Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Dependent dependencies
On 6/23/20 10:15 PM, Ed Strange via agora-discussion wrote: > This is silly for the following reasons. Actions like "With T notice" are > called, by the ruleset, DEPENDENT ACTIONS. What do these actions depend on? > They depend on a specific set of conditions being met, in this case 7 days > passing. What does it mean to depend on objections? To have, in the > conditions for the DEPENDENT ACTION to work, the absence of objections as a > condition. Counterpoint: even with T notice depends on the absence of objections from a specific person - the Speaker, so it is still dependent on the state of objections to the intent in general. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Dependent dependencies
This is silly for the following reasons. Actions like "With T notice" are
called, by the ruleset, DEPENDENT ACTIONS. What do these actions depend on?
They depend on a specific set of conditions being met, in this case 7 days
passing. What does it mean to depend on objections? To have, in the
conditions for the DEPENDENT ACTION to work, the absence of objections as a
condition.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:59 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I CFJ: "An action to be performed with 7 days notice depends on
> objections."
>
> I bar nch, although I believe R. Lee also has self-interest.
>
>
> Evidence:
>
> {
>
> Rule 2124/26 [Excerpt]:
>
> > The above notwithstanding, if an action depends on objections, and
> > an objection to an intent to perform it has been withdrawn within
> > the past 24 hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with that intent.
> >
> > The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with an intent
> > if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours.
>
>
> Dictionary definition of "define":
>
> [0]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/depend
>
> }
>
>
> Arguments:
>
> {
>
> What it means for an action to "depend on objections" is not defined in
> the rules. This means that it has its common language meaning. The word
> at issue is "depend". Merriam-Webster [0] defines "depend" as an
> intransitive verb meaning:
>
> 1. to be determined, based, or contingent
>
> 2. to be pending or undecided
>
> 3. a. to place reliance or trust
>
>b. to be dependent especially for financial support
>
> 4. to hang down
>
>
> I believe definition 1 here makes the most sense in context. I see two
> ways to interpret an action "depending on objections" - it either must
> require objects to be performable, or it must be affected by objections.
> The former makes no sense - no dependent action requires objections in
> order to be actionable, which would mean the clause has no effect. This
> leaves the second reading - the action "depends on objections" if
> objections affect whether it can be performed.
>
> An action to be performed with 7 days notice is affected by the presence
> or absence of objections. In particular, it is affected by the presence
> of an objection from the Speaker, who can veto an action for 48 hours by
> objecting. This is consistent with a common language reading - the
> effectiveness of an action to be performed with 7 days action is, in
> part, "determined" by, "based" on, or "contingent" upon, the presence or
> absence of an objection. Because of this, I argue that an action to be
> performed with 7 days notice "depends on objections" and argue for TRUE.
>
> }
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
>
--
>From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Interested Proposals
On 6/23/20 7:29 PM, nch via agora-business wrote:
> I ditched the idea of Ready Proposals for something more similar to the
> old disinterested proposals system. The way this works is by calling
> proposals pended with pendants "sponsored" proposals, and making that a
> condition of getting the LC and coin rewards. I left a support mechanism
> for the Promotor because this scam convinced me that it's a good
> mechanism (if there was no support mechanism, the opposition wouldn't
> have been able to get their proposal in in time, which wouldn't have
> been nearly as fun). We can tweak it as we see what happens with it.
>
> Also, while I was at it, I rewrote the second paragraph of Popular
> Proposal Proposer Privilege. It should be functionally identical but
> less verbose.
So I forgot to rename this after changing the name of the system... I
withdraw Interested Proposals and submit but do not pend the following
proposal:
{
Title: Sponsored Proposals
AI: 1.0
Author: nch
Coauthors: G., Trigon
Amend R2622, "Pending Proposals", to read in full:
Pended is an untracked negative boolean proposal switch.
Any player CAN pay 1 Pendant to flip the Pended switch of a
specified proposal to True. If the player did not create the
proposal and is not listed in the list of co-authors of the
proposal, e is added to the list of co-authors. When e does so,
the proposal becomes sponsored.
The Promotor CAN, with 2+X support, flip the Pended switch of a
proposal in the Proposal Pool to true. For this, X is equal to the
number of times e has done so in the past 7 days.
Any player CAN, without objection, flip the Pended switch of a
proposal in the Proposal Pool to true.
A proposal with a Pended switch set to True is 'pending'.
Repeal R2626 "Certifiable Patches".
Amend R2623, "Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege", by replacing:
The player who proposed the adopted proposal whose referendum had
the greatest popularity among all referenda assessed in the last 7
days CAN once earn one Legislative Card by announcement, provided
that no referendum initiated in the same message as it remains
unresolved. If there is a tie, all authors of the tied proposals
can do so once each.
with:
The author of the most popular sponsored proposal adopted in the
last 7 days CAN once earn one Legislative Card by announcement,
provided that no referenda initiated in the same message as it
remain unresolved. If there is a tie, all authors of the tied
proposals can do so once each.
Amend R2496, "Rewards", by replacing "an adopted proposal" with "an
adopted sponsored proposal".
}
--
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Congratulations !! You Just WON !!!
On 6/23/20 8:08 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > Worth a shot. I thought maybe sending it to all players (because that > can count as a public action) would work a bit better, since that would > subvert people's filters to not send Agoran messages to spam. Because I use a completely separate email address for Agora and don't use any shared inboxes, I have the luxury of completely disabling my spam filters. > > But alas, P.S.S. is smarter than that. > > I would Notice of Honour -1 me +1 PSS but I already published a NoH this > week. > > but seriously, P.S.S., how did you catch it that fast? it was almost > instant after I sent it. I happened to be logging into my computer when the notification came, and I noticed that it was strange that it wasn't coming via a list, so I opened it immediately. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 7:22 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/23/20 7:21 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 6/23/20 6:20 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 7:10 PM nch via agora-discussion < > >> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> > >>> On 6/23/20 5:38 PM, James Cook via agora-business wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 14:04, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On 6/23/20 10:03 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > >> The PM doesn't have increased voting strength. And I've already > pledged > >> to not blot someone else to decrease their strength. Jason plans to > try > >> to install a member of Dragon Corp as PM, then use that to help them > >>> win > >> and install a Speaker. > > You do, because ministries. > That's a good point. I support Jason's intent to cause the office of > Prime Minister to become vacant, and I withdraw my objection. > > (Has anyone done the math? Do R. Lee and nch really have a hope of > voting down the proposal?) > > - Falsifian > >>> I advise people to use the impeachment method instead of this method so > >>> we can have an election for the office instead of having Jason > >>> immediately deputize for it when e resolves the intent. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> nch > >>> Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager > >>> > >> > >> If I acquire the office of Prime Minister, I pledge to exercise no > cabinet > >> orders and to initiate an election within 7 days. > >> > > Pledge to also not install a speaker. > > > > Also, include issuing emergency regulations. > > -- > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate > Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth > I won't pledge not to appoint a speaker, as that is literally the only way I could become PM. I pledge to issue no intents pertaining to emergency regulations if I become Prime Minister. >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
On 6/23/20 7:21 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/23/20 6:20 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 7:10 PM nch via agora-discussion < >> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> >>> On 6/23/20 5:38 PM, James Cook via agora-business wrote: On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 14:04, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/23/20 10:03 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >> The PM doesn't have increased voting strength. And I've already pledged >> to not blot someone else to decrease their strength. Jason plans to try >> to install a member of Dragon Corp as PM, then use that to help them >>> win >> and install a Speaker. > You do, because ministries. That's a good point. I support Jason's intent to cause the office of Prime Minister to become vacant, and I withdraw my objection. (Has anyone done the math? Do R. Lee and nch really have a hope of voting down the proposal?) - Falsifian >>> I advise people to use the impeachment method instead of this method so >>> we can have an election for the office instead of having Jason >>> immediately deputize for it when e resolves the intent. >>> >>> -- >>> nch >>> Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager >>> >> >> If I acquire the office of Prime Minister, I pledge to exercise no cabinet >> orders and to initiate an election within 7 days. >> > Pledge to also not install a speaker. > Also, include issuing emergency regulations. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
On 6/23/20 6:20 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 7:10 PM nch via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On 6/23/20 5:38 PM, James Cook via agora-business wrote: >>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 14:04, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion >>> wrote: On 6/23/20 10:03 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > The PM doesn't have increased voting strength. And I've already pledged > to not blot someone else to decrease their strength. Jason plans to try > to install a member of Dragon Corp as PM, then use that to help them >> win > and install a Speaker. You do, because ministries. >>> That's a good point. I support Jason's intent to cause the office of >>> Prime Minister to become vacant, and I withdraw my objection. >>> >>> (Has anyone done the math? Do R. Lee and nch really have a hope of >>> voting down the proposal?) >>> >>> - Falsifian >> I advise people to use the impeachment method instead of this method so >> we can have an election for the office instead of having Jason >> immediately deputize for it when e resolves the intent. >> >> -- >> nch >> Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager >> > > If I acquire the office of Prime Minister, I pledge to exercise no cabinet > orders and to initiate an election within 7 days. > Pledge to also not install a speaker. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
On 6/23/20 5:38 PM, James Cook via agora-business wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 14:04, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion > wrote: >> On 6/23/20 10:03 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >>> The PM doesn't have increased voting strength. And I've already pledged >>> to not blot someone else to decrease their strength. Jason plans to try >>> to install a member of Dragon Corp as PM, then use that to help them win >>> and install a Speaker. >> >> You do, because ministries. > That's a good point. I support Jason's intent to cause the office of > Prime Minister to become vacant, and I withdraw my objection. > > (Has anyone done the math? Do R. Lee and nch really have a hope of > voting down the proposal?) > > - Falsifian I advise people to use the impeachment method instead of this method so we can have an election for the office instead of having Jason immediately deputize for it when e resolves the intent. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
DIS: Re: BUS: Vote on P8442
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 3:20 PM grok via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:23 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business
> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/22/20 9:44 PM, Unspecified Behavior via agora-business wrote:
> > > I do not register, as I am already a player.
> > >
> > > I withdraw any vote I may or may not have cast on Proposal 8442. I
> vote FOR
> > > on Proposal 8442.
> >
> >
> > Well, I guess someone has to.
> >
> > I CFJ: "If the person who sent the above message is a player, e cast a
> > vote on Proposal 8442 in that message."
> >
> > Evidence:
> >
> > {
> >
> > "the above message" is at [0].
> >
> > [0]:
> >
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-June/043565.html
> >
> >
> > Rule 478/48 [Excerpt]:
> >
> > > A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent to
> > > all players and containing a clear designation of intent to be
> > > public. A rule can also designate that a part of one public
> > > message is considered a public message in its own right. To
> > > "publish" or "announce" something is to send a public message
> > > whose body contains that thing. To do something "publicly" is
> > > to do that thing within a public message.
> > >
> > > Where the rules define an action that a person CAN perform "by
> > > announcement", that person performs that action by unambiguously
> > > and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
> > > it. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the
> > > time date-stamped on that message. Actions in messages (including
> > > sub-messages) are performed in the order they appear in the
> > > message, unless otherwise specified.
> >
> > }
> >
> >
> > Arguments:
> >
> > {
> >
> > Does the actor of the action need to be clearly specified for it to be
> > performed by announcement? I don't see any text in the rules that
> > necessarily implies so.
> >
> > }
> >
> > --
> > Jason Cobb
> >
>
> Gratuitous Arguments:
>
> R478 defines "publishing" as a public message, which requires a "clear
> designation of intent." R683 article 2 requires the publisher to be
> "at the initiation of the decision, a player". Since
> unspecifiedbehav...@gmail.com is not known as a player's primary or
> alternate email address, the following two things are true:
>
> 1. It is unclear which player's vote the entity intends to withdraw.
> 2. It is unclear which player the entity intends to vote on behalf of.
>
> 1 has indeterminate intent, and should not be considered a
> publication. 2 is more tenuous, but I argue without knowing the
> identity of the voting player it is impossible to know which vote they
> intend to change. A message without clear intent is not a public
> message, and therefore cannot be a publication.
>
With respect, you're just reading that sentence wrong. Let me quote the
sentence "A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent to all
players and containing a clear designation of intent to be public."
So first off, that's either or. This message was sent to a public forum and
thus does not need to contain clear designation of intent for anything.
Secondly, it's clear designation of intent *to be public* rather than
anything else.
The purpose of the second half of that message is a backup. If all of the
lists go down, you can send a message to all players and mark it as public
so gameplay can continue.
That being said, you do have a point about the withdrawal of the previous
vote being an important target (IIRC, that is a by announcement action).
-Aris
Re: DIS: Re: [CFJ] Re: BUS: Vote on P8442
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 1:57 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > There's another way to argue this for by announcement actions though. > You could argue that the actor is intrinsically part of the action, to > the point where any unspecified actor voids the action. I disagree. > Voting for a proposal is an action, and it's the same action whether I > do it or G. does it or someone else does it. Just to make it clear, I think this is the weak part of my arguments. I think this is right, but if the judge disagrees with me I'm not going to complain. For the "e" thing though, I just literally cannot understand it. People tried to explain it to me several times on Discord, and it flatly does not make sense in my head. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: [CFJ] Re: BUS: Vote on P8442
On 6/23/20 3:57 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > Imagine, for a second, that you're a detective and you hear a man in > another room say "I stole the painting!". You might whisper to your > assistant "he's confessed that he's the thief!". Now imagine that your > assistant told you "no, he hasn't, because we don't know what the > referent of the word "he" is, and that sentence doesn't make sense > without a referent". > > Are you seeing my point? The argument that you need to know someone's > identity for the person to announce that they're doing something is > ridiculous. It borders on the downright absurd. That's... just not how > words work. You can't go and take perfectly clear rules text and make > it say whatever you want because what it actually says isn't in the > best interest of the game, and I think that's what's happening here. This is more like finding a note that says "I stole the painting" and then claiming "this is definitely an admissible confession." -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: Re: [CFJ] Re: BUS: Vote on P8442
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 1:28 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 6/23/2020 11:46 AM, omd via agora-business wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:42 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business > > wrote: > >> If there exists no CFJ with the statement "If the person who sent the > >> above message is a player, e cast a vote on Proposal 8442 in that > >> message.", I initiate one. > > > > Arguments: > > > > I thought I remembered a precedent that anonymous actions didn't work, > > because for a statement of "I perform an action" to be unambiguous, > > you need to identify who "I" is. > > > > ...But apparently my memory is faulty. This pair of cases is all I > > can find, and it suggests that anonymous actions do work, or at least > > did under the rules of the time: > > > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2179 > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2180 > > I vaguely remember arguing the same thing during the Annabel crisis and > didn't make headway - the assumption then was it worked (albeit that was > only retroactive uncertainty). > > Gratuitous based on current rules: > > In this R78 text: > unambiguously > and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs > it. > > the "e" should not imply the ability to simply say "I" when the identity > of the message-sender is ambiguous, but rather should include the notion > that the pronoun must have a clear referent (that is usually implied by > the email address if the message isn't signed), otherwise e's not saying > that e's the one performing it. This is a "for the good of the game" > argument where the rules are silent (it would definitely be better if the > self-identification requirement was clearer in the rule). A ton of people are taking this reading, and I just don't get it. You're reading an awful lot into that e. I think the obvious and most sensible reading of that provision is that a person doesn't just have to specify an action (people do this all the time even when they don't want to perform an action). E also has to specify that e wants to perform the action, which stops people from accidentally triggering the provision by mistake. As further exposition for this, I'll note that if I meant the interpretation I just wrote out, I'd have written the rule exactly the way it's written now. I'd figure that anyone who says "I do X" is announcing that e is doing X (practically by definition). If I'd wanted em to have to specify eir identity, I would have written that as a separate thing e must specify. Imagine, for a second, that you're a detective and you hear a man in another room say "I stole the painting!". You might whisper to your assistant "he's confessed that he's the thief!". Now imagine that your assistant told you "no, he hasn't, because we don't know what the referent of the word "he" is, and that sentence doesn't make sense without a referent". Are you seeing my point? The argument that you need to know someone's identity for the person to announce that they're doing something is ridiculous. It borders on the downright absurd. That's... just not how words work. You can't go and take perfectly clear rules text and make it say whatever you want because what it actually says isn't in the best interest of the game, and I think that's what's happening here. There's another way to argue this for by announcement actions though. You could argue that the actor is intrinsically part of the action, to the point where any unspecified actor voids the action. I disagree. Voting for a proposal is an action, and it's the same action whether I do it or G. does it or someone else does it. A final point is that this entire discussion is irrelevant because voting is done by notice, not by announcement. The exclusive criteria for valid ballots are in Rule 683. Rule 683/26 (Power=3) Voting on Agoran Decisions An entity submits a ballot on an Agoran decision by publishing a notice satisfying the following conditions: 1. The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the decision. 2. The entity casting the ballot (the voter) was, at the initiation of the decision, a player. 3. The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided. 4. The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined by the voting method. 5. The ballot clearly sets forth the voter's intent to place the identified vote. 6. The voter has no other valid ballots on the same decision. A valid ballot is a ballot, correctly submitted, that has not been withdrawn. During the voting period of an Agoran decision, an entity CAN by announcement withdraw (syn. retract) a ballot that e submitted on that decision. To "change" one's vote is to retract eir previous ballot (if any), then submit a new one. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [NoH] Unspecified Honour
On 6/23/2020 1:34 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/23/20 3:21 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 1:16 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < >> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> >>> On 6/23/20 4:13 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: I publish the following Notice of Honour: +1 Agora (Agora has negative karma right now) -1 Unspecified Behavior (for being suspicious and mysterious and >>> weird) >>> >>> >>> Does this actually "Specify any other player or Agora to lose karma"? We >>> have no idea who "Unspecified Behavior" is, so this arguably fails at >>> "specifying" a player. >> >> I'm not sure about this, but here's a counter-argument. You have no clue >> who Aris or ATMunn or Falsifian is either. You have more information about >> them, such as their dates of registration. That being said, there's no >> particular reason why the information you have attributed to those names >> somehow makes those them Canonical Player Names with magical properties. >> Unspecified Behavior is Unspecified Behavior, the same way I'm Aris and >> ATMunn is ATMunn. >> >> -Aris > > Unspecified Behavior didn't argue that they are Unspecified Behavior (or > even use that as a name). E argued that e is some existing player, which > we know by a different name. That's slightly different. > > I agree with your conclusion for a different reason: Notice of Honour > has to specify a player, but not in an unambiguous way (which is > required from some other actions). Seems pretty clear that (if UB is a > player) ATMunn did so. > H. Judge R. Lee recently wrote a really nice paragraph about "specify" on its own to imply it means something, you know, specific, including containing the notion of "clear": https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3819 and if we go waaay back the word "specify" on its own once didn't even allow saying things like "all" for quantities (we never overturned that we just forgot and/or loosened up). But it's a thorough look at the meaning of "specify" so honestly it's the most thorough look (and ended up being the most restrictive interpretation): https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1307 -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [NoH] Unspecified Honour
On 6/23/20 3:21 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 1:16 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On 6/23/20 4:13 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: >>> I publish the following Notice of Honour: >>> +1 Agora (Agora has negative karma right now) >>> -1 Unspecified Behavior (for being suspicious and mysterious and >> weird) >> >> >> Does this actually "Specify any other player or Agora to lose karma"? We >> have no idea who "Unspecified Behavior" is, so this arguably fails at >> "specifying" a player. > > I'm not sure about this, but here's a counter-argument. You have no clue > who Aris or ATMunn or Falsifian is either. You have more information about > them, such as their dates of registration. That being said, there's no > particular reason why the information you have attributed to those names > somehow makes those them Canonical Player Names with magical properties. > Unspecified Behavior is Unspecified Behavior, the same way I'm Aris and > ATMunn is ATMunn. > > -Aris Unspecified Behavior didn't argue that they are Unspecified Behavior (or even use that as a name). E argued that e is some existing player, which we know by a different name. That's slightly different. I agree with your conclusion for a different reason: Notice of Honour has to specify a player, but not in an unambiguous way (which is required from some other actions). Seems pretty clear that (if UB is a player) ATMunn did so. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [NoH] Unspecified Honour
On 6/23/2020 1:21 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 1:16 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On 6/23/20 4:13 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: >>> I publish the following Notice of Honour: >>>+1 Agora (Agora has negative karma right now) >>>-1 Unspecified Behavior (for being suspicious and mysterious and >> weird) >> >> >> Does this actually "Specify any other player or Agora to lose karma"? We >> have no idea who "Unspecified Behavior" is, so this arguably fails at >> "specifying" a player. > > > I'm not sure about this, but here's a counter-argument. You have no clue > who Aris or ATMunn or Falsifian is either. You have more information about > them, such as their dates of registration. That being said, there's no > particular reason why the information you have attributed to those names > somehow makes those them Canonical Player Names with magical properties. > Unspecified Behavior is Unspecified Behavior, the same way I'm Aris and > ATMunn is ATMunn. counter to that: we have a standard that identifying a player is done through eir registrar information (either nickname or email address as contained in the message or headers) because the registrar is literally "responsible for keeping track of players", so anything that doesn't tie to one of those bits of "tracking data" is ambiguous. (this is one of those "I can't remember if it was a cfj or just a discussion" things) -G.
Re: DIS: Re: [CFJ] Re: BUS: Vote on P8442
On 6/23/2020 11:46 AM, omd via agora-business wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:42 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business > wrote: >> If there exists no CFJ with the statement "If the person who sent the >> above message is a player, e cast a vote on Proposal 8442 in that >> message.", I initiate one. > > Arguments: > > I thought I remembered a precedent that anonymous actions didn't work, > because for a statement of "I perform an action" to be unambiguous, > you need to identify who "I" is. > > ...But apparently my memory is faulty. This pair of cases is all I > can find, and it suggests that anonymous actions do work, or at least > did under the rules of the time: > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2179 > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2180 I vaguely remember arguing the same thing during the Annabel crisis and didn't make headway - the assumption then was it worked (albeit that was only retroactive uncertainty). Gratuitous based on current rules: In this R78 text: unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it. the "e" should not imply the ability to simply say "I" when the identity of the message-sender is ambiguous, but rather should include the notion that the pronoun must have a clear referent (that is usually implied by the email address if the message isn't signed), otherwise e's not saying that e's the one performing it. This is a "for the good of the game" argument where the rules are silent (it would definitely be better if the self-identification requirement was clearer in the rule).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [NoH] Unspecified Honour
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 1:16 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/23/20 4:13 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: > > I publish the following Notice of Honour: > >+1 Agora (Agora has negative karma right now) > >-1 Unspecified Behavior (for being suspicious and mysterious and > weird) > > > Does this actually "Specify any other player or Agora to lose karma"? We > have no idea who "Unspecified Behavior" is, so this arguably fails at > "specifying" a player. I'm not sure about this, but here's a counter-argument. You have no clue who Aris or ATMunn or Falsifian is either. You have more information about them, such as their dates of registration. That being said, there's no particular reason why the information you have attributed to those names somehow makes those them Canonical Player Names with magical properties. Unspecified Behavior is Unspecified Behavior, the same way I'm Aris and ATMunn is ATMunn. -Aris
DIS: Re: BUS: [NoH] Unspecified Honour
On 6/23/20 4:15 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 6/23/20 4:13 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: >> I publish the following Notice of Honour: >>+1 Agora (Agora has negative karma right now) >>-1 Unspecified Behavior (for being suspicious and mysterious and weird) > > Does this actually "Specify any other player or Agora to lose karma"? We > have no idea who "Unspecified Behavior" is, so this arguably fails at > "specifying" a player. > Just realized I missed an opportunity for a pun: eir identity is "unspecified". /ducks/ -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: [NoH] Unspecified Honour
On 6/23/20 4:13 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: > I publish the following Notice of Honour: >+1 Agora (Agora has negative karma right now) >-1 Unspecified Behavior (for being suspicious and mysterious and weird) Does this actually "Specify any other player or Agora to lose karma"? We have no idea who "Unspecified Behavior" is, so this arguably fails at "specifying" a player. -- Jason Cobb
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Regardless of the Scam Result
On 6/23/20 1:59 PM, omd via agora-business wrote: > I submit, but do not (as I think I cannot) pend, the following proposal: You ought to have a Pending Card which you could pay to make a pendant if you so choose. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: Why did PAoaM fail?
Top-posting because I'm not really replying to anything in particular. I personally really enjoyed the idea of PAoaM, though I think I was starting to lose interest in Agora in general around the time it was being played. I don't exactly remember. Either way, I think it's a cool idea and should be revisited in some form the future, perhaps. I like the idea of doing board-gamey things in Agora. On 6/23/2020 3:41 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: On 2020-06-22 18:14, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: It's generally agreed that the PAoaM economic model didn't work out. I take slight issue with the way this is phrased. I would say that the model itself is not flawed, but the implementation. I can easily see an economy based on going places and building things on a limited map working out. Short history lesson since not everyone remembers PAoaM: the 2018 version of the Arcadia minigame was copied and modified from a version from 2002 which seems to have lasted about a year. I cannot say how active it was or whether it flopped at the end as much as PAoaM did (it seems like at the end interest just fizzled out), but it seems to have worked for longer than PAoaM with much less bickering over how broken it was. What was the problem? Why did PAoaM fail? PAoaM was first protoed in November 2017. It spent about 5 months in proto Hell before finally being passed in March 2018. Hooray! Let's play! But whoops, lots of the rules did not get reenacted. Let's take a month to fix that. Okay, it's now April. Can we play now? Kinda. It looks like auctions aren't working like we thought. Okay, let's just patch that up. As far as I remember, there were always little issues that we had to patch up. People somehow were still excited in March. But in May? Well, not as much. We always assumed we could just keep patching until everything worked. But there were always little things that never got brought up because we weren't playing with them. That was one problem. Anyway, let's continue with the narrative. Alright, it's a little later in April; let's play! But wait, these resources that I'm gaining don't do much. They're tied into the other main systems of the game, but I can just wait until I gain more free resources at the beginning of some cycle. So there's no real need to interact with the map. Guess I'll just make a coin factory so that I can get a win in a couple of years! That was the second problem: like with all Agoran economies, the resources tied into the main game. But they had no alternate purposes. In Arcadia, players had to get land and build facilities on it, then get more land and build second-level facilities to process the resources produced by the first-level facilities. Then they had to manually collect from them each week. All for what? A couple more proposals or CFJ calls per week? That's not worth it to any reasonable person. As I have already stated, coins were the only thing one could really count on to be potentially worth it in the long run. Sets works better here. The different types of cards and products obviously tie into the main game as did the resources in PAoaM. But it's much less intensive a process. For one, players already get a few cards each reset. More cards are created by sane processes and distributed at regular intervals. If you want to do more legislative stuff than one pend, you only need to find someone else who's willing to help. You don't have to create a pipeline yourself or find someone who's heavily invested in that pipeline. Just someone who happens to be aiming for a different type of card or a mutually-beneficial contract. Even if Contracts had been more highly utilized back when Arcadia happened, I don't think it would have fixed the towering walls to progress for the uninitiated Arcadian. If you are just beginning, you own no pipeline. If you want to get more paper to help you legislate more, you have to ask someone with a paper pipeline to help you out when you have basically nothing to give in return. Imagine joining a game of Monopoly with the starting amount of resources and being expected to keep up with all the players. Also, the only properties that are open are a couple light blue ones and a brown since the ones that people actually land are already bought and have hotels. In this situation, you will be screwed over by everyone and you can't do anything. Sets again functions better here because each individual card has real value. Everyone gets cards so everyone has a fair shot. And eventually everything will be reset anyway, so you are on even better footing when that happens. I have no idea how well I articulated my thoughts. I was basically writing my long-suppressed thoughts about Arcadia down as I remembered them. If I think of anything else I'll continue this thread tomorrow. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: DIS: Regardless of the Scam Result
On 6/23/2020 10:21 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/23/20 12:16 PM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: >> For what it's worth, I think that "manually" skunking this scam by proposal >> would be a reasonable way to resolve the circumstance; I doubt either the >> scamsters, nor the other players, would have a problem with the resulting >> gamestate. > > Yea I'm fine with that. We're already hoping to keep gamestate pretty > stable when this triggers. > Sounds perfectly reasonable (again I wasn't at all annoyed personally was just pointing out how it might affect things based on my own thinking since the scam broke)
Re: DIS: Regardless of the Scam Result
On 6/23/20 12:16 PM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: > For what it's worth, I think that "manually" skunking this scam by proposal > would be a reasonable way to resolve the circumstance; I doubt either the > scamsters, nor the other players, would have a problem with the resulting > gamestate. Yea I'm fine with that. We're already hoping to keep gamestate pretty stable when this triggers. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: Regardless of the Scam Result
On Tuesday, 23 June 2020, 16:08:36 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > ok. I'll go ahead and plan for a week for something that's so uncertain > that I might as well just wait it out. no, not gonna. That's my personal > attitude and like it or not, somewhere in Economics 101 is the fact that > uncertainty suppresses economies, even on a toy scale. Saying "hey you > can just change your strategy every time we get into scam/bug mode" is the > kind of thing that frustrates people and killed land, and spaceships. > Also consider your role: one of the things that soured us more quickly on > shinies is that o [the designer] pulled at least one scam off the bat and > maybe two and we got tired of that... hey here's something for your thesis We should really bring back some sort of skunking rule. (For people who don't know about it: the "skunk" rule was invoked immediately after a scam caused a win, and cancelled any economic reset as a consequence of the win, expect that the winning scammers' economic values were zeroed. I forget what exact mechanism was used to declare a win a skunk, but it was probably Agoran consent or something similar. The win still counted, though. It probably could have itself been scammed, but AFAIR, nobody did.) It strikes me as a fair way to allow scams to occur, but without allowing them into interfere with the rest of the gameplay. That way, people seeing an opportunity to win don't end up accidentally ruining the game for everyone else. For what it's worth, I think that "manually" skunking this scam by proposal would be a reasonable way to resolve the circumstance; I doubt either the scamsters, nor the other players, would have a problem with the resulting gamestate. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Petty corruption
> I transfer a voting card from omd to myself. Nothing about omd's promise makes this text effective. However, omd granted you a Voting Card when you cashed the promise, so I think the end effect is what you intended. - Falsifian
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: [Treasuror] Draft Forward Auction Regulation(s)
On 6/23/20 12:54 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > What's wrong here? My understanding is that it reproduces an issue with the old auction rules where it ends the minute it begins. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: [Treasuror] Draft Forward Auction Regulation(s)
On 6/22/2020 9:53 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote: On 2020-06-22 17:48, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: On 6/22/20 7:38 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: 3. TERMINATION: * If there have been no bids placed on a Forward Auction for four days, then that Forward Auction ends and becomes closed. *sigh* That's embarrassing. I don't get it. What's wrong here? -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
DIS: Re: [CFJ] Re: BUS: Vote on P8442
On 6/23/20 12:39 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > On 6/23/20 12:23 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: >> On 6/23/20 12:22 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: >>> Well, I guess someone has to. >>> >>> I CFJ: "If the person who sent the above message is a player, e cast >>> a vote on Proposal 8442 in that message." >>> >> Signaling for the arbitor. >> > > If the above message initiated a CFJ, I withdraw it. > You should probably specify which above message. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: DIS: Regardless of the Scam Result
I personally am happy to write a proposal to reset the economy (everyone's assets) to the point they were right before the scam happens. so that trading in the interim will still be rewarded. On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 1:09 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/23/2020 7:57 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 6/23/20 9:53 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > >> On 6/23/2020 7:49 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > >>> This scam doesn't actually grind out economy to a hault, or at least it > >>> doesn't have to. When someone wins by victory points, cards and > products > >>> get reset but coins, blots, and assets created by contracts don't. That > >>> means there should still be incentive to buy/sell/trade. If it looks > >>> like the scam is likely to succeed I recommend using what you have how > >>> you can and selling off the rest. > >>> > >> Trade what? coins, blots and contract assets were all the pre-Sets > >> economy. not much to trade there. > >> > >> If I wasn't thinking "ok here's my next trade, and my next, and then I > >> have these products" that might be a comfort. As it is, it's more like > >> "well might as well hold on to coins and there's no point in investing > in > >> any cards and products except maybe expunge a blot if I've got one". > >> > >> -G. > >> > > Trade Cards/Products to someone who can use them before the reset, in > > exchange for coins which you'll still have after. If you have extra > > pendants and someone wants to pend some things, they may be willing to > > buy. The urgency of you ditching the extras presumably will make them > > cheaper now than they will be post reset. > > ok. I'll go ahead and plan for a week for something that's so uncertain > that I might as well just wait it out. no, not gonna. That's my personal > attitude and like it or not, somewhere in Economics 101 is the fact that > uncertainty suppresses economies, even on a toy scale. Saying "hey you > can just change your strategy every time we get into scam/bug mode" is the > kind of thing that frustrates people and killed land, and spaceships. > Also consider your role: one of the things that soured us more quickly on > shinies is that o [the designer] pulled at least one scam off the bat and > maybe two and we got tired of that... hey here's something for your thesis > > [ps. not annoyed at all with the scam attempt, if it sounds like I am, > just pointing out some realities of past consequences to keep in mind if > you want the system to thrive through this]. > > -G. > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Regardless of the Scam Result
On 6/23/20 10:06 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > ok. I'll go ahead and plan for a week for something that's so uncertain > that I might as well just wait it out. no, not gonna. That's my personal > attitude and like it or not, somewhere in Economics 101 is the fact that > uncertainty suppresses economies, even on a toy scale. Uncertainty in an economic system encourages people to liquidate uncertain assets for certain ones, that's exactly what I'm suggesting people do. If you don't want to that's fine, I'm just pointing out that some assets have continuity and people might want to consider that in their play this week. This is also not a scam specific to this economy, it pre-existed with the high score win condition. Nothing added or amended by Sets changed this scam. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: Regardless of the Scam Result
On 6/23/2020 7:57 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/23/20 9:53 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 6/23/2020 7:49 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >>> This scam doesn't actually grind out economy to a hault, or at least it >>> doesn't have to. When someone wins by victory points, cards and products >>> get reset but coins, blots, and assets created by contracts don't. That >>> means there should still be incentive to buy/sell/trade. If it looks >>> like the scam is likely to succeed I recommend using what you have how >>> you can and selling off the rest. >>> >> Trade what? coins, blots and contract assets were all the pre-Sets >> economy. not much to trade there. >> >> If I wasn't thinking "ok here's my next trade, and my next, and then I >> have these products" that might be a comfort. As it is, it's more like >> "well might as well hold on to coins and there's no point in investing in >> any cards and products except maybe expunge a blot if I've got one". >> >> -G. >> > Trade Cards/Products to someone who can use them before the reset, in > exchange for coins which you'll still have after. If you have extra > pendants and someone wants to pend some things, they may be willing to > buy. The urgency of you ditching the extras presumably will make them > cheaper now than they will be post reset. ok. I'll go ahead and plan for a week for something that's so uncertain that I might as well just wait it out. no, not gonna. That's my personal attitude and like it or not, somewhere in Economics 101 is the fact that uncertainty suppresses economies, even on a toy scale. Saying "hey you can just change your strategy every time we get into scam/bug mode" is the kind of thing that frustrates people and killed land, and spaceships. Also consider your role: one of the things that soured us more quickly on shinies is that o [the designer] pulled at least one scam off the bat and maybe two and we got tired of that... hey here's something for your thesis [ps. not annoyed at all with the scam attempt, if it sounds like I am, just pointing out some realities of past consequences to keep in mind if you want the system to thrive through this]. -G.
Re: DIS: Regardless of the Scam Result
On 6/23/20 9:53 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 6/23/2020 7:49 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >> This scam doesn't actually grind out economy to a hault, or at least it >> doesn't have to. When someone wins by victory points, cards and products >> get reset but coins, blots, and assets created by contracts don't. That >> means there should still be incentive to buy/sell/trade. If it looks >> like the scam is likely to succeed I recommend using what you have how >> you can and selling off the rest. >> > Trade what? coins, blots and contract assets were all the pre-Sets > economy. not much to trade there. > > If I wasn't thinking "ok here's my next trade, and my next, and then I > have these products" that might be a comfort. As it is, it's more like > "well might as well hold on to coins and there's no point in investing in > any cards and products except maybe expunge a blot if I've got one". > > -G. > Trade Cards/Products to someone who can use them before the reset, in exchange for coins which you'll still have after. If you have extra pendants and someone wants to pend some things, they may be willing to buy. The urgency of you ditching the extras presumably will make them cheaper now than they will be post reset. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: Regardless of the Scam Result
On 6/23/20 9:56 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > I just noticed something about Rule 2624: After a reset, officers can't > grant new cards if they had done so in the same month but prior to the > reset. Is this by design? No, unintended/expected. I just didn't think about it but it'd be a good fix. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: Regardless of the Scam Result
On 6/23/20 10:53 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 6/23/2020 7:49 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >> This scam doesn't actually grind out economy to a hault, or at least it >> doesn't have to. When someone wins by victory points, cards and products >> get reset but coins, blots, and assets created by contracts don't. That >> means there should still be incentive to buy/sell/trade. If it looks >> like the scam is likely to succeed I recommend using what you have how >> you can and selling off the rest. >> > > Trade what? coins, blots and contract assets were all the pre-Sets > economy. not much to trade there. > > If I wasn't thinking "ok here's my next trade, and my next, and then I > have these products" that might be a comfort. As it is, it's more like > "well might as well hold on to coins and there's no point in investing in > any cards and products except maybe expunge a blot if I've got one". > > -G. > I just noticed something about Rule 2624: After a reset, officers can't grant new cards if they had done so in the same month but prior to the reset. Is this by design? -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: DIS: Regardless of the Scam Result
On 6/23/2020 7:49 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > This scam doesn't actually grind out economy to a hault, or at least it > doesn't have to. When someone wins by victory points, cards and products > get reset but coins, blots, and assets created by contracts don't. That > means there should still be incentive to buy/sell/trade. If it looks > like the scam is likely to succeed I recommend using what you have how > you can and selling off the rest. > Trade what? coins, blots and contract assets were all the pre-Sets economy. not much to trade there. If I wasn't thinking "ok here's my next trade, and my next, and then I have these products" that might be a comfort. As it is, it's more like "well might as well hold on to coins and there's no point in investing in any cards and products except maybe expunge a blot if I've got one". -G.
DIS: Regardless of the Scam Result
This scam doesn't actually grind out economy to a hault, or at least it doesn't have to. When someone wins by victory points, cards and products get reset but coins, blots, and assets created by contracts don't. That means there should still be incentive to buy/sell/trade. If it looks like the scam is likely to succeed I recommend using what you have how you can and selling off the rest. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
DIS: Re: BUS: certifying
On 6/23/20 8:49 AM, nch via agora-business wrote: > I CFJ: Welcome Package Patch's sole function is not to minimally rectify > a bug. > > Arguments: It does rectify a bug (although, again, it introduces a new > one). But it was forced through to prevent a scam. R2626 says "A player > SHALL NOT certify a proposal unless its sole function isto minimally > rectify a bug, error, or ambiguity". This has two functions: rectifying > the bug, and preventing a scam. Sole means only, as in "the only function". An additional argument if I may: There's a difference between patching a scam before it's performed, and patching a scam while it's being performed. In the latter, the proposal has a second purpose: to stop a current action. I think if you accepted that this pend met the standards, you could later extend it to cases where it's less clearly a patch and more just a block of a scam under the pretense of a patch. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: certifying
On 6/23/2020 7:31 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/23/20 10:24 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 6/23/2020 7:03 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >>> On 6/23/20 10:01 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: On 6/23/20 8:58 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > What I mean to say is that, to my mind, closing a loophole that allows a > scam clearly against the intent of the rules is a strict subset of > rectifying a bug. If it was closing the loophole when there's no scam pending I'd agree. But it's different when it's blocking a specific intent that already exists. You arguments would expand Certifying Patches to cover any proposal at all as long as it also patches things. >>> No, it wouldn't. If there had been any clause in the proposal that had >>> not rectified a bug, I would have issued an Indictment. If they had >>> included a granting of a Patent Title or some other attempt to oppose >>> the scam in the same proposal, I would have issued an Indictment. >>> Whether you like it or not, you are making use of a bug, which others >>> are entitled to close. >> I think a problem with CP is "minimally" is one of the judgement calls for >> the crime. To me it reads like, if there is *any* more minimal way to fix >> the bug, then it's a crime. I thought of at least one more minimal way, I >> think (if measured say by "characters changed in the ruleset"). >> > >> 4. A minimal rectification is one that resolves the problem >> without doing substantially more than is necessary to resolve >> it. For instance, rectification that uses more slightly words >> than necessary to resolve the problem may still be minimal, >> whereas a rectification that makes rule changes unrelated to >> fixing the problem would not be. > > > I think this makes it relatively clear that one need not minimize > characters changed in the ruleset to keep the patch LEGAL. Sorry, forgot to mention, the way I came up with also conceptually much more straightforward.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: certifying
On 6/23/20 10:24 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/23/2020 7:03 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> On 6/23/20 10:01 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >>> On 6/23/20 8:58 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: What I mean to say is that, to my mind, closing a loophole that allows a scam clearly against the intent of the rules is a strict subset of rectifying a bug. >>> If it was closing the loophole when there's no scam pending I'd agree. >>> But it's different when it's blocking a specific intent that already >>> exists. You arguments would expand Certifying Patches to cover any >>> proposal at all as long as it also patches things. >>> >> No, it wouldn't. If there had been any clause in the proposal that had >> not rectified a bug, I would have issued an Indictment. If they had >> included a granting of a Patent Title or some other attempt to oppose >> the scam in the same proposal, I would have issued an Indictment. >> Whether you like it or not, you are making use of a bug, which others >> are entitled to close. > I think a problem with CP is "minimally" is one of the judgement calls for > the crime. To me it reads like, if there is *any* more minimal way to fix > the bug, then it's a crime. I thought of at least one more minimal way, I > think (if measured say by "characters changed in the ruleset"). > > 4. A minimal rectification is one that resolves the problem > without doing substantially more than is necessary to resolve > it. For instance, rectification that uses more slightly words > than necessary to resolve the problem may still be minimal, > whereas a rectification that makes rule changes unrelated to > fixing the problem would not be. I think this makes it relatively clear that one need not minimize characters changed in the ruleset to keep the patch LEGAL. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: certifying
On 6/23/2020 7:03 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > On 6/23/20 10:01 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 6/23/20 8:58 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >>> What I mean to say is that, to my mind, closing a loophole that allows a >>> scam clearly against the intent of the rules is a strict subset of >>> rectifying a bug. >> >> If it was closing the loophole when there's no scam pending I'd agree. >> But it's different when it's blocking a specific intent that already >> exists. You arguments would expand Certifying Patches to cover any >> proposal at all as long as it also patches things. >> > > No, it wouldn't. If there had been any clause in the proposal that had > not rectified a bug, I would have issued an Indictment. If they had > included a granting of a Patent Title or some other attempt to oppose > the scam in the same proposal, I would have issued an Indictment. > Whether you like it or not, you are making use of a bug, which others > are entitled to close. I think a problem with CP is "minimally" is one of the judgement calls for the crime. To me it reads like, if there is *any* more minimal way to fix the bug, then it's a crime. I thought of at least one more minimal way, I think (if measured say by "characters changed in the ruleset").
Re: DIS: Reminder: nch didn't like scams of new systems, ... until e did
On 6/23/20 10:15 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/23/20 9:13 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion > wrote: >> I'm aware; in fact, I was planning to do this scam. Nevertheless, this >> isn't "play[ing] the games we design for a bit first". > Look, I'm 100% for you stopping the scam. If the opposition stops it > that's fair game. It's the intent to impeach mean that rubs me the wrong > way. > For the record, even though I voted against you, I'm perfectly fine with you being PM. I'll probably vote for you in the election if the MNC passes and if you run. The MNC is solely because PM might have an affect on the scam and counter-scam. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Reminder: nch didn't like scams of new systems, ... until e did
On 6/23/20 9:13 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > I'm aware; in fact, I was planning to do this scam. Nevertheless, this > isn't "play[ing] the games we design for a bit first". Look, I'm 100% for you stopping the scam. If the opposition stops it that's fair game. It's the intent to impeach mean that rubs me the wrong way. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: Reminder: nch didn't like scams of new systems, ... until e did
On 6/23/20 10:11 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/23/20 9:10 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion > wrote: > > This isn't a result of any rules I wrote, it was pre-existing. You > could've done this to the money win. > I'm aware; in fact, I was planning to do this scam. Nevertheless, this isn't "play[ing] the games we design for a bit first". -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
On 6/23/2020 7:08 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > On 6/23/20 10:07 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >> You're right, I missed that last night. Still a poor reason to uninstall >> a recently elected official I think, I'm not abusing the office. >> > > You're not abusing it, but you are clearly making advantageous use of it > to perpetrate a scam against the good people of Agora. > We can be dramatic about the role the PM has in upholding agora, or we can point to the fact that we (literally just this last week) purposefully gamified the whole thing with R2463's "shake things up" clause. Although if its the existing PM who started the shaking I'm not sure where my duties lie. (what should I know, I'm just the figurehead).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
On 6/23/20 10:10 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/23/20 9:08 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion > wrote: >> On 6/23/20 10:07 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >>> You're right, I missed that last night. Still a poor reason to uninstall >>> a recently elected official I think, I'm not abusing the office. >>> >> You're not abusing it, but you are clearly making advantageous use of it >> to perpetrate a scam against the good people of Agora. >> >> -- >> >> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate >> Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth > > I literally did not know it had extra voting strength. Whether or not it was intentional doesn't change whether it is occurring. Also, to be clear, I don't mean anything personally about this, I simply thing this is a function of how the game is played. > I don't think > this a fair assessment. Also, your plan is to vacate me (for a scam > unrelated to the office) and then by yourself oppose someone that has a > larger coalition from seizing the office for personal gain. > Given that you seem to agree with my opposition, I'm not sure that I'll be doing it *by myself*. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: DIS: Reminder: nch didn't like scams of new systems, ... until e did
On 6/23/20 9:10 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/10/20 3:06 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >> I actually meant that out of mild frustration. Sets hasn't started and >> we're about to pass a gameplay tweak meant to 'fix' something that's >> supposedly wrong with it, and it's frustrating to see that the first >> thing anyone plans to do with that tweak is exploit it. I know scams and >> exploits and rule lawyering are part of Agora, but sometimes I just want >> to play the games we design for a bit first. > Also, just want to remind everyone of what e said less than two weeks ago. > > -- > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate > Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth This isn't a result of any rules I wrote, it was pre-existing. You could've done this to the money win. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
On 6/23/20 9:08 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/23/20 10:07 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >> You're right, I missed that last night. Still a poor reason to uninstall >> a recently elected official I think, I'm not abusing the office. >> > You're not abusing it, but you are clearly making advantageous use of it > to perpetrate a scam against the good people of Agora. > > -- > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate > Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth I literally did not know it had extra voting strength. I don't think this a fair assessment. Also, your plan is to vacate me (for a scam unrelated to the office) and then by yourself oppose someone that has a larger coalition from seizing the office for personal gain. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
DIS: Reminder: nch didn't like scams of new systems, ... until e did
On 6/10/20 3:06 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > I actually meant that out of mild frustration. Sets hasn't started and > we're about to pass a gameplay tweak meant to 'fix' something that's > supposedly wrong with it, and it's frustrating to see that the first > thing anyone plans to do with that tweak is exploit it. I know scams and > exploits and rule lawyering are part of Agora, but sometimes I just want > to play the games we design for a bit first. Also, just want to remind everyone of what e said less than two weeks ago. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
On 6/23/20 10:07 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > You're right, I missed that last night. Still a poor reason to uninstall > a recently elected official I think, I'm not abusing the office. > You're not abusing it, but you are clearly making advantageous use of it to perpetrate a scam against the good people of Agora. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
On 6/23/20 9:04 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > And if Jason does that, I'll oppose it, but right now you are PM. PM > does have increased voting strength as a result of office interests. You're right, I missed that last night. Still a poor reason to uninstall a recently elected official I think, I'm not abusing the office. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
On 6/23/20 10:03 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/23/20 9:00 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion > wrote: >> On 6/23/20 9:50 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >>> On 6/23/20 5:22 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business >>> wrote: On 6/22/20 10:51 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > I intend, with Agoran consent, to cause the office of Prime Minister to > become vacant. > I support. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth >>> Annoyed that people are supporting this when its intention is to do >>> enable the person that started it to perform their own scams, and this >>> office has nothing to do with my scam. But just follow along with it >>> without even asking the person that started it to justify why it's >>> necessary I guess. >>> >> At least so far as my support is concerned, that is not the reasoning. I >> believe that while scams are part of our expected gameplay, they >> shouldn't be conducted by a sitting Prime Minister. I also see ways in >> which the Prime Minister could make use of eir office as part of this >> scam; most simply, through utilizing eir increased voting strength to >> prevent the patch. >> >> -- >> >> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate >> Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth > > The PM doesn't have increased voting strength. And I've already pledged > to not blot someone else to decrease their strength. Jason plans to try > to install a member of Dragon Corp as PM, then use that to help them win > and install a Speaker. > And if Jason does that, I'll oppose it, but right now you are PM. PM does have increased voting strength as a result of office interests. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
On 6/23/20 10:03 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > The PM doesn't have increased voting strength. And I've already pledged > to not blot someone else to decrease their strength. Jason plans to try > to install a member of Dragon Corp as PM, then use that to help them win > and install a Speaker. You do, because ministries. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: certifying
On 6/23/20 10:01 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/23/20 8:58 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> What I mean to say is that, to my mind, closing a loophole that allows a >> scam clearly against the intent of the rules is a strict subset of >> rectifying a bug. > > If it was closing the loophole when there's no scam pending I'd agree. > But it's different when it's blocking a specific intent that already > exists. You arguments would expand Certifying Patches to cover any > proposal at all as long as it also patches things. > No, it wouldn't. If there had been any clause in the proposal that had not rectified a bug, I would have issued an Indictment. If they had included a granting of a Patent Title or some other attempt to oppose the scam in the same proposal, I would have issued an Indictment. Whether you like it or not, you are making use of a bug, which others are entitled to close. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
On 6/23/20 9:00 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/23/20 9:50 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 6/23/20 5:22 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business >> wrote: >>> On 6/22/20 10:51 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: I intend, with Agoran consent, to cause the office of Prime Minister to become vacant. >>> I support. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate >>> Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth >> Annoyed that people are supporting this when its intention is to do >> enable the person that started it to perform their own scams, and this >> office has nothing to do with my scam. But just follow along with it >> without even asking the person that started it to justify why it's >> necessary I guess. >> > At least so far as my support is concerned, that is not the reasoning. I > believe that while scams are part of our expected gameplay, they > shouldn't be conducted by a sitting Prime Minister. I also see ways in > which the Prime Minister could make use of eir office as part of this > scam; most simply, through utilizing eir increased voting strength to > prevent the patch. > > -- > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate > Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth The PM doesn't have increased voting strength. And I've already pledged to not blot someone else to decrease their strength. Jason plans to try to install a member of Dragon Corp as PM, then use that to help them win and install a Speaker. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
DIS: Re: BUS: certifying
On 6/23/20 8:58 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > What I mean to say is that, to my mind, closing a loophole that allows a > scam clearly against the intent of the rules is a strict subset of > rectifying a bug. If it was closing the loophole when there's no scam pending I'd agree. But it's different when it's blocking a specific intent that already exists. You arguments would expand Certifying Patches to cover any proposal at all as long as it also patches things. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
On 6/23/20 9:50 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/23/20 5:22 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business > wrote: >> On 6/22/20 10:51 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >>> I intend, with Agoran consent, to cause the office of Prime Minister to >>> become vacant. >>> >> I support. >> >> -- >> >> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate >> Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth > > Annoyed that people are supporting this when its intention is to do > enable the person that started it to perform their own scams, and this > office has nothing to do with my scam. But just follow along with it > without even asking the person that started it to justify why it's > necessary I guess. > At least so far as my support is concerned, that is not the reasoning. I believe that while scams are part of our expected gameplay, they shouldn't be conducted by a sitting Prime Minister. I also see ways in which the Prime Minister could make use of eir office as part of this scam; most simply, through utilizing eir increased voting strength to prevent the patch. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
DIS: Re: BUS: certifying
On 6/23/20 9:49 AM, nch via agora-business wrote: > On 6/23/20 5:25 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> On 6/22/20 10:41 PM, nch via agora-business wrote: >>> On 6/22/20 9:39 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote: I certify the proposal titled "Welcome Package Patch" I am Treasuror; this is a bug that relates directly to my office. -- Trigon I LOVE SPAGHETTI transfer Jason one coin nch was here I hereby don't... trust... the dragon... don't... trust... the dragon... Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this >>> I point my finger at Trigon for Uncertain Certification. This patch has >>> a secondary purpose of stopping a scam, which means its sole function is >>> not bugfixing. Also, it introduces a bug. >>> >> I find this finger-pointing to be SHENANIGANS. Because scams make use of >> bugs, stopping a scam is not antithetical to the primary purpose of >> fixing a bug. >> >> -- >> >> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate >> Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth > > ... what? It doesn't matter if it's "antithetical". The rule clearly > says "sole function". This is an ulterior function and therefore > violates the rule. This interpretation means 'patches' dont't have to > be primarily patches which sets a terrible precedent. > > I CFJ: Welcome Package Patch's sole function is not to minimally rectify > a bug. > > Arguments: It does rectify a bug (although, again, it introduces a new > one). But it was forced through to prevent a scam. R2626 says "A player > SHALL NOT certify a proposal unless its sole function isto minimally > rectify a bug, error, or ambiguity". This has two functions: rectifying > the bug, and preventing a scam. Sole means only, as in "the only function". > What I mean to say is that, to my mind, closing a loophole that allows a scam clearly against the intent of the rules is a strict subset of rectifying a bug. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
DIS: Re: BUS: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
On 6/23/20 5:22 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business wrote: > On 6/22/20 10:51 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >> I intend, with Agoran consent, to cause the office of Prime Minister to >> become vacant. >> > I support. > > -- > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate > Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth Annoyed that people are supporting this when its intention is to do enable the person that started it to perform their own scams, and this office has nothing to do with my scam. But just follow along with it without even asking the person that started it to justify why it's necessary I guess. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
DIS: Re: BUS: [Emergency] Mass Destruction
On 6/23/20 12:13 AM, Ed Strange via agora-business wrote:
> I object
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 1:36 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On 6/22/20 11:31 PM, omd via agora-business wrote:
>>> I intend, with 3 Agoran Consent, to enact the following Emergency
>> Regulation:
>>> {
>>> This Regulation continuously destroys all Blots.
>>> }
>>
>>
>> Eh, sounds fun. I support.
>>
>> --
>> Jason Cobb
>>
>>
>
I object. Although I will say that others had caught the same bug that
R. Lee had apparently found, so I have thoughts on prevention.
--
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate
Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: DIS: Why did PAoaM fail?
On 2020-06-23 01:41, Reuben Staley wrote: That was the second problem: like with all Agoran economies, the resources tied into the main game. But they had no alternate purposes. Addendum 3: I brought up alternate purposes for assets but did not expound at all. I think alternate purposes for the currencies would have made the currencies (and the pipelines to invest in their creation (and trading)) more valuable. For example, take the following rough proto: "Players can pay 25 paper, 25 metal, and 25 cloth to Erect a Monument. When a player does so, e wins the game." If we had an expensive way to spend our refined assets, I think it would have made things better. This could even turn into another Reset Economy in the vein of Sets, where the board is cleared and everyone starts anew. I have begun to really appreciate the merits of Reset Economies. -- Trigon I LOVE SPAGHETTI transfer Jason one coin nch was here I hereby don't... trust... the dragon... don't... trust... the dragon... Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
Re: DIS: Why did PAoaM fail?
On 2020-06-23 01:41, Reuben Staley wrote: Even if Contracts had been more highly utilized back when Arcadia happened, I don't think it would have fixed the towering walls to progress for the uninitiated Arcadian. If you are just beginning, you own no pipeline. If you want to get more paper to help you legislate more, you have to ask someone with a paper pipeline to help you out when you have basically nothing to give in return. Imagine joining a game of Monopoly with the starting amount of resources and being expected to keep up with all the players. Also, the only properties that are open are a couple light blue ones and a brown since the ones that people actually land are already bought and have hotels. In this situation, you will be screwed over by everyone and you can't do anything. Sorry, but I've got another quick thing to add. It's worth noting that Arcadia 2018 didn't even reach a point where this was a real issue for new players, not really. These paragraphs are just my conjecture of a likely reality based on patterns apparent in the Arcadia rules. That being said, though, I do think this is the most probable reality if Arcadia had survived through the bugs and initial balancing issues. -- Trigon I LOVE SPAGHETTI transfer Jason one coin nch was here I hereby don't... trust... the dragon... don't... trust... the dragon... Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
Re: DIS: Why did PAoaM fail?
On 2020-06-23 01:41, Reuben Staley wrote: I have no idea how well I articulated my thoughts. I was basically writing my long-suppressed thoughts about Arcadia down as I remembered them. If I think of anything else I'll continue this thread tomorrow. Quick addendum: the second part all about balance is why I think some kind of iterative design in a limited scope like a contract or on a different platform would be valuable for an Arcadia-like minigame. with lots of short rounds. After each we review the round and how balanced it was, adjusting the rules as necessary, then start another round. After this testing we would be able to write some real rules for longer rounds that could be realistically implemented in the main game with slower pace to match Agora's temperament. I made a proto-Contract that would allow us to test such a design a long time ago, but it never got much traction. -- Trigon I LOVE SPAGHETTI transfer Jason one coin nch was here I hereby don't... trust... the dragon... don't... trust... the dragon... Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
Re: DIS: Why did PAoaM fail?
On 2020-06-22 18:14, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: It's generally agreed that the PAoaM economic model didn't work out. I take slight issue with the way this is phrased. I would say that the model itself is not flawed, but the implementation. I can easily see an economy based on going places and building things on a limited map working out. Short history lesson since not everyone remembers PAoaM: the 2018 version of the Arcadia minigame was copied and modified from a version from 2002 which seems to have lasted about a year. I cannot say how active it was or whether it flopped at the end as much as PAoaM did (it seems like at the end interest just fizzled out), but it seems to have worked for longer than PAoaM with much less bickering over how broken it was. What was the problem? Why did PAoaM fail? PAoaM was first protoed in November 2017. It spent about 5 months in proto Hell before finally being passed in March 2018. Hooray! Let's play! But whoops, lots of the rules did not get reenacted. Let's take a month to fix that. Okay, it's now April. Can we play now? Kinda. It looks like auctions aren't working like we thought. Okay, let's just patch that up. As far as I remember, there were always little issues that we had to patch up. People somehow were still excited in March. But in May? Well, not as much. We always assumed we could just keep patching until everything worked. But there were always little things that never got brought up because we weren't playing with them. That was one problem. Anyway, let's continue with the narrative. Alright, it's a little later in April; let's play! But wait, these resources that I'm gaining don't do much. They're tied into the other main systems of the game, but I can just wait until I gain more free resources at the beginning of some cycle. So there's no real need to interact with the map. Guess I'll just make a coin factory so that I can get a win in a couple of years! That was the second problem: like with all Agoran economies, the resources tied into the main game. But they had no alternate purposes. In Arcadia, players had to get land and build facilities on it, then get more land and build second-level facilities to process the resources produced by the first-level facilities. Then they had to manually collect from them each week. All for what? A couple more proposals or CFJ calls per week? That's not worth it to any reasonable person. As I have already stated, coins were the only thing one could really count on to be potentially worth it in the long run. Sets works better here. The different types of cards and products obviously tie into the main game as did the resources in PAoaM. But it's much less intensive a process. For one, players already get a few cards each reset. More cards are created by sane processes and distributed at regular intervals. If you want to do more legislative stuff than one pend, you only need to find someone else who's willing to help. You don't have to create a pipeline yourself or find someone who's heavily invested in that pipeline. Just someone who happens to be aiming for a different type of card or a mutually-beneficial contract. Even if Contracts had been more highly utilized back when Arcadia happened, I don't think it would have fixed the towering walls to progress for the uninitiated Arcadian. If you are just beginning, you own no pipeline. If you want to get more paper to help you legislate more, you have to ask someone with a paper pipeline to help you out when you have basically nothing to give in return. Imagine joining a game of Monopoly with the starting amount of resources and being expected to keep up with all the players. Also, the only properties that are open are a couple light blue ones and a brown since the ones that people actually land are already bought and have hotels. In this situation, you will be screwed over by everyone and you can't do anything. Sets again functions better here because each individual card has real value. Everyone gets cards so everyone has a fair shot. And eventually everything will be reset anyway, so you are on even better footing when that happens. I have no idea how well I articulated my thoughts. I was basically writing my long-suppressed thoughts about Arcadia down as I remembered them. If I think of anything else I'll continue this thread tomorrow. -- Trigon I LOVE SPAGHETTI transfer Jason one coin nch was here I hereby don't... trust... the dragon... don't... trust... the dragon... Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
DIS: Re: BUS: Obstruction
More on the word "change" specifically: it might be an ambiguous phrase in
general (it doesn't specify what the change is to) but it's not ambiguous
in agoran context. it appears in the "Contracts" rule, and "a contract"
appears later in the phrase itself, textually it can be interpreted as
"change [to]...a contract". Ambiguity should be resolved in accordance with
the genuine game custom that nobody's expectation is that anyone can write
a contract overriding any rule they feel like.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 4:27 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I favor this CFJ. While I am trying to block the scam, I'm not emotionally
> invested enough in doing so that it would effect my ruling. In addition, my
> economic CoI is not greater than any other participant in the economy (I
> can always redo the DracoLotto under a new economy).
>
> -Aris
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:22 PM Ed Strange via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > CFJ: Any attempt to exile a player or claim a welcome package fails under
> > omd's contract.
> >
> > Arguments: The provision omd cites is very very clearly a block to any
> > "Change" in the CONTRACT'S text, rather than any change or action in the
> > entire game state. This is clear and unambiguous, but the best interests
> of
> > the game clearly are for contracts not to be able to block any type of
> > action. To demonstrate this,
> > I consent to and create the following contract:
> > {
> > R. Lee consents, assents to, wants to, and does automatically amend this
> > contract
> > by prepending the Secret Word, each time any of the following occur:
> > -The rule called :"Welcome Package" is amended
> > -Anyone votes FOR a proposal that would amend the rule "Welcome Package"
> >
> > If omd was wearing a hat at the time this contract was created, then the
> > Secret
> > Word is "Hello". Otherwise, it is "Goodbye".
> >
> > }
> >
> > I think this contract very clearly makes the "best interests of the game"
> > point.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 3:45 PM omd via agora-business <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Well, here goes nothing.
> > >
> > > I consent to and create the following contract:
> > > {
> > > omd consents, assents to, wants to, and does automatically amend this
> > > contract
> > > by prepending the Secret Word, each time any of the following occur:
> > >
> > > - A contract other than this one is created or amended.
> > > - Any player is exiled.
> > > - Any player receives a Welcome Package.
> > >
> > > If omd was wearing a hat at the time this contract was created, then
> the
> > > Secret
> > > Word is "Hello". Otherwise, it is "Goodbye".
> > >
> > > [This is an attempt to exploit the following provision:
> > >
> > > Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any change that would
> cause
> > > the full provisions or parties of a contract to become publicly
> > > unavailable is canceled and does not take effect.
> > >
> > > It's based on a discussion on Discord which seemed to conclude that
> > > consent is
> > > not just a condition for modifying contracts but the mechanism for it,
> > > under
> > > the relevant clause of Rule 1742:
> > >
> > >
> > >A contract may be modified,
> > > including by changing the set of parties, with the consent of all
> > > existing parties.
> > >
> > > Note that Rule 1742 does not provide any other mechanism, so if consent
> > is
> > > not
> > > a mechanism, amending and terminating contracts is probably impossible
> by
> > > Rule
> > > 2125.
> > >
> > > If consent is a mechanism, Rule 2519 item 2 (and to some extent item 4)
> > > suggests that contracts can trigger it automatically.
> > >
> > > Whether this actually succeeds at blocking actions depends, I suppose,
> on
> > > how
> > > you define "change", "cause", and "unambiguously".]
> > > }
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > From R. Lee
> >
>
--
>From R. Lee
