Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday Tournament Fix

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 2:46 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
>
> On 7/4/2020 2:09 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > On 7/4/20 3:52 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> >>
> >> On 7/4/2020 12:40 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:
> >>>   Unless
> >>>   explicitly permitted by the Diplonomic 2020 rules, all Contestants
> >>>   SHALL NOT make use of loopholes in the underlying game of
> >>>   Diplomacy in order to gain a competitive advantage.
> >>
> >> I'm a little puzzled/concerned about this bit.  We're introducing
> >> proposals to modify these rules and therefore reading these rules closely,
> >> and it doesn't seem right to forbid that?  Are there specific types of
> >> loopholes in Diplomacy (a game with very very stable rules for a long
> >> time) that you're trying to prevent us from using?
> >
> > My thinking was not to prevent paradoxes or that sort of thing, but more
> > an instance where an unexpected interaction between two rules is
> > intentionally used to get an advantage. I also don't intend for this to
> > apply to any modified rules but only the initial text I draft and the
> > original rules of Diplomacy because those aren't really written as part
> > of the game. If there's strong opposition, I'll drop it.
>
> I'm not super-bothered - was thinking that, with Diplomacy being around a
> long time and having a lot of advice out on the internet, I could imagine
> someone finding an article that said "I bet you didn't know you could do
> this counterintuitive move in Diplomacy, which might not have been
> intended by the original authors, but try surprising your enemies with
> it!" or something, and wouldn't want anyone to find themselves Blotted for
> trying that kind of thing.


I'm actually more bothered. twg's thesis convinced me that flat out
prohibitions on scamming are a Bad Thing. I don't mind if the judge
equities eir way around the scam. However, criminalizing it makes me
very uncomfortable. Normally I'd object, but I don't want to hold
things up. I'm not sure whether the correct way to handle it is a
separate intent from P.S.S. or a proposal within the tournament once
it gets going?

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday Tournament Fix

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

On 7/4/20 5:45 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> 
> On 7/4/2020 2:09 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> On 7/4/20 3:52 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
>>>
>>> On 7/4/2020 12:40 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:
   Unless
   explicitly permitted by the Diplonomic 2020 rules, all Contestants
   SHALL NOT make use of loopholes in the underlying game of
   Diplomacy in order to gain a competitive advantage.
>>>
>>> I'm a little puzzled/concerned about this bit.  We're introducing
>>> proposals to modify these rules and therefore reading these rules closely,
>>> and it doesn't seem right to forbid that?  Are there specific types of
>>> loopholes in Diplomacy (a game with very very stable rules for a long
>>> time) that you're trying to prevent us from using?
>>
>> My thinking was not to prevent paradoxes or that sort of thing, but more
>> an instance where an unexpected interaction between two rules is
>> intentionally used to get an advantage. I also don't intend for this to
>> apply to any modified rules but only the initial text I draft and the
>> original rules of Diplomacy because those aren't really written as part
>> of the game. If there's strong opposition, I'll drop it.
> 
> I'm not super-bothered - was thinking that, with Diplomacy being around a
> long time and having a lot of advice out on the internet, I could imagine
> someone finding an article that said "I bet you didn't know you could do
> this counterintuitive move in Diplomacy, which might not have been
> intended by the original authors, but try surprising your enemies with
> it!" or something, and wouldn't want anyone to find themselves Blotted for
> trying that kind of thing.

Things like that aren't intended to be prohibited by this. I mean
something where they find a loophole that could allow them to duplicate
armies or other things which clearly violate the spirit of the game. Do
you think there's a better phrasing?

-- 

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate
Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday Tournament Fix

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 7/4/2020 2:09 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> On 7/4/20 3:52 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
>>
>> On 7/4/2020 12:40 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:
>>>   Unless
>>>   explicitly permitted by the Diplonomic 2020 rules, all Contestants
>>>   SHALL NOT make use of loopholes in the underlying game of
>>>   Diplomacy in order to gain a competitive advantage.
>>
>> I'm a little puzzled/concerned about this bit.  We're introducing
>> proposals to modify these rules and therefore reading these rules closely,
>> and it doesn't seem right to forbid that?  Are there specific types of
>> loopholes in Diplomacy (a game with very very stable rules for a long
>> time) that you're trying to prevent us from using?
> 
> My thinking was not to prevent paradoxes or that sort of thing, but more
> an instance where an unexpected interaction between two rules is
> intentionally used to get an advantage. I also don't intend for this to
> apply to any modified rules but only the initial text I draft and the
> original rules of Diplomacy because those aren't really written as part
> of the game. If there's strong opposition, I'll drop it.

I'm not super-bothered - was thinking that, with Diplomacy being around a
long time and having a lot of advice out on the internet, I could imagine
someone finding an article that said "I bet you didn't know you could do
this counterintuitive move in Diplomacy, which might not have been
intended by the original authors, but try surprising your enemies with
it!" or something, and wouldn't want anyone to find themselves Blotted for
trying that kind of thing.

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday Tournament Fix

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

On 7/4/20 3:52 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> 
> On 7/4/2020 12:40 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:
>>   Unless
>>   explicitly permitted by the Diplonomic 2020 rules, all Contestants
>>   SHALL NOT make use of loopholes in the underlying game of
>>   Diplomacy in order to gain a competitive advantage.
> 
> I'm a little puzzled/concerned about this bit.  We're introducing
> proposals to modify these rules and therefore reading these rules closely,
> and it doesn't seem right to forbid that?  Are there specific types of
> loopholes in Diplomacy (a game with very very stable rules for a long
> time) that you're trying to prevent us from using?

My thinking was not to prevent paradoxes or that sort of thing, but more
an instance where an unexpected interaction between two rules is
intentionally used to get an advantage. I also don't intend for this to
apply to any modified rules but only the initial text I draft and the
original rules of Diplomacy because those aren't really written as part
of the game. If there's strong opposition, I'll drop it.


-- 

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate
Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday Tournament Fix

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 7/4/2020 1:00 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 12:56 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 
>>
>> On 7/4/2020 12:40 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:
>>>   Unless
>>>   explicitly permitted by the Diplonomic 2020 rules, all Contestants
>>>   SHALL NOT make use of loopholes in the underlying game of
>>>   Diplomacy in order to gain a competitive advantage.
>>
>> I'm a little puzzled/concerned about this bit.  We're introducing
>> proposals to modify these rules and therefore reading these rules closely,
>> and it doesn't seem right to forbid that?  Are there specific types of
>> loopholes in Diplomacy (a game with very very stable rules for a long
>> time) that you're trying to prevent us from using?
> 
> 
> There's at least one well known way to get the standard diplomacy rules to
> generate a paradox (Pandin's paradox). That said, I think it generally
> speaking makes more sense to have the gamemaster adjudicate the problem
> into non-existence than to impose a SHALL NOT on the contestants.

oh the convoy thing!  There's several little movement edge cases like
that.  But they also rely on what the opponent does, so it's not "I'm
trying to use an unintended loophole" but "my normal moves and the
opponents' normal moves have given rise to an edge-case conflict, and the
rules are silent on who has priority."  So yeah, the sort of thing the
gamemaster should just house rule on, not a SHALL NOT.

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday Tournament Fix

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 12:56 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
> On 7/4/2020 12:40 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:
> >   Unless
> >   explicitly permitted by the Diplonomic 2020 rules, all Contestants
> >   SHALL NOT make use of loopholes in the underlying game of
> >   Diplomacy in order to gain a competitive advantage.
>
> I'm a little puzzled/concerned about this bit.  We're introducing
> proposals to modify these rules and therefore reading these rules closely,
> and it doesn't seem right to forbid that?  Are there specific types of
> loopholes in Diplomacy (a game with very very stable rules for a long
> time) that you're trying to prevent us from using?


There's at least one well known way to get the standard diplomacy rules to
generate a paradox (Pandin's paradox). That said, I think it generally
speaking makes more sense to have the gamemaster adjudicate the problem
into non-existence than to impose a SHALL NOT on the contestants.

-Aris

>

DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday Tournament Fix

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 7/4/2020 12:40 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:
>   Unless
>   explicitly permitted by the Diplonomic 2020 rules, all Contestants
>   SHALL NOT make use of loopholes in the underlying game of
>   Diplomacy in order to gain a competitive advantage.

I'm a little puzzled/concerned about this bit.  We're introducing
proposals to modify these rules and therefore reading these rules closely,
and it doesn't seem right to forbid that?  Are there specific types of
loopholes in Diplomacy (a game with very very stable rules for a long
time) that you're trying to prevent us from using?

-G.

DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday Tournament Regulations v1.1

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

On 6/29/20 9:52 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
> 
> On 6/29/2020 10:22 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> I intend, Without 3 Objections, to enact the following — modified from
>> previous Birthday regulations and a variety of rulesets for Diplomacy,
>> primarily those of EPCC [0] and the official rules [1] and corrected
>> according to feedback — as the regulations for this year's Birthday
>> Tournament.
> 
> I support!
> 
> 
> Finally got to read this, some small comments:
> 
>> If fewer than seven persons have become Contestants,
>> the Gamemaster CAN replace the text of these regulations with
>> appropriate regulations for a Nomic-inspired game, such as FRC, an
>> experimental Nomic, or a sub-Nomic.
> 
> I love the fact that this could morph into any game.

Hopefully, we won't need this, but it's good to have.

> 
>> The judge SHOULD award a badge to all participants in
>> the Tournament, broadly construed, after the conclusion of the
>> Tournament unless it has not been completed in a satisfactory manner.
> 
> Traditionally, for badges we've also included non-members who watch and
> actively comment.

That's my intent is "broadly construed".

> 
>> were made with arbitrary or capricious disregard for the terms of these
> 
> Yay, administrative law!
> 
>> 7. Contestants may seek the assistance of non-Contestants. 
> 
> (e.g. such helpers should get the badge too)

See above.

> 
>> When a Proposal has received a number of
>> non-withdrawn votes in favor greater than half the number of
>> Contestants, the Judge SHALL, in a timely fashion, and CAN enact the
>> proposal by publishing the new text of the regulations and the number of
>> votes in favor and against. The Judge SHALL NOT reveal the votes of
>> specific Contestants.
> 
> Since this isn't synced to moves, it would be great if the judge would
> make a policy of being clear about the timing of this ahead of time, the
> judge could have a huge impact just by deciding to enact a proposal before
> versus after movement.  You did that a little bit on the section about
> orders timing, but that still leaves the judge a lot of leeway.

I've intentionally left it open, but my plan is to enact any proposal
that is passed before the close of orders before processing orders.

-- 

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate
Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday Tournament Regulations

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

On 6/28/20 9:43 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> Sorry, I didn't get around to reading these until now. Thanks for
> going to the effort to write these! Comments inline.
> 
>> 4. The judge is the final arbitor on matters of this tournament, and eir
>> decisions can overturned if and only if a CFJ finds eir decisions were
> 
> "can overturned"

Fixed.

> 
>> 8. At any time, any Contestant CAN submit a Proposal to change the rules
>> by announcement. Any Contestant CAN withdraw any Proposal e has
>> submitted by announcement. When a Proposal has been submitted but not
>> withdrawn, any Contestant other than the Proposer CAN privately send a
>> vote to the Judge. When a Proposal has received at least three
>> non-withdrawn votes in favor, the Judge SHALL, in a timely fashion, and
>> CAN enact the proposal by publishing the new text of the regulations and
>> the number of votes in favor and against. The Judge SHALL NOT reveal the
>> votes of specific Contestants.
> 
> Will this bog down the game once four players are eliminated from the
> board but have majority voting power?

Yes, so I've modified it.

> 
>> 10. Contestants SHALL NOT offer favors outside of this Tournament in
>> order to influence the outcome of it. Contestants CAN and SHOULD lie and
>> engage in deceit for personal gain.
> 
> I think it would be good to forbid pledges, contracts or any other
> enforcable agreements too.

Added.

> 
>> 16. Each turn represents six months of time. The first turn is called a
>> Spring turn and the next a Fall turn. After each Fall turn, each Great
>> Power must reconcile the number of units it controls with the number of
>> supply centers it controls. At this time some units are removed and new
>> ones are built. After a Fall turn, if one Great Power controls 18 or
>> more supply centers, all other Contestants cease to be Contestants.
> 
> Maybe add "as specified elsewhere in these regulations" after "new
> ones are built"? I was confused when I first read this regulation that
> it's e.g. missing the requirement that you only build at home.

Added.

> 
> Also, I didn't realize I'm supposed to include this as conditionals in
> my orders for the turn until re-reading. You might want to remind
> players.

I'll include a reminder.

> 
>> 19. If two units of equal strength or which are equally supported are
>> trying to occupy the same province, all remain where they began. If two
>> or more units are ordered to the same province, none of them can move.
> 
> Shouldn't the one with more support win?

Yes, fixed

> 
>> If two units are each ordered to the province that the other occupies,
>> neither can move.
> 
> Same (or is my Diplomacy knowledge rusty?)

My understanding is that this is correct.

> 
>> If an attack is successful, the attacking unit moves
>> into the province to which it was ordered. If the unit that was attacked
>> had no orders of its own to move elsewhere, it’s defeated and dislodged
>> from the province. The dislodged unit must retreat or be disbanded.
> 
> "Attack" isn't defined. Would it make sense to phrase more neutrally
> in terms of "move"?
> 
> - Falsifian
> 

These changes are significant enough that I'll do a new version, my
apologies for rushing this, but I'll allow more discussion first.

-- 

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate
Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth

DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday Tournament Regulations

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

Sorry, I didn't get around to reading these until now. Thanks for
going to the effort to write these! Comments inline.

> 4. The judge is the final arbitor on matters of this tournament, and eir
> decisions can overturned if and only if a CFJ finds eir decisions were

"can overturned"

> 8. At any time, any Contestant CAN submit a Proposal to change the rules
> by announcement. Any Contestant CAN withdraw any Proposal e has
> submitted by announcement. When a Proposal has been submitted but not
> withdrawn, any Contestant other than the Proposer CAN privately send a
> vote to the Judge. When a Proposal has received at least three
> non-withdrawn votes in favor, the Judge SHALL, in a timely fashion, and
> CAN enact the proposal by publishing the new text of the regulations and
> the number of votes in favor and against. The Judge SHALL NOT reveal the
> votes of specific Contestants.

Will this bog down the game once four players are eliminated from the
board but have majority voting power?

> 10. Contestants SHALL NOT offer favors outside of this Tournament in
> order to influence the outcome of it. Contestants CAN and SHOULD lie and
> engage in deceit for personal gain.

I think it would be good to forbid pledges, contracts or any other
enforcable agreements too.

> 16. Each turn represents six months of time. The first turn is called a
> Spring turn and the next a Fall turn. After each Fall turn, each Great
> Power must reconcile the number of units it controls with the number of
> supply centers it controls. At this time some units are removed and new
> ones are built. After a Fall turn, if one Great Power controls 18 or
> more supply centers, all other Contestants cease to be Contestants.

Maybe add "as specified elsewhere in these regulations" after "new
ones are built"? I was confused when I first read this regulation that
it's e.g. missing the requirement that you only build at home.

Also, I didn't realize I'm supposed to include this as conditionals in
my orders for the turn until re-reading. You might want to remind
players.

> 19. If two units of equal strength or which are equally supported are
> trying to occupy the same province, all remain where they began. If two
> or more units are ordered to the same province, none of them can move.

Shouldn't the one with more support win?

> If two units are each ordered to the province that the other occupies,
> neither can move.

Same (or is my Diplomacy knowledge rusty?)

> If an attack is successful, the attacking unit moves
> into the province to which it was ordered. If the unit that was attacked
> had no orders of its own to move elsewhere, it’s defeated and dislodged
> from the province. The dislodged unit must retreat or be disbanded.

"Attack" isn't defined. Would it make sense to phrase more neutrally
in terms of "move"?

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday Tournament Regulations

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

On 6/28/20 8:31 PM, omd via agora-discussion wrote:
> 
>> The Gamemaster CAN, by announcement, amend
>> the  gamestate by substituting one Contestant into all instances of
>> another  Contestant.
> 
> Extra space, and it’s pretty unclear what this means.

It's intended to allow me to replace a Contestant who disappears.

> 
>> the  victor is (1) the last contestant remaining.
> 
> Extra space, and what’s the (1) doing there?

I believe that it specifies that that there is one such person.

> 
>> they  SHALL notify the Judge and publicly announce the identities of any
> 
> Extra space
> 
>> 8. At any time, any Contestant CAN submit a Proposal to change the rules
> 
> s/rules/regulations
> 
>> lasting from 0 UTC
>> until 24  UTC
>> 12 UTC
>> 24 UTC
> 
> Extra space, and shouldn’t these have :00 appended?

I don't think it's necessary, but I could add it.

> 
>> Not
>> giving a  unit
> 
> space
> 

For the extra spaces, I don't think it's a major concern, so I'll only
fix them if other issues arise..

-- 

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate
Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth

DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday Tournament Regulations

[omd via agora-discussion]

> The Gamemaster CAN, by announcement, amend
> the  gamestate by substituting one Contestant into all instances of
> another  Contestant.

Extra space, and it’s pretty unclear what this means.

> the  victor is (1) the last contestant remaining.

Extra space, and what’s the (1) doing there?

> they  SHALL notify the Judge and publicly announce the identities of any

Extra space

> 8. At any time, any Contestant CAN submit a Proposal to change the rules

s/rules/regulations

> lasting from 0 UTC
> until 24  UTC
> 12 UTC
> 24 UTC

Extra space, and shouldn’t these have :00 appended?

> Not
> giving a  unit

space

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday Tournament

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

As Herald, I would be happy to run an additional Blitz Nomic game separate from 
this.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Jun 28, 2017, at 3:53 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2017, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>> Haven't interacted with Agora for a while, but I remembered Agora's birthday 
>> was coming up
>> and wanted to see what was going on with that. Maybe I've just been out of 
>> the loop for too
>> long, but this birthday tournament spawned out of a very successful blitz 
>> nomic we had for
>> the 20th birthday in 2013. Tons of old timers came back and it was a great 
>> time. It was so
>> much fun that we decided to do it every year, and so put it in the rules and 
>> created the
>> birthday holiday to facilitate it.
>> 
>> But now I'm checking and this proposed rule set isn't even a nomic...? Agora 
>> is a nomic.
>> We're all here because we like nomics. I came back to get some expedited 
>> nomic fix.
> 
> Hey Yally!
> 
> I don't think we ever ran another sub-nomic like that.  And I don't think we 
> put it
> in the rules at the time (at least, I can't find one!)
> 
> Unfortunately we kind of crashed and burned into a period of low activity in 
> late 2013
> (lasting by some measures until early 2017).
> 
> We didn't codify the idea of a birthday tournament until last year (after the 
> birthday),
> and just described it as a "sub-game with regulations" but not necessarily a 
> "sub-nomic".
> 
> In terms of a "fix", this tournament is an opportunity for a cut-throat 
> secret negotiation
> game - we haven't had one in a long time so that's another type of activity 
> to get a
> "fix" of, even if it's not strictly nomic.
> 
> -G.
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday Tournament

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 28 Jun 2017, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Haven't interacted with Agora for a while, but I remembered Agora's birthday 
> was coming up 
> and wanted to see what was going on with that. Maybe I've just been out of 
> the loop for too 
> long, but this birthday tournament spawned out of a very successful blitz 
> nomic we had for 
> the 20th birthday in 2013. Tons of old timers came back and it was a great 
> time. It was so
> much fun that we decided to do it every year, and so put it in the rules and 
> created the
> birthday holiday to facilitate it.
>
> But now I'm checking and this proposed rule set isn't even a nomic...? Agora 
> is a nomic. 
> We're all here because we like nomics. I came back to get some expedited 
> nomic fix.

Hey Yally!

I don't think we ever ran another sub-nomic like that.  And I don't think we 
put it
in the rules at the time (at least, I can't find one!)

Unfortunately we kind of crashed and burned into a period of low activity in 
late 2013 
(lasting by some measures until early 2017).

We didn't codify the idea of a birthday tournament until last year (after the 
birthday),
and just described it as a "sub-game with regulations" but not necessarily a 
"sub-nomic".

In terms of a "fix", this tournament is an opportunity for a cut-throat secret 
negotiation
game - we haven't had one in a long time so that's another type of activity to 
get a
"fix" of, even if it's not strictly nomic.

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday Tournament

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I was not aware that was the intent of this rules, so this is what I came up 
with. I used this because we were discussing the idea and I thought this would 
be a good dry run.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Jun 28, 2017, at 2:32 PM, Aaron Goldfein  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, June 26, 2017, CuddleBeam  wrote:
> >No, it only allows me to limit eir game actions because it only allows
> internal actions, if you look at the rules.
> 
> ...I don't see that. Maybe I'm missing something though - in which case, 
> please point out what I'm missing. What I'm finding is:
> 
> "However, the Herald may remove participants or limit eir actions at eir
> discretion"
> 
> without any explicit limitations to what those actions are.
> 
> Haven't interacted with Agora for a while, but I remembered Agora's birthday 
> was coming up and wanted to see what was going on with that. Maybe I've just 
> been out of the loop for too long, but this birthday tournament spawned out 
> of a very successful blitz nomic we had for the 20th birthday in 2013. Tons 
> of old timers came back and it was a great time. It was so much fun that we 
> decided to do it every year, and so put it in the rules and created the 
> birthday holiday to facilitate it.
> 
> But now I'm checking and this proposed rule set isn't even a nomic...? Agora 
> is a nomic. We're all here because we like nomics. I came back to get some 
> expedited nomic fix.
> 
> Did you guys all get sick of blitz nomics over the last few years so you 
> decided to do this instead. Am I missing something and this tournament 
> actually is a nomic? If not, can we make it a nomic?
> 
> -Yally
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday Tournament

[Aaron Goldfein]

On Monday, June 26, 2017, CuddleBeam > wrote:

> >No, it only allows me to limit eir game actions because it only allows
>
> internal actions, if you look at the rules.
>
>
> ...I don't see that. Maybe I'm missing something though - in which case, 
> please point out what I'm missing. What I'm finding is:
>
>
> "However, the Herald may remove participants or limit eir actions at eir
>
> discretion"
>
>
> without any explicit limitations to what those actions are.
>
>
Haven't interacted with Agora for a while, but I remembered Agora's
birthday was coming up and wanted to see what was going on with that. Maybe
I've just been out of the loop for too long, but this birthday tournament
spawned out of a very successful blitz nomic we had for the 20th birthday
in 2013. Tons of old timers came back and it was a great time. It was so
much fun that we decided to do it every year, and so put it in the rules
and created the birthday holiday to facilitate it.

But now I'm checking and this proposed rule set isn't even a
nomic...? Agora is a nomic. We're all here because we like nomics. I came
back to get some expedited nomic fix.

Did you guys all get sick of blitz nomics over the last few years so you
decided to do this instead. Am I missing something and this tournament
actually is a nomic? If not, can we make it a nomic?

-Yally

Re: Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday Tournament

[CuddleBeam]

>No, it only allows me to limit eir game actions because it only allows

internal actions, if you look at the rules.


...I don't see that. Maybe I'm missing something though - in which
case, please point out what I'm missing. What I'm finding is:


"However, the Herald may remove participants or limit eir actions at eir

discretion"


without any explicit limitations to what those actions are.

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday Tournament

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

No, it only allows me to limit eir game actions because it only allows
internal actions, if you look at the rules.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 4:30 PM, CuddleBeam 
wrote:

> "limit eir actions"
>
> While I endorse that PSS can do well as a sole Judge for the Tourney,
> t-that provision is way too much power for a mere mortal imo.
>
> Limiting the ability to propose! To comment! To vote! To register! To *do*
> *anything*.
>
> Too much!
>
> But the rest looks solid and better, although communication-proxying and
> similar stuff is still a thing (maybe intentional?).
>
> I'd accept a payment of 1 shinies to act as someone's public communication
> proxy for 3 messages. (For example, posting "Mr. Squigglesworth (pseudonym)
> will like to trade Bananas for Karma. Please privately contact me to
> arrange your contact with Mr.Squigglesworth").
>

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday Tournament

[CuddleBeam]

"limit eir actions"

While I endorse that PSS can do well as a sole Judge for the Tourney,
t-that provision is way too much power for a mere mortal imo.

Limiting the ability to propose! To comment! To vote! To register! To *do*
*anything*.

Too much!

But the rest looks solid and better, although communication-proxying and
similar stuff is still a thing (maybe intentional?).

I'd accept a payment of 1 shinies to act as someone's public communication
proxy for 3 messages. (For example, posting "Mr. Squigglesworth (pseudonym)
will like to trade Bananas for Karma. Please privately contact me to
arrange your contact with Mr.Squigglesworth").

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday Tournament

[CuddleBeam]

Imo the metagame of how I think the tournament is supposed to work will be
something like this:

You give 3 daily Karma and gain 3 daily Karma due to symmetric trades
("Aiyo I give u a Karma for a Karma" "ok sounds cool, ty") and end up with
a huge tie with everyone else who has done the same (diligently, for weeks).

So the only way to get an edge over that is to get deals external to the
competition itself to get Karma from people who aren't aiming to actually
win the tournament - which I find to be super interesting (and why I've
went straight to publicly asking for commerce before the tournament is a
real thing, and even then, those who ALREADY HAVE contacts for stuff like
this have a huge edge because they're already got large pool of potential
clients to barter with in private, which I don't, so I don't think anyone
new has much of a chance to win anyway).

For example, trading currency/favors for becoming a Karma peon or agreeing
to a coin-flip victory of a sort (if you win the coinflip, they're your
puppet, if they win, you're their puppet).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday Tournament

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> The winner of this tournament shall be the person who is able to gain 
> the most karma, described below, over the course of the 4 week game.

What if there's a tie?  If you want ties to have multiple winners, typical
is to use "person(s) who are able".  The way it's written, if there's a
tie, then no person gains the most thus there is no winner (which is fine -
if that's what you intend!)

How you deal with a tie is important, as it's possible for a large-enough 
coalition to trade karma to all come up with a tie.  Again, either way is
fine, but it should be clear.

> no participant shall state in any publicly visible manner and actions that 
> they have taken in regards to the game.

If this SHALL is intended to be enforced by Cards, it gives non-players an
advantage :).  Maybe put in a karma-penalty for breaking regulations?  
(though that has enforcement difficulties if you're required to adjudicate, 
especially as your wording leaves several loopholes).

One loophole has already been pointed out by CuddleBeam.  When does one
become a participant?  All participants get a Badge.  You're not going to
extend it to all persons everywhere.  So what makes someone a participant?
Not just receiving an offer - no consent there, and it opens up spam
possibilities.  Probably sending the code words to the Herald (that seems 
most logical). So that means that you can talk about your actions freely up
until you send a code word to the Herald, because you're not a participant
until then?

Personally I'd fix this by taking out the Shall, just too many cans of
worms with punishments.  Just say "actual exchanges (code words) are 
ineffective if done publicly."  You can talk about it all you want that way,
but there's never any public proof of what trades were made.

-G.

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday Tournament

[CuddleBeam]

For 10 shinies (or a similar favor) I'm up for being someone's meatpuppet
for purposes of winning the tournament (You can't publicly post about your
actions, but I could publicly post them for you, for example, as well as
feed you Karma).

Please contact me privately to cuddleb...@gmail.com if you're interested!

I'll only go with the first person who accepts.

Thank you in advance.

(The tournament isn't official yet not has it started, so I believe I won't
be retroactively punished for publicly posting this.)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday Tournament

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> What other name might be good?

Kudos or Karma are a couple options.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday Tournament

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

What other name might be good?

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Jun 23, 2017, at 8:47 AM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> Different name please - will be easy to confuse with trust tokens 
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 08:46 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> I think this is an interesting idea, but I would love to hear what other’s 
> have to say.
> 
> Draft regulation:
> 
> All participants in this tournament CAN and SHALL be awarded the “Badge of 
> Participation in the 2017 Birthday Tournament”. The winner of this tournament 
> shall be the person who is able to gain the most trust, described below, over 
> the course of the 4 week game.
> 
> Giving trust to another person may be done by sending a private notification 
> to them including the code word and sending a code word to the Herald. The 
> person receiving the trust must send the original code word and a separate 
> code word to the Herald.
> 
> By giving trust, one gain 2 trust and by receiving trust, one gains 5 trust. 
> One does not gain trust unless the person receiving trust accepts it. No 
> participant shall give trust more than 3 times in one day and no participant 
> shall state in any publicly visible manner and actions that they have taken 
> in regards to the game.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 

DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday Tournament

[Quazie]

Different name please - will be easy to confuse with trust tokens
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 08:46 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I think this is an interesting idea, but I would love to hear what other’s
> have to say.
>
> Draft regulation:
>
> All participants in this tournament CAN and SHALL be awarded the “Badge of
> Participation in the 2017 Birthday Tournament”. The winner of this
> tournament shall be the person who is able to gain the most trust,
> described below, over the course of the 4 week game.
>
> Giving trust to another person may be done by sending a private
> notification to them including the code word and sending a code word to the
> Herald. The person receiving the trust must send the original code word and
> a separate code word to the Herald.
>
> By giving trust, one gain 2 trust and by receiving trust, one gains 5
> trust. One does not gain trust unless the person receiving trust accepts
> it. No participant shall give trust more than 3 times in one day and no
> participant shall state in any publicly visible manner and actions that
> they have taken in regards to the game.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>