Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 6:12 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 9/10/2019 4:43 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > If not, we’re gating proposals out of an > > abstract opinion that they ought to be gated rather than because it’s in > > anyone’s interest. > > I could say it's a load on everyone (i.e. the "voters") when lots of > proposals get submitted without much thought, but that's not really it. > The real reason is, it's a game. Part of games are the challenges that > come > from limiting actions. Since we change the rules, sometimes we want to > gamify proposals in that matter. > > I know you've historically been very against proposal fees, and I've > generally been for them, but it's not for a deep philosophical reason other > than "some of us want to play that way for a while." > > All that said, just putting a coin fee on proposals doesn't make proposal > fees "interesting", there has to be some deeper play than that to make it > worthwhile... I know interesting systems have existed at various points in the past. That said, I’ve never seen one in practice, so I’m a intensely skeptical of any claim that a new system is going to fit into that category. -Aris
Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system
On 9/10/2019 4:43 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > If not, we’re gating proposals out of an > abstract opinion that they ought to be gated rather than because it’s in > anyone’s interest. I could say it's a load on everyone (i.e. the "voters") when lots of proposals get submitted without much thought, but that's not really it. The real reason is, it's a game. Part of games are the challenges that come from limiting actions. Since we change the rules, sometimes we want to gamify proposals in that matter. I know you've historically been very against proposal fees, and I've generally been for them, but it's not for a deep philosophical reason other than "some of us want to play that way for a while." All that said, just putting a coin fee on proposals doesn't make proposal fees "interesting", there has to be some deeper play than that to make it worthwhile... -G.
Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system
On 9/10/19 8:21 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: I've written a script to parse the distributions, so the fact that there are proposals doesn't affect me there. Whoops - yes the fact that proposals exist does affect me, but the number doesn't. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system
On 9/9/19 6:10 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: Create a new rule with title "Interest Groups", power 1, and text: An interest group is an entity defined as such by this rule. Each interest group has a goal. The following are the interest groups of Agora and their goals: A. Justice: interested in seeing justice served B. Efficiency: interested in seeing official duties performed C. Legislation: interested in seeing proposals passed D. Participation: interested in seeing votes cast Value is a natural interest group switch with a maximum value of 10 and a default value of 5. A few more thoughts on this (sorry, thought of these after first message): Explicitly limiting the definitions to a single rule increases coupling and decreases modularity. Would something break if other rules could define interest groups? Also, you need to state who tracks Value - under R2139, this proto would force the Registrar to track it. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system
On 9/10/19 7:43 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: Who do infinite free proposals hurt? The only people I can think of who might be adversely affected are the Promotor and the Assessor (if the proposals are really bad, they’ll never hit the Rulekeepor, and extra the amount of work for voters isn’t big). As Promotor, I can say that I’d much rather track extra proposals than track whether proposals have been pended. Does it bother the H. Assessor? If not, we’re gating proposals out of an abstract opinion that they ought to be gated rather than because it’s in anyone’s interest. -Aris My thoughts: I've written a script to parse the distributions, so the fact that there are proposals doesn't affect me there. Recording the votes doesn't take long - even with the distributions with dozens of proposals are pretty quick. What does bug me is redistributions - I try to keep each set of proposals separate in the Github repo, so I end up having to record votes twice. So, no, I do not, as the Assessor, particularly care how many proposals there are. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system
On 9/10/19 9:43 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I really *do* like the idea of different sectors with different "performance values" with currency speculation between them, and the event-constrained random walk governing the various values (i.e. something semi-predictable so an attentive player can trade on the probabilities), if there's a way to get at a similar idea without the recordkeeping overhead. That's a completely understandable sentiment. How about a simpler system something like: The value of participation decreases if one or more Agoran decisions initiated in the last month was resolved as FAILED QUORUM. It increases otherwise. Justice works the same, but with overdue cases. Efficiency changes based on some stats about filled offices. This requires far less overhead with regard to math and tracking, though it is less intriguing. -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 4:20 PM Reuben Staley wrote: > On 9/10/19 4:10 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:> I do wonder if maybe "all > the interlocking cogs... turning fine" is part of the problem. In > real-life political systems, things keep changing because people still > feel that they are inadequate or unjust, or because there are current > events that need to be responded to. But in Agora, there seems to be a > general consensus that the current system is fit for purpose and needs > no major improvements or alterations. So, naturally, nothing much tends > to change with the "core" rules, and instead we've been distracting > ourselves with a series of sub-games. > > > > Perhaps it's time to deliberately tinkering some of the core rules and > see what happens? > > Right, this is exactly how I envisioned C&B. A deliberate change to the > core ruleset. Economic systems, despite shifting due to the needs of the > rest of the rules, are still a core part of the game. C&B would change > up the process a little bit, perhaps spurring a change to the rest of > the ruleset. Do you want me to expand this to more parts of the core > ruleset? I have plenty of ideas for that. > Economic systems really aren’t a core part of the game. We’ve functioned without them before. Yes, you still need some way of tracking who can do what, but it doesn’t always take the form of a currency. You could yank the economic system and to the best of my knowledge everything would still basically function, apart from like zombies, which are also non-core. > > >For example, I know from archives that proposals tend to oscillate > between "free and accessible to everyone" and "gated behind game > mechanics". When I registered a year and a half ago, proposals cost a > nominal fee, and now they're totally unrestricted - so we've gone through a > phase of direct democracy. What would people think about changing that? > > For the record, I've never really been completely on-board with infinite > completely free proposals for all. I would love if someone brought > proposal fees back. Who do infinite free proposals hurt? The only people I can think of who might be adversely affected are the Promotor and the Assessor (if the proposals are really bad, they’ll never hit the Rulekeepor, and extra the amount of work for voters isn’t big). As Promotor, I can say that I’d much rather track extra proposals than track whether proposals have been pended. Does it bother the H. Assessor? If not, we’re gating proposals out of an abstract opinion that they ought to be gated rather than because it’s in anyone’s interest. -Aris
Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system
On 9/10/19 4:10 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:> I do wonder if maybe "all the interlocking cogs... turning fine" is part of the problem. In real-life political systems, things keep changing because people still feel that they are inadequate or unjust, or because there are current events that need to be responded to. But in Agora, there seems to be a general consensus that the current system is fit for purpose and needs no major improvements or alterations. So, naturally, nothing much tends to change with the "core" rules, and instead we've been distracting ourselves with a series of sub-games. Perhaps it's time to deliberately tinkering some of the core rules and see what happens? Right, this is exactly how I envisioned C&B. A deliberate change to the core ruleset. Economic systems, despite shifting due to the needs of the rest of the rules, are still a core part of the game. C&B would change up the process a little bit, perhaps spurring a change to the rest of the ruleset. Do you want me to expand this to more parts of the core ruleset? I have plenty of ideas for that. For example, I know from archives that proposals tend to oscillate between "free and accessible to everyone" and "gated behind game mechanics". When I registered a year and a half ago, proposals cost a nominal fee, and now they're totally unrestricted - so we've gone through a phase of direct democracy. What would people think about changing that? For the record, I've never really been completely on-board with infinite completely free proposals for all. I would love if someone brought proposal fees back. -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system
On 9/9/2019 3:10 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: >During the first Eastman week of each month, the Treasuror CAN and >SHALL perform the following actions, collectively known as >Balancing, in sequence: Now that I look more closely, my specific concerns are doubled - this requires the Treasuror to accurately track literally every aspect of the game - CFJs, Offices, and Proposals - by individual results, including proposals and CFJs are withdrawn, with the success of a major action (the final calculations) failing if there's a single mistake. I like the idea of collective activity but I'm it's just too much bookkeeping in the Agoran format. Of course there's various small ways to make parts of the calculation more pragmatic but I'm worried it still leaves a huge burden prone to constant re-doing of mistakes. I really *do* like the idea of different sectors with different "performance values" with currency speculation between them, and the event-constrained random walk governing the various values (i.e. something semi-predictable so an attentive player can trade on the probabilities), if there's a way to get at a similar idea without the recordkeeping overhead. -G.
Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system
On 9/10/2019 3:10 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Perhaps it's time to deliberately tinkering some of the core rules and see > what happens? For example, I know from archives that proposals tend to > oscillate between "free and accessible to everyone" and "gated behind game > mechanics". When I registered a year and a half ago, proposals cost a > nominal fee, and now they're totally unrestricted - so we've gone through > a phase of direct democracy. What would people think about changing that? Always a fan of that. Tho in a "cycling through previous ideas" sense, I think the next think up for tinkering might be votes. We've gone through periods of hierarchical voting systems and haven't done that in a while. Example from the past: the Order of Succession, an ordered list of players. Person on top is Speaker or PM. Next person down has 3N votes, next two people below that 2N, everyone else N. Every T time, top person goes to the bottom of the list and everyone moves up. Gameplay stuff can re-order the list in various ways. (Of course there's plenty of other ways to distribute votes via gameplay, just an example). -G.
Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system
On 9/9/2019 3:10 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: > Their recordkeepor is the Treasuror. After the last couple debacles, I'm making a firm policy of voting against any minigame, no matter how good on paper, that where the proposor emself isn't installed into office as the game runner (whether via a new office or an old one). -G.
Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 7:58 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: > I don't know what you want to improve about the core system. The most > change that has been enacted in the past few months to the core system > are minor fixes that clarify things. Sure, we find a broken bit > sometimes, but those are fixed relatively quickly and with little > fanfare. At this point, all the interlocking cogs that turn Agora into a > well-oiled machine are turning fine. And unless you or anyone else can > find an area where the rules could use significant improvement, I don't > see the core system improving at all. Not outside of minimal wording > changes. I do wonder if maybe "all the interlocking cogs... turning fine" is part of the problem. In real-life political systems, things keep changing because people still feel that they are inadequate or unjust, or because there are current events that need to be responded to. But in Agora, there seems to be a general consensus that the current system is fit for purpose and needs no major improvements or alterations. So, naturally, nothing much tends to change with the "core" rules, and instead we've been distracting ourselves with a series of sub-games. Perhaps it's time to deliberately tinkering some of the core rules and see what happens? For example, I know from archives that proposals tend to oscillate between "free and accessible to everyone" and "gated behind game mechanics". When I registered a year and a half ago, proposals cost a nominal fee, and now they're totally unrestricted - so we've gone through a phase of direct democracy. What would people think about changing that? -twg
Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system
On 9/10/19 1:10 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
No comment on the specific proposal yet, but a general comment. I
think we should wait a while before having another mini-game. The last
few we've had have died, not because they were bad ideas, but partly
because of bugs and most of all because there wasn't enough interest.
These problems are related. The reason I didn't play Politics when it
was reenacted was because nichdel (I think) found a loophole and
prevented literally anybody else from having any interaction with the
minigame.
We've literally just given up on space. Before that, we had politics,
which was interesting and relatively light on bugs, but no one played
that either.
I respectfully opine that Cheques and Balances is not comparable to
full-fledged minigames like Spaaace and Politics. Calling it a minigame
even is a stretch. It's only slightly more of a game than the current
coin economics.
I think it's time we took a break.
We are taking a break. We have been for the last month. And it's boring.
I think the Agoran
public has expressed its collective disinterest of adding layers on
top of the base game (or, rather, its collective disinterest in
engaging with those layers).
Involvement in Spaaace and Politics, was never required. This system
forces a minimal level of involvement if you intend to make money. It
requries one extra sentence ("I claim a reward of 1 cheque. I cash in
the cheque for 5 coins" vs "I claim a reward of 5 coins"). This is
another reason Cheques and Balances can't really be compared to a
minigame, and another reason I have confidence in its success.
That'll change again someday, but I don't
think it has yet. I'd like to ask that the option of letting things stay
still and doing basic game development be seriously considered.
The game has been in a standstill for weeks. Months if you count the
time minigame rules were still in effect but went unutilized. No
development is occuring. C&B will make things slightly more interesting.
I think C&B has the potential to spark development.
Just to make this very clear, I'm not saying that focusing on the base
game and focusing on mini-games are mutually exclusive. There might
even be times when they can even compliment each other. However, given
current conditions, it seems to me like focusing on a new mini-game
*right now* would be a continuation of a pattern of moving from one
thing to the next, rather stopping to slow down and consider areas for
improvements to the core system.
I don't know what you want to improve about the core system. The most
change that has been enacted in the past few months to the core system
are minor fixes that clarify things. Sure, we find a broken bit
sometimes, but those are fixed relatively quickly and with little
fanfare. At this point, all the interlocking cogs that turn Agora into a
well-oiled machine are turning fine. And unless you or anyone else can
find an area where the rules could use significant improvement, I don't
see the core system improving at all. Not outside of minimal wording
changes.
My opinion is that the best way to get Agora out of its current rut is
through something like C&B. Maybe it will turn into a full minigame at
some later point, and we may have to start talking about Agora's
treatment of minigames as of late. In its current, minimal state,
however, I think C&B would be the perfect thing to revitalize the game,
given some revision.
--
Trigon
Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 12:10 AM Aris Merchant wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 3:07 AM Reuben Staley wrote: > > > > > > > This idea has been stewing for a long time, and this is the rough draft > > of a proposal that captures my initial thoughts somewhat. > > > > I am putting this out there because the game is barren. The closest > > thing we have to gameplay at this point is the stuff Agora always has. > > CFJs and whatnot. I hope the minigame contest goes somewhere, but this > > is different and important in a completely different way. > > > > It's been a while since we've had an actual economics anyway. Coins are > > not the most interesting system out there and don't even have a cool > > name. > > > > TL;DR: Agora is boring and gross. > > > > > > No comment on the specific proposal yet, but a general comment. I > think we should wait a while before having another mini-game. The last > few we've had have died, not because they were bad ideas, but partly > because of bugs and most of all because there wasn't enough interest. > We've literally just given up on space. Before that, we had politics, > which was interesting and relatively light on bugs, but no one played > that either. I think it's time we took a break. I think the Agoran > public has expressed its collective disinterest of adding layers on > top of the base game (or, rather, its collective disinterest in > engaging with those layers). That'll change again someday, but I don't > think it has yet. I'd like to ask that the option of letting things stay > still and doing basic game development be seriously considered. Just to make this very clear, I'm not saying that focusing on the base game and focusing on mini-games are mutually exclusive. There might even be times when they can even compliment each other. However, given current conditions, it seems to me like focusing on a new mini-game *right now* would be a continuation of a pattern of moving from one thing to the next, rather stopping to slow down and consider areas for improvements to the core system. -Aris
Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system
On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 3:07 AM Reuben Staley wrote: > > > This idea has been stewing for a long time, and this is the rough draft > of a proposal that captures my initial thoughts somewhat. > > I am putting this out there because the game is barren. The closest > thing we have to gameplay at this point is the stuff Agora always has. > CFJs and whatnot. I hope the minigame contest goes somewhere, but this > is different and important in a completely different way. > > It's been a while since we've had an actual economics anyway. Coins are > not the most interesting system out there and don't even have a cool > name. > > TL;DR: Agora is boring and gross. > > No comment on the specific proposal yet, but a general comment. I think we should wait a while before having another mini-game. The last few we've had have died, not because they were bad ideas, but partly because of bugs and most of all because there wasn't enough interest. We've literally just given up on space. Before that, we had politics, which was interesting and relatively light on bugs, but no one played that either. I think it's time we took a break. I think the Agoran public has expressed its collective disinterest of adding layers on top of the base game (or, rather, its collective disinterest in engaging with those layers). That'll change again someday, but I don't think it has yet. I'd like to ask that the option of letting things stay still and doing basic game development be seriously considered. -Aris
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Another Draft Since I Took So Long
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 10:02 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> On 9/8/19 12:57 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Here's another draft, sorry for the inconvenience.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > ---
> > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> > quorum is 5, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
> > options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
> > conditional votes).
>
> Also, this is missing the proposals added by Proposal 8247 ("Quorum
> Defailure").
Thanks! Here's another draft.
-Aris
---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 5, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
conditional votes).
ID Author(s)AITitle
---
8235A Jason Cobb 3.0 Unified fine creation syntax
8236A Jason Cobb, Aris 3.0 Definition de-capitalization
8237A Jacob Arduino, [1] 1.0 Repairing Defeated Spaceships v3
8238A Jacob Arduino, twg, G. 3.0 Cancelling Proposals (arr. for violin)
8239A Jason Cobb, [2] 1.0 The Editor (v2.0.1)
8240A Jason Cobb 3.0 Regulation clarification
8241A Falsifian3.0 Secured switches (v2.0)
8242A Falsifian3.0 Let the dead rest
8248 Jason Cobb, Aris 3.0 Publishing definition
8249 Jacob Arduino, twg 1.0 No Harm No Foul
The proposal pool is currently empty.
Legend: A : Distribution identifier for a second distribution.
The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
//
ID: 8235
Title: Unified fine creation syntax
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2555 ("Blots") by replacing the text "To Levy a Fine" with
the text "To levy a fine".
Amend Rule 2451 ("Executive Orders") by replacing the sentence
The Prime Minister levies a 2 Blot fine on a specified player.
with the sentence
The Prime Minister levies a fine of 2 on a specified player.
Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") by replacing the text "levying a
fine of up to 2 blots on em" with the text "levying a fine of (a value
not exceeding 2) on em".
//
ID: 8236
Title: Definition de-capitalization
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors: Aris
Amend Rule 1728 to read, in whole:
The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent
actions":
1. without N objections, where N is a positive integer no greater
than 8 ("without objection" is shorthand for this method with N = 1);
2. with N support, where N is a positive integer ("with support" is
shorthand for this method with N = 1);
3. with N Agoran consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1 with
a minimum of 1 ("With Agoran consent" is shorthand for this method
with N = 1);
4. with notice; or
5. with T notice, where T is a time period.
N is 1 unless otherwise specified.
Amend Rule 2595 as follows:
In the first sub-bullet under item 2 of the only list, replace the
text "with T Notice" with the text "with T notice".
In the second sub-bullet under item 2 of the only list, replace the
text "Without N Objections, With N Support, or With N Agoran
Consent" with the text "without N objections, with N support, or
with N Agoran Consent".
In the first sub-bullet under item 3 of the only list, replace the
text "With N Support" with the text "with N support".
In the second sub-bullet under item 3 of the only list, replace the
text "Without N Objections, With N Agoran Consent, or With Notice"
with the text "without N objections, with N Agoran consent, or with
notice".
In the third sub-bullet under item 3 of the only list, replace the
text "With T Notice" with the text "with T notice".
In the final paragraph, replace the text "with N Agoran Consent"
with the text "with N Agoran consent".
Amend the only list in Rule 2124 ("Agoran Satisfaction") to read:
1. The action is to be performed Without N objections, and there are
at least N Objectors to that intent.
2. The action is to be performed With N support, and there are fewer
than than N Supporters of that intent.
3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran consent, and the
number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal to N times
the number of Objectors to the intent.
//
ID: 8237
Title: Repairing Defeated Spaceships v3
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors:
