Re: DIS: A logo for Agora

[Rebecca via agora-discussion]

PSS this is kind of unrelated (but related to herald) but your last report
omitted some hard labor titles, the next one will have them right?

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 12:54 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion  wrote:

> I’ve got the rules coming although there are a lot of edge cases. I should
> have a draft in the next week.
>
> > On Jun 20, 2020, at 21:20, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > On 6/20/2020 6:03 PM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote:
> >> Free Tournament? Free Tournament? Free Tournament?
> >
> > Suggestion for tournament rule:  Anyone can submit a design wholly
> > described in text.  Anyone else can try to draw that based on the text.
> > co-winners for the best pair, judged both for overall good looks but also
> > match between text and drawing (by popular vote).  secret collaboration
> > strongly discouraged.
> >
> > Publius, I don't know how the Diplonomic is coming along, but this (or a
> > variation) is a simple tournament that goes along with the "birthday"
> theme.
> >
> > -G.
>


-- 
>From R. Lee

DIS: A logo for Agora

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

I’ve got the rules coming although there are a lot of edge cases. I should 
have a draft in the next week.

> On Jun 20, 2020, at 21:20, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/20/2020 6:03 PM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote:
>> Free Tournament? Free Tournament? Free Tournament?
> 
> Suggestion for tournament rule:  Anyone can submit a design wholly
> described in text.  Anyone else can try to draw that based on the text.
> co-winners for the best pair, judged both for overall good looks but also
> match between text and drawing (by popular vote).  secret collaboration
> strongly discouraged.
> 
> Publius, I don't know how the Diplonomic is coming along, but this (or a
> variation) is a simple tournament that goes along with the "birthday" theme.
> 
> -G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ready Proposals

[ATMunn via agora-discussion]

+1

On 6/20/2020 2:02 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:

On 2020-06-19 23:37, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:

Rule 1623/11
Disinterested Proposals

   A Proposal may be Interested or Disinterested. Each Proposal is
   Interested when made. The Proposer of a Proposal may cause it to
   become Disinterested, without objection, but only if the
   Proposal has not yet been distributed.


This is pretty much my ideal version of patch proposals. I would be in 
favor of an almost-verbatim reenactment of this rule.




--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood notary here :)

Re: DIS: A logo for Agora

[Rebecca via agora-discussion]

Free Tournament? Free Tournament? Free Tournament?

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 11:00 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
> On 6/20/20 6:10 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Due to a multitude of factors, I've noticed a lot of sentiment to
> "rebrand"
> > a bit. Along with this, I would like to raise the discussion of
> potentially
> > creating a new logo of sorts for Agora. The coat-of-arms has stood as our
> > de-facto logo for years (on the website as well as in other places) but
> its
> > grays and browns are admittedly rather boring. I think a new logo could
> do
> > a lot for the way we're seen. Thoughts?
> >
> > --
> > Trigon
>
> I've always been a bit meh on its appearance personally.  But I liked the
> fact that, apropos to Agora, it could be formally defined in a specialized
> language:
>
> Rule 2151/1 (Power=1)
> Agoran Arms
>
>   The escutcheon of Agora is defined by the following blazon:
>   Tierced palewise sable, argent, and sable, charged with a quill
>   and an axe in saltire, proper, and in the chief a capital letter
>   A, gules.
>
>   Agora's adopted motto is "Agora n'est pas une fontaine."
>
> [Note (9 January 2009): A rendering of the escutcheon of Agora is at
> .]
>
> History:
> Created by Proposal 5037 (Zefram, GreyKnight), 28 June 2007
> Amended(1) by Proposal 5285 (Goethe), 7 November 2007
> Repealed by Proposal 6392 (allispaul) 10 July 2009
>
>
> The Repeal Proposal beleow was interesting in terms of our conversation
> now.  It was controversial (6 voters FOR repeal, 6 voters AGAINST, carried
> 17/14 due to voting strength).  But its passage (and the tone of the
> proposal) implies that it's no longer our coat of arms, and Agoranomic.org
> is actually run by rogue monarchists:
>
> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
> Proposal 6392 (Ordinary, AI=1.0, Interest=0) by allispaul
> Arms Anarchy
>
> WHEREAS Agora has graced the world of Nomic with its presence for
> nearly 16 years (1600 in Nomic years), and
>
> WHEREAS such a long-running Nomic SHOULD leave behind medieval
> trappings, and SHOULD adopt a more modern culture, and
>
> WHEREAS Agora has a responsibility to the lesser Nomics to remove them
> from the plagued darkness that now, even now, permeates the very cores
> of their beings, and CAN only avail itself of this responsibility
> through leadership, and CAN only lead by example, and
>
> WHEREAS nobody even uses shields anymore,
>
> Repeal Rule 2151 (Agoran Arms).
> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
>
>

-- 
>From R. Lee

Re: DIS: A logo for Agora

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/20 6:10 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:
> Due to a multitude of factors, I've noticed a lot of sentiment to "rebrand"
> a bit. Along with this, I would like to raise the discussion of potentially
> creating a new logo of sorts for Agora. The coat-of-arms has stood as our
> de-facto logo for years (on the website as well as in other places) but its
> grays and browns are admittedly rather boring. I think a new logo could do
> a lot for the way we're seen. Thoughts?
>
> --
> Trigon

I've always been a bit meh on its appearance personally.  But I liked the
fact that, apropos to Agora, it could be formally defined in a specialized
language:

Rule 2151/1 (Power=1)
Agoran Arms

  The escutcheon of Agora is defined by the following blazon:
  Tierced palewise sable, argent, and sable, charged with a quill
  and an axe in saltire, proper, and in the chief a capital letter
  A, gules.

  Agora's adopted motto is "Agora n'est pas une fontaine."

[Note (9 January 2009): A rendering of the escutcheon of Agora is at
.]

History:
Created by Proposal 5037 (Zefram, GreyKnight), 28 June 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5285 (Goethe), 7 November 2007
Repealed by Proposal 6392 (allispaul) 10 July 2009


The Repeal Proposal beleow was interesting in terms of our conversation
now.  It was controversial (6 voters FOR repeal, 6 voters AGAINST, carried
17/14 due to voting strength).  But its passage (and the tone of the
proposal) implies that it's no longer our coat of arms, and Agoranomic.org
is actually run by rogue monarchists:

}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 6392 (Ordinary, AI=1.0, Interest=0) by allispaul
Arms Anarchy

WHEREAS Agora has graced the world of Nomic with its presence for
nearly 16 years (1600 in Nomic years), and

WHEREAS such a long-running Nomic SHOULD leave behind medieval
trappings, and SHOULD adopt a more modern culture, and

WHEREAS Agora has a responsibility to the lesser Nomics to remove them
from the plagued darkness that now, even now, permeates the very cores
of their beings, and CAN only avail itself of this responsibility
through leadership, and CAN only lead by example, and

WHEREAS nobody even uses shields anymore,

Repeal Rule 2151 (Agoran Arms).
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{

Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification

[ATMunn via agora-discussion]

I disagree, honestly. I don't think it's a good idea, especially in
regards to new players, to say "hey, so if there's a problem with the
rules, you can do this to fix it, but you can get massively punished for
doing something for the good of Agora." And if someone is unfamiliar
with our criminal punishment system, it might look more like "you will
be punished massively."

On 6/19/2020 9:47 PM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote:

i actually genuinely think that the proposal i created is probably
the best fix for this, it means you can certify a proposal but you
accept the risk of a massive fine (and that fine will be nominal if
it's actually, manifestly, incredibly necessary or whatever)

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:45 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
< agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:


I think we need a free way of pending patch proposals. The voters
appear to agree with me. I know some prominent and respected voices
disagree, but the proposal passed, so clearly public sentiment
presently favors something along these lines.

However, the mechanism I proposed might have been messy. There are 
alternative ideas that would cause fewer CFJs. This gets a bit

logistically interesting though because it's preferable for any
such mechanism to be a) fast, and b) discourage abuse.
Unfortunately, those things go against each other. This is why I
suggested a criminal mechanism, which punishes abuse after the
fact. The obvious alternative is a dependent action. 2 Agoran 
Consent works pretty well as a cure to abuse of anything. It also

takes 4 days, which is too long for patches IMO. That leaves with N
support. The problem with actions taken with N support is that
you've gotta pick a value of N that is high enough to stop a cabal
of taking advantage of it and low enough to be easily achievable.
That being said, something like with 5 support backed by a SHOULD
might do it.

A final solution, which I'm tossing in mostly as a joke, would be
to just take the once a week limitation off my emergency pending
powers.

Or, of course, we could just repeal it. A repeal does remove the
problem, though at the cost of also removing a mechanism that we've
collectively agreed is a good idea.

Thoughts?

-Aris






--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood notary here :)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Contracts] Six secret contracts.

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

Yeah, I intended that to be part of it, but it really doesn't matter.

--
Trigon

currently on a phone

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 18:35 ATMunn via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 6/19/2020 7:42 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote:
> > I consent to the following six contracts:
>
> *cries in notary*
>
> (jk its not a big deal)
>
> quick question though: is the "Contract No. N:" meant to be a part of
> the title or no?
>
> --
> ATMunn
> friendly neighborhood notary here :)
>

DIS: Re: BUS: [Contracts] Six secret contracts.

[ATMunn via agora-discussion]

On 6/19/2020 7:42 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote:

I consent to the following six contracts:


*cries in notary*

(jk its not a big deal)

quick question though: is the "Contract No. N:" meant to be a part of 
the title or no?


--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood notary here :)

Re: DIS: My Piratehood

[Rebecca via agora-discussion]

automatically. it's all good.


also for what it's worth, i've almost literally never known this game to be
this active/spammy before so maybe you can return when it's quieter, haha

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 7:43 AM Stefan Fjellander via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> Save for the piracy thing, i don't think i'm in any other contract. Do i
> have to terminate the piracy contract manually, or is it automatically
> terminated when i deregister?
>
> Bögtil
>


-- 
>From R. Lee

Re: DIS: A logo for Agora

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/20 6:10 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:
> Due to a multitude of factors, I've noticed a lot of sentiment to "rebrand"
> a bit. Along with this, I would like to raise the discussion of potentially
> creating a new logo of sorts for Agora. The coat-of-arms has stood as our
> de-facto logo for years (on the website as well as in other places) but its
> grays and browns are admittedly rather boring. I think a new logo could do
> a lot for the way we're seen. Thoughts?
>
> --
> Trigon
>
> currently on a phone

This could be a fun tournament some time.

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Re: DIS: Fora and Accessibility

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/20 7:12 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:
> Slack is worse imo. It's free for a limited plan, but archiving longer than
> 10,000 messages is reserved for paying customers. At least Discord keeps
> all the server's messages in storage.
>
> --
> Trigon


Ouch - I guess that's not really an option then.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Fora and Accessibility

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

Slack is worse imo. It's free for a limited plan, but archiving longer than
10,000 messages is reserved for paying customers. At least Discord keeps
all the server's messages in storage.

--
Trigon

currently on a phone

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 17:05 Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 6/20/20 6:40 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> > The one thing Discord is missing that might sway me to a platform that
> > has it: The ability for anyone to export the entirety of the chat log
> > since the beginning. That'd make it easier to migrate if and when
> > discord gets replaced with The Next Big Thing. I don't know if any
> > alternatives have that either though.
>
>
> I think Slack has something like that, but you might have to pay for it.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
>

DIS: A logo for Agora

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

Due to a multitude of factors, I've noticed a lot of sentiment to "rebrand"
a bit. Along with this, I would like to raise the discussion of potentially
creating a new logo of sorts for Agora. The coat-of-arms has stood as our
de-facto logo for years (on the website as well as in other places) but its
grays and browns are admittedly rather boring. I think a new logo could do
a lot for the way we're seen. Thoughts?

--
Trigon

currently on a phone

Re: DIS: Fora and Accessibility

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 22:24, nch via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> Moving this here because multiple subtopics in one thread was explicitly
> mentioned as an accessibility problem in the increasing off-topic
> "Leaving..." thread.
>
> First, I want to simply ask: Do you use IRC, and how often? Do you use
> Discord, and how often?

I use IRC once in a blue moon and Discord never (just opened it once
when someone insisted).

I don't mind ephemeral channels being Discussion fora but would be
opposed to making them Public.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Fora and Accessibility

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/2020 4:00 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/20/20 5:56 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>> I do, however, think setting up a chat client for discussion that runs 
>> alongside a-d would be useful for many things, such as private 
>> discussion of alliances, bugfixing on proposals and contacts with more 
>> immediate feedback, and, rather importantly, introducing new players 
>> to the rules in a less-formal environment.
> 
> This is my thinking. I think Agora Discussion actually covers two 
> different things: On-Stage Discussion where someone is addressing 
> everyone or writing something lengthy worth of separate consideration, 
> and off-stage discussion where what's being said is clarification, only 
> directed at one person, or otherwise intended to be inconsequential to 
> the overall flow of the game. It makes sense to put Off-Stage discussion 
> on a platform that is better suited for it and leave the On-Stage things 
> here.

Also, we found that when people start to get heated and snippy in email,
going to live chat they pretty much start laughing about it or emoting to
better convey tone and it diffuses things much more quickly than on email
(where if something is annoying you, you tend to dwell on it more while
composing a snarky or annoyed reply).

Re: DIS: Fora and Accessibility

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/20 6:40 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> The one thing Discord is missing that might sway me to a platform that 
> has it: The ability for anyone to export the entirety of the chat log 
> since the beginning. That'd make it easier to migrate if and when 
> discord gets replaced with The Next Big Thing. I don't know if any 
> alternatives have that either though.


I think Slack has something like that, but you might have to pay for it.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Fora and Accessibility

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/20 6:23 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> Moving this here because multiple subtopics in one thread was explicitly 
> mentioned as an accessibility problem in the increasing off-topic 
> "Leaving..." thread.
>
> First, I want to simply ask: Do you use IRC, and how often? Do you use 
> Discord, and how often?


IRC: never

Discord: pretty much everyday (although this should not be construed as
an endorsement of moving stuff to it)

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Fora and Accessibility

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/20 5:56 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
> I do, however, think setting up a chat client for discussion that runs 
> alongside a-d would be useful for many things, such as private 
> discussion of alliances, bugfixing on proposals and contacts with more 
> immediate feedback, and, rather importantly, introducing new players 
> to the rules in a less-formal environment.

This is my thinking. I think Agora Discussion actually covers two 
different things: On-Stage Discussion where someone is addressing 
everyone or writing something lengthy worth of separate consideration, 
and off-stage discussion where what's being said is clarification, only 
directed at one person, or otherwise intended to be inconsequential to 
the overall flow of the game. It makes sense to put Off-Stage discussion 
on a platform that is better suited for it and leave the On-Stage things 
here.

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Re: DIS: Fora and Accessibility

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/2020 3:47 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> I think there are valid criticisms of how we use email, and we could adopt 
> guidelines to change that, but if we started to use Discord or anything other 
> than IRC or email for significant amounts of discussion, I think I’d leave 
> because those platforms lend themselves to less verbose and thoughtful 
> discussion and I find them a pain to use. So, keep in mind that attracting 
> new players isn’t necessarily worth alienating those of us who are already 
> here.

Sure, support different things for different purposes!

- long in-depth discussions and dissections of text (cfjs, proposals).
those should still be the meat of Agora, I 100% agree.  Stay in email.

- historical/ratified documents: email or git.

- mostly fixed minor transactions (transfers, rewards) - a dedicated but
limited email channel with strict Signalling requirements.  Or a web
interface.

- when a discussion is going back and forth quibbling details of a
proposal, "take it to discord" (or whatever platform, I'm neutral) is good.

- When IRC channel was active, it spawned a more informal chatty sort of
interaction that's great for brainstorming.  And it was great for new
players the chattiness made them ask more questions.  There was a lot of
free association of ideas and in the middle of it someone says "good
idea!" and suddenly there's a proto-proposal on email.  I miss that, and
it didn't detract from the in-depth discussions (even when I wasn't on IRC
I benifitted from the brainstorming that came up there).

- MUD/MOO - h

Re: DIS: Fora and Accessibility

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

I would not suggest that we change *all* discussion to such a platform. I
would not say that long-form discussion is discouraged there, but it's
definitely harder to have multiple concurrent discussions on different
proposals. I have learned that by playing many Discord nomics. Discord
furthermore lacks a good method of archival, meaning discussion would be
much harder to reference.

I do, however, think setting up a chat client for discussion that runs
alongside a-d would be useful for many things, such as private discussion
of alliances, bugfixing on proposals and contacts with more immediate
feedback, and, rather importantly, introducing new players to the rules in
a less-formal environment.

--
Trigon

currently on a phone

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 16:24 nch via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> Moving this here because multiple subtopics in one thread was explicitly
> mentioned as an accessibility problem in the increasing off-topic
> "Leaving..." thread.
>
> First, I want to simply ask: Do you use IRC, and how often? Do you use
> Discord, and how often?
>
> Reducing the chatter in a-d by moving things to a chat based client
> seems like it'd have a lot of readability benefits.
>
> --
> nch
> Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Fora and Accessibility

[Stefan Fjellander via agora-discussion]

> The ability for anyone to export the entirety of the chat log
since the beginning.
There's (TOS-violating, but still) chrome plugins for this.

Bögtil

Den sön 21 juni 2020 kl 00:41 skrev nch via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org>:

> On 6/20/20 5:23 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Moving this here because multiple subtopics in one thread was explicitly
> > mentioned as an accessibility problem in the increasing off-topic
> > "Leaving..." thread.
> >
> > First, I want to simply ask: Do you use IRC, and how often? Do you use
> > Discord, and how often?
> >
> > Reducing the chatter in a-d by moving things to a chat based client
> > seems like it'd have a lot of readability benefits.
> >
> > --
> > nch
> > Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
> >
> >
> Sorry Trigon, I received your thread basically asking the same thing at
> the same time I sent this one. But I'm gonna pull PM and Webmastor
> privilege and respond in my thread :p
>
> I haven't used IRC in years, and I use Discord daily. I don't mind a
> proprietary platform as long as we aren't locked to it, and if we're
> just moving discussion there then we aren't. The big advantage is that
> it has the most user share right now, which makes it a real
> accessibility tool. If someone has to install and use a tool they've
> never used before to ask basic questions, that doesn't add much usability.
>
> The one thing Discord is missing that might sway me to a platform that
> has it: The ability for anyone to export the entirety of the chat log
> since the beginning. That'd make it easier to migrate if and when
> discord gets replaced with The Next Big Thing. I don't know if any
> alternatives have that either though.
>
> --
> nch
> Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Fora and Accessibility

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/20 5:47 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> I think there are valid criticisms of how we use email, and we could adopt 
> guidelines to change that, but if we started to use Discord or anything other 
> than IRC or email for significant amounts of discussion, I think I’d leave 
> because those platforms lend themselves to less verbose and thoughtful 
> discussion and I find them a pain to use. So, keep in mind that attracting 
> new players isn’t necessarily worth alienating those of us who are already 
> here.

Totally agreed on not wanting to alienate anyone (thus the poll), and on 
the limitations of chat for long-form (though I don't understand how IRC 
isn't outright worse than Discord for that...).

But we can also regulate how we use those platforms. I personally would 
use it to ask and answer short questions. If I wanted to say something 
to every player, or something that involves multiple paragraphs, I would 
still want to use email.

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Re: Archival Continuity and Discussion Accessibility (was Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Leaving or something like that)

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/2020 3:01 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/20/20 4:55 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On 6/20/2020 2:46 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> To be clear, I'd never suggest moving gameplay to a chat client. Discord
>>> did not exist 27 years ago, and it's not that likely to exist in 27
>>> years. Agora needs something with the continuity of email. This would
>>> only be discussion in the same way the IRC is/was (does anyone still use
>>> it?).
>> I think the following things should stay document-based (e.g. keyed to
>> timestamped "historical" documents):
>>
>> - Promotor results, Assessor Results, CFJ results, Herald's Scroll.
>> - maybe ADoP.
>>
>> I don't think we need continuity/historicity on every card transfer, and
>> the only reason for some of the other reports to have timestamped
>> documents (e.g. Treasuror) is to have self-ratified rollback points.
>>
>> -G.
>>
> Would we expect CFJs to then include every reference in their text 
> rather than links? What about particularly complex and notable action 
> sequences? Scams tend to involve doing a lot of actions that are 
> inconsequential individually. Also: Text of contracts, pledges, 
> promises... The line between simple forgettable gameplay actions and 
> notable reportable events can be pretty blurry sometimes.
> 

Thinking about it, the main things to "not change" are just the proposals,
CFJs and rulesets, that have a common-enough format going back at least to
2003 that you can write a script to scrape the archives and parse them.

I think for any subgames/contracts, we're better served starting a
tradition of "when this is repealed, the officer declares a git repo for
the game "historical" and it remains for posterity.  Each subgame will be
different in the sort of things worth archiving.

One of my main research documents is the old Ruleset history in Zefram's
archives, so (again, as long as we keep at least a couple clones current)
I think we can do a lot with web archives.

-G.

Re: DIS: Fora and Accessibility

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

I think there are valid criticisms of how we use email, and we could adopt 
guidelines to change that, but if we started to use Discord or anything other 
than IRC or email for significant amounts of discussion, I think I’d leave 
because those platforms lend themselves to less verbose and thoughtful 
discussion and I find them a pain to use. So, keep in mind that attracting new 
players isn’t necessarily worth alienating those of us who are already here.

> On Jun 20, 2020, at 18:23, nch via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> Moving this here because multiple subtopics in one thread was explicitly 
> mentioned as an accessibility problem in the increasing off-topic 
> "Leaving..." thread.
> 
> First, I want to simply ask: Do you use IRC, and how often? Do you use 
> Discord, and how often?
> 
> Reducing the chatter in a-d by moving things to a chat based client 
> seems like it'd have a lot of readability benefits.
> 
> -- 
> nch
> Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
> 
> 

Re: DIS: Fora and Accessibility

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/20 5:23 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> Moving this here because multiple subtopics in one thread was explicitly
> mentioned as an accessibility problem in the increasing off-topic
> "Leaving..." thread.
>
> First, I want to simply ask: Do you use IRC, and how often? Do you use
> Discord, and how often?
>
> Reducing the chatter in a-d by moving things to a chat based client
> seems like it'd have a lot of readability benefits.
>
> --
> nch
> Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
>
>
Sorry Trigon, I received your thread basically asking the same thing at 
the same time I sent this one. But I'm gonna pull PM and Webmastor 
privilege and respond in my thread :p

I haven't used IRC in years, and I use Discord daily. I don't mind a 
proprietary platform as long as we aren't locked to it, and if we're 
just moving discussion there then we aren't. The big advantage is that 
it has the most user share right now, which makes it a real 
accessibility tool. If someone has to install and use a tool they've 
never used before to ask basic questions, that doesn't add much usability.

The one thing Discord is missing that might sway me to a platform that 
has it: The ability for anyone to export the entirety of the chat log 
since the beginning. That'd make it easier to migrate if and when 
discord gets replaced with The Next Big Thing. I don't know if any 
alternatives have that either though.

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

DIS: Fora and Accessibility

[nch via agora-discussion]

Moving this here because multiple subtopics in one thread was explicitly 
mentioned as an accessibility problem in the increasing off-topic 
"Leaving..." thread.

First, I want to simply ask: Do you use IRC, and how often? Do you use 
Discord, and how often?

Reducing the chatter in a-d by moving things to a chat based client 
seems like it'd have a lot of readability benefits.

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

[Poll] A chat client for Agora (was Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Leaving or something like that)

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 16:09 nch via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 6/20/20 5:07 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > Alternatively, we do have an IRC chat which is already an official
> > forum. Mayhaps if the Webmastor promoted this service, it could
> > encourage us to congregate there to answer new players' questions.
> >
> > --
> > Trigon
> >
> > (I haven't figured out my signature on mobile yet.)
>
> I'm pretty against the IRC tbh. It's less accessible than Discord and if
> you're not connected constantly you don't get to see previous messages.
> Obviously there's ways around this, but in the modern internet they're
> pretty arcane. I use discord daily across multiple devices for great
> success. If I was going to advocate for a chat client, it'd be that.
>

Some part of me despises that so many of my social groups have decided to
congregate on a completely proprietary chat system that offers so little
customization.

At the same time, I do concede that Discord is likely the most accessible
chat client out there and that real-time, accessible chat client is a very
good way to help people learn the ropes.

So here comes the poll part: what does everyone think about a chat client?
IRC or Discord? Something open like Matrix? There are lots of options here.
What's the call?

--
Trigon

(still working on the signature, please hold.)

>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Leaving or something like that

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/20 5:07 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Alternatively, we do have an IRC chat which is already an official 
> forum. Mayhaps if the Webmastor promoted this service, it could 
> encourage us to congregate there to answer new players' questions.
>
> --
> Trigon
>
> (I haven't figured out my signature on mobile yet.)

I'm pretty against the IRC tbh. It's less accessible than Discord and if 
you're not connected constantly you don't get to see previous messages. 
Obviously there's ways around this, but in the modern internet they're 
pretty arcane. I use discord daily across multiple devices for great 
success. If I was going to advocate for a chat client, it'd be that.

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Leaving or something like that

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 15:33 nch via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 6/20/20 4:10 PM, Stefan Fjellander via agora-discussion wrote:
> > (I rejoined discussions)
> >> Sorry to see you going, but always happy to have you back if you choose.
> >> Can I ask what you found most difficult/frustrating?
> >> Difficult
> > I must admit I don't really know how to vote, nor how CFJs work, and the
> > discussion in general was over my head 90% of the time. I could probably
> > have caught up in a few months? But that leads to my next point:
> >> Frustrating
> > So Many Emails So Little Time So Little Knowledge. Getting 20 to 50
> emails
> > overnight, of which I understood very few, is a hassle to read, so I got
> in
> > the habit of just instantly deleting them without reading, which doesn't
> > help me learn more nor makes me interact. (Email lists in general aren't
> > really a thing I do well? I might have survived longer on say a Discord
> > group or something, where there's lower barriers to asking stupider
> > questions, but that has other downsides, and is just me having my
> personal
> > issues.)
>
> Speaking of which, I've been thinking of suggesting a Discord. I know
> the downside to chat systems is that things aren't recorded in a way
> that can be referenced long term, but it would certainly help people
> overcome barriers like this one and in general ask quick clarifying
> questions.
>

Alternatively, we do have an IRC chat which is already an official forum.
Mayhaps if the Webmastor promoted this service, it could encourage us to
congregate there to answer new players' questions.

--
Trigon

(I haven't figured out my signature on mobile yet.)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Leaving or something like that

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/2020 2:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I don't think we need continuity/historicity on every card transfer, and
> the only reason for some of the other reports to have timestamped
> documents (e.g. Treasuror) is to have self-ratified rollback points.

What do people think about a type of self-ratification that ratifies a
particular git commit as being the authoritative version?  That's
cloneable if any single platform flakes on us.

Archival Continuity and Discussion Accessibility (was Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Leaving or something like that)

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/20 4:55 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
>
> On 6/20/2020 2:46 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
>> To be clear, I'd never suggest moving gameplay to a chat client. Discord
>> did not exist 27 years ago, and it's not that likely to exist in 27
>> years. Agora needs something with the continuity of email. This would
>> only be discussion in the same way the IRC is/was (does anyone still use
>> it?).
> I think the following things should stay document-based (e.g. keyed to
> timestamped "historical" documents):
>
> - Promotor results, Assessor Results, CFJ results, Herald's Scroll.
> - maybe ADoP.
>
> I don't think we need continuity/historicity on every card transfer, and
> the only reason for some of the other reports to have timestamped
> documents (e.g. Treasuror) is to have self-ratified rollback points.
>
> -G.
>
Would we expect CFJs to then include every reference in their text 
rather than links? What about particularly complex and notable action 
sequences? Scams tend to involve doing a lot of actions that are 
inconsequential individually. Also: Text of contracts, pledges, 
promises... The line between simple forgettable gameplay actions and 
notable reportable events can be pretty blurry sometimes.

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Leaving or something like that

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/2020 2:42 PM, Stefan Fjellander via agora-discussion wrote:
>>   I know the downside to chat systems is that things aren't recorded in a
> way
> that can be referenced long term,
> I happen to run an somewhat nomiclike conlang discord server, where we have
> a few channels corresponding to agora discussion, which are just as any
> else, and then in the channels corresponding to agora business you have to
> format messages a certain way and then, once the bill [we're not dealing
> with non-bill things] passes or fails it is automatically archived in a
> "showcase" channel. (Things corresponding to agora official just go in a
> channel where only our equivalent of office holders can send messages, but
> where all can read.)
> 
> I know changing fora can be hard (see  https://xkcd.com/1782/), and that
> discord is a specific company as opposed to the email concept which is (if
> i'm not too wrong) very openaccess, which both are downsides tho, so i
> think a thing of this calibre should be carefully discussed and thought
> through by all active members.

lol on the xkcd, considering we still have an (almost entirely dead) IRC
channel.  But when it was most active (~10 years ago?) it did keep some of
the discussion volume more manageable, there was more "this conversation
is just two of us hashing out wording let's take it to IRC".

I think our main hesitation at auto-service is that this is a very
"linguistic" game and we tend to like (perhaps too much as Aris recently
pointed out) seeing how we can twist natural language around to use
loopholes.

But I think 90% could be exported to something more automatic (perhaps a
type of forum that's strictly limited, so you can do basic stuff in a set
format, be we don't have to constantly monitor it for Apathy intents or
anything).

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Leaving or something like that

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/2020 2:46 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> To be clear, I'd never suggest moving gameplay to a chat client. Discord 
> did not exist 27 years ago, and it's not that likely to exist in 27 
> years. Agora needs something with the continuity of email. This would 
> only be discussion in the same way the IRC is/was (does anyone still use 
> it?).

I think the following things should stay document-based (e.g. keyed to
timestamped "historical" documents):

- Promotor results, Assessor Results, CFJ results, Herald's Scroll.
- maybe ADoP.

I don't think we need continuity/historicity on every card transfer, and
the only reason for some of the other reports to have timestamped
documents (e.g. Treasuror) is to have self-ratified rollback points.

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Leaving or something like that

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/20 4:42 PM, Stefan Fjellander wrote:
> I happen to run an somewhat nomiclike conlang discord server, where we 
> have a few channels corresponding to agora discussion, which are just 
> as any else, and then in the channels corresponding to agora business 
> you have to format messages a certain way and then, once the bill 
> [we're not dealing with non-bill things] passes or fails it is 
> automatically archived in a "showcase" channel. (Things corresponding 
> to agora official just go in a channel where only our equivalent of 
> office holders can send messages, but where all can read.)
>
> I know changing fora can be hard (see https://xkcd.com/1782/), and 
> that discord is a specific company as opposed to the email concept 
> which is (if i'm not too wrong) very openaccess, which both are 
> downsides tho, so i think a thing of this calibre should be carefully 
> discussed and thought through by all active members.
>
> Bögtil

To be clear, I'd never suggest moving gameplay to a chat client. Discord 
did not exist 27 years ago, and it's not that likely to exist in 27 
years. Agora needs something with the continuity of email. This would 
only be discussion in the same way the IRC is/was (does anyone still use 
it?).

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Leaving or something like that

[Stefan Fjellander via agora-discussion]

>   I know the downside to chat systems is that things aren't recorded in a
way
that can be referenced long term,
I happen to run an somewhat nomiclike conlang discord server, where we have
a few channels corresponding to agora discussion, which are just as any
else, and then in the channels corresponding to agora business you have to
format messages a certain way and then, once the bill [we're not dealing
with non-bill things] passes or fails it is automatically archived in a
"showcase" channel. (Things corresponding to agora official just go in a
channel where only our equivalent of office holders can send messages, but
where all can read.)

I know changing fora can be hard (see  https://xkcd.com/1782/), and that
discord is a specific company as opposed to the email concept which is (if
i'm not too wrong) very openaccess, which both are downsides tho, so i
think a thing of this calibre should be carefully discussed and thought
through by all active members.

Bögtil

Den lör 20 juni 2020 kl 23:33 skrev nch via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org>:

> On 6/20/20 4:10 PM, Stefan Fjellander via agora-discussion wrote:
> > (I rejoined discussions)
> >> Sorry to see you going, but always happy to have you back if you choose.
> >> Can I ask what you found most difficult/frustrating?
> >> Difficult
> > I must admit I don't really know how to vote, nor how CFJs work, and the
> > discussion in general was over my head 90% of the time. I could probably
> > have caught up in a few months? But that leads to my next point:
> >> Frustrating
> > So Many Emails So Little Time So Little Knowledge. Getting 20 to 50
> emails
> > overnight, of which I understood very few, is a hassle to read, so I got
> in
> > the habit of just instantly deleting them without reading, which doesn't
> > help me learn more nor makes me interact. (Email lists in general aren't
> > really a thing I do well? I might have survived longer on say a Discord
> > group or something, where there's lower barriers to asking stupider
> > questions, but that has other downsides, and is just me having my
> personal
> > issues.)
>
> Speaking of which, I've been thinking of suggesting a Discord. I know
> the downside to chat systems is that things aren't recorded in a way
> that can be referenced long term, but it would certainly help people
> overcome barriers like this one and in general ask quick clarifying
> questions.
>
> >
> > Thus, I was in the position of "I get 20-50 emails overnight, of which I
> > instantly delete 99%, from a community which I almost never interact with
> > and which I don't even understand the basics of", and it's unfair both to
> > my time and to y'all who are legit invested in this to keep on doing
> that.
> >
> > --
> > Bögtil
>
> As G. mentioned, there's a good portion of emails I don't read. I read
> everything in a-o and a-b, but when it comes to a-d I often skim once
> I've gotten the gist of the conversation. If it is important it'll pop
> up in a-b and I'll go back and read the thread. Of course, skimming is
> easier with more experience so I don't know how helpful this really is
> as starter advice.
>
> --
> nch
> Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
>
>
>

DIS: My Piratehood

[Stefan Fjellander via agora-discussion]

Save for the piracy thing, i don't think i'm in any other contract. Do i
have to terminate the piracy contract manually, or is it automatically
terminated when i deregister?

Bögtil

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ready Proposals

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/20 5:01 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/20/2020 1:49 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On 6/20/20 8:50 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> On 6/20/20 7:20 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
 This may be the programmer in me speaking, but I don't think it's a good
 idea to couple these two values together. I think it will be easier in
 the future if rules can look at whether a proposal is distributable vs
 whether it is eligible for rewards separately.
>>> Can't they do so under this system? "ready" means distributable, but 
>>> "Ready Method is Pended" means it's eligible for rewards. What's the 
>>> advantage of separating it?
>>>
>> G. recently mentioned urgent proposals, so I'll use that as an example.
>> Imagine we wanted to add a different method of pending that also changed
>> how the proposal behaved in some other way. If we keep pending &
>> eligibility separate, we don't have to update the central definition of
>> eligibility since the new method could just flip a switch from eligible
>> to ineligible (or vice-versa).
>>
>> Also, I'm not saying keeping them together is a horrible idea - the
>> proposal looks fine and it will probably work just fine for now. I just
>> think separating them might make our lives slightly easier in the future.
> How about defining "pending" as a continual state evaluation not a switch?
>
> E.g.  "A proposal is pending if any of the following are true:
>   - Its foo switch is set to X;
>   - Its bar switch is set to W;
>   - etc."
>
> then we can just add to the list.


That would work, though I feel like this might lead to something similar
to the awkward wording we had to add to deal with continuous evaluation
of voting strength.

I'm really unsure if there's even a best option here, since they all
seem to have different tradeoffs. Whatever gets chosen probably won't
end up changing any votes, though, so it's not really a big deal.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Leaving or something like that

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/20 4:10 PM, Stefan Fjellander via agora-discussion wrote:
> (I rejoined discussions)
>> Sorry to see you going, but always happy to have you back if you choose.
>> Can I ask what you found most difficult/frustrating?
>> Difficult
> I must admit I don't really know how to vote, nor how CFJs work, and the
> discussion in general was over my head 90% of the time. I could probably
> have caught up in a few months? But that leads to my next point:
>> Frustrating
> So Many Emails So Little Time So Little Knowledge. Getting 20 to 50 emails
> overnight, of which I understood very few, is a hassle to read, so I got in
> the habit of just instantly deleting them without reading, which doesn't
> help me learn more nor makes me interact. (Email lists in general aren't
> really a thing I do well? I might have survived longer on say a Discord
> group or something, where there's lower barriers to asking stupider
> questions, but that has other downsides, and is just me having my personal
> issues.)

Speaking of which, I've been thinking of suggesting a Discord. I know 
the downside to chat systems is that things aren't recorded in a way 
that can be referenced long term, but it would certainly help people 
overcome barriers like this one and in general ask quick clarifying 
questions.

>
> Thus, I was in the position of "I get 20-50 emails overnight, of which I
> instantly delete 99%, from a community which I almost never interact with
> and which I don't even understand the basics of", and it's unfair both to
> my time and to y'all who are legit invested in this to keep on doing that.
>
> --
> Bögtil

As G. mentioned, there's a good portion of emails I don't read. I read 
everything in a-o and a-b, but when it comes to a-d I often skim once 
I've gotten the gist of the conversation. If it is important it'll pop 
up in a-b and I'll go back and read the thread. Of course, skimming is 
easier with more experience so I don't know how helpful this really is 
as starter advice.

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Leaving or something like that

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/2020 2:10 PM, Stefan Fjellander via agora-discussion wrote:
> Thus, I was in the position of "I get 20-50 emails overnight, of which I
> instantly delete 99%, from a community which I almost never interact with
> and which I don't even understand the basics of", and it's unfair both to
> my time and to y'all who are legit invested in this to keep on doing that.

Yeah, I think one of the hardest things to learn is figuring out what to
ignore.

I'm not reading like 2/3 of the detailed discussions but even with
experience it's hard to filter.  And we have a real thread management
problem around here.  It's not uncommon for the same subject line to
devolve into 3 or more entirely separate conversations, sometimes
switching between Discussion and Business, and it becomes impossible to
find the meat of what's actually going on versus a lot of chatter.

Chatter is meant in a good way, this is a very social game, but when one
part of the thread is 2 people talking about an arcane technical detail
that I'm happy to let them hash out on their own, and another part of the
thread is actually playing or something, it's a challenge.

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Leaving or something like that

[Stefan Fjellander via agora-discussion]

(I rejoined discussions)
> Sorry to see you going, but always happy to have you back if you choose.
> Can I ask what you found most difficult/frustrating?

> Difficult
I must admit I don't really know how to vote, nor how CFJs work, and the
discussion in general was over my head 90% of the time. I could probably
have caught up in a few months? But that leads to my next point:
> Frustrating
So Many Emails So Little Time So Little Knowledge. Getting 20 to 50 emails
overnight, of which I understood very few, is a hassle to read, so I got in
the habit of just instantly deleting them without reading, which doesn't
help me learn more nor makes me interact. (Email lists in general aren't
really a thing I do well? I might have survived longer on say a Discord
group or something, where there's lower barriers to asking stupider
questions, but that has other downsides, and is just me having my personal
issues.)

Thus, I was in the position of "I get 20-50 emails overnight, of which I
instantly delete 99%, from a community which I almost never interact with
and which I don't even understand the basics of", and it's unfair both to
my time and to y'all who are legit invested in this to keep on doing that.

--
Bögtil

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ready Proposals

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/2020 1:49 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/20/20 8:50 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On 6/20/20 7:20 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> This may be the programmer in me speaking, but I don't think it's a good
>>> idea to couple these two values together. I think it will be easier in
>>> the future if rules can look at whether a proposal is distributable vs
>>> whether it is eligible for rewards separately.
>> Can't they do so under this system? "ready" means distributable, but 
>> "Ready Method is Pended" means it's eligible for rewards. What's the 
>> advantage of separating it?
>>
> 
> G. recently mentioned urgent proposals, so I'll use that as an example.
> Imagine we wanted to add a different method of pending that also changed
> how the proposal behaved in some other way. If we keep pending &
> eligibility separate, we don't have to update the central definition of
> eligibility since the new method could just flip a switch from eligible
> to ineligible (or vice-versa).
>
> Also, I'm not saying keeping them together is a horrible idea - the
> proposal looks fine and it will probably work just fine for now. I just
> think separating them might make our lives slightly easier in the future.

How about defining "pending" as a continual state evaluation not a switch?

E.g.  "A proposal is pending if any of the following are true:
  - Its foo switch is set to X;
  - Its bar switch is set to W;
  - etc."

then we can just add to the list.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Don't forget favoring! (policy statement)

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/20 2:29 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote:
> If anything in the above seems confusing/unfair, lmk...


Nope, this all seems perfectly reasonable to me.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ready Proposals

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/20 8:50 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/20/20 7:20 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>> This may be the programmer in me speaking, but I don't think it's a good
>> idea to couple these two values together. I think it will be easier in
>> the future if rules can look at whether a proposal is distributable vs
>> whether it is eligible for rewards separately.
> Can't they do so under this system? "ready" means distributable, but 
> "Ready Method is Pended" means it's eligible for rewards. What's the 
> advantage of separating it?
>

G. recently mentioned urgent proposals, so I'll use that as an example.
Imagine we wanted to add a different method of pending that also changed
how the proposal behaved in some other way. If we keep pending &
eligibility separate, we don't have to update the central definition of
eligibility since the new method could just flip a switch from eligible
to ineligible (or vice-versa).

Also, I'm not saying keeping them together is a horrible idea - the
proposal looks fine and it will probably work just fine for now. I just
think separating them might make our lives slightly easier in the future.

-- 
Jason Cobb

DIS: Re: BUS: Leaving

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/20 2:58 PM, Stefan Fjellander via agora-business wrote:
> I, Bögtil, hereby deregisters, as via rule 869/46.
> It's been nice knowing y'all, but I don't really have time for this nor the
> energy (also I understand very little so each email required a lot of
> effort) right now. I might rejoin later? Who knows, but for now i have
> deregistered and unsubscribed from the mailing lists (all but this one,
> from which I'll unsubscribe tomorrow). Bögtil stefan.fjellan...@gmail.com

Sorry to see you going, but always happy to have you back if you choose. 
Can I ask what you found most difficult/frustrating?

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

DIS: Draft Reportor contract

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

This is intended to be a publicly funded contract once we have a rule for that.

(The same thing could be accomplished more simply by making Reportor
rule-defined, but I'm interested in being able to add things to Agora
without adding complexity to the rules.)

Much of the text is around determining who's responsible for writing
the report for a given week. Summary: whoever claims it first, unless
e gives it away. I wonder if the text could be simplified.

Title: Agoran Press

{

Purpose: support the documentation of Agoran events in a way that
informs current players and non-players and also supports future
research.

-- Joining and leaving --

Parties to this contract are called Reportors.

Any person CAN become a party to this contract by publicly consenting.

Any person CAN cease to be a party by announcement, unless e owns the
Weekly Assignment, or is responsible for publishing a report in the
current week and has not done so.

-- Assignment --

The Weekly Assignment is a unique indestructible asset which can be
owned by players and this contract. It can only be transferred as
outlined below.

A player who owns a Weekly Assignment at the end of a week is Assigned
to that week.

When a person is Assigned to a week, e SHALL publish a Weekly Report
during the following week, summarizing notable events for the Assigned
week. Notability, and what must be included in a summary, are at the
author's discretion. (If this becomes a problem, we can sort it out
later.)

The Weekly Assignment can be transferred as follows:

* If this contract owns it, any Reportor CAN take it by announcement.

* If a Reportor consents to receive it, the owner CAN transfer it to
  that Reportor by announcement.

* At the beginning of every week (immediately after responsibility for
  the previous week is determined) it becomes owned by this contract.

* If it would lack an owner or be owned by the Lost and Found
  department, it becomes owned by this contract.

-- Payment --

Credits are a currency. If a player is Assigned to a week, then the
first time e publishes a Weekly Report for that week e is granted one
credit. (No time limit for payment; late is better than never.)

Whenever a player owns a Credit and this contract owns at least 5 Coins,
that player CAN transfer 5 Coins from this contract to emself by
announcement. When e does so, one of eir Credits is destroyed.

The Editor is the recordkeepor for Credits. The player Assigned to the
previous week is the recordkeepor for Credits, or Falsifian if nobody is
Assigned.

-- Amendment --

Any Reportor can propose an amendment to this contract by announcement.
If an amendment was proposed at least 2 days ago, at least two thirds
(rounded up) of all Reportors consent to it, and it has not yet been
applied, then any Reportor can apply it by announcement, causing this
contract to be amended according to it.

}

- Falsifian

Contract charities (was Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification)

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

> The idea of a contract charity (which we've done before) is intriguing and
> this makes me want to go for the strongest standard (w/o objection).

I was just in the middle of drafting a Reportor contract. Here's a
copy of your proto for charity contracts from last month:

> Proto
> -
> Enact the following rule, Charities:
>
>   Donation Level is a natural switch for contracts, tracked by the
>   Notary, with a default of 0 and a maximum of 25.  A contract with
>   nonzero donation level is called a Charity.
>
>   The Notary CAN flip a contract's donation level to a non-default
>   value with 3 Agoran consent, provided e has not done so for any
>   contract in the current Agoran month.  This SHOULD only be done if
>   the contract's provisions ensure that its funds will be used solely
>   for the betterment of Agora.  Any player CAN flip a contract's
>   donation level to 0 with Agoran consent.
>
>   Whenever a payday occurs, half of each charity's coin holdings
>   (rounded down) are destroyed, and then each charity earns a
>   number of coins equal to its donation level.
>
> [the 'half are destroyed' bit is because we don't want charities to build
> up big bankrolls if they don't give things away].

DIS thread "simple way to give out funds". A few thoughts there
already, e.g. removing the one-per-month limit.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3846 Judged FALSE

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/2020 11:55 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:36 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On 6/19/2020 10:35 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
>>> These judgments are basically drafts. I'm assigning them because I've
>>> got to assign something, but I'm happy to reconsider as appropriate. I
>>> think the core of the arguments should be good though.
>>
>> I think your judgements as-is are plenty for your current cases.  I'm
>> curious though, you implied your line of thinking would cover things like
>> the Shinies case, but I don't see the connection too much, you talk about
>> grammatical sensibilities (and how using a defined term of art like
>> "exploded" would imply the undefined opposite of "unexploded") but that
>> doesn't impact so much how nouns and terms of art are defined and
>> redefined (e.g. jargon?)
>>
>> Not saying you need to add that, just curious where it was going...
> 
> 
> That's not the portion that covers jargon. It's the underlying reasoning
> behind that, which Rebecca pointed out. Basically my contention is that a
> lot of our legal standards for understanding text can and should be boiled
> down to "do the players understand what's going on here?". Your precedent
> on jargon for instance, CFJ 3663, is entirely compatible with this
> approach. I just personally found it a little light on the "why" aspect.
> There are some other CFJs that I think are consistent with it, like our
> precedents on non-English languages, and there are some precedents I think
> are inconsistent with it. So the goal of the thesis would be to outline why
> this is the right model, explain it in more detail, and show which
> precedents are and aren't consistent with it.

Thanks!  That makes sense and sounds like a very useful and productive
endeavor (and the scale is definitely thesis-worthy), I'll look forward to
it whenever it comes!

-G.

Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/2020 11:29 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 01:45, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> I think we need a free way of pending patch proposals. The voters appear to
>> agree with me.

A bit of spin here to correct :).  5 voters voted FOR, 5 voters voted
AGAINST.  The ministry (that you assigned?) is what swung this.  Two of
those against votes were zombies, sure.  But your statement above is not
quite on.

nch, may I recommend that the proposal that goes in be submitted to the
Chamber of Justice?  I think the primary purpose of this proposal is to
remove the unfair Crime (negotiating over the exact ease of pending is
secondary).

> One voter's perspective:
> 
> I voted FOR only to protect for the case that someone finds a serious
> bug with pending proposals.
> 
> Personally I think it would be more fun to have a cost for even the
> most trivial bugfix, at least until we get bored of it. (E.g. We could
> create a Society of Concerned Agorans contract where people who want
> to show their concern for the common good can pool Pendants for such a
> purpose.)

The idea of a contract charity (which we've done before) is intriguing and
this makes me want to go for the strongest standard (w/o objection).

Also note: if we're worried about true emergency bugs, we should bring
back Urgent proposal that go through the whole system faster (perhaps even
at higher base cost, not lesser).

> I like the idea of making free pending a dependent action instead of
> guarded by some particular SHALL condition. I'd probably vote for that
> change, then object to any actual use of it unless we figure out
> pending is broken.
> 
> - Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3846 Judged FALSE

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:36 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
> On 6/19/2020 10:35 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> > These judgments are basically drafts. I'm assigning them because I've
> > got to assign something, but I'm happy to reconsider as appropriate. I
> > think the core of the arguments should be good though.
>
> I think your judgements as-is are plenty for your current cases.  I'm
> curious though, you implied your line of thinking would cover things like
> the Shinies case, but I don't see the connection too much, you talk about
> grammatical sensibilities (and how using a defined term of art like
> "exploded" would imply the undefined opposite of "unexploded") but that
> doesn't impact so much how nouns and terms of art are defined and
> redefined (e.g. jargon?)
>
> Not saying you need to add that, just curious where it was going...


That's not the portion that covers jargon. It's the underlying reasoning
behind that, which Rebecca pointed out. Basically my contention is that a
lot of our legal standards for understanding text can and should be boiled
down to "do the players understand what's going on here?". Your precedent
on jargon for instance, CFJ 3663, is entirely compatible with this
approach. I just personally found it a little light on the "why" aspect.
There are some other CFJs that I think are consistent with it, like our
precedents on non-English languages, and there are some precedents I think
are inconsistent with it. So the goal of the thesis would be to outline why
this is the right model, explain it in more detail, and show which
precedents are and aren't consistent with it.


-Aris

Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 01:45, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> I think we need a free way of pending patch proposals. The voters appear to
> agree with me.

One voter's perspective:

I voted FOR only to protect for the case that someone finds a serious
bug with pending proposals.

Personally I think it would be more fun to have a cost for even the
most trivial bugfix, at least until we get bored of it. (E.g. We could
create a Society of Concerned Agorans contract where people who want
to show their concern for the common good can pool Pendants for such a
purpose.)

I like the idea of making free pending a dependent action instead of
guarded by some particular SHALL condition. I'd probably vote for that
change, then object to any actual use of it unless we figure out
pending is broken.

- Falsifian

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3844 Assigned to Murphy

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/2020 11:04 AM, James Cook via agora-business wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 22:04, Edward Murphy wrote:
>>
>> G. wrote:
>>
>>> The below CFJ is 3844.  I assign it to Murphy.
>>>
>>> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3844
>>>
>>> ===  CFJ 3844  ===
>>>
>>>The destruction of the Bazinga asset would lead to the destruction
>>>of one or more rules, but for the Rule 'Agora is a Nomic'
>>>
>>> ==
> 
> ...
> 
>> Per my judgement of CFJ 3843, Bazinga isn't an asset, thus the statement
>> is overly hypothetical.
>>
>> DISMISS.
> 
> Shouldn't that be IRRELEVANT? That's the judgment "overly
> hypothetical" is associated with in R591.
> 
> I intend, with 2 support, to group-file a Motion to Reconsider CFJ
> 3843. (Not a huge deal, but also seems like it should be easy to
> re-judge.) (I think we still have a little over 24 hours.)

I think the "insufficient information" in DISMISS can be read as "if a
statement is overly hypothetical, it also means we don't have enough
information about that hypothetical state to judge" so DISMISS isn't wrong
(even though it might not be the *most* appropriate when irrelevant also
exists).  I think the only time the distinction matters is when it impacts
a PARADOXICAL possibility (that forbids dismiss).

-G.

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3846 Judged FALSE

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/19/2020 10:35 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> These judgments are basically drafts. I'm assigning them because I've
> got to assign something, but I'm happy to reconsider as appropriate. I
> think the core of the arguments should be good though.

I think your judgements as-is are plenty for your current cases.  I'm
curious though, you implied your line of thinking would cover things like
the Shinies case, but I don't see the connection too much, you talk about
grammatical sensibilities (and how using a defined term of art like
"exploded" would imply the undefined opposite of "unexploded") but that
doesn't impact so much how nouns and terms of art are defined and
redefined (e.g. jargon?)

Not saying you need to add that, just curious where it was going...

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3853 Judged True

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/20 9:37 AM, nch via agora-business wrote:
> Also note a gratuitous argument [4] submitted at the time the CFJ was
> called which uses similar reasoning to arrive at a similar conclusion.

This is tacked on at the end because I actually didn't read this 
gratuitous until I had written the rest of the ruling, and couldn't find 
a way to really integrate its arguments without just saying "same".

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ready Proposals

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/20 7:14 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/20/20 12:23 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On 6/19/20 11:20 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> You wrote a proposal designed specifically to only be used for narrow
>>> patches and then immediately claimed authority to use it because, in
>>> your arguments, literally any rule text impacts the rulekeepor and
>>> therefore the rulekeepor can certify any patch. That feels like an abuse
>>> of that sort of power to me. (This is not indicative of my ruling on the
>>> cfj, I will review it more thoroughly.)
>> Shoot I'm sorry, Jason did that not you. I'm tired.
>>
> I'm sorry, and I don't really plan to make a habit of doing it. I did it
> mostly because I thought it was actually an important fix and I wanted
> to see if my arguments on the interpretation of the rule would be accepted.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
It's a natural consequence of the rule. Debatable conditions punished by 
a crime is always going to lead to something like this.

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ready Proposals

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/20 8:02 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
>> We have a fundamental philosophical difference. I do not think patches
>> should require a payment to be distributed. I want them to be
>> distributable without a fee. I don't particularly mind the author
>> still getting a reward for it, but other people seem to, and I don't
>> mind em not getting a reward for it either.
> I don't think this is our difference. I agree in principle that
> emergency patches should be passable without a payment. But I think your
> standard is too low, and a low standard dilutes the economy. We have
> plenty of Without Objection methods that already work regularly. Also, I
> think the system you're trying to use will cause a lot ofother issues.
>
> I think putting actions behind SHALL and SHALL NOT where the conditions
> are something not super concrete is almost always worse than just making
> it Consent or Without Objection. The perceived advantage is no time
> limits, but the reality is that as soon as people disagree it creates
> CFJs that take longer and more effort than Consent or Without Objection
> would take. Certifiable Patches is set up in a way where we either allow
> its scope to creep or we constantly CFJ to limit it and spend extra time
> debating whether it works for proposals that, theoretically, are
> important enough to not want to waste that time on.
>
I should add: Without Objection (or similar consent methods) also allows 
us to constantly negotiate the limitations. There's no punishment to you 
trying to do so with everything you believe is a patch, and if other 
people disagree they are empowered to disagree in a mechanical way that 
doesn't create extra work. The effect is that we don't need to codify 
what a patch is or when we should let one in for free, it gets worked 
out case-by-case.

I might be talking myself down to an Agoran Consent standard here...

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ready Proposals

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/20 12:01 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:21 PM nch via agora-discussion 
>  > wrote:
>
> On 6/19/20 11:06 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > On the other hand, I'd prefer not to have someone run against me
> in an
> > election on the platform "vote for me and I'll pend all your
> > proposals!". I hope no one like that would win, but it shouldn't be
> > something we allow (even in theory) either. I'd suggest the
> Promotor
> > CAN with ~5 support, or perhaps the Promotor CAN without 3-5
> > objections. Either of those should be strong enough you can take
> the
> > one week cap off without inviting catastrophe.
> Can I ask why you think a lower standard is necessary? If you can
> get 5
> support, that's 6 people. One of you should have pendants, and if not
> then that's possibly an emergency that can be dealt with through
> the PM
> or Promotor methods.
>
>
> We have a fundamental philosophical difference. I do not think patches 
> should require a payment to be distributed. I want them to be 
> distributable without a fee. I don't particularly mind the author 
> still getting a reward for it, but other people seem to, and I don't 
> mind em not getting a reward for it either.

I don't think this is our difference. I agree in principle that 
emergency patches should be passable without a payment. But I think your 
standard is too low, and a low standard dilutes the economy. We have 
plenty of Without Objection methods that already work regularly. Also, I 
think the system you're trying to use will cause a lot ofother issues.

I think putting actions behind SHALL and SHALL NOT where the conditions 
are something not super concrete is almost always worse than just making 
it Consent or Without Objection. The perceived advantage is no time 
limits, but the reality is that as soon as people disagree it creates 
CFJs that take longer and more effort than Consent or Without Objection 
would take. Certifiable Patches is set up in a way where we either allow 
its scope to creep or we constantly CFJ to limit it and spend extra time 
debating whether it works for proposals that, theoretically, are 
important enough to not want to waste that time on.

>
> The larger problem here is that I think proposals are essentially a 
> volunteer effort. Charging people for them seems to me rather like 
> charging people to hold offices. [1] It's community service. Why would 
> you charge people for making the game better? Other people seem to be 
> of the opinion that proposals can better seen as a way to have an 
> impact on the game, and thus ought to be something people get charged 
> for. I am willing, under muffled protests, to go along with those 
> people because I like having interesting economic systems and charging 
> for proposals does appear to get people to be economically active *if 
> done correctly*. However, patch proposals are different. A patch 
> proposal is an opportunity to fix a problem, rather than an 
> opportunity to reshape the game in your own image. I do not like 
> punishing people for fixing bugs. To me, a fee is a punishment, a 
> disincentive. Thus, I do not like the idea of people having to pay to 
> get patch proposals distributed.
A small fee to do something isn't a punishment. A proposal requires 2 
officeholders, 3 if it passes, to act on it. It requires other players 
to read and interpret and debate it. That's a lot of work. A small fee 
ensures that the writer did eir diligence and feels fairly confident 
it's a good proposal before causing all that work. If pendants are 
difficult to get, that's an issue we should rectify. But they aren't, 
currently.

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ready Proposals

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/20 7:20 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> This may be the programmer in me speaking, but I don't think it's a good
> idea to couple these two values together. I think it will be easier in
> the future if rules can look at whether a proposal is distributable vs
> whether it is eligible for rewards separately.

Can't they do so under this system? "ready" means distributable, but 
"Ready Method is Pended" means it's eligible for rewards. What's the 
advantage of separating it?

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ready Proposals

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/19/20 11:36 PM, nch via agora-business wrote:
> Below is v1 of Ready Proposals. It replaces the binary switch for 
> pending with a trinary one that distinguishes 'proper' pending and 
> 'special' pending.
>
> I also propose repealing Certifiable Patches, and amend the Promotor 
> method to have no week limit but instead be without objection. Combine 
> with the PM's ability to ready and distribute any proposal once a month, 
> and the fact that the Promotor can distribute any proposal as long as e 
> is willing to violate a SHALL NOT. If pending is broken, we can fix it 
> immediately. If anything else is broken enough to want to circumvent the 
> system, we have mechanisms for that.
>
> I submit, but do not pend, the following proposal:
>
> Title: Ready Proposals
> Author: nch
> Co-Authors:
> AI: 3
>
> Repeal R2626 "Certifiable Patches".
>
> Amend R2622, "Pending Proposals", to read in full:
>
>    Ready Method is an untracked proposal switch with possible values
>    [None, Pended, Special] and default value None. If a proposal has
>    a non-default Ready Method, it is ready.


This may be the programmer in me speaking, but I don't think it's a good
idea to couple these two values together. I think it will be easier in
the future if rules can look at whether a proposal is distributable vs
whether it is eligible for rewards separately.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ready Proposals

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/20 12:23 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/19/20 11:20 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
>> You wrote a proposal designed specifically to only be used for narrow
>> patches and then immediately claimed authority to use it because, in
>> your arguments, literally any rule text impacts the rulekeepor and
>> therefore the rulekeepor can certify any patch. That feels like an abuse
>> of that sort of power to me. (This is not indicative of my ruling on the
>> cfj, I will review it more thoroughly.)
> Shoot I'm sorry, Jason did that not you. I'm tired.
>

I'm sorry, and I don't really plan to make a habit of doing it. I did it
mostly because I thought it was actually an important fix and I wanted
to see if my arguments on the interpretation of the rule would be accepted.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] The long anticipated Forbes 493

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/20/20 12:02 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 2020-06-19 20:06, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via 
> agora-discussion wrote:
>> The way I was thinking of it, I gave you the second legislative  card I 
>> already had: either way, I should have two now.
>>
>>> On Jun 19, 2020, at 18:11, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion 
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/19/20 6:20 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business
>>> wrote:
 CoE: I have a second legislative card that Jason created in my possession.
>>>
>>> But you transferred it to me - that was the whole purpose of the exercise.
> I am so confused right now. Can someone explain the way this should have 
> gone down?
>

The intent was:

1) I grant PSS a Legislative card via R2624.

2) PSS grants me a Justice card vis R2624.

3) I transfer PSS a Justice card.

4) PSS transfers me a Legislative card.


This would mean the net effect is +1 Legislative card for me and +1
Justice card for PSS.

Step 1 was the text of the promise, while 2 and 4 were in the the
cashing conditions of the promise. 3 was required by a pledge I made.

I'm truly sorry that this got so confusing. It was meant to be a simple
trade.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ready Proposals

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-06-19 23:37, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:

Rule 1623/11
Disinterested Proposals

   A Proposal may be Interested or Disinterested. Each Proposal is
   Interested when made. The Proposer of a Proposal may cause it to
   become Disinterested, without objection, but only if the
   Proposal has not yet been distributed.


This is pretty much my ideal version of patch proposals. I would be in 
favor of an almost-verbatim reenactment of this rule.


--
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: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ready Proposals

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-06-19 23:01, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:

The larger problem here is that I think proposals are essentially a
volunteer effort. Charging people for them seems to me rather like charging
people to hold offices. [1] It's community service. Why would you charge
people for making the game better?


I don't expect to sway you on this, but I would like to explain my 
viewpoint just a bit.


Nomics and Nomic-likes aren't like normal games due to the core idea of 
arbitrary rule changes, so they are also by necessity some kind of legal 
simulators.


We can therefore model this space as a spectrum from legal simulator to 
game. If we do so, Agora leans heavily to the legal simulator side, 
while FRC leans to the game side.


Don't get me wrong, I love Agora as a legal simulator. It's half the 
reason I play it. But I also love when we actually have gameplay. We 
have to have some at all times or else there would be nothing to debate 
about in the courts. But I love even more in-depth economies and 
minigames that can work by themselves. For instance, I can see some of 
BlogNomic's dynasties functioning really well as Board Games.


Adding a simple economic barrier to gameplay systems is one of the best 
ways we have to really make ourselves play and get creative with the 
economic systems and minigames. We have more incentive to interact with 
them and therefore have even more excuse to do our regular bickering 
about rules.


Now, I am strongly in favor of some system of patch proposals. Proposals 
that adjust balance or wording to clarify issues. But I think that in 
general, paying for proposals has lots of benefits.


--
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: Re: BUS: CFJ 3846 Judged FALSE

[Rebecca via agora-discussion]

>To be honest, I'm pretty sure
>that most of Agora's interpretative woes could be solved by rigorous
>application of the principle that language means what people think it means
>coupled with rigorous adherence to the text of the rules

Yep, I've always tried to (sometimes covertly) judge CFJs in precisely this
manner. Your judgements are both obviously correct and basically are the
same as I would have judged them (except you are more eloquent)

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 3:36 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> These judgments are basically drafts. I'm assigning them because I've
> got to assign something, but I'm happy to reconsider as appropriate. I
> think the core of the arguments should be good though.
>
> BTW, the big exciting part got cut due to time constraints, but I've
> hinted at what it is, just not shown all of the details.]
>
> Judge's Arguments in CFJ 3846
>
> The former of the caller's arguments, regarding Rule 2162, has already been
> dealt with in CFJ 3845.
>
> That leaves eir second argument, which is as follows:
>
> 1. A CFJ with a judge switch set to "unassigned" is unassigned.
> 2. The reason for this is that any entity "is" any the current value
>of each of that entity's switches.
> 3. Therefore, CFJ 3835 is G.
>
> I think we can all agree with #1. The weak step in this argument is #2.
> The argument fails if the reason for #1 is something other than #2.
>
> First, and most obviously, the word unassigned has a meaning
> Without even having to look it up, I can tell you it means "not assigned".
> It could mean "not assigned ever" or "not assigned right now", but it darn
> well means one of those things. One of the values of a CFJ's judge switch
> is "unassigned". That clarifies which of the two senses of the natural
> language word "unassigned" is meant: the one that accords with the
> value of the switch. Incidentally, this works much the same way for
> offices being vacant.
>
> That explanation is enough to resolve the argument set forth by the caller.
> However, there is another argument that could be produced.
>
> Imagine a rule that stated "Exploded is a negative boolean proposal
> switch."
> Perhaps exploding a proposal is method of disabling it, and exploded
> proposals
> CANNOT be adopted.
>
> People might begin to refer to exploded proposals as "exploded proposals",
> as
> I've already been doing. If you're an average Agoran, I'll bet you didn't
> even
> notice me referring to proposals with an exploded switch set to true as
> "exploded proposals" until I pointed it out. It just makes sense. What else
> would anyone mean by an "exploded" proposal? And once you've gone that
> far, why not start referring to proposals that have their exploded switch
> set
> to false as "unexploded"? After all, unexploded means "not exploded", so it
> seems like a sensible enough conversion. It would be just as sensible to do
> the same if the proposal switch was "explodedness" and the values were
> "exploded" and "unexploded". So what's going on here?
>
> I don't have a tidy explanation for this. The best I have is this: language
> means what people think it means. We've gotten so used to using adjectives
> to describe nouns that if we see something that looks adjectival being
> a property of something that looks nounish, we just naturally speak with
> the adjective describing the noun. This is how our language works. Because
> everyone understands it, it's meaningful. To be honest, I'm pretty sure
> that most of Agora's interpretative woes could be solved by rigorous
> application of the principle that language means what people think it means
> coupled with rigorous adherence to the text of the rules, but that's a
> matter for another day (I may write a thesis).
>
> The same principle, if applied to this case, resolves the matter
> conclusively.
> No Agoran would say that CFJ 3846 is G., just because e is its judge.
> The adjectival principle I mentioned above does not apply to nouns. Making
> it
> apply to nouns would like require a major change in Agoran language, rather
> than a mere shift in usage.
>
> The long and the short of it is, no matter how one explains the fact that
> a CFJ can be unassigned, CFJ 3846 doesn't come even remotely close to being
> G. FALSE.
>


-- 
>From R. Lee