DIS: [Proto-proposal] space i guess?
so basically this is super clunky and probably not going to work, but if
you think there's any hope for it then please say so :)
Title: "spaaace?"
AI: 1
Author: ATMunn
Co-author(s): Aris
Enact a new rule entitled "Spaceships", with the following text:
{
Spaceships are indestructible fixed assets. Ownership of Spaceships
is restricted to players. Players CANNOT own more than one
Spaceship. Each Spaceship has a Sector switch, with possible values
being I, II, III, and IV, defaulting to I; a Destroyed switch, a
boolean switch defaulting to False; and a Power switch, with
possible values being any integer in the range of 0-20, defaulting
to 10.
Any player CAN, by announcement, flip eir Spaceship's Sector switch
to any other value at any time, decreasing the Spaceship's Power
switch by one, as long as e has not done so within the last 24
hours. If a Spaceship's Power is 0, its Sector CANNOT be flipped.
If a Spaceship is Destroyed, its Sector switch CANNOT be flipped. At
least 24 hours after a Spaceship's Destroyed switch becomes True,
its owner CAN flip its Destroyed switch back to False by
announcement. [todo: some way to make this not flippable except
after a space battle, not sure how to word that]
Any player CAN, by announcement, increase eir Spaceship's Power by
N, where N is the number of hours since the player last increased
the Spaceship's Power, divided by two. If doing so would put the
Power at a value greater than 20, then the Power switch is simply
set to 20.
}
Enact a new rule entitled "Space Battles", with the following text:
{
If two Spaceships have the same Sector value, and neither of them
are Destroyed, then the owner of either CAN, by announcement, start
a Space Battle with the other. During a Space Battle, both
Spaceships involved CANNOT have any of their switches flipped.
Once a Space Battle has begun, each player CAN, and SHALL in a
timely fashion, specify by announcement an amount of Power e wishes
to spend. This value CAN be 0, and CANNOT exceed that player's
Spaceship's current Power value. After both players have done the
above, then either player CAN, by announcement, increase the amount
of Power e wishes to spend.
Once 48 hours have passed since the beginning of the Space Battle,
players can no longer increase the amount of Power they wish to
spend, and either player CAN Resolve the Battle by announcement, and
at least one of them SHALL in a timely fashion. Upon doing so, both
players' Spaceships lose the amount of Power equal to the last
specified amount of Power, and, the one which lost more Power is
deemed the Winner of that Space Battle, and the other is the Loser.
If the lost Power values are equal, both Spaceships are Winners. The
Loser in a Space Battle, if there is one, has its Destroyed value
set to True.
}
Enact a new rule entitled "Fame", with the following text:
{
Every player has a Fame switch, with possible values being all
integers between -10 and 10. Players with positive Fame are Famous,
and those with negative Fame are Infamous.
If a player is the Winner in a Space Battle against an Infamous
player, eir Fame is increased by 1. Likewise, if a player is the
Winner in a Space Battle against a Famous player or one with a Fame
of 0, eir Fame is decreased by 1.
}
[things that still need to be done:
- make a recordkeepor of things
- make space battles simpler probably
- make everything less confusing
- ???]
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8105-8110
On the other hand, there is this reasoning by Aris from a prior email chain that may be persuasive for why this kind of objection may be valid: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg29565.html On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 8:18 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > CFJ, barring G.: "In the quoted message, G. objected to at least one > intent to perform a dependent action." > > Caller's arguments: According to the judgement issued by Maud in CFJ 1460, > an action is only effective if "unreasonably excessive effort" is not > required to determine what the action is. To determine exactly what actions > G. took here, one would need to carefully read each of the messages sent to > the public fora in the last 14 days, forming a list of the intents to > perform dependent actions in those messages (including any and all > inconspicuous or obfuscated such intents), and evaluate which of those meet > the criteria listed in G.'s message. I believe this is "unreasonably > excessive". > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Monday, October 15, 2018 11:43 PM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 15 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > I vote AGAINST proposals 8105 and 8107. > > > I vote FOR proposals 8106, 8108, 8109 and 8110. > > > > hmmm on 8107 vote there. > > > > I object to all intents to perform actions without N objections > > (for all values of N) that have been announced by people other > > than myself in the last 14 days. > > > > (I don't think this catches anything legit, but if so lmk and > > I'll remove my objection). > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8105-8110
Ok folks, first of all, this is *quite* suspicious, so it's worth our time to hunt down which one twg is worried about. Secondly, there is a standing precedent for this working - I'll dig it up later, but the point is - no effort required - no one is required to look anything up until someone attempts to perform an action. On Tue, 16 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > CFJ, barring G.: "In the quoted message, G. objected to at least one intent > to perform a dependent action." > > Caller's arguments: According to the judgement issued by Maud in CFJ 1460, an > action is only effective if "unreasonably excessive effort" is not required > to determine what the action is. To determine exactly what actions G. took > here, one would need to carefully read each of the messages sent to the > public fora in the last 14 days, forming a list of the intents to perform > dependent actions in those messages (including any and all inconspicuous or > obfuscated such intents), and evaluate which of those meet the criteria > listed in G.'s message. I believe this is "unreasonably excessive". > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Monday, October 15, 2018 11:43 PM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 15 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > I vote AGAINST proposals 8105 and 8107. > > > I vote FOR proposals 8106, 8108, 8109 and 8110. > > > > hmmm on 8107 vote there. > > > > I object to all intents to perform actions without N objections > > (for all values of N) that have been announced by people other > > than myself in the last 14 days. > > > > (I don't think this catches anything legit, but if so lmk and > > I'll remove my objection). > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8105-8110
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2018-10-15 at 16:43 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I object to all intents to perform actions without N objections > > (for all values of N) that have been announced by people other > > than myself in the last 14 days. > > I think it'd probably be a good idea to require announcements of intent > to be more visible somehow, given how many attempts at submarine > intents there have been recently. That's the purpose of the proposal e voted against :)
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8105-8110
On Mon, 2018-10-15 at 16:43 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I object to all intents to perform actions without N objections > (for all values of N) that have been announced by people other > than myself in the last 14 days. I think it'd probably be a good idea to require announcements of intent to be more visible somehow, given how many attempts at submarine intents there have been recently. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: this time with a coauthor
I don't exactly see how I'm a coauthor, but I won't complain :P On 10/15/2018 1:23 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Oops, meant to add ATMunn here. I remove my proposal, The Middle Way, from the proposal pool. I submit the following proposal, The Middle Way, AI-1, coauthor ATMunn. I pend it. --- Amend Rule 2510 (Such is Karma) by replacing the list in which the list items are delimited with the - symbol with the following list: - Any player with a karma of 5 or greater is a Samurai. - Any player with a karma of -5 or less is an Gamma. - The Samurai with the highest karma (if any) is the Shogun. - The Gamma with the lowest karma (if any) is the Honourless Worm. [By replacing 'player' with 'Samurai' and 'Gamma' in the last two list items, you can't get Shogun/Worm unless you've cleared a basic barrier - right now you could be a Worm even if your karma isn't all that low]. ---
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Round Robin CFJs
No scam in this one. This was the culmination of the discussion thread about what CFJs were needed after the Round Robin confusion. I suggested one judge because the issues are very intermingled. (Can’t be me because I called the CFJs.) On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 5:10 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Hmm. For some reason this feels like a build-up to a scam. Oh well, let's > see what happens. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Monday, October 15, 2018 7:24 PM, D Margaux > wrote: > > > I CFJ the following three statements, and suggest to the Arbitor that > they should probably be assigned to the same judge: > > > > > 1. “All pure active players could have won by announcement on the > Effective > > > Date under rule 2580” > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > 2. “Trigon, twg, D. Margaux, G., and L could win the game by > announcement > > > under rule 2580 on the Effective Date after the expungement of > Trigon’s > > > blot” > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > 3. “Trigon, twg, and L won the game on the Effective Date under rule > 2580” > > > > For arguments and evidence, I refer to the email chain and the text of > Rule 2580, provided below. > > > > Rule 2580/2 (Power=1) > > Round Robin > > > > The "Effective Date" is the Agoran day that is 8 days after the > > Agoran day on which this Rule was enacted. This Rule is > > automatically repealed at 00:01 UTC on the Agoran day after the > > Effective Date. > > > > The Slate A players are VJ Rada, Cuddle Beam, D. Margaux, Aris, > > G., omd, Murphy, ATMunn, and Publius Scribonius Scholasticus. > > > > The Slate B players are VJ Rada, D. Margaux, G., L., omd, Corona, > > Trigon, twg, and Publius Scribonius Scholasticus. > > > > The Slate C players are Cuddle Beam, Aris, L., Corona, Murphy, > > Trigon, ATMunn, and twg. > > > > The Slate A players CAN win the game by announcement on the > > Effective Date, unless the Slate B players also CAN win the game > > by announcement on the Effective Date. > > > > The Slate B players CAN win the game by announcement on the > > Effective Date, unless the Slate C players also CAN win the game > > by announcement on the Effective Date. > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > > > > > > > On 10/11/2018 08:28 AM, D Margaux wrote: > > > > > > > > I think this is an admirably clear way to put it. I > personally had in > > > > > > > > mind the set/inclusive interpretation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The “individual” interpretation would make each slate’s > winning > > > > > > > > chances > > > > > > > > depend in part upon which slates happen to have impure > players. That > > > > > > > > seems > > > > > > > > undesirable to me, because the players were randomly > assigned, and the > > > > > > > > fun > > > > > > > > of the proposal isn’t really advanced by treating players > differently > > > > > > > > based > > > > > > > > on the happenstance of where impure players are assigned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In some cases (such as the one here), applying the > set/exclusive > > > > > > > > interpretation might run afoul of the No Cretans rule. In > particular, > > > > > > > > here, > > > > > > > > the Rule says (i) A CAN win unless B and (ii) B CAN win > unless C. Under a > > > > > > > > set/exclusive interpretation, I think (i) and (ii) are in > conflict with > > > > > > > > respect to whether the (A,B) players can win. As a result, > because (ii) > > > > > > > > comes after (i), I think applying No Cretans means that (A, > B) should win > > > > > > > > then too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do people think is the clearest way to CFJ this? A very > simple > > > > > > > > CFJ > > > > > > > > like, “At least one player won by Round Robin,” might give a > judge the > > > > > > > > opportunity to opine more broadly about who actually won. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 2018, at 9:29 PM, Reuben Staley > reuben.sta...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand more theories are the last thing we probably > need right > > > > > > > > > now but oh well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me make a chart for reference. > > > > > > > > > A and B B and C C and A > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VJ Rada L. Cuddles > > > > > > > > > Margaux Corona Aris > > > > > > > > > PSS Trigon Murphy > > > > > > > > > G. twg ATMunn > > > > > > > > > In the rule "Round Robin", it is stated that Slate A > players cannot > > > > > > > > > win if Slate B players can. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One interpretation (the "set" interpretation) of this is > that the set > > > > > > > > > of Slate A players cannot win if there is a mechanism for > Slate B players > > > > > > > > > to. In this case, all Slate A players can announce that > they win, but it > > > > > > > > > might not work if you're criminal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another interpretation (the "individual" interpretation) > of this is > > > > > > > > > that each the set of Slate A players cannot win if all the >
DIS: Apology for Tardiness
(Unofficial - I don't believe it's actually possible to submit an official apology until after the Referee has imposed the Cold Hand of Justice (if, indeed, a Finger is Pointed at all). Though I could be wrong?) I'm sorry I missed the Treasuror report last week (and, to a lesser extent, the Humiliating Public Reminder about Proposal 8104, though I can't imagine anyone felt disappointment about its absence). Last week was quite unpleasant and I haven't really had time for Agoran stuff. I will try to get the Treasuror report and resolution of P8104 published this week, although I must say it would be helpful if there weren't validity CFJs pending against like 80% of recent transactions... I also apologise for not taking over Rulekeepor like I said I would at some point. Trigon's new FLR format is amazing, though, and realistically I probably wouldn't have had time for three offices anyway. -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: Round Robin CFJs
Hmm. For some reason this feels like a build-up to a scam. Oh well, let's see what happens. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, October 15, 2018 7:24 PM, D Margaux wrote: > I CFJ the following three statements, and suggest to the Arbitor that they > should probably be assigned to the same judge: > > > 1. “All pure active players could have won by announcement on the Effective > > Date under rule 2580” > > > > > > and > > > > 2. “Trigon, twg, D. Margaux, G., and L could win the game by announcement > > under rule 2580 on the Effective Date after the expungement of Trigon’s > > blot” > > > > > > and > > > > 3. “Trigon, twg, and L won the game on the Effective Date under rule 2580” > > For arguments and evidence, I refer to the email chain and the text of Rule > 2580, provided below. > > Rule 2580/2 (Power=1) > Round Robin > > The "Effective Date" is the Agoran day that is 8 days after the > Agoran day on which this Rule was enacted. This Rule is > automatically repealed at 00:01 UTC on the Agoran day after the > Effective Date. > > The Slate A players are VJ Rada, Cuddle Beam, D. Margaux, Aris, > G., omd, Murphy, ATMunn, and Publius Scribonius Scholasticus. > > The Slate B players are VJ Rada, D. Margaux, G., L., omd, Corona, > Trigon, twg, and Publius Scribonius Scholasticus. > > The Slate C players are Cuddle Beam, Aris, L., Corona, Murphy, > Trigon, ATMunn, and twg. > > The Slate A players CAN win the game by announcement on the > Effective Date, unless the Slate B players also CAN win the game > by announcement on the Effective Date. > > The Slate B players CAN win the game by announcement on the > Effective Date, unless the Slate C players also CAN win the game > by announcement on the Effective Date. > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > > > > > On 10/11/2018 08:28 AM, D Margaux wrote: > > > > > > > I think this is an admirably clear way to put it. I personally > > > > > > > had in > > > > > > > mind the set/inclusive interpretation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The “individual” interpretation would make each slate’s winning > > > > > > > chances > > > > > > > depend in part upon which slates happen to have impure players. > > > > > > > That > > > > > > > seems > > > > > > > undesirable to me, because the players were randomly assigned, > > > > > > > and the > > > > > > > fun > > > > > > > of the proposal isn’t really advanced by treating players > > > > > > > differently > > > > > > > based > > > > > > > on the happenstance of where impure players are assigned. > > > > > > > > > > > > In some cases (such as the one here), applying the set/exclusive > > > > > > > interpretation might run afoul of the No Cretans rule. In > > > > > > > particular, > > > > > > > here, > > > > > > > the Rule says (i) A CAN win unless B and (ii) B CAN win unless C. > > > > > > > Under a > > > > > > > set/exclusive interpretation, I think (i) and (ii) are in > > > > > > > conflict with > > > > > > > respect to whether the (A,B) players can win. As a result, > > > > > > > because (ii) > > > > > > > comes after (i), I think applying No Cretans means that (A, B) > > > > > > > should win > > > > > > > then too. > > > > > > > > > > > > What do people think is the clearest way to CFJ this? A very > > > > > > > simple > > > > > > > CFJ > > > > > > > like, “At least one player won by Round Robin,” might give a > > > > > > > judge the > > > > > > > opportunity to opine more broadly about who actually won. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 2018, at 9:29 PM, Reuben Staley > > > > > > > > reuben.sta...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand more theories are the last thing we probably need > > > > > > > > right > > > > > > > > now but oh well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me make a chart for reference. > > > > > > > > A and B B and C C and A > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VJ Rada L. Cuddles > > > > > > > > Margaux Corona Aris > > > > > > > > PSS Trigon Murphy > > > > > > > > G. twg ATMunn > > > > > > > > In the rule "Round Robin", it is stated that Slate A players > > > > > > > > cannot > > > > > > > > win if Slate B players can. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One interpretation (the "set" interpretation) of this is that > > > > > > > > the set > > > > > > > > of Slate A players cannot win if there is a mechanism for Slate > > > > > > > > B players > > > > > > > > to. In this case, all Slate A players can announce that they > > > > > > > > win, but it > > > > > > > > might not work if you're criminal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another interpretation (the "individual" interpretation) of > > > > > > > > this is > > > > > > > > that each the set of Slate A players cannot win if all the > > > > > > > > Slate B > > > > > > > > players > > > > > > > > can. > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's one thing we need to figure out. The other is how the > > > > > > > > overlap > > > > > > > > works. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One interpretation of this argument
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8105-8110
I was also thinking 7 was too high, but 3 is too low - it's basically noise in the way people go up and down. How's 5? On Sun, 14 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 9:55 PM Reuben Staley > wrote: > > > I vote as follows: > > > > On 10/14/2018 06:06 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > ID Author(s)AITitle > > > > > --- > > > 8105* Trigon 0.5 Trust no one > > FOR > > > 8106* Aris 1.0 Attainable Karma > > AGAINST (I think 3 is a little too low but my opinion is flexible) > > > Currently, I believe 3 would give 2 Samuri and 2 Gammas. That’s fairly > consistent with our past experience. Care to reconsider? > > -Aris > > > > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8105-8110
On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 9:55 PM Reuben Staley wrote: > I vote as follows: > > On 10/14/2018 06:06 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > ID Author(s)AITitle > > > --- > > 8105* Trigon 0.5 Trust no one > FOR > > 8106* Aris 1.0 Attainable Karma > AGAINST (I think 3 is a little too low but my opinion is flexible) Currently, I believe 3 would give 2 Samuri and 2 Gammas. That’s fairly consistent with our past experience. Care to reconsider? -Aris > >
