Re: DIS: Shinies and Stamps Omnibus Fix Thread

[Owen Jacobson]

>>> 2. I need to draft a proposal that, somehow, ratifies the results of all 
>>> shiny-related and stamp-related actions since July 30th, when nichdel 
>>> attempted to create the first stamp. This proposal also needs a catch-all 
>>> clause to cause it to ratify shiny actions taken after this proposal is 
>>> submitted but before it passes, or we need a gentleagorans’ agreement not 
>>> to do anything with shinies or stamps for the duration.
>> 
>> Having slept on this a bit, and understanding the ratification process a bit 
>> better, I think this proposal will comprise two parts:
>> 
>> 1. A condition that matches only the prior actions that would fall under 
>> principle 1 and ratifies them in place with the rules retroactively changed, 
>> and
>> 
>> 2. A list of all such actions known at the time of writing for the proposal, 
>> by reference (through links into the archives).
>> 
>> The latter acts as a fallback in case the former is inadequate in some way, 
>> while the former allows players to continue transacting nominal shinies 
>> without losing those transactions when ratification happens.
>> 
>> Does this seem reasonable?
> 
> I spoke to ais523 privately, and to a few other folks, and it sounds like 
> ratifying the Secretary’s report (which happens automatically) and turning a 
> benign blind eye to the fact that the Promotor may have been distributing 
> proposals which were not pending (which the Promotor CAN do, but MUST NOT do) 
> should be sufficient.
> 
> We may want to ratify the ruleset, as well, once we’re sure the typographical 
> issues and accidental omissions people have been discovering are sorted out, 
> but I don’t think it’s urgent so long as the proposal cycle itself isn’t 
> compromised, and it doesn’t sound like it is.
> 
> With that in mind, I believe no further action is required on this front once 
> the proposals mentioned above are enacted.

Closing the loop on this: I’m about to initiate an attempt to ratify the most 
recent revision of the Treasuror’s report, which should settle this once and 
for all. The relevant parts appear to be self-ratifying, but ratifying the 
whole report will make sure any bits that don’t self-ratify are correct.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Shinies and Stamps Omnibus Fix Thread

[Owen Jacobson]

>> With that in mind, here are the things I believe need to happen:
>> 
>> 1. The proposals fixing the stamps, welcome package, and floating value 
>> rules need to pass. If there are any lingering bugs you’re aware of that 
>> would perpetuate our shiny problems, please share them so that we can get 
>> those fixed, too.
> 
> The proposals for this are distributed, other than one late-breaking bugfix 
> for Agoraculture. As Agoraculture has only just been enacted
> 
> PLEASE DO NOT PERFORM ACTIONS FROM THE AGORACULTURE RULES UNTIL THE MAY/CAN 
> BUGS IN THEM ARE FIXED.
> 
> Let’s not have a repeat quite that quickly. To the Agronomist: I recommend 
> adjudicating these rules, and these rules only, as if they mean exactly what 
> they say, which I believe means that it is presently impossible to create 
> Comestibles.

I’m reasonably certain that the proposals fixing Shinies have passed, but have 
not yet been assessed. The proposal repairing Agoraculture has been distributed 
and the votes so far are FOR it, so - optimistically - I expect it to pass, as 
well. We’re fairly close to having these two systems working again. With that 
in mind…

>> 2. I need to draft a proposal that, somehow, ratifies the results of all 
>> shiny-related and stamp-related actions since July 30th, when nichdel 
>> attempted to create the first stamp. This proposal also needs a catch-all 
>> clause to cause it to ratify shiny actions taken after this proposal is 
>> submitted but before it passes, or we need a gentleagorans’ agreement not to 
>> do anything with shinies or stamps for the duration.
> 
> Having slept on this a bit, and understanding the ratification process a bit 
> better, I think this proposal will comprise two parts:
> 
> 1. A condition that matches only the prior actions that would fall under 
> principle 1 and ratifies them in place with the rules retroactively changed, 
> and
> 
> 2. A list of all such actions known at the time of writing for the proposal, 
> by reference (through links into the archives).
> 
> The latter acts as a fallback in case the former is inadequate in some way, 
> while the former allows players to continue transacting nominal shinies 
> without losing those transactions when ratification happens.
> 
> Does this seem reasonable?

I spoke to ais523 privately, and to a few other folks, and it sounds like 
ratifying the Secretary’s report (which happens automatically) and turning a 
benign blind eye to the fact that the Promotor may have been distributing 
proposals which were not pending (which the Promotor CAN do, but MUST NOT do) 
should be sufficient.

We may want to ratify the ruleset, as well, once we’re sure the typographical 
issues and accidental omissions people have been discovering are sorted out, 
but I don’t think it’s urgent so long as the proposal cycle itself isn’t 
compromised, and it doesn’t sound like it is.

With that in mind, I believe no further action is required on this front once 
the proposals mentioned above are enacted.

Objections?

-o


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Shinies and Stamps Omnibus Fix Thread

[Aris Merchant]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:25 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Sep 13, 2017, at 2:17 AM, Aris Merchant 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>
>>> Having slept on this a bit, and understanding the ratification process a 
>>> bit better, I think this proposal will comprise two parts:
>>>
>>> 1. A condition that matches only the prior actions that would fall under 
>>> principle 1 and ratifies them in place with the rules retroactively 
>>> changed, and
>>>
>>> 2. A list of all such actions known at the time of writing for the 
>>> proposal, by reference (through links into the archives).
>>>
>>> The latter acts as a fallback in case the former is inadequate in some way, 
>>> while the former allows players to continue transacting nominal shinies 
>>> without losing those transactions when ratification happens.
>>>
>>> Does this seem reasonable
>>
>> We have to walk a thin line of ratifying the effect of diffrent rules
>> without ratifying the rules themselves. Honestly, I'd be tempted just
>> to ratify a secreatary's report with all the "correct" info.
>
> I thought about that, and I’m not at all sure it’s sufficient. I would want 
> to make sure every action that “should” have happened actually did happen - 
> and many of those actions have effects beyond the Secretary’s report. The 
> biggie is proposals: anything that threatens the validity of submitting or 
> pending proposals threatens the validity of the rules, and - as things stand 
> - we _definitely_ have some actions in the state where their intended effects 
> on the rules are not their actual effects on the rules.

Really not a problem. Players can submit proposals for free. The
promotor CAN distribute proposals, but SHALL NOT do so unless they're
pending (R2350). Thus the worst thing that could happen is that I
could get a finger pointed at me.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Shinies and Stamps Omnibus Fix Thread

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 13, 2017, at 2:17 AM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
>> Having slept on this a bit, and understanding the ratification process a bit 
>> better, I think this proposal will comprise two parts:
>> 
>> 1. A condition that matches only the prior actions that would fall under 
>> principle 1 and ratifies them in place with the rules retroactively changed, 
>> and
>> 
>> 2. A list of all such actions known at the time of writing for the proposal, 
>> by reference (through links into the archives).
>> 
>> The latter acts as a fallback in case the former is inadequate in some way, 
>> while the former allows players to continue transacting nominal shinies 
>> without losing those transactions when ratification happens.
>> 
>> Does this seem reasonable
> 
> We have to walk a thin line of ratifying the effect of diffrent rules
> without ratifying the rules themselves. Honestly, I'd be tempted just
> to ratify a secreatary's report with all the "correct" info.

I thought about that, and I’m not at all sure it’s sufficient. I would want to 
make sure every action that “should” have happened actually did happen - and 
many of those actions have effects beyond the Secretary’s report. The biggie is 
proposals: anything that threatens the validity of submitting or pending 
proposals threatens the validity of the rules, and - as things stand - we 
_definitely_ have some actions in the state where their intended effects on the 
rules are not their actual effects on the rules.

It’s hard to overstate just how fragile Agora is at this moment.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Shinies and Stamps Omnibus Fix Thread

[Aris Merchant]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> An update on this project:
>
>> Some basic principles:
>>
>> 1. The actions undertaken so far were undertaken in broadly good faith with 
>> respect to the transactional nature of the current economic rules, and 
>> performed with the mistaken understanding that several key rules made 
>> actions POSSIBLE instead of making them PERMISSIBLE. These actions should 
>> not be invalidated over a simple rule defect, even where those actions were 
>> clearly scams in other ways. (Quazie, I’m trying to let you and CuddleBeam 
>> keep your ill-gotten stamp winnings.)
>>
>
>> 1a. Whatever fix we undertake should _not_ somehow resurrect actions we had 
>> all understood, within the context of that mistaken reading of the rules, to 
>> be ineffective or impossible at the time they were performed.
>>
>> 2. Whatever solution we apply to permit those actions must also protect 
>> their side effects. It does Agora no good to enforce our intended 
>> understanding of shinies, stamps, and the floating value if we still have to 
>> throw away several proposals, both passed and in flight, and several CFJs.
>>
>> 3. The solution should be robust against additional actions performed in the 
>> potentially substantial time between its initial submission as a proposal, 
>> and its final enactment.
>
> In the absence of criticism, I have to assume y’all think these are 
> reasonable principles to apply, and I’m proceeding accordingly. They seem to 
> be working out okay, and it’s kept the recordkeeping reasonably simple, 
> though I would appreciate if players would avoid hedging their shiny-driven 
> actions. You may cause an action you intend to fall under principle 1 to fall 
> under principle 1a, instead.
>
>> With that in mind, here are the things I believe need to happen:
>>
>> 1. The proposals fixing the stamps, welcome package, and floating value 
>> rules need to pass. If there are any lingering bugs you’re aware of that 
>> would perpetuate our shiny problems, please share them so that we can get 
>> those fixed, too.
>
> The proposals for this are distributed, other than one late-breaking bugfix 
> for Agoraculture. As Agoraculture has only just been enacted
>
> PLEASE DO NOT PERFORM ACTIONS FROM THE AGORACULTURE RULES UNTIL THE MAY/CAN 
> BUGS IN THEM ARE FIXED.
>
> Let’s not have a repeat quite that quickly. To the Agronomist: I recommend 
> adjudicating these rules, and these rules only, as if they mean exactly what 
> they say, which I believe means that it is presently impossible to create 
> Comestibles.
>
>> 2. I need to draft a proposal that, somehow, ratifies the results of all 
>> shiny-related and stamp-related actions since July 30th, when nichdel 
>> attempted to create the first stamp. This proposal also needs a catch-all 
>> clause to cause it to ratify shiny actions taken after this proposal is 
>> submitted but before it passes, or we need a gentleagorans’ agreement not to 
>> do anything with shinies or stamps for the duration.
>
> Having slept on this a bit, and understanding the ratification process a bit 
> better, I think this proposal will comprise two parts:
>
> 1. A condition that matches only the prior actions that would fall under 
> principle 1 and ratifies them in place with the rules retroactively changed, 
> and
>
> 2. A list of all such actions known at the time of writing for the proposal, 
> by reference (through links into the archives).
>
> The latter acts as a fallback in case the former is inadequate in some way, 
> while the former allows players to continue transacting nominal shinies 
> without losing those transactions when ratification happens.
>
> Does this seem reasonable

We have to walk a thin line of ratifying the effect of diffrent rules
without ratifying the rules themselves. Honestly, I'd be tempted just
to ratify a secreatary's report with all the "correct" info.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Shinies and Stamps Omnibus Fix Thread

[Owen Jacobson]

An update on this project:

> Some basic principles:
> 
> 1. The actions undertaken so far were undertaken in broadly good faith with 
> respect to the transactional nature of the current economic rules, and 
> performed with the mistaken understanding that several key rules made actions 
> POSSIBLE instead of making them PERMISSIBLE. These actions should not be 
> invalidated over a simple rule defect, even where those actions were clearly 
> scams in other ways. (Quazie, I’m trying to let you and CuddleBeam keep your 
> ill-gotten stamp winnings.)
> 

> 1a. Whatever fix we undertake should _not_ somehow resurrect actions we had 
> all understood, within the context of that mistaken reading of the rules, to 
> be ineffective or impossible at the time they were performed.
> 
> 2. Whatever solution we apply to permit those actions must also protect their 
> side effects. It does Agora no good to enforce our intended understanding of 
> shinies, stamps, and the floating value if we still have to throw away 
> several proposals, both passed and in flight, and several CFJs.
> 
> 3. The solution should be robust against additional actions performed in the 
> potentially substantial time between its initial submission as a proposal, 
> and its final enactment.

In the absence of criticism, I have to assume y’all think these are reasonable 
principles to apply, and I’m proceeding accordingly. They seem to be working 
out okay, and it’s kept the recordkeeping reasonably simple, though I would 
appreciate if players would avoid hedging their shiny-driven actions. You may 
cause an action you intend to fall under principle 1 to fall under principle 
1a, instead.

> With that in mind, here are the things I believe need to happen:
> 
> 1. The proposals fixing the stamps, welcome package, and floating value rules 
> need to pass. If there are any lingering bugs you’re aware of that would 
> perpetuate our shiny problems, please share them so that we can get those 
> fixed, too.

The proposals for this are distributed, other than one late-breaking bugfix for 
Agoraculture. As Agoraculture has only just been enacted

PLEASE DO NOT PERFORM ACTIONS FROM THE AGORACULTURE RULES UNTIL THE MAY/CAN 
BUGS IN THEM ARE FIXED.

Let’s not have a repeat quite that quickly. To the Agronomist: I recommend 
adjudicating these rules, and these rules only, as if they mean exactly what 
they say, which I believe means that it is presently impossible to create 
Comestibles.

> 2. I need to draft a proposal that, somehow, ratifies the results of all 
> shiny-related and stamp-related actions since July 30th, when nichdel 
> attempted to create the first stamp. This proposal also needs a catch-all 
> clause to cause it to ratify shiny actions taken after this proposal is 
> submitted but before it passes, or we need a gentleagorans’ agreement not to 
> do anything with shinies or stamps for the duration.

Having slept on this a bit, and understanding the ratification process a bit 
better, I think this proposal will comprise two parts:

1. A condition that matches only the prior actions that would fall under 
principle 1 and ratifies them in place with the rules retroactively changed, and

2. A list of all such actions known at the time of writing for the proposal, by 
reference (through links into the archives).

The latter acts as a fallback in case the former is inadequate in some way, 
while the former allows players to continue transacting nominal shinies without 
losing those transactions when ratification happens.

Does this seem reasonable

-o


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Shinies and Stamps Omnibus Fix Thread

[Cuddle Beam]

Yeah, mine failed both under the believed paradigm and the real paradigm
because I did silly typos. (mixed up shiny with floating value or something
iirc).

Gaelan did wire me some monies though, as compensation. I'm pretty sure his
attempted worked (under the believed paradigm) because it uses mays for
destruction just like how mays were used for creation.

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
> 1a. Whatever fix we undertake should _not_ somehow resurrect actions we
>> had all understood, within the context of that mistaken reading of the
>> rules, to be ineffective or impossible at the time they were performed.
>>
>> There are a few shiny transactions that clearly didn’t happen no matter
>> what version of the rules you use, such as my attempt to claim a reward for
>> a proposal which had not been assessed.
>>
>
> As I recall, both of Cuddlebeam's Stamp scam attempts fall under this too,
> but not Gaelan Steele's response.
>
> (Otherwise, your 1-3 are pretty much what I thought too.)
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Shinies and Stamps Omnibus Fix Thread

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:

1a. Whatever fix we undertake should _not_ somehow resurrect actions we 
had all understood, within the context of that mistaken reading of the 
rules, to be ineffective or impossible at the time they were performed.


There are a few shiny transactions that clearly didn’t happen no matter 
what version of the rules you use, such as my attempt to claim a reward 
for a proposal which had not been assessed.


As I recall, both of Cuddlebeam's Stamp scam attempts fall under this too, 
but not Gaelan Steele's response.


(Otherwise, your 1-3 are pretty much what I thought too.)

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Shinies and Stamps Omnibus Fix Thread

[Cuddle Beam]

I suggest bumping this tomorrow for visibilty during the evening because
it's super late in Europe rn and pretty late in the states.

A way to dodge those side-effects could be to make it so formally no
actions actually happened during the controversial timeframe and we just
lock in the gamestate to the final result.

Overall looks pretty good imo.

>If there are any lingering bugs you’re aware of that would perpetuate our
shiny problems, please share them so that we can get those fixed

If there is a bounty for showing them or something, I'm guessing people
will be more inclined to show them. I believe this is a problem that all
fix endeavors will have though, people will just prefer to be silent about
potential flaws which they believe they could scam in the future. I don't
know a good solution but I'm guessing a bounty (which is pretty much a
bribe) could be alright.

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> Having caught up - y’all are exhaustingly fast, you know that? - I think
> it’s time to start drafting the fixes in earnest.
>
> Some basic principles:
>
> 1. The actions undertaken so far were undertaken in broadly good faith
> with respect to the transactional nature of the current economic rules, and
> performed with the mistaken understanding that several key rules made
> actions POSSIBLE instead of making them PERMISSIBLE. These actions should
> not be invalidated over a simple rule defect, even where those actions were
> clearly scams in other ways. (Quazie, I’m trying to let you and CuddleBeam
> keep your ill-gotten stamp winnings.)
>
> 2. Whatever solution we apply to permit those actions must also protect
> their side effects. It does Agora no good to enforce our intended
> understanding of shinies, stamps, and the floating value if we still have
> to throw away several proposals, both passed and in flight, and several
> CFJs.
>
> 3. The solution should be robust against additional actions performed in
> the potentially substantial time between its initial submission as a
> proposal, and its final enactment.
>
> If you disagree with these, or feel they’re insufficient, please, speak up
> - now is a critical time for you to get your feedback in.
>
> The second principle strongly implies that we need to, in some way,
> re-resolve each action, as if the rules were the corrected rules at that
> time. The alternative is to gather up the total result, and ratify it by
> proposal, but i fear that we may not fully understand what side effects
> need ratification.
>
> With that in mind, here are the things I believe need to happen:
>
> 1. The proposals fixing the stamps, welcome package, and floating value
> rules need to pass. If there are any lingering bugs you’re aware of that
> would perpetuate our shiny problems, please share them so that we can get
> those fixed, too.
>
> 2. I need to draft a proposal that, somehow, ratifies the results of all
> shiny-related and stamp-related actions since July 30th, when nichdel
> attempted to create the first stamp. This proposal also needs a catch-all
> clause to cause it to ratify shiny actions taken after this proposal is
> submitted but before it passes, or we need a gentleagorans’ agreement not
> to do anything with shinies or stamps for the duration.
>
> What am I missing?
>
> -o
>
>

Re: DIS: Shinies and Stamps Omnibus Fix Thread

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 8, 2017, at 11:10 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> Having caught up - y’all are exhaustingly fast, you know that? - I think it’s 
> time to start drafting the fixes in earnest.
> 
> Some basic principles:
> 
> 1. The actions undertaken so far were undertaken in broadly good faith with 
> respect to the transactional nature of the current economic rules, and 
> performed with the mistaken understanding that several key rules made actions 
> POSSIBLE instead of making them PERMISSIBLE. These actions should not be 
> invalidated over a simple rule defect, even where those actions were clearly 
> scams in other ways. (Quazie, I’m trying to let you and CuddleBeam keep your 
> ill-gotten stamp winnings.)

1a. Whatever fix we undertake should _not_ somehow resurrect actions we had all 
understood, within the context of that mistaken reading of the rules, to be 
ineffective or impossible at the time they were performed.

There are a few shiny transactions that clearly didn’t happen no matter what 
version of the rules you use, such as my attempt to claim a reward for a 
proposal which had not been assessed.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP