DIS: Re: BUS: Victory by Apathy
On a side-note, if capitalization no longer denotes terms of art and should be interpreted literally, I got to go look for a real-life banner to raise some time in the future... On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 08:20, Cuddle Beam wrote: > >Capitalization is generally inconsequential and should not be used to > infer that it's a term of art > > I disagree. And my counterargument is going to make me sip a lot of air > through my teeth because I don’t like it. > > The capitalization thing is an Agoran slang/tradition/cultural thing > (yuck, uuuhggghh). It’s a huge pity that it’s not obvious without being > familiar with the culture, but capitalizing to denote a term of art is > frequent and ubiquitous enough that I believe that it should be > interpreted as such, because of “game custom” (R217). > > Agora doesn’t have an official language either, and the ruleset could’ve > been written in a conlang that looks like English but has a totally > different meaning for all I know, even if it “looks” like English. > > Overly paranoid Evil Genius style arguments aside, currently, Agora > doesn’t even use standard English in the first place lol, because of the > presence of Spivak. > > I argue that Agora is written in an Agora-dialect English. And in that, > capitalization does denote terms of art. > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 05:12, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < > ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > >> On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 03:56 +, James Cook wrote: >> > Apathy. I specify Falsifian and G. >> > >> > I initiate a Call for Judgement, specifying the statement: "Falsifian >> > and G won the game." >> > >> > Here are our arguments: >> > >> > 1. I "published", or "announced", the following: "Apathy", in this >> >message. (I also sent a separate message that just says "Apathy", >> >in case anyone insists it has to be by itself in a message for >> >me to "publish" it.) >> >> Arguments: Declaring Apathy is not the same thing linguistically as >> declaring "Apathy", much the same way as sending a message with text >> "the Herald's Report" is not the same thing as publishing the Herald's >> Report. There's a use/mention distinction issue here. >> >> If a scam along these lines worked, the required declaration would have >> to express apathy the concept, not "apathy" the word. Something like "I >> am apathetic." might potentially work, but it's a bit of a stretch. >> >> -- >> ais523 >> >>
DIS: Re: BUS: Victory by Apathy
>Capitalization is generally inconsequential and should not be used to infer that it's a term of art I disagree. And my counterargument is going to make me sip a lot of air through my teeth because I don’t like it. The capitalization thing is an Agoran slang/tradition/cultural thing (yuck, uuuhggghh). It’s a huge pity that it’s not obvious without being familiar with the culture, but capitalizing to denote a term of art is frequent and ubiquitous enough that I believe that it should be interpreted as such, because of “game custom” (R217). Agora doesn’t have an official language either, and the ruleset could’ve been written in a conlang that looks like English but has a totally different meaning for all I know, even if it “looks” like English. Overly paranoid Evil Genius style arguments aside, currently, Agora doesn’t even use standard English in the first place lol, because of the presence of Spivak. I argue that Agora is written in an Agora-dialect English. And in that, capitalization does denote terms of art. On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 05:12, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 03:56 +, James Cook wrote: > > Apathy. I specify Falsifian and G. > > > > I initiate a Call for Judgement, specifying the statement: "Falsifian > > and G won the game." > > > > Here are our arguments: > > > > 1. I "published", or "announced", the following: "Apathy", in this > >message. (I also sent a separate message that just says "Apathy", > >in case anyone insists it has to be by itself in a message for > >me to "publish" it.) > > Arguments: Declaring Apathy is not the same thing linguistically as > declaring "Apathy", much the same way as sending a message with text > "the Herald's Report" is not the same thing as publishing the Herald's > Report. There's a use/mention distinction issue here. > > If a scam along these lines worked, the required declaration would have > to express apathy the concept, not "apathy" the word. Something like "I > am apathetic." might potentially work, but it's a bit of a stretch. > > -- > ais523 > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Victory by Apathy
On Tue., Feb. 19, 2019, 23:12 ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 03:56 +, James Cook wrote: > > Apathy. I specify Falsifian and G. > > > > I initiate a Call for Judgement, specifying the statement: "Falsifian > > and G won the game." > > > > Here are our arguments: > > > > 1. I "published", or "announced", the following: "Apathy", in this > >message. (I also sent a separate message that just says "Apathy", > >in case anyone insists it has to be by itself in a message for > >me to "publish" it.) > > Arguments: Declaring Apathy is not the same thing linguistically as > declaring "Apathy", much the same way as sending a message with text > "the Herald's Report" is not the same thing as publishing the Herald's > Report. There's a use/mention distinction issue here. > > If a scam along these lines worked, the required declaration would have > to express apathy the concept, not "apathy" the word. Something like "I > am apathetic." might potentially work, but it's a bit of a stretch. > > -- > ais523 > That's a good point. Though if I want to say I'm feeling apathetic, "Apathy." seems like one way to say it. "Why didn't you go into work today?" "Apathy." You might even day I was too apathetic to bother to find some other way to express apathy. I do agree that it feels like a stretch, but I think the arguments mostly make sense. I'm not really sure. James >
DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy
Support On Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 20:56 James Cook Apathy >
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] vote for the best Ruleset find
Are we allowed to make conditional votes?
If so, and Gaelan either does not vote or votes PRESENT, then I vote
PRESENT.
If so, and Gaelan casts any other vote, then I vote {Telnaior, Gaelan,
Cuddlebeam, twg}.
If conditional votes are not allowed, then I vote {Telnaior, Gaelan,
Cuddlebeam, twg}.
On 2019-02-19 06:00, Kerim Aydin wrote:
VOTE!
Who had the best loophole, bug, or scam during Read the Ruleset week?
VOTE!
Here starts an UNOFFICIAL AGORAN DECISION with the following
modifications:
- Ranked choice: It's not bad form to vote for yourself, but please
consider 2nd, 3rd, etc.
- Counting long term-watchers' votes too! If ais523, Ørjan, or other
watchers would like to opine.
- Using the Auction method for ending the decision (4 days since last
vote, no more than 7 days total).
- I'll give my own votes in 24-48 hours.
OPTIONS (vote for the person)
Telnaior illustrating that contracts can make infinitely-rewarding
reports:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039875.html
(unjudged; arguments for it working stronger than arguments against IMO,
fix proposed).
Gaelan's attempt to win by Apathy, by using two messages for the same
intent:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039934.html
(Judged to have succeeded on reconsideration, though caught up in broader
issues of Satisfaction, fix proposed).
CuddleBeam arguing that Agora is a Contract, possibly a worldview shift:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039955.html
(Judged to be true, may be more of a curiosity than a practical
matter, but it's a curiosity very much in the Agoran spirit).
twg attempt to use contracts to induct the unwilling:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039950.html
(Judged to have failed, but pointed out the need for clearer wording or
stronger protections in the Rules).
Re: DIS: Relics
>getting to 3 when starting <3 cute, I <3 you too. Anyways, I was thinking about the Greed Relic and how to make it way less vulnerable to dishonesty. Instead of attending to the result of a scam's method (someone reporting that a non-consensual event happened) , we could just look at the method itself instead (someone points how the scam itself works or after it happens, we looks at how it as achieved instead of people's report of its consensuality). I think the key idea is that it's a non-consensual method to perform something onto someone that already has a consensual method, a "backdoor". And since the Ruleset tends to not be redundant, if you have both a con and a non-con method, the non-con method is likely a scam. Maybe this bites me in the ass because it's not a perfect test and the inverse still works too (it's supposed to be non-con but then someone finds a con method), but it's the best method I could ad lib of for a "mechanical" way to detect a scam without needing to resort to more subjective considerations like judging its scamness or something. And maybe it's actually just fine like this and both the straight and inverse versions are good and fun to have anyways as the same Relic. Greed might not be the ideal metaphor then, so I changed it to Wrath, because bypassing consent sounds impulsive and violent. Arguably it could've been Lust too but, eh, might be way too dark so I won't get into that. I like Pride for Escalation, gaining Power seems like puffing out your chest, it's cool. Thanks for telling me what it was, history's cool, I appreciate it. Going to use Gluttony instead of Cincinnatus because it's just easier to remember and type off the top of my head and it's more on the theme of cardinal sins and having amassed all that power feels obese. There's also the issue that once you have that kind of omnipotence, if Relics even "matter" anymore. You could just self-assign to yourself all of the Relics you want anyways. Or wins, for that matter. It's weird. But so are scams! So I'll add it anyways for the Fun of it, what is Agora without Fun anyways. PROTO: ---*--- - Wrath Relic: When a person performs a regulated action upon another person without their Consent, while they are able to perform a different regulated action that requires that person's Consent to perform the same effect, you earn a Wrath Relic. - Pride: I don't know how Instruments work lmao, I should read it up in order to write this (yes I know Read the Ruleset Week was a while ago, I didn't read the whole ruleset...) - Gluttony: When a single person, without aid of the action of other persons, can change the content of a Power-3 rule, they earn a Gluttony Relic. ---*--- Also, ty G. for the alternative rulemasonry for the first parts of this. I'll go with that. I'll call them Ribbons (not "Ordinary", just plain Ribbons) and Relics and both are Decorations. On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:56 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Well I did think about noting you could have as many relic levels as you > wanted, but I figured the mark "escalation" scam worth a Relic would be > just "getting to 3 when starting <3". In terms of "levels of victory" I > kinda feel like there's "some power" versus "complete power", not a huge > amount of point in distinguishing sub-steps IMO, but maybe there is. > > On 2/19/2019 7:46 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > > On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 07:39 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> I'm not sure if you'd have a different relic for all 3 steps (power- > >> 1, power-3, and power-1 to power-3), that might be a bit much, but > >> distinguishing different dictatorship levels gives you some options. > > > > I'm vaguely amused that you omitted power-2 (and other intermediate > > powers) entirely. > > > > (Back in the period where there were a lot of voting shenanigans > > meaning that power-1 forcethroughs were more common, escalators had a > > lot more usage, but were nearly always 1-to-3. I remember that I and a > > few other scamsters looked for 2-to-3 escalators and decided that they > > were trivial under the ruleset at the time, whereas 1-to-3 escalators > > were very hard to find and frequently got fixed.) > > >
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] vote for the best Ruleset find
I vote as follows: (Telnaior, Gaelan, CuddleBeam, twg). Total coincidence that this was the order I listed the options lol Reasons: Quite tough to choose between Telnaior and Gaelan. Both very good. Telnaior takes several rules (Rewards, Assets, Reports and Duties) and links parts of them - but once linked, a plain reading of the clauses makes Telnaior's reading fairly clear and the most plausible IMO - it might even be one of those that everyone agrees works without a CFJ, once pointed out. Gaelan's was very clever indeed, but the cleverness was in finding a strict technical reading of rule grammar that was not intended (ha) to read that way, and also relied on the classic "no one finding a hidden notice of intent" to work.So Telnaior's stands out just a little bit more for me in terms of style. Also: bonus to Telnaior for restraint! (I privately said to em before e revealed, that IMO it was perfectly ethical/fine as far as scams go, and e still refrained). CuddleBeam's Contract finding is quite interesting (and does point out a danger) but is more of a definitional debate of a sort we've had in the past of what "agreements" mean. twg's scam attempt pointed out that one of our most long-standing scam protections may be badly worded and weaker than we thought in the current version - and the fact that D. Margaux also spotted it means the wording was worth looking at with fresh eyes. But ultimately the fairly-straightforward reading of the rules meant things were (more or less) what we thought they were. Since (so far) my zombie would simply cancel out D. Margaux's zombie as per the order of the top two, using my zombie would be the same as ignoring zombies. So (using the same conditional that D. Margaux did) if we are counting zombies, on behalf of Halian I cast the same vote as above. On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:03 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > VOTE! > Who had the best loophole, bug, or scam during Read the Ruleset week? > VOTE! > > Here starts an UNOFFICIAL AGORAN DECISION with the following modifications: > - Ranked choice: It's not bad form to vote for yourself, but please > consider 2nd, 3rd, etc. > - Counting long term-watchers' votes too! If ais523, Ørjan, or other > watchers would like to opine. > - Using the Auction method for ending the decision (4 days since last > vote, no more than 7 days total). > - I'll give my own votes in 24-48 hours. > > OPTIONS (vote for the person) > > Telnaior illustrating that contracts can make infinitely-rewarding reports: > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039875.html > > (unjudged; arguments for it working stronger than arguments against IMO, > fix proposed). > > > Gaelan's attempt to win by Apathy, by using two messages for the same > intent: > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039934.html > > (Judged to have succeeded on reconsideration, though caught up in broader > issues of Satisfaction, fix proposed). > > > CuddleBeam arguing that Agora is a Contract, possibly a worldview shift: > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039955.html > (Judged to be true, may be more of a curiosity than a practical matter, but > it's a curiosity very much in the Agoran spirit). > > > twg attempt to use contracts to induct the unwilling: > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039950.html > (Judged to have failed, but pointed out the need for clearer wording or > stronger protections in the Rules). > > > Honorable Mentions: > > D. Margaux working the Contract Bug: > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039896.html > (and when twg scooped em, followed up with a different approach): > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039953.html > > CuddleBeam pointing out that space wins are infinite: > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039895.html > > Falsifian, for pointing out that Satisfaction has been borked for over 2 > years (unfortunately late for the contest! But the biggest bug correction > for a while and Falsifian is working hard on a fix). > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/040023.html > > twg's assertion that Rule 2571 is guilty of violating Rule 105. (also too > late to enter): > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33517.html > > > > >
Re: DIS: Relics
Well I did think about noting you could have as many relic levels as you wanted, but I figured the mark "escalation" scam worth a Relic would be just "getting to 3 when starting <3". In terms of "levels of victory" I kinda feel like there's "some power" versus "complete power", not a huge amount of point in distinguishing sub-steps IMO, but maybe there is. On 2/19/2019 7:46 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 07:39 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: I'm not sure if you'd have a different relic for all 3 steps (power- 1, power-3, and power-1 to power-3), that might be a bit much, but distinguishing different dictatorship levels gives you some options. I'm vaguely amused that you omitted power-2 (and other intermediate powers) entirely. (Back in the period where there were a lot of voting shenanigans meaning that power-1 forcethroughs were more common, escalators had a lot more usage, but were nearly always 1-to-3. I remember that I and a few other scamsters looked for 2-to-3 escalators and decided that they were trivial under the ruleset at the time, whereas 1-to-3 escalators were very hard to find and frequently got fixed.)
Re: DIS: Relics
On 2/19/2019 5:36 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: I'm piggybacking off the existing Ribbon rules. Maybe there's a more elegant way to do it. What do you guys think? I think it's fine and elegant to use existing stuff, but the rule is pretty long already - I'd split it into three rules: Rule 1: The Tailor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Ribbons. Ribbon Ownership is a person switch, tracked by the Tailor in eir monthly report, whose values are the subsets of the set of types of Ribbon, defaulting to the empty set. 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. To "award a person a " is to add that type of Ribbon to that person's Ribbon Ownership. A person "owns a " if that type of Ribbon is an element of eir Ribbon Ownership. While a person qualifies for a type of Ribbon, any player CAN, by announcement, award em that type of Ribbon. A person qualifies for a type of Ribbon if e has earned that type of Ribbon within the preceding 7 days (including earlier in the same message) and has not owned that type of Ribbon within the preceding 7 days. ADD THIS: Ribbon types CAN only be defined by the Rules (of power X?) There are two types of Ribbons: Ordinary [better name?] Ribbons and Relic Ribbons, By default, a Ribbon is Ordinary. Rule 2: Ordinary ribbons: While a person owns all types of Ordinary Ribbon, that person can Raise a Banner by announcement. This causes that person to win the game. That person's Ribbon Ownership becomes the empty set + Relics. The types of Ordinary Ribbon, and the methods of obtaining them, are as follows: [...] Rule 3: Relic ribbons: Mirror of above.
Re: DIS: Relics
On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 07:39 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I'm not sure if you'd have a different relic for all 3 steps (power- > 1, power-3, and power-1 to power-3), that might be a bit much, but > distinguishing different dictatorship levels gives you some options. I'm vaguely amused that you omitted power-2 (and other intermediate powers) entirely. (Back in the period where there were a lot of voting shenanigans meaning that power-1 forcethroughs were more common, escalators had a lot more usage, but were nearly always 1-to-3. I remember that I and a few other scamsters looked for 2-to-3 escalators and decided that they were trivial under the ruleset at the time, whereas 1-to-3 escalators were very hard to find and frequently got fixed.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Relics
On 2/19/2019 5:36 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Also, I have no idea what an escalation scam is, someone please fill me in > on that lol. An escalation scam is a sub-type of Dictator scam, really. A Dictator power-1 scam would be a scam that gives you complete control over an instrument of power-1 (forcing an ai-1 proposal through or something). A Dictator power-3 scam (ultimate power) is obviously the same for getting a power-3 instrument. An "escalation scam" is actually a 2-step scam, where you first get to power-1 by some method, but then use a different loophole to turn your power-1 instrument into a power-3 instrument. I'm not sure if you'd have a different relic for all 3 steps (power-1, power-3, and power-1 to power-3), that might be a bit much, but distinguishing different dictatorship levels gives you some options. -G.
DIS: Relics
I'm piggybacking off the existing Ribbon rules. Maybe there's a more
elegant way to do it. What do you guys think?
I'm not super happy with Greed Relic as it is but I like the idea of scams
that break consent. It just seems too easy to earn (an accomplice just
pretends that the transfer was non-consensual or something.)
Also, I have no idea what an escalation scam is, someone please fill me in
on that lol.
PROTO:
---*---
Name:
Co-Authors: D.Margaux, G, ais523, Oerjan
Adoption Index: 3
Content:
Replace "While a person owns all types of Ribbon, that person can Raise a
Banner by announcement. This causes that person to win the game. That
person's Ribbon Ownership becomes the empty set." in rule 2438 with:
"While a person owns all types of non-Relic Ribbon, that person can Raise a
Banner by announcement. This causes that person to win the game. That
person's Ribbon Ownership becomes the empty set plus the set of their
Relics.
While a person owns all types of Relic Ribbon, that person can Raise into
the Heavens by announcement. This causes that person to win the game. That
person's Ribbon Ownership becomes the empty set plus the set of their
non-Relic Ribbons.
A Relic Ribbon (ie. Relic) is a Ribbon with "Relic" in its name."
Add to the bottom of the list of Ribbons in rule 2438 the following:
"Black Relic (b): There is no specified method for obtaining a Black Relic
Apathy Relic (a): A player CAN Declare Apathy without objection, specifying
a set of players. Upon doing so, the specified players earn an Apathy Relic.
Cincinnatus Relic (c): Dictatorship scam stuff here.
Pride Relic (p): Escalation scam stuff here.
Greed Relic (g): Transfer all coins from a player to yourself without their
consent.
(...)"
Add to the Ribbon Ownership of each player a {Black Relic} if immediately
prior to this proposal enacting, they had a {Black Ribbon}.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
Already on my radar! -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 1:40 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On 2/18/2019 5:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > This is such a mess lol. > > Patent title suggestion for everyone involved in the mess: > "Badge of the Best Intents". > > H. Assessor, when the dust has settled I'd also propose that Falsifian is a > good candidate for our first MacGyver award (with this proposal, I seriously > feel like we're watching em choose which of the red and blue wires to cut to > stop the game from exploding, as we yell advice at em in the background).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deputisation for PM CFJs
In that case, you have a few options— 1) judge them FALSE/FALSE (which is their current truth values) 2) wait to see if the intent fixing proposal passes (if you think any intent will be fixed retroactively and want the judgement to reflect that) > On Feb 19, 2019, at 2:49 AM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > Thanks for the timeline, but all of this is still giving me a headache. I > believe that the intent wasn’t specific enough and that all of the interns > are broken. How should I judge these? > > -Aris > >> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 12:28 PM D. Margaux wrote: >> >> I CFJ: D. Margaux is the Prime Minister. >> >> I CFJ: twg is the Speaker. >> >> Arguements: >> >> 1) I won by cheating a while back (sorry!), and I think that triggered >> ATMunn’s obligation to reappoint me as a new speaker (even though I was >> already speaker). >> >> 2) Subsequently, Gaelan won by apathy, and that victory was upheld as >> valid in a CFJ. (But maybe intents are broken? So is it really clear that e >> actually did win by apathy?) >> >> 3) Then I declared a intent to deputise for PM “to appoint a new speaker” >> (or similarly generic language), which G. challenged as perhaps not >> specific enough to be a proper intent. >> >> 4) Then twg and I declared victory by apathy (probably?—but again, that >> doesn’t work if intents are broken; and if intents _are_ broken, then how >> did Gaelan win?). >> >> 5) I then declared an intent to deputise for PM to appoint twg >> specifically to be speaker. >> >> and then 6) I executed those intents by deputising as PM to appoint twg to >> be speaker (if laureled); otherwise Gaelan (if laureled); otherwise D. >> Margaux. >> >> So, the questions are—did twg and I win by apathy (or are intents broken)? >> If we did win, then both CFJs are TRUE (I think). >> >> If we didn’t win by apathy, the other question is whether my “general” >> intent was enough to deputise for PM? If so, then I am PM but twg isn’t >> Speaker. And in that case, is Gaelan the Speaker or am I?
