Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals (attn Promotor)
wunst wrote: Am 13.05.24 um 01:00 schrieb ais523 via agora-discussion: On Sun, 2024-05-12 at 15:32 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: Proposal: No apathetic apathy Amend Rule 2465 (Victory by Apathy) by appending this text: A player SHALL NOT announce intent to Declare Apathy and then fail to Declare Apathy before that intent ceases to be ripe; such failure is the Class 5 Infraction of Not Reading the Room. What's the intention behind this one (and why such a high class)? Is the intention to make failed Apathy attempts illegal? > I think the goal is to make it possible to shoot yourself in the foot > with apathy. > > Intended effect (probably?): > > 1. A intents apathy > 2. nobody objects > 3. A has forgotten about intent, does nothing -> infraction > > But the current phrasing would also make unsuccessful attempts illegal > as it says nothing about the intent having no objections More than that, the goal is to discourage the trend of almost all intents to declare apathy having no obvious path to success beyond "lol maybe every single player will inexplicably either fail to notice or fail to object", which is pretty boring IMO. Now if e.g. you actually spot and try to exploit a subtle bug in the tabled-action rules, or try to bribe objectors to bury an "I withdraw my objection" announcement in the middle of a long message (I have received such bribe offers approximately zero times), then that is when apathy is actually interesting. Even if it fails, if a good-faith attempt of this sort was demonstrated, then I would advocate for a reduced NRtR fine.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals (attn Promotor)
I think the goal is to make it possible to shoot yourself in the foot with apathy. Intended effect (probably?): 1. A intents apathy 2. nobody objects 3. A has forgotten about intent, does nothing -> infraction But the current phrasing would also make unsuccessful attempts illegal as it says nothing about the intent having no objections --wunst Am 13.05.24 um 01:00 schrieb ais523 via agora-discussion: On Sun, 2024-05-12 at 15:32 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: Proposal: No apathetic apathy Amend Rule 2465 (Victory by Apathy) by appending this text: A player SHALL NOT announce intent to Declare Apathy and then fail to Declare Apathy before that intent ceases to be ripe; such failure is the Class 5 Infraction of Not Reading the Room. What's the intention behind this one (and why such a high class)? Is the intention to make failed Apathy attempts illegal?
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals (attn Promotor)
On Sun, 2024-05-12 at 15:32 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: > Proposal: No apathetic apathy > > Amend Rule 2465 (Victory by Apathy) by appending this text: > > A player SHALL NOT announce intent to Declare Apathy and then > fail to Declare Apathy before that intent ceases to be ripe; such > failure is the Class 5 Infraction of Not Reading the Room. What's the intention behind this one (and why such a high class)? Is the intention to make failed Apathy attempts illegal? -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Do we need all 3?
On 7/7/22 19:04, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 2022-07-07 at 18:56 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion > wrote: >> On 7/5/22 13:59, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: >>> Repeal Rule 2618 (Promises). >>> >>> Repeal Rule 1742 (Contracts). >>> >>> Repeal Rule 2450 (Pledges). >>> >> They all serve different purposes and are useful under different >> circumstances. Repealing contracts alone could be part of a >> reasonable attempt to restructure the game away from economic >> contracts, but that doesn't seem to be what's happening here. > We could probably do without pledges – those have hardly been used > recently (and under past rulesets, were a special case of a contract). > They could also be implemented *by* contract rather than in the ruleset > (i.e. we just have a contract that lets its members pledge to things). > > Now that contracts permit act-on-behalf, it would probably be possible > to implement promises by contract too, but they've been so useful for > agreeing one-time trades that it may make sense to keep them around > separately. > > (As a side note, another possible direction is attempting to implement > as much of Agora by contract as possible – possibly even to the extent > of, e.g., a charity that publishes the rules rather than a separate > Rulekeepor post. I think this has been discussed in the past, but never > implemented. It would have the potential to make the ruleset a lot > shorter, which might be helpful for newer players, but we'd still > probably need a lot of text to protect the proposal system and for > disaster recovery.) > I think pledges should stay in the rules for roughly the same reason that I think No Faking should stay in the rules. I'd be against any form of eliminating offices for private recordkeeping (I'm sure this is not surprising giving the number of offices I hold, and I don't think shortening the ruleset at the cost of moving it lots of text into contracts is a beneficial goal. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Do we need all 3?
On Thu, 2022-07-07 at 18:56 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 7/5/22 13:59, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > > > Repeal Rule 2618 (Promises). > > > > Repeal Rule 1742 (Contracts). > > > > Repeal Rule 2450 (Pledges). > > > They all serve different purposes and are useful under different > circumstances. Repealing contracts alone could be part of a > reasonable attempt to restructure the game away from economic > contracts, but that doesn't seem to be what's happening here. We could probably do without pledges – those have hardly been used recently (and under past rulesets, were a special case of a contract). They could also be implemented *by* contract rather than in the ruleset (i.e. we just have a contract that lets its members pledge to things). Now that contracts permit act-on-behalf, it would probably be possible to implement promises by contract too, but they've been so useful for agreeing one-time trades that it may make sense to keep them around separately. (As a side note, another possible direction is attempting to implement as much of Agora by contract as possible – possibly even to the extent of, e.g., a charity that publishes the rules rather than a separate Rulekeepor post. I think this has been discussed in the past, but never implemented. It would have the potential to make the ruleset a lot shorter, which might be helpful for newer players, but we'd still probably need a lot of text to protect the proposal system and for disaster recovery.) -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Do we need all 3?
On 7/5/22 13:59, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
> I don't think we do. Let's discuss some options.
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {
> Title: Option A
> Adoption index: 2.2
> Author: secretsnail
> Co-authors:
>
> Repeal Rule 2618 (Promises).
>
> }
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {
> Title: Option B
> Adoption index: 2.5
> Author: secretsnail
> Co-authors:
>
> Repeal Rule 1742 (Contracts).
>
> }
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {
> Title: Option C
> Adoption index: 1.7
> Author: secretsnail
> Co-authors:
>
> Repeal Rule 2450 (Pledges).
>
> }
>
> There's a large overlap between these 3 rules. Even if none of these
> proposals end up passing, I do hope we can do something to clean up.
> Contracts could easily do the job of both pledges and promises, in my opinion.
>
> --
> secretsnail
They all serve different purposes and are useful under different
circumstances. Repealing contracts alone could be part of a reasonable
attempt to restructure the game away from economic contracts, but that
doesn't seem to be what's happening here.
--
Jason Cobb
Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Promise Fixes
On 3/14/2021 4:12 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > Title: You Can Only Stack Turtles So High > Adoption index: 2.2 I was concerned about this fix for a couple of reasons, but I was hoping the cfj would be resolved before discussing it further. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Administrative Reforms
> eir's own office's Administrative Regulations. Administrative Regulations Still not quite there : ) eir's
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Moving Forward With Confidence
On Sunday, June 7, 2020 12:30:51 AM CDT Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > I can rephrase it if you prefer? I'm trying to change the social > conventions around motions of new confidence, but I could phrase it > differently if you'd prefer? I think it's bad form to tell people how they should feel in response to something, but maybe you could add a suggestion for the motivation behind a motion of no confidence. IE "A player should only do so if..." at the end of the paragraph explaining motions of no confidence. -- nch
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Moving Forward With Confidence
On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 10:27 PM Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > > I create the following proposal > Title: Thought Police > AI: 1.0 > If the proposal "No Confidence is No Insult" has passed, amend rule 2463 by > removing the last sentence. > Create a power 1 rule entitled "Really?" with the text "Agorans SHOULD NOT > use the rules as a mechanism for telling people how they should feel" I can rephrase it if you prefer? I'm trying to change the social conventions around motions of new confidence, but I could phrase it differently if you'd prefer? -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:55 AM nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > Ok I think these are the newest and current versions of these proposals in the > pool, minus Vote Manipulation. Apologies if I make comments that are redundant > with discussion, the comments on these have gotten a bit sprawling. My fault for not keeping things more organized. :) > On Thursday, June 4, 2020 1:00:56 AM CDT Aris Merchant via agora-business > wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 9:19 PM Aris Merchant > > > > --- > > Title: Properly Prioritized Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: G. > > > > > > [I've gone with making this an "honest" popularity system, not affected > > by manipulatable mechanics such as proposal strength.] > > > > Amend the rule entitled "Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege" > > by changing it to read in full: > > > > For an Agoran decision on whether to adopt a proposal, let F be the total > > number of valid ballots resolving to FOR, A be the same for AGAINST, > > and T be the total number of valid ballots. The decision's popularity > > is equal to (F - A)/T. The Assessor SHOULD publish the popularity of each > > decision when resolving it. > > Minor nitpick: I'd rather the variables were named differently, to clearly > distinguish them from the variables in 955. Agoran convention is that this type of variable is a single capital letter and I think deviating from that convention would be more confusing than this. I also think that picking any other letter would be more confusing than this. So I can't think of a way of swapping out the variables that doesn't actually make things more confusing? > > The player who proposed the adopted proposal such that the decision on > > whether to adopt it had the greatest popularity, among all such decisions > > assessed in the last 7 days CAN once earn one Legislative Card by > > announcement, provided that no decision on whether to adopt any proposal > > distributed in the same message remains unresolved. If there is a tie, all > > authors of the tied proposals can do so once each. > > Overall I like this fix. One weird consequence: There will be a smaller and > delayed window to claim the card in certain circumstances. If the last two > assessments were less than 7 days apart, and the second most recent had a > proposal more popular than the most recent, then the proposer of the most > popular in the most recent will have to wait until it's been 7 days since the > first assessment. I don't know if there's a clean way to fix this edge case, > so > we should just be aware of it. > > Assessment is hard to write good rules about. I noticed this. There's a pretty simple fix, but it relies on Agoran confidence in the Promotor. Specifically, we could do it by distribution message, making it one proposal per distribution that gets the Privilege. I'm inclined to leave that for a future proposal though. > > Title: Referenda > > Adoption index: 3.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: > > I didn't spot any issues with this one. Always a fan of shortening language, > and referendum is a reasonably intuitive term of art. Thanks! -Aris
Re: Discussion of Honor (was Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process)
On 6/4/2020 12:13 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 7:20 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On 6/3/2020 11:23 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: On 6/3/2020 11:00 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > A player SHALL NOT cast a ballot or induce another person to do so >> in a > way primarily intended to affect popularity. Doing so is the Class-2 > Crime of Vote Manipulation. Notice of honour -1 Aris, for starting us down the road to criminalizing intent with that awful forbidden arts thing, and continuing the criminalization of intent by proposing penalties for the basic free act of voting. +1 D. Margaux, for being a generally good person. >>> >>> I retract Vote Manipulation. >>> >>> The forbidden arts thing doesn't even consider intent! Grumbles. This >>> one *does* consider intent though, and that's a fair argument against >>> it. I maintain that requiring people to at least *hide* what they're >>> doing could make it more interesting. Still, since it's you, and you >>> care this much, I'll retract the proposal. Next time maybe ask before >>> taking the honor? "Aris, I *really* think this is a bad idea", coming >>> from you, would have had the same effect. >> >> You're absolutely right. I've been too snippy lately. Maybe a little >> triggered this week with thoughts about "criminalization" of stuff. No >> excuse, you were clearly working in good faith there, I'm sorry Aris. >> >> And don't worry, your tone came across as mildly annoyed. :) >> >> [ >> As a side note, I've noticed recently there's a bit of divergence about >> how people treat the importance of Notices of Honour. I've mostly thought >> of NoHs as "expressing mild annoyance" rather than anything more serious >> (though sometimes I mis-judge the tone in the justification). But the >> term "Honour" makes it sound like something more worth defending and >> fighting about so it comes across as "escalation" rather than "let's >> diffuse things by blowing off steam in a silly honour fight"? Not sure >> it's anything that needs "fixing" but I'll keep that in mind, definitely... >> ] > > > Personally, I take honor not as something that needs to be defended but as > a measure of whether I'm doing the right thing or not. If someone is > decreasing my honor for X, that's a sign I shouldn't do X. If they're > increasing my honor for X, I should do more X. The reason I got mildly > peeved here is that I felt like I was just throwing around ideas. So it was > like... if my ideas are bad, just tell me that they're bad? It doesn't feel > like the sort of action that it makes sense to encourage or discourage. > > It is in fair part my fault for using proposals rather than protos for > ideas. Ideally, a proposal should signify "this is ready for voting" and a > proto should signify "this is an idea that is ready for discussion". I've > been basically ignoring that convention without communicating it, so shame > on me for that. On the other hand, is it even a good idea to discourage > people from producing unpopular or inadvisable proposals? A proposal, is, > at the end of the day, an option, and can always be voted down. If it helps, the context (my mindset) at the time of that Notice of Honour was "I just said to em that I don't think the SHOULD NOT belongs there, and e responded by upping it to a SHALL NOT, putting it in a proposal (not a proto), and saying it's up to the voters now." That seemed (in the moment) as you saying "I've listened to you but I'm doubling down on wanting to punish this" rather than "I'm still open to a suggestion of non-punishment". So the NoH was about the overall context and conversation not just the proposal? (with the intent that the NoH come across as minor irritation, though I failed at that part!) -G.
Re: Discussion of Honor (was Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process)
On 6/4/2020 12:13 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On the other hand, is it even a good idea to discourage > people from producing unpopular or inadvisable proposals? A proposal, is, > at the end of the day, an option, and can always be voted down. Exactly! So we're agreed that submitting forbidden proposals shouldn't be penalized? :)
Re: Discussion of Honor (was Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process)
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 3:13 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 7:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > On 6/3/2020 11:23 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> On 6/3/2020 11:00 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > >>> A player SHALL NOT cast a ballot or induce another person to do so > > in a > > >>> way primarily intended to affect popularity. Doing so is the Class-2 > > >>> Crime of Vote Manipulation. > > >> > > >> Notice of honour > > >> -1 Aris, for starting us down the road to criminalizing intent with that > > >> awful forbidden arts thing, and continuing the criminalization of intent > > >> by proposing penalties for the basic free act of voting. > > >> +1 D. Margaux, for being a generally good person. > > > > > > I retract Vote Manipulation. > > > > > > The forbidden arts thing doesn't even consider intent! Grumbles. This > > > one *does* consider intent though, and that's a fair argument against > > > it. I maintain that requiring people to at least *hide* what they're > > > doing could make it more interesting. Still, since it's you, and you > > > care this much, I'll retract the proposal. Next time maybe ask before > > > taking the honor? "Aris, I *really* think this is a bad idea", coming > > > from you, would have had the same effect. > > > > You're absolutely right. I've been too snippy lately. Maybe a little > > triggered this week with thoughts about "criminalization" of stuff. No > > excuse, you were clearly working in good faith there, I'm sorry Aris. > > > > And don't worry, your tone came across as mildly annoyed. :) > > > > [ > > As a side note, I've noticed recently there's a bit of divergence about > > how people treat the importance of Notices of Honour. I've mostly thought > > of NoHs as "expressing mild annoyance" rather than anything more serious > > (though sometimes I mis-judge the tone in the justification). But the > > term "Honour" makes it sound like something more worth defending and > > fighting about so it comes across as "escalation" rather than "let's > > diffuse things by blowing off steam in a silly honour fight"? Not sure > > it's anything that needs "fixing" but I'll keep that in mind, definitely... > > ] > > > Personally, I take honor not as something that needs to be defended but as > a measure of whether I'm doing the right thing or not. If someone is > decreasing my honor for X, that's a sign I shouldn't do X. If they're > increasing my honor for X, I should do more X. The reason I got mildly > peeved here is that I felt like I was just throwing around ideas. So it was > like... if my ideas are bad, just tell me that they're bad? It doesn't feel > like the sort of action that it makes sense to encourage or discourage. > > It is in fair part my fault for using proposals rather than protos for > ideas. Ideally, a proposal should signify "this is ready for voting" and a > proto should signify "this is an idea that is ready for discussion". I've > been basically ignoring that convention without communicating it, so shame > on me for that. On the other hand, is it even a good idea to discourage > people from producing unpopular or inadvisable proposals? A proposal, is, > at the end of the day, an option, and can always be voted down. > > -Aris I think that as long as people aren't creating excessive proposals, there's no reason to discourage the production of unpopular proposals. I also have been thinking about the use of protos recently because it seems that proposals get much more attention, and therefore seem to be more effective as drafts.
Re: Discussion of Honor (was Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process)
On Thursday, June 4, 2020 2:13:33 PM CDT Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > It is in fair part my fault for using proposals rather than protos for > ideas. Ideally, a proposal should signify "this is ready for voting" and a > proto should signify "this is an idea that is ready for discussion". I've > been basically ignoring that convention without communicating it, so shame > on me for that. On the other hand, is it even a good idea to discourage > people from producing unpopular or inadvisable proposals? A proposal, is, > at the end of the day, an option, and can always be voted down. Re: Making Premature Proposals. I'm exactly as guilty of this as you, and I can see both sides. I think it's reasonable to subtract honor for someone making proposals without getting them properly vetted in discussion, or making and retracting many versions in a short window. On the other hand, making something a proposal instead of a proto makes it much more likely to get vetted at all. -- nch
Discussion of Honor (was Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process)
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 7:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/3/2020 11:23 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 6/3/2020 11:00 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > >>> A player SHALL NOT cast a ballot or induce another person to do so > in a > >>> way primarily intended to affect popularity. Doing so is the Class-2 > >>> Crime of Vote Manipulation. > >> > >> Notice of honour > >> -1 Aris, for starting us down the road to criminalizing intent with that > >> awful forbidden arts thing, and continuing the criminalization of intent > >> by proposing penalties for the basic free act of voting. > >> +1 D. Margaux, for being a generally good person. > > > > I retract Vote Manipulation. > > > > The forbidden arts thing doesn't even consider intent! Grumbles. This > > one *does* consider intent though, and that's a fair argument against > > it. I maintain that requiring people to at least *hide* what they're > > doing could make it more interesting. Still, since it's you, and you > > care this much, I'll retract the proposal. Next time maybe ask before > > taking the honor? "Aris, I *really* think this is a bad idea", coming > > from you, would have had the same effect. > > You're absolutely right. I've been too snippy lately. Maybe a little > triggered this week with thoughts about "criminalization" of stuff. No > excuse, you were clearly working in good faith there, I'm sorry Aris. > > And don't worry, your tone came across as mildly annoyed. :) > > [ > As a side note, I've noticed recently there's a bit of divergence about > how people treat the importance of Notices of Honour. I've mostly thought > of NoHs as "expressing mild annoyance" rather than anything more serious > (though sometimes I mis-judge the tone in the justification). But the > term "Honour" makes it sound like something more worth defending and > fighting about so it comes across as "escalation" rather than "let's > diffuse things by blowing off steam in a silly honour fight"? Not sure > it's anything that needs "fixing" but I'll keep that in mind, definitely... > ] Personally, I take honor not as something that needs to be defended but as a measure of whether I'm doing the right thing or not. If someone is decreasing my honor for X, that's a sign I shouldn't do X. If they're increasing my honor for X, I should do more X. The reason I got mildly peeved here is that I felt like I was just throwing around ideas. So it was like... if my ideas are bad, just tell me that they're bad? It doesn't feel like the sort of action that it makes sense to encourage or discourage. It is in fair part my fault for using proposals rather than protos for ideas. Ideally, a proposal should signify "this is ready for voting" and a proto should signify "this is an idea that is ready for discussion". I've been basically ignoring that convention without communicating it, so shame on me for that. On the other hand, is it even a good idea to discourage people from producing unpopular or inadvisable proposals? A proposal, is, at the end of the day, an option, and can always be voted down. -Aris
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
Ok I think these are the newest and current versions of these proposals in the pool, minus Vote Manipulation. Apologies if I make comments that are redundant with discussion, the comments on these have gotten a bit sprawling. On Thursday, June 4, 2020 1:00:56 AM CDT Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 9:19 PM Aris Merchant > > --- > Title: Properly Prioritized Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: G. > > > [I've gone with making this an "honest" popularity system, not affected > by manipulatable mechanics such as proposal strength.] > > Amend the rule entitled "Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege" > by changing it to read in full: > > For an Agoran decision on whether to adopt a proposal, let F be the total > number of valid ballots resolving to FOR, A be the same for AGAINST, > and T be the total number of valid ballots. The decision's popularity > is equal to (F - A)/T. The Assessor SHOULD publish the popularity of each > decision when resolving it. Minor nitpick: I'd rather the variables were named differently, to clearly distinguish them from the variables in 955. > > The player who proposed the adopted proposal such that the decision on > whether to adopt it had the greatest popularity, among all such decisions > assessed in the last 7 days CAN once earn one Legislative Card by > announcement, provided that no decision on whether to adopt any proposal > distributed in the same message remains unresolved. If there is a tie, all > authors of the tied proposals can do so once each. Overall I like this fix. One weird consequence: There will be a smaller and delayed window to claim the card in certain circumstances. If the last two assessments were less than 7 days apart, and the second most recent had a proposal more popular than the most recent, then the proposer of the most popular in the most recent will have to wait until it's been 7 days since the first assessment. I don't know if there's a clean way to fix this edge case, so we should just be aware of it. Assessment is hard to write good rules about. > --- > Title: Referenda > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: I didn't spot any issues with this one. Always a fan of shortening language, and referendum is a reasonably intuitive term of art. -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
> [ > As a side note, I've noticed recently there's a bit of divergence about > how people treat the importance of Notices of Honour. I've mostly thought > of NoHs as "expressing mild annoyance" rather than anything more serious > (though sometimes I mis-judge the tone in the justification). But the > term "Honour" makes it sound like something more worth defending and > fighting about so it comes across as "escalation" rather than "let's > diffuse things by blowing off steam in a silly honour fight"? Not sure > it's anything that needs "fixing" but I'll keep that in mind, definitely... > ] After reading this, I think I'll try to be more liberal about assigning negative karma for silly reasons, to try to keep it light. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On 6/4/2020 12:20 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: >> And besides, we already criminalize intent. We do that by making it illegal >> to intentionally lie to mislead. > > That doesn't help much, because that one was also in large part my fault. I like the reform direction R. Lee proposed, but somehow I don't have as much a problem with some penalty for telling outright falsehoods. I've got more of a concern about ascribing motives and intent to actual game actions (with an exception for Officers' duties). If I vote AGAINST a proposal without giving a reason, I don't want to have to defend myself if people say "why did e vote against that seemingly-good proposal? E must be gaming it". Likewise, my issue with DatDA was more the part that punishes proposing and voting (and sorry, I misread some intent language in there - though that surely comes into the setting-the-punishment bit). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On Thursday, 4 June 2020, 16:06:12 GMT+1, nch wrote: > I've noticed this dichotomy too. I was originally planning to award a victory > card to the person with highest honor every week but I got the impression some > people would be against gamifying honor so I backed down on it. Honour only really works if it has no game effect; otherwise, people will treat the honour-granting action as an economic asset to be traded, rather than basing it on people's behaviour. As a side note, at one time, the honour system was defined by a contract rather than being in the rules, precisely because it didn't need to have any game effect. Maybe it'd be worth going back to that, in order to simplify the rules a bit. (I don't fully remember why it was moved into the rules, but it might have been a method of keeping it around when contracts were repealed.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On Thursday, June 4, 2020 9:18:52 AM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > [ > As a side note, I've noticed recently there's a bit of divergence about > how people treat the importance of Notices of Honour. I've mostly thought > of NoHs as "expressing mild annoyance" rather than anything more serious > (though sometimes I mis-judge the tone in the justification). But the > term "Honour" makes it sound like something more worth defending and > fighting about so it comes across as "escalation" rather than "let's > diffuse things by blowing off steam in a silly honour fight"? Not sure > it's anything that needs "fixing" but I'll keep that in mind, definitely... > ] I've noticed this dichotomy too. I was originally planning to award a victory card to the person with highest honor every week but I got the impression some people would be against gamifying honor so I backed down on it. -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On 6/4/2020 3:20 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:14 AM Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:24 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: On 6/3/2020 11:00 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: A player SHALL NOT cast a ballot or induce another person to do so in a way primarily intended to affect popularity. Doing so is the Class-2 Crime of Vote Manipulation. Notice of honour -1 Aris, for starting us down the road to criminalizing intent with that awful forbidden arts thing, and continuing the criminalization of intent by proposing penalties for the basic free act of voting. +1 D. Margaux, for being a generally good person. I retract Vote Manipulation. The forbidden arts thing doesn't even consider intent! Grumbles. This one *does* consider intent though, and that's a fair argument against it. I maintain that requiring people to at least *hide* what they're doing could make it more interesting. Still, since it's you, and you care this much, I'll retract the proposal. Next time maybe ask before taking the honor? "Aris, I *really* think this is a bad idea", coming from you, would have had the same effect. -Aris Everyone's been too snippy recently. Oh, I was also snippy, wasn't I? Whoops. Sorry about that, G. I was trying to sound very mildly annoyed and it doesn't appear to have gone very well. I just thought it was funny
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On 6/3/2020 11:23 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> On 6/3/2020 11:00 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: >>> A player SHALL NOT cast a ballot or induce another person to do so in a >>> way primarily intended to affect popularity. Doing so is the Class-2 >>> Crime of Vote Manipulation. >> >> Notice of honour >> -1 Aris, for starting us down the road to criminalizing intent with that >> awful forbidden arts thing, and continuing the criminalization of intent >> by proposing penalties for the basic free act of voting. >> +1 D. Margaux, for being a generally good person. > > I retract Vote Manipulation. > > The forbidden arts thing doesn't even consider intent! Grumbles. This > one *does* consider intent though, and that's a fair argument against > it. I maintain that requiring people to at least *hide* what they're > doing could make it more interesting. Still, since it's you, and you > care this much, I'll retract the proposal. Next time maybe ask before > taking the honor? "Aris, I *really* think this is a bad idea", coming > from you, would have had the same effect. You're absolutely right. I've been too snippy lately. Maybe a little triggered this week with thoughts about "criminalization" of stuff. No excuse, you were clearly working in good faith there, I'm sorry Aris. And don't worry, your tone came across as mildly annoyed. :) [ As a side note, I've noticed recently there's a bit of divergence about how people treat the importance of Notices of Honour. I've mostly thought of NoHs as "expressing mild annoyance" rather than anything more serious (though sometimes I mis-judge the tone in the justification). But the term "Honour" makes it sound like something more worth defending and fighting about so it comes across as "escalation" rather than "let's diffuse things by blowing off steam in a silly honour fight"? Not sure it's anything that needs "fixing" but I'll keep that in mind, definitely... ]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:48 AM Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > > I create this proposal > > Title: This is not unlike defamation law > AI 1 > Chamber: Justice > Text: Amend rule 2471 "No Faking" so that it states > A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that (1) is a statement of pure > and verifiable fact about the game state of Agora and I like this change because it's more clear than the current text. > (2) is false at the > time the statement is made and I'm interested in how this would interact with ratification and confusion around that, but if we resolve that, I generally like it. Additionally, this removes the possibility of someone believing that they are making a false statement when it is in fact true. I think we should keep that as illegal because that way we don't always have to determine the exact accuracy of a statement at a time, which unfortunately can be very complicated. > (3) is likely, at the time the statement is > made, to induce game actions by other persons that would not be taken if a > true statement was substituted for the false one. This seems like an overly restrictive test. As the person who will likely have to make this assessment, I would prefer if we either went for much more specific or keep a more vague standard. I also don't like the removal of the intent and knowledge clause because this could force us to punish people for simply being wrong. > Making such a statement > is the Class-2 crime of Faking. > > Statements of formal intent never constitute Faking. > I don't like this final clause because it allows ratification of things without a specific statement of any changes. Preventing this increases transparency and is therefore good for the game. I would also like to keep the following text because it provides some helpful safeguards and avoids disputes: Merely quoting a statement does not constitute making it for the purposes of this rule. Any disclaimer, conditional clause, or other qualifier attached to a statement constitutes part of the statement for the purposes of this rule; the truth or falsity of the whole is what is significant.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 3:13 AM Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:24 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 6/3/2020 11:00 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > > > A player SHALL NOT cast a ballot or induce another person to do so > > in a > > > > way primarily intended to affect popularity. Doing so is the Class-2 > > > > Crime of Vote Manipulation. > > > > > > Notice of honour > > > -1 Aris, for starting us down the road to criminalizing intent with that > > > awful forbidden arts thing, and continuing the criminalization of intent > > > by proposing penalties for the basic free act of voting. > > > +1 D. Margaux, for being a generally good person. > > > > I retract Vote Manipulation. > > > > The forbidden arts thing doesn't even consider intent! Grumbles. This > > one *does* consider intent though, and that's a fair argument against > > it. I maintain that requiring people to at least *hide* what they're > > doing could make it more interesting. Still, since it's you, and you > > care this much, I'll retract the proposal. Next time maybe ask before > > taking the honor? "Aris, I *really* think this is a bad idea", coming > > from you, would have had the same effect. > > > > -Aris > > > Everyone's been too snippy recently. > > And besides, we already criminalize intent. We do that by making it illegal > to intentionally lie to mislead. > > -- > From R. Lee While I agree and think we should all work on this, I also think that we should give each other a bit of a break given the state of the world and the increased stress that everyone is likely experiencing.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 2:01 AM Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 9:19 PM Aris Merchant > wrote: > > Title: Properly Prioritized Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege > > Title: Referenda > I retract these proposals. > > I submit the following proposals. > > -Aris > > --- > Title: Properly Prioritized Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: G. > > > [I've gone with making this an "honest" popularity system, not affected > by manipulatable mechanics such as proposal strength.] > > Amend the rule entitled "Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege" > by changing it to read in full: > > For an Agoran decision on whether to adopt a proposal, let F be the total > number of valid ballots resolving to FOR, A be the same for AGAINST, > and T be the total number of valid ballots. The decision's popularity > is equal to (F - A)/T. The Assessor SHOULD publish the popularity of each > decision when resolving it. I think this might be better if T=F+A because otherwise PRESENT votes will become more strategic. In general, I think that new mechanics that engage with the core mechanics are good, but I worry about how they would potentially interfere with them. > > The player who proposed the adopted proposal such that the decision on > whether > to adopt it had the greatest popularity, among all such decisions assessed > in > the last 7 days CAN once earn one Legislative Card by announcement, provided > that no decision on whether to adopt any proposal distributed in the same > message remains unresolved. If there is a tie, all authors of the tied > proposals can do so once each. > --- > Title: Referenda > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: > > > Amend Rule 1607, "Distribution", by replacing: > > Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For > this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the adoption > index is initially the adoption index of the proposal, or 1.0 if > the proposal does not have one, and the text, author, coauthors, > class and (if applicable) chamber of the proposal are essential > parameters. Initiating such a decision is known as distribution, > and removes the proposal from the Proposal Pool. > > with: > > A referendum is the Agoran decision to determine whether to adopt a > proposal. > For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the adoption index is > initially the adoption index of the proposal, or 1.0 if the proposal does > not > have one, and the text, author, coauthors, class and (if applicable) chamber > of the proposal are essential parameters. Initiating a referendum is known > as distribution, and removes the proposal from the Proposal Pool. > > Amend Rule 2606, "Proposal Classes", by changing the text "Agoran decision on > its adoption" to read "referendum on it". > > Amend Rule 2607, "Proposal Chambers", by changing the text "Agoran decision on > its adoption" to read "referendum on it". > > Amend Rule 106, "Adopting Proposals", by changing the text "a decision about > whether to adopt a proposal" to read "a referendum on a proposal". > > Amend Rule 879, "Quorum", by changing the text "the Agoran decision on whether > to adopt a proposal" to read "the referendum". > > Amend Rule 2168, "Extending the voting period", by changing the text > "whether to adopt a proposal" to read "a referendum on a proposal". > > Amend Rule 2496, Rewards, by changing the text "FOR the decision" to read > "FOR the referendum" and replacing: > Resolving an Agoran Decision on whether to adopt a proposal, > provided that no other Agoran Decision on whether to adopt that > or any other proposal had been resolved earlier in that Agoran > week: 5 coins (ADoP). > with: > Resolving a referendum, provided that no other referendum had been resolved > earlier in that Agoran week: 5 coins (ADoP). > > Amend Rule 2438, "Ribbons", by changing the text "an Agoran Decision" to > read "a referendum". > > If the proposal entitled "Properly Prioritized Popular Proposal Proposer > Privilege" has passed: > Amend the Rule entitled "Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege" by changing it > to read in full: > For a referendum, let F be the total number of valid ballots resolving to > FOR, A be the same for AGAINST, and T be the total number of valid > ballots. > The referendum's popularity is equal to (F - A)/T. The Assessor SHOULD > publish the popularity of each referendum when resolving it. > > The player who proposed the adopted proposal whose referendum had > the greatest > popularity among all referenda assessed in the last 7 days CAN once earn > one Legislative Card by announcement, provided that no referendum > initiated in the same message as it remains unresolved. If there is a tie, > all authors of the tied proposals can do so once each. > Otherwise: > Amend the rule entitled "Popular Proposal Propose
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:14 AM Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:24 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 6/3/2020 11:00 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > > > A player SHALL NOT cast a ballot or induce another person to do so > > in a > > > > way primarily intended to affect popularity. Doing so is the Class-2 > > > > Crime of Vote Manipulation. > > > > > > Notice of honour > > > -1 Aris, for starting us down the road to criminalizing intent with that > > > awful forbidden arts thing, and continuing the criminalization of intent > > > by proposing penalties for the basic free act of voting. > > > +1 D. Margaux, for being a generally good person. > > > > I retract Vote Manipulation. > > > > The forbidden arts thing doesn't even consider intent! Grumbles. This > > one *does* consider intent though, and that's a fair argument against > > it. I maintain that requiring people to at least *hide* what they're > > doing could make it more interesting. Still, since it's you, and you > > care this much, I'll retract the proposal. Next time maybe ask before > > taking the honor? "Aris, I *really* think this is a bad idea", coming > > from you, would have had the same effect. > > > > -Aris > > > Everyone's been too snippy recently. Oh, I was also snippy, wasn't I? Whoops. Sorry about that, G. I was trying to sound very mildly annoyed and it doesn't appear to have gone very well. > And besides, we already criminalize intent. We do that by making it illegal > to intentionally lie to mislead. That doesn't help much, because that one was also in large part my fault. -Aris
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:24 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: > > > > > > On 6/3/2020 11:00 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > > A player SHALL NOT cast a ballot or induce another person to do so > in a > > > way primarily intended to affect popularity. Doing so is the Class-2 > > > Crime of Vote Manipulation. > > > > Notice of honour > > -1 Aris, for starting us down the road to criminalizing intent with that > > awful forbidden arts thing, and continuing the criminalization of intent > > by proposing penalties for the basic free act of voting. > > +1 D. Margaux, for being a generally good person. > > I retract Vote Manipulation. > > The forbidden arts thing doesn't even consider intent! Grumbles. This > one *does* consider intent though, and that's a fair argument against > it. I maintain that requiring people to at least *hide* what they're > doing could make it more interesting. Still, since it's you, and you > care this much, I'll retract the proposal. Next time maybe ask before > taking the honor? "Aris, I *really* think this is a bad idea", coming > from you, would have had the same effect. > > -Aris > Everyone's been too snippy recently. And besides, we already criminalize intent. We do that by making it illegal to intentionally lie to mislead. -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On 6/3/2020 10:36 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 10:04 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> On 6/3/2020 9:19 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:03 PM Aris Merchant wrote: >> >>> proposal when resolving it. Players SHOULD NOT attempt to game popularity. >>> >> >> Can we be a bit less moralistic about trying to game, well, a game? > > Did you read the comment? I just don't want to get into another > situation like the one with the Comptroller. Does anyone think it's > actually fun to have everyone putting conditional boilerplate in all > their votes? To me, that just seems like an annoying distraction. > Scams can be fun, but only when there's some cleverness involved. I read it, and respectfully disagree. This isn't a scam or a major proposal-affecting power play like the Comptrollor, it's just a bit of prisoners dilemma voting or something, you know, like classic nomic. > Options: > - Change to a SHALL (with presumably a more precise definition) > - Make only unconditional votes count (this unnecessarily penalizes > endorsements and the like) > - Split this bit out into a different proposal (probably a good idea > in any case) - Take out the SHOULD and just let it be a game.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 10:36 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 10:04 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > > > On 6/3/2020 9:19 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:03 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > > >> > > > > > proposal when resolving it. Players SHOULD NOT attempt to game > > > popularity. > > > > > > > Can we be a bit less moralistic about trying to game, well, a game? > > Did you read the comment? I just don't want to get into another > situation like the one with the Comptroller. Does anyone think it's > actually fun to have everyone putting conditional boilerplate in all > their votes? To me, that just seems like an annoying distraction. > Scams can be fun, but only when there's some cleverness involved. > > Options: > - Change to a SHALL (with presumably a more precise definition) > - Make only unconditional votes count (this unnecessarily penalizes > endorsements and the like) > - Split this bit out into a different proposal (probably a good idea > in any case) Okay, I did the first and last ones. This way people can vote their conscience on each part. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 10:04 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 6/3/2020 9:19 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:03 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > >> > > > proposal when resolving it. Players SHOULD NOT attempt to game popularity. > > > > Can we be a bit less moralistic about trying to game, well, a game? Did you read the comment? I just don't want to get into another situation like the one with the Comptroller. Does anyone think it's actually fun to have everyone putting conditional boilerplate in all their votes? To me, that just seems like an annoying distraction. Scams can be fun, but only when there's some cleverness involved. Options: - Change to a SHALL (with presumably a more precise definition) - Make only unconditional votes count (this unnecessarily penalizes endorsements and the like) - Split this bit out into a different proposal (probably a good idea in any case) -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 3:04 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/3/2020 9:19 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:03 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > >> > > > proposal when resolving it. Players SHOULD NOT attempt to game > popularity. > > > > Can we be a bit less moralistic about trying to game, well, a game? > > I personally certainly intend to game it, if it is possible. -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On 6/3/2020 9:19 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:03 PM Aris Merchant wrote: >> > proposal when resolving it. Players SHOULD NOT attempt to game popularity. > Can we be a bit less moralistic about trying to game, well, a game?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:27 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:02 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business > wrote: > > > > I submit the following proposals. > > > > -Aris > > --- > > Title: Order-Independent Resolutions > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: > > > > Amend the rule entitled "Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege" > > by changing it to read in full: > > > > The player who proposed the proposal with the greatest F/A, as > > defined in rule 955, among all proposals assessed in the last 7 > > days CAN once earn one Legislative Card by announcement, provided that > > no decision on whether to adopt any proposal distributed in the same > > message remains open. If there is a tie, all authors of the tied > proposals > > may do so once each. > > > > --- > > Title: Why Track Pendency? > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: > > > > [Currently, Sets would make me track proposals forever. The simplest > > fix is just to make the Pended switch untracked. It'll end up getting > > effectively tracked anyway, since it determines whether a proposal must > > be distributed.] > > > > Amend the rule entitled "Pending Proposals" by changing the text "Pended > is a > > negative boolean proposal switch tracked by the Promotor." to read > > "Pended is an untracked negative boolean proposal switch." > > --- > > Title: Ministerial Reshuffling > > Adoption index: 2.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: > > > > > > Amend Rule 2605, "Ministries", by changing the lettered list to read: > > > > A. Ministry of Economy: regulate the economy > > B. Ministry of Efficiency: maximize official efficiency > > C. Ministry of Justice: serve justice > > D. Ministry of Legislation: effectuate legislation > > E. Ministry of Participation: encourage participation > > > > --- > > Title: Proposal Recycling Initiative > > Adoption index: 3.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: > > > > > > [This helps for any proposals that either were distributed before the new > > regime and failed quorum, or any proposals that are accidentally > distributed > > and failed quorum. While I'm at it, there's no reason this needs to be at > > power 3.0.] > > > > Amend Rule 2350, "Proposals", by deleting the text: > > If a decision of whether to adopt a proposal was resolved as > > FAILED QUORUM in the last seven days, the Promotor CAN once add > > the proposal back to the Proposal Pool by announcement. > > > > Enact a new rule entitled "Proposal Recycling", with the following text: > > > > Would you like to specify the power of this rule? Default 1.0 seemed fine? > > > > > If a decision of whether to adopt a proposal was resolved as > > FAILED QUORUM in the last seven days, the Promotor CAN once recycle > > the proposal by announcement, adding it to the Proposal Pool and > causing > > it to become pended. > > > > --- > > Title: Referenda > > Adoption index: 3.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: > > > > > > Amend Rule 1607, "Distribution", by replacing: > > > > Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For > > this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the adoption > > index is initially the adoption index of the proposal, or 1.0 if > > the proposal does not have one, and the text, author, coauthors, > > class and (if applicable) chamber of the proposal are essential > > parameters. Initiating such a decision is known as distribution, > > and removes the proposal from the Proposal Pool. > > > > with: > > > > A referendum is the Agoran decision to determine whether to adopt a > proposal. > > For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the adoption > index is > > initially the adoption index of the proposal, or 1.0 if the proposal > does not > > have one, and the text, author, coauthors, class and (if applicable) > chamber > > of the proposal are essential parameters. Initiating a referendum is > known > > as distribution, and removes the proposal from the Proposal Pool. > > > > > > Amend Rule 2350, "Proposals", by changing the text "If a decision of > whether to > > adopt a proposal was resolved as FAILED QUORUM in the last seven days" > > to read "If a referendum on a proposal was resolved as FAILED QUORUM in > the > > last seven days". > > > > Amend Rule 2606, "Proposal Classes", by changing the text "Agoran > decision on > > its adoption" to read "referendum on it". > > > > Amend Rule 2607, "Proposal Chambers", by changing the text "Agoran > decision on > > its adoption" to read "referendum on it". > > > > Amend Rule 106, "Adopting Proposals", by changing the text "a decision > about > > whether to adopt a proposal" to read "a referendum on a proposal". > > > > Amend Rule 879, "Quorum", by changing the text "the Agoran decision on > whether > > to adopt a proposal" to read "the referendum". > > > > Amend Rule 2168, "Extending the voting period", by changing the text > > "whether to a
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:24 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 6/3/2020 1:02 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > The player who proposed the proposal with the greatest F/A, as > > defined in rule 955, > > Can I just comment that I think our unofficial style guide should avoid > rules referring to other rules by number? (except maybe for one-off > temporary games and stuff like that). > > I was just wondering if that was too small of a nit to pick, but in typing > that, I just realized that for their importance in determining precedence, > Rule ID numbers seem very weakly regulated, in particular, here in R2141: > > > Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor. > > [snip] > > > However, rules to the contrary > > notwithstanding, the Rulekeepor CAN set rule aspects as described > > elsewhere in this rule. > > seems to suggest that the rulekeepor can just assign a new number to 955 > and break the relationship? (maybe not, I dunno). > > -G. > I think that fixing this would be good, but I think R1586 might resolve that specific risk: A rule, contract, or regulation that refers to an entity by name refers to the entity that had that name when the rule first came to include that reference, even if the entity's name has since changed.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:02 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > I submit the following proposals. > > -Aris > --- > Title: Order-Independent Resolutions > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: > > Amend the rule entitled "Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege" > by changing it to read in full: > > The player who proposed the proposal with the greatest F/A, as > defined in rule 955, among all proposals assessed in the last 7 > days CAN once earn one Legislative Card by announcement, provided that > no decision on whether to adopt any proposal distributed in the same > message remains open. If there is a tie, all authors of the tied proposals > may do so once each. > > --- > Title: Why Track Pendency? > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: > > [Currently, Sets would make me track proposals forever. The simplest > fix is just to make the Pended switch untracked. It'll end up getting > effectively tracked anyway, since it determines whether a proposal must > be distributed.] > > Amend the rule entitled "Pending Proposals" by changing the text "Pended is a > negative boolean proposal switch tracked by the Promotor." to read > "Pended is an untracked negative boolean proposal switch." > --- > Title: Ministerial Reshuffling > Adoption index: 2.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: > > > Amend Rule 2605, "Ministries", by changing the lettered list to read: > > A. Ministry of Economy: regulate the economy > B. Ministry of Efficiency: maximize official efficiency > C. Ministry of Justice: serve justice > D. Ministry of Legislation: effectuate legislation > E. Ministry of Participation: encourage participation > > --- > Title: Proposal Recycling Initiative > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: > > > [This helps for any proposals that either were distributed before the new > regime and failed quorum, or any proposals that are accidentally distributed > and failed quorum. While I'm at it, there's no reason this needs to be at > power 3.0.] > > Amend Rule 2350, "Proposals", by deleting the text: > If a decision of whether to adopt a proposal was resolved as > FAILED QUORUM in the last seven days, the Promotor CAN once add > the proposal back to the Proposal Pool by announcement. > > Enact a new rule entitled "Proposal Recycling", with the following text: > Would you like to specify the power of this rule? > > If a decision of whether to adopt a proposal was resolved as > FAILED QUORUM in the last seven days, the Promotor CAN once recycle > the proposal by announcement, adding it to the Proposal Pool and causing > it to become pended. > > --- > Title: Referenda > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: > > > Amend Rule 1607, "Distribution", by replacing: > > Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For > this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the adoption > index is initially the adoption index of the proposal, or 1.0 if > the proposal does not have one, and the text, author, coauthors, > class and (if applicable) chamber of the proposal are essential > parameters. Initiating such a decision is known as distribution, > and removes the proposal from the Proposal Pool. > > with: > > A referendum is the Agoran decision to determine whether to adopt a > proposal. > For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the adoption index is > initially the adoption index of the proposal, or 1.0 if the proposal does > not > have one, and the text, author, coauthors, class and (if applicable) chamber > of the proposal are essential parameters. Initiating a referendum is known > as distribution, and removes the proposal from the Proposal Pool. > > > Amend Rule 2350, "Proposals", by changing the text "If a decision of whether > to > adopt a proposal was resolved as FAILED QUORUM in the last seven days" > to read "If a referendum on a proposal was resolved as FAILED QUORUM in the > last seven days". > > Amend Rule 2606, "Proposal Classes", by changing the text "Agoran decision on > its adoption" to read "referendum on it". > > Amend Rule 2607, "Proposal Chambers", by changing the text "Agoran decision on > its adoption" to read "referendum on it". > > Amend Rule 106, "Adopting Proposals", by changing the text "a decision about > whether to adopt a proposal" to read "a referendum on a proposal". > > Amend Rule 879, "Quorum", by changing the text "the Agoran decision on whether > to adopt a proposal" to read "the referendum". > > Amend Rule 2168, "Extending the voting period", by changing the text > "whether to adopt a proposal" to read "a referendum on a proposal". Why does this need to specify "on a proposal"? > > Amend Rule 2496, Rewards, by changing the text "FOR the decision" to read > "FOR the referendum" and replacing: > Resolving an Agoran Decision on whether to adopt a proposal, > provided that no other Agoran Decision on whether to adopt that > or any other proposal had been re
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:24 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/3/2020 1:02 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > The player who proposed the proposal with the greatest F/A, as > > defined in rule 955, > > Can I just comment that I think our unofficial style guide should avoid > rules referring to other rules by number? (except maybe for one-off > temporary games and stuff like that). > I 100% agree. That was just something I was copying over, so I didn't think about it. I'll rephrase it to eliminate that. -Aris > >
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On 6/3/2020 1:02 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > The player who proposed the proposal with the greatest F/A, as > defined in rule 955, Can I just comment that I think our unofficial style guide should avoid rules referring to other rules by number? (except maybe for one-off temporary games and stuff like that). I was just wondering if that was too small of a nit to pick, but in typing that, I just realized that for their importance in determining precedence, Rule ID numbers seem very weakly regulated, in particular, here in R2141: > Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor. [snip] > However, rules to the contrary > notwithstanding, the Rulekeepor CAN set rule aspects as described > elsewhere in this rule. seems to suggest that the rulekeepor can just assign a new number to 955 and break the relationship? (maybe not, I dunno). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Onward with bodies of law
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 22:18, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 11:50 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-business
> wrote:
> >
> > Proposal: Temporary Suspension of Rules (AI=3)
> > {{{
> > =Administrative Law Reform. II. Temporary Suspension of Rules=
> >
> > If no proposal entitled "Statutory Instrumentation" has taken effect
> > in the previous month, this proposal has no effect. If this proposal
> > has already taken effect, it has no effect.
> >
> > Amend Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals) by appending a new paragraph
> > reading "A proposal CAN specify that it overrides the effect of any
> > rule which it is capable of amending."
> >
> > [This is a small side proposal to allow proposals to temporarily
> > override rules without having to do so by the enactment and subsequent
> > repeal of a helper rule. It must be explicit.]
> > }}}
>
> I'm reasonably sure this does nothing. Proposals can already specify
> whatever they want.
>
> -Aris
Under the previous proposal, it would be clear that they could not.
(It's also not entirely clear to me that they actually can override
rules currently, but this isn't a question I'm especially interested
in trying to answer without the protection of ratification).
-Alexis
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Onward with bodies of law
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 11:50 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-business
wrote:
>
> Proposal: Temporary Suspension of Rules (AI=3)
> {{{
> =Administrative Law Reform. II. Temporary Suspension of Rules=
>
> If no proposal entitled "Statutory Instrumentation" has taken effect
> in the previous month, this proposal has no effect. If this proposal
> has already taken effect, it has no effect.
>
> Amend Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals) by appending a new paragraph
> reading "A proposal CAN specify that it overrides the effect of any
> rule which it is capable of amending."
>
> [This is a small side proposal to allow proposals to temporarily
> override rules without having to do so by the enactment and subsequent
> repeal of a helper rule. It must be explicit.]
> }}}
I'm reasonably sure this does nothing. Proposals can already specify
whatever they want.
-Aris
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Onward with bodies of law
Alexis wrote: In this proposal, "I->S" is to amend a rule within the scope specified by replacing each instance of "an Instrument" with "a statute", and each other instance of "Instrument" with "statute". This is not a case-sensitive match, however, if the text being replaced has a leading capital, then so does the replacement. "If a word in the text being replaced has a leading capital, then so does the corresponding word in the replacement." And the previous sentence has uppercase "Instrument" -> lowercase "statute"... > Amend Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals) by appending a new paragraph > reading "A proposal CAN specify that it overrides the effect of any > rule which it is capable of amending." "A proposal CAN override the effect of any rule which it is capable of amending by specifying that it does so."
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Onward with bodies of law
On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 at 23:27, Tanner Swett via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020, 14:50 Alexis Hunt via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > [This first proposal is a reform to the core rules defining what rules > > are, with an aim to better supporting subordinate legal documents. The > > intent is to enact very little change to the game as it is actually > > played, and to operate mostly in the realm of supporting definitions.] > > > > Can you go into more detail about what problem this proposal is intended to > solve or what goal it is intended to achieve? "Better support subordinate > legal documents" is a pretty vague justification for such an enormous > change. > > I like the "fundamentals" rules the way they are (except that it would be > better if Rule 2141 "Role and Attributes of Rules" stated that although > higher-power rules have the capacity to govern the game generally, > lower-power rules' capacity to govern the game is limited by higher-power > rules.) > > —Warrigal Look up the proto and preceding discussion; I do not have the free time to go over it all at the moment.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Onward with bodies of law
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020, 14:50 Alexis Hunt via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > [This first proposal is a reform to the core rules defining what rules > are, with an aim to better supporting subordinate legal documents. The > intent is to enact very little change to the game as it is actually > played, and to operate mostly in the realm of supporting definitions.] > Can you go into more detail about what problem this proposal is intended to solve or what goal it is intended to achieve? "Better support subordinate legal documents" is a pretty vague justification for such an enormous change. I like the "fundamentals" rules the way they are (except that it would be better if Rule 2141 "Role and Attributes of Rules" stated that although higher-power rules have the capacity to govern the game generally, lower-power rules' capacity to govern the game is limited by higher-power rules.) —Warrigal >
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Chamber and Other Fixes
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 03:50, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > --- > Title: Promotorial Assignment > Adoption index: 2.0 > Author: Aris > Co-author(s): > Chamber: Legislation > > Amend the rule entitled "Proposal Chambers" by adding the text > "If a proposal in the Proposal Pool has its chamber unset, the Promotor > CAN set the chamber to a specified ministry by announcement." at the beginning > of the last paragraph. Maybe change "a proposal" to "an ordinary proposal"? More clear, and without the change I think it's conceivable that this action applied to a democratic proposal would cause it to become ordinary (since that's the only way for its chamber to be set). - Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions
Several comments:
For the sake of consistency with the exiting ruleset, crimes should be
in the opposite order. So "Auction announcers SHALL NOT fail to
correctly ...; doing so constitutes the Class-9 Crime of Auction
Obfuscation".
I would appreciate it if you added "willfully". You can't accidentally
obfuscate something, and that falls under the general Rule 2143
prohibition anyway, which has a much more restrained sentence.
I join with other commenters in requesting a mandatory hashing system
(preferably also requiring a salt). These days it's so simple that
there's no reason not to. It makes everything much simpler, because
everyone can verify it. It's not that I don't trust officers to report
correctly as a matter of social convention, just that if we can make
something verifiable, we should.
-Aris
On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 7:06 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
> I retract the previous proposal in this thread and create the following
> Title: Secret Auctions
> AI: 1
> Text: {Rename rule 2550, "Bidding" to "Secret Bidding" Amend that rule
> by replacing "A person authorized to bid on an Auction CAN do so by
> announcement," with "A person authorized to bid on an Auction CAN do
> so by secretly communicating with that Auction's announcer,". Also,
> remove the text " A person CAN withdraw their bid on an Auction by
> announcement. If a person submits a bid on an Auction, all bids
> previously placed on that Auction by that person are withdrawn." Also
> add in a new paragraph "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no
> Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing unless they
> do so in a verifiably secret way either in the same post as the
> Auction initiation,
> or up to two days before its initiation. Whichever method they choose, the
> method must be verifiably datable to before or during the auction's
> initiation,
> and revealed only at the auction's end.".
>
> Amend rule 2551 "Auction End" by removing the text ", or immediately if no
> bid has been placed or withdrawn in the last 96 hours". Also, replace
> the text "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." (by the way, typo) with "In the same message, e SHALL
> include an unamended list of the auction-related communications e
> privately received, and the bids contained within those
> communications, and the winner(s) (if any) of the Auction. E shall
> also list the times at which those communications were received.
> Failing to correctly and fully relate the results of an Auction as an
> Auction announcer is the Class-9 Crime of Auction Obfuscation, and
> Auction announcers SHALL NOT so fail. Revealing information about the
> auction before its end either privately or publicly is also the same crime, if
> performed by Auction announcers, who SHALL NOT do so.". Also amend
> that rule by
> replacing "The winner of a lot SHALL pay the Auctioneer the number of
> the Auction's currency equal to eir bid," with "The winner of a lot
> SHALL pay the Auctioneer the number of the Auction's currency equal to
> the bid one lower than eir bid, plus one unit of that currency".}
>
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> > I create and pend the following proposal (with paper)
> >
> > Title: Medal of Honour Auctions
> > AI: 1
> > Text: {Amend rule 2529 "Medals of Honour" by replacing the second
> > paragraph with "Beginning in the second Eastman Week of an Agoran
> > Month and ending at the end of that Month, the Herald CAN initiate an
> > auction for a Medal of Honour as the only lot. E SHALL do so in the
> > second Eastman Week of that Month. For this auction, the announcer is
> > the Herald, the minimum bid is 60 coins, and Agora is the auctioneer.
> > Only eligible players are allowed to bid in such an Auction.}
> >
> > I create the following proposal, which I do not pend.
> >
> > Title: Secret Auctions
> > AI: 1
> > Text: {Rename rule 2550, "Bidding" to "Secret Bidding" Amend that rule
> > by replacing "A person authorized to bid on an Auction CAN do so by
> > announcement," with "A person authorized to bid on an Auction CAN do
> > so by secretly communicating with that Auction's announcer,". Also,
> > remove the text " A person CAN withdraw their bid on an Auction by
> > announcement. If a person submits a bid on an Auction, all bids
> > previously placed on that Auction by that person are withdrawn." Also
> > add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no
> > Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing".
> >
> > Amend rule 2551 "Auction End" by removing the text ", or immediately if no
> > bid has been placed or withdrawn in the last 96 hours". Also, replace
> > the text "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." (by the way, typo) with "In the same message, e SHALL
> > include an unamended list of the auction-related co
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions
I've been overly paranoid sometimes and used stuff like
"I bid X coins and here's some tasty salt: F71FEC2C0685313F98D883EFFFC36F"
On Tue, 3 Jul 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> It's weird, I can't imagine how I would pronounce "SHA". I suspect the cause
> is just that I've only ever seen it written down and never actually spoken
> about it, so I've never _needed_ to pronounce it, but it's actually quite
> disturbing not being able to sound it in my head like with other words.
>
> More on-topic, if we're using hashes for the announcer's bid, why not just go
> the whole way and make _everyone_ submit hashes of their bids, to be revealed
> after the auction ends? That way, there's no need to place any trust in the
> announcer at all.
>
> I do have my own reservations about using hashes at all, though, because this
> particular context seems easier than many hashes to brute-force. There are
> only a limited number of possible bids, and although you can obfuscate it a
> bit by using different typographical conventions ("21", "21 coins", "21
> Coins", "21 instances of Agora's official currency"), that seems easy for
> someone not terribly familiar with computers/IT to mess up and accidentally
> reveal their bid.
>
> Apologies for the delay on the Treasuror report, by the way; it's taking a
> while to sift through last month's reports to see who's due how many
> salaries, because several offices were created or abolished and
> agora-official was unavailable for part of the time. Hoping to have it up
> tomorrow (Wednesday).
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>
> On July 3, 2018 10:58 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Obviously, it is ess-aych-ay-five-twelve.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018, 08:11 ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > On 7/1/2018 8:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Also
> > > > >
> > > > > add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no
> > > > >
> > > > > Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing".
> > > >
> > > > This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to
> > > >
> > > > completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people choose
> > > >
> > > > offices based on subgames they're interested in.
> > > >
> > > > My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting
> > > >
> > > > announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir
> > > >
> > > > bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the
> > > >
> > > > auction results.
> > > >
> > > > Wait, an SHA-512 hash? Meaning you pronounce each letter instead of
> > > >
> > > > just saying "sha five twelve"?
> > >
> > > Anyways, acronym pronunciations aside, I agree with everything you said
> > >
> > > here.
>
>
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions
It's weird, I can't imagine how I would pronounce "SHA". I suspect the cause is
just that I've only ever seen it written down and never actually spoken about
it, so I've never _needed_ to pronounce it, but it's actually quite disturbing
not being able to sound it in my head like with other words.
More on-topic, if we're using hashes for the announcer's bid, why not just go
the whole way and make _everyone_ submit hashes of their bids, to be revealed
after the auction ends? That way, there's no need to place any trust in the
announcer at all.
I do have my own reservations about using hashes at all, though, because this
particular context seems easier than many hashes to brute-force. There are only
a limited number of possible bids, and although you can obfuscate it a bit by
using different typographical conventions ("21", "21 coins", "21 Coins", "21
instances of Agora's official currency"), that seems easy for someone not
terribly familiar with computers/IT to mess up and accidentally reveal their
bid.
Apologies for the delay on the Treasuror report, by the way; it's taking a
while to sift through last month's reports to see who's due how many salaries,
because several offices were created or abolished and agora-official was
unavailable for part of the time. Hoping to have it up tomorrow (Wednesday).
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On July 3, 2018 10:58 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
>
> Obviously, it is ess-aych-ay-five-twelve.
>
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018, 08:11 ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 7/1/2018 8:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote:
> > >
> > > > Also
> > > >
> > > > add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no
> > > >
> > > > Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing".
> > >
> > > This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to
> > >
> > > completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people choose
> > >
> > > offices based on subgames they're interested in.
> > >
> > > My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting
> > >
> > > announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir
> > >
> > > bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the
> > >
> > > auction results.
> > >
> > > Wait, an SHA-512 hash? Meaning you pronounce each letter instead of
> > >
> > > just saying "sha five twelve"?
> >
> > Anyways, acronym pronunciations aside, I agree with everything you said
> >
> > here.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions
Obviously, it is ess-aych-ay-five-twelve. On Tue, Jul 3, 2018, 08:11 ATMunn wrote: > > On 7/1/2018 8:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: > >> Also > >> add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no > >> Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing". > > > > This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to > > completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people choose > > offices based on subgames they're interested in. > > > > My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting > > announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir > > bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the > > auction results. > Wait, *an* SHA-512 hash? Meaning you pronounce each letter instead of > just saying "sha five twelve"? > > Anyways, acronym pronunciations aside, I agree with everything you said > here. >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions
On Tue, 3 Jul 2018, ATMunn wrote: > On 7/1/2018 8:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: > > > Also > > > add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no > > > Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing". > > > > This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to > > completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people choose > > offices based on subgames they're interested in. > > > > My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting > > announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir > > bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the > > auction results. > Wait, *an* SHA-512 hash? Meaning you pronounce each letter instead of just > saying "sha five twelve"? lol I don't really work with computer scientists/IT and have never heard it out loud, and working for the government I tend to sound-out acronyms by letter in my head by default unless it's very clearly a word.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions
There are plenty of hashers online. You can just google "sha hash online" or something like that and there will be a bunch to choose from. Just put in the original text and they should spit out the hash at you, which you can then copy and paste. On 7/1/2018 8:15 PM, Rebecca wrote: I guess the announcer can't privately email anyone before the auction because they could clearly use such information. I would prefer a non SHA system though for reasons of agoran technical agnosticism/i don't know how to use technlogy. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Rebecca wrote: very good call. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Oh, and on the flip side, better make it a crime for the announcer to reveal bids to anyone before the auction is over! On Sun, 1 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: Also add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing". This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people choose offices based on subgames they're interested in. My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the auction results. Failing to correctly and fully relate the results of an Auction as an Auction announcer is the Class-9 Crime of Auction Obfuscation, and Auction announcers SHALL NOT so fail". So, um... any honest mistake and it's a class-9 crime? -- From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions
I'd stick to one defined thing such as the SHA hash. I get that just saying "reasonably verifiable method" allows people to be creative, but really what we need is not creativity, it's verifiability. (is that a word?) People can push the limits of "reasonably verifiable", which could become a hassle to check each method (or even to have to call a CFJ) to make sure it works. I'd stick to one method that everyone has to use and everyone can easily verify. On 7/1/2018 8:22 PM, Rebecca wrote: I guess instead of SHA hash we could make it "reasonably verifiable method" which could include that or eg, posting a private youtube video of yourself bidding etc. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Rebecca wrote: Burden of proof is with the bidder to prove it is wrong but criminal penalty is higher: class 9 crime v general "no faking". On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Hmm, it's a problem. If you're worried that emails can't be proven, you have to be equally worried that a bidder may lie versus the announcer lying. If we get to the point that a bidder says "I sent you a bid" and the announcer says "no you didn't", where should the burden of proof be? (As an aside, we had Secret Voting before and and over many votes I don't remember anything that wasn't resolved right away as an honest mistake). On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: yes because it's the one case where lying is perfectly doable and intentional lying could almost never be distinguished by anyone. class 9 isn't even huge. it's one above intending to ratify without objection incorrect information. fair point on the first one. I would have simplicity reign and say they MUST privately email the speaker, or prime minister, or someone else, who can verify if the person has lied after they report. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: Also add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing". This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people choose offices based on subgames they're interested in. My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the auction results. Failing to correctly and fully relate the results of an Auction as an Auction announcer is the Class-9 Crime of Auction Obfuscation, and Auction announcers SHALL NOT so fail". So, um... any honest mistake and it's a class-9 crime? -- From V.J. Rada -- From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions
On 7/1/2018 8:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: Also add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing". This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people choose offices based on subgames they're interested in. My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the auction results. Wait, *an* SHA-512 hash? Meaning you pronounce each letter instead of just saying "sha five twelve"? Anyways, acronym pronunciations aside, I agree with everything you said here.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions
I guess instead of SHA hash we could make it "reasonably verifiable method" which could include that or eg, posting a private youtube video of yourself bidding etc. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Rebecca wrote: > Burden of proof is with the bidder to prove it is wrong but criminal > penalty is higher: class 9 crime v general "no faking". > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> Hmm, it's a problem. If you're worried that emails can't be proven, >> you have to be equally worried that a bidder may lie versus the >> announcer lying. If we get to the point that a bidder says "I sent >> you a bid" and the announcer says "no you didn't", where should the >> burden of proof be? (As an aside, we had Secret Voting before and >> and over many votes I don't remember anything that wasn't resolved >> right away as an honest mistake). >> >> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: >>> yes because it's the one case where lying is perfectly doable and >>> intentional lying could almost never be distinguished by anyone. class >>> 9 isn't even huge. it's one above intending to ratify without >>> objection incorrect information. >>> >>> fair point on the first one. I would have simplicity reign and say >>> they MUST privately email the speaker, or prime minister, or someone >>> else, who can verify if the person has lied after they report. >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: >>> >> Also >>> >> add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no >>> >> Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing". >>> > >>> > This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to >>> > completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people choose >>> > offices based on subgames they're interested in. >>> > >>> > My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting >>> > announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir >>> > bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the >>> > auction results. >>> > >>> >> Failing to correctly and fully relate the results of an Auction as an >>> >> Auction announcer is the Class-9 Crime of Auction Obfuscation, and >>> >> Auction announcers SHALL NOT so fail". >>> > >>> > So, um... any honest mistake and it's a class-9 crime? >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> From V.J. Rada >>> >> > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions
Burden of proof is with the bidder to prove it is wrong but criminal penalty is higher: class 9 crime v general "no faking". On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Hmm, it's a problem. If you're worried that emails can't be proven, > you have to be equally worried that a bidder may lie versus the > announcer lying. If we get to the point that a bidder says "I sent > you a bid" and the announcer says "no you didn't", where should the > burden of proof be? (As an aside, we had Secret Voting before and > and over many votes I don't remember anything that wasn't resolved > right away as an honest mistake). > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: >> yes because it's the one case where lying is perfectly doable and >> intentional lying could almost never be distinguished by anyone. class >> 9 isn't even huge. it's one above intending to ratify without >> objection incorrect information. >> >> fair point on the first one. I would have simplicity reign and say >> they MUST privately email the speaker, or prime minister, or someone >> else, who can verify if the person has lied after they report. >> >> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: >> >> Also >> >> add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no >> >> Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing". >> > >> > This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to >> > completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people choose >> > offices based on subgames they're interested in. >> > >> > My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting >> > announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir >> > bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the >> > auction results. >> > >> >> Failing to correctly and fully relate the results of an Auction as an >> >> Auction announcer is the Class-9 Crime of Auction Obfuscation, and >> >> Auction announcers SHALL NOT so fail". >> > >> > So, um... any honest mistake and it's a class-9 crime? >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada >> > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions
Hmm, it's a problem. If you're worried that emails can't be proven, you have to be equally worried that a bidder may lie versus the announcer lying. If we get to the point that a bidder says "I sent you a bid" and the announcer says "no you didn't", where should the burden of proof be? (As an aside, we had Secret Voting before and and over many votes I don't remember anything that wasn't resolved right away as an honest mistake). On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: > yes because it's the one case where lying is perfectly doable and > intentional lying could almost never be distinguished by anyone. class > 9 isn't even huge. it's one above intending to ratify without > objection incorrect information. > > fair point on the first one. I would have simplicity reign and say > they MUST privately email the speaker, or prime minister, or someone > else, who can verify if the person has lied after they report. > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: > >> Also > >> add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no > >> Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing". > > > > This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to > > completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people choose > > offices based on subgames they're interested in. > > > > My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting > > announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir > > bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the > > auction results. > > > >> Failing to correctly and fully relate the results of an Auction as an > >> Auction announcer is the Class-9 Crime of Auction Obfuscation, and > >> Auction announcers SHALL NOT so fail". > > > > So, um... any honest mistake and it's a class-9 crime? > > > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions
I guess the announcer can't privately email anyone before the auction because they could clearly use such information. I would prefer a non SHA system though for reasons of agoran technical agnosticism/i don't know how to use technlogy. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Rebecca wrote: > very good call. > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> Oh, and on the flip side, better make it a crime for the announcer to >> reveal bids to anyone before the auction is over! >> >> On Sun, 1 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: >>> > Also >>> > add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no >>> > Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing". >>> >>> This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to >>> completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people choose >>> offices based on subgames they're interested in. >>> >>> My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting >>> announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir >>> bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the >>> auction results. >>> >>> > Failing to correctly and fully relate the results of an Auction as an >>> > Auction announcer is the Class-9 Crime of Auction Obfuscation, and >>> > Auction announcers SHALL NOT so fail". >>> >>> So, um... any honest mistake and it's a class-9 crime? >>> >>> >> > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions
very good call. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Oh, and on the flip side, better make it a crime for the announcer to > reveal bids to anyone before the auction is over! > > On Sun, 1 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: >> > Also >> > add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no >> > Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing". >> >> This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to >> completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people choose >> offices based on subgames they're interested in. >> >> My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting >> announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir >> bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the >> auction results. >> >> > Failing to correctly and fully relate the results of an Auction as an >> > Auction announcer is the Class-9 Crime of Auction Obfuscation, and >> > Auction announcers SHALL NOT so fail". >> >> So, um... any honest mistake and it's a class-9 crime? >> >> > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions
Oh, and on the flip side, better make it a crime for the announcer to reveal bids to anyone before the auction is over! On Sun, 1 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: > > Also > > add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no > > Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing". > > This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to > completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people choose > offices based on subgames they're interested in. > > My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting > announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir > bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the > auction results. > > > Failing to correctly and fully relate the results of an Auction as an > > Auction announcer is the Class-9 Crime of Auction Obfuscation, and > > Auction announcers SHALL NOT so fail". > > So, um... any honest mistake and it's a class-9 crime? > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions
yes because it's the one case where lying is perfectly doable and intentional lying could almost never be distinguished by anyone. class 9 isn't even huge. it's one above intending to ratify without objection incorrect information. fair point on the first one. I would have simplicity reign and say they MUST privately email the speaker, or prime minister, or someone else, who can verify if the person has lied after they report. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: >> Also >> add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no >> Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing". > > This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to > completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people choose > offices based on subgames they're interested in. > > My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting > announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir > bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the > auction results. > >> Failing to correctly and fully relate the results of an Auction as an >> Auction announcer is the Class-9 Crime of Auction Obfuscation, and >> Auction announcers SHALL NOT so fail". > > So, um... any honest mistake and it's a class-9 crime? > -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions
On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: > Also > add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no > Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing". This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people choose offices based on subgames they're interested in. My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the auction results. > Failing to correctly and fully relate the results of an Auction as an > Auction announcer is the Class-9 Crime of Auction Obfuscation, and > Auction announcers SHALL NOT so fail". So, um... any honest mistake and it's a class-9 crime?
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: I destroy 20 notes and trade them for shinies. I create and pend with shinies the following two proposals. ITYM "bills". Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
Which proposal exactly did you retract, anyway? Both of them? -Aris On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:13 AM, V.J Rada wrote: > I retract the above. > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 6:01 PM, V.J Rada wrote: >> I pend the following w/ AP (I have none left this week, having called >> a CFJ on my playerhood) >> Title: No messin' with Stamps >> AI: 1 >> Amend rule 2498 "Economic Wins" by removing the sentence >> "Players MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp and cause Agora to >> transfer the Stamp Value, in shinies, to em." >> and adding the sentence >> "A player MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp e owns and >> cause Agora to transfer the Stamp Value, in shinies, to em." in its place. >> >> I also submit but do not pend the following proposal >> Title: Agora's broke >> AI: 2 >> Amend the rule "Shiny Supply Level" by replacing the number 1000 with 1200. >> Cause a Shiny Relevelling Event >> >> >> -- >> From V.J Rada > > > > -- > From V.J Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
i did retract. On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> On Sep 8, 2017, at 11:58 PM, Aris Merchant >> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:01 AM, V.J Rada wrote: >>> I pend the following w/ AP (I have none left this week, having called >>> a CFJ on my playerhood) >>> Title: No messin' with Stamps >>> AI: 1 >>> Amend rule 2498 "Economic Wins" by removing the sentence >>> "Players MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp and cause Agora to >>> transfer the Stamp Value, in shinies, to em." >>> and adding the sentence >>> "A player MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp e owns and >>> cause Agora to transfer the Stamp Value, in shinies, to em." in its place. >> >> Care to tweak this? > > Simply withdrawing it would do. > > I submitted and pended my own proposal, "Stamp CAN Patch”, after V.J Rada’s, > so (assuming we’re still assessing them in the order they were pended) V.J > Rada’s proposal will be overridden entirely. > > -o > -- >From V.J Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
> On Sep 8, 2017, at 11:58 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:01 AM, V.J Rada wrote: >> I pend the following w/ AP (I have none left this week, having called >> a CFJ on my playerhood) >> Title: No messin' with Stamps >> AI: 1 >> Amend rule 2498 "Economic Wins" by removing the sentence >> "Players MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp and cause Agora to >> transfer the Stamp Value, in shinies, to em." >> and adding the sentence >> "A player MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp e owns and >> cause Agora to transfer the Stamp Value, in shinies, to em." in its place. > > Care to tweak this? Simply withdrawing it would do. I submitted and pended my own proposal, "Stamp CAN Patch”, after V.J Rada’s, so (assuming we’re still assessing them in the order they were pended) V.J Rada’s proposal will be overridden entirely. -o signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:01 AM, V.J Rada wrote: > I pend the following w/ AP (I have none left this week, having called > a CFJ on my playerhood) > Title: No messin' with Stamps > AI: 1 > Amend rule 2498 "Economic Wins" by removing the sentence > "Players MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp and cause Agora to > transfer the Stamp Value, in shinies, to em." > and adding the sentence > "A player MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp e owns and > cause Agora to transfer the Stamp Value, in shinies, to em." in its place. Care to tweak this? -Aris
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On 2016-02-04 21:06, Henri Bouchard wrote: > current value plus N. N cannot be less than the credit balance of > the transferer before the transfer occurs. A player can conduct a Am I missing something, or should this be "N cannot be *more* than the credit balance..." -- Sprocklem
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
First, a note: these proposals need to be reissued to require Credits v2 to be adopted instead. Also, is there anything preventing me from taking all of someone's credits for missing a minor deadline? > On Feb 3, 2016, at 1:39 PM, Henri Bouchard wrote: > > -- > Proposal: Civilian Prosecutors > Author: Henri > AI: 1 > > If Proposal "Credits" is adopted, create the following Power-1 Rule, > named "Civil Cases": > > A Civil Case is a type of Judicial Case. For a Judicial Case to > be a Civil Case, the initiator must specify it as such. When > initiating a Civil Case, the initiator must specify: > > a) A player (the defendant), other than emself. > > b) A violation of the ruleset committed by the defendant for >which the defendant has not yet been punished. > > c) A Penalty Sum. > > If a Civil Case is judged TRUE, the Arbitor CAN and SHALL > transfer a sum of credits equal to the Penalty Sum specified in > the Civil Case from the defendant to the initiator within two > days of the announcement of the decision. If a Civil Case is > judged FALSE, the initiator shall transfer 1 credit to the > defendant within 2 days of the announcement of the decision. > > --
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Nic Evans wrote: > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Henri Bouchard wrote: >> >> I submit the following proposals: >> >> -- >> Proposal: Credits >> Author: Henri >> AI: 1 >> >> A Credit Transfer of N credits occurs when a player switches eir >> Credit Balance to its current value minus N and switches another >> player's Credit Balance to its current value plus N. A player can >> conduct a credit transfer by announcement. > > > This seems easy to scam. 1) Register a new account, 2) transfer 1,000,000 to > your other account 3) deregister the new account. I'd say don't let players > transfer money if it'd result in them having negative credits. Noted. > >> -- >> >> -- >> Proposal: Salary >> Author: Henri >> AI: 1 >> >> An officeholder may increase the Salary of eir office by >> announcement without objection from the Prime Minister. An >> officeholder can decrease the Salary of an office e holds by >> announcement. >> > > Should we limit changing salaries to upon election (or another predictable > timeframe)? It seems easy to raise your salary when the PM isn't paying > attention. > I want to keep salaries flexible for now so that officeholders feel that they have adequate compensation for their work. The idea, for now, is to start with a loose rule and then gradually add more restrictions if needed. In the meantime, if it becomes a problem or someone's salary become too high, I'm sure there will be some whistle-blowers who will point it out when the PM isn't paying attention. -Henri
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Henri Bouchard wrote: > I submit the following proposals: > > -- > Proposal: Credits > Author: Henri > AI: 1 > > A Credit Transfer of N credits occurs when a player switches eir > Credit Balance to its current value minus N and switches another > player's Credit Balance to its current value plus N. A player can > conduct a credit transfer by announcement. > This seems easy to scam. 1) Register a new account, 2) transfer 1,000,000 to your other account 3) deregister the new account. I'd say don't let players transfer money if it'd result in them having negative credits. -- > > -- > Proposal: Salary > Author: Henri > AI: 1 > > An officeholder may increase the Salary of eir office by > announcement without objection from the Prime Minister. An > officeholder can decrease the Salary of an office e holds by > announcement. > > Should we limit changing salaries to upon election (or another predictable timeframe)? It seems easy to raise your salary when the PM isn't paying attention.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Mon, 12 May 2014, omd wrote: > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > The rules once said some Item could be "Decreased by N". I found a > > scam way to have N come out negative (it wasn't lower bounded). So > > of course I tried to "Decrease" the Item by a negative amount and > > get lots of said Item (I think a winning amount). > > 'Twas me, at least in the instance I remember. Oh, haha, that's the one. I remembered that I'd made a formal argument in the case and had lost, but thought that meant I'd been the scammer, not a mere overturned judge (No wonder I couldn't remember the scam particulars, it was bugging me!) -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 18:34 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Proposal: You deserve it (AI=1.5)
> {{{
> Award to Fool the Patent Title "Sociopath".
> }}}
If elected, I promise more uncertainty, chaos, destruction, slaughter,
blood Blood BLOOD ...
erm.
I mean, I accept this nomination. Thank you Sean.
-Dan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > The rules once said some Item could be "Decreased by N". I found a > scam way to have N come out negative (it wasn't lower bounded). So > of course I tried to "Decrease" the Item by a negative amount and > get lots of said Item (I think a winning amount). 'Twas me, at least in the instance I remember. Unfortunately, I have just discovered that there seems to be no remaining CFJ database accessible via Google, something that as Arbitor I mean to address immediately, but here are two relevant CFJs for your amusement: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1813 == CFJ 1813 == The AFO won the game as a result of comex's message with Message-ID <6bf32280711281839g6adde4a4wdf21f00d231c7...@mail.gmail.com>. Caller: root Judge: G. Judgement: FALSE History: Called by root: 29 Nov 2007 22:01:26 GMT Assigned to G.: 29 Nov 2007 22:10:14 GMT Judged FALSE by G.: 06 Dec 2007 18:18:43 GMT Caller's Arguments: comex announced 104 (allegedly -- I haven't counted them myself) identical actions, each attempting to spend 0 VCs in order to decrease the AFO's VVLOP by -1. comex did not specify any colors for the 0 VCs e attempted to spend, but I argue that this does not matter, since the number of distinct colors in a set of 0 VCs must be 0. I argue that "spend 0 VCs" is a non sequitur; no VCs are spent, and so no action is performed. I recall there being a precedent on this topic, but I've been unable to dig it up. I argue that "decrease by -1" is also a non sequitur; there is no way to modify an integer value such that it is decreased and such that the amount it is reduced by is -1. pikhq's announcement was similar, but each action read "decreate" rather than "decrease". I argue that this difference is meaningless per Rule 754(i). Gratuitous Arguments by root: Oh, and I have one other gratuitous argument that I neglected to include when I initiated the case. Rule 2134/1, which empowers the win, does not refer to VVLOP but rather to "voting limit on ordinary proposals". Since there are three different kinds of "voting limit on ordinary proposals" (VVLOP, EVLOP, BVLOP), it is not clear which of those (or, perhaps, the sum of all three) is to be used in determining the win. Judge G.'s Arguments: CFJ 1813 judgement: The relevant portion of R2126 is: c) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease another player's VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero). There is nothing limiting the choice of values for the letter N (or any other) in R2126(c). However, the choice of N must result in an action that isn't otherwise forbidden. For example, if the outcome results the transfer of a negative or fractional asset object, it can't be performed. By choosing an N of -1, there is an attempt to "spend 0 VCs" and "decrease VVLOP by -1". Both of parts of this must be possible. Are they? In the old currency fee-based rules, fees were paid by transfers, and a transfer explicitly had to transfer "one or more" objects (R1598/12). So attempts to transfer 0 weren't transfers, so 0 fees couldn't be paid. This was true at the time of precedents in CFJs 1456-1459. This is no longer true, so these precedents no longer apply. In fact, the later Rule governing fees (R1941/2) explicitly allowed fees to be 0 by allowing any "non-negative" cost. So in terms of "spending 0 VCs", old rules support either interpretation, and current rules are silent. CFJ 1444 precedent (on dependent actions, which are regulated similarly and the only still-relevant precedent) implies this is possible. Since it's not forbidden to spend 0 VCs, it's possible to perform an action in this manner. What about "decreasing by -1"? There is nothing restricting VLOPs to non-negative. There is some implication that they should be real numbers in R2156. There is a slight implication they should be non-negative in R683, but it is not compelling (the N in R683 could be 0 for any VLOP < 0). They are not assets, but rather "parameters" which are implied to have integral values but not restricted. Therefore, there is nothing forbidding specifying operations on VLOP using negative numbers. But the term "decrease" needs some interpretation. Arguments have been supplied in discussion that it is meaningless to "decrease" something by a negative amount. In fact, a googling o
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Mon, 12 May 2014, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 7:20 PM, omd wrote:
> > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Sean Hunt
> > wrote:
> >> with "For this decision, the valid options are the players. Upon the
> >> resolution of this decision, its outcome, if a player, is installed
> >> into office, and the election ends."
> >
> > Violates R1006.
>
> Feature.
>
> >> Proposal: Clairty (AI=1)
> >> {{{
> >> Amend Rule 2420 (Score) by replacing "increase their score by that
> >> number." with "increase eir score by that number, rounded down. If
> >> this would result in em having a negative number of points, instead
> >> eir score is set to 0".
> >> }}}
> >
> > There's a precedent that you can't increase by negative anyway.
> >
>
> hmm?
The rules once said some Item could be "Decreased by N". I found a
scam way to have N come out negative (it wasn't lower bounded). So
of course I tried to "Decrease" the Item by a negative amount and
get lots of said Item (I think a winning amount).
Precedent was that "decrease" inherently meant in common language
to "take away a physical thing" and didn't apply in the negative
direction (Or maybe "decrease" was interpreted to mean 'move towards
zero'). So scam failed.
Can't remember any keywords to look for it on.
-G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 7:20 PM, omd wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Sean Hunt
> wrote:
>> with "For this decision, the valid options are the players. Upon the
>> resolution of this decision, its outcome, if a player, is installed
>> into office, and the election ends."
>
> Violates R1006.
Feature.
>> Proposal: Clairty (AI=1)
>> {{{
>> Amend Rule 2420 (Score) by replacing "increase their score by that
>> number." with "increase eir score by that number, rounded down. If
>> this would result in em having a negative number of points, instead
>> eir score is set to 0".
>> }}}
>
> There's a precedent that you can't increase by negative anyway.
>
hmm?
-scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> with "For this decision, the valid options are the players. Upon the
> resolution of this decision, its outcome, if a player, is installed
> into office, and the election ends."
Violates R1006.
> Proposal: Clairty (AI=1)
> {{{
> Amend Rule 2420 (Score) by replacing "increase their score by that
> number." with "increase eir score by that number, rounded down. If
> this would result in em having a negative number of points, instead
> eir score is set to 0".
> }}}
There's a precedent that you can't increase by negative anyway.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On 20 Jul 2013 19:10, "omd" wrote: > Proposal: Infraction cases (AI=2, PF=25) FOR, but we should review the Classes of current crimes and upgrade a few SHALLs/SHALL NOTs to Crimes. If no one does so next week I'll look into it. Also, do we really need Classes of Crime? Could just have Infractions and Crimes, with no ranking.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On 20/07/2013 3:30 PM, omd wrote: On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Fool wrote: Create a Power-2 Rule titled "Auctions": Don't we already have an auction rule? Can we fix it or get rid of it? It was repealed. Just looked, R2393 is in the SLR posted 12 hours ago. Do we want people to be able to destroy less than that amount? See CFJ 3357. In that case it was the judge's fault for fining a non-liquid currency the defendant didn't have, Agreed, and he still owes us 20 Berks, same as in town. but if it were Yaks, it would be reasonable to expect em to bargain with another players for some... Oh, I see. Maybe that should be made explicit? -Dan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Fool wrote: >> Create a Power-2 Rule titled "Auctions": > Don't we already have an auction rule? Can we fix it or get rid of it? It was repealed. >> When in effect, unless >> a fine for that case has already been satisfied, the ninny >> SHALL pay a cost of that amount of currency to satisfy the >> fine in a timely fashion; if e fails to do so within four >> days, and has at least that amount, then any player CAN >> destroy that amount from eir possession by announcement to >> satisfy the fine. > > > Do we want people to be able to destroy less than that amount? See CFJ 3357. I wouldn't bother having that, it would just make things more confusing. In that case it was the judge's fault for fining a non-liquid currency the defendant didn't have, but if it were Yaks, it would be reasonable to expect em to bargain with another players for some...
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
Create a Power-2 Rule titled "Auctions": Don't we already have an auction rule? Can we fix it or get rid of it? When in effect, unless a fine for that case has already been satisfied, the ninny SHALL pay a cost of that amount of currency to satisfy the fine in a timely fashion; if e fails to do so within four days, and has at least that amount, then any player CAN destroy that amount from eir possession by announcement to satisfy the fine. Do we want people to be able to destroy less than that amount? See CFJ 3357. -Dan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > More flexibility this way. What if we want to make the tokens created > before the auction with paused timers, so that you know what you're > bidding on beforehand? You do know what you're bidding on with this proposal. But I guess it would save a tiny amount of verbiage :)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:48 PM, omd wrote: > On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Sean Hunt > wrote: >> How about a timer to expiration? > > Could use a timer, but not much point, since there is no reason for an > expiration timer to pause. More flexibility this way. What if we want to make the tokens created before the auction with paused timers, so that you know what you're bidding on beforehand? -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > How about a timer to expiration? Could use a timer, but not much point, since there is no reason for an expiration timer to pause. > And I'm a fan of platonic destruction > here. You mean pragmatic? I could change it to pragmatic, but because the Assessor is both the recordkeepor of Voting Tokens and the vote collector for proposals, I considered it unnecessary as e can check for expired tokens before resolving, and needs to do so weekly anyway. > a) Starting Bid should be a budget switch. Okay. It was intended to just be a bare minimum, not something the actual price would end up near, but I guess there is a risk of nobody caring enough to bid.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:10 PM, omd wrote: > Amend Rule 2389 (Ordinary Chamber) to read: > > Voting Tokens are a class of assets tracked by the Assessor. > Each Voting Token has an ID number and an Expiration Date, upon > which it is automatically destroyed. How about a timer to expiration? And I'm a fan of platonic destruction here. Otherwise I generally like, except that a) Starting Bid should be a budget switch. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Tuesday, April 9, 2013, Max Schutz wrote: > well in the case of recycling i am not sure what a parent title is nor am > i sure of how a title in end of itself can be a handicap > I suggest reading Rule 649, which defines Patent Titles. —Machiavelli
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Tue, 9 Apr 2013, Tanner Swett wrote: > I submit a proposal, titled "Recycling": > > Enact a rule, titled "Recycling": > > Any person CAN, by announcement, Recycle a Patent Title e Bears, > unless the Patent Title is a Handicap. When this happens, e > CAN, by announcement, in the same message, revoke that Patent > Title from emself and award emself the Patent Title Recycler. > > To the last paragraph of Rule 2387 "Ribbons", append the sentence > "Renascent is a Handicap." In my 11 years of (off-and-on) service as Herald, I have come to believe and strive to uphold that past patent titles are a permanent and unchanging record of the game's full history. If you want to limit this to certain modern patent titles that can be re-rewarded, ok. (I like the other proposals though, I think). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
well in the case of recycling i am not sure what a parent title is nor am i sure of how a title in end of itself can be a handicap On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Tanner Swett wrote: > On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Max Schutz wrote: > > i request clarification on ministry listen to the speaker and recycling > > please > > The wording is quite clear, in my opinion, so I'm not sure how I could > offer clarification besides simply quoting the definitions of some of > the terms used. Unless you're asking for the definitions of all of the > terms "person", "CAN", "by announcement", "Patent Title", "Bear", > "revoke", "award", "Win the Game", "in a timely fashion", "imposed", > "office", "holder", "Assumption", and "elected", you're going to have > to ask a more specific question. > > —Machiavelli >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Max Schutz wrote: > i request clarification on ministry listen to the speaker and recycling > please The wording is quite clear, in my opinion, so I'm not sure how I could offer clarification besides simply quoting the definitions of some of the terms used. Unless you're asking for the definitions of all of the terms "person", "CAN", "by announcement", "Patent Title", "Bear", "revoke", "award", "Win the Game", "in a timely fashion", "imposed", "office", "holder", "Assumption", and "elected", you're going to have to ask a more specific question. —Machiavelli
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
i request clarification on ministry listen to the speaker and recycling
please
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> I submit a proposal, titled "Recycling":
>
> Enact a rule, titled "Recycling":
>
> Any person CAN, by announcement, Recycle a Patent Title e Bears,
> unless the Patent Title is a Handicap. When this happens, e
> CAN, by announcement, in the same message, revoke that Patent
> Title from emself and award emself the Patent Title Recycler.
>
> To the last paragraph of Rule 2387 "Ribbons", append the sentence
> "Renascent is a Handicap."
>
> {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
>
> I submit a proposal with AI 2, titled "Ministry":
>
> Amend Rule 103 "The Speaker" to read as follows:
>
> Whenever a person Wins the Game, e CAN, in a timely fashion,
> award emself the Patent Title Minister.
>
> Speaker is an imposed office. Any Minister CAN, by
> announcement, take the office of Speaker; this causes the Patent
> Title Minister to be revoked from em.
>
> {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
>
> I submit a proposal with AI 2, titled "Listen to the Speaker":
>
> Enact a rule with power 2, titled "Listen to the Speaker":
>
> The Speaker CAN make emself the holder of an elected office by
> announcement. The Speaker CAN flip the Assumption of an elected
> office by announcement.
>
> {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
>
> I submit a proposal with AI 3, titled "Sticky Gerontocracy":
>
> In Rule 2357 "Wisdom of the Elders", amend the list item "Any Elder
> CAN, with 2 Elder Support, set the Chamber of an entity to
> Gerontocratic" to read "Any Elder CAN, with 2 Elder Support, set the
> Chamber of an entity to Gerontocratic. Rules to the contrary
> notwithstanding, if the Chamber of an entity is Gerontocratic, then
> its chamber CANNOT be changed."
>
> {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
>
> I submit a proposal with AI 2, titled "People don't use these":
>
> Repeal Rule 2375 "Plutocratic Chamber" and Rule 2377 "Aerocratic
> Chamber".
>
> {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
>
> I submit a proposal with AI 3, titled "Making things a little more
> ordinary":
>
> In Rule 2350 "Proposals", remove the list item "A Chamber." To the
> paragraph beginning "Creating a proposal adds it to the Proposal
> Pool", append the sentence "The Chamber of a proposal is initially
> Ordinary if its adoption index is less than 2, and Democratic
> otherwise."
>
> {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
>
> —Machiavelli
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, Arkady English wrote: > On 25 September 2012 17:27, omd wrote: > > > > Proposal: Two-way Plutocracy (AI=2) > > > > Amend Rule 2375 (Plutocratic Chamber) by replacing: > > > > Any entity may spend a Ruble to increase an entity's voting > > limit on a Plutocratic Decision by 1. > > > > with: > > > > Any entity may spend a ruble to increase an entity's voting > > limit on a Plutocratic Decision by one. Any entity may spend > > two rubles to decrease an entity's voting limit on a Plutocratic > > Decision by one (to a minimum of zero). > > Is there any known effect of having a negative voting limit? I'm just > wondering if the rule would be more interesting without the minimum. We have a series of precedents and traditions that votes and currencies are treated like physical "things". That is, like physical things, negative numbers can be used in interim calculations but when the calculation is done, while you can owe someone an apple, but you can't actually possess a negative apple (or cast a negative vote). Because that just goes against the common definition of what a vote actually "is". That's not to say this tradition can't be overruled by an explicit rule, but the rule would have to do more than allow a voting limit to go negative, it would have to spell out the effects of a negative voting limit, otherwise the votes just wouldn't count. Not that designing a system couldn't have a good/interesting result! -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On 25 September 2012 17:27, omd wrote: > > Proposal: Two-way Plutocracy (AI=2) > > Amend Rule 2375 (Plutocratic Chamber) by replacing: > > Any entity may spend a Ruble to increase an entity's voting > limit on a Plutocratic Decision by 1. > > with: > > Any entity may spend a ruble to increase an entity's voting > limit on a Plutocratic Decision by one. Any entity may spend > two rubles to decrease an entity's voting limit on a Plutocratic > Decision by one (to a minimum of zero). Is there any known effect of having a negative voting limit? I'm just wondering if the rule would be more interesting without the minimum.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Benjamin Schultz
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Sean Hunt
> wrote:
>>
>> Proposal: Richard Potato Boat (AI=1, Plutocratic)
>> {{{
>> Enact a new rule reading:
>> scshunt CAN, by announcement, cause this rule to perform a specified
>> Rule Change.
>> }}}
>>
>> -scshunt
>
>
>
> Too obvious. You can do better -- 2 hours extra duty.
> --
> OscarMeyr
I don't think so.
-scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Proposal: Richard Potato Boat (AI=1, Plutocratic)
> {{{
> Enact a new rule reading:
> scshunt CAN, by announcement, cause this rule to perform a specified
> Rule Change.
> }}}
>
> -scshunt
>
Too obvious. You can do better -- 2 hours extra duty.
--
OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > These do the same thing. They have different Chambers. I'm not making this an ordinary proposal because it's my own fault that I didn't try to veto or otherwise defeat the original proposal, so it's a bit lame to then propose a repeal; but if there's enough apathy/support that I can pass this using a mechanism created in the same breath, it's relatively interesting.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 4:58 PM, omd wrote:
> Proposal: unrevive lame pun 1 (Plutocratic)
> {
> Repeal Rule 2376 (Props).
> }
> Proposal: unrevive lame pun 2 (Aerocratic)
> {
> Repeal Rule 2376 (Props).
> }
>
These do the same thing.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On 08/13/2012 10:33 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> FKA441344 wrote:
>
>> I submit a proposal with title {No Zero Length Reports}, adoption
>> index 3, and text
>
> Create a new rule with title "No News Is Some News" and this text:
>
>If the rules define a report as including a list, then while that
>list is empty, that report includes the fact that it is empty.
>
FOR
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
FKA441344 wrote:
I submit a proposal with title {No Zero Length Reports}, adoption
index 3, and text
Create a new rule with title "No News Is Some News" and this text:
If the rules define a report as including a list, then while that
list is empty, that report includes the fact that it is empty.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On 10 April 2012 17:44, Ed Murphy wrote: > you know who you are :'(
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
FKA441344 wrote: Adoption index is a switch possessed by Agoran decisions, whose value is either "none" (default) or an integral multiple of 0.1 from 1.0 to 99.9. AGAINST. This will result in some players (you know who you are) setting AI that high just because they can. Let the Elders increase Quorum instead (to 2^x for some large integer x, to maintain theme).
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On 28 June 2011 20:11, omd wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 2:05 PM, omd wrote: >> Proposal: General costs (AI=3) > Amend Rule 1607 (The Promotor) by replacing "as a Spending Action" > with "for a cost of 5 points". Why get rid of changing costs as a dependent action? It needn't necessarily apply to all spending actions, if you think it shouldn't, but there should be a clause which keeps the current method for point-based actions. >> Proposal: Long-term storage (AI=2) > > I retract this proposal and submit an identical one, except that the > title is "Point Vouchers". > I think this fails because you have to publish to body of text. -- Charles Walker
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:47:02 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > coppro wrote: > >>The Promotor CAN distribute an Urgent Proposal as soon as >>possible, unless it ceases to be Urgent in the mean time. Failure >>to do so is the Class 1 Crime of Lack of Urgency. > > "The Promotor CAN distribute an Urgent Proposal, and SHALL do so as soon > as possible (unless it ceases to be Urgent in the meantime); failure to > do so is the Class 1 Crime of Lack of Urgency." I believe there is an error in the above proposal that would make Urgent proposals undistributable; I will withdraw it with props if someone provides the fix while my main computer is out of commission, otherwise I will attempt to provide a fix at some point. -coppro
