Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Apology

[Aris Merchant]

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> Three reasons that would be a bad judgment, which I would likely moot:
>>
>> 1. I'm paying for the CFJ, which means the judge will get paid for it.
>> It wouldn't be very nice to take money and then assign an effectively
>> null judgment.
>
> This is an inappropriate line of thinking, regardless of your other
> arguments.  A CFJ's truth shouldn't be dependent whatsoever on how it
> was paid for.

Yeah, it wouldn't really be a reason to moot. However if the judge is
getting paid for it, it would be nice if they would think about it.,
and come to a conclusion about the subject, even if it isn't one I
agree with.

>> 2. The CFJ concerns a subject of deep game significance. If the rules
>> directly disagree with reality, which one wins? I
>> We've been assuming that the rules do, but I haven't seen a ruling on
>> it. This is probably one of the most important philosophical questions
>> in the history of the game, with many implications for how we play,
>> and it shouldn't just be tossed out unconsidered.
>
> I agree that it's an interesting philosophical point, but there are a few
> rulings on the subject, mainly that "reality wins" in general:
>
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2149
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2150
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1613
>

None of those appear to consider an explicit disagreement between the
game and reality. They primarily deal with what happens when the game
doesn't specify something (reality takes over), and don't resolve this
issue.

>> 3. We have something of a tradition of dealing with hypothetical
>> situations even when they're unlikely to occur, particularly when they
>> clarify the application of existing rules.
>
> While we have "something of a tradition", we only recently voted in this
> language (in June):
>   * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement is
> not relevant to the game or is an overly hypothetical
> extrapolation of the game or its rules to conditions
> The fact that we explicitly added it to the Rules means we should re-
> interpret this standard in light of recent legislative action, and (IMO)
> be more ready to call hypothetical situations IRRELEVANT.

As I understand, that was a reenactment of previous text to allow for
more specificity in judgments. I wouldn't really object if someone
judged it IRRELEVANT per se, but I think it deserves an answer in
addition to the judgement.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Apology

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Three reasons that would be a bad judgment, which I would likely moot:
> 
> 1. I'm paying for the CFJ, which means the judge will get paid for it.
> It wouldn't be very nice to take money and then assign an effectively
> null judgment.

This is an inappropriate line of thinking, regardless of your other 
arguments.  A CFJ's truth shouldn't be dependent whatsoever on how it 
was paid for.


> 2. The CFJ concerns a subject of deep game significance. If the rules
> directly disagree with reality, which one wins? I
> We've been assuming that the rules do, but I haven't seen a ruling on
> it. This is probably one of the most important philosophical questions
> in the history of the game, with many implications for how we play,
> and it shouldn't just be tossed out unconsidered.

I agree that it's an interesting philosophical point, but there are a few
rulings on the subject, mainly that "reality wins" in general:

https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2149
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2150
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1613


> 3. We have something of a tradition of dealing with hypothetical
> situations even when they're unlikely to occur, particularly when they
> clarify the application of existing rules. 

While we have "something of a tradition", we only recently voted in this 
language (in June):
  * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement is
not relevant to the game or is an overly hypothetical
extrapolation of the game or its rules to conditions 
The fact that we explicitly added it to the Rules means we should re-
interpret this standard in light of recent legislative action, and (IMO) 
be more ready to call hypothetical situations IRRELEVANT.


> See, for instance, CFJs
> 1147 (really strong precedent), 1887, etc. Admittedly we sometimes do
> the opposite, but it does support the other two.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Oct 20, 2017 7:00 PM, "VJ Rada"  wrote:
> >
> > I would judge IRRELEVANT:  situation appears to be too hypothetical
> > and attenuated to be a useful clarification of the game state.
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 21:53 Aris Merchant
> > >  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Actually, given that this makes things more interesting... I SH-CFJ (or
> > >> AP-CFJ if the action would otherwise fail due to lack of shinies) "If 
> > >> there
> > >> were currently a power 3.9 rule purpoting to allow any person to destroy 
> > >> the
> > >> universe by announcement, without defining the effect of this action, 
> > >> and I
> > >> announced that I destroyed the universe in that way (all other aspects of
> > >> the gamestate being as they are now), my announcement would, as far as 
> > >> the
> > >> game is concerned, have the effect it purported to have." I request that 
> > >> the
> > >> judge consider the situation both with and without existing power 4 rules
> > >> (101, 1698, and 2029) and also whether the destruction of the universe in
> > >> this way would have practical effect upon the game. I also request that 
> > >> the
> > >> H. Arbitor link the cases and that they have a combined caselog. I'll
> > >> probably have more arguments later, and invite the arguments of others.
> > >>
> > >> -Aris
> > >
> > >
> > > Arguments: FALSE, because Agora Is A Nomic.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > From V.J. Rada

Fwd: Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[Reuben Staley]

Looks like I sent this message directly to Aris, instead of to the
discussion forum. So, I guess, TTttDF (this time to the discussion forum)?

--
Trigon
-- Forwarded message --
From: "Reuben Staley" 
Date: Oct 20, 2017 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes
To: "Aris Merchant" 
Cc:

me: Leaves for 2 hours without a phone
> me: Comes back to a 25-message discussion about the economy in general
>
> So, as far as I am able to discern, the prevailing attitude is that our
> economy needs more things to encourage actually using it. In order to do
> this, we need a more player-centric economy. The comestible system is a
> good place to start, but we need to take the next step.
>
> I'm reminded of a system we had in a reddit-based Nomic, and that is
> Dynastic Artifacts. I'll post the relevant rule text here.
>
>   Each existing dynastic founder, and each future dynastic founder at
>   the time of founding, shall be awarded three dynastic artifacts. An
>   artifact that is unnamed may be given a unique name by its current
>   owner stating this intention in any text post. The owner of an
>   artifact may transfer ownership of the artifact to another player by
>   stating this intention in any text post.
>
>   A player who simultaneously owns more than two artifacts for more than
>   72 hours will lose ownership of one of the artifacts, randomly chosen,
>   and it will be given to another player who posted in the previous 24
>   hours, randomly chosen. The Secretary will be responsible for
>   determining and implementing a suitably random means of selection or
>   for delegating this task to another player.
>
>   Any player who is a member of a dynasty will be ineligible to win the
>   game unless all three dynastic artifacts awarded to the dynasty's
>   founder are owned by members of the dynasty. Any player who is not a
>   member of a dynasty will be ineligible to win the game unless the
>   player owns an artifact.
>
>   When any player receives an artifact, they must respond to the post or
>   comment where the artifact was transferred into their possession in
>   order to claim it. If that player has not claimed it in 48 hours, the
>   artifact is transferred back to the previous owner.
>
>   If a player possesses two artifacts as a result of an unaccepted gift,
>   they have the standard 72 hours to give it to another player.
>
> Dynasties were basically failed attempts at making political parties and
> acted more like clubs. This was going to be a major mechanic of the game,
> until it died.
>
> Point is, we can probably monetize this somehow.
>
> On 10/20/2017 4:53 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
>> Our economic troubles have gone on long enough. Printing money has
>> been rejected, despite it being what we had intended to use if we ever
>> run out. If we don't want to print money, we _need_ taxes. I intend to
>> write a tax proposal, but first we need to decide on the  tax rates.
>> Income taxes won't really work, as they would incentivize hoarding. I
>> propose the following two taxes.
>>
>> 1. Wealth tax. Every month, X% percent of a persons wealth, rounded up
>> (where X is a value between 0 and 25 set in a regulation by the
>> Secretary/Treasuror, and defaults to 10, although these values could
>> be adjusted) is transferred to Agora. This incentivizes spending
>> because hoarded money can go away very quickly, but not without
>> warning. I suggest that the percent be applied only to the portion of
>> a persons wealth above 10 shinies, and that if contracts are adopted,
>> the tax should apply to all contracts not exempt from sustenance
>> payments.
>>
>> 2. Inactivity tax. If a person has neither claimed a reward nor spent
>> money (to limit our measures of activity to things the
>> Secretary/Treasuror already tracks) in the last month, the
>> Secretary/Treasuror CAN and SHALL take 80 percent (that number can
>> change if people don't like it) of all shinies past the first 10 for
>> Agora with notice.
>>
>> Let the debates begin.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>> http://www.avg.com
>>
>>
> --
> Trigon
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:


I should have CoE'd the first report with the mistake, just before the
week was up, in order to neatly create a time paradox. (That said,


COEs don't have to be by Players, so I'm not sure how you get a paradox.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Apology

[Aris Merchant]

Three reasons that would be a bad judgment, which I would likely moot:

1. I'm paying for the CFJ, which means the judge will get paid for it.
It wouldn't be very nice to take money and then assign an effectively
null judgment.

2. The CFJ concerns a subject of deep game signifcance. If the rules
directly disagree with reality, which one wins? I
We've been assuming that the rules do, but I haven't seen a ruling on
it. This is probably one of the most important philosophical questions
in the history of the game, with many implications for how we play,
and it shouldn't just be tossed out unconsidered.

3. We have something of a tradition of dealing with hypothetical
situations even when they're unlikely to occur, particularly when they
clarify the application of existing rules. See, for instance, CFJs
1147 (really strong precedent), 1887, etc. Admittedly we sometimes do
the opposite, but it does support the other two.

-Aris

On Oct 20, 2017 7:00 PM, "VJ Rada"  wrote:
>
> I would judge IRRELEVANT:  situation appears to be too hypothetical
> and attenuated to be a useful clarification of the game state.
>
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 21:53 Aris Merchant
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> Actually, given that this makes things more interesting... I SH-CFJ (or
> >> AP-CFJ if the action would otherwise fail due to lack of shinies) "If there
> >> were currently a power 3.9 rule purpoting to allow any person to destroy 
> >> the
> >> universe by announcement, without defining the effect of this action, and I
> >> announced that I destroyed the universe in that way (all other aspects of
> >> the gamestate being as they are now), my announcement would, as far as the
> >> game is concerned, have the effect it purported to have." I request that 
> >> the
> >> judge consider the situation both with and without existing power 4 rules
> >> (101, 1698, and 2029) and also whether the destruction of the universe in
> >> this way would have practical effect upon the game. I also request that the
> >> H. Arbitor link the cases and that they have a combined caselog. I'll
> >> probably have more arguments later, and invite the arguments of others.
> >>
> >> -Aris
> >
> >
> > Arguments: FALSE, because Agora Is A Nomic.
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


Bread
-Bread is a transferable, destructible asset.
-You have to destroy (syn. eat) 4 bread a month otherwise you become
"starving" and cannot take any game actions for the next month unless
someone transfers you 5 bread (or some amount of bread, I'm not a
wizard)
-Everyone gets 1 free bread a week bc BOO WELFARE STATE
-The granary-or (names are hard, it can't be "bakor" because bakery is
a different thing) is an office, recordkeepor of bread.


Millor?


-You can buy bread from Agora for the "bread cost" which is some
number that magically increases the more bread people buy. IDK, I'm
not a wizard.
-A Bakery in an Estate improvement which gives u some amount of free bread.
-This is a breadligarchy, bread is power. Therefore, the person with
the most bread at the beginning of each month becomes the new Prime
Minister (which gives voting power, card power...I guess certiorari
might be useful)


Artocracy hth

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Apology

[VJ Rada]

Is the safety-valve super-secret propitietery technology?

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 19:24 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 18:28 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > > I submit the following Proposal, "Don't vote for this", AI-3, and
>> > > AP-pend it:
>> >
>> > The created rule wouldn't actually work (for interesting reasons which
>> > are almost along the line of a scam). That said, that's not something
>> > I'd like to rely on.
>>
>> Yah, that was the safety (at least the reason I have in mind that it won't
>> work - dunno if it's same as yours).  Suppose I could fix it pretty simply...
>
> Is it becoming a thing to write Terrible Proposals but to make sure
> that they don't work, on the basis that it can be very hard to prevent
> them passing?
>
> (That said, this one only seems to have one safety valve, unless you
> consider the name. The last time I wrote a Terrible Proposal it had a
> safety valve /and/ insufficient Power to work.)
>
> --
> ais523



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[VJ Rada]

I had two ideas I was writing before I realized I have no idea the
attention span for long proposals. One was called Emissions Trading
Scheme and another was Bread. Obviously they're mutually exclusive.

Bread
-Bread is a transferable, destructible asset.
-You have to destroy (syn. eat) 4 bread a month otherwise you become
"starving" and cannot take any game actions for the next month unless
someone transfers you 5 bread (or some amount of bread, I'm not a
wizard)
-Everyone gets 1 free bread a week bc BOO WELFARE STATE
-The granary-or (names are hard, it can't be "bakor" because bakery is
a different thing) is an office, recordkeepor of bread.
-You can buy bread from Agora for the "bread cost" which is some
number that magically increases the more bread people buy. IDK, I'm
not a wizard.
-A Bakery in an Estate improvement which gives u some amount of free bread.
-This is a breadligarchy, bread is power. Therefore, the person with
the most bread at the beginning of each month becomes the new Prime
Minister (which gives voting power, card power...I guess certiorari
might be useful)

Emissions Trading
-Change the name of Ability Points to Tonnes of Carbon.
-"Spending 1 AP" becomes "emitting 1 Tonne of Carbon into the atmosphere"
-Agora can no longer own shinies because we're a free market here,
free market solutions.
-Instead of welcome packages, new players entering the game get some
magical number of shinies that allows them to be economically
competitive but not too competitive.
-Tonnes of Carbon are transferable and can be bought and sold with shinies.
-Every game action like CFJs and proposing and making agencies and
making contracts and joining contracts costs Tonnes of Carbon.
-Rewards are abolished, instead Officers get larger allotments of
Tonnes of Carbon. Everyone gets a decent amounts of Tonnes of Carbon
per month, but they lose the Tonnes of Carbon they do not use each
month. If you run out of ToCs, no game actions for you.
-The Environmental Protector is the recordkeepor of ToCs.
-You can buy extra perks with ToCs. Eg: If you emit enough Tonnes of
Carbon you could buy more voting power, ability to get around CFJ
restrictions, ability to give out cards.

-

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 12:40 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>Why don't we just completely abolish Shinies and start over with our economy?
>
> Ugh we already did this a few months ago. Yeah though, not opposed.
>
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, ATMunn . wrote:
>>> This might be a good place to start, but it's certainly way too
>>> long in itself. I don't really like the (a) (b) (c) etc. way that
>>> this is written.
>>
>> Yeah, I chose a maximally-specified starting point on purpose; feel free
>> to trim anything that isn't needed but seemed easier than starting from
>> scratch and you probably wouldn't need to *add* anything (and the a,b,c
>> style is a matter of taste, easy enough to change).
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Apology

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 19:24 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 18:28 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > I submit the following Proposal, "Don't vote for this", AI-3, and 
> > > AP-pend it:
> > 
> > The created rule wouldn't actually work (for interesting reasons which
> > are almost along the line of a scam). That said, that's not something
> > I'd like to rely on.
> 
> Yah, that was the safety (at least the reason I have in mind that it won't
> work - dunno if it's same as yours).  Suppose I could fix it pretty simply...

Is it becoming a thing to write Terrible Proposals but to make sure
that they don't work, on the basis that it can be very hard to prevent
them passing?

(That said, this one only seems to have one safety valve, unless you
consider the name. The last time I wrote a Terrible Proposal it had a
safety valve /and/ insufficient Power to work.)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Apology

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 18:28 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I submit the following Proposal, "Don't vote for this", AI-3, and 
> > AP-pend it:
> 
> The created rule wouldn't actually work (for interesting reasons which
> are almost along the line of a scam). That said, that's not something
> I'd like to rely on.

Yah, that was the safety (at least the reason I have in mind that it won't
work - dunno if it's same as yours).  Suppose I could fix it pretty simply...

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Apology

[Aris Merchant]

I've requested that the judge consider what would happen in that rule's
absence.
-Aris

On Oct 20, 2017 6:59 PM, "Alexis Hunt"  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 21:53 Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Actually, given that this makes things more interesting... I SH-CFJ (or
>> AP-CFJ if the action would otherwise fail due to lack of shinies) "If there
>> were currently a power 3.9 rule purpoting to allow any person to destroy
>> the universe by announcement, without defining the effect of this action,
>> and I announced that I destroyed the universe in that way (all other
>> aspects of the gamestate being as they are now), my announcement would, as
>> far as the game is concerned, have the effect it purported to have." I
>> request that the judge consider the situation both with and without
>> existing power 4 rules (101, 1698, and 2029) and also whether the
>> destruction of the universe in this way would have practical effect upon
>> the game. I also request that the H. Arbitor link the cases and that they
>> have a combined caselog. I'll probably have more arguments later, and
>> invite the arguments of others.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>
> Arguments: FALSE, because Agora Is A Nomic.
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Apology

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 18:28 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I submit the following Proposal, "Don't vote for this", AI-3, and 
> AP-pend it:

The created rule wouldn't actually work (for interesting reasons which
are almost along the line of a scam). That said, that's not something
I'd like to rely on.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Apology

[Alex Smith]

On Sat, 2017-10-21 at 09:32 +1100, Madeline wrote:
> I intend to win the game with two days' notice, in accordance with
> Rule 7923. (Does this really work before it's even a rule?)

Dependent action intents work "backwards". The intent itself doesn't do
anything, but the resolution of the dependent action looks back in time
to see if there was a matching intent.

This means that you can intend to do something that isn't currently
possible, in the hope that it'll become possible by the time the intent
is resolved.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Apology

[VJ Rada]

I would judge IRRELEVANT:  situation appears to be too hypothetical
and attenuated to be a useful clarification of the game state.

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 21:53 Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>>
>> Actually, given that this makes things more interesting... I SH-CFJ (or
>> AP-CFJ if the action would otherwise fail due to lack of shinies) "If there
>> were currently a power 3.9 rule purpoting to allow any person to destroy the
>> universe by announcement, without defining the effect of this action, and I
>> announced that I destroyed the universe in that way (all other aspects of
>> the gamestate being as they are now), my announcement would, as far as the
>> game is concerned, have the effect it purported to have." I request that the
>> judge consider the situation both with and without existing power 4 rules
>> (101, 1698, and 2029) and also whether the destruction of the universe in
>> this way would have practical effect upon the game. I also request that the
>> H. Arbitor link the cases and that they have a combined caselog. I'll
>> probably have more arguments later, and invite the arguments of others.
>>
>> -Aris
>
>
> Arguments: FALSE, because Agora Is A Nomic.



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Apology

[Alexis Hunt]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 21:53 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually, given that this makes things more interesting... I SH-CFJ (or
> AP-CFJ if the action would otherwise fail due to lack of shinies) "If there
> were currently a power 3.9 rule purpoting to allow any person to destroy
> the universe by announcement, without defining the effect of this action,
> and I announced that I destroyed the universe in that way (all other
> aspects of the gamestate being as they are now), my announcement would, as
> far as the game is concerned, have the effect it purported to have." I
> request that the judge consider the situation both with and without
> existing power 4 rules (101, 1698, and 2029) and also whether the
> destruction of the universe in this way would have practical effect upon
> the game. I also request that the H. Arbitor link the cases and that they
> have a combined caselog. I'll probably have more arguments later, and
> invite the arguments of others.
>
> -Aris
>

Arguments: FALSE, because Agora Is A Nomic.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[VJ Rada]

Ienpw III and Bayushi have both previously objected before and may do
so again. I believe some people have coded scripts to check for this
sort of thing which automatically object. Has it already been a month
since ProofTechnique posted? Time flies.

The other inactives are, I think, Murphy and omd, whose
deregistrations will always draw objections (Murphy is our longest
continual player and omd owns the lists)

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Telnaior  wrote:
> I intend to deregister Ienpw III without objection.
> I intend to deregister Bayushi without objection.
> I intend to deregister ProofTechnique without objection.
>
> Shall we find out?
> (No harm meant if any of you are around, I probably won't even go through
> with this I'm more just curious)
> (Everyone else seems to be active from my check, so...)
>
>
> On 2017-10-21 10:09, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>
>> The inactivity tax is necessary because we have several players who
>> cannot be deregistered due to objections, and because it serves a
>> different purpose than the wealth tax. The wealth tax is primarily to
>> disincentivse hoarding, and will only bring in really huge amounts of
>> money if the secretary increases it as an emergency measure. Inactive
>> players don't hoard because they think it makes economic sense, they
>> hoard because they're not paying attention. Having them keep large
>> amounts of money means that it isn't actively moving through the
>> economy, which means it's not doing anyone any good. I might consider
>> setting untaxed amount to be derived from the floating value, but I
>> rather like the simplicity of it depending on as few variables as
>> possible.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Madeline  wrote:
>>>
>>> Is the inactivity tax really necessary? Shinies of deregistered players
>>> already don't count towards the supply limit. I'm alright with the idea
>>> of a
>>> wealth tax, but you might want to tie your shiny values to the supply
>>> limit
>>> rather than hardcoding them so that it's futureproof. (Something like
>>> supply
>>> limit / two times the playercount as the minimum should work?)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2017-10-21 09:53, Aris Merchant wrote:

 Our economic troubles have gone on long enough. Printing money has
 been rejected, despite it being what we had intended to use if we ever
 run out. If we don't want to print money, we _need_ taxes. I intend to
 write a tax proposal, but first we need to decide on the  tax rates.
 Income taxes won't really work, as they would incentivize hoarding. I
 propose the following two taxes.

 1. Wealth tax. Every month, X% percent of a persons wealth, rounded up
 (where X is a value between 0 and 25 set in a regulation by the
 Secretary/Treasuror, and defaults to 10, although these values could
 be adjusted) is transferred to Agora. This incentivizes spending
 because hoarded money can go away very quickly, but not without
 warning. I suggest that the percent be applied only to the portion of
 a persons wealth above 10 shinies, and that if contracts are adopted,
 the tax should apply to all contracts not exempt from sustenance
 payments.

 2. Inactivity tax. If a person has neither claimed a reward nor spent
 money (to limit our measures of activity to things the
 Secretary/Treasuror already tracks) in the last month, the
 Secretary/Treasuror CAN and SHALL take 80 percent (that number can
 change if people don't like it) of all shinies past the first 10 for
 Agora with notice.

 Let the debates begin.

 -Aris
>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[VJ Rada]

>Why don't we just completely abolish Shinies and start over with our economy?

Ugh we already did this a few months ago. Yeah though, not opposed.

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, ATMunn . wrote:
>> This might be a good place to start, but it's certainly way too
>> long in itself. I don't really like the (a) (b) (c) etc. way that
>> this is written.
>
> Yeah, I chose a maximally-specified starting point on purpose; feel free
> to trim anything that isn't needed but seemed easier than starting from
> scratch and you probably wouldn't need to *add* anything (and the a,b,c
> style is a matter of taste, easy enough to change).
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Apology

[ATMunn .]

Okay, how did this go from "The shiny balance can not be negative because
it is an asset, not a switch." to "Any Player CAN destroy the universe With
Notice."

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 9:28 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> I submit the following Proposal, "Don't vote for this", AI-3, and
> AP-pend it:
>
> --
>
> Create the following power-3 Rule, "A very very bad idea":
>
>   Any Player CAN destroy the universe With Notice.  When the
>   universe is destroyed, all assets are destroyed and all
>   switches are set to their default values, simultaneously.
>
> --
>
> (I note that this could be adopted within the 14 days before Aris's
> intent message expires).
>
>
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Arguments: The universe is certainly too large for me to destroy on my
> > own. My intent clearly also doesn't do anything, because no rule
> > permits it to take effect. However, it is my belief that since Agora
> > is, for game purposes, both omniscient and omnipotent, if a rule
> > permitted my intent it would succeed. This probably wouldn't do
> > anything though, because nothing would cause any aspect of the
> > gamestate to stop existing, or even necessarily the players.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:10 PM, ATMunn . 
> wrote:
> > > I CFJ with AP on the following statement:
> > > Aris's intent to destroy the universe is valid.
> > >
> > > Caller's arguments: The universe is too large for Aris to destroy.
> > >
> > > [What a stupid thing for my first ever CFJ to be. I love it. I honestly
> > > don't care how this is judged.]
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Aris Merchant
> > >  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I intend to destroy the universe with notice.
> > >>
> > >> -Aris
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > >>  wrote:
> > >> > I intend t win the game with two days' notice, as described in
> Proposal
> > >> > 7923.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On 10/20/2017 06:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017, Madeline wrote:
> > >> >>> I intend to win the game with two days' notice, in accordance with
> > >> >>> Rule 7923.
> > >> >>> (Does this really work before it's even a rule?)
> > >> >> Yes, but it's not Rule 7923 (that's the proposal), saying it was
> "Rule
> > >> >> 7923"
> > >> >> instead of "as described in Proposal 7923" might make this
> announcement
> > >> >> wrong
> > >> >> enough to fail.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> It works because in Rule 1728, the requirements are worded
> backwards in
> > >> >> time;
> > >> >> the action works if the rules allow it *when you try to finish the
> > >> >> action*,
> > >> >> provided you announced the intent a few days before - and the rule
> > >> >> doesn't
> > >> >> care that the action wasn't possible those few days before when you
> > >> >> announced
> > >> >> the intent.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> -G.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Apology

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I intend to destroy the universe with notice.

https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2150

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, ATMunn . wrote:
> This might be a good place to start, but it's certainly way too 
> long in itself. I don't really like the (a) (b) (c) etc. way that 
> this is written.

Yeah, I chose a maximally-specified starting point on purpose; feel free
to trim anything that isn't needed but seemed easier than starting from 
scratch and you probably wouldn't need to *add* anything (and the a,b,c 
style is a matter of taste, easy enough to change).

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> No, you spent Notes to promote/demote yourself or others.

Oh that's right!

> Have you played Kremlin? 

oooh, it's been a long time.  That's an alternate idea (named "puppets"
that you bid to control their votes...)

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017, Madeline wrote:
> This is a really cool idea, I'm looking forward to seeing how it works. One
> issue I can see is that if you're going to have the oligarchs vote among each
> other, we'll need to amend the voting system to allow for Decisions where not
> everyone is eligible to vote.

Don't need to amend the system.

If you want things to take a full Decision voting period, you can just say
that Oligarchs have a voting strength of 1, everyone else 0, on that kind 
of decision.

Or you can do it with Agoran Consent, but you can say "only Oligarchs can 
support/object".  The ability to do that is in R2124:
   The entities eligible to support or object to a dependent action are, by
   default, all players, subject to modification by the document authorizing
   the dependent action.

-G.

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[ATMunn .]

True. contracts ftw

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 8:44 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:

> Easy enough for people to do that now with contracts, I think.
>
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 20:42 ATMunn .  wrote:
>
>> This might be a good place to start, but it's certainly way too long in
>> itself. I don't really like the (a) (b) (c) etc. way that this is written.
>>
>> Another thing was that I was thinking that the auction rule could permit
>> any player to auction off anything, regardless of whether or not a rule
>> specifically allows it. (as long as it would not be ILLEGAL or IMPOSSIBLE
>> to auction off that thing) I don't exactly know how this would be worded,
>> however.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Kerim Aydin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, ATMunn . wrote:
>>>
>>> > This is a very interesting conversation. I'll just say my opinions on
>>> everyone's view, and throw in my two cents at the end.
>>> >
>>> > ​Regarding the original tax idea, I think that the idea of tax in
>>> general is something that is really lacking from Agora.
>>> > I like to think of Agora as a country, and the rules as an
>>> ever-changing constitution. What country doesn't have taxes?
>>>
>>> Main difference of course is that Agora doesn't have an intrinsic
>>> government to fund.  Sure it's got officers who
>>> are expected to have perks but those perks don't have to be economic.
>>> Not that I'm against taxes as a concept
>>> but I think taxes before having something to buy is putting the cart
>>> before the horse.
>>>
>>> > Right now, there's really only one type of auction in the game;
>>> however, if we start adding more then it might be nice
>>> > to have a standard definition of auctions and method of resolving
>>> them. I was going to work on a proposal draft for this;
>>> > but then decided not to. Maybe it would be a good idea after all.
>>>
>>> While I don't want to be all "we've done this before" and it's fine to
>>> re-invent, this is also a good place for
>>> re-enactment, especially as auctions can be quite complicated.  Here's
>>> an old (and probably too long) version:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Rule 1887/18 (Power=1)
>>> Auctions and the Default Auction Procedure
>>>
>>>When an Auction is to be held and the procedure is not
>>>specified, the Auctioneer may select a rules-defined Auction
>>>Procedure. If e does not specify which procedure is to be used,
>>>the Default Auction Procedure shall be used.
>>>
>>>The Default Auction Procedure is as follows:
>>>
>>>(a) Auctioneer: the Auctioneer is the Player who initiates the
>>>Auction, and is responsible for collecting bids and
>>>announcing the result of the Auction. If the Rules require
>>>(or permit) an Auction to be initiated, but do not specify
>>>which Player shall initiate it, then the Speaker shall (or
>>>may) initiate it.
>>>
>>>(b) Bidders: every active Player may bid in an Auction;
>>>non-active Players may not bid. Activity is measured at the
>>>time a Player sends eir bid.
>>>
>>>(c) Auction Currency: each Auction is conducted in one
>>>particular currency. The Rule providing for a particular
>>>Auction must specify the currency to be used, or the Auction
>>>cannot take place.
>>>
>>>(d) Number of lots: each Auction is conducted for 1 or more
>>>identical lots of identical items, which must all be owned
>>>by the same entity. Throughout this Rule, N indicates the
>>>number of lots up for bid in the Auction.
>>>
>>>(e) Start of Auction: the Auction begins when the first
>>>announcement that an Auction has begun is made by a Player
>>>authorized to initiate the Auction. The announcement must
>>>contain:
>>>(1) the identity of the Auctioneer;
>>>(2) the Auction Currency;
>>>(3) the number of items being Auctioned; and
>>>(4) the value of the Starting Bid.
>>>
>>>(f) Errors in initiating Auctions: if one of the required
>>>elements is missing from the announcement initiating the
>>>Auction, or is incorrect, then the Auctioneer may let the
>>>Auction stand Without 2 Objections. If the Auction stands,
>>>then the announcement initiating the Auction is deemed to
>>>have been legal and correct for the purposes of the
>>>Rules. If the Auction does not stand, it is deemed not to
>>>have occurred.
>>>
>>>(g) Starting Bid: the Starting Bid is the minimum possible value
>>>of a bid. If not otherwise specified, the Starting Bid is
>>>equal to the MUQ of the Auction Currency.
>>>
>>>(h) Bidding: a bid is a public message from a bidder identifying
>>

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[Alexis Hunt]

Easy enough for people to do that now with contracts, I think.

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 20:42 ATMunn .  wrote:

> This might be a good place to start, but it's certainly way too long in
> itself. I don't really like the (a) (b) (c) etc. way that this is written.
>
> Another thing was that I was thinking that the auction rule could permit
> any player to auction off anything, regardless of whether or not a rule
> specifically allows it. (as long as it would not be ILLEGAL or IMPOSSIBLE
> to auction off that thing) I don't exactly know how this would be worded,
> however.
>
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, ATMunn . wrote:
>>
>> > This is a very interesting conversation. I'll just say my opinions on
>> everyone's view, and throw in my two cents at the end.
>> >
>> > ​Regarding the original tax idea, I think that the idea of tax in
>> general is something that is really lacking from Agora.
>> > I like to think of Agora as a country, and the rules as an
>> ever-changing constitution. What country doesn't have taxes?
>>
>> Main difference of course is that Agora doesn't have an intrinsic
>> government to fund.  Sure it's got officers who
>> are expected to have perks but those perks don't have to be economic.
>> Not that I'm against taxes as a concept
>> but I think taxes before having something to buy is putting the cart
>> before the horse.
>>
>> > Right now, there's really only one type of auction in the game;
>> however, if we start adding more then it might be nice
>> > to have a standard definition of auctions and method of resolving them.
>> I was going to work on a proposal draft for this;
>> > but then decided not to. Maybe it would be a good idea after all.
>>
>> While I don't want to be all "we've done this before" and it's fine to
>> re-invent, this is also a good place for
>> re-enactment, especially as auctions can be quite complicated.  Here's an
>> old (and probably too long) version:
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Rule 1887/18 (Power=1)
>> Auctions and the Default Auction Procedure
>>
>>When an Auction is to be held and the procedure is not
>>specified, the Auctioneer may select a rules-defined Auction
>>Procedure. If e does not specify which procedure is to be used,
>>the Default Auction Procedure shall be used.
>>
>>The Default Auction Procedure is as follows:
>>
>>(a) Auctioneer: the Auctioneer is the Player who initiates the
>>Auction, and is responsible for collecting bids and
>>announcing the result of the Auction. If the Rules require
>>(or permit) an Auction to be initiated, but do not specify
>>which Player shall initiate it, then the Speaker shall (or
>>may) initiate it.
>>
>>(b) Bidders: every active Player may bid in an Auction;
>>non-active Players may not bid. Activity is measured at the
>>time a Player sends eir bid.
>>
>>(c) Auction Currency: each Auction is conducted in one
>>particular currency. The Rule providing for a particular
>>Auction must specify the currency to be used, or the Auction
>>cannot take place.
>>
>>(d) Number of lots: each Auction is conducted for 1 or more
>>identical lots of identical items, which must all be owned
>>by the same entity. Throughout this Rule, N indicates the
>>number of lots up for bid in the Auction.
>>
>>(e) Start of Auction: the Auction begins when the first
>>announcement that an Auction has begun is made by a Player
>>authorized to initiate the Auction. The announcement must
>>contain:
>>(1) the identity of the Auctioneer;
>>(2) the Auction Currency;
>>(3) the number of items being Auctioned; and
>>(4) the value of the Starting Bid.
>>
>>(f) Errors in initiating Auctions: if one of the required
>>elements is missing from the announcement initiating the
>>Auction, or is incorrect, then the Auctioneer may let the
>>Auction stand Without 2 Objections. If the Auction stands,
>>then the announcement initiating the Auction is deemed to
>>have been legal and correct for the purposes of the
>>Rules. If the Auction does not stand, it is deemed not to
>>have occurred.
>>
>>(g) Starting Bid: the Starting Bid is the minimum possible value
>>of a bid. If not otherwise specified, the Starting Bid is
>>equal to the MUQ of the Auction Currency.
>>
>>(h) Bidding: a bid is a public message from a bidder identifying
>>the Auction e is bidding in, and specifying the amount of
>>eir bid. Each bidder may make as many bids as e likes during
>>the Auction.  A bid is 

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[ATMunn .]

This might be a good place to start, but it's certainly way too long in
itself. I don't really like the (a) (b) (c) etc. way that this is written.

Another thing was that I was thinking that the auction rule could permit
any player to auction off anything, regardless of whether or not a rule
specifically allows it. (as long as it would not be ILLEGAL or IMPOSSIBLE
to auction off that thing) I don't exactly know how this would be worded,
however.

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, ATMunn . wrote:
>
> > This is a very interesting conversation. I'll just say my opinions on
> everyone's view, and throw in my two cents at the end.
> >
> > ​Regarding the original tax idea, I think that the idea of tax in
> general is something that is really lacking from Agora.
> > I like to think of Agora as a country, and the rules as an ever-changing
> constitution. What country doesn't have taxes?
>
> Main difference of course is that Agora doesn't have an intrinsic
> government to fund.  Sure it's got officers who
> are expected to have perks but those perks don't have to be economic.  Not
> that I'm against taxes as a concept
> but I think taxes before having something to buy is putting the cart
> before the horse.
>
> > Right now, there's really only one type of auction in the game; however,
> if we start adding more then it might be nice
> > to have a standard definition of auctions and method of resolving them.
> I was going to work on a proposal draft for this;
> > but then decided not to. Maybe it would be a good idea after all.
>
> While I don't want to be all "we've done this before" and it's fine to
> re-invent, this is also a good place for
> re-enactment, especially as auctions can be quite complicated.  Here's an
> old (and probably too long) version:
>
>
>
> --
>
> Rule 1887/18 (Power=1)
> Auctions and the Default Auction Procedure
>
>When an Auction is to be held and the procedure is not
>specified, the Auctioneer may select a rules-defined Auction
>Procedure. If e does not specify which procedure is to be used,
>the Default Auction Procedure shall be used.
>
>The Default Auction Procedure is as follows:
>
>(a) Auctioneer: the Auctioneer is the Player who initiates the
>Auction, and is responsible for collecting bids and
>announcing the result of the Auction. If the Rules require
>(or permit) an Auction to be initiated, but do not specify
>which Player shall initiate it, then the Speaker shall (or
>may) initiate it.
>
>(b) Bidders: every active Player may bid in an Auction;
>non-active Players may not bid. Activity is measured at the
>time a Player sends eir bid.
>
>(c) Auction Currency: each Auction is conducted in one
>particular currency. The Rule providing for a particular
>Auction must specify the currency to be used, or the Auction
>cannot take place.
>
>(d) Number of lots: each Auction is conducted for 1 or more
>identical lots of identical items, which must all be owned
>by the same entity. Throughout this Rule, N indicates the
>number of lots up for bid in the Auction.
>
>(e) Start of Auction: the Auction begins when the first
>announcement that an Auction has begun is made by a Player
>authorized to initiate the Auction. The announcement must
>contain:
>(1) the identity of the Auctioneer;
>(2) the Auction Currency;
>(3) the number of items being Auctioned; and
>(4) the value of the Starting Bid.
>
>(f) Errors in initiating Auctions: if one of the required
>elements is missing from the announcement initiating the
>Auction, or is incorrect, then the Auctioneer may let the
>Auction stand Without 2 Objections. If the Auction stands,
>then the announcement initiating the Auction is deemed to
>have been legal and correct for the purposes of the
>Rules. If the Auction does not stand, it is deemed not to
>have occurred.
>
>(g) Starting Bid: the Starting Bid is the minimum possible value
>of a bid. If not otherwise specified, the Starting Bid is
>equal to the MUQ of the Auction Currency.
>
>(h) Bidding: a bid is a public message from a bidder identifying
>the Auction e is bidding in, and specifying the amount of
>eir bid. Each bidder may make as many bids as e likes during
>the Auction.  A bid is only valid if it satisfies the
>following conditions:
>(1) it is made after the start of the Auction, and before
>its end;
>(2) the amount of the bid is a multiple of the 

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[Madeline]

This is a really cool idea, I'm looking forward to seeing how it works. 
One issue I can see is that if you're going to have the oligarchs vote 
among each other, we'll need to amend the voting system to allow for 
Decisions where not everyone is eligible to vote.



On 2017-10-21 10:59, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 19:48 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
   I'm personally working on an Oligarchy proposal.  For those who haven't 
been
   under an Oligarchy, this works as follows:

   1.  Players can be Oligarchs.  There's a pyramidal hierarchy.  Current 
draft
        has 4 low Oligarchs, 2 middle, 1 high Oligarch.

   2.  Seats at the lowest Oligarchy level are auctioned on a regular basis.
        This raises funds.

   2.  Various mechanisms for moving through the Oligarchy level from Low to
        High.

   3.  Main reward:  Oligarchs get more votes on Proposals, proportional to 
their
        rank.  So you're buying yourself into voting influence.  It's 
significant
        enough that the Oligarchs have the main voice on AI-1 and AI-2. 
proposals
        For Proposals above AI-2, Oligarchs don't have extra votes.

   4.  Every Quarter, the high Oligarch is retired from the Oligarchy to 
keep
        the rotation going.


I like this, but I hope it's interestingly different from Caste, or I will have 
to
argue we're now in the Make Agora 2011 Again era :P

Yes the differences are (1) not everyone is on the list, and (2) the GWtoO
is a recordkeepor, not the chooser of promotions and (3) it very much a 
sub-part of
the economy, not a standalone game, especially the auction part (I don't think 
the 2011
version had auctions?)

What I had in mind for the choosing is self-selection:  When there's a vacancy, 
the
Oligarchs of the next level down vote on which one of their number to promote.
Bribes galore!

Alternately, we could make it some kind of bidding on each level.

We could also choose a different name for everything, Oligarchy is the idea, not
the required name.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Apology

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

If supporting this message is allowable, I do so.


On 10/20/2017 08:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I intend to destroy the universe with notice.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>> I intend t win the game with two days' notice, as described in Proposal
>> 7923.
>>
>>
>> On 10/20/2017 06:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017, Madeline wrote:
 I intend to win the game with two days' notice, in accordance with Rule 
 7923.
 (Does this really work before it's even a rule?)
>>> Yes, but it's not Rule 7923 (that's the proposal), saying it was "Rule 7923"
>>> instead of "as described in Proposal 7923" might make this announcement 
>>> wrong
>>> enough to fail.
>>>
>>> It works because in Rule 1728, the requirements are worded backwards in 
>>> time;
>>> the action works if the rules allow it *when you try to finish the action*,
>>> provided you announced the intent a few days before - and the rule doesn't
>>> care that the action wasn't possible those few days before when you 
>>> announced
>>> the intent.
>>>
>>> -G.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I too like this idea. At this point, I think we need to do a lot more
experimental stuff and add a lot of mechanics and just see what sticks.


On 10/20/2017 07:52 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 19:48 Kerim Aydin  > wrote:
>
> I'm personally working on an Oligarchy proposal.  For those who
> haven't been
> under an Oligarchy, this works as follows:
>
> 1.  Players can be Oligarchs.  There's a pyramidal hierarchy. 
> Current draft
>      has 4 low Oligarchs, 2 middle, 1 high Oligarch.
>
> 2.  Seats at the lowest Oligarchy level are auctioned on a regular
> basis.
>      This raises funds.
>
> 2.  Various mechanisms for moving through the Oligarchy level from
> Low to
>      High.
>
> 3.  Main reward:  Oligarchs get more votes on Proposals,
> proportional to their
>      rank.  So you're buying yourself into voting influence.  It's
> significant
>      enough that the Oligarchs have the main voice on AI-1 and
> AI-2. proposals
>      For Proposals above AI-2, Oligarchs don't have extra votes.
>
> 4.  Every Quarter, the high Oligarch is retired from the Oligarchy
> to keep
>      the rotation going.
>
>
> I like this, but I hope it's interestingly different from Caste, or I
> will have to argue we're now in the Make Agora 2011 Again era :P 




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[Alexis Hunt]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 20:00 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
> Yes the differences are (1) not everyone is on the list, and (2) the GWtoO
> is a recordkeepor, not the chooser of promotions and (3) it very much a
> sub-part of
> the economy, not a standalone game, especially the auction part (I don't
> think the 2011
> version had auctions?)
>

No, you spent Notes to promote/demote yourself or others.

What I had in mind for the choosing is self-selection:  When there's a
> vacancy, the
> Oligarchs of the next level down vote on which one of their number to
> promote.
> Bribes galore!
>

Have you played Kremlin?

Alternately, we could make it some kind of bidding on each level.
>
> We could also choose a different name for everything, Oligarchy is the
> idea, not
> the required name.
>

I like it.

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, ATMunn . wrote:

> This is a very interesting conversation. I'll just say my opinions on 
> everyone's view, and throw in my two cents at the end.
> 
> ​Regarding the original tax idea, I think that the idea of tax in general is 
> something that is really lacking from Agora. 
> I like to think of Agora as a country, and the rules as an ever-changing 
> constitution. What country doesn't have taxes?

Main difference of course is that Agora doesn't have an intrinsic government to 
fund.  Sure it's got officers who
are expected to have perks but those perks don't have to be economic.  Not that 
I'm against taxes as a concept
but I think taxes before having something to buy is putting the cart before the 
horse.

> Right now, there's really only one type of auction in the game; however, if 
> we start adding more then it might be nice
> to have a standard definition of auctions and method of resolving them. I was 
> going to work on a proposal draft for this; 
> but then decided not to. Maybe it would be a good idea after all.

While I don't want to be all "we've done this before" and it's fine to 
re-invent, this is also a good place for
re-enactment, especially as auctions can be quite complicated.  Here's an old 
(and probably too long) version:



--

Rule 1887/18 (Power=1)
Auctions and the Default Auction Procedure

   When an Auction is to be held and the procedure is not
   specified, the Auctioneer may select a rules-defined Auction
   Procedure. If e does not specify which procedure is to be used,
   the Default Auction Procedure shall be used.

   The Default Auction Procedure is as follows:

   (a) Auctioneer: the Auctioneer is the Player who initiates the
   Auction, and is responsible for collecting bids and
   announcing the result of the Auction. If the Rules require
   (or permit) an Auction to be initiated, but do not specify
   which Player shall initiate it, then the Speaker shall (or
   may) initiate it.

   (b) Bidders: every active Player may bid in an Auction;
   non-active Players may not bid. Activity is measured at the
   time a Player sends eir bid.

   (c) Auction Currency: each Auction is conducted in one
   particular currency. The Rule providing for a particular
   Auction must specify the currency to be used, or the Auction
   cannot take place.

   (d) Number of lots: each Auction is conducted for 1 or more
   identical lots of identical items, which must all be owned
   by the same entity. Throughout this Rule, N indicates the
   number of lots up for bid in the Auction.

   (e) Start of Auction: the Auction begins when the first
   announcement that an Auction has begun is made by a Player
   authorized to initiate the Auction. The announcement must
   contain:
   (1) the identity of the Auctioneer;
   (2) the Auction Currency;
   (3) the number of items being Auctioned; and
   (4) the value of the Starting Bid.

   (f) Errors in initiating Auctions: if one of the required
   elements is missing from the announcement initiating the
   Auction, or is incorrect, then the Auctioneer may let the
   Auction stand Without 2 Objections. If the Auction stands,
   then the announcement initiating the Auction is deemed to
   have been legal and correct for the purposes of the
   Rules. If the Auction does not stand, it is deemed not to
   have occurred.

   (g) Starting Bid: the Starting Bid is the minimum possible value
   of a bid. If not otherwise specified, the Starting Bid is
   equal to the MUQ of the Auction Currency.

   (h) Bidding: a bid is a public message from a bidder identifying
   the Auction e is bidding in, and specifying the amount of
   eir bid. Each bidder may make as many bids as e likes during
   the Auction.  A bid is only valid if it satisfies the
   following conditions:
   (1) it is made after the start of the Auction, and before
   its end;
   (2) the amount of the bid is a multiple of the MUQ of the
   Auction Currency; and
   (3) the amount of the bid is no less than the Starting Bid.

   (i) Cancelling bids: a bidder may cancel eir bid while the
   Auction is in progress by publically identifying the bid to
   be cancelled.

   (j) End of Auction: the Auction ends if any of the following
   occur:
   (1) one week has passed from the start of the Auction, and
   no bids have been made; or
   (2) a bid has been made in the Auction, and 72 hours have
   passed without there being a change in the N highest
   bids in the Auction;

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[Kerim Aydin]

I fundamentally disagree.  I personally enjoy just having "extra say" in my 
FOR/AGAINST
votes on proposals based on their merits, and it creates a dynamic where you 
seek
opinions on the folks on top of the chain when putting out ideas.  (as long as
this rotates so everyone gets a chance for a louder voice who wants one, it's 
good 
play).

Of course people will still go for some scams...


On Sat, 21 Oct 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> The power to get more votes are just wins/black ribbons/insert fashionable 
> item here in disguise imo. Best bang for your "do anything lol" buck.
> 
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 1:53 AM, ATMunn .  wrote:
>   This is a very interesting conversation. I'll just say my opinions on 
> everyone's view, and throw in my two cents at the end.
> 
> ​Regarding the original tax idea, I think that the idea of tax in general is 
> something that is really lacking from Agora. I like to think of Agora as a 
> country, and the rules as an ever-changing constitution. What country doesn't 
> have taxes?
> It could also create some interesting player conflicts, such as trying to 
> overthrow someone from Secretary/Treasuror because tax rates are too high 
> only to put someone in office who makes it even worse.
> 
> I also agree with Alexis on the fact that we're missing more interesting 
> gameplay and things to do with money. I also agree that voting power should 
> maybe be redone.
> 
> I'm not entirely sure we should completely get rid of Action Points; this 
> could block out poor players from having any affect on the game until someone 
> bails them out.
> 
> I like the voting power market idea. It could be an interesting experiment to 
> try out, even if it doesn't work in the long run.
> Reducing the value of welcome packages is also an excellent idea. 50 shinies 
> is way too much for Agora to afford at the moment.
> 
> G.'s oligarchy idea is interesting. The second part of it also brings up 
> something: auctions. Right now, there's really only one type of auction in 
> the game; however, if we start adding more then it might be nice to have a 
> standard definition of auctions and method of
> resolving them. I was going to work on a proposal draft for this; but then 
> decided not to. Maybe it would be a good idea after all.
> 
> The last thing I wanted to mention was a somewhat insane idea that might be 
> beat down immediately, but it could spark some interesting conversation.
> Why don't we just completely abolish Shinies and start over with our economy?
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[Cuddle Beam]

The power to get more votes are just wins/black ribbons/insert fashionable
item here in disguise imo. Best bang for your "do anything lol" buck.

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 1:53 AM, ATMunn .  wrote:

> This is a very interesting conversation. I'll just say my opinions on
> everyone's view, and throw in my two cents at the end.
>
> ​Regarding the original tax idea, I think that the idea of tax in general
> is something that is really lacking from Agora. I like to think of Agora as
> a country, and the rules as an ever-changing constitution. What country
> doesn't have taxes?
> It could also create some interesting player conflicts, such as trying to
> overthrow someone from Secretary/Treasuror because tax rates are too high
> only to put someone in office who makes it even worse.
>
> I also agree with Alexis on the fact that we're missing more interesting
> gameplay and things to do with money. I also agree that voting power should
> maybe be redone.
>
> I'm not entirely sure we should completely get rid of Action Points; this
> could block out poor players from having any affect on the game until
> someone bails them out.
>
> I like the voting power market idea. It could be an interesting experiment
> to try out, even if it doesn't work in the long run.
> Reducing the value of welcome packages is also an excellent idea. 50
> shinies is way too much for Agora to afford at the moment.
>
> G.'s oligarchy idea is interesting. The second part of it also brings up
> something: auctions. Right now, there's really only one type of auction in
> the game; however, if we start adding more then it might be nice to have a
> standard definition of auctions and method of resolving them. I was going
> to work on a proposal draft for this; but then decided not to. Maybe it
> would be a good idea after all.
>
> The last thing I wanted to mention was a somewhat insane idea that might
> be beat down immediately, but it could spark some interesting conversation.
> Why don't we just completely abolish Shinies and start over with our
> economy?
>

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 19:48 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>   I'm personally working on an Oligarchy proposal.  For those who haven't 
> been
>   under an Oligarchy, this works as follows:
> 
>   1.  Players can be Oligarchs.  There's a pyramidal hierarchy.  Current 
> draft
>        has 4 low Oligarchs, 2 middle, 1 high Oligarch.
> 
>   2.  Seats at the lowest Oligarchy level are auctioned on a regular 
> basis.
>        This raises funds.
> 
>   2.  Various mechanisms for moving through the Oligarchy level from Low 
> to
>        High.
> 
>   3.  Main reward:  Oligarchs get more votes on Proposals, proportional 
> to their
>        rank.  So you're buying yourself into voting influence.  It's 
> significant
>        enough that the Oligarchs have the main voice on AI-1 and AI-2. 
> proposals
>        For Proposals above AI-2, Oligarchs don't have extra votes.
> 
>   4.  Every Quarter, the high Oligarch is retired from the Oligarchy to 
> keep
>        the rotation going.
> 
> 
> I like this, but I hope it's interestingly different from Caste, or I will 
> have to 
> argue we're now in the Make Agora 2011 Again era :P 

Yes the differences are (1) not everyone is on the list, and (2) the GWtoO
is a recordkeepor, not the chooser of promotions and (3) it very much a 
sub-part of
the economy, not a standalone game, especially the auction part (I don't think 
the 2011
version had auctions?)

What I had in mind for the choosing is self-selection:  When there's a vacancy, 
the
Oligarchs of the next level down vote on which one of their number to promote.
Bribes galore!

Alternately, we could make it some kind of bidding on each level.

We could also choose a different name for everything, Oligarchy is the idea, not
the required name.

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[ATMunn .]

This is a very interesting conversation. I'll just say my opinions on
everyone's view, and throw in my two cents at the end.

​Regarding the original tax idea, I think that the idea of tax in general
is something that is really lacking from Agora. I like to think of Agora as
a country, and the rules as an ever-changing constitution. What country
doesn't have taxes?
It could also create some interesting player conflicts, such as trying to
overthrow someone from Secretary/Treasuror because tax rates are too high
only to put someone in office who makes it even worse.

I also agree with Alexis on the fact that we're missing more interesting
gameplay and things to do with money. I also agree that voting power should
maybe be redone.

I'm not entirely sure we should completely get rid of Action Points; this
could block out poor players from having any affect on the game until
someone bails them out.

I like the voting power market idea. It could be an interesting experiment
to try out, even if it doesn't work in the long run.
Reducing the value of welcome packages is also an excellent idea. 50
shinies is way too much for Agora to afford at the moment.

G.'s oligarchy idea is interesting. The second part of it also brings up
something: auctions. Right now, there's really only one type of auction in
the game; however, if we start adding more then it might be nice to have a
standard definition of auctions and method of resolving them. I was going
to work on a proposal draft for this; but then decided not to. Maybe it
would be a good idea after all.

The last thing I wanted to mention was a somewhat insane idea that might be
beat down immediately, but it could spark some interesting conversation.
Why don't we just completely abolish Shinies and start over with our
economy?

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[Alexis Hunt]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 19:48 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> I'm personally working on an Oligarchy proposal.  For those who haven't
> been
> under an Oligarchy, this works as follows:
>
> 1.  Players can be Oligarchs.  There's a pyramidal hierarchy.  Current
> draft
>  has 4 low Oligarchs, 2 middle, 1 high Oligarch.
>
> 2.  Seats at the lowest Oligarchy level are auctioned on a regular basis.
>  This raises funds.
>
> 2.  Various mechanisms for moving through the Oligarchy level from Low to
>  High.
>
> 3.  Main reward:  Oligarchs get more votes on Proposals, proportional to
> their
>  rank.  So you're buying yourself into voting influence.  It's
> significant
>  enough that the Oligarchs have the main voice on AI-1 and AI-2.
> proposals
>  For Proposals above AI-2, Oligarchs don't have extra votes.
>
> 4.  Every Quarter, the high Oligarch is retired from the Oligarchy to keep
>  the rotation going.
>

I like this, but I hope it's interestingly different from Caste, or I will
have to argue we're now in the Make Agora 2011 Again era :P

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: 
> Maybe we could abolish Estates and like... create some kind of voting
> power market? Where everyone has say three voting power and can buy
> and sell the extra power at will? Or something like that might be fun.

oh, snap.

I don't think we should abolish Estates though, because it's a potential
sector of the economy - we should just find better bonuses for them and
take away their (useless) voting boost.

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[Kerim Aydin]

Taxing, increasing and decreasing the rewards is fundamentally pointless while
there's nothing to spend on.


So we really need a diversity of spending options.  These should represent ways
that players can Specialize in the game, and you shouldn't be able to compete
in every specialty (promoting trading).


I'm personally working on an Oligarchy proposal.  For those who haven't been
under an Oligarchy, this works as follows:

1.  Players can be Oligarchs.  There's a pyramidal hierarchy.  Current draft
 has 4 low Oligarchs, 2 middle, 1 high Oligarch.

2.  Seats at the lowest Oligarchy level are auctioned on a regular basis.
 This raises funds.

2.  Various mechanisms for moving through the Oligarchy level from Low to
 High.

3.  Main reward:  Oligarchs get more votes on Proposals, proportional to their
 rank.  So you're buying yourself into voting influence.  It's significant
 enough that the Oligarchs have the main voice on AI-1 and AI-2. proposals
 For Proposals above AI-2, Oligarchs don't have extra votes.

4.  Every Quarter, the high Oligarch is retired from the Oligarchy to keep
 the rotation going.


On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Another thing to consider is placing a tax on commodities -- that is to say
> resources that only a select few players can get their hands onto. Estates,
> for example, only provide benefits to those who can afford them; therefore, a
> tax could be placed on them.
> 
> Tangentially, there are other ways to fix the economy. We can increase the
> current prices. We can decrease the rewards. We can get rid of Action Points
> since they disincentivize spending shinies. There are probably even more but I
> don't want to list them.
> 
> On 10/20/2017 4:53 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Our economic troubles have gone on long enough. Printing money has
> > been rejected, despite it being what we had intended to use if we ever
> > run out. If we don't want to print money, we _need_ taxes. I intend to
> > write a tax proposal, but first we need to decide on the  tax rates.
> > Income taxes won't really work, as they would incentivize hoarding. I
> > propose the following two taxes.
> > 
> > 1. Wealth tax. Every month, X% percent of a persons wealth, rounded up
> > (where X is a value between 0 and 25 set in a regulation by the
> > Secretary/Treasuror, and defaults to 10, although these values could
> > be adjusted) is transferred to Agora. This incentivizes spending
> > because hoarded money can go away very quickly, but not without
> > warning. I suggest that the percent be applied only to the portion of
> > a persons wealth above 10 shinies, and that if contracts are adopted,
> > the tax should apply to all contracts not exempt from sustenance
> > payments.
> > 
> > 2. Inactivity tax. If a person has neither claimed a reward nor spent
> > money (to limit our measures of activity to things the
> > Secretary/Treasuror already tracks) in the last month, the
> > Secretary/Treasuror CAN and SHALL take 80 percent (that number can
> > change if people don't like it) of all shinies past the first 10 for
> > Agora with notice.
> > 
> > Let the debates begin.
> > 
> > -Aris
> > 
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > http://www.avg.com
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Trigon
>

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[VJ Rada]

Not that I wouldn't vote for the inactivity tax & the income tax.

I also, again, have a proposal pending to actually print money in a
way that I think multiple people have said is a good idea, so that
could be useful.

We could also just lower the value of welcome packages. It takes 10
weeks of reports to match 1 welcome package.

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 10:35 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> I agree more with Alexis here. We need to think of interesting
> gameplay mechanics more than we need to think of tax mechanics. I've,
> I don't think, never exchanged money for a good or service not sold by
> the government. Contracts should help us buy and sell more things, but
> it needs us to actually buy into them and use the darn things, which
> I'm skeptical about.
>
> Maybe we could abolish Estates and like... create some kind of voting
> power market? Where everyone has say three voting power and can buy
> and sell the extra power at will? Or something like that might be fun.
>
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 18:53 Aris Merchant
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Our economic troubles have gone on long enough. Printing money has
>>> been rejected, despite it being what we had intended to use if we ever
>>> run out. If we don't want to print money, we _need_ taxes. I intend to
>>> write a tax proposal, but first we need to decide on the  tax rates.
>>> Income taxes won't really work, as they would incentivize hoarding. I
>>> propose the following two taxes.
>>>
>>> 1. Wealth tax. Every month, X% percent of a persons wealth, rounded up
>>> (where X is a value between 0 and 25 set in a regulation by the
>>> Secretary/Treasuror, and defaults to 10, although these values could
>>> be adjusted) is transferred to Agora. This incentivizes spending
>>> because hoarded money can go away very quickly, but not without
>>> warning. I suggest that the percent be applied only to the portion of
>>> a persons wealth above 10 shinies, and that if contracts are adopted,
>>> the tax should apply to all contracts not exempt from sustenance
>>> payments.
>>>
>>> 2. Inactivity tax. If a person has neither claimed a reward nor spent
>>> money (to limit our measures of activity to things the
>>> Secretary/Treasuror already tracks) in the last month, the
>>> Secretary/Treasuror CAN and SHALL take 80 percent (that number can
>>> change if people don't like it) of all shinies past the first 10 for
>>> Agora with notice.
>>>
>>> Let the debates begin.
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>
>>
>> Honestly, my experience is that economies that don't allow accumulation tend
>> to not work well. There have been two variations on this that I've seen.
>> Expiring currency (like AP, but as an economic driver) doesn't work because
>> there's little incentive to gain any more than you need. Fixed-supply
>> currency (like shinies) run into the opposite problem, where there is even
>> stronger advantage to accumulate it because the supply can deplete, meaning
>> you need to hoard in case we hit a supply crunch and you want to do things.
>>
>> Beyond that, the economies that I've seen work the best are ones where there
>> is a) an incentive to accumulate b) interesting gameplay and c) useful
>> things to do with money. Right now, we have plenty of a) due to supply
>> limitations, and there's a lot of focus on the supply, but we don't have b)
>> or c). The most interesting gameplay is Estates, of which there are two more
>> to be auctioned, period, and as G. (I believe) pointed out, are never worth
>> spending for one extra vote on one proposal. Comestibles could be the start
>> of interesting gameplay, maybe, but are blocked behind Estates and other
>> timing restrictions, and nobody's actually used them.
>>
>> We're also missing c). The only things you can do with shinies, apart from
>> aforementioned Estates and Comestibles, which ultimately lead to voting
>> power, are do normal gameplay things (CFJs and Proposals and soon, possibly,
>> contracts) and getting Stamps. But the latter are certainly not interesting,
>> and getting more currency isn't inherently useful either for all the
>> existing reasons.
>>
>> Voting power itself is less of a useful incentive, I've found, than you
>> might think. Voting power mechanics are more successful when they operate on
>> an ongoing basis, than one-offs. The only time it's really *useful* to have
>> increased voting power is if you're trying to force something through: it's
>> basically *never* useful to defeat a proposal with it since it can be
>> reproposed once your resources are exhausted. And even proposals you
>> generally want passed are probably not worth spending it on when you could
>> safe for a forcethrough instead later. So one-off voting power is not a
>> great mechanic; it's just a proxy for a win. Ongoing voting power is more
>> useful, and we might even have enough active players right now to make it
>> useful (with a small number of actives, it's very dangerous to make it too
>> easily m

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[VJ Rada]

I agree more with Alexis here. We need to think of interesting
gameplay mechanics more than we need to think of tax mechanics. I've,
I don't think, never exchanged money for a good or service not sold by
the government. Contracts should help us buy and sell more things, but
it needs us to actually buy into them and use the darn things, which
I'm skeptical about.

Maybe we could abolish Estates and like... create some kind of voting
power market? Where everyone has say three voting power and can buy
and sell the extra power at will? Or something like that might be fun.

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 18:53 Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>>
>> Our economic troubles have gone on long enough. Printing money has
>> been rejected, despite it being what we had intended to use if we ever
>> run out. If we don't want to print money, we _need_ taxes. I intend to
>> write a tax proposal, but first we need to decide on the  tax rates.
>> Income taxes won't really work, as they would incentivize hoarding. I
>> propose the following two taxes.
>>
>> 1. Wealth tax. Every month, X% percent of a persons wealth, rounded up
>> (where X is a value between 0 and 25 set in a regulation by the
>> Secretary/Treasuror, and defaults to 10, although these values could
>> be adjusted) is transferred to Agora. This incentivizes spending
>> because hoarded money can go away very quickly, but not without
>> warning. I suggest that the percent be applied only to the portion of
>> a persons wealth above 10 shinies, and that if contracts are adopted,
>> the tax should apply to all contracts not exempt from sustenance
>> payments.
>>
>> 2. Inactivity tax. If a person has neither claimed a reward nor spent
>> money (to limit our measures of activity to things the
>> Secretary/Treasuror already tracks) in the last month, the
>> Secretary/Treasuror CAN and SHALL take 80 percent (that number can
>> change if people don't like it) of all shinies past the first 10 for
>> Agora with notice.
>>
>> Let the debates begin.
>>
>> -Aris
>
>
> Honestly, my experience is that economies that don't allow accumulation tend
> to not work well. There have been two variations on this that I've seen.
> Expiring currency (like AP, but as an economic driver) doesn't work because
> there's little incentive to gain any more than you need. Fixed-supply
> currency (like shinies) run into the opposite problem, where there is even
> stronger advantage to accumulate it because the supply can deplete, meaning
> you need to hoard in case we hit a supply crunch and you want to do things.
>
> Beyond that, the economies that I've seen work the best are ones where there
> is a) an incentive to accumulate b) interesting gameplay and c) useful
> things to do with money. Right now, we have plenty of a) due to supply
> limitations, and there's a lot of focus on the supply, but we don't have b)
> or c). The most interesting gameplay is Estates, of which there are two more
> to be auctioned, period, and as G. (I believe) pointed out, are never worth
> spending for one extra vote on one proposal. Comestibles could be the start
> of interesting gameplay, maybe, but are blocked behind Estates and other
> timing restrictions, and nobody's actually used them.
>
> We're also missing c). The only things you can do with shinies, apart from
> aforementioned Estates and Comestibles, which ultimately lead to voting
> power, are do normal gameplay things (CFJs and Proposals and soon, possibly,
> contracts) and getting Stamps. But the latter are certainly not interesting,
> and getting more currency isn't inherently useful either for all the
> existing reasons.
>
> Voting power itself is less of a useful incentive, I've found, than you
> might think. Voting power mechanics are more successful when they operate on
> an ongoing basis, than one-offs. The only time it's really *useful* to have
> increased voting power is if you're trying to force something through: it's
> basically *never* useful to defeat a proposal with it since it can be
> reproposed once your resources are exhausted. And even proposals you
> generally want passed are probably not worth spending it on when you could
> safe for a forcethrough instead later. So one-off voting power is not a
> great mechanic; it's just a proxy for a win. Ongoing voting power is more
> useful, and we might even have enough active players right now to make it
> useful (with a small number of actives, it's very dangerous to make it too
> easily manipulated). It should still expire (or be reducible by other
> players) of course, but if a power increase lasts for, say, a month, it's
> easier to manage and healthier, I think, for the economy.
>
> CFJs, Proposals, and other key gameplay are risky to associate with the
> economy. the more valuable currency is, the harder it is to justify spending
> it on proposals and CFJs. Slowing these down too much is very, very bad for
> the game. We don't want to discourage mino

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[Reuben Staley]

Another thing to consider is placing a tax on commodities -- that is to 
say resources that only a select few players can get their hands onto. 
Estates, for example, only provide benefits to those who can afford 
them; therefore, a tax could be placed on them.


Tangentially, there are other ways to fix the economy. We can increase 
the current prices. We can decrease the rewards. We can get rid of 
Action Points since they disincentivize spending shinies. There are 
probably even more but I don't want to list them.


On 10/20/2017 4:53 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

Our economic troubles have gone on long enough. Printing money has
been rejected, despite it being what we had intended to use if we ever
run out. If we don't want to print money, we _need_ taxes. I intend to
write a tax proposal, but first we need to decide on the  tax rates.
Income taxes won't really work, as they would incentivize hoarding. I
propose the following two taxes.

1. Wealth tax. Every month, X% percent of a persons wealth, rounded up
(where X is a value between 0 and 25 set in a regulation by the
Secretary/Treasuror, and defaults to 10, although these values could
be adjusted) is transferred to Agora. This incentivizes spending
because hoarded money can go away very quickly, but not without
warning. I suggest that the percent be applied only to the portion of
a persons wealth above 10 shinies, and that if contracts are adopted,
the tax should apply to all contracts not exempt from sustenance
payments.

2. Inactivity tax. If a person has neither claimed a reward nor spent
money (to limit our measures of activity to things the
Secretary/Treasuror already tracks) in the last month, the
Secretary/Treasuror CAN and SHALL take 80 percent (that number can
change if people don't like it) of all shinies past the first 10 for
Agora with notice.

Let the debates begin.

-Aris

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com



--
Trigon

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[Alexis Hunt]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 18:53 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Our economic troubles have gone on long enough. Printing money has
> been rejected, despite it being what we had intended to use if we ever
> run out. If we don't want to print money, we _need_ taxes. I intend to
> write a tax proposal, but first we need to decide on the  tax rates.
> Income taxes won't really work, as they would incentivize hoarding. I
> propose the following two taxes.
>
> 1. Wealth tax. Every month, X% percent of a persons wealth, rounded up
> (where X is a value between 0 and 25 set in a regulation by the
> Secretary/Treasuror, and defaults to 10, although these values could
> be adjusted) is transferred to Agora. This incentivizes spending
> because hoarded money can go away very quickly, but not without
> warning. I suggest that the percent be applied only to the portion of
> a persons wealth above 10 shinies, and that if contracts are adopted,
> the tax should apply to all contracts not exempt from sustenance
> payments.
>
> 2. Inactivity tax. If a person has neither claimed a reward nor spent
> money (to limit our measures of activity to things the
> Secretary/Treasuror already tracks) in the last month, the
> Secretary/Treasuror CAN and SHALL take 80 percent (that number can
> change if people don't like it) of all shinies past the first 10 for
> Agora with notice.
>
> Let the debates begin.
>
> -Aris
>

Honestly, my experience is that economies that don't allow accumulation
tend to not work well. There have been two variations on this that I've
seen. Expiring currency (like AP, but as an economic driver) doesn't work
because there's little incentive to gain any more than you need.
Fixed-supply currency (like shinies) run into the opposite problem, where
there is even stronger advantage to accumulate it because the supply can
deplete, meaning you need to hoard in case we hit a supply crunch and you
want to do things.

Beyond that, the economies that I've seen work the best are ones where
there is a) an incentive to accumulate b) interesting gameplay and c)
useful things to do with money. Right now, we have plenty of a) due to
supply limitations, and there's a lot of focus on the supply, but we don't
have b) or c). The most interesting gameplay is Estates, of which there are
two more to be auctioned, period, and as G. (I believe) pointed out, are
never worth spending for one extra vote on one proposal. Comestibles could
be the start of interesting gameplay, maybe, but are blocked behind Estates
and other timing restrictions, and nobody's actually used them.

We're also missing c). The only things you can do with shinies, apart from
aforementioned Estates and Comestibles, which ultimately lead to voting
power, are do normal gameplay things (CFJs and Proposals and soon,
possibly, contracts) and getting Stamps. But the latter are certainly not
interesting, and getting more currency isn't inherently useful either for
all the existing reasons.

Voting power itself is less of a useful incentive, I've found, than you
might think. Voting power mechanics are more successful when they operate
on an ongoing basis, than one-offs. The only time it's really *useful* to
have increased voting power is if you're trying to force something through:
it's basically *never* useful to defeat a proposal with it since it can be
reproposed once your resources are exhausted. And even proposals you
generally want passed are probably not worth spending it on when you could
safe for a forcethrough instead later. So one-off voting power is not a
great mechanic; it's just a proxy for a win. Ongoing voting power is more
useful, and we might even have enough active players right now to make it
useful (with a small number of actives, it's very dangerous to make it too
easily manipulated). It should still expire (or be reducible by other
players) of course, but if a power increase lasts for, say, a month, it's
easier to manage and healthier, I think, for the economy.

CFJs, Proposals, and other key gameplay are risky to associate with the
economy. the more valuable currency is, the harder it is to justify
spending it on proposals and CFJs. Slowing these down too much is very,
very bad for the game. We don't want to discourage minor fix proposals, or
prevent new players from proposing (this has been an issue before), or just
overly bottleneck the proposal system on the economy.

In my experience, economy for the sake of an economy has never really
worked in Agora. We need an economic game, that has complexities to it.

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[Aris Merchant]

The inactivity tax is necessary because we have several players who
cannot be deregistered due to objections, and because it serves a
different purpose than the wealth tax. The wealth tax is primarily to
disincentivse hoarding, and will only bring in really huge amounts of
money if the secretary increases it as an emergency measure. Inactive
players don't hoard because they think it makes economic sense, they
hoard because they're not paying attention. Having them keep large
amounts of money means that it isn't actively moving through the
economy, which means it's not doing anyone any good. I might consider
setting untaxed amount to be derived from the floating value, but I
rather like the simplicity of it depending on as few variables as
possible.

-Aris

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Madeline  wrote:
> Is the inactivity tax really necessary? Shinies of deregistered players
> already don't count towards the supply limit. I'm alright with the idea of a
> wealth tax, but you might want to tie your shiny values to the supply limit
> rather than hardcoding them so that it's futureproof. (Something like supply
> limit / two times the playercount as the minimum should work?)
>
>
>
> On 2017-10-21 09:53, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>
>> Our economic troubles have gone on long enough. Printing money has
>> been rejected, despite it being what we had intended to use if we ever
>> run out. If we don't want to print money, we _need_ taxes. I intend to
>> write a tax proposal, but first we need to decide on the  tax rates.
>> Income taxes won't really work, as they would incentivize hoarding. I
>> propose the following two taxes.
>>
>> 1. Wealth tax. Every month, X% percent of a persons wealth, rounded up
>> (where X is a value between 0 and 25 set in a regulation by the
>> Secretary/Treasuror, and defaults to 10, although these values could
>> be adjusted) is transferred to Agora. This incentivizes spending
>> because hoarded money can go away very quickly, but not without
>> warning. I suggest that the percent be applied only to the portion of
>> a persons wealth above 10 shinies, and that if contracts are adopted,
>> the tax should apply to all contracts not exempt from sustenance
>> payments.
>>
>> 2. Inactivity tax. If a person has neither claimed a reward nor spent
>> money (to limit our measures of activity to things the
>> Secretary/Treasuror already tracks) in the last month, the
>> Secretary/Treasuror CAN and SHALL take 80 percent (that number can
>> change if people don't like it) of all shinies past the first 10 for
>> Agora with notice.
>>
>> Let the debates begin.
>>
>> -Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ribbon fix

[Alexis Hunt]

I think there's enough precedent in the real world from googling "illegal
value".

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 18:56 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> I think it matters.  Illegal isn't a common definition for impossible, and
> the switch rule talks wholly of possible/impossible.  But sure if you
> think so.
>
>
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > I don't think that it matters given that it's not capitalized. The
> normal interpretation principles here would mean a value which is not
> valid, I think.
> >
> > On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 17:08 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> >   Do you mean IMPOSSIBLE?  Given that there's no SHALL or SHALL NOTs
> associated
> >   with owning ribbons I can't see the situation where it would be
> ILLEGAL...?
> >
> >   (I think you mean "if a player's Ribbon Ownership has an
> impossible value")
> >
> >   On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> >   > Proposal: Ribbon Preservation Act (AI=3){{{
> >   > Amend rule 2438 by appending the following to the second
> paragraph: "If the rules are amended to change the types of Ribbon, if a
> player's Ribbon Ownership is subsequently illegal, then it is updated by
> >   > removing all nonexistent types rather than resetting the entire
> value to default."
> >   > }}}
> >   >
> >   > I pend this for 1 shiny.
> >   >
> >   > -Alexis
> >   >
> >   >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[Madeline]

Is the inactivity tax really necessary? Shinies of deregistered players 
already don't count towards the supply limit. I'm alright with the idea 
of a wealth tax, but you might want to tie your shiny values to the 
supply limit rather than hardcoding them so that it's futureproof. 
(Something like supply limit / two times the playercount as the minimum 
should work?)



On 2017-10-21 09:53, Aris Merchant wrote:

Our economic troubles have gone on long enough. Printing money has
been rejected, despite it being what we had intended to use if we ever
run out. If we don't want to print money, we _need_ taxes. I intend to
write a tax proposal, but first we need to decide on the  tax rates.
Income taxes won't really work, as they would incentivize hoarding. I
propose the following two taxes.

1. Wealth tax. Every month, X% percent of a persons wealth, rounded up
(where X is a value between 0 and 25 set in a regulation by the
Secretary/Treasuror, and defaults to 10, although these values could
be adjusted) is transferred to Agora. This incentivizes spending
because hoarded money can go away very quickly, but not without
warning. I suggest that the percent be applied only to the portion of
a persons wealth above 10 shinies, and that if contracts are adopted,
the tax should apply to all contracts not exempt from sustenance
payments.

2. Inactivity tax. If a person has neither claimed a reward nor spent
money (to limit our measures of activity to things the
Secretary/Treasuror already tracks) in the last month, the
Secretary/Treasuror CAN and SHALL take 80 percent (that number can
change if people don't like it) of all shinies past the first 10 for
Agora with notice.

Let the debates begin.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ribbon fix

[Kerim Aydin]

I think it matters.  Illegal isn't a common definition for impossible, and
the switch rule talks wholly of possible/impossible.  But sure if you think so.


On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> I don't think that it matters given that it's not capitalized. The normal 
> interpretation principles here would mean a value which is not valid, I think.
> 
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 17:08 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
>   Do you mean IMPOSSIBLE?  Given that there's no SHALL or SHALL NOTs 
> associated
>   with owning ribbons I can't see the situation where it would be 
> ILLEGAL...?
> 
>   (I think you mean "if a player's Ribbon Ownership has an impossible 
> value")
> 
>   On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>   > Proposal: Ribbon Preservation Act (AI=3){{{
>   > Amend rule 2438 by appending the following to the second paragraph: 
> "If the rules are amended to change the types of Ribbon, if a player's Ribbon 
> Ownership is subsequently illegal, then it is updated by
>   > removing all nonexistent types rather than resetting the entire value 
> to default."
>   > }}}
>   >
>   > I pend this for 1 shiny.
>   >
>   > -Alexis
>   >
>   >
> 
> 
>

DIS: Idea: Taxes

[Aris Merchant]

Our economic troubles have gone on long enough. Printing money has
been rejected, despite it being what we had intended to use if we ever
run out. If we don't want to print money, we _need_ taxes. I intend to
write a tax proposal, but first we need to decide on the  tax rates.
Income taxes won't really work, as they would incentivize hoarding. I
propose the following two taxes.

1. Wealth tax. Every month, X% percent of a persons wealth, rounded up
(where X is a value between 0 and 25 set in a regulation by the
Secretary/Treasuror, and defaults to 10, although these values could
be adjusted) is transferred to Agora. This incentivizes spending
because hoarded money can go away very quickly, but not without
warning. I suggest that the percent be applied only to the portion of
a persons wealth above 10 shinies, and that if contracts are adopted,
the tax should apply to all contracts not exempt from sustenance
payments.

2. Inactivity tax. If a person has neither claimed a reward nor spent
money (to limit our measures of activity to things the
Secretary/Treasuror already tracks) in the last month, the
Secretary/Treasuror CAN and SHALL take 80 percent (that number can
change if people don't like it) of all shinies past the first 10 for
Agora with notice.

Let the debates begin.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ribbon fix

[Alexis Hunt]

I don't think that it matters given that it's not capitalized. The normal
interpretation principles here would mean a value which is not valid, I
think.

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 17:08 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Do you mean IMPOSSIBLE?  Given that there's no SHALL or SHALL NOTs
> associated
> with owning ribbons I can't see the situation where it would be ILLEGAL...?
>
> (I think you mean "if a player's Ribbon Ownership has an impossible value")
>
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > Proposal: Ribbon Preservation Act (AI=3){{{
> > Amend rule 2438 by appending the following to the second paragraph: "If
> the rules are amended to change the types of Ribbon, if a player's Ribbon
> Ownership is subsequently illegal, then it is updated by
> > removing all nonexistent types rather than resetting the entire value to
> default."
> > }}}
> >
> > I pend this for 1 shiny.
> >
> > -Alexis
> >
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Apology

[VJ Rada]

I already have a proposal which ties the Supply Value to the number of
players every month. Called (if I recall) "slightly more responsible
Zimbabwean-style economics".



On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 9:37 AM, ATMunn .  wrote:
> That's an interesting idea. I feel like this could be scammable though. Then
> again, what isn't scammable?
>
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Why not just change it so a Welcome package Creates money rather than
>> transferring it?  (and to balance it, the secretary can destroy money
>> if total is above some multiple of # of players).
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> > By the way, with this registration we have 20 players and 1000
>> > shinies. It's literally only possible for everyone to claim a welcome
>> > package if nobody gained any more money than that. We need to print
>> > money.
>> >
>> > On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 9:22 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> > > I pay Telnaior 5 shinies.
>> > >
>> > > On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Telnaior  wrote:
>> > >> I flip my Citizenship to Registered.
>> > >>
>> > >> For recordkeeping purposes, my username is Telnaior and I was
>> > >> previously
>> > >> deregistered in 2014.
>> > >>
>> > >> Anyways, I'm going to apologise, I feel bad for causing trouble so
>> > >> early but
>> > >> I haven't been able to find anything in the rules that prevents
>> > >> Agora's (or
>> > >> anyone's) shiny balance from going negative, is there? (This might be
>> > >> my
>> > >> first target for proposal, perhaps)
>> > >>
>> > >> I receive my Welcome Package, claiming 50 shinies from Agora.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > From V.J. Rada
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > From V.J. Rada
>> >
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Apology

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017, Madeline wrote:
> I intend to win the game with two days' notice, in accordance with Rule 7923.
> (Does this really work before it's even a rule?)

Yes, but it's not Rule 7923 (that's the proposal), saying it was "Rule 7923"
instead of "as described in Proposal 7923" might make this announcement wrong
enough to fail.

It works because in Rule 1728, the requirements are worded backwards in time;
the action works if the rules allow it *when you try to finish the action*,
provided you announced the intent a few days before - and the rule doesn't
care that the action wasn't possible those few days before when you announced
the intent.

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Apology

[Madeline]

Another option could be to go all the way with this and remove the 
supply limit altogether, making shinies destructible and having costs 
based on how many are possessed by players, then rewards either fully 
constant or based on some kind of logarithmic function? (Having them 
tied linearly to how many are in play just invites hyperinflation, I think)
You'd want a lot more player-to-player shiny transaction if we went with 
this route, though.


On 2017-10-21 09:37, ATMunn . wrote:
That's an interesting idea. I feel like this could be scammable 
though. Then again, what isn't scammable?


On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Kerim Aydin > wrote:




Why not just change it so a Welcome package Creates money rather than
transferring it?  (and to balance it, the secretary can destroy money
if total is above some multiple of # of players).


On Sat, 21 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> By the way, with this registration we have 20 players and 1000
> shinies. It's literally only possible for everyone to claim a
welcome
> package if nobody gained any more money than that. We need to print
> money.
>
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 9:22 AM, VJ Rada mailto:vijar...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > I pay Telnaior 5 shinies.
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Telnaior mailto:j...@iinet.net.au>> wrote:
> >> I flip my Citizenship to Registered.
> >>
> >> For recordkeeping purposes, my username is Telnaior and I was
previously
> >> deregistered in 2014.
> >>
> >> Anyways, I'm going to apologise, I feel bad for causing
trouble so early but
> >> I haven't been able to find anything in the rules that
prevents Agora's (or
> >> anyone's) shiny balance from going negative, is there? (This
might be my
> >> first target for proposal, perhaps)
> >>
> >> I receive my Welcome Package, claiming 50 shinies from Agora.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > From V.J. Rada
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Apology

[ATMunn .]

That's an interesting idea. I feel like this could be scammable though.
Then again, what isn't scammable?

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Why not just change it so a Welcome package Creates money rather than
> transferring it?  (and to balance it, the secretary can destroy money
> if total is above some multiple of # of players).
>
>
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> > By the way, with this registration we have 20 players and 1000
> > shinies. It's literally only possible for everyone to claim a welcome
> > package if nobody gained any more money than that. We need to print
> > money.
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 9:22 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> > > I pay Telnaior 5 shinies.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Telnaior  wrote:
> > >> I flip my Citizenship to Registered.
> > >>
> > >> For recordkeeping purposes, my username is Telnaior and I was
> previously
> > >> deregistered in 2014.
> > >>
> > >> Anyways, I'm going to apologise, I feel bad for causing trouble so
> early but
> > >> I haven't been able to find anything in the rules that prevents
> Agora's (or
> > >> anyone's) shiny balance from going negative, is there? (This might be
> my
> > >> first target for proposal, perhaps)
> > >>
> > >> I receive my Welcome Package, claiming 50 shinies from Agora.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > From V.J. Rada
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > From V.J. Rada
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Apology

[Kerim Aydin]

Why not just change it so a Welcome package Creates money rather than
transferring it?  (and to balance it, the secretary can destroy money
if total is above some multiple of # of players).


On Sat, 21 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> By the way, with this registration we have 20 players and 1000
> shinies. It's literally only possible for everyone to claim a welcome
> package if nobody gained any more money than that. We need to print
> money.
> 
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 9:22 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> > I pay Telnaior 5 shinies.
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Telnaior  wrote:
> >> I flip my Citizenship to Registered.
> >>
> >> For recordkeeping purposes, my username is Telnaior and I was previously
> >> deregistered in 2014.
> >>
> >> Anyways, I'm going to apologise, I feel bad for causing trouble so early 
> >> but
> >> I haven't been able to find anything in the rules that prevents Agora's (or
> >> anyone's) shiny balance from going negative, is there? (This might be my
> >> first target for proposal, perhaps)
> >>
> >> I receive my Welcome Package, claiming 50 shinies from Agora.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > From V.J. Rada
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Apology

[VJ Rada]

By the way, with this registration we have 20 players and 1000
shinies. It's literally only possible for everyone to claim a welcome
package if nobody gained any more money than that. We need to print
money.

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 9:22 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> I pay Telnaior 5 shinies.
>
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Telnaior  wrote:
>> I flip my Citizenship to Registered.
>>
>> For recordkeeping purposes, my username is Telnaior and I was previously
>> deregistered in 2014.
>>
>> Anyways, I'm going to apologise, I feel bad for causing trouble so early but
>> I haven't been able to find anything in the rules that prevents Agora's (or
>> anyone's) shiny balance from going negative, is there? (This might be my
>> first target for proposal, perhaps)
>>
>> I receive my Welcome Package, claiming 50 shinies from Agora.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Apology

[Madeline]

On 2017-10-21 09:22, Kerim Aydin wrote:


Telnaior - you should announce intent to win with 2 days notice, in
case proposal 7923 passes...

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, ATMunn . wrote:

Speaking of...

If Telnaior's shiny balance is 0 as of the sending of this message, I transfer 
10 shinies to Telnaior.

I included the conditional in case Agora did have enough shinies for the 
welcome package to succeed. I don't think it did, however.

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:05 PM, ATMunn .  wrote:
   Eh, you'll get money soon enough. Welcome! I'm Agora's second-newest 
player before you registered (I think), so I'm still learning the ropes.

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Madeline  wrote:
   That's both the most disappointing (but perhaps the most sensible) 
interpretation and means I'm stuck being broke D:

   On 2017-10-21 07:47, Aris Merchant wrote:
 The generally accepted interpretation is that the action entirely
 fails. Welcome back!

 -Aris



 On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Madeline  
wrote:
   Alright, so what... does happen? It specifies you can't 
destroy a stamp if
   Agora can't pay the balance, but nothing else has a similar 
clause which
   suggests it's intended to still be possible.


   On 2017-10-21 07:44, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
 The shiny balance can not be negative because it is an 
asset, not a
 switch.


 On 10/20/2017 04:42 PM, Telnaior wrote:
   I flip my Citizenship to Registered.

   For recordkeeping purposes, my username is 
Telnaior and I was
   previously deregistered in 2014.

   Anyways, I'm going to apologise, I feel bad for 
causing trouble so
   early but I haven't been able to find anything 
in the rules that
   prevents Agora's (or anyone's) shiny balance 
from going negative, is
   there? (This might be my first target for 
proposal, perhaps)

   I receive my Welcome Package, claiming 50 
shinies from Agora.


I intend to win the game with two days' notice, in accordance with Rule 
7923. (Does this really work before it's even a rule?)


In all seriousness, though, how should we actually fix this mess? My 
first thought is to make a second floating value attached to how many 
shinies are in players' hands and use that to determine costs, then 
rename the current floating value to "reward value" or something like 
that and only use it to determine rewards (and perhaps also attach it to 
report rewards and others that currently aren't as well? It shouldn't 
ever be possible for the money to run out, and I feel like letting 
things round down to 0 is a better choice)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Apology

[Kerim Aydin]

Telnaior - you should announce intent to win with 2 days notice, in 
case proposal 7923 passes...

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, ATMunn . wrote:
> Speaking of...
> 
> If Telnaior's shiny balance is 0 as of the sending of this message, I 
> transfer 10 shinies to Telnaior.
> 
> I included the conditional in case Agora did have enough shinies for the 
> welcome package to succeed. I don't think it did, however.
> 
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:05 PM, ATMunn .  wrote:
>   Eh, you'll get money soon enough. Welcome! I'm Agora's second-newest 
> player before you registered (I think), so I'm still learning the ropes.
> 
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Madeline  wrote:
>   That's both the most disappointing (but perhaps the most sensible) 
> interpretation and means I'm stuck being broke D:
> 
>   On 2017-10-21 07:47, Aris Merchant wrote:
> The generally accepted interpretation is that the action entirely
> fails. Welcome back!
> 
> -Aris
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Madeline  
> wrote:
>   Alright, so what... does happen? It specifies you can't 
> destroy a stamp if
>   Agora can't pay the balance, but nothing else has a similar 
> clause which
>   suggests it's intended to still be possible.
> 
> 
>   On 2017-10-21 07:44, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> The shiny balance can not be negative because it is 
> an asset, not a
> switch.
> 
> 
> On 10/20/2017 04:42 PM, Telnaior wrote:
>   I flip my Citizenship to Registered.
> 
>   For recordkeeping purposes, my username is 
> Telnaior and I was
>   previously deregistered in 2014.
> 
>   Anyways, I'm going to apologise, I feel bad for 
> causing trouble so
>   early but I haven't been able to find anything 
> in the rules that
>   prevents Agora's (or anyone's) shiny balance 
> from going negative, is
>   there? (This might be my first target for 
> proposal, perhaps)
> 
>   I receive my Welcome Package, claiming 50 
> shinies from Agora.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] A Reward for Obedience

[ATMunn .]

​On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 1:15 PM, ATMunn .  wrote:

> Alright. I think this looks pretty good. If nobody mentions anything else
> in the next day or so, I'll pend it for real.


I pend the proposal "A Reward for Obedience v4" for 1 shiny.

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:40 AM, ATMunn .  wrote:

> Changes from last version:
> * Repealed victory elections
> * Clarified when certain things can happen (in kind of a clanky way to be
> honest)
> * Made all eligible players no longer eligible after the medal is awarded
>
> I retract the proposal "A Reward for Obedience v3" [the last time I tried,
> I believe it failed as I did not include the v3] and submit the following
> proposal.
>
> Title: "A Reward for Obedience v4"
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-Author(s): Aris, Alexis, G.
> AI: 1
>
> Repeal rule 2482, "Victory Elections"
>
> Create a new power-1 rule titled "Medals of Honour"
> {
> Medals of Honour are a destructible fixed currency tracked by the
> Herald.
>
> In the 7 days of an Agoran month, any player CAN declare emself to be
> eligible for a Medal of Honour by announcement if all of the following are
> true:
> * E has made at least 1 message to a public forum in the last Agoran
> month.
> * Eir Karma is not below -3.
> * In the last Agoran month, e has not had a Card issued to em.
>
> In the 7 days of an Agoran month after the first 7 days, if there are
> any players who are eligible for a Medal of Honour, the Herald CAN, by
> announcement, initiate an Agoran Decision on who is to be awarded a Medal
> of Honour.
> E SHALL do so within the 7 days of an Agoran month after the first 7
> days.
> For this decision, the valid votes are all players who are eligible
> for a Medal of Honour, the vote collector is the Herald, and the voting
> method is instant-runoff.
> Upon the resolution of this decision, the Herald CAN, and SHALL in a
> timely fashion, award the outcome of the decision a Medal of Honour by
> announcement.
> After a player is awarded a Medal of Honour, all players who were
> previously eligible for a Medal of Honour become no longer eligible.
>
> If, at any time, any player has 6 or more Medals of Honour, and e has
> not won via this rule previously, e can win the game by announcement,
> destroying all of eir Medals of Honour.
> }
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 9:14 AM, ATMunn .  wrote:
>
>> I submit the following proposal and pend it with 1 shiny.
>>
>> Title: "A Reward for Obedience v3"
>> Author: ATMunn
>> Co-Author(s): Aris, Alexis
>> AI: 1
>>
>> Create a new power-1 rule titled "Medals of Honour"
>> {
>> Medals of Honour are a destructible fixed currency tracked by the
>> Herald.
>>
>> In the first week of an Agoran Month, any player CAN declare emself
>> to be eligible for a Medal of Honour by announcement if all of the
>> following are true:
>> * E has made at least 1 message to a public forum in the last Agoran
>> month.
>> * E's Karma is not below -3.
>> * In the last Agoran month, e has not had a Card issued to em.
>>
>> In the second week of an Agoran Month, if there are any players who
>> are eligible for a Medal of Honour, the Herald CAN, by announcement, and
>> SHALL in a timely fashion, initiate an Agoran Decision on who is to be
>> awarded a Medal of Honour.
>> For this decision, the valid votes are all players who are eligible
>> for a Medal of Honour, the vote collector is the Herald, and the voting
>> method is instant-runoff.
>> Upon the resolution of this decision, the Herald CAN, and SHALL in a
>> timely fashion, award the outcome of the decision a Medal of Honour by
>> announcement.
>>
>> If, at any time, any player has 6 or more Medals of Honour, and e has
>> not won via this rule previously, e can win the game by announcement,
>> destroying all of eir Medals of Honour.
>> }
>>
>> [Changes from the prototype: I made it so that you can still get a medal
>> even if your karma is negative, as long as it's not below -3. I also
>> reworded the last part of the Agoran Decision section.]
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Apology

[ATMunn .]

Eh, you'll get money soon enough. Welcome! I'm Agora's second-newest player
before you registered (I think), so I'm still learning the ropes.

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Madeline  wrote:

> That's both the most disappointing (but perhaps the most sensible)
> interpretation and means I'm stuck being broke D:
>
>
> On 2017-10-21 07:47, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
>> The generally accepted interpretation is that the action entirely
>> fails. Welcome back!
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Madeline  wrote:
>>
>>> Alright, so what... does happen? It specifies you can't destroy a stamp
>>> if
>>> Agora can't pay the balance, but nothing else has a similar clause which
>>> suggests it's intended to still be possible.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2017-10-21 07:44, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>>>
 The shiny balance can not be negative because it is an asset, not a
 switch.


 On 10/20/2017 04:42 PM, Telnaior wrote:

> I flip my Citizenship to Registered.
>
> For recordkeeping purposes, my username is Telnaior and I was
> previously deregistered in 2014.
>
> Anyways, I'm going to apologise, I feel bad for causing trouble so
> early but I haven't been able to find anything in the rules that
> prevents Agora's (or anyone's) shiny balance from going negative, is
> there? (This might be my first target for proposal, perhaps)
>
> I receive my Welcome Package, claiming 50 shinies from Agora.
>

>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Ribbon fix

[Kerim Aydin]

Do you mean IMPOSSIBLE?  Given that there's no SHALL or SHALL NOTs associated 
with owning ribbons I can't see the situation where it would be ILLEGAL...?

(I think you mean "if a player's Ribbon Ownership has an impossible value")

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Proposal: Ribbon Preservation Act (AI=3){{{
> Amend rule 2438 by appending the following to the second paragraph: "If the 
> rules are amended to change the types of Ribbon, if a player's Ribbon 
> Ownership is subsequently illegal, then it is updated by
> removing all nonexistent types rather than resetting the entire value to 
> default."
> }}}
> 
> I pend this for 1 shiny.
> 
> -Alexis
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Apology

[Madeline]

That's both the most disappointing (but perhaps the most sensible) 
interpretation and means I'm stuck being broke D:


On 2017-10-21 07:47, Aris Merchant wrote:

The generally accepted interpretation is that the action entirely
fails. Welcome back!

-Aris



On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Madeline  wrote:

Alright, so what... does happen? It specifies you can't destroy a stamp if
Agora can't pay the balance, but nothing else has a similar clause which
suggests it's intended to still be possible.


On 2017-10-21 07:44, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:

The shiny balance can not be negative because it is an asset, not a
switch.


On 10/20/2017 04:42 PM, Telnaior wrote:

I flip my Citizenship to Registered.

For recordkeeping purposes, my username is Telnaior and I was
previously deregistered in 2014.

Anyways, I'm going to apologise, I feel bad for causing trouble so
early but I haven't been able to find anything in the rules that
prevents Agora's (or anyone's) shiny balance from going negative, is
there? (This might be my first target for proposal, perhaps)

I receive my Welcome Package, claiming 50 shinies from Agora.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Apology

[Aris Merchant]

The generally accepted interpretation is that the action entirely
fails. Welcome back!

-Aris



On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Madeline  wrote:
> Alright, so what... does happen? It specifies you can't destroy a stamp if
> Agora can't pay the balance, but nothing else has a similar clause which
> suggests it's intended to still be possible.
>
>
> On 2017-10-21 07:44, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>>
>> The shiny balance can not be negative because it is an asset, not a
>> switch.
>>
>>
>> On 10/20/2017 04:42 PM, Telnaior wrote:
>>>
>>> I flip my Citizenship to Registered.
>>>
>>> For recordkeeping purposes, my username is Telnaior and I was
>>> previously deregistered in 2014.
>>>
>>> Anyways, I'm going to apologise, I feel bad for causing trouble so
>>> early but I haven't been able to find anything in the rules that
>>> prevents Agora's (or anyone's) shiny balance from going negative, is
>>> there? (This might be my first target for proposal, perhaps)
>>>
>>> I receive my Welcome Package, claiming 50 shinies from Agora.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Apology

[Madeline]

Alright, so what... does happen? It specifies you can't destroy a stamp 
if Agora can't pay the balance, but nothing else has a similar clause 
which suggests it's intended to still be possible.


On 2017-10-21 07:44, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:

The shiny balance can not be negative because it is an asset, not a switch.


On 10/20/2017 04:42 PM, Telnaior wrote:

I flip my Citizenship to Registered.

For recordkeeping purposes, my username is Telnaior and I was
previously deregistered in 2014.

Anyways, I'm going to apologise, I feel bad for causing trouble so
early but I haven't been able to find anything in the rules that
prevents Agora's (or anyone's) shiny balance from going negative, is
there? (This might be my first target for proposal, perhaps)

I receive my Welcome Package, claiming 50 shinies from Agora.

DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Apology

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

The shiny balance can not be negative because it is an asset, not a switch.


On 10/20/2017 04:42 PM, Telnaior wrote:
> I flip my Citizenship to Registered.
>
> For recordkeeping purposes, my username is Telnaior and I was
> previously deregistered in 2014.
>
> Anyways, I'm going to apologise, I feel bad for causing trouble so
> early but I haven't been able to find anything in the rules that
> prevents Agora's (or anyone's) shiny balance from going negative, is
> there? (This might be my first target for proposal, perhaps)
>
> I receive my Welcome Package, claiming 50 shinies from Agora.
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

[Kerim Aydin]

To me this sounds like lack of explicit consent to be a player, so by 
CFJ 3455 the ratification failed.

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 06:33 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> wrote:
> > Yes, he had, but it seems I missed that when preparing a report,
> > probably when I was transitioning computers. In my next report, I
> > will ratify him away if he doesn't mind.
> 
> I should have CoE'd the first report with the mistake, just before the
> week was up, in order to neatly create a time paradox. (That said,
> ratification's designed to avoid any sort of time loop; I'd
> unambiguously end up a player, because the ratification assumes that
> the original report is true, i.e. no valid CoEs against it.)
> 
> There's not really much reason for me to not be a player right now –
> the email situation's been fixed – but I'm kind-of enjoying the lack of
> pressure/obligations.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

[VJ Rada]

My objection is that e can deregister. Or I guess you could ratify em
away if e wishes. But it seems rather a bad idea to ratify things away
in reports as a general matter. Firstly because intentionally
inaccurate or negligent reports are not even reports (reaffirmed
recently with regard to your own reports). And secondly because it
just feels wrong to change the status of players without their being
the actors.

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 06:33 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> wrote:
>> Yes, he had, but it seems I missed that when preparing a report,
>> probably when I was transitioning computers. In my next report, I
>> will ratify him away if he doesn't mind.
>
> I should have CoE'd the first report with the mistake, just before the
> week was up, in order to neatly create a time paradox. (That said,
> ratification's designed to avoid any sort of time loop; I'd
> unambiguously end up a player, because the ratification assumes that
> the original report is true, i.e. no valid CoEs against it.)
>
> There's not really much reason for me to not be a player right now –
> the email situation's been fixed – but I'm kind-of enjoying the lack of
> pressure/obligations.
>
> --
> ais523



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Could you explain this objection?


On 10/20/2017 07:07 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
> No please no ratifying people out of existence thanks very much.
>
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>> Yes, he had, but it seems I missed that when preparing a report,
>> probably when I was transitioning computers. In my next report, I will
>> ratify him away if he doesn't mind.
>>
>>
>> On 10/19/2017 11:10 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 at 15:06 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>>
>>>  ais523   callforjudgement at yahoo.co.uk
>>>  [1] 20 Mar 11
>>>
>>>
>>> I thought ais deregistered.
>>
>
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 06:33 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
> Yes, he had, but it seems I missed that when preparing a report,
> probably when I was transitioning computers. In my next report, I
> will ratify him away if he doesn't mind.

I should have CoE'd the first report with the mistake, just before the
week was up, in order to neatly create a time paradox. (That said,
ratification's designed to avoid any sort of time loop; I'd
unambiguously end up a player, because the ratification assumes that
the original report is true, i.e. no valid CoEs against it.)

There's not really much reason for me to not be a player right now –
the email situation's been fixed – but I'm kind-of enjoying the lack of
pressure/obligations.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

[VJ Rada]

No please no ratifying people out of existence thanks very much.

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> Yes, he had, but it seems I missed that when preparing a report,
> probably when I was transitioning computers. In my next report, I will
> ratify him away if he doesn't mind.
>
>
> On 10/19/2017 11:10 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 at 15:06 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>
>>  ais523   callforjudgement at yahoo.co.uk
>>  [1] 20 Mar 11
>>
>>
>> I thought ais deregistered.
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Yes, he had, but it seems I missed that when preparing a report,
probably when I was transitioning computers. In my next report, I will
ratify him away if he doesn't mind.


On 10/19/2017 11:10 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 at 15:06 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>
>  ais523   callforjudgement at yahoo.co.uk
>  [1] 20 Mar 11
>
>
> I thought ais deregistered. 




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature