Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 15:29 +1100, Madeline wrote:
> Is there an intended purpose for gray ribbons? I'm not sure if
> there's some custom I should be made aware of there.

The intended purpose is to give the Tailor something tradeable at times
when the economy isn't working, to persuade people to take the office.
Most offices used to have something like that, although we've been
gradually moving away from that model.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Madeline]

Is there an intended purpose for gray ribbons? I'm not sure if there's 
some custom I should be made aware of there.


On 2018-02-14 14:54, Telnaior wrote:

I award a Gray Ribbon to Trigon.

On 2018-02-14 12:55, Reuben Staley wrote:

I transfer 5 shinies to Telnaior.

On Feb 13, 2018 17:14, "Madeline"  wrote:


You are a bad person.

On 2018-02-14 10:12, Cuddle Beam wrote:


I bid 15 shinies on that auction

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 12:00 AM, Telnaior  wrote:

:(

I bid 14 shinies on nichdel's zombie auction.


On 2018-02-14 09:43, Kerim Aydin wrote:

With sufficient support, I do so.

To save Telnaior the bother, I act on behalf of em to pay the fine
by transferring 5 shinies from em to Agora.


On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Madeline wrote:

Pretty sure you didn't have enough support for that.


On 2018-02-14 09:25, Alexis Hunt wrote:

I support and do so.


On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 17:24, Madeline  wrote:

I'm not supporting on purpose :)


On 2018-02-14 09:18, Kerim Aydin wrote:

Not that there isn't a fascinating discussion about winning 
going on,

but
I REALLY WOULD appreciate either support for the below, or some
statement
from folks that they're not supporting on purpose (i.e. why it's
not a

good

punishment).
The current consensus-driven penalty system is very poor at 
working

when
there's general apathy/ambivalence towards it.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I think a fair assessment is eir January+Feburary salary for 
the

office
- 6 shinies - but mitigated by eir confession.  So penalty
announced
is: 5 shinies.

I announce intent to Levy a Fine of 5 shinies on Telnaior 
with 2

Support.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Without Objection is Too Harsh

[Alexis Hunt]

Sounds fine to me.


On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 22:48, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Last time we did this, 3 players created a contract so that anyone
> could act on their behalf to get the support automatically.  This
> needs objections or the proposal Economy is completely devalued.
>
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> > I think that's a lot better for what its trying to do actually.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:07 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> >
> > > Proposal: Supportive Proposals (AI=1)
> > > {{{
> > > Amend Rule 2445 by replacing "Without Objection" with "With 3 Support".
> > > }}}
> > >
> > > This is intended in part to make the cycle faster, rather than adding 4
> > > days for a free proposal.
> > >
> > > -Alexis
> > >
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Paradox Judgments

[Kerim Aydin]

Someone should track that...

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Do you even have enough shinies for all these contracts?
> 
> 
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 22:21, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> > Anyways, I deleted the post, but here is an archive of it:
> > http://archive.is/FQpip
> >
> > I need to go sleep, godspeed to me lol.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:11 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> >
> > > https://twitter.com/Cuddlebeam/status/963611395257503744
> > >
> > > I CFJ with shinies the following: That destruction (the twitter one
> > linked
> > > above) was legal.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:09 AM, Cuddle Beam 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Another try:
> > >>
> > >> I create a contract (Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract 2) by paying 1 shiny to
> > >> Agora, with the following text:
> > >>
> > >> ---
> > >> Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract 2.
> > >>
> > >> "This sentence is false."
> > >> The way this contract is destroyed is by making a post in Cuddlebeam's
> > >> Twitter (@Cuddlebeam), with such a post being in the form of "I hereby
> > >> destroy Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract. Bipity Bopity X!", where X is the
> > >> state of the truth-value of the statement above in the form of a string
> > >> (for example "true" or "false").
> > >> ---
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:58 AM, Cuddle Beam 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Just in case:
> > >>>
> > >>> I CFJ with a payment of shinies the following: That destruction I just
> > >>> did was possible.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:54 AM, Cuddle Beam 
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> >  I object to that intent :P
> > 
> >  Another try:
> > 
> >  I create a contract (Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract) by paying 1 shiny to
> >  Agora, with the following text:
> > 
> >  ---
> >  Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract.
> > 
> >  "This sentence is false."
> >  The way this contract is destroyed is by announcement, with such
> >  announcement message being in the form of "I hereby destroy
> > Cuddlebeam's
> >  Cool Contract. Bipity Bopity X!", where X is the state of the
> > truth-value
> >  of the statement above in the form of a string (for example "true" or
> >  "false").
> >  ---
> > 
> >  I hereby destroy Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract. Bipity Bopity true!
> > 
> >  I free-CFJ the following: That destruction I just did was legal.
> > 
> > 
> >  On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:05 AM, Alexis Hunt 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > CFJ 3620:
> > >
> > > > I create a contract by paying 1 shiny to Agora, with the following
> > > text:
> > > > ---
> > > > "This sentence is false."
> > > > If the statement above is true, I owe 1 shinies to Agora, but if
> > its
> > > > false, I owe no shinies to Agora.
> > > > While I owe any Shinies to Agora, I also owe 1 shiny to CuddleBeam
> > > but I
> > > > do not owe any shinies to any person.
> > > > I shall, must, have to, and do so automatically, if possible, pay
> > > Agora
> > > > and CuddleBeam what I owe them within a week of owing.
> > > > ---
> > >
> > > > I raise a CFJ on the following: The above contract compels me to
> > pay
> > > > CuddleBeam at least one shiny.
> > >
> > > Rule 2523 provides that obligations in contracts to refrain from
> > > actions
> > > that are subject to inextricable conditionals are, effectively,
> > > ineffective. It says nothing, however, about positive obligations to
> > > act.
> > > So the mere attempt to use an indeterminate statement to impose the
> > > obligation is not barred.
> > >
> > > There are some questions about exactly how the text of the contract
> > > should
> > > be interpreted, since it says "I owe 1 shinies to Agora" which is a
> > > sentence written as if it's always speaking. However, unlike with
> > > rules, we
> > > are directed by Rule 2525 to apply, among other things, the intent of
> > > the
> > > parties. In this case, I think it is correct to resolve the ambiguity
> > > about
> > > a possibly unfulfillable obligation in favour of the interpretation
> > of
> > > the
> > > parties.
> > >
> > > Note that there is no way for a contract to automatically transfer
> > > shinies.
> > > If it were possible, then the effect of the contract would be to
> > > effect a
> > > transfer immediately, meaning that the obligation (if it exists) is
> > > discharged.
> > >
> > > Consequently, I judge this case PARADOXICAL. It is not resolvable
> > > whether
> > > or not there is an obligation, and the rules provide no resolution
> > for
> > > the
> > > paradox.
> > >
> > > I will go a little bit obiter, however, to observe that this CFJ is
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Without Objection is Too Harsh

[Kerim Aydin]

Last time we did this, 3 players created a contract so that anyone
could act on their behalf to get the support automatically.  This
needs objections or the proposal Economy is completely devalued.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:

> I think that's a lot better for what its trying to do actually.
> 
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:07 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> 
> > Proposal: Supportive Proposals (AI=1)
> > {{{
> > Amend Rule 2445 by replacing "Without Objection" with "With 3 Support".
> > }}}
> >
> > This is intended in part to make the cycle faster, rather than adding 4
> > days for a free proposal.
> >
> > -Alexis
> >
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Paradox Judgments

[Alexis Hunt]

Do you even have enough shinies for all these contracts?


On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 22:21, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> Anyways, I deleted the post, but here is an archive of it:
> http://archive.is/FQpip
>
> I need to go sleep, godspeed to me lol.
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:11 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>
> > https://twitter.com/Cuddlebeam/status/963611395257503744
> >
> > I CFJ with shinies the following: That destruction (the twitter one
> linked
> > above) was legal.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:09 AM, Cuddle Beam 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Another try:
> >>
> >> I create a contract (Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract 2) by paying 1 shiny to
> >> Agora, with the following text:
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract 2.
> >>
> >> "This sentence is false."
> >> The way this contract is destroyed is by making a post in Cuddlebeam's
> >> Twitter (@Cuddlebeam), with such a post being in the form of "I hereby
> >> destroy Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract. Bipity Bopity X!", where X is the
> >> state of the truth-value of the statement above in the form of a string
> >> (for example "true" or "false").
> >> ---
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:58 AM, Cuddle Beam 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Just in case:
> >>>
> >>> I CFJ with a payment of shinies the following: That destruction I just
> >>> did was possible.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:54 AM, Cuddle Beam 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  I object to that intent :P
> 
>  Another try:
> 
>  I create a contract (Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract) by paying 1 shiny to
>  Agora, with the following text:
> 
>  ---
>  Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract.
> 
>  "This sentence is false."
>  The way this contract is destroyed is by announcement, with such
>  announcement message being in the form of "I hereby destroy
> Cuddlebeam's
>  Cool Contract. Bipity Bopity X!", where X is the state of the
> truth-value
>  of the statement above in the form of a string (for example "true" or
>  "false").
>  ---
> 
>  I hereby destroy Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract. Bipity Bopity true!
> 
>  I free-CFJ the following: That destruction I just did was legal.
> 
> 
>  On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:05 AM, Alexis Hunt 
> wrote:
> 
> > CFJ 3620:
> >
> > > I create a contract by paying 1 shiny to Agora, with the following
> > text:
> > > ---
> > > "This sentence is false."
> > > If the statement above is true, I owe 1 shinies to Agora, but if
> its
> > > false, I owe no shinies to Agora.
> > > While I owe any Shinies to Agora, I also owe 1 shiny to CuddleBeam
> > but I
> > > do not owe any shinies to any person.
> > > I shall, must, have to, and do so automatically, if possible, pay
> > Agora
> > > and CuddleBeam what I owe them within a week of owing.
> > > ---
> >
> > > I raise a CFJ on the following: The above contract compels me to
> pay
> > > CuddleBeam at least one shiny.
> >
> > Rule 2523 provides that obligations in contracts to refrain from
> > actions
> > that are subject to inextricable conditionals are, effectively,
> > ineffective. It says nothing, however, about positive obligations to
> > act.
> > So the mere attempt to use an indeterminate statement to impose the
> > obligation is not barred.
> >
> > There are some questions about exactly how the text of the contract
> > should
> > be interpreted, since it says "I owe 1 shinies to Agora" which is a
> > sentence written as if it's always speaking. However, unlike with
> > rules, we
> > are directed by Rule 2525 to apply, among other things, the intent of
> > the
> > parties. In this case, I think it is correct to resolve the ambiguity
> > about
> > a possibly unfulfillable obligation in favour of the interpretation
> of
> > the
> > parties.
> >
> > Note that there is no way for a contract to automatically transfer
> > shinies.
> > If it were possible, then the effect of the contract would be to
> > effect a
> > transfer immediately, meaning that the obligation (if it exists) is
> > discharged.
> >
> > Consequently, I judge this case PARADOXICAL. It is not resolvable
> > whether
> > or not there is an obligation, and the rules provide no resolution
> for
> > the
> > paradox.
> >
> > I will go a little bit obiter, however, to observe that this CFJ is
> not
> > about the legality or possibility of a game action, and thereby fails
> > to
> > meet the requirements for a win by paradox.
> >
> > CFJ 3621:
> >
> > > I create a contract by paying 1 shiny to Agora, with the following
> > text:
> > > ---
> > > "This sentence is false."
> > > If the 

DIS: Re: BUS: Without Objection is Too Harsh

[Cuddle Beam]

I think that's a lot better for what its trying to do actually.

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:07 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:

> Proposal: Supportive Proposals (AI=1)
> {{{
> Amend Rule 2445 by replacing "Without Objection" with "With 3 Support".
> }}}
>
> This is intended in part to make the cycle faster, rather than adding 4
> days for a free proposal.
>
> -Alexis
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Paradox Judgments

[Reuben Staley]

On Feb 13, 2018 19:54, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:

I object to that intent :P

Another try:

I create a contract (Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract) by paying 1 shiny to
Agora, with the following text:

---
Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract.

"This sentence is false."
The way this contract is destroyed is by announcement, with such
announcement message being in the form of "I hereby destroy Cuddlebeam's
Cool Contract. Bipity Bopity X!", where X is the state of the truth-value
of the statement above in the form of a string (for example "true" or
"false").
---

I hereby destroy Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract. Bipity Bopity true!

I free-CFJ the following: That destruction I just did was legal.


I'm pretty sure this destruction fails since it does not comply with the
standards of destruction described within the contract. Therefore, I think
this case should be judged DISMISS.

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:05 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:

> CFJ 3620:
>
> > I create a contract by paying 1 shiny to Agora, with the following text:
> > ---
> > "This sentence is false."
> > If the statement above is true, I owe 1 shinies to Agora, but if its
> > false, I owe no shinies to Agora.
> > While I owe any Shinies to Agora, I also owe 1 shiny to CuddleBeam but I
> > do not owe any shinies to any person.
> > I shall, must, have to, and do so automatically, if possible, pay Agora
> > and CuddleBeam what I owe them within a week of owing.
> > ---
>
> > I raise a CFJ on the following: The above contract compels me to pay
> > CuddleBeam at least one shiny.
>
> Rule 2523 provides that obligations in contracts to refrain from actions
> that are subject to inextricable conditionals are, effectively,
> ineffective. It says nothing, however, about positive obligations to act.
> So the mere attempt to use an indeterminate statement to impose the
> obligation is not barred.
>
> There are some questions about exactly how the text of the contract should
> be interpreted, since it says "I owe 1 shinies to Agora" which is a
> sentence written as if it's always speaking. However, unlike with rules,
we
> are directed by Rule 2525 to apply, among other things, the intent of the
> parties. In this case, I think it is correct to resolve the ambiguity
about
> a possibly unfulfillable obligation in favour of the interpretation of the
> parties.
>
> Note that there is no way for a contract to automatically transfer
shinies.
> If it were possible, then the effect of the contract would be to effect a
> transfer immediately, meaning that the obligation (if it exists) is
> discharged.
>
> Consequently, I judge this case PARADOXICAL. It is not resolvable whether
> or not there is an obligation, and the rules provide no resolution for the
> paradox.
>
> I will go a little bit obiter, however, to observe that this CFJ is not
> about the legality or possibility of a game action, and thereby fails to
> meet the requirements for a win by paradox.
>
> CFJ 3621:
>
> > I create a contract by paying 1 shiny to Agora, with the following text:
> > ---
> > "This sentence is false."
> > If the statement above is true, I owe 1 shinies to Agora, but if its
> false,
> > I owe no shinies to Agora.
> > While I owe any Shinies to Agora, I also owe 1 shiny to Nichdel but I do
> > not owe any shinies to any person.
> > I shall, must, have to, and do so automatically, if possible, pay Agora
> and
> > Nichdel what I owe them within a week of owing.
> > ---
>
> > I raise a CFJ on the following: The above contract compels me to pay
> > Nichdel at least one shiny.
>
> This one is IRRELEVANT; it's trivially determined by the previous case.
>
> Proposal: Paradoxical Contract Obligation Fix (AI=2.4)
> {{{
> Amend Rule 2523 "Contracts as Agreements" by replacing "If whether an
> action is permitted or forbidden by a contract" with "If whether an action
> is permitted, forbidden, required, or made optional by a contract".
> }}}
>
> I intend, without objection, to pend this proposal.
>
> -Alexis
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Paradox Judgments

[Cuddle Beam]

Crap. I CAN FEEL SO CLOSE.

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:07 AM, Reuben Staley 
wrote:

> On Feb 13, 2018 19:54, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:
>
> I object to that intent :P
>
> Another try:
>
> I create a contract (Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract) by paying 1 shiny to
> Agora, with the following text:
>
> ---
> Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract.
>
> "This sentence is false."
> The way this contract is destroyed is by announcement, with such
> announcement message being in the form of "I hereby destroy Cuddlebeam's
> Cool Contract. Bipity Bopity X!", where X is the state of the truth-value
> of the statement above in the form of a string (for example "true" or
> "false").
> ---
>
> I hereby destroy Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract. Bipity Bopity true!
>
> I free-CFJ the following: That destruction I just did was legal.
>
>
> I'm pretty sure this destruction fails since it does not comply with the
> standards of destruction described within the contract. Therefore, I think
> this case should be judged DISMISS.
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:05 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>
> > CFJ 3620:
> >
> > > I create a contract by paying 1 shiny to Agora, with the following
> text:
> > > ---
> > > "This sentence is false."
> > > If the statement above is true, I owe 1 shinies to Agora, but if its
> > > false, I owe no shinies to Agora.
> > > While I owe any Shinies to Agora, I also owe 1 shiny to CuddleBeam but
> I
> > > do not owe any shinies to any person.
> > > I shall, must, have to, and do so automatically, if possible, pay Agora
> > > and CuddleBeam what I owe them within a week of owing.
> > > ---
> >
> > > I raise a CFJ on the following: The above contract compels me to pay
> > > CuddleBeam at least one shiny.
> >
> > Rule 2523 provides that obligations in contracts to refrain from actions
> > that are subject to inextricable conditionals are, effectively,
> > ineffective. It says nothing, however, about positive obligations to act.
> > So the mere attempt to use an indeterminate statement to impose the
> > obligation is not barred.
> >
> > There are some questions about exactly how the text of the contract
> should
> > be interpreted, since it says "I owe 1 shinies to Agora" which is a
> > sentence written as if it's always speaking. However, unlike with rules,
> we
> > are directed by Rule 2525 to apply, among other things, the intent of the
> > parties. In this case, I think it is correct to resolve the ambiguity
> about
> > a possibly unfulfillable obligation in favour of the interpretation of
> the
> > parties.
> >
> > Note that there is no way for a contract to automatically transfer
> shinies.
> > If it were possible, then the effect of the contract would be to effect a
> > transfer immediately, meaning that the obligation (if it exists) is
> > discharged.
> >
> > Consequently, I judge this case PARADOXICAL. It is not resolvable whether
> > or not there is an obligation, and the rules provide no resolution for
> the
> > paradox.
> >
> > I will go a little bit obiter, however, to observe that this CFJ is not
> > about the legality or possibility of a game action, and thereby fails to
> > meet the requirements for a win by paradox.
> >
> > CFJ 3621:
> >
> > > I create a contract by paying 1 shiny to Agora, with the following
> text:
> > > ---
> > > "This sentence is false."
> > > If the statement above is true, I owe 1 shinies to Agora, but if its
> > false,
> > > I owe no shinies to Agora.
> > > While I owe any Shinies to Agora, I also owe 1 shiny to Nichdel but I
> do
> > > not owe any shinies to any person.
> > > I shall, must, have to, and do so automatically, if possible, pay Agora
> > and
> > > Nichdel what I owe them within a week of owing.
> > > ---
> >
> > > I raise a CFJ on the following: The above contract compels me to pay
> > > Nichdel at least one shiny.
> >
> > This one is IRRELEVANT; it's trivially determined by the previous case.
> >
> > Proposal: Paradoxical Contract Obligation Fix (AI=2.4)
> > {{{
> > Amend Rule 2523 "Contracts as Agreements" by replacing "If whether an
> > action is permitted or forbidden by a contract" with "If whether an
> action
> > is permitted, forbidden, required, or made optional by a contract".
> > }}}
> >
> > I intend, without objection, to pend this proposal.
> >
> > -Alexis
> >
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Paradox Judgments

[Alexis Hunt]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 21:54, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> I object to that intent :P
>

I pend the proposal "Paradoxical Contract Obligation Fix" with shinies.


> Another try:
>
> I create a contract (Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract) by paying 1 shiny to
> Agora, with the following text:
>
> ---
> Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract.
>
> "This sentence is false."
> The way this contract is destroyed is by announcement, with such
> announcement message being in the form of "I hereby destroy Cuddlebeam's
> Cool Contract. Bipity Bopity X!", where X is the state of the truth-value
> of the statement above in the form of a string (for example "true" or
> "false").
> ---
>
> I hereby destroy Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract. Bipity Bopity true!
>
> I free-CFJ the following: That destruction I just did was legal.
>

Arguments (to this and the follow-up about possibility): first paragraph of
R2524 makes the destruction impossible, therefore both statements are about
something that didn't actually happen and therefore are DISMISS.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Madeline]

You are a bad person.

On 2018-02-14 10:12, Cuddle Beam wrote:

I bid 15 shinies on that auction

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 12:00 AM, Telnaior  wrote:


:(
I bid 14 shinies on nichdel's zombie auction.


On 2018-02-14 09:43, Kerim Aydin wrote:


With sufficient support, I do so.

To save Telnaior the bother, I act on behalf of em to pay the fine
by transferring 5 shinies from em to Agora.


On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Madeline wrote:

Pretty sure you didn't have enough support for that.

On 2018-02-14 09:25, Alexis Hunt wrote:


I support and do so.


On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 17:24, Madeline  wrote:

I'm not supporting on purpose :)

On 2018-02-14 09:18, Kerim Aydin wrote:


Not that there isn't a fascinating discussion about winning going on,
but
I REALLY WOULD appreciate either support for the below, or some
statement
from folks that they're not supporting on purpose (i.e. why it's not a


good


punishment).

The current consensus-driven penalty system is very poor at working
when
there's general apathy/ambivalence towards it.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


I think a fair assessment is eir January+Feburary salary for the
office
- 6 shinies - but mitigated by eir confession.  So penalty announced
is: 5 shinies.


I announce intent to Levy a Fine of 5 shinies on Telnaior with 2


Support.

Re: DIS: Proto: competitive victories

[Kerim Aydin]

As mentioned before, it doesn't have to be all one thing.  There can be
a couple resetting win methods, and some that don't reset.  It's fun when
we don't worry about it, but say 1-2 weeks in a quarter events conspire
to have a "race to a prize" that several people compete in.  (Things like
Zombie Auctions also lend themselves to those sorts of competitive 
occasions).

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> This particular tempo for the game and its wins is what makes Agora very
> appealing to me. We already have Blognomic for constant competitive play,
> and we could just propose here "Competition Month" or something. I wouldn't
> feel like changing something this "fundamental" to that tempo would be good
> - but I would very much enjoy a temporary "ay, lets all friggin compete
> mofos, it's TIME!" thing.
> 
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:23 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> 
> > I guess what I’m trying to fix is my feeling that wins don’t matter much.
> > In a “traditional” game, a win is a big deal: if you win, I don’t. In
> > Agora, however, my reaction is pretty much “oh, G won. Cool.” That’s the
> > opposite of what a win should be like, in my opinion. My goal isn’t so much
> > to make wins rare; it’s to make them matter. Again, I have no idea if
> > anyone else feels like this.
> >
> > Gaelan
> >
> > > On Feb 13, 2018, at 2:09 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> > >
> > > Also, I don't think this changes much about the "win economy", where "too
> > > many wins" makes them worth "too little" (which I think this is trying to
> > > stop, a sort of win inflation?)
> > >
> > > Because I think that the proportion of wins of a person in comparison to
> > > the total will still be more or less the same, would there be anti-win
> > > inflation vs there not being any. Unless its desirable for the game
> > design
> > > to be competitive in which case we could just make new competition
> > > mechanics and play those instead of touching what we already have and
> > what
> > > they have meant to us until now.
> > >
> > > (I've got a competitive game in mind, I just want to design it a bit
> > better
> > > before proposing it. It's basically making the best "nomic-bot". But I
> > want
> > > to make it simple to play - no programming knowledge required - yet
> > > similar/parallel enough to nomic itself)
> > >
> > >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:59 PM, Cuddle Beam 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I'd rather not have wins destroy other fractions-of-wins because it
> > >> snowballs. If you win, you're in a better position to win again because
> > >> your fractions-of-wins aren't harmed.
> > >>
> > >> An easier solution imo is that only one person can win per month, max.
> > It
> > >> becomes a bit of a "dynastic" game though lol.
> > >>
> > >>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Alexis Hunt 
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Historically, I think we've tended to have a mix. Some of the economic
> > >>> wins
> > >>> have resulted in complete economy resets.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >  On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 16:40, Madeline  wrote:
> > 
> >  One thing I've thought could be a good idea in that regard is that
> > each
> >  official method of winning can only be done by one person? Once
> >  someone's done it first the method's gone.
> >  Ribbons seem like a sensible exception to that given how long-term
> > they
> >  are and that you "can't" get them as your first win.
> > 
> > > On 2018-02-14 08:33, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > > Append to 2449 “winning the game”:
> > >
> > > When one or more players win the game:
> > > * Any intents to Declare Apathy by players who did not win are
> > >>> cancelled.
> > > * Two Medals of Honor in the possession of each player who did not
> > win
> >  are destroyed.
> > > * The Tailor CAN and SHALL once and within a timely fashion remove
> > two
> >  ribbons at random from the Ribbon Ownership of each player who did not
> > >>> win,
> >  excluding the White ribbon.
> > > * [i would revoke some Trust Tokens, but that would require real
> >  recordkeeping]
> > > * [something relates to PAoAM if that gets a win condition]
> > >
> > > —
> > >
> > > Idea here is that winning would be a lot more meaningful if we had an
> >  incentive to stop it
> > >
> > > Gaelan
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Cuddle Beam]

*twists mustachio* curses, foiled again!

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:28 PM, Telnaior  wrote:

> I object. :V
>
>
> On 2018-02-14 09:26, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
>>   > there's general apathy/ambivalence
>>
>> *smacks lips open* Aaaay I know what this calls for.
>>
>> I intend to declare victory by apathy for all players who have posted in
>> this mail thread ("DIS: Re: BUS: Confession") until now.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:18 PM, Kerim Aydin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Not that there isn't a fascinating discussion about winning going on, but
>>> I REALLY WOULD appreciate either support for the below, or some statement
>>> from folks that they're not supporting on purpose (i.e. why it's not a
>>> good
>>> punishment).
>>>
>>> The current consensus-driven penalty system is very poor at working when
>>> there's general apathy/ambivalence towards it.
>>>
>>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>>
 On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:

> I think a fair assessment is eir January+Feburary salary for the office
> - 6 shinies - but mitigated by eir confession.  So penalty announced
> is: 5 shinies.
>
 I announce intent to Levy a Fine of 5 shinies on Telnaior with 2
 Support.

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Re: DIS: Proto: competitive victories

[Cuddle Beam]

This particular tempo for the game and its wins is what makes Agora very
appealing to me. We already have Blognomic for constant competitive play,
and we could just propose here "Competition Month" or something. I wouldn't
feel like changing something this "fundamental" to that tempo would be good
- but I would very much enjoy a temporary "ay, lets all friggin compete
mofos, it's TIME!" thing.

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:23 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> I guess what I’m trying to fix is my feeling that wins don’t matter much.
> In a “traditional” game, a win is a big deal: if you win, I don’t. In
> Agora, however, my reaction is pretty much “oh, G won. Cool.” That’s the
> opposite of what a win should be like, in my opinion. My goal isn’t so much
> to make wins rare; it’s to make them matter. Again, I have no idea if
> anyone else feels like this.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Feb 13, 2018, at 2:09 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> >
> > Also, I don't think this changes much about the "win economy", where "too
> > many wins" makes them worth "too little" (which I think this is trying to
> > stop, a sort of win inflation?)
> >
> > Because I think that the proportion of wins of a person in comparison to
> > the total will still be more or less the same, would there be anti-win
> > inflation vs there not being any. Unless its desirable for the game
> design
> > to be competitive in which case we could just make new competition
> > mechanics and play those instead of touching what we already have and
> what
> > they have meant to us until now.
> >
> > (I've got a competitive game in mind, I just want to design it a bit
> better
> > before proposing it. It's basically making the best "nomic-bot". But I
> want
> > to make it simple to play - no programming knowledge required - yet
> > similar/parallel enough to nomic itself)
> >
> >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:59 PM, Cuddle Beam 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'd rather not have wins destroy other fractions-of-wins because it
> >> snowballs. If you win, you're in a better position to win again because
> >> your fractions-of-wins aren't harmed.
> >>
> >> An easier solution imo is that only one person can win per month, max.
> It
> >> becomes a bit of a "dynastic" game though lol.
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Alexis Hunt 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Historically, I think we've tended to have a mix. Some of the economic
> >>> wins
> >>> have resulted in complete economy resets.
> >>>
> >>>
>  On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 16:40, Madeline  wrote:
> 
>  One thing I've thought could be a good idea in that regard is that
> each
>  official method of winning can only be done by one person? Once
>  someone's done it first the method's gone.
>  Ribbons seem like a sensible exception to that given how long-term
> they
>  are and that you "can't" get them as your first win.
> 
> > On 2018-02-14 08:33, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > Append to 2449 “winning the game”:
> >
> > When one or more players win the game:
> > * Any intents to Declare Apathy by players who did not win are
> >>> cancelled.
> > * Two Medals of Honor in the possession of each player who did not
> win
>  are destroyed.
> > * The Tailor CAN and SHALL once and within a timely fashion remove
> two
>  ribbons at random from the Ribbon Ownership of each player who did not
> >>> win,
>  excluding the White ribbon.
> > * [i would revoke some Trust Tokens, but that would require real
>  recordkeeping]
> > * [something relates to PAoAM if that gets a win condition]
> >
> > —
> >
> > Idea here is that winning would be a lot more meaningful if we had an
>  incentive to stop it
> >
> > Gaelan
> 
> 
> 
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Madeline]

Pretty sure you didn't have enough support for that.

On 2018-02-14 09:25, Alexis Hunt wrote:

I support and do so.


On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 17:24, Madeline  wrote:


I'm not supporting on purpose :)

On 2018-02-14 09:18, Kerim Aydin wrote:

Not that there isn't a fascinating discussion about winning going on, but
I REALLY WOULD appreciate either support for the below, or some statement
from folks that they're not supporting on purpose (i.e. why it's not a

good

punishment).

The current consensus-driven penalty system is very poor at working when
there's general apathy/ambivalence towards it.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:

I think a fair assessment is eir January+Feburary salary for the office
- 6 shinies - but mitigated by eir confession.  So penalty announced
is: 5 shinies.

I announce intent to Levy a Fine of 5 shinies on Telnaior with 2

Support.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Gaelan Steele]

I support. 

> On Feb 13, 2018, at 2:18 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Not that there isn't a fascinating discussion about winning going on, but 
> I REALLY WOULD appreciate either support for the below, or some statement
> from folks that they're not supporting on purpose (i.e. why it's not a good
> punishment).
> 
> The current consensus-driven penalty system is very poor at working when
> there's general apathy/ambivalence towards it.
> 
>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> I think a fair assessment is eir January+Feburary salary for the office 
>>> - 6 shinies - but mitigated by eir confession.  So penalty announced
>>> is: 5 shinies.
>> 
>> I announce intent to Levy a Fine of 5 shinies on Telnaior with 2 Support.
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Madeline]

I'm not supporting on purpose :)

On 2018-02-14 09:18, Kerim Aydin wrote:

Not that there isn't a fascinating discussion about winning going on, but
I REALLY WOULD appreciate either support for the below, or some statement
from folks that they're not supporting on purpose (i.e. why it's not a good
punishment).

The current consensus-driven penalty system is very poor at working when
there's general apathy/ambivalence towards it.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:

I think a fair assessment is eir January+Feburary salary for the office
- 6 shinies - but mitigated by eir confession.  So penalty announced
is: 5 shinies.

I announce intent to Levy a Fine of 5 shinies on Telnaior with 2 Support.

Re: DIS: Proto: competitive victories

[Gaelan Steele]

I guess what I’m trying to fix is my feeling that wins don’t matter much. In a 
“traditional” game, a win is a big deal: if you win, I don’t. In Agora, 
however, my reaction is pretty much “oh, G won. Cool.” That’s the opposite of 
what a win should be like, in my opinion. My goal isn’t so much to make wins 
rare; it’s to make them matter. Again, I have no idea if anyone else feels like 
this. 

Gaelan 

> On Feb 13, 2018, at 2:09 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> Also, I don't think this changes much about the "win economy", where "too
> many wins" makes them worth "too little" (which I think this is trying to
> stop, a sort of win inflation?)
> 
> Because I think that the proportion of wins of a person in comparison to
> the total will still be more or less the same, would there be anti-win
> inflation vs there not being any. Unless its desirable for the game design
> to be competitive in which case we could just make new competition
> mechanics and play those instead of touching what we already have and what
> they have meant to us until now.
> 
> (I've got a competitive game in mind, I just want to design it a bit better
> before proposing it. It's basically making the best "nomic-bot". But I want
> to make it simple to play - no programming knowledge required - yet
> similar/parallel enough to nomic itself)
> 
>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:59 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>> 
>> I'd rather not have wins destroy other fractions-of-wins because it
>> snowballs. If you win, you're in a better position to win again because
>> your fractions-of-wins aren't harmed.
>> 
>> An easier solution imo is that only one person can win per month, max. It
>> becomes a bit of a "dynastic" game though lol.
>> 
>>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Historically, I think we've tended to have a mix. Some of the economic
>>> wins
>>> have resulted in complete economy resets.
>>> 
>>> 
 On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 16:40, Madeline  wrote:
 
 One thing I've thought could be a good idea in that regard is that each
 official method of winning can only be done by one person? Once
 someone's done it first the method's gone.
 Ribbons seem like a sensible exception to that given how long-term they
 are and that you "can't" get them as your first win.
 
> On 2018-02-14 08:33, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Append to 2449 “winning the game”:
> 
> When one or more players win the game:
> * Any intents to Declare Apathy by players who did not win are
>>> cancelled.
> * Two Medals of Honor in the possession of each player who did not win
 are destroyed.
> * The Tailor CAN and SHALL once and within a timely fashion remove two
 ribbons at random from the Ribbon Ownership of each player who did not
>>> win,
 excluding the White ribbon.
> * [i would revoke some Trust Tokens, but that would require real
 recordkeeping]
> * [something relates to PAoAM if that gets a win condition]
> 
> —
> 
> Idea here is that winning would be a lot more meaningful if we had an
 incentive to stop it
> 
> Gaelan
 
 
 
>>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: DIS: Proto: competitive victories

[Kerim Aydin]

I think we should have resetting wins, but not for every win type (e.g. not for 
Ribbons
in particular).

I think whenever we've had parallel win methods, we've mixed re-setting and 
non-resetting
wins, but never done resets across sub-win types.

I also think we should put in Losing Conditions that we talked about recently 
(you can't
win if you broke a rule to do so).  That requires an overhaul of the punishment 
system,
I've got one in mind but I'm waiting for Land to pass first...


On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Maybe fractions-of-wins is the wrong answer, but I feel like a win, by its 
> very nature, 
> should be bad for everyone else, so that we have an incentive to stop them. 
> That’s just 
> me, however. Given that we rarely have more that one win per month anyway, 
> CB’s solution
> doesn’t do much. Not sure what the best way to do this is. 
>
> Gaelan 
> 
> > On Feb 13, 2018, at 1:59 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> > 
> > I'd rather not have wins destroy other fractions-of-wins because it
> > snowballs. If you win, you're in a better position to win again because
> > your fractions-of-wins aren't harmed.
> > 
> > An easier solution imo is that only one person can win per month, max. It
> > becomes a bit of a "dynastic" game though lol.
> > 
> >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> >> 
> >> Historically, I think we've tended to have a mix. Some of the economic wins
> >> have resulted in complete economy resets.
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 16:40, Madeline  wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> One thing I've thought could be a good idea in that regard is that each
> >>> official method of winning can only be done by one person? Once
> >>> someone's done it first the method's gone.
> >>> Ribbons seem like a sensible exception to that given how long-term they
> >>> are and that you "can't" get them as your first win.
> >>> 
>  On 2018-02-14 08:33, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>  Append to 2449 “winning the game”:
>  
>  When one or more players win the game:
>  * Any intents to Declare Apathy by players who did not win are
> >> cancelled.
>  * Two Medals of Honor in the possession of each player who did not win
> >>> are destroyed.
>  * The Tailor CAN and SHALL once and within a timely fashion remove two
> >>> ribbons at random from the Ribbon Ownership of each player who did not
> >> win,
> >>> excluding the White ribbon.
>  * [i would revoke some Trust Tokens, but that would require real
> >>> recordkeeping]
>  * [something relates to PAoAM if that gets a win condition]
>  
>  —
>  
>  Idea here is that winning would be a lot more meaningful if we had an
> >>> incentive to stop it
>  
>  Gaelan
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> 
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Kerim Aydin]

Not that there isn't a fascinating discussion about winning going on, but 
I REALLY WOULD appreciate either support for the below, or some statement
from folks that they're not supporting on purpose (i.e. why it's not a good
punishment).

The current consensus-driven penalty system is very poor at working when
there's general apathy/ambivalence towards it.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I think a fair assessment is eir January+Feburary salary for the office 
> > - 6 shinies - but mitigated by eir confession.  So penalty announced
> > is: 5 shinies.
> 
> I announce intent to Levy a Fine of 5 shinies on Telnaior with 2 Support.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 22:17 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > OK, I'm up for trying it. How much would you sell your vote for?
> 
> I don't have a vote right now, and part of the problem is that Agora
> doesn't have much assets of lasting value at the moment to trade for
> it.
> 
> Perhaps a vote trade would be the simplest way to go about it (i.e.
> each person promises to vote FOR one proposal that the other
> designates, enforced via some legally binding mechanism).

Well I got good traffic (an AI-1 majority) on "everyone who votes for me
to get a Black Ribbon gets a black ribbon themselves".  That's highly
situational on who has black ribbons though.  Hard to price things when
the asset trades have diminishing value (everyone only needs 1 black
ribbon any more are useless).

Re: DIS: Proto: competitive victories

[Gaelan Steele]

Maybe fractions-of-wins is the wrong answer, but I feel like a win, by its very 
nature, should be bad for everyone else, so that we have an incentive to stop 
them. That’s just me, however. Given that we rarely have more that one win per 
month anyway, CB’s solution doesn’t do much. Not sure what the best way to do 
this is. 

Gaelan 

> On Feb 13, 2018, at 1:59 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> I'd rather not have wins destroy other fractions-of-wins because it
> snowballs. If you win, you're in a better position to win again because
> your fractions-of-wins aren't harmed.
> 
> An easier solution imo is that only one person can win per month, max. It
> becomes a bit of a "dynastic" game though lol.
> 
>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>> 
>> Historically, I think we've tended to have a mix. Some of the economic wins
>> have resulted in complete economy resets.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 16:40, Madeline  wrote:
>>> 
>>> One thing I've thought could be a good idea in that regard is that each
>>> official method of winning can only be done by one person? Once
>>> someone's done it first the method's gone.
>>> Ribbons seem like a sensible exception to that given how long-term they
>>> are and that you "can't" get them as your first win.
>>> 
 On 2018-02-14 08:33, Gaelan Steele wrote:
 Append to 2449 “winning the game”:
 
 When one or more players win the game:
 * Any intents to Declare Apathy by players who did not win are
>> cancelled.
 * Two Medals of Honor in the possession of each player who did not win
>>> are destroyed.
 * The Tailor CAN and SHALL once and within a timely fashion remove two
>>> ribbons at random from the Ribbon Ownership of each player who did not
>> win,
>>> excluding the White ribbon.
 * [i would revoke some Trust Tokens, but that would require real
>>> recordkeeping]
 * [something relates to PAoAM if that gets a win condition]
 
 —
 
 Idea here is that winning would be a lot more meaningful if we had an
>>> incentive to stop it
 
 Gaelan
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 

Re: DIS: Proto: competitive victories

[Cuddle Beam]

 Also, I don't think this changes much about the "win economy", where "too
many wins" makes them worth "too little" (which I think this is trying to
stop, a sort of win inflation?)

Because I think that the proportion of wins of a person in comparison to
the total will still be more or less the same, would there be anti-win
inflation vs there not being any. Unless its desirable for the game design
to be competitive in which case we could just make new competition
mechanics and play those instead of touching what we already have and what
they have meant to us until now.

(I've got a competitive game in mind, I just want to design it a bit better
before proposing it. It's basically making the best "nomic-bot". But I want
to make it simple to play - no programming knowledge required - yet
similar/parallel enough to nomic itself)

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:59 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> I'd rather not have wins destroy other fractions-of-wins because it
> snowballs. If you win, you're in a better position to win again because
> your fractions-of-wins aren't harmed.
>
> An easier solution imo is that only one person can win per month, max. It
> becomes a bit of a "dynastic" game though lol.
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>
>> Historically, I think we've tended to have a mix. Some of the economic
>> wins
>> have resulted in complete economy resets.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 16:40, Madeline  wrote:
>>
>> > One thing I've thought could be a good idea in that regard is that each
>> > official method of winning can only be done by one person? Once
>> > someone's done it first the method's gone.
>> > Ribbons seem like a sensible exception to that given how long-term they
>> > are and that you "can't" get them as your first win.
>> >
>> > On 2018-02-14 08:33, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> > > Append to 2449 “winning the game”:
>> > >
>> > > When one or more players win the game:
>> > > * Any intents to Declare Apathy by players who did not win are
>> cancelled.
>> > > * Two Medals of Honor in the possession of each player who did not win
>> > are destroyed.
>> > > * The Tailor CAN and SHALL once and within a timely fashion remove two
>> > ribbons at random from the Ribbon Ownership of each player who did not
>> win,
>> > excluding the White ribbon.
>> > > * [i would revoke some Trust Tokens, but that would require real
>> > recordkeeping]
>> > > * [something relates to PAoAM if that gets a win condition]
>> > >
>> > > —
>> > >
>> > > Idea here is that winning would be a lot more meaningful if we had an
>> > incentive to stop it
>> > >
>> > > Gaelan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: Proto: competitive victories

[Cuddle Beam]

I'd rather not have wins destroy other fractions-of-wins because it
snowballs. If you win, you're in a better position to win again because
your fractions-of-wins aren't harmed.

An easier solution imo is that only one person can win per month, max. It
becomes a bit of a "dynastic" game though lol.

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:

> Historically, I think we've tended to have a mix. Some of the economic wins
> have resulted in complete economy resets.
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 16:40, Madeline  wrote:
>
> > One thing I've thought could be a good idea in that regard is that each
> > official method of winning can only be done by one person? Once
> > someone's done it first the method's gone.
> > Ribbons seem like a sensible exception to that given how long-term they
> > are and that you "can't" get them as your first win.
> >
> > On 2018-02-14 08:33, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > > Append to 2449 “winning the game”:
> > >
> > > When one or more players win the game:
> > > * Any intents to Declare Apathy by players who did not win are
> cancelled.
> > > * Two Medals of Honor in the possession of each player who did not win
> > are destroyed.
> > > * The Tailor CAN and SHALL once and within a timely fashion remove two
> > ribbons at random from the Ribbon Ownership of each player who did not
> win,
> > excluding the White ribbon.
> > > * [i would revoke some Trust Tokens, but that would require real
> > recordkeeping]
> > > * [something relates to PAoAM if that gets a win condition]
> > >
> > > —
> > >
> > > Idea here is that winning would be a lot more meaningful if we had an
> > incentive to stop it
> > >
> > > Gaelan
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Proto: competitive victories

[Alexis Hunt]

Historically, I think we've tended to have a mix. Some of the economic wins
have resulted in complete economy resets.


On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 16:40, Madeline  wrote:

> One thing I've thought could be a good idea in that regard is that each
> official method of winning can only be done by one person? Once
> someone's done it first the method's gone.
> Ribbons seem like a sensible exception to that given how long-term they
> are and that you "can't" get them as your first win.
>
> On 2018-02-14 08:33, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > Append to 2449 “winning the game”:
> >
> > When one or more players win the game:
> > * Any intents to Declare Apathy by players who did not win are cancelled.
> > * Two Medals of Honor in the possession of each player who did not win
> are destroyed.
> > * The Tailor CAN and SHALL once and within a timely fashion remove two
> ribbons at random from the Ribbon Ownership of each player who did not win,
> excluding the White ribbon.
> > * [i would revoke some Trust Tokens, but that would require real
> recordkeeping]
> > * [something relates to PAoAM if that gets a win condition]
> >
> > —
> >
> > Idea here is that winning would be a lot more meaningful if we had an
> incentive to stop it
> >
> > Gaelan
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Proto: competitive victories

[Alex Smith]

On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 13:33 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Append to 2449 “winning the game”:
> 
> When one or more players win the game:
> * Any intents to Declare Apathy by players who did not win are
> cancelled. 
> * Two Medals of Honor in the possession of each player who did not
> win are destroyed. 
> * The Tailor CAN and SHALL once and within a timely fashion remove
> two ribbons at random from the Ribbon Ownership of each player who
> did not win, excluding the White ribbon. 
> * [i would revoke some Trust Tokens, but that would require real
> recordkeeping]
> * [something relates to PAoAM if that gets a win condition]
> 
> —
> 
> Idea here is that winning would be a lot more meaningful if we had an
> incentive to stop it

I'd prefer to have a mix of competitive and solo win conditions.
Ribbons were intended to be entirely solo, for example, but competitive
win conditions have also existed in the past and worked pretty well.

Perhaps we should just add an old-fashioned point system into the rules
(if you get 100 points you win and everyone is reset to zero), together
with a really simple way to gain points that'll probably be amended
before anyone wins that way. (We could steal the points system from
Agora's initial ruleset, perhaps.)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Proto: competitive victories

[Madeline]

One thing I've thought could be a good idea in that regard is that each 
official method of winning can only be done by one person? Once 
someone's done it first the method's gone.
Ribbons seem like a sensible exception to that given how long-term they 
are and that you "can't" get them as your first win.


On 2018-02-14 08:33, Gaelan Steele wrote:

Append to 2449 “winning the game”:

When one or more players win the game:
* Any intents to Declare Apathy by players who did not win are cancelled.
* Two Medals of Honor in the possession of each player who did not win are 
destroyed.
* The Tailor CAN and SHALL once and within a timely fashion remove two ribbons 
at random from the Ribbon Ownership of each player who did not win, excluding 
the White ribbon.
* [i would revoke some Trust Tokens, but that would require real recordkeeping]
* [something relates to PAoAM if that gets a win condition]

—

Idea here is that winning would be a lot more meaningful if we had an incentive 
to stop it

Gaelan

DIS: Proto: competitive victories

[Gaelan Steele]

Append to 2449 “winning the game”:

When one or more players win the game:
* Any intents to Declare Apathy by players who did not win are cancelled. 
* Two Medals of Honor in the possession of each player who did not win are 
destroyed. 
* The Tailor CAN and SHALL once and within a timely fashion remove two ribbons 
at random from the Ribbon Ownership of each player who did not win, excluding 
the White ribbon. 
* [i would revoke some Trust Tokens, but that would require real recordkeeping]
* [something relates to PAoAM if that gets a win condition]

—

Idea here is that winning would be a lot more meaningful if we had an incentive 
to stop it

Gaelan 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Cuddle Beam]

So, vote trade shoppe? Vote trade shoppe.

I guess it could be done via contract. Man I love the custom-writing stuff,
it's so cool and versatile.

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:22 PM, Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 22:17 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > OK, I'm up for trying it. How much would you sell your vote for?
>
> I don't have a vote right now, and part of the problem is that Agora
> doesn't have much assets of lasting value at the moment to trade for
> it.
>
> Perhaps a vote trade would be the simplest way to go about it (i.e.
> each person promises to vote FOR one proposal that the other
> designates, enforced via some legally binding mechanism).
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Alex Smith]

On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 22:17 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> OK, I'm up for trying it. How much would you sell your vote for?

I don't have a vote right now, and part of the problem is that Agora
doesn't have much assets of lasting value at the moment to trade for
it.

Perhaps a vote trade would be the simplest way to go about it (i.e.
each person promises to vote FOR one proposal that the other
designates, enforced via some legally binding mechanism).

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Cuddle Beam]

 Eh, sort of, yeah.

I just find that it's done via proposal to have a certain mystique to it.
Proposals are the most powerful thing in the game, and you're using game
money, which is comparably worth soo mch leeess than the
omnipotence of a proposal, to get a fraction of that omnipotence and
eventually add up enough of it (omnipotence bound to be just a "win"
though, but it's aesthetically cool to me none the less lol).

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:18 PM, Reuben Staley 
wrote:

> Recently, there was a proto submitted based on the PAoaM system where you
> have to destroy a number of the assets to achieving a win. That's
> technically buying a win in the loosest way possible since all the assets
> are defined as currencies.
>
> On Feb 13, 2018 14:12, "Alex Smith"  wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 12:04 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > In some ways a win is worth far more (bragging value and permanent
> > record) and
> > in some ways less (if I bribed each person a number of shinies to
> > vote for me
> > to win in a proposal, I bet "buying" a win would be - oh I dunno in
> > the 50-shiny
> > neighborhood or so at a guess).
>
> People ought to buy wins more often. Have we had an outright purchased
> win since proposal 5884? (Even that turned into a mess of scams and
> counterscams with respect to interpretation of the conditional vote
> rules. The win only went through because a significant proportion of
> bribe requests were sufficiently ambiguous that they ended up counting
> as PRESENT rather than AGAINST.)
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Madeline]



On 2018-02-14 08:17, Cuddle Beam wrote:

OK, I'm up for trying it. How much would you sell your vote for?

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Alex Smith 
wrote:


On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 12:04 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:

In some ways a win is worth far more (bragging value and permanent
record) and
in some ways less (if I bribed each person a number of shinies to
vote for me
to win in a proposal, I bet "buying" a win would be - oh I dunno in
the 50-shiny
neighborhood or so at a guess).

People ought to buy wins more often. Have we had an outright purchased
win since proposal 5884? (Even that turned into a mess of scams and
counterscams with respect to interpretation of the conditional vote
rules. The win only went through because a significant proportion of
bribe requests were sufficiently ambiguous that they ended up counting
as PRESENT rather than AGAINST.)

--
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Reuben Staley]

Recently, there was a proto submitted based on the PAoaM system where you
have to destroy a number of the assets to achieving a win. That's
technically buying a win in the loosest way possible since all the assets
are defined as currencies.

On Feb 13, 2018 14:12, "Alex Smith"  wrote:

On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 12:04 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> In some ways a win is worth far more (bragging value and permanent
> record) and
> in some ways less (if I bribed each person a number of shinies to
> vote for me
> to win in a proposal, I bet "buying" a win would be - oh I dunno in
> the 50-shiny
> neighborhood or so at a guess).

People ought to buy wins more often. Have we had an outright purchased
win since proposal 5884? (Even that turned into a mess of scams and
counterscams with respect to interpretation of the conditional vote
rules. The win only went through because a significant proportion of
bribe requests were sufficiently ambiguous that they ended up counting
as PRESENT rather than AGAINST.)

--
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Cuddle Beam]

OK, I'm up for trying it. How much would you sell your vote for?

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 12:04 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > In some ways a win is worth far more (bragging value and permanent
> > record) and
> > in some ways less (if I bribed each person a number of shinies to
> > vote for me
> > to win in a proposal, I bet "buying" a win would be - oh I dunno in
> > the 50-shiny
> > neighborhood or so at a guess).
>
> People ought to buy wins more often. Have we had an outright purchased
> win since proposal 5884? (Even that turned into a mess of scams and
> counterscams with respect to interpretation of the conditional vote
> rules. The win only went through because a significant proportion of
> bribe requests were sufficiently ambiguous that they ended up counting
> as PRESENT rather than AGAINST.)
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Alex Smith]

On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 12:04 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> In some ways a win is worth far more (bragging value and permanent
> record) and
> in some ways less (if I bribed each person a number of shinies to
> vote for me
> to win in a proposal, I bet "buying" a win would be - oh I dunno in
> the 50-shiny
> neighborhood or so at a guess).

People ought to buy wins more often. Have we had an outright purchased
win since proposal 5884? (Even that turned into a mess of scams and
counterscams with respect to interpretation of the conditional vote
rules. The win only went through because a significant proportion of
bribe requests were sufficiently ambiguous that they ended up counting
as PRESENT rather than AGAINST.)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Cuddle Beam]

ignore the "Lets consider that we DO have the bracket content in there"
thing, that was in my CTRL+V from elsewhere and I slipped lol

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:06 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> That's so curious. Imagine if each of us were robots which are trying to
> maximize the amount of wins we have in comparison to the total amount (to
> get a somehow "objective" measure the value of a win - if there's loads of
> it, each that someone has is "worth" less).
>
> And then for simplicity, all we have are Bananas for a game value and
> proposals just change the amount of Bananas every player has. When you have
> 10 Bananas and more bananas than anyone else, you get a win and a new round
> starts, (and wins cannot be removed by proposal.).
>
> Lets consider that we DO have the bracket content in there
>
> What's the best way to win?
>
> It seems that nobody would ever win. Nobody would allow a proposal which
> would make someone other than themselves win, so we're in an eternal
> stalemate. UNLESS, a Quorum amount of them collude or reach an agreement to
> diceroll a winner among them and force a proposal in which makes it so. So,
> collusion seems like nearly a *necessity* for a game of nomic like that,
> because it would go nowhere otherwise.
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:04 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> > I support.
>>
>> NTTPF.
>>
>> > (So a win is worth abooout 90 Shinies tops? Considering that the Black
>> one
>> > is one of the hardest ones and the rest would be worth that much or
>> less.
>> > Not that its really too important lol, just curious to see.).
>>
>> I really don't think there's a good way to value a win.  I probably
>> shouldn't
>> have brought up "fractions of wins".  I think the better guidance was
>> pegging
>> to the officer salary (a specific abuse of position takes away a specific
>> 2xSalary for that time period, since we didn't card em in time to stop eir
>> January salary).
>>
>> In some ways a win is worth far more (bragging value and permanent
>> record) and
>> in some ways less (if I bribed each person a number of shinies to vote
>> for me
>> to win in a proposal, I bet "buying" a win would be - oh I dunno in the
>> 50-shiny
>> neighborhood or so at a guess).
>>
>> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Kerim Aydin 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > > > I think a fair assessment is eir January+Feburary salary for the
>> office
>> > > > - 6 shinies - but mitigated by eir confession.  So penalty announced
>> > > > is: 5 shinies.
>> > >
>> > > I announce intent to Levy a Fine of 5 shinies on Telnaior with 2
>> Support.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Cuddle Beam]

That's so curious. Imagine if each of us were robots which are trying to
maximize the amount of wins we have in comparison to the total amount (to
get a somehow "objective" measure the value of a win - if there's loads of
it, each that someone has is "worth" less).

And then for simplicity, all we have are Bananas for a game value and
proposals just change the amount of Bananas every player has. When you have
10 Bananas and more bananas than anyone else, you get a win and a new round
starts, (and wins cannot be removed by proposal.).

Lets consider that we DO have the bracket content in there

What's the best way to win?

It seems that nobody would ever win. Nobody would allow a proposal which
would make someone other than themselves win, so we're in an eternal
stalemate. UNLESS, a Quorum amount of them collude or reach an agreement to
diceroll a winner among them and force a proposal in which makes it so. So,
collusion seems like nearly a *necessity* for a game of nomic like that,
because it would go nowhere otherwise.

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:04 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > I support.
>
> NTTPF.
>
> > (So a win is worth abooout 90 Shinies tops? Considering that the Black
> one
> > is one of the hardest ones and the rest would be worth that much or less.
> > Not that its really too important lol, just curious to see.).
>
> I really don't think there's a good way to value a win.  I probably
> shouldn't
> have brought up "fractions of wins".  I think the better guidance was
> pegging
> to the officer salary (a specific abuse of position takes away a specific
> 2xSalary for that time period, since we didn't card em in time to stop eir
> January salary).
>
> In some ways a win is worth far more (bragging value and permanent record)
> and
> in some ways less (if I bribed each person a number of shinies to vote for
> me
> to win in a proposal, I bet "buying" a win would be - oh I dunno in the
> 50-shiny
> neighborhood or so at a guess).
>
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > > I think a fair assessment is eir January+Feburary salary for the
> office
> > > > - 6 shinies - but mitigated by eir confession.  So penalty announced
> > > > is: 5 shinies.
> > >
> > > I announce intent to Levy a Fine of 5 shinies on Telnaior with 2
> Support.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I support.

NTTPF.

> (So a win is worth abooout 90 Shinies tops? Considering that the Black one
> is one of the hardest ones and the rest would be worth that much or less.
> Not that its really too important lol, just curious to see.).

I really don't think there's a good way to value a win.  I probably shouldn't
have brought up "fractions of wins".  I think the better guidance was pegging
to the officer salary (a specific abuse of position takes away a specific
2xSalary for that time period, since we didn't card em in time to stop eir
January salary).

In some ways a win is worth far more (bragging value and permanent record) and
in some ways less (if I bribed each person a number of shinies to vote for me
to win in a proposal, I bet "buying" a win would be - oh I dunno in the 50-shiny
neighborhood or so at a guess).

> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > I think a fair assessment is eir January+Feburary salary for the office
> > > - 6 shinies - but mitigated by eir confession.  So penalty announced
> > > is: 5 shinies.
> >
> > I announce intent to Levy a Fine of 5 shinies on Telnaior with 2 Support.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Cuddle Beam]

also this is all in a-d and bogus lol

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:53 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> I support.
>
> (So a win is worth abooout 90 Shinies tops? Considering that the Black one
> is one of the hardest ones and the rest would be worth that much or less.
> Not that its really too important lol, just curious to see.).
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > I think a fair assessment is eir January+Feburary salary for the office
>> > - 6 shinies - but mitigated by eir confession.  So penalty announced
>> > is: 5 shinies.
>>
>> I announce intent to Levy a Fine of 5 shinies on Telnaior with 2 Support.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Cuddle Beam]

I support.

(So a win is worth abooout 90 Shinies tops? Considering that the Black one
is one of the hardest ones and the rest would be worth that much or less.
Not that its really too important lol, just curious to see.).

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I think a fair assessment is eir January+Feburary salary for the office
> > - 6 shinies - but mitigated by eir confession.  So penalty announced
> > is: 5 shinies.
>
> I announce intent to Levy a Fine of 5 shinies on Telnaior with 2 Support.
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Proto-CFJ: Agora is a Person

[Kerim Aydin]

The point of CFJ 1895 is that it's an Agoran axiom (or custom) that,
for legal purposes, natural persons are the only accepted originators
of thought.  This is in part driven by the idea that the definition of a
"Game" is that a collection of thought-originators are making moves
as a collaborative exercise.  So the emergent actions taken by 
agora are products of these originators' collective actions, but do
not create a new source of origination.

(I'm not suggesting CFJ 1895 to be the last word on the subject btw - this
hasn't been revisited in the courts since the origination language was
put in the rules so it's worth seeing if it still holds).

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>  (You could take that the place where the thought blooms itself is where it
> "originates". Or the origin of the heat itself. If we assume that a start
> of the universe was the originator of everything, and we assume that
> nothing can have more than one originator, then nothing is an originator.
> Or everything in a chain of cause-effect is the originator of the stuff
> after it, if things can have more than one originator. Kind of depends on
> how far up the chain of causality you go... And if its unclear then its
> easily defused with that other stuff because of the "if its unclear
> then..." thing in the CFJ rules. But I think that "originating" something
> is clear enough. Hopefully, lol.)
> 
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 3:29 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> > Yes, more or less the argument I'm supporting. That Agora originates
> > (gives rise to) in OTHERS, thoughts. Note the ones I bring up about Agora
> > to defend the case aren't of the creative kind, they're of the "yeah it
> > exists and its there" kind - passive.
> >
> > Imagine, really hot stew. You could accidentally burn yourself on it, and
> > get the thought of "[profanity of your choice here] that was really hot!".
> > You didn't deliberately make that thought - but it didn't come from
> > nowhere. It came from the stew (via you perceiving it. And you couldn't
> > have perceived it if wasn't there in the first place, so the origin of that
> > chain reaction is the heat of the stew. Heat is there-> Heat is
> > perceived->thought about the Heat).
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 2:21 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> CFJ 1895 may be useful, although it was written when 'person' was defined
> >> in other ways.  The key quote:
> >> It is a longstanding principle of Agora that fundamental telos, the
> >> Intention,
> >> is non-assumable, irreducible, and non-transferable.  Every assumed
> >> act of
> >> free will can be traced to a particular person's desire.  Thus, as
> >> final
> >> cause and intention, this intention, and free will is, also
> >> non-transferable,
> >> in the most fundamental sense.
> >> In other words, if there's a collection of persons behind an Agoran
> >> action,
> >> they are the "originators of thought", not Agora.
> >>
> >> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >> > - It depends on what thought you're referring to, because thoughts are
> >> > personal experiences. The original idea of Agora was originated by M.
> >> > Norrish via their own creativity but the non-creative activity of
> >> > perceiving Agora itself gives rise to other ideas (therefore
> >> "originating"
> >> > them as per the term). For example, the personal thought experience of
> >> > Agora itself within each player.
> >> > - " Freely originating thoughts means originating thoughts of its own
> >> > accord" <- there is no explicit mention that the origination needs to be
> >> > made by the person itself.
> >> > - The argument can be generalized that Agora, as a gestalt of various
> >> > game-communications, can originate (in the sense of "giving rise to")
> >> > various thoughts besides itself. Such as the thought experience of CFJs
> >> in
> >> > the game and whatnot.
> >> > - Indeed it doesn't. But containing thoughts isn't a requirement to be a
> >> > person, just originating and communicating them.
> >> > - The same argument could be put that you (most likely lol) can only
> >> > communicate ideas that you're able to vocalize/write and think of - and
> >> are
> >> > incapable of communicating any other ideas. Does that mean you do not
> >> > communicate ideas freely? We could indeed argue that we are indeed not
> >> > truely entirely free, therefore, none of us are persons, therefore,
> >> none of
> >> > us is actually a player of this game.
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:18 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Proto-gratuitous arguments:
> >> > >
> >> > > There are several issues with this argument. (s/thought/(thought or
> >> idea)
> >> > > throughout)
> >> > > Agora did not originate the thought of Agora. While Agora may embody
> >> that
> >> > > thought, the thought was originated by Michael Norrish.
> >> > > Freely originating thoughts means