DIS: Re: BUS: Lest we forget (attn Absurdor)
We shall never forget our glorious boulder I push the boulder —— Ben From: agora-business on behalf of Edward Murphy via agora-business Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2024 3:12:48 PM To: Agora Business Cc: Edward Murphy Subject: BUS: Lest we forget (attn Absurdor) I push the boulder.
DIS: Re: BUS: Throwing Stones (attn Stonemason)
On 6/16/24 3:07 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: Mischief wrote: I wield the Hot Potato, specifying Murphy I wield the Hot Potato Stone, specifying literallyAmbiguous. Doesn't the Hot Potato Stone still need a few hours to cool down from my use of it? -- Mischief
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] Billboard Rock Chart - 3 June 2024
On 6/3/24 19:05, Matt Smyth via agora-discussion wrote: > My wielding of the minty stone failed, right? Because snail had wielded it > three days prior? It would have failed if you had owned the stone, yes. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of email change (attn. Registrar)
nice domains btw On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 10:04 AM Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Hi all! > > I've changed the email address I intend to use for Agora. Please direct > email to this address, li...@qenya.tel, rather than the one I was using > previously, kate+agora@katherina.rocks. > > Pardon the inconvenience. > > -Kate > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] Billboard Rock Chart - 3 June 2024 (Corrected)
On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 9:58 PM 4st nomic via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 3:47 PM Jaff via agora-official < > agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > THE BILLBOARD ROCK CHART (STONEMASON'S WEEKLY REPORT) > > > > StoneOwnerLast Wielded Stone Cost Immune? > > --- --- -- --- > > PowerNix 2024-04-01 5 > > Soul snail2024-04-21 5 > > Sabotage Agora2023-10-25 6 > > MintyMatt Smyth 2024-04-28 7 > > Protection Nix 2024-04-01 3 Protection > > RecursionNix 2024-04-01 5 Protection > > Hot Potato Agora2024-04-28 5 > > BlankAgora2024-04-01 2 > > Anti-Equatorial Agora2024-05-05 2 > > Radiance snail2024-05-06 8 > > Loud Agora 5 > > > > CoE: At least one stone cost is incorrect: The Minty stone was transferred > last week to Juniper via the Soul Stone, setting it's cost to the default, > and then this week, the Minty Stone should now have cost 9. (Or... am I > missing something?) > (And the Soul stone was also transferred as part of its ability) > > -- > 4ˢᵗ > wearing Jester's Cap > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator > Stone cost only changes at the end of the week, decreasing by 1 if it wasnt transferred, or increasing by 1 if it was transferred at least twice. The minty stone cost 7 last week and was transferred twice, so it should cost 8 spendies now. (So you're both mistaken :3) -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: Mick Jagger (@stonemason)
On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 7:22 PM Paul McDowell via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I pay a fee of 7 spendies to transfer the minty stone to myself. > > I wield the minty stone, specifying myself. > > — literallyAmbiguous I think this doesn't work because the Minty Stone has a cost of 9 it was transferred via the soul stone to Juniper, and then the week flipped. -- 4ˢᵗ wearing Jester's Cap Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] Billboard Rock Chart - 3 June 2024
My wielding of the minty stone failed, right? Because snail had wielded it three days prior? On Tue, 4 June 2024, 8:36 am 4st nomic via agora-business, < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 3:18 PM Jaff via agora-official < > agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > THE BILLBOARD ROCK CHART (STONEMASON'S WEEKLY REPORT) > > > > StoneOwnerLast Wielded Stone Cost Immune? > > --- --- -- --- > > PowerAgora2024-04-01 5 > > Soul Agora2024-04-21 5 > > Sabotage Agora2023-10-25 6 > > MintyAgora2024-04-28 7 > > Protection Agora2024-04-01 3 Protection > > RecursionAgora2024-04-01 5 Protection > > Hot Potato Agora2024-04-28 5 > > BlankAgora2024-04-01 2 > > Anti-Equatorial Agora2024-05-05 2 > > Radiance Agora2024-05-06 8 > > Loud Agora 5 > > > > CoE: Stones have owners that are not Agora (EG Recusion/Protection are > owned by nix, Radiance is owned by Snail). > -- > 4ˢᵗ > wearing Jester's Cap > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday
On 6/3/24 3:27 PM, nix via agora-discussion wrote: On 6/3/24 14:25, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: what I 0wrote last time 0wrote Unforgivable Agoran dendrochronology -- Mischief
DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday
On 6/3/24 14:25, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > what I > 0wrote last time > 0wrote Unforgivable -- nix Arbitor, Spendor
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119
I think Rule 2509 is relevant here? 'A "number of (items)", where (items) is a set of discrete entities, is considered to refer to a non-negative integer, unless otherwise explicitly specified.' -Aris On Sat, Jun 1, 2024 at 12:58 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/1/24 15:20, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > The minimum is 0 just because of how paying fees work. You can't > possibly create spendies or anything. > > > Actually, the fee-based actions rules don't have any special cases for > negative values, and you can't destroy a negative number of assets. So I > think if the required fee is negative, it's just not possible to do (and > this is... not a crazy outcome policy-wise?). > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119
On 6/1/24 17:25, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/1/24 3:57 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > >> Actually, the fee-based actions rules don't have any special cases for >> negative values, and you can't destroy a negative number of assets. So I >> think if the required fee is negative, it's just not possible to do (and >> this is... not a crazy outcome policy-wise?). > Looking at the rules again after what snail said, I think it's in rule 2577 > (Asset Actions) instead, where it effectively floors it at zero... > >When a rule indicates creating, destroying, or transferring an >amount of assets that is not a natural number, the specified >amount is rounded up to the nearest natural number after all other >calculations. > Ah, yes, sorry, I forgot about that. Then yes, it would be floored at 0. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119
On 6/1/24 3:57 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: Actually, the fee-based actions rules don't have any special cases for negative values, and you can't destroy a negative number of assets. So I think if the required fee is negative, it's just not possible to do (and this is... not a crazy outcome policy-wise?). Looking at the rules again after what snail said, I think it's in rule 2577 (Asset Actions) instead, where it effectively floors it at zero... When a rule indicates creating, destroying, or transferring an amount of assets that is not a natural number, the specified amount is rounded up to the nearest natural number after all other calculations. -- Mischief
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119
On 6/1/24 14:20, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > The minimum is 0 just because of how paying fees work. You can't possibly > create spendies or anything. > >> On Jun 1, 2024, at 6:08 AM, Mischief via agora-business >> wrote: >> >> >> Additionally, I just realized there's no minimum on X-2 calculation... I >> also change my vote to AGAINST on 9115. >> >> -- >> Mischief >> > > -- > snail There's no minimum in the proposal tho. which there should be. It should be 1. -- nix Arbitor, Spendor
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119
On 6/1/24 7:07 AM, Mischief wrote: On 5/31/24 7:26 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: On 5/26/24 21:33, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: On 5/25/24 13:39, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: 9115~ snail 2.0 Lode Stone Well: I change my vote on the referendum on Proposal 9115 to AGAINST. There is no "once" limiting the transfer. Additionally, I just realized there's no minimum on X-2 calculation... I also change my vote to AGAINST on 9115. Drat, that might have been 15 minutes too late... -- Mischief
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@stonemason, @spendor) Theft
On 5/31/24 4:23 PM, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
What was the cost of this stone when you did that? Shouldn't it be 9
because I transferred it to myself last week? Or is the SLR out of date
on this?
The latter is true. (I haven't been tracking the stone movements closely enough
to say anything about the correct price.) Proposal 9107 changed the pricing
algorithm...
ID: 9107
Title: Market Stone Pricing
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Jaff
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2642/9 (Stone Cost) by replacing the text:
{
When a stone is transferred, its Stone Cost is set to the default.
At the
beginning of every week, the Stone Cost for each stone is reduced by 1, to a
minimum of 0.
}
with
{
At the beginning of each week, for each stone that was not
transferred during the previous week, its Stone Cost is reduced by 1, to a
minimum of 1. Then, for each stone that was transferred more than once
during the previous week, its Stone Cost is increased by 1.
}
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg13905.html
--
Mischief
DIS: Re: BUS: (@stonemason, @spendor) Theft
On 5/30/24 18:58, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > I pay a fee of 7 spendies to transfer the radiance stone to myself. > -- > snail What was the cost of this stone when you did that? Shouldn't it be 9 because I transferred it to myself last week? Or is the SLR out of date on this? -- nix Arbitor, Spendor
DIS: Re: BUS: Geology nonsense
As the Geologist, I object! Stones have nothing to do with the Geologist, I'll have none of it. /j This is the exerpt from the last stonemason's report, from the 26th of May. I believe "the beginning of the week" has since decreased these costs by 1, but also, if a stone was transferred, it gets set back to a cost of 10. (Per 2642). I'm not really tracking what got transferred tho. So... I hope that helps figure out what the costs are! PowerAgora2024-04-01 6 Soul Agora2024-04-21 6 Sabotage Agora2023-10-25 8 MintyAgora2024-04-28 8 Protection Agora2024-04-01 4 RecursionAgora2024-04-01 6 Protection Hot Potato Agora2024-04-28 7 BlankAgora2024-04-01 4 Anti-Equatorial Agora2024-05-05 4 Protection Radiance Agora2024-05-06 8 Loud Agora 7 On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 3:51 AM Finley W. via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > If the cooldown is done, I push the boulder. > > Secondly, may I ask how much the stones are presently worth? > -- apathy (4ˢᵗ) wearing Jester's Cap Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Welcome package
On 5/29/24 12:18 PM, Paul McDowell via agora-discussion wrote: Indeed, I was on digest mode so I didn't see it right away. Happy to be here! Welcome! You may wish to use the 10 Spendies from your welcome package soon (e.g., on Stamps, radiance, or stones) since they expire at the end of the month. -- Mischief
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Welcome package
Indeed, I was on digest mode so I didn't see it right away. Happy to be here!
DIS: Re: BUS: Welcome package
On 5/29/24 08:08, Paul McDowell via agora-business wrote: > I, literallyAmbiguous, grant myself a welcome package. Welcome! Looks like Janet beat you to it by a few minutes. Either way, you've got one. -- nix Arbitor, Spendor
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119
On 5/28/24 16:16, Matt Smyth via agora-business wrote: > Oh - does it still count cus I updated the spreadsheet? The spreadsheet has no legal effect - it doesn't override messages sent to the lists. Tho, you may be able to argue it impacts the context? A bit unlikely imo. It would be most effective to repost your votes more clearly. -- nix Arbitor, Spendor
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119
Oh - does it still count cus I updated the spreadsheet? On Tue, 28 May 2024, 11:13 pm Janet Cobb via agora-business, < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/27/24 19:12, Matt Smyth via agora-business wrote: > > I vote as such: > > vote as follows: > >>> 9114~ snail 2.0 Grind Stone > > FOR > >> > >> > >>> 9115~ snail 2.0 Lode Stone > > FOR > >>> 9116~ snail, juan...[1] 1.0 A friendly game v2 > > FOR > >>> 9117~ Mischief1.0 Self-Elimination > >> PRESENT > >> > >> > >>> 9118~ juniper 1.0 Recursion > >> AGAINST > >> > >> > >>> 9119* Mischief3.0 Say It Once Mk II > >> FOR > >> > >> -- > > juniper :3 > > > It's unclear whether some of these work, since they ended up in the > quoted part of your message. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Spendor] Weekly Report
On 5/27/24 14:18, Quadrantal via agora-business wrote: > CoE: Þe above quoted report is predicated on þe L having owned a blob > stamp on May 5th. However, in þe below quoted email, ais523 transferred > þis stamp to emself. Good catch, I'll fix soon. Thanks! -- nix Arbitor, Spendor
DIS: Re: BUS: Rock related activities (@stonemason)(@absurdor)
On 5/26/24 18:49, Agora amdw42 via agora-business wrote: > I reach for the minty stone "Reaching" is no longer a thing. You now transfer them to yourself from their current owner by paying their cost. Check the most recent Stonemason report for cost. You currently have 20 spendies, so you could actually afford 3 or more of them depending on what you want. -- nix Arbitor, Spendor
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bowing to the Inevitable (attn Registrar, Spendor, Collector)
On 5/26/24 8:03 PM, nix via agora-discussion wrote: On 5/15/24 15:48, Joshua Boehme via agora-business wrote: In the past I went by Elysion, but that nickname feels like it belongs to another era. This time I'll go by Mischief, and for ease I'll be using agoran.misch...@gmail.com as my email address instead of this one. Oops, sorry that I used the wrong name in the Arbitor report. Just saw this one. I'll fix it in the next version of the report. I called the CFJs before changing nicknames, and that's the historically relevant one, so personally I'm not worried about changing it in the CFJs. (I'm not opposed either, though, if you think it'll be clearer.) -- Mischief
DIS: Re: BUS: Various actions (attn Spendor, Illuminator, Absurdor)
On 5/19/24 16:47, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: > (Yachay transferred 5 Spendies to me on May 15, but I don't remember > whether I still had any before that.) You did not. > Two times, I pay a fee of 2 Spendies to gain 1 Radiance. > > If I have at least 2 Spendies, then I pay a fee of 2 Spendies to gain > 1 Radiance. Subsequently, the latter action failed. -- nix Arbitor, Spendor
DIS: Re: BUS: Bowing to the Inevitable (attn Registrar, Spendor, Collector)
On 5/15/24 15:48, Joshua Boehme via agora-business wrote: > In the past I went by Elysion, but that nickname feels like it belongs > to another era. This time I'll go by Mischief, and for ease I'll be > using agoran.misch...@gmail.com as my email address instead of this one. Oops, sorry that I used the wrong name in the Arbitor report. Just saw this one. I'll fix it in the next version of the report. -- nix Arbitor, Spendor
DIS: Re: BUS: Spending (attn Spendor, Geologist, Collector, Illuminator)
On 5/5/24 13:41, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: > If the L owns a blob stamp, then I pay a fee of 5 Spendies to > transfer it to myself. Looks like it did, so this succeeds. > If I did not transfer a stamp above, then two times, I pay a fee of 2 > Spendies to increase my radiance by 1. This fails (because the above succeeded). -- nix Arbitor, Spendor
DIS: Re: BUS: A request [attn. Arbitor]
On 5/5/24 18:10, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > H. Arbitor, I kindly request not to be assigned CFJs until June. > > Thank you! Understood -- nix Arbitor, Spendor
DIS: Re: BUS: Spending Spendies - Stamps (@Collector, @Spendor)
On 5/5/24 04:36, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > Sorry for not being around and missing my CFJ deadline. Let me know if you'd like to be re-added to the interested judges list. -- nix Arbitor, Spendor
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Experimenting with Regulations
On 5/25/24 22:11, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> In an effort to reduce the ruleset, what if we offload things that only
> affect the officer of a report, or rather, leave the specifics of mechanics
> to the officer that tracks it?
>
> I submit the following proposal:
> {
> Title: Geologist Regulations
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: 4st
> Co-author:
What do you hope to gain by this? There's still just as much text
governing the game, even if it isn't in the ruleset, and the text is
harder for players to find.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Experimenting with Regulations
Right. However, the proposal gives some rule defined parameters for the operation of crystals, leaving the exact details to regulations. Eg "crystals increase in size when rules are amended or repealed" does not specify precisely how or how much, leaving those details to the regulation. On Sun, May 26, 2024, 5:24 AM Mischief via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/25/24 10:11 PM, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote: > > In an effort to reduce the ruleset, what if we offload things that only > > affect the officer of a report, or rather, leave the specifics of > mechanics > > to the officer that tracks it? > > Could you explain a little about more how you see this working? I can see > the application when it comes to Stones (shifting their definitions/powers > to regulations and tweaking them there). Aren't crystals pretty much all > identical, though, other than their individual numeric parameters (ID, > size, instability)? > > -- > Mischief > >
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Experimenting with Regulations
On 5/25/24 10:11 PM, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote: In an effort to reduce the ruleset, what if we offload things that only affect the officer of a report, or rather, leave the specifics of mechanics to the officer that tracks it? Could you explain a little about more how you see this working? I can see the application when it comes to Stones (shifting their definitions/powers to regulations and tweaking them there). Aren't crystals pretty much all identical, though, other than their individual numeric parameters (ID, size, instability)? -- Mischief
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119
... whoops On Sun, 26 May 2024 at 11:43, 4st nomic <4st.no...@gmail.com> wrote: > > sorry Juniper, this was to DIS, make sure you send votes to BUS > > On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 6:42 PM Matt Smyth via agora-discussion > wrote: >> >> I vote as follows: >> >> > >> > > 9114~ snail 2.0 Grind Stone >> > >> FOR >> >> > >> > >> > >> > > 9115~ snail 2.0 Lode Stone >> > >> >> FOR >> >> > >> > > 9116~ snail, juan...[1] 1.0 A friendly game v2 >> > >> FOR >> >> > >> > > 9117~ Mischief1.0 Self-Elimination >> > >> > PRESENT >> > >> > >> > > 9118~ juniper 1.0 Recursion >> > >> > AGAINST >> > >> > >> > > 9119* Mischief3.0 Say It Once Mk II >> > >> > FOR >> > >> > -- >> > Janet Cobb >> > >> > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason >> > > > > > -- > apathy (4ˢᵗ) > wearing Jester's Cap > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119
sorry Juniper, this was to DIS, make sure you send votes to BUS On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 6:42 PM Matt Smyth via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I vote as follows: > > > > > > 9114~ snail 2.0 Grind Stone > > > FOR > > > > > > > > > > 9115~ snail 2.0 Lode Stone > > > > FOR > > > > > > 9116~ snail, juan...[1] 1.0 A friendly game v2 > > > FOR > > > > > > 9117~ Mischief1.0 Self-Elimination > > > > PRESENT > > > > > > > 9118~ juniper 1.0 Recursion > > > > AGAINST > > > > > > > 9119* Mischief3.0 Say It Once Mk II > > > > FOR > > > > -- > > Janet Cobb > > > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > > -- apathy (4ˢᵗ) wearing Jester's Cap Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119
I vote as follows: > > > 9114~ snail 2.0 Grind Stone > FOR > > > > > 9115~ snail 2.0 Lode Stone > FOR > > > 9116~ snail, juan...[1] 1.0 A friendly game v2 > FOR > > > 9117~ Mischief1.0 Self-Elimination > > PRESENT > > > > 9118~ juniper 1.0 Recursion > > AGAINST > > > > 9119* Mischief3.0 Say It Once Mk II > > FOR > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Salaries
On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 5:04 PM Matt Smyth via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Hey, did this proposal count as invalid or something?? > > > juniper :) > > > Ah The subject line didn't contain the usual "[Proposal]" or mention the promotor so i missed it. Typically you could just CoE the Promotor's report to prevent the proposals from ratifying away, but I'll do that and distribute your two proposals i missed (the other is the short ruleset proposal). -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: Salaries
Hey, did this proposal count as invalid or something??
On Wed, 15 May 2024, 4:00 pm Matt Smyth via agora-business, <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I just had the great idea of paying people for their labour.
> I submit the following proposal:
> {{{
> Title: Labour Payment
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: juniper
> Co-author(s):
>
> Amed rule 2683, 'The Boulder', by replacing
> {
> When a player pushes the Boulder, its Height is increased by 1.
> }
> with
> {
> When a player pushes the Boulder, its Height is increased by 1, and e
> receives 1 spendie. If e pushes the Boulder such that the Boulder's Height
> is equal to 99, e receives 1 spendie for every active player.
> }
> }}}
> --
>
> juniper :)
>
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119
> > > > 9118~ juniper 1.0 Recursion > > PRESENT (for the moment) > > I'm not following the train of thought for why the proposed rule wouldn't > work. To me it reads like a sequence of events: 1) a player creates a > proposal; 2) e does not vote for it; 3) it passes. (The proposed rule has > steps 2 and 3 in the reverse order just by the flow of the sentence.) > "Passes" isn't defined in the rules, but it has a clear everyday meaning > and the SLR and FLR both literally list "Highest ID'd Proposal Passed" at > the beginning. > > - I'm not sure that "vote for eir own proposal" is equivalent to "vote FOR eir own proposal" - I believe that it's not using the correct verbal tenses to express what it means. (I might be wrong, but I'm currently under that impression) Aside from that, and that I should've also noted, is that it seems to put the onus of keeping track of this on the Spendor, because the result just automatically happens and the Spendor is compelled to keep the spendies records straight. I don't believe that the Spendor should have to suddenly concern themselves with checking every Proposal voting table just to check for this. It should probably be an action By Announcement.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119
On 5/25/24 7:05 AM, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: 9119* Mischief3.0 Say It Once Mk II PRESENT, I am not aware of the full implications of this change. It's meant to remove a redundancy. Rule 1950 secures Adoption Index twice... Adoption index (AI) is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran decisions and proposals, secured at power 2. ... Adoption index is secured with a Power Threshold of 2. As far as I can tell, "secured at power 2" and "secured with a Power Threshold of 2" mean the same thing. -- Mischief
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] An Agoran Standoff
On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 5:24 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I withdraw my latest Proposal too, the one about Weapons. I was too > excited, and sloppy. Although I still like the idea and would enjoy > expanding the Bang game. > I think it's a great idea, though! We should try it out later (though I did want to see how the "base game" plays out first). Reviving players is a genius mechanic if we do it right, I bet. Necromancy nomic. (But not zombies) -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] An Agoran Standoff
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 12:34 AM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2024-05-14 at 06:55 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > A ghostly player CAN incarnate by announcement, which means > > to flip eir Vitality to Invulnerable, provided there are only > > Invulnerable or Ghostly players. > [snip] > > When the match is reset, each player is set to Ghostly, all bangs are > > destroyed, and then each player gains 1 bang. > > > > When 3 days have passed since the match is reset, all Invulnerable > > players have eir Vitality set to Alive. > > The timing here is incredibly tight given Agora's typical pace of > play – not only is it faster than the "once per week" cadence at which > many players seem to be paying attention, it's even faster than the 4- > day without-objection timer. > > This makes it likely that only players who are continuously paying > attention will end up joining the match, and could arguably be > considered a scam, or at least biased proposal-writing in favour of the > continuously active. > This is a great point, so I'll extend it to 7 days. > > > Each corporeal player SHOULD list eir Vitality and Bang Balance in > > all eir messages. > > This one is also a problem, seeing as it includes things like official > reports (and even the SLR/FLR) – although some means is needed to track > things, and I think officer-less subgames are an experiment worth > trying, "every message" seems like too high a frequency for this. > I think this is actually fine: it's only a few words to be added to your signature at the end of the report, and since it's a SHOULD it will be easy to figure out if it's annoying or immersive (as i intend it to be). I'll be putting it in all my reports at least :3 -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: A Self-Explanatory Proposal
Okay. I'll keep this in mind. However, I should then withdraw this
(later). I'm trying to create a Diplomacy-style second-guessing
scheme, where you want to do things not because the results help you
but because the actual action helps you. Metarule means it's a rule
about rules, and nothing else.
On Mon, 20 May 2024 at 11:43, Janet Cobb via agora-business
wrote:
>
> On 5/19/24 21:37, Matt Smyth via agora-business wrote:
> > I submit the following proposal:
> > {{{
> > Proposal Title: Recursion
> > Adoption Index: 1.0
> > Author: Juniper
> > Co-authors:
> >
> > Enact the following rule, with the title 'Metarule 1' and the following
> > text:
> >
> > {
> >
> > If a player creates a proposal that passes but e did not vote for eir
> > own proposal, e obtains 5 spendies.
> >
> > }
> >
> > }}}
> >
> > juniper
>
>
> This doesn't work because it would trigger at the time of the creation,
> but the result isn't knowable at that time. Also, "passes" is not
> defined for proposals. This would need to be "When a referendum is
> resolved as ADOPTED and the author of the associated proposal does not
> have a valid ballot on that referendum resolving to FOR, e gains 5
> spendies."
>
> However, incentivizing votes has resulted in problems before, so I don't
> think this is a good idea policy-wise. What gameplay are you hoping to
> create here?
>
> Finally, can I also ask what is meant by "Metarule 1" here?
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bowing to the Inevitable
On 5/15/24 5:48 PM, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote: FWIW, Welcome back! Why I declare, apathy, you have manners befitting a true Southern gentlespivak. (Deliberately NttPF, but someone needed to make a joke along these lines eventually) -- Mischief
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.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] Billboard Rock Chart - 12 May 2024
Ah, since Rule 2642 says “transferred”, but not specifying a particular cause. Understood. - Jaff On Sun, May 19, 2024 at 2:08 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/12/24 13:03, Jaff via agora-official wrote: > > StoneOwnerLast Wielded Stone Cost Immune? > > --- --- -- --- > > PowerAgora2024-04-01 7 > > Soul Agora2024-04-21 7 > > Sabotage Agora2023-10-25 9 > > MintyAgora2024-04-28 9 > > Protection Agora2024-04-01 5 > > RecursionAgora2024-04-01 7 Protection > > Hot Potato Agora2024-04-28 8 > > BlankAgora2024-04-01 5 > > Anti-Equatorial Agora2024-05-05 5 Protection > > Radiance Agora2024-05-06 9 > > Loud Agora 8 > > > This has since self-ratified, but all Stone Costs for stones transferred > to Agora on the stone reset should have gone back to 10. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason >
DIS: Re: BUS: Bowing to the Inevitable (attn Registrar, Spendor, Collector)
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 1:49 PM Joshua Boehme via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > I register as a player > > In the past I went by Elysion, but that nickname feels like it belongs to > another era. This time I'll go by Mischief, and for ease I'll be using > agoran.misch...@gmail.com as my email address instead of this one. > > > I grant myself a welcome package > > I spend 5 Spendies to receive 2 Mischief stamps > I spend 5 Spendies to receive 2 Mischief stamps > > > Bwahahaha. Wait, forget that last part. > FWIW, Welcome back! -- apathy (4ˢᵗ) Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: BUS: No apathy
I'm not trying to do anything meritorious, I'm just trying to be annoying. :D On Wed, May 15, 2024, 3:13 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Since we have a player named "apathy" now, > > I object to each intent to perform an action described in Rule 2465. > > This is tiresome. This "scam" has very little merit. > > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 11:01 AM Jaff via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I object to each intent to declare apathy. > > > > - Jaff > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] An Agoran Standoff
> > The eliminated player has no obvious use for the granted bang, as it > will be destroyed before they next become alive. Is this intended to > give em something to trade with? > I believe so too, and I think that it's a good design because it gives (dead) players something to keep playing the game with. It also encourages more Eliminating and moving the game forwards, with the Bang surplus.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] An Agoran Standoff
On Tue, 2024-05-14 at 06:55 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > A ghostly player CAN incarnate by announcement, which means > to flip eir Vitality to Invulnerable, provided there are only > Invulnerable or Ghostly players. [snip] > When the match is reset, each player is set to Ghostly, all bangs are > destroyed, and then each player gains 1 bang. > > When 3 days have passed since the match is reset, all Invulnerable > players have eir Vitality set to Alive. The timing here is incredibly tight given Agora's typical pace of play – not only is it faster than the "once per week" cadence at which many players seem to be paying attention, it's even faster than the 4- day without-objection timer. This makes it likely that only players who are continuously paying attention will end up joining the match, and could arguably be considered a scam, or at least biased proposal-writing in favour of the continuously active. > Each corporeal player SHOULD list eir Vitality and Bang Balance in > all eir messages. This one is also a problem, seeing as it includes things like official reports (and even the SLR/FLR) – although some means is needed to track things, and I think officer-less subgames are an experiment worth trying, "every message" seems like too high a frequency for this. > Eliminating a player makes em Unalive, and then grants em 1 bang. The eliminated player has no obvious use for the granted bang, as it will be destroyed before they next become alive. Is this intended to give em something to trade with? -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] An Agoran Standoff
I like it.
" A ghostly player CAN incarnate by announcement, which means to flip eir
Vitality to Invulnerable"
I'd remove "means" from there and just use phrasing that already exists in
other rules, because I have the suspicion that it's very dangerous (or at
least, prone to bugs) to redefine the *mean*-ing of things.
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 1:56 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> It seems like Agora could use some more gameplay right now, so I present
> this subgame that got drafted a while ago. It experiments with an
> officerless tracking system, where players should report their status in
> all their messages. For example (Alive, 3 Bangs) after a signature would
> suffice.
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {{{
> Title: A friendly game
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: snail
> Co-author(s): juan
>
> Enact the following rule with title "Bang!" and the following text:
>
> {
> Bangs are a fungible asset.
>
> Vitality is an untracked player Switch with possible values of
> Invulnerable, Alive, Unalive, or Ghostly (default). A player with a
> Vitality that is not Ghostly is called “corporeal”, else e is called
> "ghostly".
>
> A ghostly player CAN incarnate by announcement, which means
> to flip eir Vitality to Invulnerable, provided there are only
> Invulnerable or Ghostly players.
>
> Each corporeal player SHOULD list eir Vitality and Bang Balance in all eir
> messages.
>
> Any player CAN publish a report of all Bang Balances and Vitalities. Such a
> purported report is self-ratifying, and SHOULD be made as needed.
>
> Each Alive player CAN eliminate another specified Alive player by paying a
> fee of 1 bang. Eliminating a player makes em Unalive, and then grants em 1
> bang.
>
> Any Alive player CAN Stand Alone by announcement, if there are no other
> players that are Alive, and no person has won the game by doing so in the
> past 7 days. When a player Stands Alone, e wins the game. If a player won
> the game in this manner 4 days ago, then the match is reset.
>
> When the match is reset, each player is set to Ghostly, all bangs are
> destroyed, and then each player gains 1 bang.
>
> When 3 days have passed since the match is reset, all Invulnerable
> players have eir Vitality set to Alive.
>
> When 14 days have passed since a player was last eliminated, the match
> resets, and then each player that was alive immediately before the match
> reset gains 1 bang.
> }
>
> The match is hereby reset.
> }}}
> --
> snail
>
Re: DIS: 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
DIS: Re: BUS: Vacation intents
On 5/10/24 14:31, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > On Fri, 2024-05-10 at 17:00 +0200, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > >> > > For each intent to declare apathy that has been made within the past 21 > days, I object to it. (Probably an apparently empty message can't hide > one of those, but may as well exercise the usual level of paranoia.) > I appreciate that you even quoted the empty message, just in case. -- nix Arbitor, Spendor
DIS: Re: BUS: Vacation intents
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New week, new push (attn Absurdor)
That's incredibly cool On Sun, May 5, 2024 at 10:02 PM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, 2024-05-05 at 21:38 +0200, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora- > discussion wrote: > > It's crazy to me how they've made a whole video game based on an > > Agoran subgame. > > BF Joust escaped its origins as an Agoran subgame and became something > that received intermittent play for over seven years. I'm not sure > whether or not it counts as a video game (but the submissions were > moderated automatically by computer and we had visualisations for > seeing how the various competing warriors did, so it's a video game in > the sense of "a game played by interacting with a computer program that > provides graphical feedback"). > > You can see https://esolangs.org/wiki/BF_Joust_strategies for some of > the nonsense we came up with over the years. (The rules were slightly > different from the original ruleset that was run at Agora - the "flag > zero" victory condition was changed to require the flag to be at two > cycles rather than one, the tape was made shorter, and a command was > added to wait for one cycle. Competitions also started to be run > continuously, rather than in weekly batches, and with a draw being > counted as a draw rather than a double loss. But most of the rules are > still the same as in the Agoran original.) > > For those who weren't active in 2008, here's how it looked at Agora: > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg10766.html > > -- > ais523 >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New week, new push (attn Absurdor)
On Sun, 2024-05-05 at 21:38 +0200, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora- discussion wrote: > It's crazy to me how they've made a whole video game based on an > Agoran subgame. BF Joust escaped its origins as an Agoran subgame and became something that received intermittent play for over seven years. I'm not sure whether or not it counts as a video game (but the submissions were moderated automatically by computer and we had visualisations for seeing how the various competing warriors did, so it's a video game in the sense of "a game played by interacting with a computer program that provides graphical feedback"). You can see https://esolangs.org/wiki/BF_Joust_strategies for some of the nonsense we came up with over the years. (The rules were slightly different from the original ruleset that was run at Agora - the "flag zero" victory condition was changed to require the flag to be at two cycles rather than one, the tape was made shorter, and a command was added to wait for one cycle. Competitions also started to be run continuously, rather than in weekly batches, and with a draw being counted as a draw rather than a double loss. But most of the rules are still the same as in the Agoran original.) For those who weren't active in 2008, here's how it looked at Agora: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg10766.html -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: New week, new push (attn Absurdor)
It's crazy to me how they've made a whole video game based on an Agoran subgame. On Sun, May 5, 2024 at 8:43 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I push the boulder. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy2mHfQBfLA >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Petitions [further attn. Promotor, Arbitor, Tailor, ADoP]
On 5/2/24 10:15, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > Joint awards are a normal thing in real life, and the announcement would > be pretty much identical to that intent. I really don't see any > specificity issue. I originally read, and still read, the intent as intending to award a separate title to each person. If you're reading it the other way (as a single title awarded to a set of persons), that suggests that the intent isn't unambiguous. > Whether you think it *should* be done this way is a separate question of > whether it works (which I see no rule reason to doubt). Okay, that's fair. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Petitions [further attn. Promotor, Arbitor, Tailor, ADoP]
On 5/2/24 01:39, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/1/24 13:19, nix via agora-discussion wrote: I intend to award Employee of the Year to snail and Janet. >>> I object, sorry. I think these need to be phrased as separate intents. >>> >> I don't think that's true. The rule text says awardable to "the >> persons", plural. Nothing indicates it cannot be awarded to multiple >> people, and overall patent titles can belong to entities (and the joint >> of two players is still an entity). The semantic difference is whether >> there's one title jointly awarded to both of you (which I think this >> implies), or two separate titles for each of you. > > > It's certainly possible to do, but I don't think we have previously had > a patent title being (deliberately) awarded to a set of persons (under > the legal definition, so excluding the instance with BC System), and I > don't think we should start. At the very least, it'd likely cause > confusion in the Herald's report? > > In any event, I don't think the intent specifies that clearly enough to > meet the tabled action standard. > Joint awards are a normal thing in real life, and the announcement would be pretty much identical to that intent. I really don't see any specificity issue. Whether you think it *should* be done this way is a separate question of whether it works (which I see no rule reason to doubt). -- nix Arbitor, Spendor
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Petitions [further attn. Promotor, Arbitor, Tailor, ADoP]
On 5/1/24 13:19, nix via agora-discussion wrote: >>> I intend to award Employee of the Year to snail and Janet. >> I object, sorry. I think these need to be phrased as separate intents. >> > I don't think that's true. The rule text says awardable to "the > persons", plural. Nothing indicates it cannot be awarded to multiple > people, and overall patent titles can belong to entities (and the joint > of two players is still an entity). The semantic difference is whether > there's one title jointly awarded to both of you (which I think this > implies), or two separate titles for each of you. It's certainly possible to do, but I don't think we have previously had a patent title being (deliberately) awarded to a set of persons (under the legal definition, so excluding the instance with BC System), and I don't think we should start. At the very least, it'd likely cause confusion in the Herald's report? In any event, I don't think the intent specifies that clearly enough to meet the tabled action standard. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Petitions [further attn. Promotor, Arbitor, Tailor, ADoP]
On 5/1/24 00:06, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > On 4/28/24 16:56, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: >> Janet wrote: >> >>> I petition the ADoP to solicit nominations for Employee of the Year 2023. >> I intend to award Employee of the Year to snail and Janet. > > > I object, sorry. I think these need to be phrased as separate intents. > I don't think that's true. The rule text says awardable to "the persons", plural. Nothing indicates it cannot be awarded to multiple people, and overall patent titles can belong to entities (and the joint of two players is still an entity). The semantic difference is whether there's one title jointly awarded to both of you (which I think this implies), or two separate titles for each of you. -- nix Arbitor, Spendor
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9102-9110
On 4/29/24 22:30, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > I vote as follows: >> 9102~ juniper 1.0 An Overpowering Proposal > AGAINST > > >> 9103~ juniper 1.0 Dictator Takes the Quorum > AGAINST As requested: I have voted against these because I don't want to incentivize trying to take recordkeeping offices for gameplay advantage (PM/Speaker are fine, of course) and because they don't match our standard wording conventions. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 4075 and 4076
Mostly just throwing fuel on the fire and poking things, for fun :) (That's why I'm not objecting officially.) Firstly, "Ownership" takes precedence (by power) over "Promises", and the actions happen in sequence, so Ownership takes precedence over Promises which attempts to change the owner of the promise. Whether or not the promise is cashed happens later in the sequence - even if the promise itself were to affect a switch or other gamestate when it was cashed, those switches would equally just become "indeterminate", thereby not producing a paradox, as no gamestate becomes undefined, the gamestate instead obtains "indeterminate" values, which are equally valid values that do not produce paradoxes. For example, even with Rice Plans, per "Switches", all the switches would have a definitive value of the last value they had had, or their default value. Agora requires clarity at all steps to function, and indeterminacy can set things in the platonic gamestate backwards, even if you don't notice, relying instead on ratification to operate. Not sure this is anything, but I also just noticed, [R217] "in particular, an absurdity [the paradox] that can be concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-defined concepts is false [the promise being taken or cashed] does not constitute proof that it is true." (Also of note: It is up to the Judge and the players what the CFJ outcome should be. This is not a platonic point, rather, it is subjective and open to persuasion and such. Therefore, this case can still be judged Paradoxical, even if no paradoxes are involved. Similarly, a CFJ with a paradox can be judged as not-Paradoxical.) On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 10:06 AM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2024-04-30 at 09:52 -0700, 4st nomic via agora-discussion > wrote: > > I object. > > Per Rule 2576 "Ownership", the asset goes into abeyance as soon as the > > owner is ambiguous. > > The owner becomes ambiguous at step 2, wherein we are not sure if ais523 > > can take the asset due to the ensuing contradiction. > > Therefore, both CFJs should be FALSE, as neither party can cash a promise > > that is in abeyance. > > This argument assumes that the paradox has already occurred – if there > were no paradox there would be no ambiguity. So this is a self- > defeating line of reasoning: you're saying that the first transfer > causes the promise's ownership to be ambiguous because it would cause a > paradox, then that the second transfer unambiguously fails because the > first transfer moved the promise to the L – or in other words, this > is an argument that says "if there were a paradox, that would cause > there to not be a paradox". > > This doesn't lead to a consistent outcome because it requires a view of > things in which the paradox both does and doesn't occur; it's just as > self-contradictory as the scenarios in which the first transfer fails > and in which the first transfer succeeds. (Or to think about it another > way, Murphy has proved that if there were not a paradox, there would be > a paradox, and you are arguing that if there were a paradox there would > not be a paradox, and thus we have constructed a paradox as to whether > there's a paradox!) > > -- > ais523 > -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 4075 and 4076
On Tue, 2024-04-30 at 09:52 -0700, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote: > I object. > Per Rule 2576 "Ownership", the asset goes into abeyance as soon as the > owner is ambiguous. > The owner becomes ambiguous at step 2, wherein we are not sure if ais523 > can take the asset due to the ensuing contradiction. > Therefore, both CFJs should be FALSE, as neither party can cash a promise > that is in abeyance. This argument assumes that the paradox has already occurred – if there were no paradox there would be no ambiguity. So this is a self- defeating line of reasoning: you're saying that the first transfer causes the promise's ownership to be ambiguous because it would cause a paradox, then that the second transfer unambiguously fails because the first transfer moved the promise to the L – or in other words, this is an argument that says "if there were a paradox, that would cause there to not be a paradox". This doesn't lead to a consistent outcome because it requires a view of things in which the paradox both does and doesn't occur; it's just as self-contradictory as the scenarios in which the first transfer fails and in which the first transfer succeeds. (Or to think about it another way, Murphy has proved that if there were not a paradox, there would be a paradox, and you are arguing that if there were a paradox there would not be a paradox, and thus we have constructed a paradox as to whether there's a paradox!) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 4075 and 4076
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 10:03 AM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 4/30/24 11:52, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> > I object.
> > Per Rule 2576 "Ownership", the asset goes into abeyance as soon as the
> > owner is ambiguous.
> > The owner becomes ambiguous at step 2, wherein we are not sure if ais523
> > can take the asset due to the ensuing contradiction.
> > Therefore, both CFJs should be FALSE, as neither party can cash a promise
> > that is in abeyance.
>
> You cannot object to a judgment, but you can either file a Motion to
> Reconsider or call a Moot on these CFJs. Here's the specifics of both:
>
> {
> Rule 911/55 (Power=1.7)
> Motions and Moots
>
> If a judgement has been in effect for less then seven days and has
> not been entered into Moot, then:
>
> - The judge of that CFJ CAN self-file a Motion to Reconsider the
> case by announcement, if e has not already self-filed a Motion
> to Reconsider that CFJ.
> - Any Player CAN group-file a Motion to Reconsider the case with 2
> support, if the CFJ has not had a Motion to Reconsider
> group-filed for it at any time while it has been assigned to its
> current judge.
>
> When a Motion to Reconsider is so filed, the case is rendered open
> again.
>
> If a CFJ has a judgement assigned, a player CAN enter that
> judgement into Moot with N+2 support, where N is the number of
> weeks since that judgement has been assigned, rounded down. When
> this occurs, the CFJ is suspended, and the Arbitor is once
> authorized to initiate the Agoran decision to determine public
> confidence in the judgement, which e SHALL do in a timely fashion.
>
> For this decision, the vote collector is the Arbitor and the valid
> options are AFFIRM, REMAND, and REMIT. When the decision is
> resolved, the effect depends on the outcome:
>
> - AFFIRM, FAILED QUORUM: The judgement is reassigned to the case,
> and cannot be entered into Moot again.
>
> - REMAND: The case becomes open again.
>
> - REMIT: The case becomes open again, and the current judge is
> recused. The Arbitor SHALL NOT assign em to the case again
> unless no other eligible judges have displayed interest in
> judging.
> }
>
> --
> nix
> Arbitor, Spendor
>
>
Ah, but that requires me becoming a player! Not at this time, trixy trixy
nixy!
--
4ˢᵗ
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 4075 and 4076
On 4/30/24 11:52, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> I object.
> Per Rule 2576 "Ownership", the asset goes into abeyance as soon as the
> owner is ambiguous.
> The owner becomes ambiguous at step 2, wherein we are not sure if ais523
> can take the asset due to the ensuing contradiction.
> Therefore, both CFJs should be FALSE, as neither party can cash a promise
> that is in abeyance.
You cannot object to a judgment, but you can either file a Motion to
Reconsider or call a Moot on these CFJs. Here's the specifics of both:
{
Rule 911/55 (Power=1.7)
Motions and Moots
If a judgement has been in effect for less then seven days and has
not been entered into Moot, then:
- The judge of that CFJ CAN self-file a Motion to Reconsider the
case by announcement, if e has not already self-filed a Motion
to Reconsider that CFJ.
- Any Player CAN group-file a Motion to Reconsider the case with 2
support, if the CFJ has not had a Motion to Reconsider
group-filed for it at any time while it has been assigned to its
current judge.
When a Motion to Reconsider is so filed, the case is rendered open
again.
If a CFJ has a judgement assigned, a player CAN enter that
judgement into Moot with N+2 support, where N is the number of
weeks since that judgement has been assigned, rounded down. When
this occurs, the CFJ is suspended, and the Arbitor is once
authorized to initiate the Agoran decision to determine public
confidence in the judgement, which e SHALL do in a timely fashion.
For this decision, the vote collector is the Arbitor and the valid
options are AFFIRM, REMAND, and REMIT. When the decision is
resolved, the effect depends on the outcome:
- AFFIRM, FAILED QUORUM: The judgement is reassigned to the case,
and cannot be entered into Moot again.
- REMAND: The case becomes open again.
- REMIT: The case becomes open again, and the current judge is
recused. The Arbitor SHALL NOT assign em to the case again
unless no other eligible judges have displayed interest in
judging.
}
--
nix
Arbitor, Spendor
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 4075 and 4076
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 9:52 AM 4st nomic via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I object. > Per Rule 2576 "Ownership", the asset goes into abeyance as soon as the > owner is ambiguous. > The owner becomes ambiguous at step 2, wherein we are not sure if ais523 > can take the asset due to the ensuing contradiction. > Therefore, both CFJs should be FALSE, as neither party can cash a promise > that is in abeyance. > > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 3:39 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > Attempted actions (#2 through #5 were all in the same message): > > > >1) ais523 grants Promise Q to the Library. > >2) ais523 takes Promise Q from the Library per R2618 "Any player CAN". > >3) ais523 transfers Promise Q to Yachay. > >4) ais523 takes Promise Q from the Library per R2618 "Any player CAN". > >5) ais523 cashes Promise Q. > (On the grounds of "Ship of Theseus" problem, wherein, the radiance stone had some qualities changed and the owner thereby became ambiguous, SHOULD have also gone straight into abeyance as the owner was equally ambiguous.) -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 4075 and 4076
I object.
Per Rule 2576 "Ownership", the asset goes into abeyance as soon as the
owner is ambiguous.
The owner becomes ambiguous at step 2, wherein we are not sure if ais523
can take the asset due to the ensuing contradiction.
Therefore, both CFJs should be FALSE, as neither party can cash a promise
that is in abeyance.
On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 3:39 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> Attempted actions (#2 through #5 were all in the same message):
>
>1) ais523 grants Promise Q to the Library.
>2) ais523 takes Promise Q from the Library per R2618 "Any player CAN".
>3) ais523 transfers Promise Q to Yachay.
>4) ais523 takes Promise Q from the Library per R2618 "Any player CAN".
>5) ais523 cashes Promise Q.
>
> Promise Q is irrevocable (so ais523 cannot take it via "The creator of
> a promise CAN"), and would cause ais523 to grant emself a promise
> "Awakening".
>
> CFJ 4075: "Yachay CAN cash Promise Q, either by directly cashing it, or
> by transferring it from the Library to emself and then cashing it."
>
> CFJ 4076: "I CAN cash the promise 'Awakening'."
>
> There is no reason to believe that #1 failed. The question is whether
> the remaining steps succeed in creating a paradox. Possible
> interpretations:
>
>a) #2 succeeds (requires that #5 will succeed),
> then #3 succeeds,
> then #4 fails (the Library no longer owns Promise Q),
> then #5 fails (ais523 no longer owns Promise Q), contradiction.
>
>b) #2 fails (requires that #5 will fail),
> then #3 fails (ais523 does not own Promise Q),
> then #4 succeeds (requires that #5 will succeed),
> then #5 succeeds (ais523 owns Promise Q via #4), contradiction.
>
>c) #2 fails (requires that #5 will fail),
> then #3 fails (ais523 does not own Promise Q),
> then #4 fails (requires that #5 will fail),
> then #5 fails (ais523 does not own Promise Q).
>
> Either a) or b) leads to judgements of PARADOXICAL, whereas c) leads to
> judgements of FALSE. So now the question is whether this text from Rule
> 217 (Interpreting the Rules) rules out c):
>
>Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied
>using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that
>can be concluded from the assumption that a statement about
>rule-defined concepts is false does not constitute proof that it
>is true.
>
> I accept the caller's argument that it does, and was intended to do so
> (to block more malicious situations such as "if I don't have a
> dictatorship then a paradox arises").
>
> I judge 4075 PARADOXICAL.
> I judge 4076 PARADOXICAL.
>
> For completeness, here's some research on past successful paradoxes,
> though none of it appears to set an obviously relevant precedent.
>
> Summary of past CFJs judged PARADOXICAL:
>
>* CFJ 3907 ("I pledge to violate this pledge")
>
>* CFJ 3901 (a promise granting and cashing a copy of itself, after
> which Rule 2618 was amended to block such recursion)
>
>* CFJ 3828 (a rule assigning an asset to an ambiguous player, after
> which Rule 2576 was amended to transfer such assets to the L)
>
> Summary of past CFJs judged UNDECIDABLE (and pre-dating the Rule 217
> text above, which was added by Proposal 7584 in August 2013):
>
>* CFJs 3249 and 3334 (self-reference via conditions attached to
> promises)
>
>* CFJ 3240 ("'Ozymandias has won' has the same truth value as this
> statement", where Ozymandias had not won)
>
>* CFJ 3234 ("ehird is capable of evoking the power of UNDEAD", where
> nothing obviously defined that one way or the other)
>
>* CFJs 3212 and 3220 (self-reference regarding the legality of
> claiming the CFJ's statement)
>
>* CFJ 3087 ("The game of Agora, but not any player of it, can..."
> while Agora was defined as a player)
>
>* CFJ 2878 (similar to 3212 and 3220)
>
>* CFJ 2650 (separate clauses of Rule 2166 stating "this asset is
> owned by the L" and "this asset can't be transferred", despite
> Rule 2240 which did exist at the time)
>
>* CFJ 2543 (self-reference involving ADoP report including
> report-last-published dates)
>
>* CFJ 2469 (Curry's paradox: "if this statement is true, then ais523
> can win by announcement")
>
>* CFJ 2446 (direct liar paradox)
>
>* CFJ 2423 (ambiguous rule change)
>
>* CFJ 2115 (self-reference regarding the legality of judging it FALSE)
>
>* CFJs 1980 and 1982 (self-reference involving contract definitions)
>
>* CFJs 1883 and 1884 (question as statement, pre-dating the period when
> such CFJs were basically judged as "The answer to is yes")
>
>* CFJ 1787 (similar to 2115)
>
>* CFJ 780 ("X violated Y by Z", where X clearly violated some rule but
> not necessarily Y; these days we would probably ask for more info,
> then judge DISMISS if it wasn't produced promptly enough)
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9102-9110
On 4/30/24 02:43, wunst via agora-business wrote: >> 9102~ juniper 1.0 An Overpowering Proposal > AGAINST >> 9103~ juniper 1.0 Dictator Takes the Quorum > AGAINST >> 9104~ snail 1.0 Stamp Raffle fix > FOR >> 9105~ snail 1.0 Stamp Raffle Repeal > AGAINST >> 9106* snail...[1] 3.0 No Overpowered Deputizations > AGAINST This isn't just a response to wunst, because I see a lot in this particular distribution, but could I plead with people to explain *why* they vote against something? In my opinion it's a courtesy to the author so they get feeback that isn't just a rejection. -- nix Arbitor, Spendor
DIS: Re: BUS: Delegation [attn. ADoP]
I support each intent. - Jaff On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 11:34 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I intend, with support from Jaff, to flip the Delegate of Assessor to Jaff. > > I intend, with support from Jaff, to flip the Delegate of Stonemason to > Jaff. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 4075 and 4076
On Sun, 2024-04-28 at 15:38 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: > I was looking for (but couldn't find) one or two other cases that G. was > involved in, along the lines of: > > * A player plays card X which gives em card Y, then plays card Y > which retroactively negates eir playing card X CFJ 1563 (was DISMISSed, apparently because no paradox judgement existed in the ruleset at the time). > * The Arbitor (maybe named CotC at the time) ambiguously assigns a > CFJ to either X or Y, both of whom would be in a position where eir > judgement would imply that the other one was assigned the CFJ I wasn't able to find this one, although I think it happened before I first registered. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: (@stonemason)
If I am not mistaken, then chain of ownership since the last time Agora owned the stone is: Gaelan -> ais523 -> Murphy -> Jaff -> Janet -> Ben So I am not a valid target. - Jaff On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 4:14 AM Agora amdw42 via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I wield the hot potato stone specifying Jaff > > —— > Ben >
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) A belated recusal (CFJs 4075-76)
On 4/22/24 23:11, Kiako via agora-business wrote: > I recuse myself from CFJs 4075 and 4076, if able, with the following > statement: > > I seem to have gotten distracted from Agora, and I don't think I have > a good enough grasp of Agora's handling of paradoxes (and am perhaps too > code-oriented) to fairly consider all possible judgements of these CFJs. > As such, I'm recusing so that someone might judge more fairly (and > ideally judge in a timely manner.) > > -- > > kiako > Do you also want to be removed from the judge pool? -- nix Arbitor, Spendor
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)
Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2024-04-23 00:59]:
> On 4/23/24 00:55, mqyhlkahu via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Janet (randomnetcat) responded to our Declaration of Intent to Push the
> > Boulder[1] with the following[2]:
> >
> >> this is *very* close to accidentally being a tabled intent under R1728
> >> rather
> >> than actually pushing the bolder.
> > To our understanding, our action is not a Tabled Action[3] because the
> > Rules do
> > not "purport to authorise its performance"[4] by one of [5]. Is our
> > understanding correct?
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> >
> >[1]
> > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2024-April/052927.html
> >
> >[2]
> > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2024-April/064058.html
> >
> >[3] Rule 1728/46 (Power=3)
> >
> >[4] {{{
> > > An action is a Tabled Action if the Rules purport to
> > authorize its
> > > performance via one of the following methods:
> > > [- snip [5] -]
> > > [- snip -]
> > > A person, acting as emself, CAN by announcement table an
> > intent
> > > (syn. "intend") to perform a tabled action, clearly,
> > > conspicuously, explicitly, and without obfuscation specifying
> > the
> > > action, the method (including non-default parameter values),
> > and,
> > > optionally, conditions.
> >}}} [3]
> >
> >[5] {{{
> > > * With N Support, where N is a positive integer.
> > > * Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer.
> > > * With N Agoran Consent, where N is a positive integer
> > multiple of
> > > 0.1.
> > > * With T notice, where T is a time period.
> >}}} [3]
> >
>
> Ah, yes, good point. I did forget that requirement. So it wouldn't be a
> successful tabled intent. However, to my mind, "We intend to push the
> boulder." would likely be held as failing to push the boulder, as the
> intent to do so "by sending the message" isn't clear and unambiguous
> (R478), since that's the normal form for setting up a tabled intent for
> later, even if that isn't actually possible.
>
> (As usual, I'm merely guessing how a judge would rule, but that's
> certainly how I would rule.)
>
> I still think your original message isn't quite that, but it's close.
I honestly don't consider the original message as a boulder push (and
do realize that I'm considerably leniant on that front). I won't record
it. On the plus side, it's a great chance for mqyhlkahu to interact with
the CFJ system.
--
juan
Absurdor
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)
On 4/23/24 00:55, mqyhlkahu via agora-discussion wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Janet (randomnetcat) responded to our Declaration of Intent to Push the
> Boulder[1] with the following[2]:
>
>> this is *very* close to accidentally being a tabled intent under R1728 rather
>> than actually pushing the bolder.
> To our understanding, our action is not a Tabled Action[3] because the Rules
> do
> not "purport to authorise its performance"[4] by one of [5]. Is our
> understanding correct?
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>[1]
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2024-April/052927.html
>
>[2]
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2024-April/064058.html
>
>[3] Rule 1728/46 (Power=3)
>
>[4] {{{
> > An action is a Tabled Action if the Rules purport to authorize
> its
> > performance via one of the following methods:
> > [- snip [5] -]
> > [- snip -]
> > A person, acting as emself, CAN by announcement table an intent
> > (syn. "intend") to perform a tabled action, clearly,
> > conspicuously, explicitly, and without obfuscation specifying
> the
> > action, the method (including non-default parameter values),
> and,
> > optionally, conditions.
>}}} [3]
>
>[5] {{{
> > * With N Support, where N is a positive integer.
> > * Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer.
> > * With N Agoran Consent, where N is a positive integer multiple
> of
> > 0.1.
> > * With T notice, where T is a time period.
>}}} [3]
>
Ah, yes, good point. I did forget that requirement. So it wouldn't be a
successful tabled intent. However, to my mind, "We intend to push the
boulder." would likely be held as failing to push the boulder, as the
intent to do so "by sending the message" isn't clear and unambiguous
(R478), since that's the normal form for setting up a tabled intent for
later, even if that isn't actually possible.
(As usual, I'm merely guessing how a judge would rule, but that's
certainly how I would rule.)
I still think your original message isn't quite that, but it's close.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)
Hello,
Janet (randomnetcat) responded to our Declaration of Intent to Push the
Boulder[1] with the following[2]:
> this is *very* close to accidentally being a tabled intent under R1728 rather
> than actually pushing the bolder.
To our understanding, our action is not a Tabled Action[3] because the Rules do
not "purport to authorise its performance"[4] by one of [5]. Is our
understanding correct?
Thank you.
[1]
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2024-April/052927.html
[2]
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2024-April/064058.html
[3] Rule 1728/46 (Power=3)
[4] {{{
> An action is a Tabled Action if the Rules purport to authorize its
> performance via one of the following methods:
> [- snip [5] -]
> [- snip -]
> A person, acting as emself, CAN by announcement table an intent
> (syn. "intend") to perform a tabled action, clearly,
> conspicuously, explicitly, and without obfuscation specifying the
> action, the method (including non-default parameter values), and,
> optionally, conditions.
}}} [3]
[5] {{{
> * With N Support, where N is a positive integer.
> * Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer.
> * With N Agoran Consent, where N is a positive integer multiple of
> 0.1.
> * With T notice, where T is a time period.
}}} [3]
After all, you can cut the flowers, but the weather is everywhere.
DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)
On 4/23/24 00:21, mqyhlkahu via agora-business wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We formally declare our intent to perform the following action(s):
> {{{
> In accordance with [1], we announce that we Push the Boulder, thereby
> increasing its Height by 1.
>
>[1] Rule 2683/1 (Power=0.5)
> }}}
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> After all, you can cut the flowers, but the weather is everywhere.
So I think this works, but this is *very* close to accidentally being a
tabled intent under R1728 rather than actually pushing the bolder. I
would generally avoid saying you "intend" to do something or declare
"intent" to do something unless you mean to table an intent.
For instance, in this case, "We push the boulder." would suffice and is
unambiguous.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Register
Hello,
> Under what name do you wish to be known?
Any names listed in set [1] are acceptable. Please note that the listed names
are _not_ case-insensitive — they are all fully lower-cased, even when they
appear in contexts which would typically require upper-casing or title-casing,
such as at the beginning of a sentence.
[1] {
kotnen
mqyhlkahu
truffle
}
After all, you can cut the flowers, but the weather is everywhere.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No Overpowered Deputizations
On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 9:08 PM Jaff via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I will point out that there are multiple ways to take actions of an office > without holding it which this wouldn't cover, such as delegation. I think a > safer fix would be preventing a player who holds an office from taking > actions corresponding to another office such that holding both would make > them Overpowered. > Being able to take actions as another officer without holding the office is useful, though, especially in some edge cases. Being unable to resolve proposals because you're the promotor seems more dangerous than allowing it only by temporary deputization, which already has some strict requirements. Delegation may need another look, though, since it can be done with just the consent of the delegating office and 1 other party, but it also has the safeguard of being overwritten with agoran consent. Offices can also in general be impeached with 2 Agoran consent, in case anyone abuses delegation or deputization. This at least prevents becoming overpowered by deputization, which most likely would happen by accident and could cause other problems. -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9096-9101
On 4/21/24 22:43, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: >> Spending Stone: As the Stonemason, I don't want to incentivize massive >> numbers of wieldings in the same message because that increases my >> workload. >> > This one doesn't make sense, the stones would probably be wielded anyways, > and this would just make it more likely it'd be done in the same message > instead of seperate ones, which seems like less or equal work. I think I disagree with that premise. This would encourage wielding stones to no or minimal effect (e.g. the Blank Stone), which would otherwise go unwielded, and that does increase my workload. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9096-9101
On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 9:10 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 4/21/24 18:04, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 3:12 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > >>> 9099~ snail 2.0 Quantum Superstone > >> AGAINST > >> > >> > >>> 9100~ snail 2.0 Spending Stone > >> AGAINST > >> > >> > >>> 9101~ snail 2.0 Unstable Stone > >> AGAINST > >> > >> -- > >> Janet Cobb > >> > >> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > >> > > Why no stones? > > -- > > snail > > > Quantum Superstone: A nightmare to track. > It wouldn't be THAT bad i think, but alright. > > Unstable Stone: I remain opposed to crystals and extending them into > other areas of the game. > > Spending Stone: As the Stonemason, I don't want to incentivize massive > numbers of wieldings in the same message because that increases my > workload. > This one doesn't make sense, the stones would probably be wielded anyways, and this would just make it more likely it'd be done in the same message instead of seperate ones, which seems like less or equal work. -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Collector] (@Illuminator) Stamp Raffle Results (THE GREAT STAMP HEIST)
On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 7:41 PM Matt Smyth via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > And at what point in the rules does it say when you are able to close > registration for the raffle? The emails seem to show that you started, > registered, then closed the raffle within about ten minutes. Surely there's > something to prevent this from happening? > > On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, 10:37 am secretsnail9 via agora-discussion, < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 7:06 PM Matt Smyth via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, 10:04 am secretsnail9 via agora-business, < > > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > I temporarily deputize as Collector to publish the following Raffle > > > Result. > > > > > > > > Raffle Participants: > > > > snail > > > > > > > > Raffle Winner: > > > > snail > > > > -- > > > > snail > > > > > > > So you collected your own stamp? > > > ___ > > > Juniper > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I got every stamp owned by Agora, which is a lot more than just 1 stamp i > > think. Getting together the collector's report now (just gonna deputize > > again). > > -- > > snail > > > Here's the full Rule: Rule 2687/0 (Power=1.0) The Stamp Raffle Once per week, each player CAN enter the raffle by paying a fee of 1 stamp of eir own type to Agora. Once each week, the Collector CAN and SHALL publish a Raffle Result by announcement, containing a list of players that entered the raffle in the previous week (the participants of the raffle) and the selection of a random player from that list (the winner of the raffle) if it is not empty. When a Raffle Result is published, each stamp that was owned by Agora at the start of the current week is transferred to the winner of the raffle (if there is one), and each participant of the raffle gains 1 radiance. The key here is that raffle results went unpublished, leaving stamps in the possession of Agora. Murphy, ais523, wunst, and Quadrantal all entered the raffle one week, and then the next week there was no raffle result, so the stamps they paid rolled over to the next raffle. Since i was the only participant last week, I could claim all the prizes this week, since all the stamps were technically owned by Agora at the start of this week. -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: An Overpowering Proposal
On 4/21/24 20:11, Matt Smyth via agora-discussion wrote:
> I edit the proposal as such:
>
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, 9:41 am Matt Smyth via agora-business, <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> {{{
>> Title: An Overpowering Proposal
>> Adoption Index: 1.0
>> Author: juniper
>> Co-authors:
>>
>>
>> Amend Rule 2472 (Office Incompatibilities) by appending
>>
>> {
>> If, at least three days after becoming Overpowered, a player is still
>> Overpowered,
>> and e was Overpowered for all of those days, then the player can
>> declare a Dictatorship, and declare emself a Dictator
>>
> by making an announcement which includes the text "I declare a
> Dictatorship" and proof the criteria for Dictatorship was met three days
> ago. If there is insufficient evidence, the player attempting to be
> Dictator loses voting rights for twenty-three hours and fifty-nine minutes
> from the time they declared a Dictatorship.
>
>> }
>>
>> }}}
>>
>>
>> I submit the following proposal, enacted only if An Overpowering Proposal
>> is enacted:
>>
>> {{{
>> Title: Dictator Takes the Quorum
>> Adoption Index: 1.0
>> Author: juniper
>> Co-authors:
>>
>> Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by appending
>>
>> {
>> If there is currently a player who is a Dictator, eir vote counts as one
>> less than the current Quorum
>>
> multiplied by the default voting strength.
>
>> }
>>
>> }}}
>> --
>> Juniper
>>
Proposals cannot be edited, only withdrawn and resubmitted.
Also, in any case, this was to DIS, and game actions must be sent to a
public forum, typically BUS.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9096-9101
On 4/21/24 18:04, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 3:12 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >>> 9099~ snail 2.0 Quantum Superstone >> AGAINST >> >> >>> 9100~ snail 2.0 Spending Stone >> AGAINST >> >> >>> 9101~ snail 2.0 Unstable Stone >> AGAINST >> >> -- >> Janet Cobb >> >> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason >> > Why no stones? > -- > snail Quantum Superstone: A nightmare to track. Unstable Stone: I remain opposed to crystals and extending them into other areas of the game. Spending Stone: As the Stonemason, I don't want to incentivize massive numbers of wieldings in the same message because that increases my workload. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No Overpowered Deputizations
I will point out that there are multiple ways to take actions of an office
without holding it which this wouldn't cover, such as delegation. I think a
safer fix would be preventing a player who holds an office from taking
actions corresponding to another office such that holding both would make
them Overpowered.
- Jaff
On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 9:50 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {{{
> Title: No Overpowered Deputizations
> Adoption Index: 3.0
> Author: snail
> Co-authors: Janet, Murphy, Juniper
>
> Amend Rule 2160 (Deputisation) by replacing
>
> {
> When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the
> holder of that office, unless the deputisation is temporary,
> and/or the action being performed would already install someone
> into that office.
> }
>
> with
>
> {
> When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the holder
> of that office, unless the deputisation is temporary, doing so would make
> em Overpowered, and/or the action being performed would already install
> someone into that office.
> }
>
> }}}
> --
> snail
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Collector] (@Illuminator) Stamp Raffle Results (THE GREAT STAMP HEIST)
And at what point in the rules does it say when you are able to close registration for the raffle? The emails seem to show that you started, registered, then closed the raffle within about ten minutes. Surely there's something to prevent this from happening? On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, 10:37 am secretsnail9 via agora-discussion, < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 7:06 PM Matt Smyth via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, 10:04 am secretsnail9 via agora-business, < > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > I temporarily deputize as Collector to publish the following Raffle > > Result. > > > > > > Raffle Participants: > > > snail > > > > > > Raffle Winner: > > > snail > > > -- > > > snail > > > > > So you collected your own stamp? > > ___ > > Juniper > > > > > > > > > I got every stamp owned by Agora, which is a lot more than just 1 stamp i > think. Getting together the collector's report now (just gonna deputize > again). > -- > snail >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Collector] (@Illuminator) Stamp Raffle Results (THE GREAT STAMP HEIST)
On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 7:06 PM Matt Smyth via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, 10:04 am secretsnail9 via agora-business, < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I temporarily deputize as Collector to publish the following Raffle > Result. > > > > Raffle Participants: > > snail > > > > Raffle Winner: > > snail > > -- > > snail > > > So you collected your own stamp? > ___ > Juniper > > > > I got every stamp owned by Agora, which is a lot more than just 1 stamp i think. Getting together the collector's report now (just gonna deputize again). -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: An Overpowering Proposal
I edit the proposal as such:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, 9:41 am Matt Smyth via agora-business, <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {{{
> Title: An Overpowering Proposal
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: juniper
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 2472 (Office Incompatibilities) by appending
>
> {
> If, at least three days after becoming Overpowered, a player is still
> Overpowered,
> and e was Overpowered for all of those days, then the player can
> declare a Dictatorship, and declare emself a Dictator
>
by making an announcement which includes the text "I declare a
Dictatorship" and proof the criteria for Dictatorship was met three days
ago. If there is insufficient evidence, the player attempting to be
Dictator loses voting rights for twenty-three hours and fifty-nine minutes
from the time they declared a Dictatorship.
> }
>
> }}}
>
>
> I submit the following proposal, enacted only if An Overpowering Proposal
> is enacted:
>
> {{{
> Title: Dictator Takes the Quorum
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: juniper
> Co-authors:
>
> Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by appending
>
> {
> If there is currently a player who is a Dictator, eir vote counts as one
> less than the current Quorum
>
multiplied by the default voting strength.
> }
>
> }}}
> --
> Juniper
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: An Overpowering Proposal
I'll modify the proposal
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, 10:05 am Matt Smyth, wrote:
> My idea was quorum-minus-one times default voting, so that it takes e.g.
> if there were eleven voters then dictator would count as 5 votes (or voting
> strength, etc.) if one person has one vote. This means it requires the
> Dictator and one player to vote the same way for a proposal to pass.
>
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, 9:59 am secretsnail9 via agora-discussion, <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 6:41 PM Matt Smyth via agora-business <
>> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>>
>> > I submit the following proposal:
>> >
>> > {{{
>> > Title: An Overpowering Proposal
>> > Adoption Index: 1.0
>> > Author: juniper
>> > Co-authors:
>> >
>> >
>> > Amend Rule 2472 (Office Incompatibilities) by appending
>> >
>> > {
>> > If, three days after becoming Overpowered, a player is still
>> Overpowered,
>> > and e was Overpowered for all of those three days, then the player can
>> > declare a Dictatorship, and declare emself a Dictator.
>> > }
>> >
>>
>> This doesn't have a method for becoming dictator (by announcement, for
>> example) and only allows it at a single instant, exactly 3 days after
>> being
>> overpowered.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > }}}
>> >
>> >
>> > I submit the following proposal, enacted only if An Overpowering
>> Proposal
>> > is enacted:
>> >
>> > {{{
>> > Title: Dictator Takes the Quorum
>> > Adoption Index: 1.0
>> > Author: juniper
>> > Co-authors:
>> >
>> > Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by appending
>> >
>> > {
>> > If there is currently a player who is a Dictator, eir vote counts as one
>> > less than the current Quorum.
>> > }
>> >
>> > }}}
>> > --
>> > Juniper
>> >
>>
>> how does ones vote count as... 6... 6 what? we have voting strength, that
>> could work. it's default of 3, though, so this isnt too powerful.
>>
>> --
>> snail
>>
>
DIS: Re: BUS: [Collector] (@Illuminator) Stamp Raffle Results (THE GREAT STAMP HEIST)
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, 10:04 am secretsnail9 via agora-business, < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I temporarily deputize as Collector to publish the following Raffle Result. > > Raffle Participants: > snail > > Raffle Winner: > snail > -- > snail > So you collected your own stamp? ___ Juniper >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: An Overpowering Proposal
My idea was quorum-minus-one times default voting, so that it takes e.g. if
there were eleven voters then dictator would count as 5 votes (or voting
strength, etc.) if one person has one vote. This means it requires the
Dictator and one player to vote the same way for a proposal to pass.
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, 9:59 am secretsnail9 via agora-discussion, <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 6:41 PM Matt Smyth via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I submit the following proposal:
> >
> > {{{
> > Title: An Overpowering Proposal
> > Adoption Index: 1.0
> > Author: juniper
> > Co-authors:
> >
> >
> > Amend Rule 2472 (Office Incompatibilities) by appending
> >
> > {
> > If, three days after becoming Overpowered, a player is still Overpowered,
> > and e was Overpowered for all of those three days, then the player can
> > declare a Dictatorship, and declare emself a Dictator.
> > }
> >
>
> This doesn't have a method for becoming dictator (by announcement, for
> example) and only allows it at a single instant, exactly 3 days after being
> overpowered.
>
>
> >
> > }}}
> >
> >
> > I submit the following proposal, enacted only if An Overpowering Proposal
> > is enacted:
> >
> > {{{
> > Title: Dictator Takes the Quorum
> > Adoption Index: 1.0
> > Author: juniper
> > Co-authors:
> >
> > Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by appending
> >
> > {
> > If there is currently a player who is a Dictator, eir vote counts as one
> > less than the current Quorum.
> > }
> >
> > }}}
> > --
> > Juniper
> >
>
> how does ones vote count as... 6... 6 what? we have voting strength, that
> could work. it's default of 3, though, so this isnt too powerful.
>
> --
> snail
>
DIS: Re: BUS: (@collector) raffle time
I object to any attempts to declare apathy —— Ben From: agora-business on behalf of secretsnail9 via agora-business Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2024 7:56:24 PM To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org Cc: secretsnail9 Subject: BUS: (@collector) raffle time I enter the raffle by paying a fee of 1 snail stamp to Agora. I intend, without objection, to declare apathy, specifying myself. Beware -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: An Overpowering Proposal
On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 6:41 PM Matt Smyth via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {{{
> Title: An Overpowering Proposal
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: juniper
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 2472 (Office Incompatibilities) by appending
>
> {
> If, three days after becoming Overpowered, a player is still Overpowered,
> and e was Overpowered for all of those three days, then the player can
> declare a Dictatorship, and declare emself a Dictator.
> }
>
This doesn't have a method for becoming dictator (by announcement, for
example) and only allows it at a single instant, exactly 3 days after being
overpowered.
>
> }}}
>
>
> I submit the following proposal, enacted only if An Overpowering Proposal
> is enacted:
>
> {{{
> Title: Dictator Takes the Quorum
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: juniper
> Co-authors:
>
> Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by appending
>
> {
> If there is currently a player who is a Dictator, eir vote counts as one
> less than the current Quorum.
> }
>
> }}}
> --
> Juniper
>
how does ones vote count as... 6... 6 what? we have voting strength, that
could work. it's default of 3, though, so this isnt too powerful.
--
snail
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9096-9101
On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 3:12 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > 9099~ snail 2.0 Quantum Superstone > > AGAINST > > > > 9100~ snail 2.0 Spending Stone > > AGAINST > > > > 9101~ snail 2.0 Unstable Stone > > AGAINST > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > Why no stones? -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9087-9095
On 4/18/24 08:26, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote: > I think crystal poaching is fine: it's competitive teamwork! I've poached > Janet for example. Perhaps coauthors need to be rewarded also? I mean, I wasn't thrilled by that. I think it's reasonable to want to reap the rewards from your own work, both economic and historical (I am proud of how often my name appears in the FLR, and it represents a lot of time and effort). -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9087-9095
I think crystal poaching is fine: it's competitive teamwork! I've poached Janet for example. Perhaps coauthors need to be rewarded also? On Wed, Apr 17, 2024, 11:01 PM secretsnail9 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > 9094~ snail, R. Lee 1.0 More instability with a hyphen > > PRESENT, but I'm quite peeved - it would have been polite to let me know > > about the error so I could correct it instead of submitting your own > > proposal and getting the crystal benefits therefrom. > > The trouble with this is i'm the promotor, and i'd also like proposals to > be distributed quickly to keep the game moving. So if I pointed out the > error, i'd still have to distribute the proposal anyways, plus then it'd be > another week until the next distribution (unless i did it immediately which > would be rude to the Assessor). > > I'll try and message people on discord first if this situation comes up > again, though, since then there's a chance for a quick fix. And it likely > will since i usually read the proposals deeply only when i distribute them. > Should probably change that too... > -- > snail
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9087-9095
> 9094~ snail, R. Lee 1.0 More instability with a hyphen > PRESENT, but I'm quite peeved - it would have been polite to let me know > about the error so I could correct it instead of submitting your own > proposal and getting the crystal benefits therefrom. The trouble with this is i'm the promotor, and i'd also like proposals to be distributed quickly to keep the game moving. So if I pointed out the error, i'd still have to distribute the proposal anyways, plus then it'd be another week until the next distribution (unless i did it immediately which would be rude to the Assessor). I'll try and message people on discord first if this situation comes up again, though, since then there's a chance for a quick fix. And it likely will since i usually read the proposals deeply only when i distribute them. Should probably change that too... -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Deregistration attempts
Deregistering players, fine But insisting on being a player but not doing much is a little confusing to me On Tue, Apr 16, 2024, 6:22 AM juan via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > 4st nomic via agora-discussion [2024-04-15 21:57]: > > I'm confused about the reasoning behind doing this...? > > What part of it? > > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024, 1:17 PM Rose Strong via agora-business < > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > I activate myself. > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024, 4:03 PM juan wrote: > > > > > > > As per rule 2646, for each of the following players, who have been > > > > inactive since 2024-02-12, I intend, without 3 objections, to > deregister > > > > em. > > > > > > > > * cuddlybanana > > > > * blob > > > > * Anneke-Constantine > > > > * Zipzap > > > > * Crystalizedmire > > > > * Goren Barak > > > > > > > > Note that they have been CC'd. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > juan > > > > Registrar > > > > > > > > > -- > juan >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Deregistration attempts
4st nomic via agora-discussion [2024-04-15 21:57]: > I'm confused about the reasoning behind doing this...? What part of it? > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024, 1:17 PM Rose Strong via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I activate myself. > > > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024, 4:03 PM juan wrote: > > > > > As per rule 2646, for each of the following players, who have been > > > inactive since 2024-02-12, I intend, without 3 objections, to deregister > > > em. > > > > > > * cuddlybanana > > > * blob > > > * Anneke-Constantine > > > * Zipzap > > > * Crystalizedmire > > > * Goren Barak > > > > > > Note that they have been CC'd. > > > > > > -- > > > juan > > > Registrar > > > > > -- juan
