposal at the power of
that proposal.

But really, the power's a red herring.  Let's step through your loop.  

For each of the micro-proposals below:
  {
  1. Resolve the votes cast on the micro-proposal as if it were an
 Agoran Decision for a full proposal, taking into account votes from all
 players.
  2. If the result of the resolution is FOR, give the micro-proposal 
 power equal to its Adoption Index.
  }

Ok, now your micro-proposals have power.  But so what?  They haven't
actually done anything because they don't actually take effect until
you get to them in sequence.  Now we go on.

Micro-Proposal 1:  Do X

Well, Rule 106 is still implementing the Proposal as a whole:
  "a proposal that
  takes effect CAN and does, as part of its effect, apply the
  changes that it specifies."
 
The phrase "do X" is implemented by the Proposal at the power of the
whole Proposal, whether or not it was FOR or AGAINST, and whether or not
the "micro proposal" has power, because the 'Do X' is an assertive part
of the main proposal and thus takes effect, regardless of its labeling.

In programming terms, if each micro-proposal is a Function, your loop
sets some properties of each function (power) but doesn't actually
call each function (doesn't say it takes effect).  Then you pass
through and, missing a break statement, step through each function
and it takes effect, still at the power of the original proposal
(because R106 is driving the step-through until you reach the end
or explicitly terminate).

Here's a re-writing that fixes it, I think:

For each of the micro-proposals below:
  {
  1. Resolve the votes cast on the micro-proposal as if it were an
 Agoran Decision for a full proposal, taking into account votes from all
 players.
  2. If the result of the resolution is FOR, its clauses take effect as if
 they were taking effect at the power of the AI indicated for that 
 micro-proposal. Otherwise, its clauses do not take effect.
  }
The clauses below this line have no further effect.

Re: DIS: Re: Proto-Contract: Micro-Proposals

[Gaelan Steele]

I disagree—just because a proposal provides the text of a document doesn’t mean 
that the document is part of the proposal and is evaluated when the proposal 
gains power. For instance, when a proposal creates a rule, the text of the rule 
doesn’t gain power as part of the proposal (the proposal does use its power to 
grant the rule power, which is the same thing I do). That being said, I’ll 
adjust the wording to be more clear in my next iteration. 

Gaelan

> On Feb 14, 2018, at 9:03 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  If the full PROPOSAL is adopted,
> .  r106 first gives power to the whole proposal, including all of its 
> micro-proposals.
> Then, if the proposal doesn't give power to a micro-proposal, that 
> micro-proposal
> still has the power it got from r106 and still goes into effect.
> 
>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> Yes, I know. The way the contract works is this:
>> - People submit micro-proposals
>> - Every week, I create and pend a proposal with all of the micro-proposals 
>> submitted that week
>> - If adopted, the PROPOSAL simulates an Agoran Decision for each 
>> micro-proposal and “adopts” (gives power to) the ones which get enough votes 
>> 
>> Gaelan
>> 
>>> On Feb 14, 2018, at 8:50 PM, Reuben Staley  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Contracts cannot do things on their own, which is why they have to have an
>>> agent to effect any actual change. But they can obligate a player to do
>>> something since they're basically a block of rule text that you get to
>>> choose if you want to follow.
>>> 
 On Feb 14, 2018 21:46, "Gaelan Steele"  wrote:
 
 Contract doesn’t give power. Contract obligates me to pend a proposal
 which, if adopted, gives power to some or all of its sub-proposals.
 
 Gaelan
 
> On Feb 14, 2018, at 8:32 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Can a contract give power to anything?
> 
>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> Df
>> 
>>> On Feb 14, 2018, at 7:58 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>>> 
>>> This contract accepts shinies as long as it has fewer than ((Pend
 Cost) + 1) shines. It accepts no other assets.
>>> 
>>> This contract maintains a piece of state known as the Proposal Puddle,
 containing a set of micro-proposals each consisting of a title, adoption
 index, author, and body of 50 words or fewer.
>>> 
>>> A proposal cycle is the period between the publication of two Promotor
 reports containing the contents of the Proposal Pool.
>>> 
>>> Any player may add a micro-proposal to the Proposal Puddle by
 transferring one shiny to this contract if it is currently accepting
 shinies, or by announcement otherwise. Each player may do this no more than
 twice per proposal cycle.
>>> 
>>> Once per proposal cycle, Gaelan SHALL create and pend a proposal with
 the following properties:
>>> 
>>> Title: Any title containing “Micro-Proposals”
>>> Author: Gaelan
>>> Co-authors: The set of all players who authored one or more
 micro-proposals in the Proposal Puddle
>>> Adoption Index: The maximum Adoption Index of any micro-proposal in
 the Proposal Puddle
>>> Text: The below text, followed by the contents of the Proposal Puddle.
>>> {
>>> For each of the micro-proposals below:
>>> 1. Resolve the votes cast on the micro-proposal as if it were an
 Agoran Decision for a full proposal, taking into account votes from all
 players.
>>> 2. If the result of the resolution is FOR, give the micro-proposal
 power equal to its Adoption Index.
>>> }
>>> 
>>> Once each proposal cycle after pending this proposal, Gaelan may cause
 this contract to transfer to em the Pend Cost in shines.
>> 
>> 
 
 
>> 
>> 

Re: DIS: Re: Proto-Contract: Micro-Proposals

[Kerim Aydin]

No, it doesn't.  If the full PROPOSAL is adopted,
.  r106 first gives power to the whole proposal, including all of its 
micro-proposals.
Then, if the proposal doesn't give power to a micro-proposal, that 
micro-proposal
still has the power it got from r106 and still goes into effect.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Yes, I know. The way the contract works is this:
> - People submit micro-proposals
> - Every week, I create and pend a proposal with all of the micro-proposals 
> submitted that week
> - If adopted, the PROPOSAL simulates an Agoran Decision for each 
> micro-proposal and “adopts” (gives power to) the ones which get enough votes 
> 
> Gaelan
> 
> > On Feb 14, 2018, at 8:50 PM, Reuben Staley  wrote:
> > 
> > Contracts cannot do things on their own, which is why they have to have an
> > agent to effect any actual change. But they can obligate a player to do
> > something since they're basically a block of rule text that you get to
> > choose if you want to follow.
> > 
> >> On Feb 14, 2018 21:46, "Gaelan Steele"  wrote:
> >> 
> >> Contract doesn’t give power. Contract obligates me to pend a proposal
> >> which, if adopted, gives power to some or all of its sub-proposals.
> >> 
> >> Gaelan
> >> 
> >>> On Feb 14, 2018, at 8:32 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Can a contract give power to anything?
> >>> 
>  On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>  Df
>  
> > On Feb 14, 2018, at 7:58 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> > 
> > This contract accepts shinies as long as it has fewer than ((Pend
> >> Cost) + 1) shines. It accepts no other assets.
> > 
> > This contract maintains a piece of state known as the Proposal Puddle,
> >> containing a set of micro-proposals each consisting of a title, adoption
> >> index, author, and body of 50 words or fewer.
> > 
> > A proposal cycle is the period between the publication of two Promotor
> >> reports containing the contents of the Proposal Pool.
> > 
> > Any player may add a micro-proposal to the Proposal Puddle by
> >> transferring one shiny to this contract if it is currently accepting
> >> shinies, or by announcement otherwise. Each player may do this no more than
> >> twice per proposal cycle.
> > 
> > Once per proposal cycle, Gaelan SHALL create and pend a proposal with
> >> the following properties:
> > 
> > Title: Any title containing “Micro-Proposals”
> > Author: Gaelan
> > Co-authors: The set of all players who authored one or more
> >> micro-proposals in the Proposal Puddle
> > Adoption Index: The maximum Adoption Index of any micro-proposal in
> >> the Proposal Puddle
> > Text: The below text, followed by the contents of the Proposal Puddle.
> > {
> > For each of the micro-proposals below:
> > 1. Resolve the votes cast on the micro-proposal as if it were an
> >> Agoran Decision for a full proposal, taking into account votes from all
> >> players.
> > 2. If the result of the resolution is FOR, give the micro-proposal
> >> power equal to its Adoption Index.
> > }
> > 
> > Once each proposal cycle after pending this proposal, Gaelan may cause
> >> this contract to transfer to em the Pend Cost in shines.
>  
>  
> >> 
> >> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: Proto-Contract: Micro-Proposals

[Gaelan Steele]

Yes, I know. The way the contract works is this:
- People submit micro-proposals
- Every week, I create and pend a proposal with all of the micro-proposals 
submitted that week
- If adopted, the PROPOSAL simulates an Agoran Decision for each micro-proposal 
and “adopts” (gives power to) the ones which get enough votes 

Gaelan

> On Feb 14, 2018, at 8:50 PM, Reuben Staley  wrote:
> 
> Contracts cannot do things on their own, which is why they have to have an
> agent to effect any actual change. But they can obligate a player to do
> something since they're basically a block of rule text that you get to
> choose if you want to follow.
> 
>> On Feb 14, 2018 21:46, "Gaelan Steele"  wrote:
>> 
>> Contract doesn’t give power. Contract obligates me to pend a proposal
>> which, if adopted, gives power to some or all of its sub-proposals.
>> 
>> Gaelan
>> 
>>> On Feb 14, 2018, at 8:32 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Can a contract give power to anything?
>>> 
 On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
 Df
 
> On Feb 14, 2018, at 7:58 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> 
> This contract accepts shinies as long as it has fewer than ((Pend
>> Cost) + 1) shines. It accepts no other assets.
> 
> This contract maintains a piece of state known as the Proposal Puddle,
>> containing a set of micro-proposals each consisting of a title, adoption
>> index, author, and body of 50 words or fewer.
> 
> A proposal cycle is the period between the publication of two Promotor
>> reports containing the contents of the Proposal Pool.
> 
> Any player may add a micro-proposal to the Proposal Puddle by
>> transferring one shiny to this contract if it is currently accepting
>> shinies, or by announcement otherwise. Each player may do this no more than
>> twice per proposal cycle.
> 
> Once per proposal cycle, Gaelan SHALL create and pend a proposal with
>> the following properties:
> 
> Title: Any title containing “Micro-Proposals”
> Author: Gaelan
> Co-authors: The set of all players who authored one or more
>> micro-proposals in the Proposal Puddle
> Adoption Index: The maximum Adoption Index of any micro-proposal in
>> the Proposal Puddle
> Text: The below text, followed by the contents of the Proposal Puddle.
> {
> For each of the micro-proposals below:
> 1. Resolve the votes cast on the micro-proposal as if it were an
>> Agoran Decision for a full proposal, taking into account votes from all
>> players.
> 2. If the result of the resolution is FOR, give the micro-proposal
>> power equal to its Adoption Index.
> }
> 
> Once each proposal cycle after pending this proposal, Gaelan may cause
>> this contract to transfer to em the Pend Cost in shines.
 
 
>> 
>> 

Re: DIS: Re: Proto-Contract: Micro-Proposals

[Kerim Aydin]

Ah gotcha - I don't think this works though, because R106 gives everything
In the proposal power first?  I think the opposite might work, where you
depower each piece that fails.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Contract doesn’t give power. Contract obligates me to pend a proposal which, 
> if adopted, gives power to some or all of its sub-proposals. 
> 
> Gaelan
> 
> > On Feb 14, 2018, at 8:32 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Can a contract give power to anything?
> > 
> >> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> >> Df
> >> 
> >>> On Feb 14, 2018, at 7:58 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> This contract accepts shinies as long as it has fewer than ((Pend Cost) + 
> >>> 1) shines. It accepts no other assets.
> >>> 
> >>> This contract maintains a piece of state known as the Proposal Puddle, 
> >>> containing a set of micro-proposals each consisting of a title, adoption 
> >>> index, author, and body of 50 words or fewer.
> >>> 
> >>> A proposal cycle is the period between the publication of two Promotor 
> >>> reports containing the contents of the Proposal Pool.
> >>> 
> >>> Any player may add a micro-proposal to the Proposal Puddle by 
> >>> transferring one shiny to this contract if it is currently accepting 
> >>> shinies, or by announcement otherwise. Each player may do this no more 
> >>> than twice per proposal cycle.
> >>> 
> >>> Once per proposal cycle, Gaelan SHALL create and pend a proposal with the 
> >>> following properties:
> >>> 
> >>> Title: Any title containing “Micro-Proposals”
> >>> Author: Gaelan
> >>> Co-authors: The set of all players who authored one or more 
> >>> micro-proposals in the Proposal Puddle
> >>> Adoption Index: The maximum Adoption Index of any micro-proposal in the 
> >>> Proposal Puddle
> >>> Text: The below text, followed by the contents of the Proposal Puddle.
> >>> {
> >>> For each of the micro-proposals below:
> >>> 1. Resolve the votes cast on the micro-proposal as if it were an Agoran 
> >>> Decision for a full proposal, taking into account votes from all players.
> >>> 2. If the result of the resolution is FOR, give the micro-proposal power 
> >>> equal to its Adoption Index.
> >>> }
> >>> 
> >>> Once each proposal cycle after pending this proposal, Gaelan may cause 
> >>> this contract to transfer to em the Pend Cost in shines.
> >> 
> >> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: Proto-Contract: Micro-Proposals

[Reuben Staley]

Contracts cannot do things on their own, which is why they have to have an
agent to effect any actual change. But they can obligate a player to do
something since they're basically a block of rule text that you get to
choose if you want to follow.

On Feb 14, 2018 21:46, "Gaelan Steele"  wrote:

> Contract doesn’t give power. Contract obligates me to pend a proposal
> which, if adopted, gives power to some or all of its sub-proposals.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Feb 14, 2018, at 8:32 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Can a contract give power to anything?
> >
> >> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> >> Df
> >>
> >>> On Feb 14, 2018, at 7:58 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> This contract accepts shinies as long as it has fewer than ((Pend
> Cost) + 1) shines. It accepts no other assets.
> >>>
> >>> This contract maintains a piece of state known as the Proposal Puddle,
> containing a set of micro-proposals each consisting of a title, adoption
> index, author, and body of 50 words or fewer.
> >>>
> >>> A proposal cycle is the period between the publication of two Promotor
> reports containing the contents of the Proposal Pool.
> >>>
> >>> Any player may add a micro-proposal to the Proposal Puddle by
> transferring one shiny to this contract if it is currently accepting
> shinies, or by announcement otherwise. Each player may do this no more than
> twice per proposal cycle.
> >>>
> >>> Once per proposal cycle, Gaelan SHALL create and pend a proposal with
> the following properties:
> >>>
> >>> Title: Any title containing “Micro-Proposals”
> >>> Author: Gaelan
> >>> Co-authors: The set of all players who authored one or more
> micro-proposals in the Proposal Puddle
> >>> Adoption Index: The maximum Adoption Index of any micro-proposal in
> the Proposal Puddle
> >>> Text: The below text, followed by the contents of the Proposal Puddle.
> >>> {
> >>> For each of the micro-proposals below:
> >>> 1. Resolve the votes cast on the micro-proposal as if it were an
> Agoran Decision for a full proposal, taking into account votes from all
> players.
> >>> 2. If the result of the resolution is FOR, give the micro-proposal
> power equal to its Adoption Index.
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> Once each proposal cycle after pending this proposal, Gaelan may cause
> this contract to transfer to em the Pend Cost in shines.
> >>
> >>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: Proto-Contract: Micro-Proposals

[Kerim Aydin]

Can a contract give power to anything?

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Df
> 
> > On Feb 14, 2018, at 7:58 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> > 
> > This contract accepts shinies as long as it has fewer than ((Pend Cost) + 
> > 1) shines. It accepts no other assets.
> > 
> > This contract maintains a piece of state known as the Proposal Puddle, 
> > containing a set of micro-proposals each consisting of a title, adoption 
> > index, author, and body of 50 words or fewer.
> > 
> > A proposal cycle is the period between the publication of two Promotor 
> > reports containing the contents of the Proposal Pool.
> > 
> > Any player may add a micro-proposal to the Proposal Puddle by transferring 
> > one shiny to this contract if it is currently accepting shinies, or by 
> > announcement otherwise. Each player may do this no more than twice per 
> > proposal cycle.
> > 
> > Once per proposal cycle, Gaelan SHALL create and pend a proposal with the 
> > following properties:
> > 
> > Title: Any title containing “Micro-Proposals”
> > Author: Gaelan
> > Co-authors: The set of all players who authored one or more micro-proposals 
> > in the Proposal Puddle
> > Adoption Index: The maximum Adoption Index of any micro-proposal in the 
> > Proposal Puddle
> > Text: The below text, followed by the contents of the Proposal Puddle.
> > {
> > For each of the micro-proposals below:
> > 1. Resolve the votes cast on the micro-proposal as if it were an Agoran 
> > Decision for a full proposal, taking into account votes from all players.
> > 2. If the result of the resolution is FOR, give the micro-proposal power 
> > equal to its Adoption Index.
> > }
> > 
> > Once each proposal cycle after pending this proposal, Gaelan may cause this 
> > contract to transfer to em the Pend Cost in shines.
> 
>

DIS: Re: Proto-Contract: Micro-Proposals

[Gaelan Steele]

Df

> On Feb 14, 2018, at 7:58 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> 
> This contract accepts shinies as long as it has fewer than ((Pend Cost) + 1) 
> shines. It accepts no other assets.
> 
> This contract maintains a piece of state known as the Proposal Puddle, 
> containing a set of micro-proposals each consisting of a title, adoption 
> index, author, and body of 50 words or fewer.
> 
> A proposal cycle is the period between the publication of two Promotor 
> reports containing the contents of the Proposal Pool.
> 
> Any player may add a micro-proposal to the Proposal Puddle by transferring 
> one shiny to this contract if it is currently accepting shinies, or by 
> announcement otherwise. Each player may do this no more than twice per 
> proposal cycle.
> 
> Once per proposal cycle, Gaelan SHALL create and pend a proposal with the 
> following properties:
> 
> Title: Any title containing “Micro-Proposals”
> Author: Gaelan
> Co-authors: The set of all players who authored one or more micro-proposals 
> in the Proposal Puddle
> Adoption Index: The maximum Adoption Index of any micro-proposal in the 
> Proposal Puddle
> Text: The below text, followed by the contents of the Proposal Puddle.
> {
> For each of the micro-proposals below:
> 1. Resolve the votes cast on the micro-proposal as if it were an Agoran 
> Decision for a full proposal, taking into account votes from all players.
> 2. If the result of the resolution is FOR, give the micro-proposal power 
> equal to its Adoption Index.
> }
> 
> Once each proposal cycle after pending this proposal, Gaelan may cause this 
> contract to transfer to em the Pend Cost in shines.

Re: DIS: Proto-proto proposal

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 3 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


I think the last time this was asked about, G. said they started being
used somewhere between 1993/4. So they have a long pedigree haha :).


Well the last time I recall, I pointed out that Spivak pronouns were used 
in Agora's original ruleset, and Originator Chuck made a response too.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Contract proto

[ATMunn]

No problem. Being appointed as an Author doesn't mean you are one, it just 
means you CAN become one.

On 11/7/2017 9:28 PM, Josh T wrote:

Seems fun, but I probably won't want to be an Author until December at
least since real life is being busy.

天火狐

On 7 November 2017 at 21:23, ATMunn  wrote:


I had this idea for a contract while in the shower last night. I decided
to make a quick prototype. I think everything looks good, but I'll put
this here just in case.



Title: "Sherlock Holmes Institute"


Any player CAN become a party to this contract by announcement. ATMunn
is always a party of this contract, and is known as the Chancellor of
the Institute (Chancellor for short).

The Chancellor CAN, at any time, amend or destroy this contract with 48
hours notice.

This contract is willing to accept shinies, and nothing else.

A party to this contract can hold one of two roles: Author or
Investigator. By default, all parties to this contract are Investigators
unless specified otherwise. No party can become an Author unless the
Chancellor appoints em as one.

The Chancellor, by default, is an Author. E CAN, by announcement,
appoint any Investigator to become an Author. Upon doing so, the
specified party CAN become an Author by announcement. Any Author CAN
become an Investigator at any time, by announcement. However, once an
Author becomes an Investigator again, e CANNOT become an Author again
unless the Chancellor appoints em as one again.

Once every month, any Author CAN publish a Scene by announcement,
becoming that Scene's Author. A Scene is a work of fictional literature,
and MUST contain some sort of mystery, and be at least 200 words in
order to be valid. Scenes SHOULD be related to Agora in some way. A
single Scene can only have one Author, and a single Author can have no
more than one Scene at any time.

In the same message that e published a Scene, the Author of the scene
CAN and SHALL transfer at least 5 shinies to this contract. These
shinies are designated as this Scene's Reward. Authors CAN add shinies
to eir Scene's Reward at any time, by announcement, by transferring
those shinies to this contract.

Within 30 days from the publishing of a Scene, any party to this
contract other than the Scene's Author CAN claim to have Deduced the
Mystery by announcement. Then, in a timely fashion from the announcement
of the claim, the Scene's Author CAN and SHALL announce whether or not
the claim was correct. If it was, then the party who Deduced the Mystery
CAN cause this contract to transfer the Scene's Reward to emself by
announcement. If the claim was incorrect, nothing happens.

If 30 days pass from the publishing of a Scene and no player has
correctly Deduced the Mystery, than the Author of that Scene is said to
have Stumped all of the Investigators, and CAN cause this contract to
transfer the Scene's Reward to emself by announcement.

Re: DIS: Contract proto

[ATMunn]

Ah, I completely forgot to allow players to leave. I'll add that, and maybe 
change it to either With Notice or Without Objection.

On 11/7/2017 9:29 PM, Alex Smith wrote:

On Tue, 2017-11-07 at 21:23 -0500, ATMunn wrote:

I had this idea for a contract while in the shower last night. I
decided to make a quick prototype. I think everything looks good, but
I'll put this here just in case.


It allows you to amend the contract unilaterally (with notice), and
doesn't allow other participants to leave. Classic mousetrap.

You should either allow objections to changes, or else give
considerably more notice for the changes and allow participants to
leave whenever they want. Either way, players don't necessarily pay
constant attention to Agora, so changing an agreement another player is
bound to with less than 4 days' notice is rather unfair on that player.

Re: DIS: Contract proto

[Alex Smith]

On Tue, 2017-11-07 at 21:23 -0500, ATMunn wrote:
> I had this idea for a contract while in the shower last night. I
> decided to make a quick prototype. I think everything looks good, but
> I'll put this here just in case.

It allows you to amend the contract unilaterally (with notice), and
doesn't allow other participants to leave. Classic mousetrap.

You should either allow objections to changes, or else give
considerably more notice for the changes and allow participants to
leave whenever they want. Either way, players don't necessarily pay
constant attention to Agora, so changing an agreement another player is
bound to with less than 4 days' notice is rather unfair on that player.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Contract proto

[Josh T]

Seems fun, but I probably won't want to be an Author until December at
least since real life is being busy.

天火狐

On 7 November 2017 at 21:23, ATMunn  wrote:

> I had this idea for a contract while in the shower last night. I decided
> to make a quick prototype. I think everything looks good, but I'll put
> this here just in case.
>
>
>
> Title: "Sherlock Holmes Institute"
>
> 
> Any player CAN become a party to this contract by announcement. ATMunn
> is always a party of this contract, and is known as the Chancellor of
> the Institute (Chancellor for short).
>
> The Chancellor CAN, at any time, amend or destroy this contract with 48
> hours notice.
>
> This contract is willing to accept shinies, and nothing else.
>
> A party to this contract can hold one of two roles: Author or
> Investigator. By default, all parties to this contract are Investigators
> unless specified otherwise. No party can become an Author unless the
> Chancellor appoints em as one.
>
> The Chancellor, by default, is an Author. E CAN, by announcement,
> appoint any Investigator to become an Author. Upon doing so, the
> specified party CAN become an Author by announcement. Any Author CAN
> become an Investigator at any time, by announcement. However, once an
> Author becomes an Investigator again, e CANNOT become an Author again
> unless the Chancellor appoints em as one again.
>
> Once every month, any Author CAN publish a Scene by announcement,
> becoming that Scene's Author. A Scene is a work of fictional literature,
> and MUST contain some sort of mystery, and be at least 200 words in
> order to be valid. Scenes SHOULD be related to Agora in some way. A
> single Scene can only have one Author, and a single Author can have no
> more than one Scene at any time.
>
> In the same message that e published a Scene, the Author of the scene
> CAN and SHALL transfer at least 5 shinies to this contract. These
> shinies are designated as this Scene's Reward. Authors CAN add shinies
> to eir Scene's Reward at any time, by announcement, by transferring
> those shinies to this contract.
>
> Within 30 days from the publishing of a Scene, any party to this
> contract other than the Scene's Author CAN claim to have Deduced the
> Mystery by announcement. Then, in a timely fashion from the announcement
> of the claim, the Scene's Author CAN and SHALL announce whether or not
> the claim was correct. If it was, then the party who Deduced the Mystery
> CAN cause this contract to transfer the Scene's Reward to emself by
> announcement. If the claim was incorrect, nothing happens.
>
> If 30 days pass from the publishing of a Scene and no player has
> correctly Deduced the Mystery, than the Author of that Scene is said to
> have Stumped all of the Investigators, and CAN cause this contract to
> transfer the Scene's Reward to emself by announcement.
> 
>