Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-15 Thread Aris Merchant
BlogNomic almost actually passed something like that once. We sent someone over to caution them that such an unfortunate plan would result in an Agoran invasion (okay, ais actually did it sua sponte, but my version sounds better). -Aris On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:56 PM Madeline wrote: >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-15 Thread Cuddle Beam
Sounds cool but it’s not destructive enough. It should blow up ourselves too and all avocados IRL. On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 23:52, Madeline wrote: > "If this Rule's power exceeds 4.0, then all other rules notwithstanding, > Agora is destroyed." > (Would any other rule need to actually change for

DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-15 Thread Aris Merchant
The person who will distribute the proposal has every intention of doing so. Thank you for point it out though. -Aris On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 5:10 PM James Cook wrote: > > Co-authors: ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk, D. Margaux > > "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" refers to the same person as ais523. I >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-15 Thread Madeline
Obviously, I'm just talking in hypotheticals. On 2019-02-16 09:55, Aris Merchant wrote: No one is doing anything that has any meaningful chance of destroying Agora. If there’s a bug in your mechanism, the stakes go from it being broken to the game dying permanently. -Aris On Fri, Feb 15, 2019

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-15 Thread Aris Merchant
No one is doing anything that has any meaningful chance of destroying Agora. If there’s a bug in your mechanism, the stakes go from it being broken to the game dying permanently. -Aris On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:52 PM Madeline wrote: > "If this Rule's power exceeds 4.0, then all other rules

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-15 Thread Madeline
"If this Rule's power exceeds 4.0, then all other rules notwithstanding, Agora is destroyed." (Would any other rule need to actually change for such a clause to work if an outside Power 3 rule is adjusting its power?) On 2019-02-16 09:47, D. Margaux wrote: Love it. You could have a separate

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-15 Thread D. Margaux
Love it. You could have a separate power 3 rule that (1) changes the power of the Ritual rule and (2) causes itself to be repealed when the Ritual rule is repealed. And I’d love to see the power of the Ritual rule increase, too, if the Rule is left unappeased... and maybe increase at a higher

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-15 Thread Kerim Aydin
Actually I've been pondering something even fancier, like every time it's appeased it decreases in Power and the Power is linked to the Consent required. Or something. (of course you can't increase power in the same way). On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:08 PM D. Margaux wrote: > > Any chance we can

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-15 Thread D. Margaux
Any chance we can have it repeal with Agoran Consent or something more than notice? Or is that excessive? :-) > On Feb 15, 2019, at 3:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Actually, one more time. Empty sacrifices are meaningless. > > I withdraw my proposal, The Ritual. > > I submit the following

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: testing collective punishment

2019-02-15 Thread Cuddle Beam
Are you arguing that "In order to appease this Rule, at least one player MUST perform The Ritual in every Agoran week." is just a prerequisite (like, "In order to get the cookies, you have to reach the shelf"?)? I understand it as that the method of appeasement is via performing the Ritual but

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-15 Thread Cuddle Beam
PRAISE THE RITUAL On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 9:33 PM D. Margaux wrote: > I hope the Ritual becomes an actual ritual, and is never repealed. It > seems kind of awesome. > > > On Feb 15, 2019, at 3:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > I withdraw the proposal I recently submitted, quoted below. > > > >

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-15 Thread D. Margaux
I hope the Ritual becomes an actual ritual, and is never repealed. It seems kind of awesome. > On Feb 15, 2019, at 3:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I withdraw the proposal I recently submitted, quoted below. > > I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1: >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: testing collective punishment

2019-02-15 Thread Kerim Aydin
The collective violation is by design. I thought about going further and using the passive voice ("The rules MUST be appeased weekly"). I don't want to use "each player MUST" - I want the implied violation to be firmly on all of us, not each of us separately. On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 11:08 AM D.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: testing collective punishment

2019-02-15 Thread Cuddle Beam
I personally think it would be more fun if it had to be removed by proposal lol. Or we give an award to whoever can remove it without a proposal and lift the curse off Agora. On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 8:07 PM D. Margaux wrote: > > > > On Feb 15, 2019, at 2:02 PM, James Cook wrote: > > > > Is it

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: testing collective punishment

2019-02-15 Thread D. Margaux
> On Feb 15, 2019, at 2:02 PM, James Cook wrote: > > Is it clear that a player CAN appease the rule by performing The Ritual? I agree that this is ambiguous. Also, I think it was unclear who has the obligation to appease the Rule. Maybe it could say: Any player CAN perform The

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: testing collective punishment

2019-02-15 Thread James Cook
Is it clear that a player CAN appease the rule by performing The Ritual? On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 18:14, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > Lmao, I love it. It reminds me of “the button” of Lost. > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 16:46, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual,

DIS: Re: BUS: testing collective punishment

2019-02-15 Thread Cuddle Beam
Lmao, I love it. It reminds me of “the button” of Lost. On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 16:46, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1: > > > Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-15 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 17:59 +, James Cook wrote: > Thanks to the listed co-authors. (AIS523, I didn't see you in the > directory; let me know if you're a player and I can polish your name > in the co-author list). I'm not currently a player, although I've been a player for fairly long periods

DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-15 Thread James Cook
Thanks to the listed co-authors. (AIS523, I didn't see you in the directory; let me know if you're a player and I can polish your name in the co-author list). I edited several parts of the text to make in clear that any reference to supporters or objectors is in terms of a particular intent. Note

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-15 Thread James Cook
> I also like this version. > > However, there's another problem: a dangling "it". (This is also in the > present version of the rules, which I noticed during RTRW.) You should > make it clear whether the objectors and supports are to the /intent/, > or to the /action/. (Based on the way the other

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-15 Thread D. Margaux
> On Feb 15, 2019, at 10:04 AM, James Cook wrote: > > 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, there are > at least N Objectors to that intent. This needs an “and,” but otherwise looks good to me!

DIS: Missing CFJ - attn D. Margaux

2019-02-15 Thread Kerim Aydin
H. Arbitor D. Margaux: Third check on this missing CFJ? On 2/13/2019 6:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: In terms of the common definition for "declare", it makes perfect sense. In fact I called a CFJ on a similar issue (substituting "state" for "declare") a couple weeks back, but I'm realizing

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-15 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 03:02 -0500, D. Margaux wrote: > > On Feb 14, 2019, at 11:14 PM, James Cook > > wrote: > > > > Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action > > unless at least one of the following is true: > > > > 1. The action is to be performed Without N

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-15 Thread D. Margaux
> On Feb 14, 2019, at 11:14 PM, James Cook wrote: > > Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action > unless at least one of the following is true: > > 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has > at least N objectors. > >