Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate
At what point do we just power-4 "Persons CANNOT be Instruments"? On 2019-02-06 14:41, Kerim Aydin wrote: Actually that Security thing is a big hole, there's lots of stuff that's secured, and R1688 applies the method here: > except as allowed by an Instrument If "allowed" is defined as something a person can do "naturally" (the way we treat, say, "agree"), then when the instrument is a natural person, e could just say "I allow, on an ongoing basis, changes to happen when I perform them by announcement" and the method is supplied. Also, R105 specifies that an instrument can make a rule change "as part of effect", though it would get pretty philosophical to figure out how a person's "effect" is triggered (at the very least, R105 limits it to a publicly-written process of at least 4 days). On 2/5/2019 6:05 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: It still matters what the rules say about the order of precedence, because the order of precedence is decided by the rules. If the rule defining the order of precedence was repealed, there wouldn't be an order of precedence, and power would have no effect in that regard. As it happens, the power of an instrument that isn’t a rule currently doesn’t have any effect outside secured things and changing entities with higher power. -Aris On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 5:59 PM D. Margaux wrote: But if the person is high enough powered (say, power=5), should it matter what the rules say about order of precedence if the high-powered person overrules them? I suppose ultimately it comes down to what the Agoran community is willing to accept, rather than what the Rules or any particular person says. On Feb 5, 2019, at 8:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: I guess if a person had power >3, then the R2125 limitation wouldn’t be a barrier anymore, though. I don't see why. I don't think there's any provision for anything other than a rule to take precedence over a rule, regardless of power. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate
Actually that Security thing is a big hole, there's lots of stuff that's secured, and R1688 applies the method here: > except as allowed by an Instrument If "allowed" is defined as something a person can do "naturally" (the way we treat, say, "agree"), then when the instrument is a natural person, e could just say "I allow, on an ongoing basis, changes to happen when I perform them by announcement" and the method is supplied. Also, R105 specifies that an instrument can make a rule change "as part of effect", though it would get pretty philosophical to figure out how a person's "effect" is triggered (at the very least, R105 limits it to a publicly-written process of at least 4 days). On 2/5/2019 6:05 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: It still matters what the rules say about the order of precedence, because the order of precedence is decided by the rules. If the rule defining the order of precedence was repealed, there wouldn't be an order of precedence, and power would have no effect in that regard. As it happens, the power of an instrument that isn’t a rule currently doesn’t have any effect outside secured things and changing entities with higher power. -Aris On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 5:59 PM D. Margaux wrote: But if the person is high enough powered (say, power=5), should it matter what the rules say about order of precedence if the high-powered person overrules them? I suppose ultimately it comes down to what the Agoran community is willing to accept, rather than what the Rules or any particular person says. On Feb 5, 2019, at 8:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: I guess if a person had power >3, then the R2125 limitation wouldn’t be a barrier anymore, though. I don't see why. I don't think there's any provision for anything other than a rule to take precedence over a rule, regardless of power. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate
It still matters what the rules say about the order of precedence, because the order of precedence is decided by the rules. If the rule defining the order of precedence was repealed, there wouldn't be an order of precedence, and power would have no effect in that regard. As it happens, the power of an instrument that isn’t a rule currently doesn’t have any effect outside secured things and changing entities with higher power. -Aris On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 5:59 PM D. Margaux wrote: > But if the person is high enough powered (say, power=5), should it matter > what the rules say about order of precedence if the high-powered person > overrules them? > > I suppose ultimately it comes down to what the Agoran community is willing > to accept, rather than what the Rules or any particular person says. > > > On Feb 5, 2019, at 8:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: > >> > >> I guess if a person had power >3, then the R2125 limitation wouldn’t be > a barrier anymore, though. > > > > I don't see why. I don't think there's any provision for anything other > than a rule to take precedence over a rule, regardless of power. > > > > Greetings, > > Ørjan. >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate
Isn't power a construct of the rules in its own right, though? It doesn't hold any value beyond what the rules actually give it. On 2019-02-06 12:59, D. Margaux wrote: But if the person is high enough powered (say, power=5), should it matter what the rules say about order of precedence if the high-powered person overrules them? I suppose ultimately it comes down to what the Agoran community is willing to accept, rather than what the Rules or any particular person says. On Feb 5, 2019, at 8:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: I guess if a person had power >3, then the R2125 limitation wouldn’t be a barrier anymore, though. I don't see why. I don't think there's any provision for anything other than a rule to take precedence over a rule, regardless of power. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate
But if the person is high enough powered (say, power=5), should it matter what the rules say about order of precedence if the high-powered person overrules them? I suppose ultimately it comes down to what the Agoran community is willing to accept, rather than what the Rules or any particular person says. > On Feb 5, 2019, at 8:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > >> On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: >> >> I guess if a person had power >3, then the R2125 limitation wouldn’t be a >> barrier anymore, though. > > I don't see why. I don't think there's any provision for anything other than > a rule to take precedence over a rule, regardless of power. > > Greetings, > Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate
On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: I guess if a person had power >3, then the R2125 limitation wouldn’t be a barrier anymore, though. I don't see why. I don't think there's any provision for anything other than a rule to take precedence over a rule, regardless of power. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate
I guess if a person had power >3, then the R2125 limitation wouldn’t be a
barrier anymore, though.
> On Feb 5, 2019, at 8:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Actually, we're in different territory now anyway than in past discussions,
> because of the change to R2125; it's now pretty explicit in requiring that
> methods for doing stuff, some method like 'by announcement' be in the rules.
> So it would be harder to argue that it worked than in the past. (I found
> the dictator rule I mentioned and it had "by announcement" details in it, so
> that wasn't relevant and probably wasn't the debate that ais523 brought up).
>
>> On 2/5/2019 4:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Uncertain, because there's no clear way for you to take actions that have
>> power, it might be like a blank rule with power-3, sure it's got power but
>> can it do anything with it?
>> Some of us powered ourselves up as the result of a scam (the patent title
>> First Violin and other orchestral entries on the Scroll were because we were
>> the first people that were "instruments"). Can't even remember the year so
>> I'll have to dig to see what text we used or if we got away without any
>> extra text by just saying we did stuff.
>>> On 2/5/2019 4:36 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>> Side note: would a rule with the text “Gaelan has power 3” be sufficient to
>>> establish a dictatorship?
>>>
>>> Gaelan
>>>
On Feb 5, 2019, at 4:13 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
I withdraw my proposal The Duumvirate v.1.1, in order to make a minor
clarifying edit.
I submit (and if necessary pend) a proposal as follows:
///
Title: The Duumvirate v.1.2
AI: 3
Author: D. Margaux
Co-author: G.
Enact a power 3 rule entitled "The Duumvirate" with the following text:
{
The Duumvirate is an organization whose members are D. Margaux and G.
Each member of the Duumvirate is a "Dictator."
Either Dictator CAN by announcement cause this Rule to repeal itself.
No person can act on behalf of a Dictator (other than the Dictator acting
as emself).
A Decree is a document clearly labeled as such. Either Dictator CAN
proclaim a Decree with support from the other Dictator.
When a Decree is proclaimed, then:
(1) its power is set to 3;
(2) it takes effect by applying to the gamestate the changes
specified in the text of the Decree, to the greatest extent permitted by
the rules; and then,
(3) its power is set to 0.
}
///
>>>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate
Actually, we're in different territory now anyway than in past discussions,
because of the change to R2125; it's now pretty explicit in requiring that
methods for doing stuff, some method like 'by announcement' be in the rules.
So it would be harder to argue that it worked than in the past. (I found
the dictator rule I mentioned and it had "by announcement" details in it, so
that wasn't relevant and probably wasn't the debate that ais523 brought up).
On 2/5/2019 4:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Uncertain, because there's no clear way for you to take actions that have
power, it might be like a blank rule with power-3, sure it's got power but
can it do anything with it?
Some of us powered ourselves up as the result of a scam (the patent title
First Violin and other orchestral entries on the Scroll were because we were
the first people that were "instruments"). Can't even remember the year so
I'll have to dig to see what text we used or if we got away without any
extra text by just saying we did stuff.
On 2/5/2019 4:36 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Side note: would a rule with the text “Gaelan has power 3” be sufficient
to establish a dictatorship?
Gaelan
On Feb 5, 2019, at 4:13 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
I withdraw my proposal The Duumvirate v.1.1, in order to make a minor
clarifying edit.
I submit (and if necessary pend) a proposal as follows:
///
Title: The Duumvirate v.1.2
AI: 3
Author: D. Margaux
Co-author: G.
Enact a power 3 rule entitled "The Duumvirate" with the following text:
{
The Duumvirate is an organization whose members are D. Margaux and G.
Each member of the Duumvirate is a "Dictator."
Either Dictator CAN by announcement cause this Rule to repeal itself.
No person can act on behalf of a Dictator (other than the Dictator acting
as emself).
A Decree is a document clearly labeled as such. Either Dictator CAN
proclaim a Decree with support from the other Dictator.
When a Decree is proclaimed, then:
(1) its power is set to 3;
(2) it takes effect by applying to the gamestate the changes
specified in the text of the Decree, to the greatest extent permitted by
the rules; and then,
(3) its power is set to 0.
}
///
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate
Uncertain, because there's no clear way for you to take actions that have
power, it might be like a blank rule with power-3, sure it's got power but
can it do anything with it?
Some of us powered ourselves up as the result of a scam (the patent title
First Violin and other orchestral entries on the Scroll were because we were
the first people that were "instruments"). Can't even remember the year so
I'll have to dig to see what text we used or if we got away without any
extra text by just saying we did stuff.
On 2/5/2019 4:36 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Side note: would a rule with the text “Gaelan has power 3” be sufficient to
establish a dictatorship?
Gaelan
On Feb 5, 2019, at 4:13 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
I withdraw my proposal The Duumvirate v.1.1, in order to make a minor
clarifying edit.
I submit (and if necessary pend) a proposal as follows:
///
Title: The Duumvirate v.1.2
AI: 3
Author: D. Margaux
Co-author: G.
Enact a power 3 rule entitled "The Duumvirate" with the following text:
{
The Duumvirate is an organization whose members are D. Margaux and G. Each member of the
Duumvirate is a "Dictator."
Either Dictator CAN by announcement cause this Rule to repeal itself.
No person can act on behalf of a Dictator (other than the Dictator acting as
emself).
A Decree is a document clearly labeled as such. Either Dictator CAN proclaim a
Decree with support from the other Dictator.
When a Decree is proclaimed, then:
(1) its power is set to 3;
(2) it takes effect by applying to the gamestate the changes specified in
the text of the Decree, to the greatest extent permitted by the rules; and then,
(3) its power is set to 0.
}
///
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate
On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 16:36 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote: > Side note: would a rule with the text “Gaelan has power 3” be > sufficient to establish a dictatorship? This was intensely debated in the past, but I forget what the end result was. (I vaguely remember it was something along the lines of "not automatically, but some anti-scam protections stop working against people with sufficiently high Power", but am unsure.) -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate
Side note: would a rule with the text “Gaelan has power 3” be sufficient to
establish a dictatorship?
Gaelan
> On Feb 5, 2019, at 4:13 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> I withdraw my proposal The Duumvirate v.1.1, in order to make a minor
> clarifying edit.
>
> I submit (and if necessary pend) a proposal as follows:
>
> ///
> Title: The Duumvirate v.1.2
> AI: 3
> Author: D. Margaux
> Co-author: G.
>
> Enact a power 3 rule entitled "The Duumvirate" with the following text:
>
> {
>
> The Duumvirate is an organization whose members are D. Margaux and G. Each
> member of the Duumvirate is a "Dictator."
>
> Either Dictator CAN by announcement cause this Rule to repeal itself.
>
> No person can act on behalf of a Dictator (other than the Dictator acting as
> emself).
>
> A Decree is a document clearly labeled as such. Either Dictator CAN proclaim
> a Decree with support from the other Dictator.
>
> When a Decree is proclaimed, then:
>
> (1) its power is set to 3;
>
> (2) it takes effect by applying to the gamestate the changes specified
> in the text of the Decree, to the greatest extent permitted by the rules; and
> then,
>
> (3) its power is set to 0.
>
> }
>
>
> ///
DIS: Re: BUS: Intent
I promise, I won’t preferentially delay any proposals. If they’re late, they’ll be late for the sole reason that the entire report is late. That shouldn’t happpen though, as I have some free time over the next few days. -Aris On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 9:41 AM D. Margaux wrote: > I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposals in the > proposal pool. > > I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposal that I > submitted today and that was not withdrawn. > > (This is merely meant to ensure that I can force my scam proposal to be > distributed this week, to reduce the chance that anyone could discover it > or launch a counter-scam. This isn’t meant to be any kind of criticism of > the commendable job done by our H. Promotor. If this inadvertently violates > game norms, then I won’t execute either intent.)
DIS: Re: BUS: Intent
I think you technically cannot force it until just after the Week, because you need to wait until the Promotor is late (rule 2160 §3). Greetings, Ørjan. On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposals in the proposal pool. I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposal that I submitted today and that was not withdrawn. (This is merely meant to ensure that I can force my scam proposal to be distributed this week, to reduce the chance that anyone could discover it or launch a counter-scam. This isn’t meant to be any kind of criticism of the commendable job done by our H. Promotor. If this inadvertently violates game norms, then I won’t execute either intent.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Proposal Versions
I understand the proposal is flawed but Telnaior is space-bullying me and this fixes my problem. On 2/5/19 3:28 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: I’m against the Space bullying thing because I believe it’s more interesting if that was achieved via contracts and such. (Our own Geneva Convention of a sort, maybe?) It would harm the “free open world simulation” vibe that I enjoy from Space Battles. Also, a duo of players could still bypass this. On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 01:38, Reuben Staley wrote: Context for "version ∞" that I forgot to send in the previous email: when I was going through all the proposals adding names I noticed a lot of them had a version tacked onto the end of the title. I don't even have a problem with versions being an informal system, but I like the idea of them being out of the title; therefore this exists. I also submit the following proposal, while I'm at it: - Title: No one likes a (space) bully AI: 1 Author: Trigon Co-authors: Amend the paragraph beginning "A Space Battle CANNOT be initiated" in Rule 2593 (Power=1) 'Space Battles' by removing the final period and adding the following: "or if the prior Space Battle the spaceship initiating the Space Battle has been in was against the spaceship it is attacking." On 2/4/19 5:27 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: I submit the following proposal: - Title: version ∞ AI: 3 Author: Trigon Co-authors: Amend Rule 2350 (Power=3) 'Proposals' by adding an item to the bulleted list: * A version, which SHOULD only be used when a proposal has been retracted and another proposal has been created with a similar purpose. -- Trigon -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: still need a currency for something
Well, I admit I am totally perplexed by this. Excited to see what the scam is,
that ties together dependent actions, nonconsensual deregistration, arbitrary
power 3 rule-creation, and currency fungibility!
Unless there are multiple separate scams being run here? Or there’s some
misdirection going on?
> On Feb 4, 2019, at 5:20 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> Please do tell at some point—that sounds great
>
> Gaelan
>
>> On Feb 4, 2019, at 2:11 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>>
>> Ta.
>>
>> I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award myself the degree Associate of
>> Nomic (A.N.).
>>
>> (Incidentally, this scam method could also be used for a power-3
>> dictatorship, but if I did that, it would end up deregistering the Promotor,
>> the Arbitor, the ADoP and at least one zombie as a side-effect. Following
>> advice from G., I've decided to perform this watered-down version - which
>> does not cause adverse effects to any player - instead.)
>>
>> -twg
>>
>>
>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>>> On Monday, February 4, 2019 11:05 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree to the below contract. -G.
>>>
>>> ("you can't spell fungible without having fun")
>>>
On 2/4/2019 1:00 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
Niiice, Telnaior. c: It wasn't, in fact, what I was going for. I guess
contracts are just horribly broken, huh.
I consent to be bound by the terms of the following document, with the
intent for it to become a contract provided G. also so agrees. (Slightly
modified from the previous version to improve G.'s security.)
{
This is a contract between twg and G. Other persons CANNOT become parties.
twg CAN modify this contract by announcement, with the exception that twg
CANNOT (and SHALL NOT attempt to) modify this contract such that it
imposes any obligation on G. or otherwise significantly harms eir standing
in the game, or such that this paragraph is removed, altered or otherwise
rendered ineffective.
Beads are a currency defined by this contract. Ownership of beads is
restricted to any entity. twg CAN, by announcement, create a bead in the
possession of any entity.
Each bead has a colour, which is one of the following: red, green, blue,
cyan, magenta, yellow or white. The colour of a bead is set when it is
created and cannot thereafter be changed. An attempt to create a bead is
INEFFECTIVE if the colour of the bead is not specified.
}
whistles innocently
(I'm also quite happy to just explain the scam, incidentally, and will on
request from G. But it seems more fun to give a relatively-harmless live
demonstration.)
-twg
>
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer goes pew pew pew
I have communicated my choice to the Astronomor > On Feb 4, 2019, at 4:15 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > I initiate a Space Battle between my (only) ship and D.Margaux’s (only) > ship, and I specify the Astronomor as the resolver.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent
Huh. YMMV, but I personally wouldn't consider it rude, especially if you explained why it was time-sensitive for you (unless you were doing it every time they were a day late or something). The whole purpose of requiring Notice is to give a fair warning. A specific purpose of deputisation, when started, was to make sure Officers couldn't stop scams simply by delaying things a few days. The delay would be a rules violation, but for stopping some scams, that's a minor punishment that the anti-scammers would forgive easily. If we expect "honorable" scams to avoid rules violations, it's not really fair to let the officers on the other side violate rules to simply run out the clock. So in these cases, deputisation is a specific gameplay way to force the issue (sometimes at the cost of revealing plans early of course!) Of course, 95% of the time it's a way of quickly filling a missing officer's job when they've been unresponsive for a while, but the 5% shouldn't be considered verboten IMO. On 2/5/2019 1:16 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Yikes. I've been told in the past that forcibly ousting (non-corrupt) officers without their consent is considered rude, but if you're willing to wait until the weekend I can distribute it for you as a one-off, if Aris hasn't already by then. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 5:41 PM, D. Margaux wrote: I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposals in the proposal pool. I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposal that I submitted today and that was not withdrawn. (This is merely meant to ensure that I can force my scam proposal to be distributed this week, to reduce the chance that anyone could discover it or launch a counter-scam. This isn’t meant to be any kind of criticism of the commendable job done by our H. Promotor. If this inadvertently violates game norms, then I won’t execute either intent.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent
In that case I won’t do the deputising then. I guess I’m just overly excited to see how the scam plays out. :-) > On Feb 5, 2019, at 4:16 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Yikes. > > I've been told in the past that forcibly ousting (non-corrupt) officers > without their consent is considered rude, but if you're willing to wait until > the weekend I can distribute it for you as a one-off, if Aris hasn't already > by then. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 5:41 PM, D. Margaux >> wrote: >> >> I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposals in the >> proposal pool. >> >> I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposal that I >> submitted today and that was not withdrawn. >> >> (This is merely meant to ensure that I can force my scam proposal to be >> distributed this week, to reduce the chance that anyone could discover it or >> launch a counter-scam. This isn’t meant to be any kind of criticism of the >> commendable job done by our H. Promotor. If this inadvertently violates game >> norms, then I won’t execute either intent.) > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Intent
Yikes. I've been told in the past that forcibly ousting (non-corrupt) officers without their consent is considered rude, but if you're willing to wait until the weekend I can distribute it for you as a one-off, if Aris hasn't already by then. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 5:41 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposals in the proposal > pool. > > I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposal that I submitted > today and that was not withdrawn. > > (This is merely meant to ensure that I can force my scam proposal to be > distributed this week, to reduce the chance that anyone could discover it or > launch a counter-scam. This isn’t meant to be any kind of criticism of the > commendable job done by our H. Promotor. If this inadvertently violates game > norms, then I won’t execute either intent.)
Re: DIS: Ceasing to exist
You are listed as registered in the most recent Registrar’s report, so for game purposes you remain extant. Whether you exist for other purposes, I suppose, is a question I can’t answer. https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg09220.html > On Feb 5, 2019, at 3:20 PM, Jacob Arduino wrote: > > Hello, > By which mechanism have I ceased to exist? > Thanks, > - Jacob Arduino
DIS: Ceasing to exist
Hello, By which mechanism have I ceased to exist? Thanks, - Jacob Arduino
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer something something
On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 08:37 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote: > You could pull off a scam with ratification without objection (have a > legitimate excuse to ratify your coin holdings; get it ratified; go > on a spending spree; ratify again) Ratification doesn't set your current holdings to the ratified value, though. It sets your current holdings to the value you'd have if the ratified value had been correct at the time. So you'd have the ratified value minus the amount you'd spent on the spending spree, i.e. still the correct value. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer something something
You could pull off a scam with ratification without objection (have a legitimate excuse to ratify your coin holdings; get it ratified; go on a spending spree; ratify again) Gaelan > On Feb 5, 2019, at 8:22 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > You're good on the validity for the contest! > > More broadly, during the win-by-Apathy glut in the fall, it came up that > dependent actions in general have this issue (A single announcement of > intent lets you perform the action as many times as you want, as long as the > intent dependencies (and other conditions) are met). > > Is this bug or feature? For the most part, it's just these sorts of Wins > that are affected. Most other actions, I don't think you gain anything or > have a security hole - it's not like, say, repeatedly ratifying the same > document gets you anywhere or creates any game problems. So other than for > some win conditions (which should be fixed for each win by appropriate > resets like your proposal), are there any places that this matters? > > -G. > >> On 2/5/2019 2:34 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: >> Attn: Herald >> - I retract the proposal below. (Because maybe its not valid to be >> submitted because it’s already in transit to be fixed? I dunno.) >> - I point out the loophole exposed below for the contest. >> - I then submit the proposal below. >>> On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 09:38, Cuddle Beam wrote: >>> Closing up a loophole for winning a bajillion times via Space Battles, >>> because once you win via Fame, your Fame isn't reset. You can still win >>> again and again and again through it - which I would've totally attempted >>> to do, but I heavily doubt I have the patience to reach 10/-10 Fame in the >>> first place anyways. >>> >>> So, instead of possibly applauding me in the future for a clever loophole, >>> you can save the wait and applaud me now instead. >>> >>> I make the following proposal: >>> >>> Title: [Seductive yodeling noises] >>> Content: >>> Change "Any player whose Fame is either 10 or -10 CAN win the game With 2 >>> Days >>> Notice." to "Any player whose Fame is either 10 or -10 CAN Become One With >>> The Cosmos With 2 Days Notice >>> >>> When a player Becomes One With The Cosmos, if their Fame is either 10 or >>> -10, their Fame is set to 0 and they win the game." >>>
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer something something
You're good on the validity for the contest! More broadly, during the win-by-Apathy glut in the fall, it came up that dependent actions in general have this issue (A single announcement of intent lets you perform the action as many times as you want, as long as the intent dependencies (and other conditions) are met). Is this bug or feature? For the most part, it's just these sorts of Wins that are affected. Most other actions, I don't think you gain anything or have a security hole - it's not like, say, repeatedly ratifying the same document gets you anywhere or creates any game problems. So other than for some win conditions (which should be fixed for each win by appropriate resets like your proposal), are there any places that this matters? -G. On 2/5/2019 2:34 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: Attn: Herald - I retract the proposal below. (Because maybe its not valid to be submitted because it’s already in transit to be fixed? I dunno.) - I point out the loophole exposed below for the contest. - I then submit the proposal below. On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 09:38, Cuddle Beam wrote: Closing up a loophole for winning a bajillion times via Space Battles, because once you win via Fame, your Fame isn't reset. You can still win again and again and again through it - which I would've totally attempted to do, but I heavily doubt I have the patience to reach 10/-10 Fame in the first place anyways. So, instead of possibly applauding me in the future for a clever loophole, you can save the wait and applaud me now instead. I make the following proposal: Title: [Seductive yodeling noises] Content: Change "Any player whose Fame is either 10 or -10 CAN win the game With 2 Days Notice." to "Any player whose Fame is either 10 or -10 CAN Become One With The Cosmos With 2 Days Notice When a player Becomes One With The Cosmos, if their Fame is either 10 or -10, their Fame is set to 0 and they win the game."
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report (revised)
Trigon having 3 Karma pleasantly scratches an itch I didn't even know I had. On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 2:12 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > Herald’s Weekly report > > Date of Last Report: 01 Feb 2018 > Date of This Report: 04 Feb 2019 (1st revision) > > KarmaEntity (np=not player) > ><= SHOGUN > -ABOVE +4 STAND THE SAMURAI > +3 Trigon > +1 twg > +1 D. Margaux > +1 Corona > +1 ATMunn > +1 Aris > +1 G. > 0 Telnaior > 0 Kenyon (np) > 0 Ouri (np) > -1 Tenhigitsune[1] (np) > -1 CuddleBeam > -1 Gaelan > -1 V.J. Rada > -1 Agora (np) > -2 Jacob Arduino > -2 Murphy > -BELOW -4 LIE THE GAMMAS ><= HONOURLESS WORM > - > All other entities have 0 Karma (0's included on the list > indicate an honour change since the last report). > Notations of player/not-player and zombie status above are > not complete switch reports, so are not self-ratifying. > [1] aka 天火狐 > > > Notices of Honour: > > Telnaior (04 Feb 2019) > +1 G. (for introducing a good competition at a thematic time to help > patch flaws in the ruleset). > -1 Jacob Arduino (for ceasing to exist in this time and place). > > [New Week 04-Feb] > > Gaelan (03 Feb 2019) > +1 G (why the hell is G. negative?) > -1 Tenhigitsune (e’s not active, e doesn’t need the karma) > > CuddleBeam (03 Feb 2019) > +1 Trigon (for the cool RP) > -1 Tenhigitsune (because zombies stink big poo poo) > > Telnaior (02 Feb 2019) > +1 Agora (for being "positively ancient") > -1 CuddleBeam (for making a ridiculous contract) > > Quarterly Karma Adjustment (G., 01 Feb 2019) > +1 Kenyon > +1 Ouri > -2 Agora > > [Time of Last Report] > > Trigon (29 Jan 2019) > +1 Telnaior for pointing out our Agoran Laziness. > -1 D. Margaux for instigating the aforementioned. > > [New Week 28-Jan] > > G. (23 Jan 2019) > -1 to twg for trying to force double-meanings onto "Quang" > +1 to CuddleBeam for flooping the whoop. > > [New Week 21-Jan] > [New Week 14-Jan] > [New Week 07-Jan] > [New Week 31-Dec] > [New Week 24-Dec] > [New Week 17-Dec] > > twg (14 Dec 2018) > +1 G. (helping point out proposal errors) > -1 twg (submitting proposals with errors) > > G. (14 Dec 2018) > -1 Corona (random loss) > +1 CuddleBeam (random gain) > > pokes, via G. (14 Dec 2018) > -1 twg (random loss) > +1 V.J. Rada (random gain) > > [New Week 10-Dec] > [New Week 03-Dec] > > twg (02 Dec 2018) > -1 Jacob (making the Assessor's life difficult by submitting complicated >conditional votes and repeatedly changing them) > +1 Ouri (being a non-player with non-zero karma) > > [New Week 26-Nov] > > twg (23 Nov 2018) > -1 twg (moneymaking use of Assessor's decision order discretion) > +1 Trigon (eir proposal being mangled by aforementioned activities) > > D. Margaux (19 Nov 2018) > +1 twg (spotting errors in Arbitor’s weekly) > -1 D. Margaux (being careless with CFJ numbers) > > [New Week 19-Nov] > > Telnaior via Aris (16 Nov 2018) > -1 twg (rebalancing) > +1 Gaelan (rebalancing) > > Aris (16 Nov 2018) > -1 twg (rebalancing) > +1 V.J. Rada (rebalancing) > > G. (16 Nov 2018) > -1 twg (rebalancing) > +1 Murphy (rebalancing) > > [New Week 12-Nov] > > twg (11 Nov 2018) > -1 G. (not having properly judged CFJ 3681 yet) > +1 Sky Fox (being an obedient zombie) > > [New Week 05-Nov] > > ATMunn (04 Nov 2018) > -1 twg (rebalancing) > +1 VJ Rada (rebalancing) > > Trigon (01 Nov 2018) > -1 G. for acting recklessly and not considering eir actions' effects > +1 Gaelan because why is e at -3 when e hasn't even been here for months? > > G. (31 Oct 2018) > +1 twg (for reminding us about violet ribbons) > -1 Trigon (for only awarding a violet ribbon to emself) > > [New Week 29-Oct] > > [New Week 22-Oct] > > D. Margaux (20 Oct 2018) > twg +1 (Doomsday Clock was a very clever way to blow up the land minigame) > Murphy -1 (impeding the due course of justice by leaving Arbitor stuff > undone) > > [New Week 15-Oct] > > [New Week 08-Oct] > > D. Margaux (07 Oct 2018) > +1 Aris for giving careful consideration to arguments > -1 D Margaux for persisting in advocating perhaps a tenuous interpretation > of the rules > > Gaelan via Master G. INVALID, NOT FIRST IN WEEK > -1 twg (for making someone a zombie who was clearly returning) > +1 ATMunn (welcome back! > > twg (03 Oct 2018) > +1 D. Margaux (managing to sneak this one past me) > -1 Kenyon (arbitrarily selected zombie) > > Gaelan via Master G. (01 Oct 2018) > +1 CuddleBeam (for taking the burden G.'s RL bank balance). > -1 Ouri (more karma decay for zombies) > > D. Margaux (02 Oct 2018) > +1 CuddleBeam for an ingenious pledge > -1 D Margaux because eir karma is too high > > G. (01 Oct 2018) > +1 twg (for this great addition to the assessor's results) > -1 Ouri (zombies close to deregistration mean nonzero karma > balance in Agora eventually). > > [New Week] > > twg (30 Sep 2018) > +1 D. Margaux (fulfilling agreed obligation) > -1 Telnaior
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Proposal Versions
I’m against the Space bullying thing because I believe it’s more interesting if that was achieved via contracts and such. (Our own Geneva Convention of a sort, maybe?) It would harm the “free open world simulation” vibe that I enjoy from Space Battles. Also, a duo of players could still bypass this. On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 01:38, Reuben Staley wrote: > Context for "version ∞" that I forgot to send in the previous email: > when I was going through all the proposals adding names I noticed a lot > of them had a version tacked onto the end of the title. I don't even > have a problem with versions being an informal system, but I like the > idea of them being out of the title; therefore this exists. > > I also submit the following proposal, while I'm at it: > > - > Title: No one likes a (space) bully > AI: 1 > Author: Trigon > Co-authors: > > Amend the paragraph beginning "A Space Battle CANNOT be initiated" in > Rule 2593 (Power=1) 'Space Battles' by removing the final period and > adding the following: "or if the prior Space Battle the spaceship > initiating the Space Battle has been in was against the spaceship it is > attacking." > > On 2/4/19 5:27 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > I submit the following proposal: > > > > - > > Title: version ∞ > > AI: 3 > > Author: Trigon > > Co-authors: > > > > Amend Rule 2350 (Power=3) 'Proposals' by adding an item to the bulleted > > list: > > > >* A version, which SHOULD only be used when a proposal has been > > retracted and another proposal has been created with a similar > > purpose. > > > > -- > Trigon >
