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

[Edward Murphy via agora-discussion]

Yachay wrote:


An Imperial can, by announcement, win the game without 2 objections if the
Empireworld shows that ey have accomplished at least 3 extraordinary feats
in the fictional world that the Empireworld describes since ey last won the
game in this way. This rule does not describe what qualifies as an
extraordinary feat."


"Wonder is an untracked non-negative integer Imperial switch. When an
Imperial accomplishes an extraordinary feat as described by Empireworld,
eir Wonder is increased by 1. An Imperial whose Wonder is at least 3
CAN, without 2 objections, ; upon doing so, e wins the game,
and eir Wonder is reset to default."

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

[ais523 via agora-discussion]

On Sun, 2024-03-03 at 11:45 +0100, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-
discussion wrote:
> > This *really* seems like an infinite free win generation machine. At the
> > *very* least there should be some cooldown between wins (I'd argue for a
> > global 30 day cooldown at minimum)
> > 
> 
> I'm flattered that my incompetence is mistaken for some kind of plot. The
> suggestion seems good and easy to implement to me.

I guess this is worth expressing in a different way – even if it isn't
intended as an infinite free win generation machine, it is very likely
that at least one (and probably several) Agorans will attempt to use it
as one, because there aren't sufficient safeguards to prevent it being
used as one. So your proposal is unlikely to lead to the sort of
gameplay that you apparently expect it to.

A historical point of view: one of my favourite scams from the past of
Agora happened when someone suggested a similarly well-intentioned
contest that nonetheless had loopholes which made it very easy for a
small group of players to use it to win immediately. The scam wasn't
against the contest itself (which was quickly recognised by Agorans as
a whole to have insufficient safeguards against an immediate win), but
rather against the dependent/tabled actions system, with a group of
conspirators (including me) managing to get a without-3-objections to
occur and create the contest even though the rest of Agora thought
that, as there had been 3 objections already, the contest creation
attempt had failed. (At the time there were no restrictions on how
quickly a dependent action could be taken after an objection was
withdrawn, so we simply just made the objections ourself, and withdrew
them when it was time to scam the win. Nowadays, that doesn't work:
rule 2124 imposes a 24-hour delay.)

-- 
ais523

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

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

[Edward Murphy via agora-discussion]

nix wrote:


On 5/19/23 11:50, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:

I'd much rather take the route of trying to get the Radiance/Stamps
system functional again, than of trying to repeal it. (Stamps in
particular are one of the most powerful "new player perks" we've seen,
and I suspect that that's a good thing.) I'd especially be against
repealing it without a replacement.
I do somewhat regret the *full* repeal we did, tho it was an interesting 
experiment (that got my a Silver Quill). I've been trying to be more 
hands off with economic writing because I want to see other ideas (and 
I've written two of the recent ones), but I have had some ideas floating 
around that would at least incorporate Stamps. The idea is basically:


* replace dreams with focuses, and have 3 or 4 focuses. Something like 
Voting, Proposing, etc.


* each stamp type inherits a focus from the person it's minted by, with 
stamps belonging to non-players being wildcards for focus


* players automatically get stamps of eir type, maybe at a rate similar 
wealth dream (2 when there's less than 8 total of your type, 1 when 
there's less than 16 total, 0 otherwise)


* cash stamps in sets, where each stamp in the set is of the same class 
(or wildcard) to get the associated bonus. Cash voting stamps and get a 
voting power increase, cash proposing stamps and get the ability to pend 
X proposals. Scale it to large payouts for larger cashing sets, and also 
larger payouts for the number of *different* stamps used.


And increasingly larger payouts for having greater military strength
than one's neighbors.

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

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 1:07 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> - I like the Focuses idea.
> - I think you'd really just want to use your Stamps to win rather than
> anything else. Maybe instead you can only Focus on something if you have
> the right Stamp or combination of Stamps in your possession? For example,
> something like: Voting Focus [Requirement: Ownership of 3 or more different
> Stamps], Justice Focus [Requirement: Ownership of a Stamp type that only up
> to 2 other players have]; etc
>
> On Friday, May 19, 2023, nix via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On 5/19/23 11:50, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> >
> >> I'd much rather take the route of trying to get the Radiance/Stamps
> >> system functional again, than of trying to repeal it. (Stamps in
> >> particular are one of the most powerful "new player perks" we've seen,
> >> and I suspect that that's a good thing.) I'd especially be against
> >> repealing it without a replacement.
> >>
> > I do somewhat regret the *full* repeal we did, tho it was an interesting
> > experiment (that got my a Silver Quill). I've been trying to be more hands
> > off with economic writing because I want to see other ideas (and I've
> > written two of the recent ones), but I have had some ideas floating around
> > that would at least incorporate Stamps. The idea is basically:
> >
> > * replace dreams with focuses, and have 3 or 4 focuses. Something like
> > Voting, Proposing, etc.
> >
> > * each stamp type inherits a focus from the person it's minted by, with
> > stamps belonging to non-players being wildcards for focus
> >
> > * players automatically get stamps of eir type, maybe at a rate similar
> > wealth dream (2 when there's less than 8 total of your type, 1 when there's
> > less than 16 total, 0 otherwise)
> >
> > * cash stamps in sets, where each stamp in the set is of the same class
> > (or wildcard) to get the associated bonus. Cash voting stamps and get a
> > voting power increase, cash proposing stamps and get the ability to pend X
> > proposals. Scale it to large payouts for larger cashing sets, and also
> > larger payouts for the number of *different* stamps used.

I like the idea of making Proposing a focus (or in a simple
modification, make it a Dream with a similar level of pending-ability
to the expunging dream).  But I'll admit I'm a bit burned out on "mix
and match set trading" as an economic basis (fine with it as a pure
subgame like the current stamps).   I'm leaning more towards the
'labor tokens' idea of personal but non-tradable specialization (e.g.
everyone gets one focus/dream, and doing labors can give you the
limited ability to have a second focus/dream at the same time).

-G.

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

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

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

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

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

I'm also sorry if I got too negative

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

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

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

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 11:47 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> So, only someone who already is in power and a beneficiary of the system
> should be entitled to propose change things?

Er, I never said you couldn't propose.  I was giving you feedback on
how I felt about voting for it.

It's a generally interesting point you raise, in that we've (over the
years) frequently discussed about not being too entrenched, and giving
new players the ability to jump right in without huge handicaps.  That
said, we are a small community, that takes some service to maintain
via officers, and it makes sense to give longer-serving players at
least something of a boost - it's not fair to their genuine effort
over months to achieve a certain position (become "already in power"),
to say a brand-new player jumps in with equal footing.  Also, in
particular, rule changes often impact officers' jobs, so it seems
quite reasonable to give them a bit more say in changes that could
include their office duties.

And the thing with my "accusation" is - you've already done it once,
to be fair.  We'd been playing with proposal-based radiance awards for
about a year, which were seen as fairly minor rewards for encouraging
the writing of good proposals.  But within a short time of joining the
game, your own voting patterns - making something uncomfortably
"political" that was never intended or played that way - became
onerous enough that you basically crashed the system (brought us to
the point of repealing it, rather than deal with your voting
patterns).  In doing so, the collateral damage included removing
radiance awards for Judges, so Judges no longer get a little bonus for
judging.  I honestly thought that was a bit thoughtless.  This is
exactly what I want to avoid again, so I'm quite skeptical about
arguments to repeal something that gives bonuses or reward-for-labor
(especially longstanding 'service' offices where people aren't just
running their own subgame for less than a week :) ) when there's no
concrete proposal of anything to compensate.

But enough negativity there (sorry) - I don't mean for this to express
any actual metagame annoyance, just thoughts about power tradeoffs and
design, and I very much look forward to seeing if nix's ideas might
work.

-G.

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

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

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

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

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

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

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ais523 via agora-discussion]

On Fri, 2023-05-19 at 09:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 9:50 AM ais523 via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
> > I sometimes feel like half my arguing at Agora is dedicated to trying
> > to persuade people not to repeal the economy.
> > 
> > It rarely works, and the consequence is that most of the time we don't
> > have a functional economy. (Having a history of the economy being
> > repealed is *also* a problem because it makes it harder to get a new
> > economy off the ground – why invest if you think that everything is
> > likely going to end up repealed again in the future?)
> 
> Define "works"?  tbh, I mostly prefer the periods with no/very limited
> economies, because I like the various different subgames on their own,
> and whenever we have a "full" economy, then subgame wins become far
> too transactional and full of contracts/meta-subgame deals to be very
> playable as a standalone competition.

"Works" as in inspiring either a replacement economy, or some other
sort of replacement gameplay. What normally happens is that there are a
few half-hearted attempts to create something new that don't go
anywhere, and then the lists fall mostly silent for a few months.

Meta-subgame deals don't necessarily require an economy to happen, just
two or more subgames. (See, e.g., snail and Murphy trading a stone win
for a horse win – as far as I can tell, that transaction didn't involve
the economy at all.) The real fix for those, based on experience at
other nomics, is to either design the subgame in a way that makes it
hard for that sort of deal to have any influence on the subgame, or to
create a rule banning players from cooperation for a subgame win.

They also don't necessarily seem to happen even when there are lots of
subgames and a strong economy (e.g. in the AAA era, the *other*, non-
AAA, subgames basically got to run autonomously and I don't recall
anyone trying to buy or sell advantages in them; and trading subgame-
defined assets seems to have been the intended gameplay of the AAA).

(Another interesting data point: Promises were originally partially
intended as a method of letting people mint their own currency, backed
by things like officer perks. This use never caught on, however, even
though there have been times where it could have served as a
replacement for a repealed economy. One of the things that I'm hoping
for with my Raybots proto is that we end up with tradeable Promises
backed by Raybot actions rather than player actions; because Raybots
have a limited lifespan, we'd have a currency that naturally decays
over time, and because they don't create ongoing obligations on any of
the human players, there would likely be less aversion to creating
them.)

-- 
ais523

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

[nix via agora-discussion]

On 5/19/23 11:50, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:

I'd much rather take the route of trying to get the Radiance/Stamps
system functional again, than of trying to repeal it. (Stamps in
particular are one of the most powerful "new player perks" we've seen,
and I suspect that that's a good thing.) I'd especially be against
repealing it without a replacement.
I do somewhat regret the *full* repeal we did, tho it was an interesting 
experiment (that got my a Silver Quill). I've been trying to be more 
hands off with economic writing because I want to see other ideas (and 
I've written two of the recent ones), but I have had some ideas floating 
around that would at least incorporate Stamps. The idea is basically:


* replace dreams with focuses, and have 3 or 4 focuses. Something like 
Voting, Proposing, etc.


* each stamp type inherits a focus from the person it's minted by, with 
stamps belonging to non-players being wildcards for focus


* players automatically get stamps of eir type, maybe at a rate similar 
wealth dream (2 when there's less than 8 total of your type, 1 when 
there's less than 16 total, 0 otherwise)


* cash stamps in sets, where each stamp in the set is of the same class 
(or wildcard) to get the associated bonus. Cash voting stamps and get a 
voting power increase, cash proposing stamps and get the ability to pend 
X proposals. Scale it to large payouts for larger cashing sets, and also 
larger payouts for the number of *different* stamps used.


--
nix
Prime Minister, Herald

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

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 9:50 AM ais523 via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2023-05-19 at 09:37 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 9:26 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-
> > discussion  wrote:
> > > With radiance and Stamps seemingly on their way out, I believe that your
> > > Officer salary problem is part of a larger problem of Agora overall 
> > > needing
> > > a proper economy again, not a voting strength problem.
> >
> > So offer that as a package?  In my experience, when things are taken
> > away with the promise of new things to be added later, those things
> > stay taken away, and the new things never arrive.
>
> I sometimes feel like half my arguing at Agora is dedicated to trying
> to persuade people not to repeal the economy.
>
> It rarely works, and the consequence is that most of the time we don't
> have a functional economy. (Having a history of the economy being
> repealed is *also* a problem because it makes it harder to get a new
> economy off the ground – why invest if you think that everything is
> likely going to end up repealed again in the future?)

Define "works"?  tbh, I mostly prefer the periods with no/very limited
economies, because I like the various different subgames on their own,
and whenever we have a "full" economy, then subgame wins become far
too transactional and full of contracts/meta-subgame deals to be very
playable as a standalone competition.

-G.

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

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 9:50 AM ais523 via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2023-05-19 at 09:37 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 9:26 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-
> > discussion  wrote:
> > > With radiance and Stamps seemingly on their way out, I believe that your
> > > Officer salary problem is part of a larger problem of Agora overall 
> > > needing
> > > a proper economy again, not a voting strength problem.
> >
> > So offer that as a package?  In my experience, when things are taken
> > away with the promise of new things to be added later, those things
> > stay taken away, and the new things never arrive.
>
> I sometimes feel like half my arguing at Agora is dedicated to trying
> to persuade people not to repeal the economy.
>
> It rarely works, and the consequence is that most of the time we don't
> have a functional economy. (Having a history of the economy being
> repealed is *also* a problem because it makes it harder to get a new
> economy off the ground – why invest if you think that everything is
> likely going to end up repealed again in the future?)
>
> I'd much rather take the route of trying to get the Radiance/Stamps
> system functional again, than of trying to repeal it. (Stamps in
> particular are one of the most powerful "new player perks" we've seen,
> and I suspect that that's a good thing.) I'd especially be against
> repealing it without a replacement.
>
> (Incidentally, IIRC many of the "officer perks" that Yachay is talking
> about elsethread were intentionally added a few years ago, during a
> time when there was no functional economy, as an attempt to give the
> officers some sort of reward – because there was nothing economic to
> reward them with, we needed to use some sort of more direct reward
> instead. Some of them are still around nowadays, like the Gray Ribbon.)
>
> --
> ais523

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

[ais523 via agora-discussion]

On Fri, 2023-05-19 at 09:37 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 9:26 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-
> discussion  wrote:
> > With radiance and Stamps seemingly on their way out, I believe that your
> > Officer salary problem is part of a larger problem of Agora overall needing
> > a proper economy again, not a voting strength problem.
> 
> So offer that as a package?  In my experience, when things are taken
> away with the promise of new things to be added later, those things
> stay taken away, and the new things never arrive.

I sometimes feel like half my arguing at Agora is dedicated to trying
to persuade people not to repeal the economy.

It rarely works, and the consequence is that most of the time we don't
have a functional economy. (Having a history of the economy being
repealed is *also* a problem because it makes it harder to get a new
economy off the ground – why invest if you think that everything is
likely going to end up repealed again in the future?)

I'd much rather take the route of trying to get the Radiance/Stamps
system functional again, than of trying to repeal it. (Stamps in
particular are one of the most powerful "new player perks" we've seen,
and I suspect that that's a good thing.) I'd especially be against
repealing it without a replacement.

(Incidentally, IIRC many of the "officer perks" that Yachay is talking
about elsethread were intentionally added a few years ago, during a
time when there was no functional economy, as an attempt to give the
officers some sort of reward – because there was nothing economic to
reward them with, we needed to use some sort of more direct reward
instead. Some of them are still around nowadays, like the Gray Ribbon.)

-- 
ais523

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

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 9:43 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> I don't intend to design an economy, because I don't think I'm competent
> enough to do so. I'll try to contribute where I can, though.
>

Ah, the typical take-away power with a promise, but an unfulfilled
one.  No worries.  Power grabs are fine with me, but let's not cloak
it as some kind of "I'm doing this altruistically to solve a bigger
design problem."

-G.

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

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

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

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

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

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

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

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

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

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

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

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

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 9:26 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion  wrote:
> With radiance and Stamps seemingly on their way out, I believe that your
> Officer salary problem is part of a larger problem of Agora overall needing
> a proper economy again, not a voting strength problem.

So offer that as a package?  In my experience, when things are taken
away with the promise of new things to be added later, those things
stay taken away, and the new things never arrive.

-G.

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

[nix via agora-discussion]

On 5/19/23 11:26, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:

But, no. I don't think that any player deserves ~4 times the voting
strength of a newbie, regardless of the reason. I want other players to be
able to play nomic, especially newbies, and they need a relevant amount of
voting strength in order to do so. I want them to matter.
To be clear, being an officer only gives you at most twice as much. The 
players with more than that have more because of things unrelated to 
having an office, like the Power Stone and dream.


--
nix
Prime Minister, Herald

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

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

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

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


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

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

None of those things would change.


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

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

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

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

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

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 5:51 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> > Let's give everyone a more equal chance to be relevant.
> >

So right now, Officers' only reward is increased voting strength (I
believe), and the game is growing with lots of new players so
officers' work is getting harder.  And of course, an influx of new
players *already* dilutes that strength.  What do you have in mind to
compensate for their time & effort if you nerf their only benefit?

-G.

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

[Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion]

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 2:08 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I submit the following two Proposals:
>
> Title: Democratization (low AI version)
> AI: 1
> Author: Yachay
> Co-Authors: None
> /*Comment: I'm fine with rewarding officers and such with more voting
> power, but it seems obscene to me when certain players can have almost four
> (4!!!) times the voting power of a newbie. It's too greedy, too
> controlling, too much.
>
> Let's give everyone a more equal chance to be relevant.
>
> This is a low AI version. Amending the rule that gives players the default
> 3 Voting Strength would require a AI-3 Proposal, which seems difficult to
> pass or at least, it would be very easy to block.*/
>
> If the Proposal named "Democratization (high AI version)" is ADOPTED, then
> this Proposal does nothing. Otherwise:
>
> Create a new power-1 rule titled "Democratization" that says:
>
> {Each player has their voting strength increased by 5.}
>

Unfortunately, voting Strength is secured at power=2.


>
>
> Title: Democratization (high AI version)
> AI: 3
> Author: Yachay
> Co-Authors: None
> /*Comment: I'm fine with rewarding officers and such with more voting
> power, but it seems obscene to me when certain players can have almost four
> (4!!!) times the voting power of a newbie. It's too greedy, too
> controlling, too much.
>
> Let's give everyone a more equal chance to be relevant.
>
> This is the high AI version. This is tidier, as it keeps it all in the same
> rule, but it would be harder to pass/easier to block because of its
> enormous AI requirement.*/
>
> If the Proposal named "Democratization (low AI version)" is ADOPTED, then
> this Proposal does nothing. Otherwise:
>
> Amend the first paragraph of Rule 2422 (Power 3) to read in full:
>
> {The voting strength of an entity on an Agoran decision is an integer
> between 0 and 15 inclusive, defined by rules of power 2 or greater. If not
> otherwise specified, the voting strength of an entity on an Agoran decision
> is 8.}
>

(Personally, I'd rather just split the difference with a power=2 rule than
to modify such a high power rule to do the same thing)

-- 
4st
Referee
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator

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

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

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

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

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

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

[nix via agora-discussion]

On 5/2/23 05:06, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote:

if ey haven't done so
I'll read the rest soon, but just to note: the version of spivak Agora 
iplements uses "e [singular agreement]" not "ey [plural agreement]" 
which I understand that some similar systems use. So this should be "if 
e hasn't done so" and so on for the other uses of "ey" in the proposal.


--
nix
Prime Minister, Herald

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Proposal - Unradiance

[nix via agora-discussion]

On 4/17/23 16:33, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote:

There doesn't seem to be a cost to giving people more options like this, so
I'll just give this a shot too:

I create and submit the following Proposal:

Title: Unradiance v2
AI: 1.0
Author: Yachay
Co-Authors: None

{

 From rule 2657, remove "* Being the author of a proposal that takes
effect, at the instant it finishes taking effect: 4 (must specify
proposal number)"

}


Heads up that I intend to propose something else that works with this in 
a more robust/complex way soon.


--
nix
Prime Minister, Herald, Collector

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor/Proposal)

[Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion]

On 3/31/23 08:31, nix via agora-discussion wrote:

On 3/31/23 10:27, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote:

Title: No, you cannot save them up
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: 4st
Co-author: 


Are you looking at an old version of the rules? This was already fixed 
by P8932. Current ruletext says:


   Each time a player fulfills a radiance condition, e CAN once,
   **within 14 days**, by announcement (specifying any indicated info)
   gain the associated radiance.



Oh, of course I was :) thanks!

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor/Proposal)

[nix via agora-discussion]

On 3/31/23 10:27, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote:

Title: No, you cannot save them up
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: 4st
Co-author: 


Are you looking at an old version of the rules? This was already fixed 
by P8932. Current ruletext says:


  Each time a player fulfills a radiance condition, e CAN once,
  **within 14 days**, by announcement (specifying any indicated info)
  gain the associated radiance.

--
nix
Collector, Herald

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor/Proposal) A Proposal for Cleaning.

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Add me in next time :v)

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> Oh no, you got me s
>
> :)
>
> tir. 28. mar. 2023, 8:29 p.m. skrev Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org>:
>
> > I object to all intents to declare apathy
> >
> > On Tuesday, March 28, 2023, Forest Sweeney via agora-business <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > > (+ PARANOIA) I object to all intents to declare apathy
> > > and any intents to make any offices vacant. Since these changes may
> > impact
> > > the interpretation
> > > (probably wouldn't, but it's without objection,
> > > so I'd rather be safe about it, and get some radiance!), I submit the
> > > following proposal: { Title: Cleaning Adoption Index: 3.0 Author: 4st
> > > Co-author:
> > > Amend Rule 2573 ("Impeachment") by replacing "otherwise shown emself
> > > unworthy the trust of Agora."
> > > with "otherwise shown emself unworthy of the trust of Agora."
> > >
> > > Amend "Mother, May I?" (Rule 2152)
> > > by replacing { "SHOULD } with { SHOULD }
> > > }
> > >
> > > I intend to, without objection, declare apathy, specifying myself,
> snail,
> > > and Janet.
> > >
> > > --
> > > 4st
> > > Deputy(AKA FAKE) referee, Deputy(AKA FAKE) webmastor
> > > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
> > >
> >
>

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor/Proposal) A Proposal for Cleaning.

[Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion]

Oh no, you got me s

:)

tir. 28. mar. 2023, 8:29 p.m. skrev Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org>:

> I object to all intents to declare apathy
>
> On Tuesday, March 28, 2023, Forest Sweeney via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > (+ PARANOIA) I object to all intents to declare apathy
> > and any intents to make any offices vacant. Since these changes may
> impact
> > the interpretation
> > (probably wouldn't, but it's without objection,
> > so I'd rather be safe about it, and get some radiance!), I submit the
> > following proposal: { Title: Cleaning Adoption Index: 3.0 Author: 4st
> > Co-author:
> > Amend Rule 2573 ("Impeachment") by replacing "otherwise shown emself
> > unworthy the trust of Agora."
> > with "otherwise shown emself unworthy of the trust of Agora."
> >
> > Amend "Mother, May I?" (Rule 2152)
> > by replacing { "SHOULD } with { SHOULD }
> > }
> >
> > I intend to, without objection, declare apathy, specifying myself, snail,
> > and Janet.
> >
> > --
> > 4st
> > Deputy(AKA FAKE) referee, Deputy(AKA FAKE) webmastor
> > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor/Proposal)

[Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion]

søn. 26. mar. 2023 kl. 16:42 skrev secretsnail9 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org>:

> I suggest withdrawing this proposal.
> You get 10 dollaries when the race starts, not 20. 10 would be a more
> reasonable number. Otherwise new players would just have a decided
> advantage, enough to practically secure a win. And if they joined, then the
> race started anew, and then they got a welcome package, they'd have 30
> while everyone else has 10. So it's just a bad idea. Though thank you for
> pointing out your grievances with horses! It still needs fixing, just not
> this.
>

I think if a new player has been watching the lists well enough to join at
precisely the right time to scam up 30 dollaries for eventually 30 radiance
(since they previously had 0), they should be able to have it. It is less
than 1/3 of a win, and I don't think anyone is going to deregister just to
do this scam, since it only works once. Plus, it works as a good
introduction to scams/etc and a quick, encouraging, small "win".

And maybe it will drum up interest into the game.

-- 
4st
Deputy(AKA FAKE) referee, Deputy(AKA FAKE) webmastor
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor/Proposal)

[nix via agora-discussion]

On 3/26/23 13:09, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote:

(I remember joining in the middle of a race and decided not to
play for this race, which... is still the current race.
I also would like everyone to consider repealing racing in general,
as I don't see many players taking weekly race actions other
than ais523 and snail...
but that is a separate story.)
}
I'm also in favor of a repeal at this point. I respect snail's effort on 
this a lot, it's an ambitious and very different game. But I think the 
issue isn't polish, I think the core gameplay loop isn't working.


--
nix
Collector, Herald

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor/Proposal)

[secretsnail9 via agora-discussion]

I suggest withdrawing this proposal.
You get 10 dollaries when the race starts, not 20. 10 would be a more
reasonable number. Otherwise new players would just have a decided
advantage, enough to practically secure a win. And if they joined, then the
race started anew, and then they got a welcome package, they'd have 30
while everyone else has 10. So it's just a bad idea. Though thank you for
pointing out your grievances with horses! It still needs fixing, just not
this.
--
snail


On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 1:09 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I submit the following proposal:
> {
> Title: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: 4st
> Co-author:
>
> Uh oh, gotta submit something!
> Gotta get those proposal points CA-CHING!
> (Never let the proposal pool be bare,
> lest me be no worse than a simple chair.)
>
> Amend "Welcome Packages" (Rule 2499) by appending
> {
> - 20 dollaries
> }
> to the list of assets.
>
> (I remember joining in the middle of a race and decided not to
> play for this race, which... is still the current race.
> I also would like everyone to consider repealing racing in general,
> as I don't see many players taking weekly race actions other
> than ais523 and snail...
> but that is a separate story.)
> }
>
> --
> 4st
> Deputy(AKA FAKE) referee, Deputy(AKA FAKE) webmastor
> Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
>

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor/Proposal)

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I'd be in favor of repealing horses.

On Sunday, March 26, 2023, Forest Sweeney via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I submit the following proposal:
> {
> Title: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: 4st
> Co-author:
>
> Uh oh, gotta submit something!
> Gotta get those proposal points CA-CHING!
> (Never let the proposal pool be bare,
> lest me be no worse than a simple chair.)
>
> Amend "Welcome Packages" (Rule 2499) by appending
> {
> - 20 dollaries
> }
> to the list of assets.
>
> (I remember joining in the middle of a race and decided not to
> play for this race, which... is still the current race.
> I also would like everyone to consider repealing racing in general,
> as I don't see many players taking weekly race actions other
> than ais523 and snail...
> but that is a separate story.)
> }
>
> --
> 4st
> Deputy(AKA FAKE) referee, Deputy(AKA FAKE) webmastor
> Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Distributor/Proposal) Agorachess V2

[Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion]

Some context on why it was drafted this way:
We're aware of players teaming up.
We intentionally set it up "slow": 5 players playing is 20 weeks of play
for 50 moves, however we thought it likely players will team before then.
It is an experiment, so we took wins out of the equation.

I do agree that this is better as a tournament tho.

ons. 22. mar. 2023, 8:18 p.m. skrev Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org>:

> I'm very excited about new kinds of gameplay, especially in the vein that
> you seem to be going for. Some things I have doubts about:
>
> - I'm not sure about regular-sized chess, because of how long the games
> could be. Maybe a miniature version of chess? Or something else with short
> games?
> - It seems like IRL timing would be important to snipe moves at the right
> moment, which I don't look forwards to.
> - This is selfish but, I'd rather not have the reward be Radiance, because
> of how much Radiance currently favors the group of players that already
> have huge resource stockpiles. Maybe it could be a Tournament? Or a monthly
> thing that just directly rewards winning-the-game?
>
> But, yes, new kinds of gameplay please.
>
> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > søn. 5. feb. 2023 kl. 09:11 skrev Forest Sweeney via agora-business <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org>:
> >
> > > I submit the following proposal:
> > > {
> > > Title: Agorachess V2
> > > Adoption Index: 1.0
> > > Author: 4st
> > > Coauthor: Janet, nix, snail, G., Murphy
> > >
> > > Enact "Agorachess Definition" with Power=1.0 and the text:
> > > {
> > > The rules of chess are taken to be the ones from the following link:
> > > https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012023
> > >
> > > The rules of agorachess and agora take precedence over
> > > the rules of chess, especially when they are in conflict.
> > >
> > > The rules of agorachess are the rules of chess, with the following
> > changes:
> > > - Discard article 4 of the rules of chess.
> > > - When the rules of chess refer to a player, they are referring to the
> > > mover of the corresponding color of pieces.
> > >
> > > A move follows algebraic chess notation, which is described by
> appendix C
> > > of the rules of chess.
> > >
> > > A record of moves is a format of a list of moves, alternating between
> > > being made by white and black, such that each white move is preceded by
> > > an incrementing integer beginning at 1.
> > > }
> > >
> > > Enact "Agorachess Play" with power=1.0 and the text:
> > > {
> > > If there is not currently an ongoing Agorachess game, any player CAN
> > > begin one by announcement.
> > >
> > > If a player has not done so in the past 6 days, e CAN, by announcement,
> > > make an Agorachess move, specifying a legal move for the side that has
> > > the move and including an updated record accurately reflecting that
> move
> > > and all previous moves.
> > >
> > > When a player makes a legal move that checkmates either side, any
> player
> > > CAN
> > > increase that player's score by 5 and end the agorachess game by
> > > announcement.
> > >
> > > A player CAN end an ongoing Agorachess game with Agoran consent.
> > > }
> > > }
> > > --
> > > 4st
> > >
> >
> >
> > Besides changing score to radiance,
> > I'm unsure of the scoring/gameplay of this,
> > and would like some feedback.
> > I am still interested in officerless gameplay,
> > and this, along with ritual numbers,
> > is good testing ground I believe...
> > Plus, Agora has done everything BUT chess?
> > No wai!
> >
> > I am also wondering if this system is good enough
> > to accept edits to gameplay somewhat gracefully, EG
> > pawns can move twice
> > or queens are kings
> > or you can reduce your radiance by 5
> > to remove an unoccupied square from the board
> > or you get 1 radiance by moving to b4
> > and such.
> >
> > --
> > 4st
> > Deputy(AKA FAKE) referee, Deputy(AKA FAKE) webmastor
> > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Distributor/Proposal) Agorachess V2

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I'm very excited about new kinds of gameplay, especially in the vein that
you seem to be going for. Some things I have doubts about:

- I'm not sure about regular-sized chess, because of how long the games
could be. Maybe a miniature version of chess? Or something else with short
games?
- It seems like IRL timing would be important to snipe moves at the right
moment, which I don't look forwards to.
- This is selfish but, I'd rather not have the reward be Radiance, because
of how much Radiance currently favors the group of players that already
have huge resource stockpiles. Maybe it could be a Tournament? Or a monthly
thing that just directly rewards winning-the-game?

But, yes, new kinds of gameplay please.

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> søn. 5. feb. 2023 kl. 09:11 skrev Forest Sweeney via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org>:
>
> > I submit the following proposal:
> > {
> > Title: Agorachess V2
> > Adoption Index: 1.0
> > Author: 4st
> > Coauthor: Janet, nix, snail, G., Murphy
> >
> > Enact "Agorachess Definition" with Power=1.0 and the text:
> > {
> > The rules of chess are taken to be the ones from the following link:
> > https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012023
> >
> > The rules of agorachess and agora take precedence over
> > the rules of chess, especially when they are in conflict.
> >
> > The rules of agorachess are the rules of chess, with the following
> changes:
> > - Discard article 4 of the rules of chess.
> > - When the rules of chess refer to a player, they are referring to the
> > mover of the corresponding color of pieces.
> >
> > A move follows algebraic chess notation, which is described by appendix C
> > of the rules of chess.
> >
> > A record of moves is a format of a list of moves, alternating between
> > being made by white and black, such that each white move is preceded by
> > an incrementing integer beginning at 1.
> > }
> >
> > Enact "Agorachess Play" with power=1.0 and the text:
> > {
> > If there is not currently an ongoing Agorachess game, any player CAN
> > begin one by announcement.
> >
> > If a player has not done so in the past 6 days, e CAN, by announcement,
> > make an Agorachess move, specifying a legal move for the side that has
> > the move and including an updated record accurately reflecting that move
> > and all previous moves.
> >
> > When a player makes a legal move that checkmates either side, any player
> > CAN
> > increase that player's score by 5 and end the agorachess game by
> > announcement.
> >
> > A player CAN end an ongoing Agorachess game with Agoran consent.
> > }
> > }
> > --
> > 4st
> >
>
>
> Besides changing score to radiance,
> I'm unsure of the scoring/gameplay of this,
> and would like some feedback.
> I am still interested in officerless gameplay,
> and this, along with ritual numbers,
> is good testing ground I believe...
> Plus, Agora has done everything BUT chess?
> No wai!
>
> I am also wondering if this system is good enough
> to accept edits to gameplay somewhat gracefully, EG
> pawns can move twice
> or queens are kings
> or you can reduce your radiance by 5
> to remove an unoccupied square from the board
> or you get 1 radiance by moving to b4
> and such.
>
> --
> 4st
> Deputy(AKA FAKE) referee, Deputy(AKA FAKE) webmastor
> Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Distributor/Proposal) Agorachess V2

[nix via agora-discussion]

On 3/22/23 13:39, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote:

Besides changing score to radiance,
I'm unsure of the scoring/gameplay of this,
and would like some feedback.
I am still interested in officerless gameplay,
and this, along with ritual numbers,
is good testing ground I believe...
Plus, Agora has done everything BUT chess?
No wai!


Personally I'm just not currently interested. I'd rather tighten up our 
core gameplay. But it could be good some time in the future.


--
nix
Prime Minister, Herald, Collector

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Distributor/Proposal) Agorachess V2

[Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion]

søn. 5. feb. 2023 kl. 09:11 skrev Forest Sweeney via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org>:

> I submit the following proposal:
> {
> Title: Agorachess V2
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: 4st
> Coauthor: Janet, nix, snail, G., Murphy
>
> Enact "Agorachess Definition" with Power=1.0 and the text:
> {
> The rules of chess are taken to be the ones from the following link:
> https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012023
>
> The rules of agorachess and agora take precedence over
> the rules of chess, especially when they are in conflict.
>
> The rules of agorachess are the rules of chess, with the following changes:
> - Discard article 4 of the rules of chess.
> - When the rules of chess refer to a player, they are referring to the
> mover of the corresponding color of pieces.
>
> A move follows algebraic chess notation, which is described by appendix C
> of the rules of chess.
>
> A record of moves is a format of a list of moves, alternating between
> being made by white and black, such that each white move is preceded by
> an incrementing integer beginning at 1.
> }
>
> Enact "Agorachess Play" with power=1.0 and the text:
> {
> If there is not currently an ongoing Agorachess game, any player CAN
> begin one by announcement.
>
> If a player has not done so in the past 6 days, e CAN, by announcement,
> make an Agorachess move, specifying a legal move for the side that has
> the move and including an updated record accurately reflecting that move
> and all previous moves.
>
> When a player makes a legal move that checkmates either side, any player
> CAN
> increase that player's score by 5 and end the agorachess game by
> announcement.
>
> A player CAN end an ongoing Agorachess game with Agoran consent.
> }
> }
> --
> 4st
>


Besides changing score to radiance,
I'm unsure of the scoring/gameplay of this,
and would like some feedback.
I am still interested in officerless gameplay,
and this, along with ritual numbers,
is good testing ground I believe...
Plus, Agora has done everything BUT chess?
No wai!

I am also wondering if this system is good enough
to accept edits to gameplay somewhat gracefully, EG
pawns can move twice
or queens are kings
or you can reduce your radiance by 5
to remove an unoccupied square from the board
or you get 1 radiance by moving to b4
and such.

-- 
4st
Deputy(AKA FAKE) referee, Deputy(AKA FAKE) webmastor
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor/Proposal) What does this button do?

[Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion]

tir. 21. mar. 2023 kl. 08:00 skrev Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org>:

> ...
>
> That’s actually covered by R2603 which kicks in if the switch has neither
> an associated officer nor the explicit word “untracked”.  I think the only
> question is whether it makes the “assistant” synonymous with the “tracker
> of” office that R2603 would create.
>
> Rule 2603/0
> Switch Responsibility
>
>   For each type of switch that would otherwise lack an officer to
>   track it, and is not defined as untracked, there exists an imposed
>   office named “Tracker of [switch name]” that is responsible for
>   tracking that switch.
>

But... assets aren't switches?
-- 
4st
Deputy(AKA FAKE) referee, Deputy(AKA FAKE) webmastor
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor/Proposal) What does this button do?

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 7:48 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> man. 20. mar. 2023 kl. 15:44 skrev ais523 via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org>:
>
> > On Mon, 2023-03-20 at 15:18 -0700, Forest Sweeney via agora-business
> wrote:
> > > Enact the following rule:
> > > {
> > > A device is an asset defined by the rules.
> > > Devices are tracked by the Mad Engineer's assistant.
> > > }
> > >
> > > Grant each player a Reified Device.
> >
> > I suspect the last part of that proposal will fail to do anything
> > unless you switch the Device on first. (While it's off, there are a
> > number of restrictions on how a Device can be created.)
> >
>
> Hmmm... dang, you are probably right about the last part of the proposal,
> I wasn't looking closely. It would need to be power 1.1 to do it, wouldn't
> it?
>
>
> > I'm also somewhat intrigued as to what happens when you make something
> > that isn't an officer responsible for tracking an asset…
> >
> > --
> > ais523
> >
>
> Also, I didn't notice that bonus!! :D


That’s actually covered by R2603 which kicks in if the switch has neither
an associated officer nor the explicit word “untracked”.  I think the only
question is whether it makes the “assistant” synonymous with the “tracker
of” office that R2603 would create.

Rule 2603/0
Switch Responsibility

  For each type of switch that would otherwise lack an officer to
  track it, and is not defined as untracked, there exists an imposed
  office named “Tracker of [switch name]” that is responsible for
  tracking that switch.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor/Proposal) What does this button do?

[Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion]

man. 20. mar. 2023 kl. 15:44 skrev ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org>:

> On Mon, 2023-03-20 at 15:18 -0700, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote:
> > Enact the following rule:
> > {
> > A device is an asset defined by the rules.
> > Devices are tracked by the Mad Engineer's assistant.
> > }
> >
> > Grant each player a Reified Device.
>
> I suspect the last part of that proposal will fail to do anything
> unless you switch the Device on first. (While it's off, there are a
> number of restrictions on how a Device can be created.)
>

Hmmm... dang, you are probably right about the last part of the proposal,
I wasn't looking closely. It would need to be power 1.1 to do it, wouldn't
it?


> I'm also somewhat intrigued as to what happens when you make something
> that isn't an officer responsible for tracking an asset…
>
> --
> ais523
>

Also, I didn't notice that bonus!! :D

(If it wasn't clear, I appreciate your comments!)

-- 
4st
Deputy(AKA FAKE) referee, Deputy(AKA FAKE) webmastor
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor/Proposal) What does this button do?

[ais523 via agora-discussion]

On Mon, 2023-03-20 at 15:18 -0700, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote:
> Enact the following rule:
> {
> A device is an asset defined by the rules.
> Devices are tracked by the Mad Engineer's assistant.
> }
> 
> Grant each player a Reified Device.

I suspect the last part of that proposal will fail to do anything
unless you switch the Device on first. (While it's off, there are a
number of restrictions on how a Device can be created.)

I'm also somewhat intrigued as to what happens when you make something
that isn't an officer responsible for tracking an asset…

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor/Proposal)

[Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion]

søn. 19. mar. 2023 kl. 10:52 skrev Forest Sweeney via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org>:

> ...
> Title: Oh come on guys folks
> ...


Sad. Guys was supposed to be ~~struck out~~ (like folks was a correction),
but I didn't realize the mailing list didn't support this. Oh well.

-- 
4st

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor/Proposal) Take 2 - Adding sins to the ruleset

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 10:53 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business
 wrote:
> AND FOURSTLY, I petition everyone to be polite and not bug anyone about
> any petitions in this particular message, as said petitions could be
> easily missed.

I am purposefully and with full knowledge making no public response to
this message.  Have at me.

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Proposal] strength to the people

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 11:37 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> On 2/28/23 13:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
> > [Since we're going through an extra-pedantic period on R105...]
> >
> > I withdraw my proposal Populist Priming and submit the following proposal:
> > --
> > Title: Populist Priming
> > AI: 2
> > Author: G.
> >
> > Amend Rule 2451 (Executive Orders) by appending the following list item:
> >   - Proxy (Assessor): The Prime Minister specifies another active
> > player.  That player's voting strength on every ordinary
> > referendum in its voting period is increased by 4.
> >
> > --
>
>
> This is phrased as an instantaneous gain, which does not work.

I modeled it on the Power Stone I can't quite see what's conceptually
different between the two?
> A player's voting strength on
>a referendum on an ordinary proposal is increased by 3 for each
>time that e was Power Stoned during the referendum's voting
>period.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Proposal] strength to the people

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 2/28/23 13:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
> [Since we're going through an extra-pedantic period on R105...]
>
> I withdraw my proposal Populist Priming and submit the following proposal:
> --
> Title: Populist Priming
> AI: 2
> Author: G.
>
> Amend Rule 2451 (Executive Orders) by appending the following list item:
>   - Proxy (Assessor): The Prime Minister specifies another active
> player.  That player's voting strength on every ordinary
> referendum in its voting period is increased by 4.
>
> --


This is phrased as an instantaneous gain, which does not work.

-- 
Janet Cobb

Assessor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor/Proposal) Weekly submission

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 7:32 AM juan via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> > I also submit the following proposal:
> > {
> > Title: Ongoing obligation
> > Adoption Index: 1.0
> > Author: 4st
> > Coauthor: Janet
> >
> > The player 4st MUST submit a copy of this proposal.
> > }
> > --
> > 4st
>
> I hope this doesn't work, or we'll have untrackable and ethereal
> ontology-destabilizing floating obligations.
>
> R106 states:
>
> > proposal can neither delay nor extend its own effect
>
> and
>
> > a proposal's effect is instantaneous
>
> This raised the question: is the effect of 4st's proposal indefinetly
> extended? If so, does R106 preclude it from happening, or simply cuts it
> short? Or even: its effect is instant; viz., the creation of the
> obligation. I don't see anything in the rules to decide these two
> dichotomies.

Two separate things wrong with this proposal:

- Punishment (blots) is only defined for people who violate "a rule".
For example, we make Contract violations punishable by saying in R1742
"Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in accordance
with that contract" so a violation of a contract is a violation of
R1742.  There's nothing to map "violation of proposals" to an actual
punishment.  So a CFJ might find "yes, 4st violated this proposal, but
so what?  there's no consequences and there's nothing in the rules
that says proposals have to be obeyed."

- Even if there was punishment for violating a proposal, this
particular MUST has no time limit, and I think there are judgements
that say a rules requirement that someone "SHALL do something" without
a time limit can't be punished, because the person can always say they
still have time to do it.

-G.

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor/Proposal) Weekly submission

[juan via agora-discussion]

Forest Sweeney via agora-business [2023-02-20 22:55]:
> I […] submit the following:
> {
> Title: Reenactment V2
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: 4st
> Co-Authors: G., Janet
> 
> Enact a rule with power=1.0 and the text:
> {
> The rulekeepor CAN and MUST re-enact one of the following,
> in a timely manner by announcement, chosen randomly by em, at power=1.0:
> 1. Rule 2193/0
> 2. Rule 2615
> 3. Rule 2571
> 4. Rule 1993
> 5. Rule 2309
> 6. Rule 108
> 
> Once e does so, repeal this rule.
> }
> }

I don't know if this kind of language works. “Repeal this rule” sounds
like a command, not a statement. Perhaps it would be better to state
“Once e does so, this rule is repealed.” Similarly, the “timely manner”
requirement doesn't seem to specify a starting time (e.g., “after such
and such event”). I'd advise you to include something to the effect of
“after the creation of this rule”.

> I also submit the following proposal:
> {
> Title: Ongoing obligation
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: 4st
> Coauthor: Janet
> 
> The player 4st MUST submit a copy of this proposal.
> }
> -- 
> 4st

I hope this doesn't work, or we'll have untrackable and ethereal
ontology-destabilizing floating obligations.

R106 states:

> proposal can neither delay nor extend its own effect

and

> a proposal's effect is instantaneous

This raised the question: is the effect of 4st's proposal indefinetly
extended? If so, does R106 preclude it from happening, or simply cuts it
short? Or even: its effect is instant; viz., the creation of the
obligation. I don't see anything in the rules to decide these two
dichotomies.

-- 
juan

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor/Proposal) Weekly submission

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 2/21/23 01:03, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
> {
> Title: Reenactment
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: 4st
> Co-Authors: G.
>
> The rulekeepor MUST re-enact one of the following,
> chosen randomly by em, at power=1.0:
> 1. Rule 2193/0
> 2. Rule 2615
> 3. Rule 2571
> 4. Rule 1993
> 5. Rule 2309
> 6. Rule 108
> }
>

There are a few problems with this:

A proposal probably can't create an ongoing obligation.

A person CANNOT re-enact a rule, as e is not an instrument.

-- 
Janet Cobb

Assessor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Distributor/Proposal) Player-Defined Nonsense

[Edward Murphy via agora-discussion]

ais523 wrote:


(Also, nkep feels like it fits into this sort of framework somehow, but
I'm not sure how.)


For those unfamiliar, "nkep" was basically the "I floop" concept
combined with private-agreement shenanigans. A search of the CFJ
archive turns up the following, there were probably some others:

  https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1799

  https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2626

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Distributor/Proposal) Player-Defined Nonsense

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 10:48 AM ais523 via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2023-02-13 at 10:37 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 9:53 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business
> >  wrote:
> > > Do you want to be able to just send "ANGER" to a-b, and for it to mean "I
> > > object to every intent to declare apathy."?
> > > Or "I floop" to motivate the horses, or "Ohgodnotanother" to mean "I 
> > > submit
> > > the following proposal:"?
> >
> > I think it would be useful to have a fairly flexible Agoran lexicon
> > that changes rapidly-enough to be easy to add for current gameplay,
> > but is stable enough to have reference value for everyone.  It would
> > be great to say "I QWANG these items" to mean "I take these 5 steps
> > with them" at times when those 5 steps are a common sequence that
> > people use regularly (QWANG is a reference to when we talked about
> > doing this a few years ago).  But I think this version of making it
> > personal like this is too obfuscatory for me, as an officer, it seems
> > a better approach would be - sure not so colorful, but more useful -
> > "The Definitional Regulations are tracked by (Notary?) and can be
> > added/amended/removed with some level of Consent".
>
> At one point, we had "zoop" which (due to the way a contract was set
> up) would automatically take actions on behalf of a number of different
> players in order to achieve a given result, and I *think* it worked
> without explicitly needing to say whay would happen as a consequence?
> (I can't remember for certain at this point, it was a while ago.)
>
> On another note, it's also worth considering adding things like ISIDTID
> to a lexicon like that, even though they aren't actions and thus having
> the meaning rules-defined isn't required to be able to interpret game
> actions. It'd be helpful for new players in interpreting things like
> CFJ arguments. (IIRC there's a list like this already somewhere, not
> sure whether new players find it easily or not.)
>
> (Also, nkep feels like it fits into this sort of framework somehow, but
> I'm not sure how.)

In judging CFJ 3663 (where someone tried to consciously introduce a
new idiom) I tried to come up with some tests on "when has something
taken on enough familiarity that it can be used as shorthand?"  It's
not a case that's particularly referred to these days, but maybe it
has some good points:

https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3663

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Distributor/Proposal) Player-Defined Nonsense

[ais523 via agora-discussion]

On Mon, 2023-02-13 at 10:37 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 9:53 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business
>  wrote:
> > Do you want to be able to just send "ANGER" to a-b, and for it to mean "I
> > object to every intent to declare apathy."?
> > Or "I floop" to motivate the horses, or "Ohgodnotanother" to mean "I submit
> > the following proposal:"?
> 
> I think it would be useful to have a fairly flexible Agoran lexicon
> that changes rapidly-enough to be easy to add for current gameplay,
> but is stable enough to have reference value for everyone.  It would
> be great to say "I QWANG these items" to mean "I take these 5 steps
> with them" at times when those 5 steps are a common sequence that
> people use regularly (QWANG is a reference to when we talked about
> doing this a few years ago).  But I think this version of making it
> personal like this is too obfuscatory for me, as an officer, it seems
> a better approach would be - sure not so colorful, but more useful -
> "The Definitional Regulations are tracked by (Notary?) and can be
> added/amended/removed with some level of Consent".

At one point, we had "zoop" which (due to the way a contract was set
up) would automatically take actions on behalf of a number of different
players in order to achieve a given result, and I *think* it worked
without explicitly needing to say whay would happen as a consequence?
(I can't remember for certain at this point, it was a while ago.)

On another note, it's also worth considering adding things like ISIDTID
to a lexicon like that, even though they aren't actions and thus having
the meaning rules-defined isn't required to be able to interpret game
actions. It'd be helpful for new players in interpreting things like
CFJ arguments. (IIRC there's a list like this already somewhere, not
sure whether new players find it easily or not.)

(Also, nkep feels like it fits into this sort of framework somehow, but
I'm not sure how.)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Distributor/Proposal) Player-Defined Nonsense

[Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion]

On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 10:39 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 9:53 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business
>  wrote:
> > Do you want to be able to just send "ANGER" to a-b, and for it to mean "I
> > object to every intent to declare apathy."?
> > Or "I floop" to motivate the horses, or "Ohgodnotanother" to mean "I
> submit
> > the following proposal:"?
>
> I think it would be useful to have a fairly flexible Agoran lexicon
> that changes rapidly-enough to be easy to add for current gameplay,
> but is stable enough to have reference value for everyone.  It would
> be great to say "I QWANG these items" to mean "I take these 5 steps
> with them" at times when those 5 steps are a common sequence that
> people use regularly (QWANG is a reference to when we talked about
> doing this a few years ago).  But I think this version of making it
> personal like this is too obfuscatory for me, as an officer, it seems
> a better approach would be - sure not so colorful, but more useful -
> "The Definitional Regulations are tracked by (Notary?) and can be
> added/amended/removed with some level of Consent".
>
> -G.
>


While that sounds more useful, it is exactly as you say, less colorful.
I'm for this version, although having the Notary do it instead...
I'm not opposed to either :)
-- 
4st

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Distributor/Proposal) Player-Defined Nonsense

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 9:53 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business
 wrote:
> Do you want to be able to just send "ANGER" to a-b, and for it to mean "I
> object to every intent to declare apathy."?
> Or "I floop" to motivate the horses, or "Ohgodnotanother" to mean "I submit
> the following proposal:"?

I think it would be useful to have a fairly flexible Agoran lexicon
that changes rapidly-enough to be easy to add for current gameplay,
but is stable enough to have reference value for everyone.  It would
be great to say "I QWANG these items" to mean "I take these 5 steps
with them" at times when those 5 steps are a common sequence that
people use regularly (QWANG is a reference to when we talked about
doing this a few years ago).  But I think this version of making it
personal like this is too obfuscatory for me, as an officer, it seems
a better approach would be - sure not so colorful, but more useful -
"The Definitional Regulations are tracked by (Notary?) and can be
added/amended/removed with some level of Consent".

-G.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Proposal] An exercise in patience

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 7/2/22 00:04, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
> When a stone is cascaded, the Rule defining that stone applies the effects in 
> that stone's scroll.


This doesn't work due to power.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: @Promotor [proposal] Getting Stoned

[Sarah S. via agora-discussion]

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:32 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
> On 8/24/2021 1:52 AM, Sarah S. via agora-business wrote:
> > - Hot Potato Stone (Weekly, 100%): You must transfer this stone to a
> player
> > of your choice
> > who has never owned this stone since the last time agora has owned it.
> Then
> > the original wielder gains 8 boatloads of coins.
> > SPECIAL RULE: Other rules notwithstanding, this stone never escapes as
> long
> > as at least three players have owned it in the last Agoran month
>
> The link between wielding and "must transfer" is really unclear.  It's not
> clear that the transfer is "wielding" or that there ever is an "original
> wielder".  This could be the first person who ever wields it?
>
> There's also no time limit on the must, and there's nothing stopping you
> from transferring it to someone who doesn't meet the criterion.
>
> -G.
>

The must transfer seems to be clearly on wielding, as all of the stones are
formatted that  way, with the wielding effect directly after the colon.

True enough on the part about must transfer, but the stone clearly says
that the original wielder only gets the coins "then", aka after the stone
is transferred. So there's no benefit in wielding and not transferring it -
you can keep the stone for the whole month but obviously it will be
collected.

Overall I think these objections are meritless, although it could have been
clearer. Proposal can be passed as is imo.
--
R. Lee

DIS: Re: BUS: @Promotor [proposal] Getting Stoned

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 8/24/2021 1:52 AM, Sarah S. via agora-business wrote:
> - Hot Potato Stone (Weekly, 100%): You must transfer this stone to a player
> of your choice
> who has never owned this stone since the last time agora has owned it. Then
> the original wielder gains 8 boatloads of coins.
> SPECIAL RULE: Other rules notwithstanding, this stone never escapes as long
> as at least three players have owned it in the last Agoran month

The link between wielding and "must transfer" is really unclear.  It's not
clear that the transfer is "wielding" or that there ever is an "original
wielder".  This could be the first person who ever wields it?

There's also no time limit on the must, and there's nothing stopping you
from transferring it to someone who doesn't meet the criterion.

-G.

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

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

>From https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3784, Judge Aspen
presiding:

"If a proposal fails to state that who is performing an action, Agorans
are sufficiently respectful to make the inference that the proposal is.
Thus, the proposal takes the place that a player would take for a by
announcement action, even if the relevant requirements are generally more
relaxed. It follows that a proposal, saying "I", generally refers to
emself, since e is the agent of eir own actions."

[thanks to Jason for finding this one].

On 8/8/2021 6:19 PM, Ned Strange via agora-discussion wrote:
> Nah I don't think the proposal would do anything if enacted. The pronoun
> can only have one referent and the referent is G, in the action of sejdinf
> an email
> 
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2021, 11:11 AM ais523 via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 2021-08-08 at 17:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business
>> wrote:
>>> I create a proposal with this sentence as its text, and make it
>>> pending.
>>
>> I think that if this proposal is enacted, it makes a new proposal (a
>> copy of itself) with no author. I was expecting this to be disallowed
>> by some high-powered rule, but as far as I can tell, there's no
>> requirement for a proposal to have an author (proposals with no author
>> can't be created by the usual mechanism, but there's no security
>> against a rule or proposal doing so). It's possible to pend proposals
>> at power 1, too.
>>
>> I'm not 100% certain it's possible to distribute (if challenged) a
>> proposal with no author, though, as the author is an essential
>> parameter, so a missing author would be a missing essential parameter.
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>>
>>

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

[Ned Strange via agora-discussion]

Nah I don't think the proposal would do anything if enacted. The pronoun
can only have one referent and the referent is G, in the action of sejdinf
an email

On Mon, Aug 9, 2021, 11:11 AM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 2021-08-08 at 17:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business
> wrote:
> > I create a proposal with this sentence as its text, and make it
> > pending.
>
> I think that if this proposal is enacted, it makes a new proposal (a
> copy of itself) with no author. I was expecting this to be disallowed
> by some high-powered rule, but as far as I can tell, there's no
> requirement for a proposal to have an author (proposals with no author
> can't be created by the usual mechanism, but there's no security
> against a rule or proposal doing so). It's possible to pend proposals
> at power 1, too.
>
> I'm not 100% certain it's possible to distribute (if challenged) a
> proposal with no author, though, as the author is an essential
> parameter, so a missing author would be a missing essential parameter.
>
> --
> ais523
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Proposal

[ais523 via agora-discussion]

On Sun, 2021-08-08 at 17:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business
wrote:
> I create a proposal with this sentence as its text, and make it
> pending.

I think that if this proposal is enacted, it makes a new proposal (a
copy of itself) with no author. I was expecting this to be disallowed
by some high-powered rule, but as far as I can tell, there's no
requirement for a proposal to have an author (proposals with no author
can't be created by the usual mechanism, but there's no security
against a rule or proposal doing so). It's possible to pend proposals
at power 1, too.

I'm not 100% certain it's possible to distribute (if challenged) a
proposal with no author, though, as the author is an essential
parameter, so a missing author would be a missing essential parameter.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: (proposal)

[Falsifian via agora-discussion]

On 2020-09-04 18:38, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 9/4/20 2:29 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
>> I vote FOR Proposal 8493.
> 
> 
> By the timestamps in my client, this was about 9 minutes after the
> voting period ends.

Alas. I was taking a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach. To be
honest I didn't even check which proposal that was.

-- 
Falsifian

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: (proposal)

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 9/4/20 2:29 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
> I vote FOR Proposal 8493.


By the timestamps in my client, this was about 9 minutes after the
voting period ends.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: (proposal)

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 8/31/20 6:49 PM, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 8/31/20 5:41 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
>> I point my finger at nix for failure to specify quorum above, in
>> violation of Rule 879.
>>
>> -Aris
> For the record, if I had realized this was a SHALL I wouldn't have 
> skipped it. The rules for distribution are a mess.
>

Just double checking, quorum is 3 for this proposal?

-- 
Jason Cobb

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: (proposal)

[nix via agora-discussion]

On 8/31/20 5:41 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> I point my finger at nix for failure to specify quorum above, in
> violation of Rule 879.
> 
> -Aris

For the record, if I had realized this was a SHALL I wouldn't have 
skipped it. The rules for distribution are a mess.

-- 
nix
Prime Minister, Webmastor

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: (proposal)

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 10:31 AM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
>
> > On Aug 28, 2020, at 5:17 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I submit the following proposal, "Minor Adjustments", AI-3:
> > ---
> >
> > Increase the power of Rule 2633 (Rulebending) to 3.
> >
> > ---
> >
> >
> > I pay a pendant to pend the below proposal ("Please stand by").
> >
> > On 8/24/2020 7:25 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>
> >> I submit the following proposal, "Please stand by", AI-1:
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Create a rule, "Please Stand By", with the following text:
> >>
> >>  Normal service will resume shortly.
> >>
> >> ———
>
> I submit the following proposal, "nope", AI-1: {
> Repeal rule 2633.
> }
>
> I submit the following proposal, "nopenopenope", AI-3: {
> Repeal rule 2633.
> }
>
> I'll pend these unless there's a consensus this is bad sportsmanship.
>
> Gaelan


If you pend these, I'd be prepared to distribute them on an expedited
basis.

-Aris

>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: (proposal)

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Aug 28, 2020, at 7:20 PM, nix via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> On 8/28/20 1:09 PM, nix via agora-business wrote:
>> On 8/28/20 11:17 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
>>> I submit the following proposal, "Minor Adjustments", AI-3:
>>> ---
>>> 
>>> Increase the power of Rule 2633 (Rulebending) to 3.
>>> 
>>> ---
>> I issue the cabinet order Manifesto, distributing the above proposal. (I
>> don't think I can assign it an ID, the Promotor has to I believe). The
>> valid votes are FOR, AGAINST, PRESENT, as well as conditional votes. The
>> assessor is the vote collector on this decision.
>> 
>> --
>> nix
>> Prime Minister, Webmastor
>> 
> If this failed because I forgot some essential parameters then I do the 
> following:
> 
> I issue the cabinet order Manifesto, distributing the above proposal. (I 
> don't think I can assign it an ID, the Promotor has to I believe). For this 
> decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the voting method is 
> AI-majority, and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a 
> valid vote, as are conditional votes). The author is G., the AI is 3. There 
> are no co-authors, the class is democratic.
> 
> Sorry about the messy distribution, I missed the essential parameters 
> requirement when I was checking the rules.
> 
> -- 
> nix
> Prime Minister, Webmastor
> 
> 

I vote VERY AGAINST.

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: (proposal)

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Aug 28, 2020, at 5:17 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> I submit the following proposal, "Minor Adjustments", AI-3:
> ---
> 
> Increase the power of Rule 2633 (Rulebending) to 3.
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> I pay a pendant to pend the below proposal ("Please stand by").
> 
> On 8/24/2020 7:25 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> 
>> I submit the following proposal, "Please stand by", AI-1:
>> ---
>> 
>> Create a rule, "Please Stand By", with the following text:
>> 
>>  Normal service will resume shortly.
>> 
>> ———

I submit the following proposal, "nope", AI-1: {
Repeal rule 2633.
}

I submit the following proposal, "nopenopenope", AI-3: {
Repeal rule 2633.
}

I'll pend these unless there's a consensus this is bad sportsmanship.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Another proposal] Fee-based method fix

[Edward Murphy via agora-discussion]

Jason wrote:


On 8/9/20 3:28 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:

Jason wrote:


Counter-proposal counter-argument:

Rule 2162 uses similar phrasing for switch security:


A Rule that designates
a switch as "secured" (at a given power level) designates changes
to the properties of that type of switch as secured (at that power
level) and designates changes to the value of each instance of the
switch as secured (at that power level).

This differs from the zero-fee clause because it's balanced, using
"designates" on both sides, i.e. the other rule needs to have won any
precedence battles already or else this doesn't kick in at all. Or
there are rules that are passive on both sides, e.g. "To allow X is
to allow Y". But the zero-fee clause was imbalanced, written more like
"a rule that /purports/ to do X thereby /does/ do Y", which more
commonly appears in the context of self-ratifying documents (where
the intended subtext is to use this type of imbalance on purpose: even
if the document "purporting to be the X's report" actually isn't, e.g.
because we were wrong about who holds the office of X, we still intend
it to self-ratify unless there's a timely CoE or CFJ about it).



So you think it should use the same verb on both sides? "A rule that
purports to provide a fee-based method with a fee of no assets for an
action instead purports to enable the performance of the action by
announcement."?


Something like that. The more recent proposal probably covers it
adequately already, I'd need to back and double-check.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Another proposal] Fee-based method fix

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 8/9/20 3:28 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:
> Jason wrote:
>
>> Counter-proposal counter-argument:
>>
>> Rule 2162 uses similar phrasing for switch security:
>>
>>> A Rule that designates
>>>a switch as "secured" (at a given power level) designates changes
>>>to the properties of that type of switch as secured (at that power
>>>level) and designates changes to the value of each instance of the
>>>switch as secured (at that power level).
> This differs from the zero-fee clause because it's balanced, using
> "designates" on both sides, i.e. the other rule needs to have won any
> precedence battles already or else this doesn't kick in at all. Or
> there are rules that are passive on both sides, e.g. "To allow X is
> to allow Y". But the zero-fee clause was imbalanced, written more like
> "a rule that /purports/ to do X thereby /does/ do Y", which more
> commonly appears in the context of self-ratifying documents (where
> the intended subtext is to use this type of imbalance on purpose: even
> if the document "purporting to be the X's report" actually isn't, e.g.
> because we were wrong about who holds the office of X, we still intend
> it to self-ratify unless there's a timely CoE or CFJ about it).


So you think it should use the same verb on both sides? "A rule that
purports to provide a fee-based method with a fee of no assets for an
action instead purports to enable the performance of the action by
announcement."?

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Another proposal] Fee-based method fix

[Edward Murphy via agora-discussion]

Jason wrote:


Counter-proposal counter-argument:

Rule 2162 uses similar phrasing for switch security:


A Rule that designates
   a switch as "secured" (at a given power level) designates changes
   to the properties of that type of switch as secured (at that power
   level) and designates changes to the value of each instance of the
   switch as secured (at that power level).


This differs from the zero-fee clause because it's balanced, using
"designates" on both sides, i.e. the other rule needs to have won any
precedence battles already or else this doesn't kick in at all. Or
there are rules that are passive on both sides, e.g. "To allow X is
to allow Y". But the zero-fee clause was imbalanced, written more like
"a rule that /purports/ to do X thereby /does/ do Y", which more
commonly appears in the context of self-ratifying documents (where
the intended subtext is to use this type of imbalance on purpose: even
if the document "purporting to be the X's report" actually isn't, e.g.
because we were wrong about who holds the office of X, we still intend
it to self-ratify unless there's a timely CoE or CFJ about it).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Another proposal] Fee-based method fix

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 8/2/20 5:43 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 2020-08-02 19:56, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On 8/2/20 12:34 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
 Counter-proposal:

 Title: Empty the escalator
 Adoption index: 3.0
 Author: Falsifian
 Co-authors: Jason, omd
 {
 Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to destroy no assets
 are successful but have no direct effect." before the sentence that
 begins "An indestructible asset".

 Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to transfer no assets
 are successful but have no direct effect." before the sentence that
 begins "A fixed asset".

 Amend Rule 2579 by deleting the paragraph that ends with "0 or empty fee".
 }
>>> I withdraw the above proposal and submit a proposal as follows. (I
>>> removed "but have no direct effect" in two places since it seems vague
>>> and unnecessary.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Counter-proposal:
>>>
>>> Title: Empty the escalator v1.1
>>> Adoption index: 3.0
>>> Author: Falsifian
>>> Co-authors: Jason, omd
>>> {
>>> Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to destroy no assets
>>> are successful." before the sentence that begins "An indestructible asset".
>>>
>>> Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to transfer no assets
>>> are successful." before the sentence that begins "A fixed asset".
>>>
>>> Amend Rule 2579 by deleting the paragraph that ends with "0 or empty fee".
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>> Counter-proposal counter-argument:
>>
>> Rule 2162 uses similar phrasing for switch security:
>>
>>> A Rule that designates
>>>a switch as "secured" (at a given power level) designates changes
>>>to the properties of that type of switch as secured (at that power
>>>level) and designates changes to the value of each instance of the
>>>switch as secured (at that power level).
>>
>> The intent of that phrasing was to only allow rules to secure switches
>> up to their own power level and avoid escalation to power 3 (the power
>> of R2162). If you're right, the above is also broken. I think it's clear
>> enough that both are meant to be instructions for interpretation.
> The word "designates" seems more clearly to be about interpretation than 
> "enables".


That's fair, though I still think the language is similar enough to
function in the same way.


>
>> This phrasing was written to circumvent the outcome of CFJ 3734, which
>> found that, at the time, destruction of indestructible assets was at
>> power 3, even if the rule designating the asset as indestructible was at
>> a lower power (this is now avoided because the backing document of the
>> entire ruleset can permit destructibility, which means normal precedence
>> applies).
> CFJ 3734 was called and judged in June 2019, and I don't see any changes 
> to R2162 near that time. Are you thinking of Proposal 8187, which 
> amended R2577?
>

Yes, that's the one.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Another proposal] Fee-based method fix

[Falsifian via agora-discussion]

On 2020-08-02 19:56, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:

On 8/2/20 12:34 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:

Counter-proposal:

Title: Empty the escalator
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Falsifian
Co-authors: Jason, omd
{
Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to destroy no assets
are successful but have no direct effect." before the sentence that
begins "An indestructible asset".

Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to transfer no assets
are successful but have no direct effect." before the sentence that
begins "A fixed asset".

Amend Rule 2579 by deleting the paragraph that ends with "0 or empty fee".
}

I withdraw the above proposal and submit a proposal as follows. (I
removed "but have no direct effect" in two places since it seems vague
and unnecessary.)


Counter-proposal:

Title: Empty the escalator v1.1
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Falsifian
Co-authors: Jason, omd
{
Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to destroy no assets
are successful." before the sentence that begins "An indestructible asset".

Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to transfer no assets
are successful." before the sentence that begins "A fixed asset".

Amend Rule 2579 by deleting the paragraph that ends with "0 or empty fee".
}




Counter-proposal counter-argument:

Rule 2162 uses similar phrasing for switch security:


A Rule that designates
   a switch as "secured" (at a given power level) designates changes
   to the properties of that type of switch as secured (at that power
   level) and designates changes to the value of each instance of the
   switch as secured (at that power level).



The intent of that phrasing was to only allow rules to secure switches
up to their own power level and avoid escalation to power 3 (the power
of R2162). If you're right, the above is also broken. I think it's clear
enough that both are meant to be instructions for interpretation.


The word "designates" seems more clearly to be about interpretation than 
"enables".



This phrasing was written to circumvent the outcome of CFJ 3734, which
found that, at the time, destruction of indestructible assets was at
power 3, even if the rule designating the asset as indestructible was at
a lower power (this is now avoided because the backing document of the
entire ruleset can permit destructibility, which means normal precedence
applies).


CFJ 3734 was called and judged in June 2019, and I don't see any changes 
to R2162 near that time. Are you thinking of Proposal 8187, which 
amended R2577?


--
Falsifian

DIS: Re: BUS: [Another proposal] Fee-based method fix

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 8/2/20 12:34 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
>> Counter-proposal:
>>
>> Title: Empty the escalator
>> Adoption index: 3.0
>> Author: Falsifian
>> Co-authors: Jason, omd
>> {
>> Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to destroy no assets 
>> are successful but have no direct effect." before the sentence that 
>> begins "An indestructible asset".
>>
>> Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to transfer no assets 
>> are successful but have no direct effect." before the sentence that 
>> begins "A fixed asset".
>>
>> Amend Rule 2579 by deleting the paragraph that ends with "0 or empty fee".
>> }
> I withdraw the above proposal and submit a proposal as follows. (I 
> removed "but have no direct effect" in two places since it seems vague 
> and unnecessary.)
>
>
> Counter-proposal:
>
> Title: Empty the escalator v1.1
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Falsifian
> Co-authors: Jason, omd
> {
> Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to destroy no assets 
> are successful." before the sentence that begins "An indestructible asset".
>
> Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to transfer no assets 
> are successful." before the sentence that begins "A fixed asset".
>
> Amend Rule 2579 by deleting the paragraph that ends with "0 or empty fee".
> }
>
>

Counter-proposal counter-argument:

Rule 2162 uses similar phrasing for switch security:

> A Rule that designates
>   a switch as "secured" (at a given power level) designates changes
>   to the properties of that type of switch as secured (at that power
>   level) and designates changes to the value of each instance of the
>   switch as secured (at that power level).


The intent of that phrasing was to only allow rules to secure switches
up to their own power level and avoid escalation to power 3 (the power
of R2162). If you're right, the above is also broken. I think it's clear
enough that both are meant to be instructions for interpretation.

This phrasing was written to circumvent the outcome of CFJ 3734, which
found that, at the time, destruction of indestructible assets was at
power 3, even if the rule designating the asset as indestructible was at
a lower power (this is now avoided because the backing document of the
entire ruleset can permit destructibility, which means normal precedence
applies).

-- 
Jason Cobb

DIS: Re: BUS: Dipolnomic proposal

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 5:59 PM N. S. via agora-business
 wrote:
>
> I make the following diplonomic proposal named eat the rich
>
> Make the following rule 'after each build phase, the power with the most
> units has one of their units randomly destroyed'

I really dislike the randomness element. It's aesthetically and
strategically problematic.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Dipolnomic proposal

[N. S. via agora-discussion]

Damn, ull never know it was me

On Sun., 19 Jul. 2020, 11:02 am ATMunn via agora-discussion, <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 7/18/2020 8:58 PM, N. S. via agora-business wrote:
> > I make the following diplonomic proposal named eat the rich
> >
> > Make the following rule 'after each build phase, the power with the most
> > units has one of their units randomly destroyed'
> >
>
> This didn't create a proposal; proposals are only anonymous now.
>
> --
> ATMunn
> friendly neighborhood notary and Czar of Russia :)
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Dipolnomic proposal

[N. S. via agora-discussion]

Pss's interpretation

On Sun., 19 Jul. 2020, 11:00 am omd via agora-discussion, <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> at 5:58 PM, N. S. via agora-business 
> wrote:
>
> > I make the following diplonomic proposal named eat the rich
> >
> > Make the following rule 'after each build phase, the power with the most
> > units has one of their units randomly destroyed’
>
> What if there’s a tie?
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Dipolnomic proposal

[ATMunn via agora-discussion]

On 7/18/2020 8:58 PM, N. S. via agora-business wrote:

I make the following diplonomic proposal named eat the rich

Make the following rule 'after each build phase, the power with the most
units has one of their units randomly destroyed'



This didn't create a proposal; proposals are only anonymous now.

--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood notary and Czar of Russia :)

DIS: Re: BUS: Dipolnomic proposal

[omd via agora-discussion]

at 5:58 PM, N. S. via agora-business  wrote:


I make the following diplonomic proposal named eat the rich

Make the following rule 'after each build phase, the power with the most
units has one of their units randomly destroyed’


What if there’s a tie?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Diplonomic Proposal] Order Clarification

[Falsifian via agora-discussion]

On 2020-07-10 4:52 p.m., ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:

On 7/10/2020 12:21 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:

On 2020-07-10 4:19 p.m., Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:

On 2020-07-10 3:58 p.m., ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:

On 7/10/2020 11:54 AM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
A Convoy order orders a fleet in a water province to move an army 
from an adjacent coastal province to another adjacent coastal 
province. 


This seems to be saying a fleet can only help convoy an army 
between two coastal provinces that are adjacent to it, ruling out 
convoys that require multiple steps.




I wasn't sure what exactly to do about that. I see and agree with your
interpretation, but I also felt like just removing the word "adjacent"
could imply that the unit being convoyed doesn't have to be adjacent at
all. I guess that common sense takes over there, though.


I think the key is that success for the convoy is a global property 
depending on the set of undislodged fleets involved.


Here's an attempt to replace your last paragraph. Maybe it could be 
made shorter.


{
A Convoy order orders a fleet in a water province to move an army 
from one coastal province to another. All fleets that have convoy 
orders listing the same source and destination provinces are 
"participating" in that convoy, with the exception that if a fleet is 
dislodged, it is not participating. A convoy is successful if the 
army in question makes a move order consistent with that convoy, and 
the fleets participating in the convoy form an unbroken chain 
connecting the two coastal provinces. (Extra participating fleets / 
multiple chains are okay.) When a convoy is successful, the army's 
move order is interpreted as if the source and destination provinces 
were adjacent: for example, if the destination province is empty and 
no other unit is trying to move to it, then the army will move there.


Hm, maybe it should be clarified that support orders are interpreted 
this way too...


When a convoy is successful, that army's move order, and any support 
orders for that move, are interpreted as if the source and destination 
provinces were adjacent: for example, if the destination province 
holds one unsupported unit with a Hold order, and another army is 
supporting the move into the destination, then the move succeeds and 
dislodges that unsupported unit.




Seems good to me. Should I withdraw my original proposal or should I (or 
you) submit another one fixing it?


I guess yours is an improvement so how about one of us submits a 
proposal fixing yours? I don't know if I'll have time today so if you 
have time feel free.


--
Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Diplonomic Proposal] Order Clarification

[ATMunn via agora-discussion]

On 7/10/2020 12:21 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:

On 2020-07-10 4:19 p.m., Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:

On 2020-07-10 3:58 p.m., ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:

On 7/10/2020 11:54 AM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
A Convoy order orders a fleet in a water province to move an army 
from an adjacent coastal province to another adjacent coastal 
province. 


This seems to be saying a fleet can only help convoy an army between 
two coastal provinces that are adjacent to it, ruling out convoys 
that require multiple steps.




I wasn't sure what exactly to do about that. I see and agree with your
interpretation, but I also felt like just removing the word "adjacent"
could imply that the unit being convoyed doesn't have to be adjacent at
all. I guess that common sense takes over there, though.


I think the key is that success for the convoy is a global property 
depending on the set of undislodged fleets involved.


Here's an attempt to replace your last paragraph. Maybe it could be 
made shorter.


{
A Convoy order orders a fleet in a water province to move an army from 
one coastal province to another. All fleets that have convoy orders 
listing the same source and destination provinces are "participating" 
in that convoy, with the exception that if a fleet is dislodged, it is 
not participating. A convoy is successful if the army in question 
makes a move order consistent with that convoy, and the fleets 
participating in the convoy form an unbroken chain connecting the two 
coastal provinces. (Extra participating fleets / multiple chains are 
okay.) When a convoy is successful, the army's move order is 
interpreted as if the source and destination provinces were adjacent: 
for example, if the destination province is empty and no other unit is 
trying to move to it, then the army will move there.


Hm, maybe it should be clarified that support orders are interpreted 
this way too...


When a convoy is successful, that army's move order, and any support 
orders for that move, are interpreted as if the source and destination 
provinces were adjacent: for example, if the destination province holds 
one unsupported unit with a Hold order, and another army is supporting 
the move into the destination, then the move succeeds and dislodges that 
unsupported unit.




Seems good to me. Should I withdraw my original proposal or should I (or 
you) submit another one fixing it?


--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood russian notary here :)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Diplonomic Proposal] Order Clarification

[Falsifian via agora-discussion]

On 2020-07-10 4:19 p.m., Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:

On 2020-07-10 3:58 p.m., ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:

On 7/10/2020 11:54 AM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
A Convoy order orders a fleet in a water province to move an army 
from an adjacent coastal province to another adjacent coastal province. 


This seems to be saying a fleet can only help convoy an army between 
two coastal provinces that are adjacent to it, ruling out convoys 
that require multiple steps.




I wasn't sure what exactly to do about that. I see and agree with your
interpretation, but I also felt like just removing the word "adjacent"
could imply that the unit being convoyed doesn't have to be adjacent at
all. I guess that common sense takes over there, though.


I think the key is that success for the convoy is a global property 
depending on the set of undislodged fleets involved.


Here's an attempt to replace your last paragraph. Maybe it could be made 
shorter.


{
A Convoy order orders a fleet in a water province to move an army from 
one coastal province to another. All fleets that have convoy orders 
listing the same source and destination provinces are "participating" in 
that convoy, with the exception that if a fleet is dislodged, it is not 
participating. A convoy is successful if the army in question makes a 
move order consistent with that convoy, and the fleets participating in 
the convoy form an unbroken chain connecting the two coastal provinces. 
(Extra participating fleets / multiple chains are okay.) When a convoy 
is successful, the army's move order is interpreted as if the source and 
destination provinces were adjacent: for example, if the destination 
province is empty and no other unit is trying to move to it, then the 
army will move there.


Hm, maybe it should be clarified that support orders are interpreted 
this way too...


When a convoy is successful, that army's move order, and any support 
orders for that move, are interpreted as if the source and destination 
provinces were adjacent: for example, if the destination province holds 
one unsupported unit with a Hold order, and another army is supporting 
the move into the destination, then the move succeeds and dislodges that 
unsupported unit.



}




--
Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Diplonomic Proposal] Order Clarification

[Falsifian via agora-discussion]

On 2020-07-10 3:58 p.m., ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:

On 7/10/2020 11:54 AM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
A Convoy order orders a fleet in a water province to move an army 
from an adjacent coastal province to another adjacent coastal province. 


This seems to be saying a fleet can only help convoy an army between 
two coastal provinces that are adjacent to it, ruling out convoys that 
require multiple steps.




I wasn't sure what exactly to do about that. I see and agree with your
interpretation, but I also felt like just removing the word "adjacent"
could imply that the unit being convoyed doesn't have to be adjacent at
all. I guess that common sense takes over there, though.


I think the key is that success for the convoy is a global property 
depending on the set of undislodged fleets involved.


Here's an attempt to replace your last paragraph. Maybe it could be made 
shorter.


{
A Convoy order orders a fleet in a water province to move an army from 
one coastal province to another. All fleets that have convoy orders 
listing the same source and destination provinces are "participating" in 
that convoy, with the exception that if a fleet is dislodged, it is not 
participating. A convoy is successful if the army in question makes a 
move order consistent with that convoy, and the fleets participating in 
the convoy form an unbroken chain connecting the two coastal provinces. 
(Extra participating fleets / multiple chains are okay.) When a convoy 
is successful, the army's move order is interpreted as if the source and 
destination provinces were adjacent: for example, if the destination 
province is empty and no other unit is trying to move to it, then the 
army will move there.

}

--
Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Diplonomic Proposal] Order Clarification

[ATMunn via agora-discussion]

On 7/10/2020 11:54 AM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
A Convoy order orders a fleet in a water province to move an army from 
an adjacent coastal province to another adjacent coastal province. 


This seems to be saying a fleet can only help convoy an army between two 
coastal provinces that are adjacent to it, ruling out convoys that 
require multiple steps.




I wasn't sure what exactly to do about that. I see and agree with your
interpretation, but I also felt like just removing the word "adjacent"
could imply that the unit being convoyed doesn't have to be adjacent at
all. I guess that common sense takes over there, though.

--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood russian notary here :)

DIS: Re: BUS: [Diplonomic Proposal] Order Clarification

[Falsifian via agora-discussion]

A Convoy order orders a fleet in a water province to move an army from 
an adjacent coastal province to another adjacent coastal province. 


This seems to be saying a fleet can only help convoy an army between two 
coastal provinces that are adjacent to it, ruling out convoys that 
require multiple steps.


--
Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Diplonomic Proposal] Longer Order Period

[omd via agora-discussion]

at 12:41 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion  
 wrote:



This seems unnecessary? Rule 15 says "Orders CAN be submitted during
the negotiations
period and can be changed at any time when orders could be submitted.”


Sigh, I seem to be having a lot of “learn to read” moments lately...

DIS: Re: BUS: [Diplonomic Proposal] Longer Order Period

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 11:44 PM omd via agora-business
 wrote:
>
> I submit the following as a “Proposal to change these rules” as defined by
> the Diplonomic 2020 rules (but not as an Agoran proposal):
> {{
> In the following passage of Diplonomic rule 15, change "24:00” to “18:00”:
> {
> At the beginning of each turn, there is a period, lasting from 0:00
> UTC until 24:00 UTC on the same calendar day, in which negotiations
> should occur.
> }
> [This moves 6 hours from the negotiation period to the order-submitting
> period, making both 18 hours long, rather than 24 and 12 respectively.  The
> goal is to make it easier to avoid accidentally missing the
> order-submitting period, even if large chunks of it are taken up by, e.g.,
> sleeping hours or work hours.]

This seems unnecessary? Rule 15 says "Orders CAN be submitted during
the negotiations
period and can be changed at any time when orders could be submitted."

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [DoV] [Proposal] Closing the door behind me

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

Falsifian wrote:
>> hope that the economy gets reset or something

Also sorry: I was planning to try something hyper-inflationary on my
Agoran Birthday earlier this week, to try to force the need for a
reset (e.g. pledging to give back 2/3 of coins of anyone who gave me
them) but it's been a heck of a week over here and I just plum forgot.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [DoV] [Proposal] Closing the door behind me

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:55 AM James Cook via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 18:09, James Cook  wrote:
> > Are we just going to let a steady stream of sufficiently dedicated
> > players claim their standard victories? I say we raise the bar a
> > little.
>
> By the way, I don't mean for this comment to take away from G.'s
> victory. G. built quite a large balance over a long time, and eirs is
> the first Coin victory I've seen.
>
> Victory should be a rare and celebrated achievement. Now that someone
> has beaten the Coins game (and now that I've slipped a victory in too,
> thank you very much) let's close that and start on something new. I'll
> be voting for a fairly high fee in the hope that the economy gets
> reset or something before anyone reaches it.

An effect of victories that don't reset things for everyone is that
there's a long race for the first winner, but then lots of people are
close and cross the finish line relatively quickly after that.   If
you don't want a "glut" of winners (but also don't want a complete
reset of everyone upon a win), a couple interesting ideas (that we
haven't tried IIRC) are (1) an automatic increase in the threshold
when someone wins, which in this case would reduce the incentive to
just sit on a winning amount of coins until you feel like winning or
(2) actually formally recording in the Herald's Report, for a
particular type of win, who got 1st place, 2nd place, etc.

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [DoV] [Proposal] Closing the door behind me

[Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 14:55, James Cook via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 18:09, James Cook  wrote:
> > Are we just going to let a steady stream of sufficiently dedicated
> > players claim their standard victories? I say we raise the bar a
> > little.
>
> By the way, I don't mean for this comment to take away from G.'s
> victory. G. built quite a large balance over a long time, and eirs is
> the first Coin victory I've seen.
>
> Victory should be a rare and celebrated achievement. Now that someone
> has beaten the Coins game (and now that I've slipped a victory in too,
> thank you very much) let's close that and start on something new. I'll
> be voting for a fairly high fee in the hope that the economy gets
> reset or something before anyone reaches it.
>
> - Falsifian

I think that economic wins are a valuable and important part of the
game. I don't think we should necessarily change the mechanism every
time, but I do generally prefer to see them come with a built-in reset
(whole or partial). Wins where the goal is to amass a collection, like
Ribbons, are different sometimes, but I do like the idea that purely
economic activity-based wins should come with resets.

-Alexis

DIS: Re: BUS: [DoV] [Proposal] Closing the door behind me

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 18:09, James Cook  wrote:
> Are we just going to let a steady stream of sufficiently dedicated
> players claim their standard victories? I say we raise the bar a
> little.

By the way, I don't mean for this comment to take away from G.'s
victory. G. built quite a large balance over a long time, and eirs is
the first Coin victory I've seen.

Victory should be a rare and celebrated achievement. Now that someone
has beaten the Coins game (and now that I've slipped a victory in too,
thank you very much) let's close that and start on something new. I'll
be voting for a fairly high fee in the hope that the economy gets
reset or something before anyone reaches it.

- Falsifian

DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald][Proposal] Thesis award intent

[Jason Cobb]

On 10/31/19 6:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

Amend Rule 1367 (Degrees) by changing its power to 2.
[I've wondered for a while why we need this at 3!]


Per R105, changing the power of a Rule is a distinct action from 
amending it.



Also, thanks for setting up the peer-review and awarding :).

--
Jason Cobb

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent Proposal

[Aris Merchant]

Maybe try “does not appear to have known”? Otherwise, the gamestate depends
on someone’s actual mental state, which is impossible to determine given
the limits of current technology.

-Aris

On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 4:24 PM D. Margaux  wrote:

> Crap.
>
> I withdraw that proposal. I resubmit it with AI = 2 and author D. Margaux.
>
> > On May 26, 2019, at 7:23 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:
> >
> > I don’t think we should be fining people for actions unless they knew or
> should know they are violating the rules (what the criminal law calls a
> “guilty mind”).
> >
> > I submit a proposal:
> >
> > Title: Intent is Important
> >
> > In Rule 2531, in the list that follows this text:
> >
> > “Any attempt to levy a fine is INEFFECTIVE if:”
> >
> > Add the following text as paragraph 3:
> >
> > “(3) the perp did not know and reasonably should not be expected to have
> known that e violated the rules as a result of the action or inaction that
> is the reason for the levy;”
> >
> > And renumber the rest of the list accordingly.
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Proposal Versions

[Reuben Staley]

I understand the proposal is flawed but Telnaior is space-bullying me 
and this fixes my problem.


On 2/5/19 3:28 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:

I’m against the Space bullying thing because I believe it’s more
interesting if that was achieved via contracts and such. (Our own Geneva
Convention of a sort, maybe?)

It would harm the “free open world simulation” vibe that I enjoy from Space
Battles.

Also, a duo of players could still bypass this.

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 01:38, Reuben Staley  wrote:


Context for "version ∞" that I forgot to send in the previous email:
when I was going through all the proposals adding names I noticed a lot
of them had a version tacked onto the end of the title. I don't even
have a problem with versions being an informal system, but I like the
idea of them being out of the title; therefore this exists.

I also submit the following proposal, while I'm at it:

-
Title: No one likes a (space) bully
AI: 1
Author: Trigon
Co-authors:

Amend the paragraph beginning "A Space Battle CANNOT be initiated" in
Rule 2593 (Power=1) 'Space Battles' by removing the final period and
adding the following: "or if the prior Space Battle the spaceship
initiating the Space Battle has been in was against the spaceship it is
attacking."

On 2/4/19 5:27 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:

I submit the following proposal:

-
Title: version ∞
AI: 3
Author: Trigon
Co-authors:

Amend Rule 2350 (Power=3) 'Proposals' by adding an item to the bulleted
list:

* A version, which SHOULD only be used when a proposal has been
  retracted and another proposal has been created with a similar
  purpose.



--
Trigon



--
Trigon

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Proposal Versions

[Cuddle Beam]

I’m against the Space bullying thing because I believe it’s more
interesting if that was achieved via contracts and such. (Our own Geneva
Convention of a sort, maybe?)

It would harm the “free open world simulation” vibe that I enjoy from Space
Battles.

Also, a duo of players could still bypass this.

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 01:38, Reuben Staley  wrote:

> Context for "version ∞" that I forgot to send in the previous email:
> when I was going through all the proposals adding names I noticed a lot
> of them had a version tacked onto the end of the title. I don't even
> have a problem with versions being an informal system, but I like the
> idea of them being out of the title; therefore this exists.
>
> I also submit the following proposal, while I'm at it:
>
> -
> Title: No one likes a (space) bully
> AI: 1
> Author: Trigon
> Co-authors:
>
> Amend the paragraph beginning "A Space Battle CANNOT be initiated" in
> Rule 2593 (Power=1) 'Space Battles' by removing the final period and
> adding the following: "or if the prior Space Battle the spaceship
> initiating the Space Battle has been in was against the spaceship it is
> attacking."
>
> On 2/4/19 5:27 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > I submit the following proposal:
> >
> > -
> > Title: version ∞
> > AI: 3
> > Author: Trigon
> > Co-authors:
> >
> > Amend Rule 2350 (Power=3) 'Proposals' by adding an item to the bulleted
> > list:
> >
> >* A version, which SHOULD only be used when a proposal has been
> >  retracted and another proposal has been created with a similar
> >  purpose.
> >
>
> --
> Trigon
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Blotting Proposal

[Aris Merchant]

Sigh. I had something a bit broader than this that’s almost ready to post,
and I just hadn’t gotten to looking it over and sending it out. Sorry about
that. I wouldn’t suggest retracting this. I’ll post mine and we’ll see what
the response is like. Again, my apologies.

-Aris

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 5:22 PM D. Margaux  wrote:

> I submit and pend the following proposal:
>
> 
> Title: Criminal Justice Adjustments Act
> AI: 2
> Author: D Margaux
>
> [Purpose is to streamline and clarify the conditions under
> which fines can be imposed; make it possible to impose
> fines after 14 days when a finger is pointed within 14 days;
> and to clarify the time period for imposing fines when it is
> based on the failure to meet a deadline]
>
> Amend Rule 2531 (Referee Accountability) to replace this text:
>
> "Any attempt to levy a fine is INEFFECTIVE if it does not include
> (1) value of the fine in blots, (2) the name of the person being
> fined (the perp), and (3) the specific reason for the fine, or if
> it attempts to levy a fine on a person for an action or inaction
> which e (more likely than not) did not commit, or if it attempts
> to levy a fine for an action or inaction which is not prohibited
> by law, or if it attempts to levy a fine with a value which is
> blatantly and obviously unsuited to the conduct which constitutes
> the reason for its levy or to the person to which it is being
> levied, or if it is made more than 14 days after the conduct
> constituting the reason for the fine, or if it attempts to levy a
> fine to a player who has already been levied a fine for the
> conduct constituting the reason for the levy, or if it attempts to
> levy a fine on a zombie for an action that its master performed on
> its behalf."
>
> with this text:
>
> "Any attempt to levy a fine is INEFFECTIVE if:
>
>  (1) it does not include value of the fine in blots, the name
>  of the person being fined (the perp), and the specific
>  reason for the fine;
>
>  (2) it attempts to levy a fine on a person for an action or
>  inaction which e (more likely than not) did not commit;
>
>  (3) it attempts to levy a fine for an action or inaction
>  which is not prohibited by law;
>
>  (4) it attempts to levy a fine with a value that is blatantly
>  and obviously unsuited to the conduct which constitutes
>  the reason for its levy or to the person on whom it is
>  being levied;
>
>  (5) it attempts to levy a fine (i) by summary judgement more
>  than 14 days after the action constituting the reason
>  for the fine or (ii) based upon the investigation of
>  of a Finger that had been Pointed more than 14 days
>  after the action constituting the reason for the fine;
>
>  (6) it attempts to levy a fine on a player for failing to
>  take an action within the time period set by the Rules
>  and that time period had expired (i) more than 14 days
>  prior to the attempted fine, if the attempted fine is
>  imposed by summary judgement or (ii) more than 14 days
>  prior to the Pointed Finger, if the fine is imposed
>  based on an investigation of such Finger;
>
>  (7) it attempts to levy a fine on a player who has already
>  been fined for the conduct constituting the reason for
>  the levy; or
>
>  (8) it attempts to levy a fine on a zombie for an action
>  that its master performed on its behalf."
>
> --
> D. Margaux
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Blotting Proposal

[Rebecca]

The eighth point should be eir behalf, zombies are still people.

On Wed., 24 Oct. 2018, 11:22 am D. Margaux,  wrote:

> I submit and pend the following proposal:
>
> 
> Title: Criminal Justice Adjustments Act
> AI: 2
> Author: D Margaux
>
> [Purpose is to streamline and clarify the conditions under
> which fines can be imposed; make it possible to impose
> fines after 14 days when a finger is pointed within 14 days;
> and to clarify the time period for imposing fines when it is
> based on the failure to meet a deadline]
>
> Amend Rule 2531 (Referee Accountability) to replace this text:
>
> "Any attempt to levy a fine is INEFFECTIVE if it does not include
> (1) value of the fine in blots, (2) the name of the person being
> fined (the perp), and (3) the specific reason for the fine, or if
> it attempts to levy a fine on a person for an action or inaction
> which e (more likely than not) did not commit, or if it attempts
> to levy a fine for an action or inaction which is not prohibited
> by law, or if it attempts to levy a fine with a value which is
> blatantly and obviously unsuited to the conduct which constitutes
> the reason for its levy or to the person to which it is being
> levied, or if it is made more than 14 days after the conduct
> constituting the reason for the fine, or if it attempts to levy a
> fine to a player who has already been levied a fine for the
> conduct constituting the reason for the levy, or if it attempts to
> levy a fine on a zombie for an action that its master performed on
> its behalf."
>
> with this text:
>
> "Any attempt to levy a fine is INEFFECTIVE if:
>
>  (1) it does not include value of the fine in blots, the name
>  of the person being fined (the perp), and the specific
>  reason for the fine;
>
>  (2) it attempts to levy a fine on a person for an action or
>  inaction which e (more likely than not) did not commit;
>
>  (3) it attempts to levy a fine for an action or inaction
>  which is not prohibited by law;
>
>  (4) it attempts to levy a fine with a value that is blatantly
>  and obviously unsuited to the conduct which constitutes
>  the reason for its levy or to the person on whom it is
>  being levied;
>
>  (5) it attempts to levy a fine (i) by summary judgement more
>  than 14 days after the action constituting the reason
>  for the fine or (ii) based upon the investigation of
>  of a Finger that had been Pointed more than 14 days
>  after the action constituting the reason for the fine;
>
>  (6) it attempts to levy a fine on a player for failing to
>  take an action within the time period set by the Rules
>  and that time period had expired (i) more than 14 days
>  prior to the attempted fine, if the attempted fine is
>  imposed by summary judgement or (ii) more than 14 days
>  prior to the Pointed Finger, if the fine is imposed
>  based on an investigation of such Finger;
>
>  (7) it attempts to levy a fine on a player who has already
>  been fined for the conduct constituting the reason for
>  the levy; or
>
>  (8) it attempts to levy a fine on a zombie for an action
>  that its master performed on its behalf."
>
> --
> D. Margaux
>

DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] proposal reward

[Kerim Aydin]

I didn't remind the new Herald that this could be done and it's timed
out I'm afraid... if the Herald wants to try again.

On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Silver Quill works poorly as an election process, but it's a good title
> when deserved.
> 
> I announce intent, w/2 Agoran Consent, to award the Patent Title of 
> Silver Quill 2017 to nichdel, for proposal 7867 'Economics Overhaul v2',
> adopted 30 July 2017.  This created the Stamps for Shinies system that
> dominated play in the fall and drove us all to complete distraction,
> which fits the standard "most greatly influenced that year of play."
> 
> [If the above gets decent support, I plan to amend the Silver Quill
> Rule to be something the Herald awards with 2 consent once per year,
> rather than an election - the elections have also been lackluster/
> quorum-failing].

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resubmitted Proposal: Hopefully routine fixes

[Edward Murphy]

Aris wrote:


This doesn't take Eastman weeks into account.


Bah. Anyone should feel free to submit a fixed version of that part.

DIS: Re: BUS: Resubmitted Proposal: Hopefully routine fixes

[Aris Merchant]

This doesn't take Eastman weeks into account.

-Aris

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Edward Murphy  wrote:
> I AP-pend the following proposal (repeat of 7996 which failed quorum).
>
> Proposal: Hopefully routine fixes
> (AI = 3)
>
> Amend Rule 991 (Calls for Judgement) by replacing "the Arbitor CAN
> assign any player" with "the Arbitor CAN assign any eligible player".
>
> Amend Rule 2529 (Medals of Honour) by replacing this text:
>
>   In the first 7 days of an Agoran month after the first 7 days, if
>   there are any players who are eligible for a Medal of Honour,
>
> with this text:
>
>   In the first 7 days of an Agoran month after the first 7 days, if
>   there are any players who correctly announced their eligibility
>   that month as specified above,
>
> Amend Rule 2160 (Deputisation) by replacing this text:
>
>   When a player deputises via normal deputisation for an elected
>   office, e becomes the holder of that office.
>
> with this text:
>
>   When a player deputises via normal deputisation for an elected
>   office, e becomes the holder of that office, unless the action
>   being performed would already install someone into that office.
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Dumb proposal

[Alexis Hunt]

I still object.

On Sat, Nov 18, 2017, 17:13 VJ Rada,  wrote:

> Actually my intent was ineffective (no reason given).
>
> Let's try again: I intend to call in ATMunn's pledge stating e will pend or
> retract eir proposal in 7 days, with Agoran consent, for the reason that e
> did neither within the time given.
>
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>
> > I object.
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017, 17:07 VJ Rada,  wrote:
> >
> > > I object and intend to call in the pledge with Agoran consent.
> > >
> > > On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 9:04 AM, ATMunn 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I intend to retract this pledge without objection.
> > > > Please don't try to call it in kthxbye
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 11/6/2017 12:50 PM, ATMunn wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I pledge to either pend or withdraw the below proposal before the
> > > >> beginning of the next Agoran week.
> > > >>
> > > >> I submit the following proposal:
> > > >>
> > > >> Title: "But I already live there!"
> > > >> AI: 1
> > > >>
> > > >> Amend rule 2474 "Green Cards" by replacing the text "the United
> > States"
> > > >> with "Brazil".
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > From V.J. Rada
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Draft: [Proposal] Auctions v3

[ATMunn]

Okay, so I was thinking about what sort of penalty should be incurred
for bidding more shinies than you have and still not having them by the
end of the auction. My thinking is somehow managing to put an MMI term
in there to allow it to be carded, and also adding some sort of fee.
The problem with rule-defined punishments like this is that, what if
the Referee decides to issue a Blue Card? Then there's already a fee.

I'd like your thoughts on what to do with this, and also your
thoughts on the rest of the proposal.

On 11/5/2017 12:24 PM, ATMunn wrote:

We're on the way to more drafts than Contracts!

Title: Auctions v3
Author: ATMunn
Co-author(s): Aris, nichdel, G.
AI: 2

In this draft, numbers enclosed in square brackets (e.g. [1], [2], [3],
etc.) indicate footnotes which are written at the bottom. These will
not be in the final proposal.

---

Create a power-2 rule titled "Auctions"
{
 An Auction is a way for entities to give away items in exchange for
 Shinies. Any rule or contract may permit (or require) auctions to
 be initiated.

 Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, all auctions must have all
 of the following, otherwise the initiation is INVALID:
     * An Auctioneer,
     * An auction announcer,
     * A lot of items to be auctioned off,
     * And a starting bid.
}

Create a power-1 rule titled "Lots"
{
 A lot is a set of fungible items that will be given away in the
 same auction. Each auction may only have 1 lot of items. The
 exact definition of item is left up to the rule or contract
 permitting the auction. However, assets are always valid items.
}

Create a power-1 rule titled "The Auctioneer"
{
 The Auctioneer of an auction is the entity that initiates an
 auction, and describes all of the specifics of an auction. All
 rules or contracts permitting auctions to be initiated should
 specify an entity to be Auctioneer. If no Auctioneer is specified,
 it defaults to Agora for rule-defined auctions, and the contract
 permitting the initiation for contracts-defined auctions.

 Contracts SHALL NOT[1] specify an entity as Auctioneer of any
 auction if that entity is not the contract or a party of the
 contract. The Auctioneer also must, at the initiation of the
 auction, be able to give away all items it is auctioning, otherwise
 the initiation is INVALID.
}

Create a power-1 rule titled "The Auction Announcer"
{
 The announcer of the initiation of an auction is known as the
 auction's announcer. The announcer must be a person. If the
 Auctioneer of an auction is a player, then that player is also the
 announcer of the auction. Otherwise, the rule or contract
 permitting the initiation of the auction must define its announcer.
 Contracts SHALL NOT[1] specify a person as auction announcer of any
 auction if that person is not a party of the contract.
}

Create a power-1 rule titled "Auction Initiation"
{
 When an auction is to be initiated, the announcer of the auction
 SHALL, in a timely fashion, announce the initiation of the auction.
 In the same message, the announcer SHALL specify the Auctioneer,
 the items being auctioned, and the starting bid, or the
 announcement is INEFFECTIVE. An auction can only be initiated as
 described by the rule or contract that permitted it.
}

Create a power-1 rule titled "Bidding"
{
 Once an auction is initiated, any player CAN bid on the auction by
 announcement, specifying the amount of shinies e bids.

 The above statement notwithstanding, if a contract specifies that
 only its party members can bid on an auction, then players who are
 not parties of that contract CANNOT bid on the auction.

 Players may bid multiple times. An attempt to bid on an auction
 that has already ended is INEFFECTIVE.

 Any player CAN withdraw any of eir bids at any time by
 announcement.
}

Create a power-1 rule titled "Auction End"
{
 If, at any time, no bids have been made on an auction in the last
 96 hours, or it has been 7 days since the initiation of an auction,
 the auction ends and no more bids can be made.

 Once the auction has ended, the auction's announcer SHALL announce
 the end of the auction in a timely fashion. In the same message, e
 SHALL include the a list of all the bids on the auction and the
 winner(s) (if there are any) of the auction.

 If the lot of an auction only contains one item, the winner is the
 player who bid the highest amount on the auction. However, if that
 player does not currently own the amount of shinies e bid, then the
 player who bid the second highest amount becomes the winner. If
 that player also does not own the amount of shinies e bid, the
 winner goes to the next highest bidder. This continues until a
 winner is decided or