Re: DIS: ATTN omd / Distributor (was Re: jobs)
Thanks for looking into it! Original Message On Oct 27, 2019, 7:15 PM, omd wrote: > On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 5:48 PM James Cook wrote: >> Our H. Distributor tried in June to enable from-address-rewriting for >> messages with this problem, but I'm not sure it worked. See for >> example my 2019-07-01 message to the discussion list [0]. >> >> omd, do you have any insight on what is going on? >> >> [0] >> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-July/054651.html > > Well, protonmail.com has p=quarantine, and Mailman is set to munge > From for both p=quarantine and p=reject, so it should be rewriting > From... yet it isn't. Hmm. > > *sigh* I see. From munging is performed by the SpamDetect pass, and I > had manually disabled that pass because – according to a comment I > left at the time – it caused Python errors related to Unicode > handling. So it never actually took effect. > > I just re-enabled the pass, and also upgraded Mailman to the tip of > the 2.1 branch just in case it fixes the Unicode issue. If it > doesn't, the list might start dropping messages fitting whatever > pattern was triggering the issue in the past, in which case I'll have > to actually find the bug and fix it. > > For now, though... I just sent a test message from a ProtonMail > account, and From rewriting now seems to be working.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Encouraging Democracy Through Capitalism or Who Pays Subs Full Wages Anyway
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, October 28, 2019 4:31 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 10/28/19 5:20 PM, James Cook wrote: > > > I am more interested right now in seeing more things to spend Coins > > on; the Coin balances are starting to feel like meaningless numbers. > > There was some discussion in September about times in the past where > > there were shortages, e.g. proposals were expensive. I think that > > sounds fun. The discussion was in the thread "Proto for a new > > economics system". > > On having something to do with coins, Stones sounds really fun - I saw > G.'s proto for it earlier, but it appears there was no response to comments. > > On proposals being expensive - one of the ways that lots of coins keep > being created is by the large reward for adopted proposals. If proposals > start costing lots of money, then a large source of coins starts > shrinking (or becoming unprofitable, if the cost is massive). I won't > pass value judgement on that now, but it's just something to consider. > > - > > Jason Cobb When the rules that eventually led to the current economy were being drafted a couple years ago, there was a lot of discussion on this topic. I personally lean against proposals costing money, but I'll try to summarize the various points made in both directions: Pros -Good money sink -Reduces frivolous proposals, and encourages people to ensure their proposals are good enough to pass before distribution Cons -Soft-locks newer players out of writing proposals. They're likely to write duds that won't pass for a while and this punishes them for that -Often times the best feedback you get on a proposal happens AT the vote. -Discourages experimental proposals, which have a lot of overlap with frivolous proposals. Is it good or bad that this voting round has a few proposals that test rule boundaries while doing nothing in particular? I would argue it's good for Agora to have these tests pop up, and that paying to distribute discourages them. -Philosophically, proposals are a basic 'good' of Agora. It doesn't make sense to charge the producer of a good.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Encouraging Democracy Through Capitalism or Who Pays Subs Full Wages Anyway
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, October 28, 2019 7:04 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > On Mon, 2019-10-28 at 16:58 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On 10/28/2019 3:27 PM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > > > > Cons > > > > > > - > > > > > > -Soft-locks newer players out of writing proposals. They're likely > > > to write duds that won't pass for a while and this punishes them > > > for that > > > > This in particular was solved (in one implementation) by making it cheaper > > for new players, cheap enough that they could make money by offering to make > > proposals distributable for half-price, so they actually could come out > > ahead in that system, and the opportunity encouraged them to join in more. > > What about charging for FOR votes rather than for making the proposal > itself? (Charging for AGAINST votes is, of course, a bad idea.) Perhaps > the money paid for voting could go to the proposer (leaving offices as > the only source of "new" coins). > > > > ais523 I'm intrigued by this one. I think if we're going to have a lively economy we need money sinks (like subgames) and reasons for people to transfer money between each other. --- Nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Encouraging Democracy Through Capitalism or Who Pays Subs Full Wages Anyway
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, October 28, 2019 6:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On 10/28/2019 3:27 PM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > > Cons > > > > - > > > > -Soft-locks newer players out of writing proposals. They're likely to write > > duds that won't pass for a while and this punishes them for that > > This in particular was solved (in one implementation) by making it cheaper > for new players, cheap enough that they could make money by offering to make > proposals distributable for half-price, so they actually could come out > ahead in that system, and the opportunity encouraged them to join in more. > > -G. Proto-proto: Set a pending price, and then add an asset that makes pending free, given to any player that didn't pend a proposal in the last month (week?) and included in Welcome Packages.
Re: DIS: academic progressions (Jason Cobb's Thesis)
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 1:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Hi Jason Cobb, I'm really sorry I've been delayed about your thesis. I keep > thinking "this falls between Masters and PhD and I keep meaning to look back > for ais523's theses to get advice" and then not getting around to it. > > One thing for everyone: do we want to support the idea of "academic > progression"? That is, your first "really long/challenging thesis" is a > masters, and the next one (even if the same level or slightly lower) is a > PhD? I prefer it being progressive. IRL you could theoretically produce a much better Masters thesis than your PhD thesis. The PhD doesn't represent just the final product but also the training and experience you have. Reserving the PhD for players that have contributed 2+ great theses makes it a marker of consistent contribution and effort, rather than a potential 1-off, and gives it more distinction. > > Right now, of the two PhDs we have Steve who got a B.N. first, and ais23 who > got a B.N. and a Masters first. > > Not trying to create obstacles I'll aim to start the award process in the > next 24 hours. > > Historical fact: One version of theses went "full academia", the candidate > chose an advisor, who assembled a committee (including a disputant), who > then gave some kinda exam on the thesis and awarded a degree. It was very > cumbersome. We've never (IMO) found a particularly good way of coming to > consensus on a particular degree other than "we know it when we see it". > > -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8266-8274
On 11/4/19 12:20 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 11/4/2019 8:33 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > I disagree with that participation in Agora specifically should be merit > > for earning or not a Doctor of NOMIC degree. If it was Doctor of AGORA > > nomic, then OK, whatever, I'd care a lot less. But my understanding is > > that a Doctor of Nomic degree should be about nomic in general, without > > any special preference for Agora in particular in any way. > > The proposal doesn't put any limit on the content, which can be about > anything nomic. But it means the *submitter* should have some amount > of standing Agoran academic cred (e.g. a past thesis), not, say, just be > dropping by with an essay written about nomic for some other forum. > > -G. Or back into metaphors: The "University" of Agora grants PhDs to students of Agora in the study of Nomic. If the University of Blognomic wants to start its own PhD Nomic program, it is welcome to.
Re: DIS: [Reporter] Last Week in Agora
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 6:16 PM, James Cook wrote: > On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 23:27, Jason Cobb jason.e.c...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On 11/6/19 6:22 PM, James Cook wrote: > > > > > - Proposals 8253-8265 are resolved after further votes, except the H. > > > Assessor finds the decisions on Proposals 8257 and 8259 were not > > > initiated. > > > - Gaelan submits some arguments in favour of eir Proposal 8259 in > > > the > > > discussion thread: "In defense of 8259". > > > > > > - Error discovered: two proposals were given the same number in the > > > "full text" section. > > > > > > - G. alleges e sees an "angle" on the mysterious Proposal 8265, but > > > eventually votes AGAINST. > > > > > > > Nice work. > > One note: in the future, could you indent sub-points than a single > > space? It took me a few seconds to see what the intent was. > > Sure; thanks for pointing it out. Do you think two spaces is enough? > > - Point > > - Sub-point > > -- > > > - Falsifian I would say the rule of thumb is that each level should have its indent marker at the position the last level's text started at, it makes them easy to spot in a quick scan. 2 is fine.
Re: DIS: [Reporter] Last Week in Agora
On 11/6/19 6:37 PM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote: >> Sure; thanks for pointing it out. Do you think two spaces is enough? >> >> - Point >> >> - Sub-point >> >> -- >> >> >> - Falsifian > I would say the rule of thumb is that each level should have its indent > marker at the position the last level's text started at, it makes them easy > to spot in a quick scan. 2 is fine. Side note: I didn't change those symbols, the protonmail web client did for some reason. Guess I should stick with my desktop client for agora...
Re: DIS: Ideas for Obligation System Development
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, November 7, 2019 4:31 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > Okay, I've had a bunch of ideas for developments around contracts and the > like. I've been working on a proposal, but I wanted to solicit public > comment before going ahead with it. > > - Create an office of Notary, responsible for tracking contracts, pledges, > and promises (see below). I don't particularly have the resources to do > this myself, but I'm sure someone would volunteer. Between thee three > systems, there would IMO be enough to track that an officer is warranted. > > - Reenact the promise system [1]. Yes, I'm aware this could be done with > contracts. However, no one is likely to do the work without a standard > architecture, which doesn't technically need to be in the ruleset, and it > makes sense for the Notary to track them, which does need to be in the > ruleset. > > - Enact a lightweight system for governing commercial transactions, along > the lines of the "trade order" thing, but stripped down enough that it can > fit in a short rule > > - Optionally, redefine all of the above so that everything is just defined > as a type of contract. This would involve making contracts in general > slightly more powerful. > > [1] > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2013-June/010166.html > > -Aris > I'm very for this. I also think we should keep contracts in and be very hesitant to repeal them again. We tend to repeal them when they're not being used, then want them, reinvent them, and find new problems with the new versions.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3781 Assigned to G.
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, November 8, 2019 11:00 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > The below CFJ is 3781. I assign it to G.. > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3781 > > === CFJ 3781 === > > In this message, Jason Cobb transferred a Coin. > > = > > Caller: Jason Cobb > Barred: D. Margaux > > Judge: G. > > === > > History: > > Called by Jason Cobb: 07 Nov 2019 04:16:02 > Assigned to G.: [now] > > = > > Caller's Evidence: > > On 11/6/2019 8:16 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > > I transfer 500 of D. Margaux's Coins to Jason Cobb. > > [Anti-No Faking (although the CFJ should make it obvious): the above > > action might not work.] > > Rule 478/36 > Fora [Excerpt] > > Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by > announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously and > clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it. > > Rule 2577/2 > Asset Actions [Excerpt] > > An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement > by its owner to another entity, subject to modification by its > backing document. > > Rule 2483/13 > Economics > > Coins are the official currency of Agora and are tracked by the > Treasuror. They can be owned by Agora, players, and contracts. > A player CAN win the game by paying a fee of 1,000 Coins. > > Caller's Arguments: > > Per Rule 2577, "an asset generally CAN be transferred [...] by announcement > by its owner", and Rule 2438 does not modify this general statement at all. > Therefore, a Coin can be transferred by announcement by its owner. > > Transferring D. Margaux's Coins is an action defined by the Rules that 'CAN > be performed "by announcement"' (even if the intent is only that it CAN be > performed by announcement by a single person), satisfying the first > criterion in Rule 478. "A person" makes it clear that only persons can do things "by announcement". 2577 narrows the people that can transfer assets to "its owner". To me the logical reading is that the only entities that CAN "transfer assets by announcements" are owners of the asset who are also persons who performed the steps defined in 478. I don't buy this interpretation that the generality in 478 is overriding the specificity of 2577, it seems like a union of conditions to me. > > I believe that I have unambiguously and clearly specified the action of > transferring 500 of D. Margaux's Coins, and I have announced that I perform > that action. Therefore, under Rule 478, I have performed that action, so, in > this message, I transferred at least one Coin. > > I believe this CFJ should be judged TRUE. > >
Re: DIS: proto-judgement of 3781
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, November 9, 2019 10:06 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 11/9/19 7:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Rather, I think that this clause does definition-by-properties of "by > > > announcement", where it ascribes properties to a phrase, but doesn't > > > give > > > an actual textual definition to the phrase. I think this is conceptually > > > similar to how the Rules don't say what ratification actually is, just > > > that it has some consequences on the gamestate. And, if there's no hard > > > definition, then the text-replacement argument kind of falls apart. > > > > Here, I disagree. I think it reads nicely and sensibly as a straight-up > > substitution, i.e. it can be read as when a rule uses "by > > announcement" in > > association with the definition of an action, it means the defined > > action is > > performed "by unambiguously and clearly" etc. The parts in the quotes > > still > > function as a direct definition/substitution - that's the purpose of the > > quotes, to strictly delimit what's being defined. > > -G. > > Relevant clause, repeated for ease of reading: > > >Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by > >announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously and > >clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it. > > > > I find it unlikely either of us is going to convince the other, but here > goes (also, I may be going a bit language nerd https://xkcd.com/1443/ > here): > > Considering the wording as applying a specific property whenever the > rules use "by announcement" with regards to an action does solve the > active/passive grammatical disparity in R478's sentence (since it would > be a dependent clause and an independent clause, each in the active > voice). As for the "by announcement" being in quotes, that can be read > as simply requiring the exact phrasing. > > As another example, an instance in the current rules that I am > absolutely sure uses definition-by-properties (since I wrote this) is > this clause from R2162: > > > A Rule that designates > > a switch as "secured" (at a given power level) designates changes > > to the properties of that type of switch as secured (at that power > > level) and designates changes to the value of each instance of the > > switch as secured (at that power level). > > This clearly does not give an actual definition for "secured" when > applied to switches, it merely states the consequences of the Rules > designating a type of switch as "secured". It looks relatively similar > to R473's sentence - a quoted term, and a statement of what the > consequences are when that term is used. A simple text replacement would > simply not be meaningful here. Although R478's sentence uses a dependent > clause, I read the two has having the same effect. > > Compare this to > > > The phrase "in a timely fashion" means "within 7 days". > > or > > > To "change" one's vote is to > > retract eir previous ballot (if any), then submit a new one. > > These examples are clearly actual definitions - they have a linking > verb, a term, and a meaning. They don't examine what the text of the > Rules says at all - they just say what a term means. A text substitution > would be meaningful here. > > Anyways, this has been my rant. It probably accomplished nothing, but I > tried. > > -- > > Jason Cobb What I don't understand about these arguments is that, no matter how you parse "by announcement", the 2577 text immediately modifies "by announcement" with "by its owner". So no matter what the other conditions are, only the owner can perform this specific action. > Rule 2577/2 > Asset Actions [Excerpt] > > An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement > by its owner to another entity, subject to modification by its > backing document.
Re: DIS: proto-judgement of 3781
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, November 10, 2019 5:49 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 11/10/19 8:49 AM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > > What I don't understand about these arguments is that, no matter how you > > parse "by announcement", the 2577 text immediately modifies "by > > announcement" with "by its owner". So no matter what the other conditions > > are, only the owner can perform this specific action. > > > > > Rule 2577/2 > > > Asset Actions [Excerpt] > > > An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement > > > by its owner to another entity, subject to modification by its > > > backing document. > > My argument is that Rule 478's clause doesn't import the restriction on > who CAN perform the action from the authorizing clause. R2577's clause > only authorizes the owner to transfer the asset, but R478's clause says > that I do perform the action by clearly specifying it and announcing > that I do so - it is (if my scam works) a separate method of performing > the action. > > -- > > Jason Cobb This doesn't make sense to me, at all. The "by announcement" method is specified in a subclause of a sentence, it doesn't make sense that the surrounding context is somehow irrelevant. I could buy this if it said "by announcement, by its owner" and the argument was that those were separate, but the lack of a comma makes it clear that their connected. I have a question about this hypothetical version: > Rule 2577/X > Asset Actions [Excerpt] > An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement > subject to modification by its backing document. This can only be > done by its owner. Would you say your scam works in that case? Because as I see it, that's just an expanded form of the current wording.
Re: DIS: proto-judgement of 3781
--- Nch ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, November 10, 2019 6:17 PM, Nch wrote: > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Sunday, November 10, 2019 5:49 PM, Jason Cobb jason.e.c...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On 11/10/19 8:49 AM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > > > > What I don't understand about these arguments is that, no matter how you > > > parse "by announcement", the 2577 text immediately modifies "by > > > announcement" with "by its owner". So no matter what the other conditions > > > are, only the owner can perform this specific action. > > > > > > > Rule 2577/2 > > > > Asset Actions [Excerpt] > > > > An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement > > > > by its owner to another entity, subject to modification by its > > > > backing document. > > > > My argument is that Rule 478's clause doesn't import the restriction on > > who CAN perform the action from the authorizing clause. R2577's clause > > only authorizes the owner to transfer the asset, but R478's clause says > > that I do perform the action by clearly specifying it and announcing > > that I do so - it is (if my scam works) a separate method of performing > > the action. > > > > Jason Cobb > > This doesn't make sense to me, at all. The "by announcement" method is > specified in a subclause of a sentence, it doesn't make sense that the > surrounding context is somehow irrelevant. I could buy this if it said "by > announcement, by its owner" and the argument was that those were separate, > but the lack of a comma makes it clear that their connected. > > I have a question about this hypothetical version: > > > Rule 2577/X > > Asset Actions [Excerpt] > > An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement > > subject to modification by its backing document. This can only be > > done by its owner. > > Would you say your scam works in that case? Because as I see it, that's just > an expanded form of the current wording. Or better yet: > Rule 2577/Y > Asset Actions [Excerpt] > An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement > on Tuesdays to another entity, subject to modification by its > backing document. Would you argue that someone could do it by announcement any day because "by announcement" in 478 doesn't restrict the day? Or would you agree that restricts the "by announcement" to Tuesdays?
Re: DIS: proto-judgement of 3781
--- Nch ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, November 10, 2019 6:22 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 11/10/19 7:19 PM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > > Or better yet: > > > > > Rule 2577/Y > > > Asset Actions [Excerpt] > > > An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement > > > on Tuesdays to another entity, subject to modification by its > > > backing document. > > > Would you argue that someone could do it by announcement any day because > > > "by announcement" in 478 doesn't restrict the day? Or would you agree > > > that restricts the "by announcement" to Tuesdays? > > I would argue that my scam would only work on Tuesdays, since on > non-Tuesdays, there is no entity that CAN perform the action by > announcement, so the action CANNOT be performed by announcement, so > R478's clause doesn't attach. > > - > > Jason Cobb This seems like an inconsistency in your arguments. The "on Tuesdays" clause is imported, but the "by its owner" clause isn't? They're serving exactly the same syntactic purpose in exactly the same structure.
Re: DIS: proto-judgement of 3781
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, November 10, 2019 6:28 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 11/10/19 7:24 PM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > > This seems like an inconsistency in your arguments. The "on Tuesdays" > > clause is imported, but the "by its owner" clause isn't? They're serving > > exactly the same syntactic purpose in exactly the same structure. > > While they may have the same grammatical function, they have an > important semantic difference: > > For the "by its owner" case, there is always some entity that CAN > perform the action by announcement, so the action CAN always be > performed by announcement, so R478 gives conditions under which persons > perform the action. > > For the "on Tuesdays" case, there is sometimes no entity that CAN > perform the action by announcement - this means that it is false that > "the action CAN be performed by announcement", so R478's clause says > nothing about when the action is performed. > > Oh, ok. This response clarifies your scam to me now. I still think it fails, because I think it's pretty clear in the context of the rules that R478 is providing clarity on the "by announcement" mechanism, rather than trying to state universally what happens. That might not be a proper definition of the term as you and G were arguing, but that doesn't make it perform as you described either I think. I see it as a partial explanation of the mechanism, and in this case R2577 is providing additional necessary conditions for the mechanism's usage in this particular instance.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8266-8274
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, November 11, 2019 6:16 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2019, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> > //
> > ID: 8266
> > Title: Glitter
> > Adoption index: 1.0
> > Author: nch
> > Co-authors:
> > Enact a Power-1 rule titled "Glitter" with the following text {
> > If a player has earned a ribbon in the past 7 days but already owned it e
> > CAN
> > once (until e earns another ribbon), by announcement, earn N+1 coins where
> > N is the number of current players that do not own the same ribbon.
> > }
>
> I think the "once (until e earns another ribbon)" means that this right
> expires when another ribbon is earned, which could be hard to track and
> might not be what was intended, especially if the last ribbon is not one
> already owned.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
You're right, this is slightly broken. It was intended to let you earn coins
for each ribbon you earn even if it's been less than 7 days between them, but
only once for each earning. I don't think this is a big deal, but I'll try to
figure out some fixed text.
DIS: Research Request: Economics
I'm working on something related to economic systems in Agora. Anyone happen to have records (or a good memory) of various economic systems. Ideally for each economic system I'd have a snapshot of its rules, its results, and pivotal discussions around its design. Any pointing at the right direction in the archives would be greatly appreciated. --- Nch
Re: DIS: Research Request: Economics
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, May 3, 2020 11:35 PM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote: > I'm working on something related to economic systems in Agora. Anyone happen > to have records (or a good memory) of various economic systems. Ideally for > each economic system I'd have a snapshot of its rules, its results, and > pivotal discussions around its design. Any pointing at the right direction in > the archives would be greatly appreciated. > > -- > > Nch To make this request more specific: What I really need to get started is some keywords/timeframes for each system. For instance, we have coins now and before that we had Shinies (circa '17-'18). Can anyone help me fill that timeline out?
DIS: Historical Preservation
This might already be known but Blob's Thesis Archive [1] appears to have left this realm. It was not captured on the wayback machine. Luckily, PSS has captured all of the theses that were stored there [2]. In the future we might consider creating a proper taskforce or office for ensuring record preservation. In the meantime there's some steps we can autonomously take to prevent something from being truly lost: * Upload any privately held records you have to somewhere public, so they can survive your absence * Create wayback snapshots [3] or new public records for any aging archives. If the owner of an archive is not an active player, we should consider those records at risk of disappearing at any time. * Consider downloading copies of documents and git repositories. More copies means more chances of preservation. Thanks to PSS for eir foresight, and pre-thanks to everyone that does their part in preservation efforts. [1] ftp://ftp.cse.unsw.edu.au/pub/users/malcolmr/nomic/articles/agora-theses/library.html [2] https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Library [3] https://web.archive.org/ --- Nch
Re: DIS: Historical Preservation
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, May 4, 2020 12:36 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 1:09 PM Nch via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > This might already be known but Blob's Thesis Archive [1] appears to have > > left this realm. It was not captured on the wayback machine. Luckily, PSS > > has captured all of the theses that were stored there [2]. In the future we > > might consider creating a proper taskforce or office for ensuring record > > preservation. In the meantime there's some steps we can autonomously take > > to prevent something from being truly lost: > > Thanks for considering this! This is something that is important to me and > connects to other efforts in which I am involved. As for an office, I've > always thought that it was well-suited for the Herald, but it could also be > a temporary office under one of the schemes that was being proposed a while > ago as it relates to the reportor. Another option instead of an office: Add "Computer Science" degrees that are rewarded for useful web projects instead of theses. --- Nch
Re: DIS: Research Request: Economics
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, May 4, 2020 12:57 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/4/20 11:22 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > Did some spot Ruleset checks based on memory these are the ones I know or > > found: > > 2000 - 2002 Stems, Papyrus, Voting Entitlements, Indulgences, Auctions. > > Multiple roles (Scribes, Acolytes, Politicians) to promote trade. > > 2003 - 2006 Boons, Albatrosses, Kudos, Tabla Rasa. Designed to be a > > "resetting" economy (reset every quarter). > > 2004 - 2006 Cards, o-Matic, Agora the Gathering (overlap with Boons). > > Economy based on trading cards. > > 2007 Nothing I think (big rules reset year). > > 2008 Notes, Pitch, Conductor. A fun and complex arrangement about > > earning notes on a scale and playing chords to perform actions. > > 2009 - ? Private assests (contract-backed) were important. > > Especially AAA (Agoran Agricultural Association). > > Appears in Notary reports not rules so not sure of dates. > > 2011 Promises (i.e. pledges turned into tradable bonds). > > 2012 Rubles > > 2013 Yaks > > 2014 Another reset year - repealed Asset rule (R2166) entirely. > > 2017 - R2166 re-enacted (Shinies, then Land, then Coins). > > Nch: I only have knowledge of the three most current systems (Shinies, > Land, and Coins) but I could talk at length about the pros and cons of > each of these three. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful, but I will share > my admittedly limited knowledge for the sake of research. > Any feedback is appreciated. My ultimate goal is two documents: * A description of the various economies and if feasible, a taxonomy based on them. * A document outlining Do's and Dont's of Agoran economies based on the successes and failures of previous ones. So your thoughts on Shinies, Land, and Coins would be greatly useful for that second one. Share away! --- Nch
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Contract to win the game by circuitous means
On Thursday, May 7, 2020 9:39:15 AM CDT nch via agora-business wrote: > Gratuitous: > > Some players have argued that the original CFJ is not about actions, this > one unambiguously is. Since the game impact of the CFJ rulings would be > different, I don't think it can be trivially determined, nor is it > IRRELEVANT. > > Additionally, someone has now attempted to perform the described action and > this CFJ is now directly relevant to gamestate. Another reason to not rule > IRRELEVANT. Oops, looks like this CFJ got withdrawn already. Should've read all the threads before responding. -- nch
DIS: Protos: Two Small Offices
There's a couple jobs that aren't necessary but should probably still have an
assigned officer. I tried to write these such that they don't add too much
responsibility while still encouraging them to fulfil the goals of the offices.
First, the Reportor. We've had it before, it gets sporadic usage, and then it
disappears. I think repealing it is a mistake. There's little-to-no legal debt
in having such a simple office, and its existence encourages someone to take
over its responsibility. Sporadic reports are better than none.
I plan to submit the following proposal {
Title: The Reportor
Author: nch
AI: 1.0
Enact a rule titled "The Reportor" with Power=1 and the following text:
{
The Reportor is an office.
The Reportor's weekly report includes a list of notable events,
with citations. The weekly report SHOULD include events in the last
7 days minimum and up to the last weekly Reportor's report at
maximum.
Where 'notable' is used in this rule its meaning is up to the
Reportor's discretion.
}
As far as I know, we currently have the best online resources we've ever had.
But there's little coordination and attention to aging resources. Thus I
propose the Webmastor. The webmastor isn't intended to have any actual
authority over anything, but rather to be responsible in identifying our
resources and any problems that crop up.
I plan to submit the following proposal {
Title: The Webmastor
Author: nch
AI: 1.0
Enact a rule titled "The Webmastor" with Power=1 and the following text:
{
The Webmastor is an office.
The Webmastor's monthly report includes a Directory, a Changelog, a
Warning Log, and an Error Log. The Directory lists notable
currently maintained public resources. The Changelog lists notable
changes to resources. The Warning Log lists notable potential
issues, such as inaccurate or aging resources or unintended issues
with a public resource. The Error Log lists notable losses of
resources - where a resource has become inaccessible, unmaintained,
or unusable. Where 'notable' is used in this rule its meaning is up
to the Webmastor's discretion.
}
--
nch
Re: DIS: Protos: Two Small Offices
On Friday, May 8, 2020 8:29:25 AM CDT Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/8/20 9:03 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > - As written, these proposals would make you the holder of both offices > > because of the last paragraph of R1006. > > Clarification: this is only an issue if you don't want the offices right > now. I wasn't trying to say you shouldn't hold them if you would like to :). > > -- > Jason Cobb I intend to fill Webmastor (I've already been doing some updates to the various githubs related to standardizing the header). I'm fine filling the Reportor unless someone else would like to. -- nch
Re: DIS: Protos: Two Small Offices
On Friday, May 8, 2020 11:01:07 AM CDT Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > > I have never once got any value out of any form of the newspapers (well > > except the ones I intentionally published with no text to get paid lol), > mainly because it's actually a lot easier to catch up on the game by > reading emails than by reading someone's incomplete summary of those emails. I find them very useful when doing reading in the archives. If I'm trying to find an event it's easier to look through a few summaries to narrow down the timeframe. -- nch
Re: DIS: Research Request: Economics
I'm going to re-arrange CB's original message a little bit because I think it makes more sense to respond to those points in that order. On Monday, May 11, 2020 3:55:24 AM CDT Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote: > To FURTHER show how a well-documented history is a good idea, it's NOT ONLY > the history per se which is valuable, having it readily available makes > research BASED on analysis of that history possible. For instance, the > History of Victories, which has managed to apply a taxonomy to the way that > the game is played by digging up the whole past of Blognomic: > https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=History_of_victories Minor note: we do keep a history of victories with categories, it's in the scroll of Agora. It does lack links (partly because they'd make the document harder to read since we don't use a hypertext format). There's no reason we couldn't have a 'research version' of this with the links though. > I find it remarkable that, even as obscure and unpredictable as nomic can > be, a game of "anything", Blognomic has a much richer understanding of the > way that their own game of "anything", is played. Like, how do you even > start to rodeo and categorize something so vast as the possibilities in > nomic? Well, Blognomic has done so, and now has every single dynasty of its > history classified into broad styles of gameplay/victory (yes the taxonomy > thing was initially my idea lmao but it has now become something a lot > bigger than that with the help of the rest of players, especially Kevan). Tangent to your tangent: I'm trying to write a taxonomy for Agora's economies, so I'll have to take a look at Blognomic's. Thanks for bringing that up. > Maybe there could be an office for Agora academia specifically? The > 'Professor'? Has a bi-annual report of all theses, perhaps? Maybe we could > make a campaign to make a timeline of Agora history? I dunno. > > For those unfamiliar with what I mean from Blognomic, the main wiki page > has a chronological list of every dynasty, and each dynasty follows the > same general structure of the AA that started the dynasty, the main > proposals of the dynasty, and then how it was won: > * List: https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=Main_Page > * Dynasty example: > https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=The_Twenty-Sixth_Dynasty_of_Kevan [gonna respond to this and the portion below together] > I believe Agora is lagging behind Blognomic when it comes to nomic theses > and academia. I'd suggest to find some kind of easy template to fill out to > record history like Blognomic has, it doesn't need to be exhaustive - I > believe that it definitely shouldn't be exhaustive, really (because if it's > too much effort to fill in, it just won't be filled in often enough and > people will forget to do it and so on) and definitely some regular report > that has links to Agora theses on it so that they're not lost in the void > of nobody remembering about them. I think Blognomic has really benefited from dynasties here. They have very clear start and stop points and themes. Part of the reason people don't write those kinds of summaries in Agora, I suspect, is that they don't even know where to begin and end. I don't think the nature of Agora is really fitted to standardized time-frames since sometimes there's big shifts and sometimes there's very gradual ones. Yearly or biyearly would certainly help out, but an even better solution would probably be actually going back and identifying specific time-frames for further study so later people can just dive in and know where to begin and end.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The Webmastor
On Monday, May 11, 2020 8:46:53 PM CDT Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote:
> On 5/11/20 6:13 PM, nch via agora-business wrote:
> > I submit the following proposal {
> >
> > Title: The Webmastor
> > Author: nch
> > AI: 1.0
> >
> > Enact a rule titled "The Webmastor" with Power=1 and the following text:
> > The Webmastor is an office.
> >
> > The Webmastor's monthly report includes a Directory, a Changelog,
> > a
> > Warning Log, and an Error Log. The Directory lists notable
> > currently maintained public resources. The Changelog lists
> > notable
> > changes to resources. The Warning Log lists notable potential
> > issues, such as inaccurate or aging resources or unintended
> > issues
> > with a public resource. The Error Log lists notable losses of
> > resources - where a resource has become inaccessible,
> > unmaintained,
> > or unusable. Where 'notable' is used in this rule its meaning is
> > up
> > to the Webmastor's discretion.
> >
> > }
>
> Just to verify: you're planning on taking this office, right?
>
> --
> Trigon
Yup!
--
nch
Re: DIS: Protos: Two Small Offices
On Tuesday, May 12, 2020 10:35:07 AM CDT Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote: > How would you guys feel about "decentralizing" the Reportor role? > > Instead of having one person do it, maybe make it so that every month or > two or so there is a sort of bounty for publishing a report - with the > availability to have multiple different people submit a report for the same > period because not everyone is going to be coordinated for something like > this. > > To further encourage people publishing several reports over time, maybe > make it so that you get a small reward for publishing each report, but then > a big one after publishing 5, for example. The reason I wanted this to be an office is because I think that anything that doesn't assign a responsible party is likely to fall to the tragedy of the commons. No one responsible, no one does it. I could see a monetary incentive fixing that IF we make the money worthwhile. Right now it's not. So we might need to fix that first before trying a system like this.
Re: DIS: Protos: Two Small Offices
On Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:07:03 AM CDT you wrote: > I don't think that the tragedy of the commons necessarily applies, although > I might be too influenced by Blognomic. Because there is zero mechanical > reward for doing the equivalent of the "reportor" job there and people just > sort of go at it on their own accord, which inspired my suggestion. > > > I think people are just self-motivated to immortalize their dynasties (when > they are Emperor) or their victories (when they win a dynasty) or just > dynasties that they particularly enjoyed or want to honor for some reason > and they wanted it to be remembered and appreciated for a long time, which > is arguably on a way higher level of value than just mechanical wealth. > If there's already a standing tradition of "you record the your dynasty" then it isn't a tragedy of the commons situation. There's someone that, culturally, is responsible. It's just not a rule that they're responsible. Unless I'm misunderstanding how Blognomic does it.
Re: DIS: Protos: Coins have Value
On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 2:03:20 PM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > So, we've tried since 2017 to get an economy going by artificially > limiting the basics (proposals, cfjs, and voting power via zombies) and > it's really not made an economy at all, just a metering of action rates > and very little trading going on. The only "economy-like" thing we had > was when land goods were briefly worth trading. Auctions are sometimes > interesting but that's still not "trading". Arguably a big reversal from my arguments during the Shinies days but if we want an interesting economy I think currency should be almost useless by itself. People trade irl because they want resources or services other people have. There's actually almost nothing productive you can do with money by yourself. It's just a liquid form of wealth that's much easier than trying to trade material goods in every interaction. Additionally, people trade because they want/need many assets, and have the ability to produce very few. Or can produce some small set of assets more effectively than most people, and therefore are better off doing that, profiting off their work, and trading for everything else. The equivalent in Agora would be to have several desirable assets and either 1) restrict who can generate/get each asset without trading or 2) make generating/getting them an investment where players are encouraged to go deep on one asset and trade for the others. -- nch
DIS: Proto: Sets
Extremely proto proposal based on the economic arguments I made elsewhere. Introduce 4 new assets and a corresponding Card for each asset: * Pending Tickets * Extra Votes * Blot-B-Gone * Victory Points Every player starts with 1 Card of each type, also include them in Welcome Packages. Auction off 1 Card of each type at regular intervals. Any player may Transmute X Cards of the same type, where X is 1-5, into the corresponding asset at a ratio of X Cards = X + (X-1) Assets. When a player has 20 Victory Points, e may declare Victory. When this happens, destroy all cards and assets (besides coins), then give every player 1 of each card. -- nch
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 4:05:54 PM CDT Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/13/20 2:59 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > > I'm kind of confused by the difference between the "new assets" and the > > "cards" (which are themselves assets?) in this description? > > I think Nch means you can redeem Pending Ticket Cards to get 2X - 1 > Pending Tickets. > > -- > Trigon Yea, exactly that. Sorry for the ambiguity. Thus the title. Redeeming more cards at once gives you more of the asset. I also should have included an example: Trigon has 1 Blot-B-Gone Card and 1 Victory Point Card. I have 1 Blot-B-Gone Card and 1 Victory Point Card. If we both Transmuted now, we'd each have a Blot-B-Gone and a Victory Point. Instead, we decide to trade. Trigon gives me a Blot-B-Gone Card and I give Trigon a Victory Point Card. Trigon Trasnmutes eir 2 VPCs and gets 3 VPs. I transmute my 2 BBGCs and get 3 BBGCs. Assuming we both value both those assets equally, we both profited from the trade. -- nch
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 3:48:49 PM CDT nch via agora-discussion wrote: > Extremely proto proposal based on the economic arguments I made elsewhere. > > Introduce 4 new assets and a corresponding Card for each asset: > * Pending Tickets > * Extra Votes > * Blot-B-Gone > * Victory Points > > Every player starts with 1 Card of each type, also include them in Welcome > Packages. > > Auction off 1 Card of each type at regular intervals. > > Any player may Transmute X Cards of the same type, where X is 1-5, into the > corresponding asset at a ratio of X Cards = X + (X-1) Assets. > > When a player has 20 Victory Points, e may declare Victory. When this > happens, destroy all cards and assets (besides coins), then give every > player 1 of each card. > > -- > nch A couple amendments to this proto idea: Where X = 5 Cards, the player gets 2X. This makes that 5th one especially valuable to the set seeker. Diversify the way they are put into circulation. Victory Points should still be auctioned, but for the others we could tie them to offices. Something like: The Promotor and the Assessor may each, once a week, create a Pending Ticket Card in the possession of any player other than the Promotor or Assessor. The Rulekeepor and the Speaker may each, once a week, create a Extra Vote Card in the possession of any player other than the Rulekeepor or Speaker. The CotC and the Referee may each, once a week, create a Blot-B-Gone Card in the possession of any player other than the CotC or Referee. -- nch
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 4:40:39 PM CDT Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/13/20 5:36 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > A couple amendments to this proto idea: > > > > Where X = 5 Cards, the player gets 2X. This makes that 5th one especially > > valuable to the set seeker. > > > > Diversify the way they are put into circulation. Victory Points should > > still be auctioned, but for the others we could tie them to offices. > > Something like: > > > > The Promotor and the Assessor may each, once a week, create a Pending > > Ticket Card in the possession of any player other than the Promotor or > > Assessor. > > > > The Rulekeepor and the Speaker may each, once a week, create a Extra Vote > > Card in the possession of any player other than the Rulekeepor or > > Speaker. > > > > The CotC and the Referee may each, once a week, create a Blot-B-Gone Card > > in the possession of any player other than the CotC or Referee. > > There's an easy way to bypass this with zombies. An alternative view is > that would just make zombies all the more valuable and drive up their > prices at auction. > > -- > Jason Cobb As fun as that sounds, it'd probably be too powerful in practice. Getting a zombie would already give you access to all their assets so they'll still be more valuable in this system. But letting someone just give themselves cards is a bit much. It might need other restrictions too so it's not purely 'bribe the officeholder' (unless that sounds fun). Maybe a restriction against giving it to a player that earned a card that way last week. Also interested in suggestions for other ways to receive cards. There shouldn't be too many, because too many different ways will reduce incentive to trade. But making different cards obtainable in different flavorful ways would be a lot of fun. Here's another one for Victory Points that I think ties favorably into an existing system: Once a week, after that week's Honour Roll is published, the player with the most Honour may reward emself a Victory Point Card. -- nch
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 6:20:21 PM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/13/2020 3:52 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > Also interested in suggestions for other ways to receive cards. There > > shouldn't be too many, because too many different ways will reduce > > incentive to trade. But making different cards obtainable in different > > flavorful ways would be a lot of fun. > > What's a good initial target for cards distributed per month, do you > think? that would help figure out how many ways. I think it's gonna vary a lot for card type. We wouldn't want to flood any of the markets too much though. Especially Victory Points because that reset would be annoying if it was frequent and sudden. Without seeing play it's really hard to say how many assets each card will translate to on average. But if we assumed that people cash out at 3 cards, which is probably the sweet spot for ease of obtaining and value, then each card would add a little less than 2 of its own asset to the economy. If we adopted the amended ways then that'd be around 5 pends, 5 blot-b-gones, 5 extra votes, and (assuming the auction is monthly) ~3 victory points a week. That seems a little high for pends and blot-b-gones, probably fine for extra votes and victory points? -- nch
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 6:42:08 PM CDT you wrote: > For blog-b-gones, I'd think we'd want 1, maybe 2 a week? I mean, we only > blot people like once a month anyway...? > > -Aris Well that's an easy fix. We just need to commit/make-up more Agoran crimes. -- nch
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On Thursday, May 14, 2020 1:54:23 AM CDT Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/13/20 3:36 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > A couple amendments to this proto idea: > > > > Where X = 5 Cards, the player gets 2X. This makes that 5th one especially > > valuable to the set seeker. > > I think the scale needs to be even more different. For 1 card redeemed, > you get 1 asset per card. For 2 cards redeemed, you get 1.5. This is a > noticeable difference of 0.5 more assets per card. From here, we see > diminishing returns. 3 cards yield ~0.167 more assets per card, and 4 > cards yields ~0.083 more. Finally, 5 cards gives 0.15 extra assets per > card. It's absolutely the right call to make 5 cards worth 10 assets, > but I think we need to modify this scale such that the difference in > asset per card is constantly increasing. > > -- > Trigon I agree in spirit but I also think the difference can't be too extreme. If it's too extreme people are too incentivized to hoard cards, and we may end up with a few people with way too many of an asset and most people having none of it. Then again, this is a pretty easy thing to tweak as we go. -- nch
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On Thursday, May 14, 2020 2:08:23 AM CDT Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/13/20 2:48 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > Extremely proto proposal based on the economic arguments I made elsewhere. > > > > Introduce 4 new assets and a corresponding Card for each asset: > > * Pending Tickets > > * Extra Votes > > * Blot-B-Gone > > * Victory Points > > > > Every player starts with 1 Card of each type, also include them in Welcome > > Packages. > > > > Auction off 1 Card of each type at regular intervals. > > > > Any player may Transmute X Cards of the same type, where X is 1-5, into > > the > > corresponding asset at a ratio of X Cards = X + (X-1) Assets. > > > > When a player has 20 Victory Points, e may declare Victory. When this > > happens, destroy all cards and assets (besides coins), then give every > > player 1 of each card. > > One more comment (sorry for the email spam). > > Could we possibly tie this economy into the current system of > ministries? There are already a few similarities. Pending Tickets seem > to represent the goals of the Ministry of Legislation, Extra Votes > possibly with Participation, Blot-B-Gone with Justice, and Victory > Points with... Economy, I guess? My point is that we could feasibly tie > these two systems together, making Agora even more connected. > > -- > Trigon Oooh, I totally forgot about interests. Instead of those office-specific clauses, what about "Each office may, once a week, give out one card corresponding to one of its interests to any non-zombie player that doesn't hold an office with that interest." I would exempt Victory Point Cards from this tho. I think having them be either bought via auction or earned via honour with little other interactivity prevents too much scheming and makes those events more exciting. -- nch
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
On Thursday, May 14, 2020 12:47:14 AM CDT Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > 8380# Muprhy 1.0 Justice for R. Lee Author appears to be typo'd here. -- nch
Re: DIS: Agora is currently ossified (but it's OK (kinda))
On Thursday, May 14, 2020 11:06:49 AM CDT Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote: > I was going to reply to Defense Against the Dark Arts about this but I > figure that it merits its own thread. > > In R1698 we got: "Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable > combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes to be > made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a four-week period." You're not reading this carefully. This doesn't say that any arbitrary rule change must be possible *right now*. It says that there must be a possible path to make those rule changes. And there is. Repeal 1698 then make proposals that would ossify Agora. That could be done within the four-week period required. -- nch
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Ministerial Referrals
On Thursday, May 14, 2020 2:39:04 PM CDT Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:18 PM Aris Merchant via agora-official > > wrote: > > Definition: To refer a proposal to a chamber is to set its chamber > > switch to that chamber. > > I CFJ "In a generic Agoran context, to refer a proposal to a chamber > is to set its chamber switch to that chamber." > > Arguments: > > I've been putting "Definition: To refer a proposal to a chamber is to > set its chamber switch to that chamber." at the top of my referral > messages since February. My hope is that people have seen it enough by > now that the average Agoran knows what it means without needing to see > the definition. > > -Aris I think this instance is probably fine but I have some concern about building up jargon that isn't codified somehow. Could easily be a rule addition to define it. -- nch
Re: DIS: [Proto-proto] Webmastor
On Thursday, May 14, 2020 2:42:18 PM CDT James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > FYI, there's a sort of Registrar home page at > https://agoranomic.org/Registrar/ but I never looked into adding it to > the homepage. (Also, it would be nice it actually had a list of > players or something.) > > I see now Gaelan set up a repo called "Header" that I should be > playing with if I want it linked. If our new Webmastor doesn't do that > I might do it time permitting. > > - Falsifian Happy to look into adding the header this weekend. Adding it should be easy but getting it to look nice might need some experimenting since everyone's repos seem to be set up a little differently. -- nch
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On Thursday, May 14, 2020 3:17:11 PM CDT James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > Is there any reason for a player to transmute victory points at any > time other than when they want to declare victory? > > Not necessarily a problem, but want to make sure I understand. I guess > the other Card types are less likely to be hoarded because players > might want to actually use the corresponding assets. As written, not really. I briefly flirted with the idea of having another asset that let you steal cards, but I decided to focus on core mechanics for now and maybe introduce that later. Another option is to make the wincon something like "Have 20 *more* Victory Points than any other player" which might lead to people cashing in their cards to prevent someone else from winning. -- nch
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No More 'By Announcement'
On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:48:20 PM CDT you wrote: > I don't like this idea. The history of this provision is that I gave a CFJ > judgement essentially establishing something like this. Everyone > (especially G.) thought it was a terrible idea, and they persuaded me. CAN > has a very sensible default meaning currently, that allows us to do things > like specifying a method in one place and enabling its use in another. > Also, the need to write out the by announcement makes you think about > whether that's actually what you want. But most of all, I just really don't > like making this implicit, even if it's explicitly defined as being > implicit. Do you happen to know whenabouts that discussion happened? I'd like to look at the arguments from then. What are the instances when it's useful to do something in a way besides announcement? My current though is that if we do things by announcement most of the time, and it's the safer way to do things, then it should be the enforced default and you should have to explicitly override it. -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No More 'By Announcement'
On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 5:07:51 PM CDT Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:56 PM nch via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:48:20 PM CDT you wrote: > > > I don't like this idea. The history of this provision is that I gave a > > > CFJ > > > judgement essentially establishing something like this. Everyone > > > (especially G.) thought it was a terrible idea, and they persuaded me. > > > CAN > > > has a very sensible default meaning currently, that allows us to do > > > things > > > like specifying a method in one place and enabling its use in another. > > > Also, the need to write out the by announcement makes you think about > > > whether that's actually what you want. But most of all, I just really > > > don't > > > like making this implicit, even if it's explicitly defined as being > > > implicit. > > > > What are the instances when it's useful to do something in a way besides > > announcement? > > We do it all the time: with notice, without objection, with support, > with Agoran Consent. Those are all dependent actions, which are define as occurring by announcement (among the other conditions that make them distinct) in R2595. -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No More 'By Announcement'
On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 6:01:39 PM CDT James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > I suppose that's true, but with the change you proposed, I think it's > a little unclear how to interpret current rules that describe things > you can do with dependent actions. > > For example, R2465: "A player CAN Declare Apathy without objection, > specifying a set of players." > > With your phrasing: > > Where the rules define an action that a person CAN perform, any > attempt to perform that action is EFFECTIVE if, and only if, e > unambiguously and clearly specifies the action in a public message and > announces that e performs it UNLESS the rule specifies the action can be > performed "without announcement". Otherwise, it is INEFFECTIVE. > > it seems that R2465 defines an action that a player CAN perform, so > surely any attempt I make to perform it is EFFECTIVE, as long as I > announce it unambiguously and clearly. Maybe I would need to announce > that I "Declare Apathy without objection"? You're right, the "if and only if" is bad phrasing. I should've stuck more similar to the original phrasing. > That could probably be fixed, but it does seem to change the way at > least I was thinking of dependent actions. My understanding was: > dependent actions are methods; R2595 says how the method works; > R2595's implementation happens to defer to the "by announcement" > method. > And under this if someone wanted to change it they could just add "without announcement" to the conditions. > (There are also fee-based actions. I don't know if we have any right > now other than winning under R2483. Also, Agora currently CAN transfer > zombies to their owners, which is not done by announcement.) Agora isn't a player so this clause doesn't apply. -- nch
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3831 enters the mootiest moot ever
On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 8:07:27 PM CDT Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business wrote: > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 9:03 PM Reuben Staley via agora-business > > wrote: > > On 5/19/20 5:54 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > > > I hereby initiate an Agoran Decision to determine public confidence in > > > CFJ > > > 3831's current judgement of FALSE, delivered by Alexis on 26 Apr 2020 > > > (that is, a Moot). > > > > > > Case at: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3831, also > > > included in full below. > > > > > > For this decision: > > >vote collector: Arbitor > > >quorum: 5 > > >voting method: first-past-the-post > > >valid options: AFFIRM, REMAND, and REMIT (PRESENT is also a valid > > >vote, > > > > > > as are conditional votes). > > > > I vote PRESENT. Haven't really been following these events. > > I vote REMAND. Why remand instead of remit? Alexis can't actually rejudge it right now. -- nch
DIS: Proto: Sets v0.9
I'm tired and I'm sure this has obvious mistakes but I believe in getting
things out there for review as soon as they're presentable, so here's the Sets
proposal. Please tear it apart. Trigon I listed you as a co-author because the
idea of tying in ministries was brilliant.
{
Title: Sets v0.9
Author: nch
Co-Authors: Trigon,
AI: 3
Enact a new Power=1 rule titled "Cards & Sets" with the text:
Cards are a type of asset with a corresponding Product. Products are
also assets. The types of Cards and their corresponding Products are:
* Victory Cards and Victory Points.
* Justice Cards and Blot-B-Gones
* Legislative Cards and Pendants
* Voting Cards and Voting Proxies
A player CAN, by announcement, pay a 'set' of X Cards of the same type
to create in eir possession Y corresponding Products. The value of X
determines the value of Y in the following ways:
* 1 Card = 1 Product
* 2 Cards = 3 Products
* 3 Cards = 6 Products
* 4 Cards = 10 Products
A player CANNOT pay more than 4 Cards as one 'set'.
Cards and Products are tracked by the Treasuror.
For each player that is not a zombie, create one of each type of card in eir
possession.
[The core of this proposal. Collect cards to make the other assets.
I've been considering whether to have the Treasuror track everything or make a
new role. I think there's pros and cons to both. I don't want to overtax the
Treasuror but I also don't want to split rule-defined assets across multiple
officers if it's not necessary.
Also I'm not happy with Victory Points or Voting Proxies. Name suggestions for
those are welcome.]
Amend rule 2499 "Welcome Packages" by replacing:
When a player receives a Welcome Package, e earns 10 coins.
with:
When a player receives a Welcome Package, e earns 10 coins and one of
each type of Card defined in the rules.
[Simple Welcome package addition]
Amend rule 2483 "Economics" by removing the following line:
A player CAN win the game by paying a fee of 1,000 Coins.
[Ultimately counter to an economy where we want constant trading and asset
movement.]
Enact a new Power=1 rule titled "VP Wins" with the following text:
If a player has 20 more Victory Points than any other player, e can win
by announcement. When a player wins this way, destroy all Cards and
their corresponding Products. Then, for each player create 1 card of
each type in eir possession.
[Exactly what it says on the tin.]
Amend rule 2555 "Blots" by replacing the following paragraph:
If a person (the penitent) has neither gained blots nor had more
than 2 blots expunged from emself in the current Agoran week, then
any player (the confessor) who has not, by this mechanism,
expunged any blots in the current Agoran week CAN expunge 1 blot
from the penitent, by announcement.
with:
Any player CAN, by announcement, expunge a blot from a specified person
(or emself if no one is specified) by paying a fee of one Blot-B-Gone.
[Pretty straightforward, now you need to use Blot-B-Gones to get rid of Blots
(except for the fugitive decay, I left that in).]
Amend rule 2350 "Proposals" by replacing:
Creating a proposal adds it to the Proposal Pool.
with:
A player CAN add a proposal to the Proposal Pool by paying one Pendant.
[Make Pendants do the pending thing.]
Amend rule 2422 "Voting Strength" by adding:
A player CAN pay 1 Voting Proxy to increase eir voting strength on a
specified Agoran decision by 1. E may do so up to 3 times for a single
decision.
[This makes proxies pretty flexible actually, maybe too much? But I think it's
fun and can at most double your base power.]
Amend rule 2476 Ownership by removing:
Assets owned by the Lost and Found Department can be transferred or
destroyed by any player without objection.
Create a new Power=1 rule titled "VP Auctions" with the following text:
Once a week the Treasuror CAN and SHOULD initiate an auction. The first
lot for this auction is a Victory Card created in Agora's possession
when the auction is initiated. The second lot is all of any single type
of asset owned by the Lost and Found Department. The Treasuror is the
Auctioneer for this auction and the minimum bid is 1 coin.
[Would love some feedback here. I personally love this idea conceptually but I
want it to be manageable for the Treasuror.]
Create a new Power=1 rule titled "Card Administration" with the following
text:
Justice Cards are associated with the Ministry of Justice. Legislative
Cards are associated with the Ministry of Legislation. Voting Cards are
associated with the ministry of Participation.
Officers CAN, once per month and by announcement, create a Card in the
possession of another player under the following conditions:
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets v0.9
On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 8:58:19 AM CDT Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 9:47 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > On 5/20/20 2:10 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > > Amend rule 2350 "Proposals" by replacing: > > > Creating a proposal adds it to the Proposal Pool. > > > > > > with: > > > A player CAN add a proposal to the Proposal Pool by paying one > > > Pendant. > > > > Maybe, just to appease the ossification gods in case something insane > > happens, there should be another method of pending a proposal? > > This is my largest concern. My solution at first would be that any > system we implement should allow the Promotor to pend things without > objection or in some other nearly unlimited way as a safeguard until > we have time to test the system. When I wrote this I thought the PM's Manifesto was an adequate safeguard but re-reading it it actually doesn't add things to the pool. So I agree here, probably something like 'the promotor CAN add a one proposal to the pool a week with 3 support.' -- nch
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets v0.9
On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 8:47:26 AM CDT Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 5/20/20 2:10 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> > I'm tired and I'm sure this has obvious mistakes but I believe in getting
> > things out there for review as soon as they're presentable, so here's the
> > Sets proposal. Please tear it apart. Trigon I listed you as a co-author
> > because the idea of tying in ministries was brilliant.
> >
> > {
> >
> > Title: Sets v0.9
> > Author: nch
> > Co-Authors: Trigon,
> > AI: 3
> >
> > Enact a new Power=1 rule titled "Cards & Sets" with the text:
> > Cards are a type of asset with a corresponding Product. Products are
>
> > also assets. The types of Cards and their corresponding Products
are:
> These should probably be currencies, not just assets.
Really don't like how the rules define currencies right now semantically. Like
blots are a currency, which means the rules claim they're fungible. But they
can't be transferred, so they're not actually. and being a currency makes
something theoretically usable for auctions? So a rule could define a blot
based auction, which wouldn't work at all?
> >
> > Amend rule 2422 "Voting Strength" by adding:
> > A player CAN pay 1 Voting Proxy to increase eir voting strength on a
> > specified Agoran decision by 1. E may do so up to 3 times for a
> > single
> > decision.
> >
> > [This makes proxies pretty flexible actually, maybe too much? But I think
> > it's fun and can at most double your base power.]
>
> *sigh*
>
> I'm not sure that the current voting strength rules support
> instantaneous modifications of voting strengths.
>
> Rule 2242 says:
> > When multiple rules set or modify an entity's voting strength on
> > an Agoran decision, it shall be determined by first applying the
> > rule(s) which set it to a specific value, using the ordinary
> > precedence of rules, and then applying the rules, other than
> > this one, which modify it, in numerical order by ID.
>
> I believe there's consensus that this is evaluated continuously. This
> means that a Rule needs to modify the voting strength at every point
> that it might be evaluated, rather than just instantaneously increasing
> the voting strength. I think this just means that the Rule needs to say
> "A player's voting strength is increased by 1 point for every Voting
> Proxy..." instead of being phrased instantaneously.
>
Rats. Well that's an easy fix at least, thanks for catching it.
> > [Would love some feedback here. I personally love this idea conceptually
> > but I want it to be manageable for the Treasuror.]
> >
> > Create a new Power=1 rule titled "Card Administration" with the following
> >
> > text:
> > Justice Cards are associated with the Ministry of Justice.
> > Legislative
> > Cards are associated with the Ministry of Legislation. Voting Cards
> > are
> > associated with the ministry of Participation.
> >
> > Officers CAN, once per month and by announcement, create a Card in
> > the
>
> > possession of another player under the following conditions:
> Maybe this should be "active player" in order to prevent zombie
> exploits?
It should be, noticed that shortly after I submitted.
Thanks for all the feedback!
--
nch
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets v0.9
On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 8:47:26 AM CDT Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > A player CAN, by announcement, pay a 'set' of X Cards of the same type > > to create in eir possession Y corresponding Products. The value of X > > > determines the value of Y in the following ways: > Pedantry: what if it's the empty set? Oops overlooked this. The rules don't define anything to happen for paying an empty set. So nothing happens. I don't see any reason to interpret it any other way. -- nch
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets v0.9
On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 5:37:55 PM CDT James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > Trying to get a sense of how the numbers would work out: > > As far as I can tell, cards are created as follows: > * When the game is enacted or someone wins it. (1 Card of each type per > player) * When a player gets a welcome package. (1 Card of each type) > * Each officer can create 1 card per month. Missing the auction for Victory Cards but otherwise correct. > If half the cards produced are legislative, that would be around 8 > Legislative Cards per month, which if optimally converted becomes 20 > Pendants. Is that enough? Ideally there'd be an appropriate way to generate Legislative Cards and Justice Cards that's unique and flavorful for them. I was initially going to leave that up to other people to propose after this. But maybe we should work those out now, so we don't need up out of pendants. Suggestions? > Also, I know there are some objections to limiting proposals > generally. I guess there aren't many other things to limit right now. > Maybe we could introduce other subgames that are fuelled by special > Products to fix that. E.g. I don't remember if G.'s Stones proto > involved auctioning off the stones, but if it did, we could make the > currency for the auction be Mana, which is associated with Magic Cards > or something. The controversy here has been when the limiting system disrupts the flow of proposals significantly. Take the boom-bust pattern created by the shiny system. There'd be weeks where even important proposals couldn't pass, and weeks where 20 proposals at once got pended and everyone suddenly had a lot more work than normal. That's a bad system. As long as there's enough pendants in circulation for them to be easily accessible, this actually adds a lot of interesting gameplay to making proposals. Players will be encouraged to obtain pendants as cheaply as possible and submit good proposals to profit off the reward (and possible ribbons/glitter) for passed proposals. Basically, limiting proposals is good if the limit is "what's the most efficient way to do this?" and bad if the limit is "can I even afford to do this?" > Other comments inline below. > > > Enact a new Power=1 rule titled "VP Wins" with the following text: > > If a player has 20 more Victory Points than any other player, e can > > win > > by announcement. When a player wins this way, destroy all Cards and > > their corresponding Products. Then, for each player create 1 card of > > each type in eir possession. > > > > [Exactly what it says on the tin.] > > Might be worth adding "at least" before "20 more Victory Points". Noted. > > > Create a new Power=1 rule titled "VP Auctions" with the following text: > > Once a week the Treasuror CAN and SHOULD initiate an auction. The > > first > > lot for this auction is a Victory Card created in Agora's possession > > when the auction is initiated. The second lot is all of any single > > type > > of asset owned by the Lost and Found Department. The Treasuror is > > the > > Auctioneer for this auction and the minimum bid is 1 coin. > > > > [Would love some feedback here. I personally love this idea conceptually > > but I want it to be manageable for the Treasuror.] > > If the Lost and Found Department doesn't own anything, this might make > the Treasuror's duty impossible. > > If there are two lots, it might be better to order it at the > Treasuror's discretion, in case the second lot is clearly worth more > than the first. Noted. -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.0
On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 8:30:24 PM CDT Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > The important bit is "neither its text nor any of the aforementioned > attributes can be changed". This means the attempt to change the > coauthors is INEFFECTIVE under R2240. > > -- > Jason Cobb Thanks for the quick catch! -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.0
I'm going to resubmit and fix most of the things you mentioned, but as argued
below I don't overall agree that "by announcement" would break the clauses.
On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 11:51:47 PM CDT Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 7:05 PM nch via agora-business
>
> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 8:05:26 PM CDT nch via agora-business wrote:
> > > Title: Sets v1.0
> > > Author: nch
> > > Co-Authors: Trigon, Falsifian, PSS, Jason Cobb
> > > AI: 3
> >
> > I withdraw Sets v1.0 and submit the following proposal.
> >
> > {
> >
> > Title: Sets v1.1
> > Author: nch
> > Co-Authors: Trigon, Falsifian, PSS, Jason
> > AI: 3
> >
> > Enact a new Power=1 rule titled "Cards & Sets" with the text:
> > Cards are a type of asset with a corresponding Product. Products are
> > also assets. The types of Cards and their corresponding Products
> > are:
> >
> > * Victory Cards and Victory Points.
> >
> > * Justice Cards and Blot-B-Gones
> >
> > * Legislative Cards and Pendants
> >
> > * Voting Cards and Extra Votes
> >
> > A player CAN, by announcement, pay a 'set' of X Cards of the same
> > type
> > to create in eir possession Y corresponding Products. The value of X
>
> > determines the value of Y in the following ways:
> This is badly broken. The "by announcement" (arguably) makes it so you
> can do it regardless if you have the cards. It needs to be a fee
> (those have all sorts of protections, so it's best to use them
> wherever possible).
This is fee-based. R2579 says as long as a payment is associated, it's fee-
based. I definitely see how "by announcement" is redundant but I don't think
it's a common-sense reading to say that that means you can bypass the 2579
provisions.
> The rephrased version would be something like "A player CAN, by paying
> as a fee a 'set' of X Cards of the same type, earn Y corresponding
> Products." I also added earn, because let's use those high level asset
> verbs!
Surely I can just say "CAN pay X to Y"? 2579 defines 'pay' so I think it
triggers it sufficiently clearly (and the usage is intuitive anyway).
> >
> > Enact a new Power=1 rule titled "VP Wins" with the following text:
> > If a player has at least 20 more Victory Points than any other
> > player, e
> > can win by announcement. When a player wins this way, destroy all
> > Cards
> > and their corresponding products. Then, for each non-zombie player
> >
> > create
> >
> > 1 card of each type in eir possession.
>
> Seems like there should be another comma in the last sentence? I'm not
> a grammar expert, but it feels to me like there should be one after
> "player".
It's traditional but it doesn't change the meaning at all. I'll fix it anyway
while I'm at it. (And I am a grammar expert, I guess. BS Linguistics and half
of an MSEd. :p)
> > [Exactly what it says on the tin.]
> >
> > Amend rule 2555 "Blots" by replacing the following paragraph:
> > If a person (the penitent) has neither gained blots nor had more
> > than 2 blots expunged from emself in the current Agoran week, then
> > any player (the confessor) who has not, by this mechanism,
> > expunged any blots in the current Agoran week CAN expunge 1 blot
> > from the penitent, by announcement.
> >
> > with:
> > Any player CAN, by announcement, expunge a blot from a specified
> > person
> > (or emself if no one is specified) by paying a fee of one
> > Blot-B-Gone.
>
> Broken, because by announcement and by fee are two separate methods.
> Incidentally, this is a good example of why the by announcement
> defaulting is likely a bad idea. Anyhow, rephrasing "Any player CAN
> expunge a blot from a specified person (or emself if no one is
> specified) by paying a fee of one Blot-B-Gone."
Again I don't think it's the common-sense interpretation that the 'by
announcement' clause overrides the 'pay'.
>
> > Amend rule 2350 "Proposals" by replacing:
> > Creating a proposal adds it to the Proposal Pool. Once a proposal
> > is created, neither its text nor any of the aforementioned
> > attributes can be changed. The author (syn. proposer) of a
> > proposal is the person who submitted it.
> >
> > with:
> > If a proposal was created in the last week and has not been added to
> > the
> > proposal pool, any player CAN add it to the Proposal Pool by paying
> > one
> > Pendant. When a player who is not the author or a co-author of a
> > proposal adds it to the Proposal Pool by this method, e is added to
> > the
> > list of co-authors.
> >
> > Once a proposal is created, neither its text nor any of the
> > aforementioned attributes can be changed, except by the mechanisms
> > in
> > this rule. The author (syn. proposer) of a proposal is the person
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.0
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 10:19:27 AM CDT you wrote: > Surely I can just say "CAN pay X to Y"? 2579 defines 'pay' so I think it > triggers it sufficiently clearly (and the usage is intuitive anyway). Clarification here: 2579 doesn't define 'pay' but it talks about payment. The only fee-based actions in the rules rn are winning via coins and auctions. Winning via coins says "paying a fee of" and auctions seem to just say "pay that amount". Which makes me think "pay X to Y" already has precedent that it works but maybe 2579 could be amended some time to make that more explicit. > Noted on the high standard. Can you point out the typo? I've reread this > twice and missed it. Found the typo. -- nch
Re: DIS: Protos: Referral and High Crimes
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 11:20:21 AM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Also realize, if you're going the Decision route, there's nothing > currently stopping punishment proposals, and even if this rule is > implemented there's nothing stopping someone from changing the AI > threshold by doing this: "I submit the following proposal, AI-[whatever I > like]: Whereas PSS is guilty of Treason, when this proposal takes effect > 10 Blots are created in eir possession". Sometimes I think it'd be interesting if we more often did gamestate changing proposals with little to no rule changes in them. For instance we could do things like: "Destroy all coins in every players possession. For each player, e earns 100 coins." Or even "The Treasuror SHALL, in a timely fashion after this proposal is adopted, add up all existing coins, destroy all existing coins, and cause every player to earn TOTAL/PLAYERS coins in an announcement." Obviously we've always had a bias towards doing things by rule, and I think there's a lot of good arguments for that convention. But it might be fun to push the boundaries here a bit sometimes. -- nch
Re: DIS: Protos: Referral and High Crimes
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 11:41:02 AM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/21/2020 9:32 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > Sometimes I think it'd be interesting if we more often did gamestate > > changing proposals with little to no rule changes in them. For instance > > we could do things like: > > > > "Destroy all coins in every players possession. For each player, e earns > > 100 coins." > > The newspaper just called me out for telling lots of old stories, but > can't resist mentioning that a currency-destroying proposal like this was > the opening move (or properly speaking, opportunity window) in the scam > that created the town fountain. > > In the last few years we've done this with Black Ribbons a couple times. > > -G. In retrospect those aren't the best examples, because we do use this pretty frequently for scams and releveling economies (there's even such a provision in the Sets proposal to give everyone cards). I didn't think about the restrictions Aris mentioned, but I bet there's still clever things we could do here that we haven't explored yet. -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.2
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 4:01:12 PM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/21/2020 1:08 PM, nch via agora-business wrote: > > * all of any single type of asset currently own by the Lost and > > Found > > > > Department, if any. > > I'm concerned about allowing the hijacking and auction of literally any > asset (including contract assets or whatever) that end up in the L&FD. > > The reason the L&FD is separate than Agora (i.e. just having stuff end up > in Agora's possession) is insulation against uncertainty and problems, > because it takes w/o objection to get things out of there. > > -G. Do you think this is a big enough deal to resubmit? I don't see any immediate risks and I think there's a couple ways a patch could go (just remove the clause, auction things in agora's possession and send things there from the L&FD after a certain amount of time, etc) so I'm inclined to leave it and work out solutions later. -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.2
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 4:13:43 PM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/21/2020 1:08 PM, nch via agora-business wrote: > > Once a week the Treasuror CAN and SHOULD initiate an auction. The > > > auction has the following lots: > This means the Treasuror will frequently have multiple auctions running at > once - Trigon have you weighed in on that pacing? > > Also, you've got a bunch of zombie protections, but one thing that's not > obvious is that having a zombie is a big advantage in multi-lot auctions, > because it lets you place 2 bids and accumulate at twice the speed - this > is not apparent now because zombies can't bid in zombie auctions. IIRC, > when we had land auctions this made zombies a bit overpowered (can't > remember if we forbid them from bidding in the end). > > -G. That's intentional. I don't want zombies to be useless, I mostly just want them to not generate free resources for their owner. The owner here still has to spend the coins. -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.2
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 4:23:25 PM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/21/2020 1:08 PM, nch via agora-business wrote: > > The Treasuror is the auctioneer for this auction, and may order the > > lots > > as e chooses. The minimum bid for this auction is 1 coin. > > I'm afraid this part *is* broken though. I'm sure Trigon isn't cool with > being the auctioneer (e may be cool at being the announcer though!) :) I just reread the relevant rules and I think it might be less 'broke' and more 'works but not in the way anyone expects'. The rules do allow the Auctioneer to be a person, and even makes em also the announcer. So that's good. Then, the auctioneer needs to be able to transfer the asset. E can, but it'd have to be through the "without objection" clause for the L&FD lot I think. Also, the coins would go to Trigon as e is the auctioneer. Ultimately you're right in that this part needs to be entirely rewritten. -- nch
DIS: Sets Feedback
I know I said I didn't want to get bogged down in design choice debates but since the auction portion has to be rewritten (and it looks like the rewrite might be more complex than I thought), I wanted to get some feedback. As far as I see it, there's two main options right now: 1) Rewrite the auction [the faithful option] 2) Remove it, leaving no way to get victory cards until a new proposal is passed [the easier option] I do have ideas for alternatives, but I'd rather not switch to one in the middle of trying to get this passed. Thoughts? -- nch
Re: DIS: Do all auctions end immediately?
On Friday, May 22, 2020 3:35:45 PM CDT Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 1:19 PM grok via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > On Fri, May 22, 2020, 2:16 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > > > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 5/22/2020 12:09 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 12:08 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > >> Rule 2551: > > > >> An Auction ends 7 days after its initiation, or immediately if > > > >> no > > > >> bid has been placed or withdrawn in the last 96 hours, or > > > >> immediately if it is terminated. > > > >> > > > >> Since no bid can be made until the auction starts (that's in R2550), > > > > > > then > > > > > > >> on the instant after it starts, the condition "no bid has been placed > > > >> or > > > >> withdrawn in the last 96 hours" would be TRUE... > > > > > > > > This has been noticed before... apparently not fixed though. > > > > > > lol I kept re-reading that phrase this morning thinking "surely I'm > > > missing something, something that glaring would have been noticed long > > > ago > > > given how many cfjs auctions have produced..." > > > > I think it depends on your interpretation of when hour 1 of the "last 96 > > hours" is. I think it would be reasonable for a CFJ to conclude either way > > on this. > > I'm not seeing a textual interpretation where it doesn't time out > immediately. Could you explain? > > Though maybe some judge found something last time, I really would have > sworn this has come up before. > > -Aris I think grok is suggesting that "last" might not go before the initiation. But, unfortunately in this case, that wouldn't hold up to convention in Agora. Quite a few rules get passed with provisions like "If this hasn't happened in the last X days..." fully intending to be immediately triggerable. -- nch
Re: DIS: Auction overhaul first cut
On Friday, May 22, 2020 3:28:32 PM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > [ > TODO: what happens to exess lots? > TODO: zombie auction compatibilty (totems?) > ] We're on the same wavelength here. I was planning to propose turning zombie ownership into ownership of some asset that represents the player (and that the player can transfer back to emself whenever e pleases). It'd also be easy to trade in that case. -- nch
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8377-8387
On Friday, May 22, 2020 3:23:59 PM CDT Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: > RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8377-8387 > = > > I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals. > > The quorum for all below decisions was 5. Was 8382 intentionally skipped over here?
Re: DIS: Do all auctions end immediately?
On Friday, May 22, 2020 4:07:19 PM CDT you wrote: > > wait > why don't we just propose a new rule/amend the old one with a paragraph > which says something like either "a countdown which would terminate > something can't be started retroactively" or "the countdown for auction > termination can't be started retroactively"? or would that be no fun? > > - bögtil It's not being started retroactively. There's not an instantiated countdown, there's a continuous check that looks backwards. But yea, the solution would be something like "An election ends 7 days after its initiation, or, if it has been at least 96 hours since its initiation, an election ends when there have been no bids in the last 96 hours." That said, G is working on a complete rewrite for other reasons. -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8377-8387
On Friday, May 22, 2020 4:08:31 PM CDT Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/22/20 5:06 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Friday, May 22, 2020 3:23:59 PM CDT Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: > >> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8377-8387 > >> = > >> > >> I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals. > >> > >> The quorum for all below decisions was 5. > > > > Was 8382 intentionally skipped over here? > > Yes. I followed the opinion of the H. Promotor at [0]. > > [0]: > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-M > ay/042839.html > > -- > Jason Cobb Do I need to resubmit or will it be in the next distribution? -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Petition of the Associate Director of Personnel
On Sunday, May 24, 2020 2:22:18 PM CDT James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 08:26, Edward Murphy via agora-business > > wrote: > >* ADoP Murphy, nine months > >* Arbitor G., nine months > >* Assessor Jason, nine months > >* Distributor omd, twelve months > >* Promotor Aris, twelve months > >* Registrar Falsifian, twelve months > >* Rulekeepor Jason, three months > > It might be worth looking back too. For example, I remember Trigon was > a reliable Rulekeepor from before I registered in 2019; that may well > have reached 12 months. > > - Falsifian Not just on these but there's a few other titles that should be looked at. Silver Quill, for instance, where there have been two separate attempts to award me one ratified out of existence, and several years where nobody got one. Proto: Add a clause that encourages the herald to award missing patents whenever there aren't current herald things going on. -- nch
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 498
On Sunday, May 24, 2020 3:01:25 PM CDT James Cook via agora-business wrote: > CoE on the below report: On May 17, I did not pay Agora and Tcbapo did > not pay me, since the May zombie auction ended before any bids were > placed. > > (I may try to ratify that the auction went smoothly, but let's not let > this self-ratify before we've decided that.) > > - Falsifian This information has already been ratified. The reports that included the payments and switches have been ratified already, right? -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 498
On Sunday, May 24, 2020 3:07:55 PM CDT nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sunday, May 24, 2020 3:01:25 PM CDT James Cook via agora-business wrote: > > CoE on the below report: On May 17, I did not pay Agora and Tcbapo did > > not pay me, since the May zombie auction ended before any bids were > > placed. > > > > (I may try to ratify that the auction went smoothly, but let's not let > > this self-ratify before we've decided that.) > > > > - Falsifian > > This information has already been ratified. The reports that included the > payments and switches have been ratified already, right? > > > -- > nch Whoops sorry, I was mixing up threads and reports here. -- nch
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft Report
On Sunday, May 24, 2020 3:58:05 PM CDT you wrote: > > Grok's "Cantus Counterscam" (which has the author and co-author values > > that > > are incorrectly listed for "a Proposed Contract") is missing. > > I believe that e retracted it. Oh, looks like you're correct. -- nch
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.3
On Sunday, May 24, 2020 8:06:34 PM CDT you wrote: > > On May 24, 2020, at 20:58, nch via agora-business > > wrote:> > > On Sunday, May 24, 2020 7:50:27 PM CDT you wrote: > >>> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 5:42 PM nch via agora-business > >>> > >>> wrote: > >>> Ok, here's 1.3. > >>> > >>> I cut out auctions completely because there are two proposals right now > >>> to > >>> fix them and I'd rather that dust settled first. I have a separate > >>> proposal, based on Trigon's transmutation idea, coming later tonight. > >>> That both adds a way to get Victory Points and helps us balance any card > >>> types that might end up scarce. > >>> > >>> I also reworked pending, based on G's comments. Now proposals go > >>> straight > >>> into the pool like they always did. There's a separate rule that adds a > >>> Pend switch for them, and distribution requires proposals to have > >>> Pend=True. The net effect is less direct changes to important rules, and > >>> honestly a more intuitive system. > >> > >> *groans* > >> > >> Back to non-empty proposal pool reports I see. *sigh* > >> > >> I may propose changing this at some point so that I only have to > >> report pending proposals, but that's the sort of thing that can be > >> dealt with later. > >> > >> -Aris > > > > Sorry Aris. On the plus side PSS did just point out a good tiny > > adjustment. I withdraw Sets v1.3 and pledge not to submit any proposals > > until after the next distribution. > > If we’re putting this off until the next distribution, then I’ll provide > some substantive thoughts on this matter. What if we made the author of a > non-pending proposal responsible for its record-keeping but remove the > responsibility to do so? That way the Promotor’s workload doesn’t increase, > and excess proposals would self-ratify out of existence. I guess when I was writing the rule I wasn't imagining it would be common to submit without pending (or knowing someone is likely to pend it). But if that does become common I definitely approve of any ideas to reduce Promotor overhead. An even more aggressive solution would be to automatically remove unpended proposals from the pool when the Promotor does eir weekly duty. There's no cost to just submitting, so the worst case is people have to resubmit sometimes. -- nch
DIS: [Proto] Transmutation
Very very simple, but submitting for feedback since I'm gonna sit on it til
next distribution anyway. Trigon suggested this as a way to make Victory
Cards, but it also works as a way to iron out market deficiencies. Trigon's
suggestion was that they be different types, but I think it works fine as the
same type too.
{
Title: Transmutation
Author: nch
Co-Authors: Trigon
AI: 1
If the proposal "Sets v1.3" passes then enact a new Power=1 rule titled
"Transmutation" with the text:
A player CAN pay 3 Cards (syn. transmute) to earn a Card of a
specified type.
}
--
nch
Re: [Proto-Contract] LoAFER (was: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.3)
On Sunday, May 24, 2020 9:05:29 PM CDT Reuben Staley via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 2020-05-24 18:47, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote:
> > it used to be considered somewhat rude to submit a proposal after the
> > promotor had published eir draft but before the distribution
>
> I think we need to respect and help officers more in general.
>
> Thoughts on this fun proto-contract I whipped up?
Wonder if we could make this a sort of bet. Every week members of the contract
put 1 or 2 coins in and everyone who doesn't violate it gets a cut of the pot
(leaving remainders for next time)?
>
> --
> League of Agorans Facilitating Accurate Recordkeeping
>
> Parties to this contract should attempt to help the officers of Agora in
> their official duties by following the guidelines of this contract,
> which are enumerated below:
>
> 1. Signaling: the act of placing in the subject text of a message to the
> effect of "[attn {Officer}]" when actions taken in the message
> pertain directly to the mentioned officer's position.
Maybe also include the other tags people already use ([Proposal], Notice of
Honor) as alternatives to 'tagging' the officer directly?
--
nch
Re: DIS: [proto] Talismans
On Friday, May 22, 2020 4:21:34 PM CDT Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> I've shamelessly stolen the name from Warrigal's dead contract.
>
>
> Title: Talismans
>
> Adoption index: 3.0
>
> {
>
> For the purposes of this proposal, a player's prior master is eir master
> before this proposal applies any effects.
>
>
> Amend Rule 2532 to read, in whole:
>
> {
>
> Activity is a switch possessed by players, with possible values "active"
> (default) and "inactive". Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a
> player CAN, by announcement, flip eir activity to active. A player who
> is inactive is a zombie.
Need to specify who, if anyone, tracks this switch or it'll create a new office
(R2603).
>
> A talisman is an asset with ownership restricted to players and Agora.
> If there ever does not exist a talisman for a certain zombie, one is
> created in the possession of Agora. If there ever exists more than one
> talisman for a certain zombie, or more than zero talismans for any other
> person, one talisman for that player is destroyed. Talismans are tracked
> by the Registrar.
In the case of >1 talisman you don't specify which one is destroyed, which is
problematic if they're owned by different entities. That said, how would there
ever be more than one talisman for one zombie?
>
> A person (the master) who possesses a talisman for a specific player
> (the controlled player) CAN act on behalf of the controlled player to
> perform any action, subject to the restrictions in this rule. A master
> CANNOT cause a controlled player to do any of the following using any
> method specified in this rule:
>
> - initiate, support, object to, or perform a dependent action;
> - act on behalf of that zombie's zombies;
> - bid in a zombie auction;
> - enter a contract, pledge, or other type of agreement;
> - initiate a Call for Judgement;
> - create blots;
> - deregister.
>
> If a master causes a zombie to perform an ILLEGAL action, the master
> commits the Class 4+N Crime of Masterminding (where N is the class of
> the illegal action).
>
> If an active player who was a zombie has not received a Welcome Package
> since e most recently ceased being a zombie, and if eir resale value was
> less than 2 at any point during eir most recent time as a zombie, then
> any player CAN cause em to receive a Welcome Package by announcement.
>
> }
>
> [Note: destroying a zombie's talisman is equivalent to flipping a
> zombie's master to Agora under the old system. This is longer than the
> old rule because it needs language for both activity and ensuring only
> one talisman exists for any given zombie (which were combined in the
> previous rule).]
>
>
> Amend Rule 2574 to read, in whole:
>
> {
>
> Any player CAN, with notice, flip the activity of an active player who
> has not made a public announcement in the past 60 days to inactive.
>
> Resale value is a secured natural switch for zombies, tracked by the
> Registrar, with a default value of 2. Whenever the talisman for a zombie
> is transferred to a player, that zombie's resale value is decreased by
> 1. At the end of a zombie auction, every zombie that is an excess lot in
> that auction has eir resale value decreased by 1.
The whole inactive=zombie thing is a little unintuitive. If I didn't know
R2532 well I might not realize how these two paragraphs relate. Maybe the
switch should just be [Active, Zombie]?
>
> The talisman of a zombie with zero resale value CANNOT be transferred.
>
> Any player CAN, with notice:
>
> - If a zombie has been a zombie for the past 90 days and not had
> Agora for a master during any of that time, destroy one talisman for
> that zombie;
> - If a player possess more than one talisman, destroy one of those
> talismans;
Would "I destroy one of the talisman Jason possesses" satisfy this? Maybe
"specify and destroy one of those talismans"
> - Deregister a zombie whose resale value is zero and for which Agora
> possesses a talisman.
>
> The Registrar SHALL track the date that a talisman for each zombie last
> belonged to Agora in eir weekly report. The Registrar SHALL perform all
> POSSIBLE actions in the preceding paragraph in a timely fashion after
> first reporting their possibility via the facts in eir weekly report.
Do you intend for the registrar to give notice for all of those actions in the
report or do them? I'm not sure e can do them without notice the way this is
worded.
>
> }
>
>
> [Zombie auction rules TBD; probably needs to be coordinated with any
> auction reform.]
>
>
> Amend Rule 2575 by replacing the final sentence with
> "Rules to the contrary not withstanding, the Distributor's activity
> cannot be flipped to inactive, and e CANNOT deregister or be deregistered."
>
>
> For each player, if eir prior master is not emself, grant a talisman for
> that player to that player's prior master.
>
> }
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
--
nch
Re: DIS: [Proto] College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences
On Sunday, May 24, 2020 4:44:42 PM CDT Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > This is a reform of the degrees system. It has been bothering me for > ages that we don't have clear criteria for what theses qualify for > each degree. For instance, no one seems to be sure whether artistic > works can qualify for a degree. This proposal would establish > standards (in terms of level of contribution, not word-count), create > a separate track of degrees for artistic works, and (while I'm at it) > rename Doctor degrees to Doctorate degrees to match all the other > degrees in being gender neutral. I hope this will be favorably > received, but I'm somewhat scared that G. will find something in here > to grumble about, so I'm submitting it as a proto first. :) > > -Aris > --- > Title: College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Aris > Co-author(s): > > Amend Rule 1367, "Degrees", by changing it to read as follows: > > Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are > > - Associate of Nomic (A.N.) > - Juris Doctorate of Nomic (J.N.) > - Baccalaureate of Nomic Artistry(B.N.A.) > - Baccalaureate of Nomic (B.N.) > - Magisteriate of Nomic Artistry (M.N.A) > - Magisteriate of Nomic (M.N.) > - Doctorate of Nomic History (D.N.Hist.) > - Doctorate of Nomic Artistry(D.N.Art.) > - Doctorate of Nomic Law (D.N.Law.) > - Doctorate of Nomic Science (D.N.Sci.) > - Doctorate of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil.) > > Degrees are ranked in the order they appear in this rule, with > degrees listed later being ranked higher. A specific degree CANNOT > be awarded to any person more than once. Is it intentional that this means there's a hierarchy among the Doctorates (and Magisteriates and Baccalaureates)? Seems a little strange conceptually. Although very appropriate for Agora that Philosophy ranks highest. > A specified degree CAN be awarded by any player other than the > awardee, with 2 Agoran consent. It SHOULD only be awarded for the > publication of an original thesis of scholarly worth (including > responses to peer-review), published with explicit intent to > qualify for a degree. The Herald SHOULD coordinate the peer-review > process and the awarding of degrees. > > An Associate of Nomic degree SHOULD be awarded for a thesis that adds > appreciably to Agoran culture, but fails to qualify for another > degree. Baccalaureate level degrees (which include the J.N) SHOULD be > awarded when the thesis demonstrates a substantial contribution, > Magisteriate degrees for a remarkable contribution, and Doctorate degrees > for an exceptional contribution. Any degree at the Doctorate level SHOULD > take into account the awardee's academic history and participation in Agora > over time. > > Artistry degrees SHOULD demonstrate substantial creativity, and need > not be in written form. All other degrees above the Associate level SHOULD > demonstrate substantial research or analysis. J.N. and D.N.Law are > appropriate for high-quality legal analysis, of the sort typical to CFJs, > but exceeding an ordinary CFJ in depth. The D.N.Hist. degree is appropriate > for historical research, especially when it presents a narrative that will > educate Agorans about the events of the past. The D.N.Sci. degree is is "is is" on the above line > appropriate for theses that demonstrate concrete or scientific thinking, > whereas the D.N.Phil. is appropriate for theses that demonstrate abstract > or philosophical thinking. > > Rename every instance of the first listed patent title on each row to the > second listed patent title on each row: > > - Juris Doctor of Nomic, Juris Doctorate of Nomic > - Doctor of Nomic History, Doctorate of Nomic History > - Doctor of Nomic Law, Doctorate of Nomic Law > - Doctor of Nomic Science, Doctorate of Nomic Science > - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy, Doctorate of Nomic Philosophy Overall, I'm in favor of this. -- nch
Re: DIS: [proto] Talismans
On Sunday, May 24, 2020 10:42:40 PM CDT Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/24/20 11:17 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Friday, May 22, 2020 4:21:34 PM CDT Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > >> A talisman is an asset with ownership restricted to players and Agora. > >> If there ever does not exist a talisman for a certain zombie, one is > >> created in the possession of Agora. If there ever exists more than one > >> talisman for a certain zombie, or more than zero talismans for any other > >> person, one talisman for that player is destroyed. Talismans are tracked > >> by the Registrar. > > > > In the case of >1 talisman you don't specify which one is destroyed, which > > is problematic if they're owned by different entities. That said, how > > would there ever be more than one talisman for one zombie? > > You're right, and I'm thinking of just having the rule say "screw it, > destroy all of them". This clause exists just to control the effects of > any bugs - it's not something that should normally happen, but it is > plausible enough that I think there should be wording for it. > This might be over engineered. The worst case of two talismans existing is that two people can control the zombie until it gets resolved via proposal. Which if anything is just funny. If you still want to include protection I think "if there would be two talismans for the same zombie, the most recently created one is destroyed" covers all instances unambiguously. > >> Any player CAN, with notice: > >> - If a zombie has been a zombie for the past 90 days and not had > >> Agora for a master during any of that time, destroy one talisman for > >> that zombie; > >> - If a player possess more than one talisman, destroy one of those > >> talismans; > > > > Would "I destroy one of the talisman Jason possesses" satisfy this? Maybe > > "specify and destroy one of those talismans" > > I'll do that, although, if this is an actual issue, it's the same as in > the current wording. > Oh you're right. I think this is ambiguous enough that if that's how people have been interpreting it, it's fine. -- nch
Re: DIS: [proto] Talismans
On Sunday, May 24, 2020 10:57:01 PM CDT James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > >> The Registrar SHALL track the date that a talisman for each zombie last > > >> belonged to Agora in eir weekly report. The Registrar SHALL perform all > > >> POSSIBLE actions in the preceding paragraph in a timely fashion after > > >> first reporting their possibility via the facts in eir weekly report. > > > > > > Do you intend for the registrar to give notice for all of those actions > > > in the report or do them? I'm not sure e can do them without notice the > > > way this is worded. > > > > Same here; this text is copied from the current wording with the minimal > > adjustments to make it work with the rest of the draft. > > I've been interpreting this clause as: whenever my weekly report shows > that one of these conditions is met (e.g. my report shows a resale > value of 0), that starts a countdown of 7 days within which I have to > make sure the action is performed. I generally don't handle actually > doing the actions in my reports; I send separate emails for the notice > and then actually doing the actions. > > I do think the phrasing is a bit strange but it doesn't seem like a > real problem. > > - Falsifian Oh, that makes more sense upon re-reading it. Seems like a strange requirement but I guess it works as intended. -- nch
Re: DIS: [proto] Talismans
On Sunday, May 24, 2020 11:05:54 PM CDT nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sunday, May 24, 2020 10:42:40 PM CDT Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 5/24/20 11:17 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On Friday, May 22, 2020 4:21:34 PM CDT Jason Cobb via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > >> A talisman is an asset with ownership restricted to players and Agora. > > >> If there ever does not exist a talisman for a certain zombie, one is > > >> created in the possession of Agora. If there ever exists more than one > > >> talisman for a certain zombie, or more than zero talismans for any > > >> other > > >> person, one talisman for that player is destroyed. Talismans are > > >> tracked > > >> by the Registrar. > > > > > > In the case of >1 talisman you don't specify which one is destroyed, > > > which > > > is problematic if they're owned by different entities. That said, how > > > would there ever be more than one talisman for one zombie? > > > > You're right, and I'm thinking of just having the rule say "screw it, > > destroy all of them". This clause exists just to control the effects of > > any bugs - it's not something that should normally happen, but it is > > plausible enough that I think there should be wording for it. > > This might be over engineered. The worst case of two talismans existing is > that two people can control the zombie until it gets resolved via proposal. > Which if anything is just funny. If you still want to include protection I > think "if there would be two talismans for the same zombie, the most > recently created one is destroyed" covers all instances unambiguously. Alternatively, maybe take an entirely different approach: Create a talisman in the possession of a player when they register (and one in every active player's possession when this proposal passes), transfer that talisman as necessary for everything else (to Agora when they go inactive, then to the auction winner), destroy it when they deregister. There's a lot less potential for creation/destruction bugs there I think.
DIS: Re: BUS: a regulatory experiment (auctions)
On Monday, May 25, 2020 11:40:01 AM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > and under common definitions and terms used > in auctions, We may want to specify which type of auction, since there's many types with different rules. I don't think anyone would be very happy if at the closing of bids the auctioneer declared that it had been an all-pay auction the whole time. -- nch
DIS: Thesis Snippet
I wanted to send along a small snippet of the economy thesis I'm working on to
get feedback. My main questions are
1) What kind of information does everyone want for each economic system and
2) are the flowcharts good?
Any other feedback also appreciated. Anyway, here it is:
{
===
Summarized Timeline
===
2000Stems begins [1]
04/24/03 Stems Ends, Tabla Rasa Begins due to Proposal 4486 [2]
12/05/16 Shinies Begins
=
Stems
=
2000-04/24/03
Description
-
The fungible currency, Stems, is given to players as a basic income and also
give to officers. Players could belong to one of three groups, which gave them
the ability to bid at one of three auctions, each corresponding to a different
asset type: Papyrii, which allowed players to make their proposal
distributable; Indulgences, which allowed players to remove penalties they've
incurred; and Voting Entitlements, which gave players more voting power on
proposals.
[Basic Income, Office Income] -> Stems
Stems -{Auction}-> Papyrii, Indulgences, Voting Entitlements
Papyrii -> [Make a proposal distributable]
Indulgences -> [Remove incurred penalties]
Voting Entitlement -> [Have extra voting power]
=
Tabla Rasa
=
04/24/03-
Description
-
Tabla Rasa does not introduce any tradeable assets. Players gained two types
of titles, Boons and Albatrosses, from positive and negative actions
respectively. Once a quarter each player was given a budget of Kudos, which
was calculated based off the number of Boons and Albatrosses each player had.
Kudos were spent to perform many actions: making proposals distributable,
removing blots, skipping timers for role changing, increasing eir own voting
power, setting the chamber for a proposal, and so on.
[(Positive) Rule Defined Action] -> Boon
[(Negative Rule Defined Action] -> Albatross
Once a quarter:
Base+Boons-Albatrosses -> Kudos
Kudos -> [make proposals distributable], [remove blots], [increase voting
power], [change roles], [set proposal chambers]
}
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: a regulatory experiment (auctions)
On Monday, May 25, 2020 3:15:39 PM CDT Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 1:14 PM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 2020-05-25 12:23, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On Monday, May 25, 2020 11:40:01 AM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-business > > > > wrote: > > >> and under common definitions and terms used > > >> > > >>in auctions, > > > > > > We may want to specify which type of auction, since there's many types > > > > with > > > > > different rules. I don't think anyone would be very happy if at the > > > > closing of > > > > > bids the auctioneer declared that it had been an all-pay auction the > > > > whole > > > > > time. > > > > Perhaps players can choose the type of auction for themselves, but must > > specify which type before initiation. > > I agree; it could be interesting to try an all-pay auction (for instance) > if the officer wanted to try one. > > -Aris I think the ideal is to 1) make it where they have to announce the type at initiation and 2) let rules specify a type (in case we decide we want certain auctions to be specific types). -- nch
Re: DIS: Thesis Snippet
On Monday, May 25, 2020 4:24:56 PM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Your two examples are an interesting contrast in that they are probably > the "longest between resets" and "shortest between resets" systems, but > you don't get a sense of that from your descriptions - so maybe a > "frequency of reset" or similar? I do have some ideas for taxonomy but I'm waiting to have more of the systems covered so I can tell which categories make the most sense. I'll keep accrual/ reset period in mind as a possible one. Thanks! -- nch
Re: DIS: Thesis Snippet
On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 6:10:25 PM CDT James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > One nitpick: I'm not sure how to read the last two dates. I can infer > it's not day/month/year but not sure if there are year-month-day > conventions that use slashes. They are in MM/DD/YY format, which is common in the US (under the argument that it mirrors the way people tend to say dates IE "May 26 2020" = 05/26/20. I'll make the years 4 digits, but I'm indifferent to the order overall as long as it's clear. -- nch
Re: DIS: Thesis Snippet
On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 6:16:45 PM CDT James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > 1) What kind of information does everyone want for each economic system > > and > > Off the top of my head: > * the basic mechanisms (yes, flow charts are helpful) Noted > * rule bugs and broader problems with the economies, so we can learn > from the past > * what was fun or otherwise good about them (G.'s note about election > platforms was interesting) Bugs are largely irrelevant, since the rest of the rules change so much that they often work differently than they would now. "Broader problems" and "what was fun" are actually really difficult to tackle. Both would require diving into a-d much more, which is a very high-traffic list, and trying to interpret people's contemporary feelings. It's both more work and risks misrepresenting people. > * I don't know if they'd be easy to find, but anecdotes about > week-to-week life under past economies would be nice. (I guess under > Coins, anecdotes could just be things like G. offering a purse for > shortest wording of a rule, or the fact that the Registrar tends to > order zombie auction lots by coin balance? Coins are fairly simple I > guess.) Also a pony please while you're at it. True anecdotes have the same issue as above, and unfortunately I'm not as ol- experienced as G, so I can't "source:me" for anything pre-2014ish. On the other hand, I could link to a couple sample reports from the time period, which might provide a more 'objective' version of what an anecdote would bring. I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for the feedback! -- nch
Re: DIS: Thesis Snippet
On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 6:29:26 PM CDT James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 23:18, nch via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 6:10:25 PM CDT James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > > One nitpick: I'm not sure how to read the last two dates. I can infer > > > it's not day/month/year but not sure if there are year-month-day > > > conventions that use slashes. > > > > They are in MM/DD/YY format, which is common in the US (under the argument > > that it mirrors the way people tend to say dates IE "May 26 2020" = > > 05/26/20. I'll make the years 4 digits, but I'm indifferent to the order > > overall as long as it's clear. > > Sure, that's fine. > > The argument you give is language-dependent. When I was in school in > Canada I think the convention was DD/MM/YY which makes sense in > French, but is confusing when you're right beside a MM/DD/YY country. > I think Mandarin dates are almost literally said as -MM-DD. Agora > is an English-speaking community, but I think it's good to aspire to > more portable dates. > > According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_and_time_notation_in_Canada > Canada now recommends -MM-DD (yay!) but it also says > year/month/day is used for shelf life. > > I personally like -MM-DD because the endianness is consistent > (largest-to-smallest both within the numbers and overall) and also > because lexicographic sorting means sorting by date. > > - Falsifian I'm aware of all these arguments and at one point would have endorsed them. However I've generally over time come to the conclusion that idiosyncrasy, which expresses culture and identity, has as much (or more) value as standardization does. Thus, I'm not inclined to change the way I express something unless there's a pragmatic benefit. -- nch
Re: DIS: Back-Awarding of Silver Quills
On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 5:00:58 PM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > I personally really liked the cards system and would like to bring > > parts of it back, but I wasn't around in 2016, so I'll happily defer > > to others. > > Well that last bit sucked for the referee - it meant the referee had to > look at literally everything, reports, lateness of judgements, etc. to > certify that there were no violations. The referee would sometimes commit > a minor infraction and award emself a green card because that was easier. > > Other than that and other minor tweaks I think it worked well and I liked > it. IIRC the reason we got rid of it wasn't because it was bad, it was > the desire to commodify punishment to include in the economy? Referee Cards were fun, and there's no reason they couldn't work with an asset system like the upcoming Sets (except for the confusion of names). You'd just make Green and Yellow payable with different amounts of Blot-B-Gones, and Red would probably not be payable at all. In fact, it may be a good idea to have two separate tiers of crimes anyway: small infractions that earn you some blots, and serious ones that come with a punishment you can't pay off. I think that'd reconcile the ideas of "justice as a game mechanic" and "justice as a way to deal with bad faith actors/actions." -- nch
Fw: DIS: Back-Awarding of Silver Quills
Original Message On May 28, 2020, 11:11 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Thursday, 28 May 2020, 17:03:57 GMT+1, James Cook via agora-discussion > wrote: > > In fact, it may be a good idea to have two separate tiers of crimes anyway: > > small infractions that earn you some blots, and serious ones that come with > > a > > punishment you can't pay off. I think that'd reconcile the ideas of > > "justice as > > a game mechanic" and "justice as a way to deal with bad faith > > actors/actions." > > If some justice is intended to be a game mechanic, I'd prefer the > crimes related to those to not be described as rule violations (SHALL > NOT, etc). > It doesn't really sound fun to me for the written rules of a game to > deliberately not be an accurate description of the expected boundaries > of gameplay. I fully agree with this. It's fine to have actions where "you're allowed to do this but there will be consequences", and it's fine to have illegal actions, but please don't mix the two. (This might be formatted weirdly because I'm on mobile.) I'm not entirely sure how formally defining them separately is mixing them, as opposed to the current system which totally does mix them. Failing to do a weekly duty violates a SHALL. If the promoter failed to distribute any proposals, we'd probably all assume it was an error caused by real life busyness and forgive it. If e distributed all but one and said e has no intention to ever distribute that one because e doesn't like it, all of us would take that a lot more seriously. But it's currently the exact same rule violation (and both are, afaict, the Class 2 Crime of Tardiness) either way. To me, in general, the lower crimes that are blotworthy would be ones that are easily (and frequently) done by mistake. The blot then says "be more careful next time". The higher crimes that should have unforgivable consequences (such as a temporary voting strength reduction you can't temove) are ones that have to be committed intentionally. I'd say the missing distribution is blotworthy but the intentional malfeasance should be treated separately and more seriously.
Re: DIS: Back-Awarding of Silver Quills
Original Message On May 28, 2020, 11:27 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 16:14, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:11 AM Alex Smith via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > On Thursday, 28 May 2020, 17:03:57 GMT+1, James Cook via > > agora-discussion wrote: > > > > In fact, it may be a good idea to have two separate tiers of crimes > > anyway: > > > > small infractions that earn you some blots, and serious ones that come > > with a > > > > punishment you can't pay off. I think that'd reconcile the ideas of > > "justice as > > > > a game mechanic" and "justice as a way to deal with bad faith > > actors/actions." > > > > > > If some justice is intended to be a game mechanic, I'd prefer the > > > crimes related to those to not be described as rule violations (SHALL > > > NOT, etc). > > > It doesn't really sound fun to me for the written rules of a game to > > > deliberately not be an accurate description of the expected boundaries > > > of gameplay. > > > > I fully agree with this. It's fine to have actions where "you're allowed > > to do this > > but there will be consequences", and it's fine to have illegal actions, > > but please > > don't mix the two. > > > > -- > > ais523 > > > > isn't law in real life exactly this though? there are plenty of things like > littering that people often do (and attract relatively small consequences) > that are just as illegal under law as, say, murder. > -- > From R. Lee There are a couple of differences in my mind. First, I never really agreed to my local laws. Second, at least for some games, the rules are the whole point. I wouldn't find a game of chess very fun if my opponent were trying to move pieces while I wasn't looking. It's not what I signed up for. I feel this way about Agora too. Admittedly I feel it less strongly in Agora than in chess, maybe because Agora's rules are much more vague and complicated. Still, if this is a game, it seems like the world "rules" should be used for the ground rules, i.e. the basic underlying structure people are expected to follow. - Falsifian If I accidentally moved a knight wrong and neither of us noticed until a move or two later, I broke the rules. But did I cheat? I don't think so. That's the distinction I'm trying to draw.
Re: DIS: Back-Awarding of Silver Quills
Original Message On May 28, 2020, 11:55 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: On 5/28/2020 9:42 AM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > If I accidentally moved a knight wrong and neither of us noticed until a move > or two later, I broke the rules. But did I cheat? I don't think so. That's > the distinction I'm trying to draw. > One of the issues is that we don't really do "equity" (we tried once, it was complicated and interesting but I don't think it really worked). By which I mean, if you discover the wrong knight (and it's not a tournament), you can discuss with the other player: what's fairer and more equitable: leave it where it is? Put it where it should be? Go back two moves? Start over? That would also depend on whether the misplacement led to the loss of a Queen, how important it was to the following moves, etc. We don't really do that "adjust gamestate to make up for the violation" so we have to reduce to a common currency and just discourage by applying a game penalty. And as soon as it's "currency" it becomes transactional (as R. Lee's comments show). In fact, the first draft of the card system was meant to purposefully get away from transactional punishment. A Green Card was meant to be a flag and caution: "yes, you did break a rule and shouldn't have, but it didn't really affect the game so Green". Making it a social contract that "you really should have done that - doing that makes it less fun for all of us" rather than "if you profited from this you can pay off the blot and not worry". -G. Equity itself is transactional though, because we're all players and any transactions might affect all of us. In chess a judge could make a ruling to even it out, but our judges are also playing at the same time. What about automatically blotting violations and then raise it to a justice system when someone thinks the violation was intentional and maleficent? The routine mistakes would be dealt with in a minor way with an easy system to say "wait, this is more serious."
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.4
On Sunday, May 31, 2020 1:12:02 AM CDT you wrote: > On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 12:38 PM nch via agora-business > > wrote: > > Create a new Power=1 rule titled "Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege" > > > > with the following text: > > The player who proposed the proposal with the greatest F/A, as > > defined in rule 955, among all proposals assessed in the last 7 > > days CAN once earn one Legislative Card by announcement. If there > > is a tie, all authors of the tied proposals may do so once each. > > There appears to be an Assessor ordering scam here. If the Assessor > conspires with proposal authors, they can order proposals in order of > increasing F/A for resolution, then act on the behalf of each author > to claim a legislative card before resolving the next proposal (or, > more simply, if the Assessor has a proposal up for voting, they can > resolve that one first). > > -Aris This would be difficult to coordinate and easy to patch, so I'm going to leave it in for now and patch it afterwards. -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Re: Free Tournament Intent
On Sunday, May 31, 2020 10:27:55 AM CDT Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 10:39 AM Rebecca via agora-official > > wrote: > > Sorry, I intend with 3 Agoran consent to host a Free Tournament with the > > following Regulations (i fixed a typo) > > I believe it's perfectly legal to do so, but why are you doing this > with 3 Agoran Consent and not 2? I'm actually not sure this is effective (unless there's precedence I'm not familiar with). I understand the intuitive appeal (getting 3 Consent entails getting 2 Consent) but it's legally a different mechanism. Additionally, accepting it leads to weirder arguments. Could I intend to start a Free Tournament with 1 Consent, get enough support to satisfy the conditions of 2 Consent, and then resolve that intent? -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3837 Assigned to grok
On Monday, June 1, 2020 8:23:42 PM CDT James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, 31 May 2020 at 19:29, nch via agora-business > > wrote: > > On Sunday, May 31, 2020 2:06:51 PM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > > > The below CFJ is 3837. I assign it to grok. > > > > > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3837 > > > > > > === CFJ 3837 > > > === > > > > > > Falsifian owns at least one blot if and only if English Wikipedia > > > has an article titled "Sponge". > > > > > > > > > == > > > > Gratuitous: This CFJ should be found FALSE because the rules do not define > > a biconditional relationship between these facts, regardless of whether > > either individual fact is TRUE or FALSE. > > > > -- > > nch > > Gratuitous response: > > When I published the statement, I intended "if and only if" to have > the classical logic meaning, i.e. (I own at least one blot and English > Wikipedia has an article titled "Sponge") or (I do not own at least > one blot and English Wikipedia does not have an article titled > "Sponge"). > > I suppose it could be interpreted differently. However, I think my > intent is important here, since interpreting natural language is > fundamentally an act of figuring out what someone was trying to > communicate. I don't know whether there are past judgements on the > subject of whether intent matters in a CFJ statement. > > - Falsifian We agree on what the biconditional means, I think. The difference between my argument and your argument is at the pragmatics level not at the syntactic level. Your argument is a de re interpretation: If one of these two sides is currently true, the whole statement is true. My argument is a de dicto interpretation: If this statement is true under all conditions for either side, then the whole statement is true. That's why my interpretation thinks a iff relationship needs to be pre-established. -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3837 Assigned to grok
On Monday, June 1, 2020 8:46:09 PM CDT James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > Isn't that still a difference in intended meaning? Maybe I didn't > phrase it clearly enough the first time, but my intended meaning was > "Right now at the moment I'm calling this CFJ, the truth value > (true/false) of 'Falsifian owns at least one blot' equals the truth > value of 'English Wikipedia has an article titled "Sponge"'". If you had used "right now" or "currently" I'd agree with your reading, see below. > Also, CFJ statements about things like "Alice owns a blot" are usually > assumed to be about the current situation at the time the statement > was called. Are you saying the words "if and only if" override that > default, and lead you interpret my statement as encompassing other > times and/or situations other than the current one? Or am I > misunderstanding your argument? There's no "override". In "Alice owns a blot" there's no ambiguity about whether that statement is present progressive. When you introduce a modal, you also introduce an ambiguity: now the sentence could be present progressive or it could be conditional, which can refer to an "always" time frame or a "currently" time frame without clarity. My honest first take of your CFJ was a conditional always time frame. -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3837 Assigned to grok
On Monday, June 1, 2020 8:56:35 PM CDT nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On Monday, June 1, 2020 8:46:09 PM CDT James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > Isn't that still a difference in intended meaning? Maybe I didn't > > phrase it clearly enough the first time, but my intended meaning was > > "Right now at the moment I'm calling this CFJ, the truth value > > (true/false) of 'Falsifian owns at least one blot' equals the truth > > value of 'English Wikipedia has an article titled "Sponge"'". > > If you had used "right now" or "currently" I'd agree with your reading, see > below. > > > Also, CFJ statements about things like "Alice owns a blot" are usually > > assumed to be about the current situation at the time the statement > > was called. Are you saying the words "if and only if" override that > > default, and lead you interpret my statement as encompassing other > > times and/or situations other than the current one? Or am I > > misunderstanding your argument? > > There's no "override". In "Alice owns a blot" there's no ambiguity about > whether that statement is present progressive. When you introduce a modal, > you also introduce an ambiguity: now the sentence could be present > progressive or it could be conditional, which can refer to an "always" time > frame or a "currently" time frame without clarity. My honest first take of > your CFJ was a conditional always time frame. > > -- > nch I don't think I'm alone with this reading either. G's arguments seem to implicitly rely on the "always"/"all possibilities" interpretation too. -- nch
Fw: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3837 Assigned to grok
(oops sent this straight to falsifian the first time.) ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, June 1, 2020 10:05 PM, nch wrote: > On Monday, June 1, 2020 9:44:27 PM CDT you wrote: > > > On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 01:57, nch via agora-discussion > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org wrote: > > > > > On Monday, June 1, 2020 8:46:09 PM CDT James Cook via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > > > > Isn't that still a difference in intended meaning? Maybe I didn't > > > > phrase it clearly enough the first time, but my intended meaning was > > > > "Right now at the moment I'm calling this CFJ, the truth value > > > > (true/false) of 'Falsifian owns at least one blot' equals the truth > > > > value of 'English Wikipedia has an article titled "Sponge"'". > > > > > > If you had used "right now" or "currently" I'd agree with your reading, > > > see > > > below. > > > > > > > Also, CFJ statements about things like "Alice owns a blot" are usually > > > > assumed to be about the current situation at the time the statement > > > > was called. Are you saying the words "if and only if" override that > > > > default, and lead you interpret my statement as encompassing other > > > > times and/or situations other than the current one? Or am I > > > > misunderstanding your argument? > > > > > > There's no "override". In "Alice owns a blot" there's no ambiguity about > > > whether that statement is present progressive. When you introduce a modal, > > > you also introduce an ambiguity: now the sentence could be present > > > progressive or it could be conditional, which can refer to an "always" > > > time frame or a "currently" time frame without clarity. My honest first > > > take of your CFJ was a conditional always time frame. > > > -- > > > nch > > > > I think I have some linguistics to learn. I think a quick web search > > has taught me what the "present progressive" tense is, but I'm not > > sure I've grokked what a modal is. > > Modals are basically conditionals. It's more complex than that of course but > that's the quick and dirty. They cover possibility of truth or permission of > action. Also see modal logic, which extends classical logic with possible > worlds. > > > I do see that the "if and only if" wording opens the door to another > > interpretation. Interpreting it that way feels a little odd to me, but > > maybe that's because my intended meaning is still stuck firmly in my > > mind. > > Keep in mind that word choice, even where it's synonymous in a vacuum, conveys > meaning. This is a feature of language, we unconsciously assume speakers are > efficient and pragmatic and when expectations are broken it conveys additional > meaning. You used "if and only if" where I would normally use "and". So my > first thought was that you were focusing on something special about the > biconditional. In this case, its implication that the two facts are > meaningfully connected to each other. > > -- > > nch
DIS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Official Real Notary Report in New Thread
On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 12:16:30 AM CDT Rebecca via agora-official wrote: > === CONTRACT === > > |Needlessly abstract exchangerev. 0| > |PARTIES: nch > > > Contract: Needlessly Abstract Exchange Don't think this needs a CoE because I made these changes after the original report but just to maximize clarity: the version listed here is slightly different than the actual current version, see the thread for the Needlessly Abstract Exchange for context. -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Webmastor] Agora OnLine
On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 12:22:03 AM CDT Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > Missing link to very useful page: > https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Reportor/tree/master/weekly_summaries Added for next time, thank you! -- nch
DIS: Re: OFF: [Webmastor] Agora OnLine
On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 12:02:09 AM CDT nch via agora-official wrote: > Webmastor's Monthly Report > > > Directory > - > Agoran Homepage ( https://agoranomic.org/ ) > > |- Ruleset ( https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/ ) > |- CotC ( https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/ ) > |- Registrar ( https://agoranomic.org/Registrar/ ) > > Public Archives > > |- Agora Official > |- ( https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/info.html ) > |- Agora Business > |- ( https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/info.html ) > |- Agora Discussion > |- ( https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/info.html > |) > Please alert the Webmastor of any missing links. > > Changelog > > > This log does not list updates to reports hosted online, only changes to the > pages that host them, as well as to any other Agora-related pages. > > - Standard header added to registrar webpage (nix) > - Standard Header added to ruleset webpage (nix) Where this report says "nix", it should say "nch. Since none of this ratifies it doesn't need a CoE. -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] No More Numbers!
On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 4:03:35 PM CDT Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:00 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > On 6/3/2020 1:46 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 6/3/20 4:44 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business wrote: > > >> Replace the text "Rule 478" in Rule 2139, "The Registrar" with "the > > >> rule entitled "Fora"". > > >> > > >> Replace the text "Rule 1789" in Rule 2139, "The Registrar" with "the > > >> rule entitled "Cantus Cygneus"". > > > > > > Honestly, it might just be better to nuke the last paragraph of that > > > rule - it doesn't really add anything. > > > > Middle ground: recognize that both "publicity of a forum" and > > "Cantus/Writs" are well-defined terms of art so the "as described in..." > > clauses aren't needed at all. > > > > And here: > > > an action by a set of one or more dependent actions identified in > > > Rule 1728 > > > > R1728 starts: > > > The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent > > > > > actions": > > so again, the term of art "dependent actions" is well-defined so the > > "identified in Rule 1728" is also wholly unneeded. > > So would this be better to just remove the references? I would rewrite it as: The Registrar's duties and abilities also include: * Changing the publicity of a forum * Publishing Cantus Cygnei and Writs of FAGE The intent of this section when we added it was to have all of the responsibilities of the Registrar identified in one rule for easy readability. I think it's worth keeping. -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Webmastor] Agora OnLine
On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 7:28:38 PM CDT Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/3/20 1:02 AM, nch via agora-official wrote: > > Webmastor's Monthly Report > > > > > > Directory > > - > > Agoran Homepage ( https://agoranomic.org/ ) > > > > |- Ruleset ( https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/ ) > > |- CotC ( https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/ ) > > |- Registrar ( https://agoranomic.org/Registrar/ ) > > I may be biased with respect to its usefulness, but there is the > Assessor archives at [0]. > > [0]: https://agoranomic.org/assessor/ > > -- > Jason Cobb Added to my template for next month! -- nch
