Re: DIS: [Proto-proto] Refining space
Please forgive me, but, well... This still suffers from the problems of complexity and and lack of focus that the current system does. I think the problem is that you’re trying too hard to be intresting. In short, you’re enjoying the rules and ideas you’re coming up with. That means that you want to come up with more of them, because it’s fun. I've done that multiple times in the past. It doesn't work very well. Look, for instance, at my first contract system. A very flexible and detailed system that was also so complicated that no one wanted to figure out how it worked. I can't promise that this will work, but what you might try doing is to start with a very simple idea and then add just enough so it's not actively boring. So, basically, pick a paragraph of your current plan (and, for the love of the light, please, not the one you marked as arguable), and make that your new plan. See if you can do it all in ~three rules, about two reasonably sized paragraphs each. Remember that brevity is a virtue. Designing a large system that fits well together and that is also simple and focused is extremely hard. I still can't do it myself without a lot of help, although I'm getting better after a ton of practice and mistakes. A small focused system that can be expanded later is probably a better idea. When I say that you should be able to come up with a reasonable summary (that is, one that gives people enough background to understand what's going on) that's a paragraph long, I meant it. Examples: 1. There are politicians and political parties. Players, through normal game activities, gain favors which they can use to gain power and influence more politicians, eventually allowing the player to win. Politicians also have special powers which the players who control the build up political power. 2. There's a currency called stems with no intrinsic utility. Players have one of three roles, which they can only change rarely, and which allow them to bid with stems for one of three more specialized currencies that help with gameplay. One currency controls proposals, another provides extra votes, and a third removes judicial punishments. Various officers have the power to set economic policy for each currency, setting the amount at auction and the taxation rate. I'm not trying to shoot down your ideas; I just want to help you come up with a strong proposal. The fact that it's supposed to coexist with Politics makes the need for simplicity even greater, but most of this is generally applicable. I hope that I've helped. -Aris On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 6:00 PM ATMunn wrote: > After some feedback on my last message and some time outside earlier > today, I've refined my Putting Agora in Space idea. The biggest > "complaint" on that was that it was too broad and too much like the land > system which is likely about to be repealed. So, I've thought about it a > bit, and here is the new idea. > > This system will be largely its own system, but will be interlinked with > the Politics system (assuming that passes). Its main focus will be on > space battles. This was something that I hesitated to have in the > original idea; however, when Aris suggested narrowing down the idea to > one main system, that was what e mentioned. I don't think e was > specifically suggesting that and instead using it more as a suggestion, > but I actually thought it could work. E also suggested having several > smaller economic systems linked together as opposed to one main one, so > I decided to make this work along those lines. > > Planets will likely still be a thing, however they won't be nearly as > influential and important as they were going to be originally. Instead > of being owned directly by players, planets are owned by political > parties. Players can gain Favours with parties by defending the party's > planets from invaders. There will probably be a fixed number of planets. > > (This part is debatable) There may be a select few planets owned by > Agora instead of a party which are where players must travel to perform > certain game actions, such as voting, making proposals, etc. This could > create an interesting dynamic, but could also be annoying and too much > of a hassle. > > Each player has a Spaceship. This is what allows em to travel around the > galaxy, and is used to fight space battles. Upgrades can be bought for > Spaceships to increase things like their fuel capacity, speed, attack > strength, etc. There may be a limit to how many upgrades a Spaceship can > have, causing players to either specialize in a particular thing, or > have more of a "jack of all trades" Spaceship. > > There are also some non-player controlled Spaceships that will roam > around the galaxy. There are friendly ships called Merchants; players > can trade with these to sell unneeded things and potentially buy things > at a lower price than normal, or even buy special things only available > through Merchants. On the other end of the spectrum, there are
DIS: [Proto-proto] Refining space
After some feedback on my last message and some time outside earlier today, I've refined my Putting Agora in Space idea. The biggest "complaint" on that was that it was too broad and too much like the land system which is likely about to be repealed. So, I've thought about it a bit, and here is the new idea. This system will be largely its own system, but will be interlinked with the Politics system (assuming that passes). Its main focus will be on space battles. This was something that I hesitated to have in the original idea; however, when Aris suggested narrowing down the idea to one main system, that was what e mentioned. I don't think e was specifically suggesting that and instead using it more as a suggestion, but I actually thought it could work. E also suggested having several smaller economic systems linked together as opposed to one main one, so I decided to make this work along those lines. Planets will likely still be a thing, however they won't be nearly as influential and important as they were going to be originally. Instead of being owned directly by players, planets are owned by political parties. Players can gain Favours with parties by defending the party's planets from invaders. There will probably be a fixed number of planets. (This part is debatable) There may be a select few planets owned by Agora instead of a party which are where players must travel to perform certain game actions, such as voting, making proposals, etc. This could create an interesting dynamic, but could also be annoying and too much of a hassle. Each player has a Spaceship. This is what allows em to travel around the galaxy, and is used to fight space battles. Upgrades can be bought for Spaceships to increase things like their fuel capacity, speed, attack strength, etc. There may be a limit to how many upgrades a Spaceship can have, causing players to either specialize in a particular thing, or have more of a "jack of all trades" Spaceship. There are also some non-player controlled Spaceships that will roam around the galaxy. There are friendly ships called Merchants; players can trade with these to sell unneeded things and potentially buy things at a lower price than normal, or even buy special things only available through Merchants. On the other end of the spectrum, there are Pirates which will try to attack Merchants, players, and Planets. Every player has a Fame switch. When a player's Fame is above a particular threshold, e is considered Famous; when eir Fame is below a particular negative threshold, e is considered Infamous. Fame is increased by doing good deeds such as trading with Merchants, helping players by giving them things or helping repair their ships, defeating Pirates, or even defeating Infamous players. Fame is decreased mainly by attacking Merchants and other players. Both fame and infamy can have rewards, so players can choose either path. I haven't actually thought much about how space battles will actually work. I imagine it will be some sort of turn-based thing, where once a player engages in a battle, e and the other ship will take turns attacking (or defending) until one is defeated or retreats. Another thing I'm unsure about is how one will actually encounter other ships. Some battles will take place near a planet, but I imagine most will occur in interplanetary space. I'm not really too thrilled about having a big space map, as we just got done with having a map. Of course, it would be very different then that was, but I feel like there's some better way. I think this is the main bulk of the idea at the moment. One other idea I had is political parties giving players "side-quests" that they can perform, such as transporting goods between planets. This could give players another thing to specialize in. Again, as always, thoughts greatly appreciated. I think I'm liking the direction this is heading, though.
Re: DIS: how do contracts work
Ok. I think that was the direction it was going when I left, and I think it's probably the best direction. Thanks. On 10/8/2018 7:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Mon, 8 Oct 2018, ATMunn wrote: When I stopped playing several months ago, contracts were in the middle of being revised. I left before they were actually finalized. What is the current state of contracts? Do they work like they used to or have they been changed? While I'm at it, what are pledges at this point? I think they were being changed around that same time. They may have been finalized before I stopped playing, but I don't really remember. First, the most recent "ruleset" (which is unofficial) is here: https://github.com/AgoraNomic/ruleset/blob/trigon/slr.txt https://github.com/AgoraNomic/ruleset/blob/trigon/flr.txt (The official ones haven't been updated since June). Contracts are very simple now, pretty much in a single Rule (Rule 1742). They're basically ways for players to act-on-behalf of each other, they can't act on their own behalf anymore. In July, a bunch of old pledges were cancelled out, and the job of tracking it (Notary) was downsized; now they're short-term things no-one tracks. It's all in R2450.
Re: DIS: how do contracts work
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018, ATMunn wrote: > When I stopped playing several months ago, contracts were in the middle of > being revised. I left before they were actually finalized. What is the current > state of contracts? Do they work like they used to or have they been changed? > > While I'm at it, what are pledges at this point? I think they were being > changed around that same time. They may have been finalized before I stopped > playing, but I don't really remember. First, the most recent "ruleset" (which is unofficial) is here: https://github.com/AgoraNomic/ruleset/blob/trigon/slr.txt https://github.com/AgoraNomic/ruleset/blob/trigon/flr.txt (The official ones haven't been updated since June). Contracts are very simple now, pretty much in a single Rule (Rule 1742). They're basically ways for players to act-on-behalf of each other, they can't act on their own behalf anymore. In July, a bunch of old pledges were cancelled out, and the job of tracking it (Notary) was downsized; now they're short-term things no-one tracks. It's all in R2450.
DIS: how do contracts work
When I stopped playing several months ago, contracts were in the middle of being revised. I left before they were actually finalized. What is the current state of contracts? Do they work like they used to or have they been changed? While I'm at it, what are pledges at this point? I think they were being changed around that same time. They may have been finalized before I stopped playing, but I don't really remember.
Re: DIS: [Idea] Bill of Rights
On Sun, 7 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> G. commented that e moved most of the provisions, rather than deleting
> them. All we'd be doing is reconsolidating them.
So after some thought, I don't think we'd be well-served by this approach.
I think that the original Rights did an ok job when it came to negative
rights (what the rules CANNOT do), especially when it came to scope of
rules and contracts - and it's easy to use a single clause to say "nope,
you're not bound by that contract because you didn't consent."
However, it was a useless/terrible approach to positive rights (where
you say the rules SHALL do something). A perfect example is Right (ii),
the "matters of controversy" right. At a first reading, this seems to
directly protect the CFJ system. But it doesn't! It's easy to argue
that a Proposal is a means of satisfying a matter of controversy, or
even "a Dictator making arbitrary and capricious dicta in response to
petitions" does the trick.
Well then, you might say "let's make that Right specific to CFJs". But
then, by the time you've described what you're trying to protect, you're
protecting a system - the CFJ system - not a right. Which is a good idea.
I think deleting the generic text from (ii), now in Rule 217, and
replacing it with a high-powered "the CFJ system is protected" to go
along with the proposal-protection (R1698) would be a better approach
than calling conflict-resolution initiation a "right".
Similarly, right (v), participation in the Fora, is better served by
just making R478 suitably protective (which it is already IMO, unless
there's a specific problem I'm not thinking of).
As far as your suggestions:
> - The right to believe anything that isn't demonstrably false
There's no way to control "belief" so I'm not sure what you're getting
at here. What's stopping anyone from believing anything?
> - The right not to be ignored
What does this mean? There's many processes that, if a person initiates
them, require a response (CFJs, proposals, CoEs, etc.). How is this a
right in the general sense? What's an example where it's violated?
> - The right to have a path to obtain meaningful influence on the
> political process
Again, really vague, hard to quantify and easy to loophole out of. And
in my mind, a political not a judicial question.
But I think there's room for improvement. In particular, I'd make a few
suggestions:
1. I think the "scope of the rules and agreements in general" (i, iii,
iv, and vii) could be brought together in a single rule. Maybe that's
R101, maybe not. The scope of nomic Rules (and contracts/agreements
that grow out of them) is of fundamental interest to a voluntary nomic,
so I could see an argument for having these up front again as "rights"
(especially since we like to radically change contracts, tournaments,
pledges, agreements from time-to-time, this is a place for some
overarching protections that work regardless of specific system).
2. (ii, v, viii) are best addressed through protecting CFJs, Fora, and
Registration respectively, in detail in their own existing rules (I
think they're pretty protective now, though the CFJ-one needs work as
mentioned).
3. I think (vi) is better-served by cleaning up the mess in R2531, and
maybe, to make it more fundamental, rephrasing that as more general ("no
punishment shall") instead of making it specific to levying a fine.
4. To "pull this all together", I'd suggest, after cleaning up some of
the issues in individual rules, maybe bringing them together through
Rulekeepor category reorganization into a section of the ruleset, and
deciding if they're all at the correct power, rather than all in a
single rule.
Hope this is constructive!
> If anyone has any other suggestions, I'd be glad to hear them.
>
> -Aris
> On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 7:32 PM Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >
> > I don't see much immediate benefit in adding this because a lot seems
> > redundant.
> >
> > 1 - Doesn't Regulated Actions already cover this?
> > 2 - CFJs should cover this.
> > 3 - Shouldn't Contracts cover this?
> > 4 - I think this is new but it could be added I guess, somehow.
> > 5 - I think this is already in the Fora rules.
> > 6 - This should be in the Arbitor rules if it isn't already.
> > 7 - We already have a general unduly harassment rule, and deregistration is
> > free already I believe.
> > 8 - Could be expanded to that deregistering other people (even just one) is
> > also bad. Or a global cooldown on how frequently other people can be
> > deregistered by third persons, so that it's more of a mechanical and
> > unambiguous protection. Is two people "en masse"? Three? How many?
> >
> > It would be aesthetically nice to have a Bill of Rights, but it's too much
> > wordcount (to an already overwhelming ruleset) to be outweighed by it's
> > appealing feel, imo.
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 4:08 AM Aris Merchant <
> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 2:46 PM Aris
Re: DIS: [(Proto-?)proto-proto proposal] Putting Agora in Space
That is a good point. I could almost see my idea (much simplified) working with the Politics thing. Space politics? I dunno. It could work. I will say that I can agree that it was maybe too overcomplicated. I'll think about it some more. On 10/7/2018 10:26 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: Have we ever had an economy where we have multiple interlocking small mini-games, rather than one very large one? That might be interesting to try. My motivation here is that everyone seems to have a different idea. I, for one, really want to bring back the Politics system. However, that system is relatively small and self-contained, and none of the other systems have even been designed yet. What if we did more than one of them at the same time, making sure that would all be fairly simple? I'm not sure if it would work, but it is something to consider. On the merits of this system: it seems a bit overcomplicated and also very like our current land economy. If you decide to go ahead with it, I'd encourage you to make it much more simple and focused. Maybe something with just space battles, for instance. -Aris On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 5:59 PM ATMunn wrote: I was trying to think of some proposal ideas (as, of course, proposals are the whole point of Agora). A few different ideas went through my head, and then possibly the coolest/dumbest one came: space. This is basically a big list of ideas for how space could work, probably only some of which will end up making it into the final proposal (if there even is one). The main idea for this proposal is for it to be the new main economy minigame, but, you know, in space. (this is a terrible idea isn't it) So here are the ideas I've had: -There are planets, lots of them -Players can own planets -Planets do lots of things like making stuff -There are different types of planets -Players have spaceships -Spaceships are used to travel between planets -Spaceships can also be used to explore space for more planets -You can upgrade your spaceship -Players can specialize their spaceships to do different cool stuff -Space combat? (although this could be cool, I do kinda feel that direct combat between players really doesn't fit Agora very well. maybe there are some sort of NPC spaceships that you can fight with?) -Some sort of main "Earth" planet that is owned by Agora and in which stuff happens -People might live on planets and require stuff to stay happy and not revolt -Players get more planets through exploration, not sure if existing planets can ever change hands -The Admiral keeps track of spaceships, the Planeteer keeps track of planets and the stuff on them (please suggest better names) -The Treasuror probably still exists and keeps track of currencies like normal -Currencies are stuff like: -Food and goods for keeping people happy -Fuel to keep spaceships going -Building materials for building -Precious materials for being precious -other stuff?? -Players can have things built on their planets, planets probably don't do much unless stuff is built on them -Players can probably build fleets of ships which can go around and do stuff for them -Aliens? -Spaceships can be traded maybe I've kind of run out of ideas at this point (Most of this stuff was made up along the way). So yeah, there's my space proposal idea. Please give feedback on what things should be added, changed, or removed, and of course if this is even remotely a good idea in the first place. If you think this is a terrible idea altogether and should be scrapped then say that, I'm not invested in it at all at this point. But I do think it's cool.
