DIS: [Reportor] Last Week in Agora
Archived at https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Reportor/tree/master/weekly_summaries Report for the week of 2020-06-08..14: # Summary nch's long-awaited Sets economy was adopted this week, and we've already seen three contracts for moving Cards and Products around (one of which has been revealed to be a scam, so far) as well as proposals for new rules to go with Sets. There's nothing like an imminent proposal pending fee to get Agorans' creativity flowing. Sets comes as part of a massive two rounds of resolved proposals this week, with many changes adopted including a drastic change to auctions. A large number were distributed this week as well. We saw a rare victory by the difficult mechanism of Raising a Banner, almost drowned out by the intense buzz of activity around Sets. This makes G. our latest Champion. G. was also honoured for eir academic work, receiving a Juris Doctor of Nomic. And on the subject of culture, the proposal awarding the 2016 Silver Quill was adopted this week. nch was elected Webmastor, and immediately gave Agora's website some well-deserved attention, and also staged a benevolent Github coup (for our protection). Other elections are under way: voting began for Prime Minister, and our new ADoP started another ADoP election to give the old one a chance to fight to get it back. Most active players hop on a new pirate ship to loot the Lost and Found Department. Is it really piracy if it's done without objection? That's only the tip of the iceberg. Plenty of other happenings this week, from proposed judicial reforms to actions in Spanish to an occult store, listed below. # Polls, report formats, putting things on the web, and a new person * The Webmastor asks some questions to Agorans. Thread: "[Webmastor] Informal Polling" * New poster lucidot makes eir first Agora posts in this thread, giving some feedback, and is welcomed. * Discussion topics include what should go on the home page, the experience for new players, and how to easily put reports on the web. * The Treasuror drafts a new format for eir reports (now that there are many kinds of asset for em to track), including an HTML version on the web, and gets feedback in the thread "[Treasuror] New Report Format" * Webmastor nch reduces the number of owners in the Agoranomic Github org. There's some discussion about how to pick the set of owners. Thread: "[Webmastor] A Github Coup" * The Webmastor makes some small updates to the homepage. Thread: "[Webmastor] Tiny Homepage Updates" * A tweak to the Assessor's assessment format is suggested and implemented in the thread "Resolution of Proposals 8409-8430" # Games and the Sets Economy * The Sets economy (Proposal 8408) is adopted. * G. proposes a game built on the new Sets economy. Thread: "Barrel rolling" * There's some debate about phrasing triggering R2579 to make winning require payment of 100 barrels, and whether winning the game is an action. * G. proposes to rephrase winning by paradox to be a new action (Transcending Logic) which causes winning, to address potential bugs related to fee-based actions and whether winning the game is an action. Thread: "indirect wins" * The question of whether winning the game should be an action comes up in the thread "ribbon win question". * There's discussion of ways players could collude to win. * G. proposes regular auctions of Victory Cards together with assets owned by the Lost and Found Department. Thread: "Victory auctions" * There's some discussion about possible economic loopholes in Sets and related proposals, and whether this is an unavoidable part of starting a new system. Thread: "Victory auctions" * Cuddlebeam proposes to ban scamming rules less than 90 days old. * ATMunn drafts a proposal for "amulets" that are auctioned off and grant powers. Discussion includes mention of an earlier proto "Stones" by G., tuning the power of the amulets, the possibility of an unusual auction mechanism, and pooling resources. * Trading and pooling: * The Needlessly Abstract Exchange gets tested out. Mistake(s) are made and bugs are fixed. Threads have "NAX" in the subject line. * Contracts for pooling Cards to efficiently convert them to Products: * Aris announces DracoLotto, a pooling contract where the Dragon Corporation contract earning some profit. Same players contribute. Thread: "DracoLotto" * R. Lee announces the Combinotron, which does not take a profit. E later reveals it to be an attempted scam and destroys it, forgetting that e had transferred some of eir assets to it, which go to the Lost and Found Department (L). Discussion turns to a question about specifying assets when announcing intent to transfer assets from the L Threads: "[Important and Very Cool Contract] Combinotron", 'Fine, I destroy "Combinotron"' * Cuddlebeam suggests making a contract to
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Minor cleaning
never mind, cant read. rest of argument still stands on ordinary meaning of attempt in a criminal context. new common sense arguments: rules tend to think intending anything you want is okay and criminalizing formal intent is bad, see the No Faking rule (exempting intent) On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:48 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/18/2020 8:02 PM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > > Merely thinking and planning to commit murder isn't attempted murder, the > > acts carried out have to be "more than merely preparatory" (under English > > law). The same applies to this analogous crime, merely preparing to take > > the ossifying action is not an attempt; attempt is actually doing an > action > > (even if that action fails, as it would ossify Agora). > > > > The thing my proposal had to do with it was that it removed the bit that > > said "intending to do a forbidden art is a crime" (or whatever). For what > > it's worth under the common sense factors, the fact that making a formal > > intent to do an action that would ossify the game was specifically > removed > > from the rule means that it is unlikely the rule is meant to still > > criminalize it. > > > > Where's the "intent" bit in Rule 2617/0 I'm completely missing it: > > Rule 2617/0 (Power=1.0) > Defense Against the Dark Arts > > A proposal is forbidden if it would, upon successfully taking > effect, cause Agora to be ossified or to cease to exist. An > action is forbidden if it would, upon its successful occurrence, > cause Agora to be ossified or to cease to exist. > > Attempting a forbidden action is PROHIBITED, and is the Class-4 > Crime of Engaging in Forbidden Arts. > > Submitting a forbidden proposal is PROHIBITED, and is the Class-1 > Crime of Contemplating Forbidden Arts. > > Being the author of an adopted forbidden proposal is PROHIBITED, > and is the Class-2 Crime of Suborning Forbidden Arts. > > Having a final ballot that evaluates to FOR in the Agoran decision > on whether to adopt a forbidden proposal is PROHIBITED, and is the > Class-1 Crime of Abetting Forbidden Arts. > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Minor cleaning
On 6/18/2020 8:02 PM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > Merely thinking and planning to commit murder isn't attempted murder, the > acts carried out have to be "more than merely preparatory" (under English > law). The same applies to this analogous crime, merely preparing to take > the ossifying action is not an attempt; attempt is actually doing an action > (even if that action fails, as it would ossify Agora). > > The thing my proposal had to do with it was that it removed the bit that > said "intending to do a forbidden art is a crime" (or whatever). For what > it's worth under the common sense factors, the fact that making a formal > intent to do an action that would ossify the game was specifically removed > from the rule means that it is unlikely the rule is meant to still > criminalize it. > Where's the "intent" bit in Rule 2617/0 I'm completely missing it: Rule 2617/0 (Power=1.0) Defense Against the Dark Arts A proposal is forbidden if it would, upon successfully taking effect, cause Agora to be ossified or to cease to exist. An action is forbidden if it would, upon its successful occurrence, cause Agora to be ossified or to cease to exist. Attempting a forbidden action is PROHIBITED, and is the Class-4 Crime of Engaging in Forbidden Arts. Submitting a forbidden proposal is PROHIBITED, and is the Class-1 Crime of Contemplating Forbidden Arts. Being the author of an adopted forbidden proposal is PROHIBITED, and is the Class-2 Crime of Suborning Forbidden Arts. Having a final ballot that evaluates to FOR in the Agoran decision on whether to adopt a forbidden proposal is PROHIBITED, and is the Class-1 Crime of Abetting Forbidden Arts.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Non-fee based mechanisms for fee-based actions
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 03:32, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/18/20 11:29 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > What would the text look like then? (I don't follow how the "invoke" > > phrasing relates to the requirement about specifying zero fee.) > > > I would phrase it as "If a fee-based method to perform an action has a > fee of no assets, that action CAN be performed by announcement, but the > actor SHOULD announce that there was a 0 or empty fee." (just dropping > the "invoke" phrasing entirely). > > -- > Jason Cobb Thanks, looks good. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Non-fee based mechanisms for fee-based actions
On 6/18/20 11:29 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > What would the text look like then? (I don't follow how the "invoke" > phrasing relates to the requirement about specifying zero fee.) I would phrase it as "If a fee-based method to perform an action has a fee of no assets, that action CAN be performed by announcement, but the actor SHOULD announce that there was a 0 or empty fee." (just dropping the "invoke" phrasing entirely). -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Non-fee based mechanisms for fee-based actions
> >> If the Rules define a fee-based mechanism to perform an action, but the > >> specified set of assets is the empty set, then the mechanism can be > >> invoked by announcement, but the announcement must include that there is > >> an (empty or 0) fee for the mechanism. > > I'm not sure if the meaning of "invoking" a mechanism/method is clear > > enough. What if we kept "then the action can be performed by > > announcement" here? I don't feel strongly; both versions seem vaguely > > fishy to me for different reasons. > > > > - Falsifian > > > Yeah, I knew the "invoke" phrasing was weird when I wrote it, and the > rules only define performing actions by announcement, not using methods > by announcement. The cleanest solution might be to just drop the > requirement of announcing a zero fee (or turn it into a SHOULD). > > -- > Jason Cobb What would the text look like then? (I don't follow how the "invoke" phrasing relates to the requirement about specifying zero fee.) - Falsifian
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] What's a card game without a deck?
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 20:37, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > Here's a proto-proposal I came up with somewhat on the spot. Opinions > welcome. > > > Title: The Deck > AI: 1.0 > Author: ATMunn > Co-author(s): > > Enact a power-1 rule entitled "The Deck" with the following text: > The Deck is an entity. The Deck CAN own Cards, but no other types of > assets. > > If the Deck owns at least one Card, any player CAN pay 10 coins to > Draw a Card. When a player does so, the Dealor CAN by announcement, > and SHALL in a timely fashion, transfer a Card from the Deck to the > player who Drew a Card. The Dealor SHALL make the choice of which > card to transfer randomly, with the probability of each type of Card > being exactly proportional to the number of that Card that the Deck > owns. Failure to use random chance in this transfer is the Class-2 > Crime of Stacking the Deck. It seems ambiguous whether the probability of drawing a Justice card is proportional to the number of Justice Cards, or the probability of drawing *each* justice card is. (I'm pretty sure the former is what's intended.) I think changing "make the choice of which card" to "make the choice of which type of card" would fix the ambiguity. (Example: if the Deck owns a. Justice, b. Justice, c. Victory, then we don't want to say the distribution is 2/5, 2/5, 1/5.) > The Dealor's includes the card ownership of the Deck. a word (Also, the Treasuror already would need to report this. Does it help to have two officers reporting it?) - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Non-fee based mechanisms for fee-based actions
On 6/18/20 11:08 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: >> If the Rules associate payment of a set of actions (hereafter the fee > s/actions/assets/ Thanks, fixed on local copy. > >> for the action; syns: cost, price charge) with performing an action, > You lost a comma after "price". Fixed. > >> that mechanism for performing that action is a fee-based mechanism. > Shouldn't it be "method" rather than "mechanism"? (Everywhere in the > proposal.) > > The rules do talk about mechanisms in some places. I'm not sure what > the difference is, but e.g. R2125 and 1728 use the word "method" for > the sort of thing I think this proposal is trying to describe. Looks like you're right. Fixed. > >> If the Rules define a fee-based mechanism to perform an action, but the >> specified set of assets is the empty set, then the mechanism can be >> invoked by announcement, but the announcement must include that there is >> an (empty or 0) fee for the mechanism. > I'm not sure if the meaning of "invoking" a mechanism/method is clear > enough. What if we kept "then the action can be performed by > announcement" here? I don't feel strongly; both versions seem vaguely > fishy to me for different reasons. > > - Falsifian Yeah, I knew the "invoke" phrasing was weird when I wrote it, and the rules only define performing actions by announcement, not using methods by announcement. The cleanest solution might be to just drop the requirement of announcing a zero fee (or turn it into a SHOULD). -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Non-fee based mechanisms for fee-based actions
> If the Rules associate payment of a set of actions (hereafter the fee s/actions/assets/ > for the action; syns: cost, price charge) with performing an action, You lost a comma after "price". > that mechanism for performing that action is a fee-based mechanism. Shouldn't it be "method" rather than "mechanism"? (Everywhere in the proposal.) The rules do talk about mechanisms in some places. I'm not sure what the difference is, but e.g. R2125 and 1728 use the word "method" for the sort of thing I think this proposal is trying to describe. > If the Rules define a fee-based mechanism to perform an action, but the > specified set of assets is the empty set, then the mechanism can be > invoked by announcement, but the announcement must include that there is > an (empty or 0) fee for the mechanism. I'm not sure if the meaning of "invoking" a mechanism/method is clear enough. What if we kept "then the action can be performed by announcement" here? I don't feel strongly; both versions seem vaguely fishy to me for different reasons. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Minor cleaning
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:52 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> CFJ: R. Lee attempted to perform a forbidden action in the message in
> evidence.
>
> Barred: R. Lee
>
> Arguments:
>
> In reference to:
> Attempting a forbidden action is PROHIBITED, and is the Class-4
> Crime of Engaging in Forbidden Arts.
>
> We never really define "attempt" though we use it a lot in the rules.
> Generally, if you begin the prerequisites of a process to do something
> (i.e. announcing intent to perform an action in a legal way that begins a
> waiting period) a person would say you're "attempting" to do it. ("What
> was that announcement for?" "oh, e's attempting to win by apathy").
>
>
> [not part of the arguments: you're probably right, but I think it's
> enough of a possibility to call the case and it would be good to get a
> definition of "attempt" out of it - also I don't see what the proposal had
> to do with it you didn't amend that part, that I can see, maybe I'm being
> blind?].
>
> On 6/18/2020 7:34 PM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Lol, I just amended the forbidden arts rule to allow me to do this, so
> nice
> > try. It would require me to actually do the action (or attempt it) which
> I
> > can't do due to the objection.
> >
> > I didn't have any overarching objective with this message lol it was
> mainly
> > a Beaker joke.
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:04 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I point the finger at R. Lee something something forbidden arts.
> >>
> >> (I may see something that you're up to waiting to see tho).
> >>
> >> Also, I object.
>
> Evidence:
> >>> I intend, without objection, to amed the rules in the following
> >>> inconsequential way:
> >>> Amend every word in the ruleset except the rules at power 4 to read
> >> "Meep"
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
Merely thinking and planning to commit murder isn't attempted murder, the
acts carried out have to be "more than merely preparatory" (under English
law). The same applies to this analogous crime, merely preparing to take
the ossifying action is not an attempt; attempt is actually doing an action
(even if that action fails, as it would ossify Agora).
The thing my proposal had to do with it was that it removed the bit that
said "intending to do a forbidden art is a crime" (or whatever). For what
it's worth under the common sense factors, the fact that making a formal
intent to do an action that would ossify the game was specifically removed
from the rule means that it is unlikely the rule is meant to still
criminalize it.
--
>From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Fixing fee-based actions (was winning - more direct or less direct?)
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 02:54, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/18/20 10:47 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > I don't have a strong preference but just directly winning does seem > > simpler. > > > > Either way I think R2579 should be clarified so it's clear that a > > fee-based win method doesn't make all other win methods also require > > that fee. > > > > I haven't reviewed this carefully, but here's a quick proto amendment to > > R2579: > > > I already submitted (w/o pending) a proposal at [0], but it could use > another set of eyes. > > [0]: > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-June/043448.html Sorry, yeah, just saw it. Catching up slowly... - Falsifian
DIS: [Webmastor] AgoraOnline is now Online
Here it is: https://agoranomic.org/Webmastor/ Will surely receive tweaks over time. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: Fixing fee-based actions (was winning - more direct or less direct?)
On 6/18/20 10:47 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > I don't have a strong preference but just directly winning does seem simpler. > > Either way I think R2579 should be clarified so it's clear that a > fee-based win method doesn't make all other win methods also require > that fee. > > I haven't reviewed this carefully, but here's a quick proto amendment to > R2579: I already submitted (w/o pending) a proposal at [0], but it could use another set of eyes. [0]: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-June/043448.html -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Fixing fee-based actions (was winning - more direct or less direct?)
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 17:36, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Minor discussion topic here. > > Right now, as evidenced by recent CFJ, the rules are in a slightly weird > place in winning where sometimes you do a thing (Raise a Banner) that > causes you to win, and sometimes what you do is "win by announcement" if > certain conditions are met. These can break in different ways so the > inconsistency may be frustrating. So, if we were to try to regularize > this somehow, we could go "more direct" or "less direct". > > More direct: Winning is always an action, and everything is re-written as > something like: "A Player CAN win by (some type of announcement, perhaps > involving fees or other expenditures on the player's part, if conditions > are met)." Implication here is that if someone tries to win, and > conditions aren't met, nothing happens (e.g. if you paid a fee to win, but > you have some blots, the fee isn't paid and you keep your money). > > Less direct: Something like ribbons: A player who performs certain > actions "earns" the right to award emself a win (say for 7 days), but e > can't actually do so if another rule says e can't win. So e can earn the > win condition (say by a fee), expunge eir blots, and then actually award > emself the win if e does it within the time limit. However, if e times > out before e expunges eir blots, e doesn't get a win and eir fee is lost. > > We've had both ways in the past (either seems workable). No preference > myself except that the current ambiguous middle-ground could use a push in > one direction or the other? > > -G. I don't have a strong preference but just directly winning does seem simpler. Either way I think R2579 should be clarified so it's clear that a fee-based win method doesn't make all other win methods also require that fee. I haven't reviewed this carefully, but here's a quick proto amendment to R2579: -- Replace the first sentence with If the Rules define payment of a set of assets (hereafter the fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) as a method for performing an action, that method is a fee-based method. Replace "To perform a fee-based action" with "To use a fee-based method". Replace "If the Rules define a fee-based action" with "If the Rules define a fee-based method". - Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: Minor cleaning
Lol, I just amended the forbidden arts rule to allow me to do this, so nice try. It would require me to actually do the action (or attempt it) which I can't do due to the objection. I didn't have any overarching objective with this message lol it was mainly a Beaker joke. On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:04 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > I point the finger at R. Lee something something forbidden arts. > > (I may see something that you're up to waiting to see tho). > > Also, I object. > > On 6/18/2020 6:50 PM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > > I intend, without objection, to amed the rules in the following > > inconsequential way: > > Amend every word in the ruleset except the rules at power 4 to read > "Meep" > > > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: Minor cleaning
On 6/18/20 8:50 PM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > I intend, without objection, to amed the rules in the following > inconsequential way: > Amend every word in the ruleset except the rules at power 4 to read "Meep" > > -- > From R. Lee I don't think words can read. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] What's a card game without a deck?
G. wrote: As a side-note, could we add back to Sets a single-word term that means trading cards for currencies? The first draft used "transmute" but that's being used in a proposal now. It would be much easier to say "when a card is transmuted..." so it's only triggered when that particular kind of exchange happens (I had this problem with barrels, too). "Meld"? Also, suggestion: increase the cost based on how many cards you've already drawn that week (using whatever specific formula you like).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Cleaning [attn. Rulekeepor]
On 6/18/20 8:39 PM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > Meh, I don't see any difference between cleaning platonic typos and > Rulekeepor typos. Remove them all without mercy!! Platonic typos need an actual cleaning to solve, while Rulekeepor typos can just be fixed once they're noticed. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Cleaning [attn. Rulekeepor]
Meh, I don't see any difference between cleaning platonic typos and Rulekeepor typos. Remove them all without mercy!! On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 6:11 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/18/20 4:06 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: > > I intend to clean Rule 2576 "Ownership" without objection, replacing > > "Department.." with "Department." [first sentence of the second > paragraph] > > > > I can confirm that the platonic ruleset does have the double period > (unlike some previous attempted cleanings, which were application > errors). It was introduced in Proposal 8366 [0], which replaced text not > ending in a period with new text that ended in a period. > > [0]: > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2020-April/013590.html > > -- > Jason Cobb > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] What's a card game without a deck?
On 6/18/2020 7:05 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: Oh - forgot a couple comments! On 6/18/2020 1:37 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Discarding" with the following text: When a player pays a set of at least 2 cards, You need to add something here - "pay" on its own could count paying someone else, a contract could be set up that you could keep "paying" to create cards in the deck and get a fee. As a side-note, could we add back to Sets a single-word term that means trading cards for currencies? The first draft used "transmute" but that's being used in a proposal now. It would be much easier to say "when a card is transmuted..." so it's only triggered when that particular kind of exchange happens (I had this problem with barrels, too). Transform maybe? Convert? Neither term is currently used in the ruleset. On 6/18/2020 1:37 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: -I was going to originally have the Discard Pile be another separate entity where Discarded Cards and Cards paid in sets went, and then were "shuffled" into the Deck at the start of this month. I decided against it for sake of simplicity, but would that be a good idea? Having a discard pile reduced the amount of error I mentioned in the last email. Without a discard pile, if there's a CFJ on whether a card payment happened, then it effectively freezes dealing from the deck until it's resolved. With a discard pile, you could just "leave the uncertainty in the discard pile" for a while and keep dealing. Alright. I will add the discard pile into the next draft. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] What's a card game without a deck?
On 6/18/2020 6:58 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: On 6/18/2020 1:37 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: exactly proportional to the number of that Card When we had a card game with a deck once, we had a lot of minor errors happen where a card was thought to be in the deck that wasn't, or vice versa. This led to a lot of breakages of rules like this when the card dealt with probability 1/51 instead of 1/52 or something. We ended up saying "reasonably close to the correct probabilites" which we defined as something like "provided the error is only a few cards out of a larger deck and doesn't actually create a nonexistent card, the deal's fine." Probably a good idea. -Is 10 coins a good fee for Drawing? I don't think we can answer this right now, and in response to another proposal I think both nch and I said "let's let the value find itself before fixing it with card buys" (hope that's not twisting your words nch). So I'd hesitate to vote for something like this until we played for a month or so to answer this question. I seem to be very good at coming up with ideas too early. -On that note, is there some way to do this so that we *don't* have to make a random choice each time someone draws a card? Random choices can be a bit cumbersome with the mailing list. One way is to trust the officer to use a method that doesn't go through the whole "confirmation via third party email" thing (i.e. let em pick numbers offline and just trust that the picks were honest). When we've had games that have required a lot of random numbers we've trusted each other enough to even say "I just rolled a physical percentile dice and the result was 15" or something. Yeah, that might be the way to go. Maybe the Dealor could even improvise an actual deck of cards (since there are 4 types of cards, this could be done easily with the four suits of standard playing cards) and actually draw cards from it. I don't think I would want to actually write that into the rules, but I would certainly be up for doing that if I were Dealor. (Aside: I spent a stint as Dealor for the aforementioned card game. For fun I used a script that pulled numbers from a genuine radioactive random source: https://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/. So that particular game was genuinely random though people had to trust me about that, and depending on your beliefs about quantum mechanics we may have branched into a few different dimensions in the multiverse back then). -G. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: DIS: [Webmastor] Github Regulations, First Draft
On 6/18/20 4:21 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/18/20 2:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>> On 6/18/20 2:56 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> Here's my first draft of regulations for management of the github.
>>> Feedback appreciated.
>>>
>>> {
>>>
>>> # Github Owners
>>>
>>> A Github Owner is a person who is listed as an owner of the Agora
>>> organization on Github. There should be 3 Github Owners at any time.
>> Should the Webmastor count against this limit? My instinct would be to
>> have them be supernumerary.
> Well for one 3 is just a more pleasing number than 4, which is very
> important. Practically tho, I don't imagine it makes a big difference.
That's true. Two solutions: Make both the Webmastor and Distributor
supernumerary and decrease to 1 other person or make both supernumerary
and keep at 3.
>>
>>> The Ideal Criteria for a Github Owner are as follows:
>>>
>>> * First registered for Agora at least 5 years Agora
>>>
>>> * Has been registered in Agora in each of the last 3 years (not
>>> necessarily continuously)
>> Maybe require activity to avoid zombies?
>>
> How much/recent of activity? I don't want this to be a list we're
> updating more than necessary.
>
I just think that they should have to have been an active player in each
of the last 3 years.
--
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate
Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] What's a card game without a deck?
Oh - forgot a couple comments! On 6/18/2020 1:37 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Discarding" with the following text: > When a player pays a set of at least 2 cards, You need to add something here - "pay" on its own could count paying someone else, a contract could be set up that you could keep "paying" to create cards in the deck and get a fee. As a side-note, could we add back to Sets a single-word term that means trading cards for currencies? The first draft used "transmute" but that's being used in a proposal now. It would be much easier to say "when a card is transmuted..." so it's only triggered when that particular kind of exchange happens (I had this problem with barrels, too). On 6/18/2020 1:37 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > -I was going to originally have the Discard Pile be another separate > entity where Discarded Cards and Cards paid in sets went, and then were > "shuffled" into the Deck at the start of this month. I decided against > it for sake of simplicity, but would that be a good idea? Having a discard pile reduced the amount of error I mentioned in the last email. Without a discard pile, if there's a CFJ on whether a card payment happened, then it effectively freezes dealing from the deck until it's resolved. With a discard pile, you could just "leave the uncertainty in the discard pile" for a while and keep dealing. -G.
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] What's a card game without a deck?
On 6/18/2020 1:37 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > exactly proportional to the number of that Card When we had a card game with a deck once, we had a lot of minor errors happen where a card was thought to be in the deck that wasn't, or vice versa. This led to a lot of breakages of rules like this when the card dealt with probability 1/51 instead of 1/52 or something. We ended up saying "reasonably close to the correct probabilites" which we defined as something like "provided the error is only a few cards out of a larger deck and doesn't actually create a nonexistent card, the deal's fine." > -Is 10 coins a good fee for Drawing? I don't think we can answer this right now, and in response to another proposal I think both nch and I said "let's let the value find itself before fixing it with card buys" (hope that's not twisting your words nch). So I'd hesitate to vote for something like this until we played for a month or so to answer this question. > -On that note, is there some way to do this so that we *don't* have to > make a random choice each time someone draws a card? Random choices can > be a bit cumbersome with the mailing list. One way is to trust the officer to use a method that doesn't go through the whole "confirmation via third party email" thing (i.e. let em pick numbers offline and just trust that the picks were honest). When we've had games that have required a lot of random numbers we've trusted each other enough to even say "I just rolled a physical percentile dice and the result was 15" or something. (Aside: I spent a stint as Dealor for the aforementioned card game. For fun I used a script that pulled numbers from a genuine radioactive random source: https://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/. So that particular game was genuinely random though people had to trust me about that, and depending on your beliefs about quantum mechanics we may have branched into a few different dimensions in the multiverse back then). -G.
DIS: [Assessor] Historical links now on web archive
The links to the official historical reports are now on the Assessor web archive. Example at [0]. Happy archive searching, everyone! [0]: https://agoranomic.org/assessor/8431-8441.txt -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [Treasuror] Final unofficial draft
On 6/18/20 5:15 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > I transferred DracoLotto my victory card at [0], which is reflected in > the history but not in the totals. > > [0]: > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-June/043331.html Gah, I keep sending emails too early; sorry for spam. I also paid a pendant to pend Talismans at [0]. [0]: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-June/043441.html -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [Treasuror] Final unofficial draft
On 6/18/20 5:08 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > I know, I know. I've already done this this week. I think this fixes all > the issues brought up with previous revisions. I also did some custom > styling on the markdown/HTML version. I think it looks really nice. > > Anyway, criticize away. > > FRESH TEXT VERSION: > https://agoranomic.org/Treasuror/reports/weekly/fresh.txt > > (This is where it will live for the time being. Bookmark away.) > > FRESH MARKDOWN VERSION: > https://agoranomic.org/Treasuror/reports/weeklymd/2020-06-18 > > (I will probably have a weeklymd/fresh page up soon so you can bookmark > that too.) > > I will publish this tonight before I go to bed if there are no errors > found. That's about 10-12 hours from now. > I transferred DracoLotto my victory card at [0], which is reflected in the history but not in the totals. [0]: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-June/043331.html -- Jason Cobb
DIS: [Treasuror] Final unofficial draft
I know, I know. I've already done this this week. I think this fixes all the issues brought up with previous revisions. I also did some custom styling on the markdown/HTML version. I think it looks really nice. Anyway, criticize away. FRESH TEXT VERSION: https://agoranomic.org/Treasuror/reports/weekly/fresh.txt (This is where it will live for the time being. Bookmark away.) FRESH MARKDOWN VERSION: https://agoranomic.org/Treasuror/reports/weeklymd/2020-06-18 (I will probably have a weeklymd/fresh page up soon so you can bookmark that too.) I will publish this tonight before I go to bed if there are no errors found. That's about 10-12 hours from now. -- Trigon Treasuror of Agora; Former Speaker (twice), Rulekeepor (12 months) and Cartographor (8 months) of Agora; Champion of Agora by High Score and Proposal; Bearer of the Badge of the Salted Earth; Founder of the League of Agorans Facilitating Effective Recordkeeping; Arcadian Revivalist; Sixth-Longest Continually Registered Player of Agora; Player and former Emperor of BlogNomic; Player, Book-keeper, and Originator of the Metaruleset of Infinite Nomic; Contributor to the nomic.club wiki and the Talk:Nomic page on Wikipedia.
Re: DIS: [Webmastor] Github Regulations, First Draft
On 6/18/20 3:45 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > And sorry for bugging you so much about this. I spend a lot of time on > Github projects for Agora so I just want to make sure that all the > regulations allow me to keep on doing that effectively. Please bug away. The whole reason for this is to make sure there's clear and fair guidance so that things run smoothly. The github projects have been puttering along since the original push to get them started, but I think the lack of clear organization has made people reluctant to really take ownership of it and collaborate on it to make it as good as it can be. It's really shaping up nicely right now, so I want to create systems to keep it stable. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: [Webmastor] Github Regulations, First Draft
On 2020-06-18 14:12, nch via agora-discussion wrote: On 6/18/20 2:22 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: Unless I'm misunderstanding this list and all factors are weighted equally, in which case that should be stated somewhere. I didn't intend for the list to be meaningfully ordered, I'll make that more clear. Alright, good to know. Maybe include a "notwithstanding the Ideal Criteria" phrase in here for extra security against CFJs. It's a should, I don't know what you would CFJ on it that could be actionable. Valid point. I'm not sold on the "without objection" part here; it just seems like it would contribute to a lot of inefficiency, especially when we notice something is wrong. This also couldn't be bypassed with another player's pull request since the Webmastor would still have to merge it and I think that would be considered a modification by the Webmastor. Are you referring to the Headers or also the main page? Changing the headers also requires changing every repo that includes the headers, because submodules lock to a specific version. So it's an involved process that I'd rather require consensus for before doing. For the Header, that's fair reasoning. And I guess it makes sense that we wouldn't really want to change the main page without consensus. However, I still think it would be wise to include an explicit mechanism for modifying these repositories in case of emergency if we cannot wait the four-day intention period. I would appreciate it if maintainers also had at least limited control over some of the settings, especially those relating to the inner organization of the repository. This is an oversight. I'm doing that now on github, and I'll add it to the regulations. I just made you a maintainer on the Treasuror repo, and I'll do the same for the other officeholders and their repos shortly. Alright, great. And sorry for bugging you so much about this. I spend a lot of time on Github projects for Agora so I just want to make sure that all the regulations allow me to keep on doing that effectively. -- Trigon Treasuror of Agora; Former Speaker (twice), Rulekeepor (12 months) and Cartographor (8 months) of Agora; Champion of Agora by High Score and Proposal; Bearer of the Badge of the Salted Earth; Founder of the League of Agorans Facilitating Effective Recordkeeping; Arcadian Revivalist; Sixth-Longest Continually Registered Player of Agora; Player and former Emperor of BlogNomic; Player, Book-keeper, and Originator of the Metaruleset of Infinite Nomic; Contributor to the nomic.club wiki and the Talk:Nomic page on Wikipedia.
DIS: [Proto-proposal] What's a card game without a deck?
Here's a proto-proposal I came up with somewhat on the spot. Opinions welcome. Title: The Deck AI: 1.0 Author: ATMunn Co-author(s): Enact a power-1 rule entitled "The Deck" with the following text: The Deck is an entity. The Deck CAN own Cards, but no other types of assets. If the Deck owns at least one Card, any player CAN pay 10 coins to Draw a Card. When a player does so, the Dealor CAN by announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, transfer a Card from the Deck to the player who Drew a Card. The Dealor SHALL make the choice of which card to transfer randomly, with the probability of each type of Card being exactly proportional to the number of that Card that the Deck owns. Failure to use random chance in this transfer is the Class-2 Crime of Stacking the Deck. Enact a power-1 rule entitled "The Dealor" with the following text: The Dealor is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of the Deck and the transfer of Cards to and from the Deck. The Dealor's includes the card ownership of the Deck. Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Discarding" with the following text: When a player pays a set of at least 2 cards, one card of that type is created in the posession of the Deck. Any player CAN Discard a Card by announcement at any time, transferring that Card to the Deck. Create 2 cards of each type in the posession of the Deck. [Notes: -Is 10 coins a good fee for Drawing? -I was going to originally have the Discard Pile be another separate entity where Discarded Cards and Cards paid in sets went, and then were "shuffled" into the Deck at the start of this month. I decided against it for sake of simplicity, but would that be a good idea? -I like the idea of having a Dealor, but eir duties could just as well be performed by the Treasuror. I just don't know how much work it would be to make a random choice every time someone Draws a Card. -On that note, is there some way to do this so that we *don't* have to make a random choice each time someone draws a card? Random choices can be a bit cumbersome with the mailing list.] -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: DIS: [Webmastor] Github Regulations, First Draft
On 6/18/2020 4:21 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
On 6/18/20 2:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion
wrote:
On 6/18/20 2:56 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
Here's my first draft of regulations for management of the github.
Feedback appreciated.
{
# Github Owners
A Github Owner is a person who is listed as an owner of the Agora
organization on Github. There should be 3 Github Owners at any time.
Should the Webmastor count against this limit? My instinct would be to
have them be supernumerary.
Well for one 3 is just a more pleasing number than 4, which is very
important. Practically tho, I don't imagine it makes a big difference.
You could just say "There should be 3 Github Owners at any time, not
including the Webmastor."
--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: DIS: [Webmastor] Github Regulations, First Draft
On 6/18/20 2:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 6/18/20 2:56 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
>> Here's my first draft of regulations for management of the github.
>> Feedback appreciated.
>>
>> {
>>
>> # Github Owners
>>
>> A Github Owner is a person who is listed as an owner of the Agora
>> organization on Github. There should be 3 Github Owners at any time.
> Should the Webmastor count against this limit? My instinct would be to
> have them be supernumerary.
Well for one 3 is just a more pleasing number than 4, which is very
important. Practically tho, I don't imagine it makes a big difference.
>
>> The Ideal Criteria for a Github Owner are as follows:
>>
>> * First registered for Agora at least 5 years Agora
>>
>> * Has been registered in Agora in each of the last 3 years (not
>> necessarily continuously)
> Maybe require activity to avoid zombies?
>
How much/recent of activity? I don't want this to be a list we're
updating more than necessary.
--
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: [Webmastor] Github Regulations, First Draft
On 6/18/20 2:22 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 2020-06-18 12:56, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
>> Here's my first draft of regulations for management of the github.
>> Feedback appreciated.
>>
>> {
>>
>> # Github Owners
>>
>> A Github Owner is a person who is listed as an owner of the Agora
>> organization on Github. There should be 3 Github Owners at any time.
>>
>> The Ideal Criteria for a Github Owner are as follows:
>>
>> * First registered for Agora at least 5 years Agora
> Second Agora should be ago, I think.
Yes
>
> Also, this being first implies that it is one of the primary factors to
> deciding a person's ability to be a Github owner. I think it should be
> less of a priority. Take that as you will, though, since I am a newer
> player.
>
>> * Has been registered in Agora in each of the last 3 years (not
>> necessarily continuously)
>>
>> * Is familiar with git and github
>>
>> * Is a current player
> I think this needs to be higher priority as well.
>
> Unless I'm misunderstanding this list and all factors are weighted
> equally, in which case that should be stated somewhere.
I didn't intend for the list to be meaningfully ordered, I'll make that
more clear.
>
>> The Webmastor should always be a Github Owner.
> Maybe include a "notwithstanding the Ideal Criteria" phrase in here for
> extra security against CFJs.
It's a should, I don't know what you would CFJ on it that could be
actionable.
>
>> When there are less than 3 Github Owners, the Webmastor should make the
>> closest consenting match to the Ideal Criteria a Github Owner.
>>
>> When there is a consenting closer match to the Ideal Criteria than a
>> current Github Owner, the Webmastor may demote said current Github owner
>> and promote the closer match, with 3 support.
>>
>> # Maintaining Repositories
>>
>> The Maintainer of a repository is the only person who should push
>> directly to the repository, unless e has given permission to another
>> person.
>>
>> If a another person wishes to update a repository, e should do so by
>> creating a fork and a pull request, and letting the maintainer merge the
>> request.
> "a another"
Nice catch
>
>> The Webmastor is the maintainer of the agoranomic.org repository. E
>> may update the repository only if:
>>
>> * e does so without objection
>>
>> * e is only updating dates, numbers, or links
>>
>> * e is updating the header
>>
>> The Webmastor is the maintainer of the Header repository. E may update
>> it without objection.
> I'm not sold on the "without objection" part here; it just seems like it
> would contribute to a lot of inefficiency, especially when we notice
> something is wrong. This also couldn't be bypassed with another player's
> pull request since the Webmastor would still have to merge it and I
> think that would be considered a modification by the Webmastor.
Are you referring to the Headers or also the main page? Changing the
headers also requires changing every repo that includes the headers,
because submodules lock to a specific version. So it's an involved
process that I'd rather require consensus for before doing.
>
>> For each repository that represents an office, the current officeholder
>> is the maintainer.
> I would appreciate it if maintainers also had at least limited control
> over some of the settings, especially those relating to the inner
> organization of the repository.
This is an oversight. I'm doing that now on github, and I'll add it to
the regulations. I just made you a maintainer on the Treasuror repo, and
I'll do the same for the other officeholders and their repos shortly.
--
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
DIS: Re: BUS: Cleaning [attn. Rulekeepor]
On 6/18/20 4:06 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: > I intend to clean Rule 2576 "Ownership" without objection, replacing > "Department.." with "Department." [first sentence of the second paragraph] > I can confirm that the platonic ruleset does have the double period (unlike some previous attempted cleanings, which were application errors). It was introduced in Proposal 8366 [0], which replaced text not ending in a period with new text that ended in a period. [0]: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2020-April/013590.html -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [Webmastor] Github Regulations, First Draft
On 2020-06-18 12:56, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
Here's my first draft of regulations for management of the github.
Feedback appreciated.
{
# Github Owners
A Github Owner is a person who is listed as an owner of the Agora
organization on Github. There should be 3 Github Owners at any time.
The Ideal Criteria for a Github Owner are as follows:
* First registered for Agora at least 5 years Agora
Second Agora should be ago, I think.
Also, this being first implies that it is one of the primary factors to
deciding a person's ability to be a Github owner. I think it should be
less of a priority. Take that as you will, though, since I am a newer
player.
* Has been registered in Agora in each of the last 3 years (not
necessarily continuously)
* Is familiar with git and github
* Is a current player
I think this needs to be higher priority as well.
Unless I'm misunderstanding this list and all factors are weighted
equally, in which case that should be stated somewhere.
The Webmastor should always be a Github Owner.
Maybe include a "notwithstanding the Ideal Criteria" phrase in here for
extra security against CFJs.
When there are less than 3 Github Owners, the Webmastor should make the
closest consenting match to the Ideal Criteria a Github Owner.
When there is a consenting closer match to the Ideal Criteria than a
current Github Owner, the Webmastor may demote said current Github owner
and promote the closer match, with 3 support.
# Maintaining Repositories
The Maintainer of a repository is the only person who should push
directly to the repository, unless e has given permission to another
person.
If a another person wishes to update a repository, e should do so by
creating a fork and a pull request, and letting the maintainer merge the
request.
"a another"
The Webmastor is the maintainer of the agoranomic.org repository. E
may update the repository only if:
* e does so without objection
* e is only updating dates, numbers, or links
* e is updating the header
The Webmastor is the maintainer of the Header repository. E may update
it without objection.
I'm not sold on the "without objection" part here; it just seems like it
would contribute to a lot of inefficiency, especially when we notice
something is wrong. This also couldn't be bypassed with another player's
pull request since the Webmastor would still have to merge it and I
think that would be considered a modification by the Webmastor.
For each repository that represents an office, the current officeholder
is the maintainer.
I would appreciate it if maintainers also had at least limited control
over some of the settings, especially those relating to the inner
organization of the repository.
# Live Reports
A Live Report is a webpage that displays a non-official version of an
Agora report, with the intent of being updated frequently.
A Live Report SHOULD note that it is unofficial and clearly mark the
time (to the minute) and date that it was last updated. It should also
link to a copy of the most recent official report.
}
--
Trigon
Treasuror of Agora; Former Speaker (twice), Rulekeepor (12 months) and
Cartographor (8 months) of Agora; Champion of Agora by High Score and
Proposal; Bearer of the Badge of the Salted Earth; Founder of the League
of Agorans Facilitating Effective Recordkeeping; Arcadian Revivalist;
Sixth-Longest Continually Registered Player of Agora; Player and former
Emperor of BlogNomic; Player, Book-keeper, and Originator of the
Metaruleset of Infinite Nomic; Contributor to the nomic.club wiki and
the Talk:Nomic page on Wikipedia.
Re: DIS: [Webmastor] Github Regulations, First Draft
On 6/18/20 2:56 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> Here's my first draft of regulations for management of the github.
> Feedback appreciated.
>
> {
>
> # Github Owners
>
> A Github Owner is a person who is listed as an owner of the Agora
> organization on Github. There should be 3 Github Owners at any time.
Should the Webmastor count against this limit? My instinct would be to
have them be supernumerary.
>
> The Ideal Criteria for a Github Owner are as follows:
>
> * First registered for Agora at least 5 years Agora
>
> * Has been registered in Agora in each of the last 3 years (not
> necessarily continuously)
Maybe require activity to avoid zombies?
>
> * Is familiar with git and github
>
> * Is a current player
>
> The Webmastor should always be a Github Owner.
>
> When there are less than 3 Github Owners, the Webmastor should make the
> closest consenting match to the Ideal Criteria a Github Owner.
>
> When there is a consenting closer match to the Ideal Criteria than a
> current Github Owner, the Webmastor may demote said current Github owner
> and promote the closer match, with 3 support.
>
> # Maintaining Repositories
>
> The Maintainer of a repository is the only person who should push
> directly to the repository, unless e has given permission to another
> person.
>
> If a another person wishes to update a repository, e should do so by
> creating a fork and a pull request, and letting the maintainer merge the
> request.
>
> The Webmastor is the maintainer of the agoranomic.org repository. E
> may update the repository only if:
>
> * e does so without objection
>
> * e is only updating dates, numbers, or links
>
> * e is updating the header
>
> The Webmastor is the maintainer of the Header repository. E may update
> it without objection.
>
> For each repository that represents an office, the current officeholder
> is the maintainer.
>
> # Live Reports
>
> A Live Report is a webpage that displays a non-official version of an
> Agora report, with the intent of being updated frequently.
>
> A Live Report SHOULD note that it is unofficial and clearly mark the
> time (to the minute) and date that it was last updated. It should also
> link to a copy of the most recent official report.
>
> }
>
--
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate
Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
DIS: [Webmastor] Github Regulations, First Draft
Here's my first draft of regulations for management of the github.
Feedback appreciated.
{
# Github Owners
A Github Owner is a person who is listed as an owner of the Agora
organization on Github. There should be 3 Github Owners at any time.
The Ideal Criteria for a Github Owner are as follows:
* First registered for Agora at least 5 years Agora
* Has been registered in Agora in each of the last 3 years (not
necessarily continuously)
* Is familiar with git and github
* Is a current player
The Webmastor should always be a Github Owner.
When there are less than 3 Github Owners, the Webmastor should make the
closest consenting match to the Ideal Criteria a Github Owner.
When there is a consenting closer match to the Ideal Criteria than a
current Github Owner, the Webmastor may demote said current Github owner
and promote the closer match, with 3 support.
# Maintaining Repositories
The Maintainer of a repository is the only person who should push
directly to the repository, unless e has given permission to another
person.
If a another person wishes to update a repository, e should do so by
creating a fork and a pull request, and letting the maintainer merge the
request.
The Webmastor is the maintainer of the agoranomic.org repository. E
may update the repository only if:
* e does so without objection
* e is only updating dates, numbers, or links
* e is updating the header
The Webmastor is the maintainer of the Header repository. E may update
it without objection.
For each repository that represents an office, the current officeholder
is the maintainer.
# Live Reports
A Live Report is a webpage that displays a non-official version of an
Agora report, with the intent of being updated frequently.
A Live Report SHOULD note that it is unofficial and clearly mark the
time (to the minute) and date that it was last updated. It should also
link to a copy of the most recent official report.
}
--
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: winning - more direct or less direct?
I think I personally prefer the more direct option, but I don't really have a good reason why. It just seems more intuitive, I guess. I would still be fine with either. On 6/18/2020 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: Minor discussion topic here. Right now, as evidenced by recent CFJ, the rules are in a slightly weird place in winning where sometimes you do a thing (Raise a Banner) that causes you to win, and sometimes what you do is "win by announcement" if certain conditions are met. These can break in different ways so the inconsistency may be frustrating. So, if we were to try to regularize this somehow, we could go "more direct" or "less direct". More direct: Winning is always an action, and everything is re-written as something like: "A Player CAN win by (some type of announcement, perhaps involving fees or other expenditures on the player's part, if conditions are met)." Implication here is that if someone tries to win, and conditions aren't met, nothing happens (e.g. if you paid a fee to win, but you have some blots, the fee isn't paid and you keep your money). Less direct: Something like ribbons: A player who performs certain actions "earns" the right to award emself a win (say for 7 days), but e can't actually do so if another rule says e can't win. So e can earn the win condition (say by a fee), expunge eir blots, and then actually award emself the win if e does it within the time limit. However, if e times out before e expunges eir blots, e doesn't get a win and eir fee is lost. We've had both ways in the past (either seems workable). No preference myself except that the current ambiguous middle-ground could use a push in one direction or the other? -G. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
DIS: winning - more direct or less direct?
Minor discussion topic here. Right now, as evidenced by recent CFJ, the rules are in a slightly weird place in winning where sometimes you do a thing (Raise a Banner) that causes you to win, and sometimes what you do is "win by announcement" if certain conditions are met. These can break in different ways so the inconsistency may be frustrating. So, if we were to try to regularize this somehow, we could go "more direct" or "less direct". More direct: Winning is always an action, and everything is re-written as something like: "A Player CAN win by (some type of announcement, perhaps involving fees or other expenditures on the player's part, if conditions are met)." Implication here is that if someone tries to win, and conditions aren't met, nothing happens (e.g. if you paid a fee to win, but you have some blots, the fee isn't paid and you keep your money). Less direct: Something like ribbons: A player who performs certain actions "earns" the right to award emself a win (say for 7 days), but e can't actually do so if another rule says e can't win. So e can earn the win condition (say by a fee), expunge eir blots, and then actually award emself the win if e does it within the time limit. However, if e times out before e expunges eir blots, e doesn't get a win and eir fee is lost. We've had both ways in the past (either seems workable). No preference myself except that the current ambiguous middle-ground could use a push in one direction or the other? -G.
DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Resolving Prime Minister Election
On 6/17/20 8:11 PM, Rebecca via agora-official wrote: > I resolve the Agoran Decision for the election of the Prime Minister. The > quorum was 7 voting system was IRV. > > First Preference Votes > > R. Lee (1): R. Lee > > ATMunn (3): Aris, Jason, ATMunn > > Nch (4): Falsifian, PSS, nch, Trigon > > R. Lee is eliminated with the least votes. Eir one vote is distributed to > nch > > Second Round > > ATMunn (3): Aris, Jason, ATMunn > > Nch (5): Falsifian, PSS, nch, Trigon, R. Lee > > Nch is therefore the winner of this election in the second round. Nch is > installed as Prime Minister. > > > -- > From R. Lee Thank you all for your votes! I shall use my powers wisely. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: [attn Github Owners] Treasuror repository request
On 6/18/20 3:53 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > I moved the reports archive to the /docs folder in the Treasuror > repository and added some jekyll stuff so that it would be a > full-fledged site. But it's not going to work yet because it's still > serving from the root of the master branch. I need one of you Github > Owners go to the settings, then to "Github Pages" and change the source > to the option that says "master branch /docs folder". > > Thanks, I appreciate it. > > -- > Trigon > > Treasuror of Agora; Former Speaker (twice), Rulekeepor (12 months) and > Cartographor (8 months) of Agora; Champion of Agora by High Score and > Proposal; Bearer of the Badge of the Salted Earth; Founder of the League > of Agorans Facilitating Effective Recordkeeping; Arcadian Revivalist; > Sixth-Longest Continually Registered Player of Agora; Player and former > Emperor of BlogNomic; Player, Book-keeper, and Originator of the > Metaruleset of Infinite Nomic; Contributor to the nomic.club wiki and > the Talk:Nomic page on Wikipedia. It is so done. The header submodule wasn't actually in your repo (and thus your version wasn't building correctly). I submitted a pull request that fixes that. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: [proposal] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: re-tailor
On 6/18/2020 9:38 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > On 6/18/20 12:31 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >> >> Fair's fair. >> >> I withdraw the proposal "UV Sunblock" from the pool. >> >> I submit the following Proposal, "UV-G Sunblock" AI-3, co=author ais523: >> >> >> Amend Rule 2438 (Ribbons) by replacing: >> Ultraviolet (U): When a person is awarded the Patent Title >> Champion, that person earns an Ultraviolet Ribbon. >> with: >> Ultraviolet (U): When a person is awarded the Patent Title >> Champion, that person earns an Ultraviolet Ribbon, unless >> the Champion title was awarded as the result of winning >> the game via this rule. >> >> >> Ultraviolet is hereby removed from G.'s Ribbon Ownership. >> >> >> >> -G. >> > > Is there some way that we could exclude scams involving this rule by > phrasing it as: > > Ultraviolet (U): When a person is awarded the Patent Title > Champion, that person earns an Ultraviolet Ribbon, unless > the Champion title was awarded as the result of winning > the game via Raising a Banner, as defined in this rule. > > This way if someone finds a scam in the rule, they would still be able > to get the Ultraviolet ribbon. Ha - first draft had raise a banner in it, but I deleted that and phrased it generally using "as the result" and "via" to attempt to avoid questions of strict causality and any terms of art like Raise the Banner, in the hopes that judges might be more common sense in saying when a win was "via" this rule. sounds like it might have had the opposite effect though of making it too ambiguous and therefore scammable? -G.
Re: [proposal] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: re-tailor
On 6/18/20 12:31 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > Fair's fair. > > I withdraw the proposal "UV Sunblock" from the pool. > > I submit the following Proposal, "UV-G Sunblock" AI-3, co=author ais523: > > > Amend Rule 2438 (Ribbons) by replacing: > Ultraviolet (U): When a person is awarded the Patent Title > Champion, that person earns an Ultraviolet Ribbon. > with: > Ultraviolet (U): When a person is awarded the Patent Title > Champion, that person earns an Ultraviolet Ribbon, unless > the Champion title was awarded as the result of winning > the game via this rule. > > > Ultraviolet is hereby removed from G.'s Ribbon Ownership. > > > > -G. > Is there some way that we could exclude scams involving this rule by phrasing it as: Ultraviolet (U): When a person is awarded the Patent Title Champion, that person earns an Ultraviolet Ribbon, unless the Champion title was awarded as the result of winning the game via Raising a Banner, as defined in this rule. This way if someone finds a scam in the rule, they would still be able to get the Ultraviolet ribbon. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
DIS: [attn Github Owners] Treasuror repository request
I moved the reports archive to the /docs folder in the Treasuror repository and added some jekyll stuff so that it would be a full-fledged site. But it's not going to work yet because it's still serving from the root of the master branch. I need one of you Github Owners go to the settings, then to "Github Pages" and change the source to the option that says "master branch /docs folder". Thanks, I appreciate it. -- Trigon Treasuror of Agora; Former Speaker (twice), Rulekeepor (12 months) and Cartographor (8 months) of Agora; Champion of Agora by High Score and Proposal; Bearer of the Badge of the Salted Earth; Founder of the League of Agorans Facilitating Effective Recordkeeping; Arcadian Revivalist; Sixth-Longest Continually Registered Player of Agora; Player and former Emperor of BlogNomic; Player, Book-keeper, and Originator of the Metaruleset of Infinite Nomic; Contributor to the nomic.club wiki and the Talk:Nomic page on Wikipedia.
Re: [proposal] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: re-tailor
well it's usually almost impossible to win the game another way On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 4:06 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/17/2020 8:08 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Thursday, 18 June 2020, 01:08:09 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> I award myself the following ribbons: > > [snip] > >> - Platinum (Speaker) > >> - Ultraviolet (Champion) > > These two work, but it feels like a bug that you should be able to get > Ribbons off a Ribbon victory. > > Maybe the lockout should be two weeks? That would prevent recursive > Ultraviolets, at least. > > > > I was going to ask that too - it seems like ultraviolet being essentially > permanent after the first ribbon win isn't a great feature. Don't think a > full two-week lockout for all ribbons is needed (it's not like the > proposal ones are unfair) but maybe explicitly deny ultraviolet if > champion was the result of a ribbon win? > > I submit the following Proposal, "UV Sunblock" AI-3, co=author ais523: > > > Amend Rule 2438 (Ribbons) by replacing: > Ultraviolet (U): When a person is awarded the Patent Title > Champion, that person earns an Ultraviolet Ribbon. > with: > Ultraviolet (U): When a person is awarded the Patent Title > Champion, that person earns an Ultraviolet Ribbon, unless > the Champion title was awarded as the result of winning > the game via this rule. > > > > -G. > > -- >From R. Lee
