Re: DIS: [proto] Another ratification rewrite
Janet wrote: When a document is to be ratified, the publication time is the instant at which the document to be ratified was published. The truth time of the document is the instant at which the document specifies that it was true, if any, or the publication time otherwise. Ratification of a document CANNOT occur if the truth time would be after the publication time, or if the truth time would be after the time the document is to be ratified. Recommend re-defining and re-using "application time" here, for parallelism with the amended R1551.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Revised Resolution of Proposals 9068-9069
Janet wrote:
I previously wrote:
PROPOSALS
=
PROPOSAL 9068 (Agora of Empires)
AUTHOR: Yachay Wayllukuq
CLASS: ORDINARY
FOR (2): Murphy%, Yachay Wayllukuq%
AGAINST (2): Aris%, Janet+
PRESENT (2): juan$, snail^
BALLOTS: 6
AI (F/A): 10/14 (AI=1.0)
POPULARITY: 0.000
OUTCOME: REJECTED
CoE on the above-quoted purported resolution: kiako voted but is not
listed as a voter.
PROPOSAL 9069 (Coauthored Crystals)
AUTHOR: snail
CLASS: ORDINARY
FOR (2): Aris%, snail^
AGAINST (0):
PRESENT (4): Janet+, Murphy%, Yachay Wayllukuq%, juan$
BALLOTS: 6
AI (F/A): 11/0 (AI=1.0)
POPULARITY: 0.333
OUTCOME: ADOPTED
[
Murphy: 4st is the Geologist: Endorsement of non-voter 4st: Inextricable
]
CoE on the above-quoted purported resolution: kiako voted but is not
listed as a voter.
I respond to each of the above-quoted CoEs by publishing the following
revision:
Admitted. Neither of the above resolutions was effective. Both such
decisions have now been resolved with the below-quoted resolution.
This message does not resolve any Agoran decision.
Well, I for one am confused. What was this even /intended/ to do? It
appears to fail to resolve anything, due to ambiguity. Or was it
intended as "I already published a corrected resolution, now I'm
just quoting said correction in response to the CoE"?
RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 9068-9069
=
IDTitleResult
--
9068 Agora of Empires ADOPTED
9069 Coauthored Crystals ADOPTED
I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals.
The quorum for all below decisions was 6.
VOTING STRENGTHS
Strength is 3 unless otherwise noted.
#: player has voting strength 3
$: player has voting strength 4
%: player has voting strength 5
^: player has voting strength 6
+: player has voting strength 9
PROPOSALS
=
PROPOSAL 9068 (Agora of Empires)
AUTHOR: Yachay Wayllukuq
CLASS: ORDINARY
FOR (2): Murphy%, Yachay Wayllukuq%
AGAINST (1): Janet+
PRESENT (3): juan$, kiako, snail^
BALLOTS: 6
AI (F/A): 10/9 (AI=1.0)
POPULARITY: 0.167
OUTCOME: ADOPTED
PROPOSAL 9069 (Coauthored Crystals)
AUTHOR: snail
CLASS: ORDINARY
FOR (1): snail^
AGAINST (0):
PRESENT (5): Janet+, Murphy%, Yachay Wayllukuq%, juan$, kiako
BALLOTS: 6
AI (F/A): 6/0 (AI=1.0)
POPULARITY: 0.167
OUTCOME: ADOPTED
[
Murphy: 4st is the Geologist: Endorsement of non-voter 4st: Inextricable
]
The full text of each ADOPTED proposal is included below:
//
ID: 9068
Title: Agora of Empires
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Yachay Wayllukuq
Co-authors:
//Comment: This subgame is a very rule-light and
experimental worldbuilding game that is officerless but CfJ-reliant (so I
encourage people to take into account the Arbitor's opinion on this). I
intend to play as some fantasy race and progress my civilization one step
at a time but feel free to play in any way you want - what goes and doesn't
will ultimately depend on our collective CfJs.
Create a new Power-1 rule called "Agora of Empires" with this content:
"There exists a document known as the Empireworld, which should describe in
some way a fictional world. Each player that has amended this document is
said to have their own Empire in the Empireworld, and such players are
Imperials.
A player CAN amend the Empireworld once per week by announcement to
narratively progress the Empireworld in some reasonable fashion. The
message with this kind of announcement MUST include the latest form of the
Empireworld post-amendment. These amendments MUST follow relevant guidance
given in CfJs. Imperials are ENCOURAGED to shape this subgame through CfJs.
Any person can amend the Empireworld without 2 objections and Imperials are
ENCOURAGED to attempt this action when ey believe it to be appropriate.
An Imperial can, by announcement, win the game without 2 objections if the
Empireworld shows that ey have accomplished at least 3 extraordinary feats
in the fictional world that the Empireworld describes since ey last won the
game in this way. This rule does not describe what qualifies as an
extraordinary feat."
//
ID: 9069
Title: Coauthored Crystals
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: snail
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2685 (Crystals) by replacing
{
- If that crystal's owner is not the author of that proposal, the
instability of that crystal is increased by 3.
}
with
{
- If that crystal's owner is not the author of that proposal, the
instability of that crystal is increased by 1.
- If that crystal's owner is not the author or coauthor of that proposal,
the
instability of that crystal is increased by 2.
}
[This makes the rule function the same when there's no coauthors, but if
there's a coauthor that owns the crystal of the modified rule, its
instability is only increased by 1 instead of 3.]
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Geologist] Weekly Report
4st wrote: CoE: I destroyed the crystals in L NttPF. (If you already TTttPF'd then ignore this, I'm just catching up on a-d first as usual.)
Re: DIS: Photo: officially official
Gaelan wrote:
I proto-submit the following proposal: {
Title: Officially Official (and Backuply Backup)
Authors: Gaelan
AI: 1
Create a power-1 rule titled “Forum Purposes”, with the following
text: {
Purpose is a public forum switch, with values Business (default),
Official, and Backup.
Players SHOULD send public messages to a Business forum unless
otherwise specified.
Players SHOULD send public messages to an Official forum where they
relate to the duties of an office.
"where they relate to performing the duties of an office they hold"
Players SHOULD send public messages to a Backup forum when
technical issues prevent the usage of other fora.
"when they believe that technical issues may prevent the usage of
another forum that e would otherwise use"
DIS: Re: BUS: Rulekeeping is hard, turns out
Janet wrote: ... Okay, so it turns out I can't read and "denial" isn't by announcement (I could have sworn it was at some point, but I can't find that). So the above probably did not discharge my duty. Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification), in part (according to the latest SLR, modulo all existential questions about the actual state of the rules): When this happens, the publisher of the original document SHALL (if e was required to publish that document) or SHOULD (otherwise) do one of the following in a timely fashion, in an announcement that clearly cites the claim of error: 1. Deny the claim (causing it to cease to be a doubt).
Re: DIS: Re: Assignment of CFJ 4069 to 4st [Re: BUS: Overly Effective Identity Theft Protection, Or, Is There A Rule 105]
nix wrote: On 3/14/24 15:08, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote: On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 3:53 PM nix via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: On 3/11/24 17:41, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote: CFJ: There exists a rule 105. I number this CFJ 4069. I assign CFJ 4069 to 4st. -- nix Also, I do plan to still judge this, whether or not I'm deregistered by then, and whether or not it is possible for me to provide a judgement. I will probably provide a draft late tomorrow. As a point of clarification, the possible values of a judge switch are 'any person or former person, or "unassigned"' (R991). You are still the lawful judge of this CFJ, so feel free to judge away. Yeah, that was an intentional change from a while back, to avoid "this assignment is ambiguously active because we're not sure whether the judge is a player". And I guess "former person" is to avoid the risk of accidentally requiring old CFJs judged by a corporation to be assigned a new judge, even though they have a judgement well past the point of reasonable appeal.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] New Arbitor in Town @kiako @Kate @Yachay @ais523 @Janet @Murphy
snail wrote:
On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 6:03 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
On 3/10/24 19:01, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 5:45 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
On Sun, 2024-03-10 at 15:38 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion
wrote:
If so, and if Kate indeed gained five Ribbons on 2023-08-31, and no
one else gained as many, then:
* Only Kate's vote counted on any proposal resolved after 230.
* Only Kate's support counted on any tabled action resolved after
230.
which should have been enough for eir dictatorship to become
effective.
What was quorum? If it ever got low enough for that to work, then there
is something badly broken with the quorum rules and we need to revise
them.
--
ais523
from Rule 2481 (Festival Restrictions) Power 3.1:
{
While Agora's Festivity is nonzero, the following apply:
2. Quorum for Agoran Decisions is equal to half the number of
Festive players, rounded up;
}
Quorum was 1 if Festivity was 5, since Kate would be the only Festive
player. Except!
Rule 879/40 (Power=3)
Quorum
Each Agoran decision has a quorum. This is a number set when the
decision is created, and thereafter cannot be changed. When a
person initiates an Agoran decision, that person SHALL state the
quorum of that decision. However, incorrectly stating the quorum
of a decision does not invalidate the initiation, nor does it
actually change the quorum of the decision.
The quorum that an Agoran decision gains as it is created can be
defined by other rules of power 2 or greater. If no other rule
defines the quorum of an Agoran decision, the quorum for that
decision is equal to 2/3 of the number of voters on the referendum
that had been most recently resolved at the time of that
decision's initiation, the whole rounded to the nearest integer.
As an exception to the previous paragraph, the minimum quorum of
an Agoran decision is 2, or 1 if there are fewer than 2 players in
the game. If the rules would attempt to set the quorum of an
Agoran decision to less than the minimum quorum, it is set to the
minimum instead.
It seems like because of Rule 879, Rule 2481 attempts to set quorum as 1,
but then it is set to 2 instead. This means if festivity was 5, all
distributions initiated would fail quorum.
Incidentally, no, because R2481 takes precedence over R879.
--
snail
A voter is voting strength 0 still counts for quorum purposes.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Oh. Well that's silly, scammable, and we should probably change it. Players
"voting" but having no effect on the decisions besides quorum doesn't
really seem right. In real agora this could lead to just 1 person having a
say whether a proposal passes or fails.
Except:
a) If there are fewer than 5 Festive players, any player CAN flip
Festivity to 0 by announcement (R2480). Kate's scam depended on eir
opponents not noticing the Festival until after eir dictatorship
was already in place.
b) As (I think) Kate pointed out when the scam was first revealed,
in real Agora there are several high-Laudability players, so a
Festivity scam would require buying off enough of them (or somehow
tampering with Laudability). Kate's scam also depended on this not
being the case in Agoran't.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] New Arbitor in Town @kiako @Kate @Yachay @ais523 @Janet @Murphy
nix wrote:
I assign CFJ 4059 to Murphy.
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg45651.html
("As a result of the 2023 Agoran't Birthday Tournament, Murphy won the
game.")
Draft judgement:
Without performing an exhaustive analysis of the Agoran't archives, I'm
assuming that (a) either Kate or snail had a dictatorship, and (b) in
either case there were at least as many rules at the end as the
beginning. Accordingly, I judge FALSE.
Kate's dictatorship mainly depends on whether Festivity was set to 5,
due to "Festivity is 5." hidden in this ADoP report self-ratifying:
https://agoranomic.groups.io/g/agorant/message/230
If so, and if Kate indeed gained five Ribbons on 2023-08-31, and no one
else gained as many, then:
* Only Kate's vote counted on any proposal resolved after 230.
* Only Kate's support counted on any tabled action resolved after 230.
which should have been enough for eir dictatorship to become effective.
If Kate's dictatorship was effective, then this message brought the
number of rules up to 132 (equal to the starting number):
https://agoranomic.groups.io/g/agorant/message/374
unless (a) there were less than 118 rules beforehand (I think some rules
were repealed up to that point, but probably not that many), or (b) it
was ineffective for some other reason, despite the dictatorship being
effective in general.
If Kate's dictatorship didn't succeed, then it's likely (though not
guaranteed) that snail's did:
https://agoranomic.groups.io/g/agorant/message/195
https://agoranomic.groups.io/g/agorant/message/223
If snail's dictatorship was effective, then e enacted/repealed rules as
follows:
https://agoranomic.groups.io/g/agorant/message/325 (-1)
https://agoranomic.groups.io/g/agorant/message/326 (-1 +13)
https://agoranomic.groups.io/g/agorant/message/327 (+1)
https://agoranomic.groups.io/g/agorant/message/328 (+13 +13)
https://agoranomic.groups.io/g/agorant/message/371 (+1)
which again brought the number of rules up to at least 132, unless (a)
there were less than 93 rules beforehand, or (b) some of these were
ineffective for some other reason.
Judge's evidence:
Initiation of Agoran't
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-August/017297.html
Agoran't starting ruleset (132 rules)
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2023-June/051757.html
Recap of Agoran't messages (at least what they alleged to do):
30 Janet's first attempt at rule "Public Speaking" (dictatorship by
"prognosticating")
34 Janet's second attempt
128 Janet's attempts rejected
75 snail's first attempt at "Public Speaking"
195 snail's second attempt
223 snail's second version adopted
51 Ruleset as of 2023-08-25 (132 rules)
138 Ruleset as of 2023-09-05 (129 rules)
230 Registrar report with "Festivity is 5." hidden in it
231 Arbitor report
232 Kate creates and distributes proposal "Restoration of the Monarchy"
(create two rules, give Kate a power 3 dictatorship)
233 Kate votes FOR RotM
234 Janet votes FOR RotM
235 4st votes AGAINST RotM
236 nix registers
237 snail votes AGAINST RotM
238 snail intends to (with notice) exercise eir dictatorship (create one
rule, give snail power to hand out 100-blot fines for voting against eir
wishes)
239 response to a CoE (Daily Dose of Vitamin C's power is 1, not 0.5)
240 snail intends to (with notice) exercise eir dictatorship (create one
rule, give snail power to hand out 100-blot fines for objecting to eir
tabled intents)
241 various crimes dismissed for not being investigated quickly enough
242 Referee report (snail 1, others 0)
243 Janet says that DDoVC's distribution failed, despite 239
244 CoE of stuff meant for Agora
245 kiako votes AGAINST RotM
246 snail exercises eir dictatorship (e succumbs 9 times)
247 snail exercises eir dictatorship (4st and kiako each succumb 9 times)
248 Murphy votes AGAINST RotM
249 Kate initiates elections, becomes candidate
250 Janet becomes candidate
251 4st becomes candidate
252 Kate changes vote on RotM to AGAINST
253 kiako becomes candidate
254 Janet changes vote on RotM to AGAINST
255 snail repeats intent from 238, 104 times
256 snail repeats intent from 240, 104 times
257 snail intends to (without objection) ratify blots: snail kiako 4st
0, others 100
258 Kate CoEs 257
259 Kate points out that CoE is only meaningful for self-ratification,
not for RWO
260 Registrar report
261 kiako CoEs Registrar report
262 kiako CoEs Registrar report
263 snail creates and distributes proposal "The End is Nigh" (alter
rules "Public Speaking" and 105)
264 Janet votes AGAINST TEiN
265 Kate votes AGAINST TEiN
266 Kate creates and distributes proposal "Restoration of the Monarchy
v2" (revert rules with power <= 3 to 2023-10-20, create one rule, give
Kate a power 3 dictatorship)
267 Kate votes FOR RotM v2
268 Janet votes FOR RotM v2
269 Kate reiterates 267 in case of ambiguity
270 snail votes AGAINST RotM v2
271 kiako votes FOR TEiN
272
DIS: Re: BUS: Registering
Aris wrote: Erm... that CFJ doesn't do what you want it to. CFJs are supposed to be statements, not questions, and interpreting something out of context is different from interpreting it in context. At one point we did legislate that, for CFJs asking yes/no questions, a judgement of TRUE/FALSE is appropriate if the answer is yes/no (respectively). Is it worth bringing that back?
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: ѕёѦѤ ѦѯќѤѦі (ѯѴњѩћѰ ђѨѯ ѕёѪѐ ѥѰ)
Janet wrote:
On 3/4/24 13:19, Goren Barak via agora-business wrote:
ѣѧѤѴ ѩќѹѩ,
Ѳ ћѧђѤѺ ѝѦђёѹѰ њѲ ѨѐѩєѰ ѓ ·њѧѯ ѯ ·ќѹѧѯ
ё ѳњѡѧђё, ѮѲё "Ѳ ѳњѡѧђё ё ѝѦђёѹѰ њѲ ѨѐѩєѰ"
ќѫћњѲ ѩќѹѩ
Transliterated from the Shavian alphabet to standard English:
{
Hello Agora,
I declare victory by apathy for Ben and Goren. To object, write "I
object to victory by apathy"
Goodbye Agora
}
This wasn't reasonable effort, by our precedents, almost surely does
nothing. In any case, can you point to any prior intent made?
On the topic of "reasonable effort": A web search for "ѣѧѤѴ" identifies
the script. Then, after a couple other searches that went nowhere
useful, "Shavian to English" turns up
https://lingojam.com/ashavianthing
which produces:
Helou əgorə,
ai dekler viktorii bai aepəthii f ·ben n ·goren
t ubjekt, rait "ai ubjekt t viktorii bai
aepəthii"
gəədbai əgorə
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9068-9069
Janet wrote: On 3/3/24 16:24, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: 9068~ Yachay 1.0 Agora of Empires FOR (without 2 objections is a reasonable guard against trivial wins, other issues can be ironed out later) That's not the only method to amend. There's also a "by announcement" method in the previous paragraph. That's to add extraordinary feats, I was referring to winning as a result of them.
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal - Agora of Empires
Yachay wrote: An Imperial can, by announcement, win the game without 2 objections if the Empireworld shows that ey have accomplished at least 3 extraordinary feats in the fictional world that the Empireworld describes since ey last won the game in this way. This rule does not describe what qualifies as an extraordinary feat." "Wonder is an untracked non-negative integer Imperial switch. When an Imperial accomplishes an extraordinary feat as described by Empireworld, eir Wonder is increased by 1. An Imperial whose Wonder is at least 3 CAN, without 2 objections, ; upon doing so, e wins the game, and eir Wonder is reset to default."
Re: DIS: ranting about potential ruleset issue
4st wrote: Right, but I'm not happy to accept the gamestate we're currently playing in. Right, I agree with the platonists that the gamestate is wrong and that ratification is wrong, just... definitely not in the same sense of wrong. Wrong as in it feels wrong, whether or not anything is actually wrong. I think I get where you're coming from, but I don't think you'll make any headway by just saying "more people should be pragmatists because platonism is tedious". Either you have a majority-pragmatist player base or you don't, and as long as the rules continue to specify a certain level of platonism, swinging that pendulum will be an uphill battle. I think the majority of players are currently aiming for such a ratification, but only as a first step, to be followed by amending the rules to fix at least some of the tedium. Where you might make some more headway is to push that second step further, so that the rules /tell/ people to use a more pragmatic interpretation; I think even most platonists would accept that if it was adopted, similar to how they accept successful ratification rather than try to recompute whatever the ratification would paper over (unless it's believed to be gumming up the ratification process itself, as in the Points/Marks crisis, or the current debate).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Potential ruleset issue
nix wrote:
On 2/15/24 19:07, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
So, we've discovered on Discord a potential issue that could have
wide-ranging effects. Consider the four-day rule as stated in the
(purported) Rule 105/23:
{
A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its
full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear
specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at
least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise
take effect.
}
Importantly, this requires "an unambiguous and clear specification of
the method to be used" to be published before each rule change.
When was this clause added? I'm wondering what was meant by "method" in
it. We use "method" to refer to the mechanism for CAN actions, but we
also use it for other things. For example, the "methods of obtaining
[ribbons]" in 2438 and voting strength increases in 2632 (which says "by
this method" in reference to a continuous occurrence, not something
someone does).
I think it's feasible to interpret "method" in 105 as just the specifics
of the rule change in the proposal itself, meaning the proposal text has
to be clear and unambiguous about what it does. Knowing the context it
was written in might give some clarity.
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2014-November.txt
Proposal 7710 (AI=3) by G.
Defining Reasonable Review
Amend Rule 105 (Rule Changes) by replacing:
A rule change which would otherwise take effect without its
substance being subject to general player review through a
reasonably public process is wholly prevented from taking
effect.
with:
A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless
its full text was published, along with an unambiguous and
clear specification of the method to be used for changing the
rule, at least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would
otherwise take effect.
Submitted on Oct 23, subject "legislative solution", apparently
regarding CFJ 3429:
https://agoranomic.org/cases/?3429
9 FOR, 2 AGAINST. The AGAINST votes were omd (no comment) and Warrigal:
> I think a proposal should be able to effect a rule change without
> actually literally containing the text of the rule change.
Personally, I think that normal proposal distributions constitute an
implicit, yet still sufficiently unambiguous and clear specification of
the proposal system as a whole, and furthermore that "its full text"
refers to the *rule change* (e.g. "Amend Rule X by replacing Y with Z")
rather than the post-change version of the rule, and that a four-factors
analysis ought to back up these interpretations. But as usual, it
wouldn't be a bad idea to adopt a just-in-case patch proposal.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) No Taxation Without Representation
Janet wrote: So, I don't think basing quorum on Activity is a good idea at all, and there's no obvious change (to me) that would avoid these problems. Whereas quorum is currently based on a specific type of activity (voting on other recent decisions), which seems a lot more appropriate.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Birthday Announcement
juan wrote: The 27th of October of 2023 is Murphy's 16th Agoran Birthday! Actually that was my third registration; I confirm that the following registrations were also me: (v) Murphy (< 1996-01-23--2007-09-24) (d) Murphy (2007-10-27--2017-11-17) Proto: The day(s) on which a player re-registered are eir Unbirthday(s).
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Election stuff
Janet wrote: I also initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the Prime Minister election. * The Vote Collector is the ADoP (me). * The valid options are the candidates (Janet, nix, and any others who become candidates by end of voting). * The voting method is instant runoff. * Quorum is 5 (based on 8 voters on Proposal 9048). No! I become a candidate for Prime Minister. Campaign speech: a vote for me is a vote for me! This fails because you were already a candidate.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9046-9048
ais523 wrote: 9048* nix, 4st, snail 3.0 It's been 4+ years, Agora. 4+ YEARS. AGAINST. Proposal result ratification appears to be broken in the ruleset being ratified (and thus probably the current ruleset) – this is one of the things I check for when it comes to doing ruleset ratifications. (Ratification requires the document or statement to have been published, but proposal result ratification is defined as a self- ratifying attestation to an unpublished statement, so the ratificaiton rules don't seem to work properly.) Additionally, proposal distribution appears to rely on a rule 217 disambiguation (of "authorized" – the Promotor CAN distribute proposals but no rule explicitly says that they MAY distribute proposals, and "authorized" means "explicitly permitted". As such, the published ruleset is dangerously close to not having the proposal system work at all, with neither the primary method nor the safeguard unambiguously working. Recommendation: As you suggested on Discord, have the Assessor explicitly announce the things being attested. Then submit a new proposal to fix the rule bug.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Geologist] shiny stuff
4st wrote: Here are the crystals and their owners (geologist required monthly report) Weekly, actually. (R2162 section 3, and R2685 doesn't specify otherwise)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Herald) Maze protocol
Ben wrote: I agree that 1 would need to be clarified, building off what nix said, since you could declare yourself inactive and active again to flip a switch. I think that was intended to count; the idea wasn't "find the one super-obscure thing that counts", it was "find literally anything that counts". (Maybe flipping citizenship by registering should also count, but only if the player realizes that and points it out. Handing players a crib sheet of "here's how to do all these things" is kind of against the spirit of this, though arguably that would still be better than just leaving them directionless until/unless they individually try stuff or ask for guidance.)
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9035-9039
Gaelan wrote: 9038~ Murphy 1.0 Ratify the Ruleset Week PRESENT - not sure how I feel about this. I worry an explicit SHALL to propose ruleset ratification at a given time runs the risk of rushing us into ratification without proper due diligence first? It seems like, at minimum, there should be something along the (very rough) lines of “or defer ratification by announcement, in which case e SHALL make such a proposal in the two months following the Ides of March." Also, is “last time the ruleset was ratified” a term we can just use without definition? Thinking about it, "published after the most recent ruleset already ratified, but before the intent" would probably be better/clearer.
Re: DIS: [proto] Unforceability
Janet wrote:
To address some of the holes that befell Agoran't:
{
Add (somewhere? enact a new rule? at power 2 or 3?):
{
A Rule that purports to designate an action as "unforceable" thereby
designates that a player NEED NOT comply with any provision of any Rule
that requires or forbids em from performing or refraining from
performing that action, unless the provision merely requires em to abide
by an agreement to which e has consented.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the following actions are
unforceable:
* Tabling an intent
* Becoming or ceasing to be a supporter or objector to an intent.
* Initiating, voting on, or resolving an Agoran decision.
* Submitting or distributing a proposal.
}
}
I would add withdrawing votes.
Would this prevent the Promotor/Assessor from being dinged for failing
to distribute/resolve proposals in a timely fashion? Maybe add another
exception for "merely requires em to perform the duties of an office
which e holds based on eir prior consent, such as becoming a candidate
or deputising".
DIS: Re: BUS: Player/person analysis update
4st wrote: I couldn't find these three players (so far, maybe I can't find more): Douglas Hofstadter, General Chaos, Troublemaker At Large and Ørjan is listed differently. General Chaos, Kelly (1996), and Kelly (1997-1999) are a single person. Ørjan / Oerjan (1995, 1996, 1996-2000) are a single person (I assume; the first two pre-dated me, but if they weren't the same person as the third, then surely someone would have caught on and said something at the time). I don't remember Troublemaker At Large using any different nickname. I unofficially petition the Registrar to retain a copy of the old-style monthly list, or at least the parts not already incorporated into the new style, in case any oldbies ever come back and go "oh yeah, that was me" or "oh yeah, I remember such-and-such".
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Monthly report: Arrivals and Departures
4st wrote: Operating solely off the registrar's report, then, there could probably be some notations to players that are c/o or otherwise proxies: so the registrar could have some corrections on their report that have gone unnoticed for quite some time, and I have taken those to be fact due to that. In fact, I think past Registrar's reports did list some partnerships as "c/o ", typically whoever was doing the bulk of the partnership's bookkeeping. Though I think at least one first-class player was listed as "c/o ", as they were sharing an e-mail account, and good faith was assumed that the former would clearly identify which messages from that account were eirs. Anyhow, I'm not going to be discouraged, and I'm going to try to take it as early helpful feedback to the thesis I'm working on. WALRUS was not a person, rather a partnership, and human point whatever were similar proxy players during a time of player shenanigans, and it's probably important to note that these are probably not persons, but we simply have no idea. I've updated the lists I have to accommodate. The reason for merging records is that I want to be conservative sometimes with reasons for not playing: I am trying to give Agora the benefit of the doubt in reducing the amount of players that stop playing for good. I think I'll report separate statistics for merged records and unmerged then though, for your benefit. I do think that an analysis along the lines of "these nicknames refer to the same person" and "these were partnerships" would be interesting. And "these partnerships' members included these other persons" as well, though that would get more complicated (as many of them had members come and go). And I'll keep a separate track of all the "c/o" players, and I don't really know what to do with weird records like Ted and duck, since what are those about??? Absent a preponderance of evidence to the contrary, I would just assume that they're first-class players distinct from any other first-class players. (If/when such evidence is presented after the fact, we would presumably fix any major breakages by adopting a legal fiction that the actions in question were taken by a separate person, similar to one case that actually came up several years back.)
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9011-9019
4st wrote: CoE: the proposal pool lacks my proposals submitted October 9th. NttPF
Re: DIS: [Proto] Some are more equal v2
juan wrote: Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-06-26 13:08]: "Why should this be in the rules?" is a valid question. Putting something in the rules means that everybody has to pay attention to it, lest it change out from under them to actually do something, and that people (like me) have rule-mandated obligations to track it. We have contracts for things that only people who are interested want to pay attention to. That is not the point. Drafts are for gauging interest. And this draft clearly is demonstrating a mechanic, not a complete game. Judge it for what it's worth. If it turns out nobody likes it, I'll abandon it. The problem, for me, is the tone. Imagine showing someone a recipe for a nice and refreshing juice, to see what they think, and they responding “but this is not a complete meal. I'm hungry”. I think that's a misleading analogy. It would be more like offering to sell an obscure cooking utensil to someone, without any information on what types of cuisine it's typically used for, whether they like any of those, or whether it will fit awkwardly in their kitchen cabinet. Any process that eventually plugs into a well-established game mechanic is off to a good start, because it's easy to identify why those game mechanics are well-established: winning = bragging rights, extra votes = more influence over how the rules are changed, and so on. Even if the process is initially wonky, it /can/ be fixed via followup proposals (if the players don't get too fed up with it first). In contrast, floating game mechanics often seem to follow a pattern of "get adopted, no one ever gets around to building a use case for them, eventually they get repealed without having been used for anything".
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Initiating elections
snail wrote: I vote as follows in the prime minister election: [snail] This vote was ineffective, as voting was not yet open.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: (@herald) did I win?
4st wrote: I deputise as Prime Minister to appoint G to the office of Speaker. I believe this actually was effective even if not overdue, as Prime Minister was vacant. (If for some reason it was ineffective, then please let me know; that would also mean that snail remains Speaker.)
Re: DIS: [Proto] Some are more equal v2
juan wrote: Edward Murphy via agora-discussion [2023-06-18 13:38]: But, based on this proto alone, the Equality switch doesn't do anything either (e.g. grant radiance). And there's a strong implication that Policies /should/ do something more, but no context for what that something might be. At least with the "publish the hash of a message ahead of time" proposal, we were able to come up with some reasonable examples on our own, but this is so much of a blank slate as to just be rather baffling. I mean… it's a game. They are points. What else does one need? Literally any explicit use case, even if it's just a suggestion in comments. For Equality, would there be a wincon similar to radiance, or could you spend some Equality for other perks, or what? For Policies, would certain types of change to the gamestate be restricted to 'via one or more listed Policies'?
Re: DIS: More Drafts
4st wrote: Left and Right are player switches that can have a value of any player, defaulting to emself. Once each week, each player CAN, by announcement, either set eir Left to any player, or set eir Right to any player. Left and Right are tracked by the Lorax. A player CAN reach a player on eir Left or on eir Right, or on the Left or Right of any player e can reach. When a player announces that e can reach all players, e wins, and all Lefts and all Rights are set to their defaults. Needs more Thneeds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Pm1ZBgak9U
Re: DIS: [Proto] Some are more equal v2
4st wrote: On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 5:41 AM juan via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: I would really love some feedback. -- EQUALITY (Power 1.0) For the purposes of this rule, a Player Property is defined by a set of values (its range) and a way of naturally and unambiguously assigning at each point in time a value in that set to each player at that time. For the purposes of this rule, a Criteria on a set of values is defined by a subset of that set of values specified naturally and unambiguously. For the purposes of this rule, a Class is a set of players defined as those whose value under a clearly specified Player Property is inside the set of a clearly specified Criteria. Equality is a natural player switch tracked by the Nomos. The Protected Classes is a singleton switch tracked by the Nomos with values on lists of Player Properties, without repetition, defaulting to the empty list. To protect a class means to set The Protected Classes to its former value with the specified Player Property appended. A Player Property is protected if it is listed in The Protected Classes, and unprotected if it isn't. A Policy is a document unambiguously specifying a Class of players. A Policy is Discriminatory if the specified Player Property of its Class is protected. A player CAN, with agoran consent, protect a class, by specifying the Player Property to be protected. A player CAN, once a week, by announcement, enact a Policy, provided that Policy is not Discriminatory. When e does so, the players in that Class have eir Equality increased by one. -- Just to be clear: my idea is to create an exploratory experiment on the concept of protecting classes of people. I want to see the limits of how can formalistic reasoning protect against discrimination based on certain characteristics. As far as I understand, in law (at least U.S. law) the idea is that a rule is valid, despite desproportionally affecting individuals in certain protected classes, if it can be shown that it is the least burdensome way to accomplish certain valid policy goals. That is, a rule is discriminatory if it affects protected classes disproportionally in any way. I.e., if the criteria it establishes is not independent (in a statistical, or event-based sense) to the protected criteria. Since this would rule-out basically any meaningful legislation, there are provisions for allowing this indirect discrimination when it is justified. So, the rule I'm proposing is exploring how far we can get in protecting classes (through politically motivated action) when all that is forbidden is *direct* discrimination. There are some restrictions, though: the “natural” criteria is to avoid certain logical sheananigans that would sidestep the protections. I know, it isn't formal, but I can't think of a better alternative. -- juan Ok, so, I'm just imagining the implementation of this right now. The only way player properties exist is by a clear and unambiguous definition, which the nomos would have to track each definition if it has a reference. Are definitions meant to be like "player birthdays" or something? otherwise I'm not sure what other protected properties exist "how many assets owned by that player" "player names" "total blots in the past year" "number of CFJs judged" "total months in an office" "number of reports published" "total rules proposed". As I understand it, player properties are indeed any such things that already exist based on otherwise-existing gamestate, however the Nomos only needs to track the ones currently in the Protected Classes list. I also imagine that just because it is clear and unambiguous doesn't necessarily mean "easily resolvable", making this a very complex office if e is responsible for determining outcomes. Yeah, I would suggest shifting the burden to the player adding a player property to the Protected Classes, and require em to accompany eir announcement with a good-faith effort of specifying which players have that property at that time (e.g. "Alice, Bob, and possibly Charlie depending on CFJ 9001"). Then the Nomos's report of Equality (including things like "Charlie: 2 or 3, depending on CFJ 9001") would self-ratify as usual. But that's just what happens when they're added. What happens after they're added is also complex and unclear: 4st> Secondly, Policies don't do anything, which might be intentional, 4st> so that's probably fine I guess. juan> Yes they do. Or rather, things are done with them. When players juan> enact policies, certain players gain points in the form of the juan> Equality switch. But, based on this proto alone, the Equality switch doesn't do anything either (e.g. grant radiance). And there's a strong implication that Policies /should/ do something more, but no context for what that something might be. At least
DIS: Re: (@Collector, Herald) BUS: The Never-Ending Dance
nix wrote: On 5/17/23 16:45, ais523 via agora-business wrote: My radiance is 100 or more (specifically 100). The announcement in the previous sentence causes me to win the game. If I can do so (based on the current moot, which is leaning towards yes), I award ais623 the title of Champion. I was going to quote "Babylon Four was /green/, you see" from _Undocumented Features_ here, but apparently they retconned that particular story at some point. Alas.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
ais523 wrote: On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 21:32 +0100, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 13:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: I informally risk being guilty of favoritism 7 days from now, by saying that the combination of CFJ calling and parenthetical reminder that it may fail is enough disclaimer to avoid no faking. I'll also note that Janet pointed out CFJ 1881 which asked if R2029 created a duty to dance, and in fact Judge omd of that case found that R2029 *does* apply penalties to the Marvy (if there were any Marvy), and CFJ 2589 which raised the matter again/independently. So it's not 100% cut-and-dried that R2029's exhortation to dance has no legal effect. And I'd forgotten at least one of those cases myself, so I wouldn't expect 4st to know about them. Are there any Marvy at the moment? IIRC the definition was something along the lines of "a player who has increased voting power but is not an officer", but I can't properly remember it (it was over a decade ago at this point). Just happened to notice this: On Tue, 2023-05-16 at 15:21 -0500, nix via agora-official wrote: Marvy:4st, ais523, CreateSource, cuddlybanana, duck, G., Janet, juan, Murphy, R. Lee, snail, Trigon, Vitor Gonçalves Marvy is a patent title that's currently in use. I suspect that this has no impact on rule 2029 for much the same reason that a player named "Marvy" wouldn't, but it feels like a relevant data point. IIRC, that Patent Title was awarded by proposal, then after its adoption the author claimed that R2029 penalized those players, but it was indeed shot down for much the same reason as a player named "Marvy" would have.
Re: Very Proto Economy (Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization_
nix wrote: On 5/19/23 11:50, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: I'd much rather take the route of trying to get the Radiance/Stamps system functional again, than of trying to repeal it. (Stamps in particular are one of the most powerful "new player perks" we've seen, and I suspect that that's a good thing.) I'd especially be against repealing it without a replacement. I do somewhat regret the *full* repeal we did, tho it was an interesting experiment (that got my a Silver Quill). I've been trying to be more hands off with economic writing because I want to see other ideas (and I've written two of the recent ones), but I have had some ideas floating around that would at least incorporate Stamps. The idea is basically: * replace dreams with focuses, and have 3 or 4 focuses. Something like Voting, Proposing, etc. * each stamp type inherits a focus from the person it's minted by, with stamps belonging to non-players being wildcards for focus * players automatically get stamps of eir type, maybe at a rate similar wealth dream (2 when there's less than 8 total of your type, 1 when there's less than 16 total, 0 otherwise) * cash stamps in sets, where each stamp in the set is of the same class (or wildcard) to get the associated bonus. Cash voting stamps and get a voting power increase, cash proposing stamps and get the ability to pend X proposals. Scale it to large payouts for larger cashing sets, and also larger payouts for the number of *different* stamps used. And increasingly larger payouts for having greater military strength than one's neighbors.
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Herald, @Stonemason) Watch this!!!!
snail wrote: I wield the radiance stone. (Woah! So cool!) (Wait! Oh my gosh! it's) I reach for the Recursion stone. (with a steel chair) As $DEITY is my witness, that rule is broken in half!
DIS: Proto: More Factors
Proto-Proposal: More Factors (AI = 3) Amend Rule 217 (Interpreting the Rules) by replacing this text: When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. with this text: When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, probable intent of rule authors, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. This includes (but is not limited to) the scope of a definition or restriction, and whether an attempted action succeeds as intended.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Election updates
nix wrote: On 4/23/23 18:45, Edward Murphy via agora-official wrote: I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the Assessor election. * The Vote Collector is the ADoP. * The valid options are the candidates (currently 4st, Janet). * The voting method is instant runoff. * Quorum is 5 (based on 8 voters on Proposal 8955). I vote [Yachay, Janet]. Given recent discussion and that Yachay has some Unless I missed something, voting already closed (and met quorum), so this vote is ineffective. I'll resolve the elections shortly.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
nix wrote: On 5/1/23 15:05, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: When you do a job manually for a while, you start to use shortcuts, get faster, streamline, then maybe join a couple of steps using a bit of code… there’s really no sharp line between “automation” and plain old “experience” - the two naturally go hand in hand. Yea, that's why I was thinking "doable". I did Stamps with a script, but I think snail is doing it by hand. It doesn't need a script, but it's nice to simplify. A good spot IMO would be for a weekly report to take *at most* 60-90m for a busy week to do by hand, and automation might bring it down to 15-30. If something takes longer than that to do by hand, it basically requires automation for anyone to do it regularly. I think I could do the bare minimum of an ADoP report within 60-90m per week by hand. Automation mainly adds some nice-to-haves that aren't required by the rules (report content, as well as making it vastly simpler to compile recap data for periodic awards).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ratification without Objection intent - Continuity of the game since 1993
nix wrote: But it's also worth noting that the very original Agora doesn't seem to have played as platonically as we currently do; ie, an accepted mistake would be treated as the reality of the game often-times, without need for some ratification process. There's another thesis, Vanyel's *Pragmatism and Platonism* that deals with the early history of this. If you interpret Agora pragmatically, then nothing can really break it as long as players collectively agree on what to do next. I think it was more that there was significant disagreement over which way to play, with "Plato-Pragmatism" (methods of adjusting the Platonic actual gamestate to match the Pragmatic what-we-thought-it-was gamestate) eventually emerging as a compromise. A couple of examples that significantly pre-dated the general ratification rules: 1) A rule defining something similar to self-ratification, but limited to the points report. 2) The Marks crisis (Proposal 2662 IIRC), a change of economic systems that was discovered several months after the fact to have been rejected due to an obscure issue with voting strength. Eventually resolved by having everyone announce "I resign as Promotor, naming as successor", and same for Assessor, and then processing a proposal similar to "the alleged adoption of Marks is ratified". IIRC, Kelly left the game some time over frustration that, having come up with this approach, we didn't always cover our bases as thoroughly as we did for #2. It's certainly theoretically possible that some old mistake went collectively unnoticed, and still hasn't been fixed by all the various ratifications since then (especially if it pre-dated the adoption of the general ratification rules); but most of us probably dismiss it as "even if it does exist, I'll probably never find it, so not worth worrying about", just as most people not pursuing a career in theoretical physics don't worry that gravity might suddenly work vastly differently tomorrow for some previously unforeseen reason.
Re: DIS: Free ideas
4st wrote: Not sure if this is intended, but for festivity, we can't set it to the maximum ever, so any player who is 1 away from laudable is going to be festive. (given the standard definition of "exclusive" and "greater than or equal" in that rule.) This is adequately covered by R2480: If Agora's Festivity has had the same nonzero value for 14 days or more, or if it has a nonzero value and fewer than 5 players are ^ Festive, then any player CAN flip it to 0 by announcement. ^^^ in rule 2125, regulated actions, it says OR, not AND. The second part of the rule, "A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules for performing the given action." could be removed if we just switched that OR to AND? Apples and oranges. The first part defines which actions are regulated (and changing "or" to "and" would significantly alter that definition), the second part defines what it means to regulate an action. Rule 1688 and rule 2162 duplicate the idea of secured (in what appears to be the same way, but still duped) R1688 defines "secured" in the context of a change/action/value. R2162 defines "secured" in the context of a switch, as shorthand for applying R1688's definitions to various things related to that switch. Rule 107: looks like agoran decisions need not be public by default, however, it looks like everything that uses them enforces them as public. Various aspects use "public", or "publish" (defined elsewhere as public). Votes need not be public, and in fact have been private in the past (though I think it may have been many years ago).
Re: DIS: 2023 Tech Survey
nix wrote:
Honestly just kinda curious what people use, but I figured it might also
just be helpful to have more clarity. I'll compile the results in a week.
{
2023 Agora Nomic Technology and Accessibility Poll
--
For each question please first give a basic quantifiable answer (unless
it is open-ended). You can optionally give more detail after it.
Basic Access
1. What email client(s) do you use to access Agora?
[Examples: thunderbird, gmail web client, apple mail, fairmail]
2. How often do you check agora emails?
[daily, weekly, monthly, rarely, never]
3. How often do you access the Discord?
[daily, weekly, monthly, rarely, never]
4. How often do you access the irc?
[daily, weekly, monthly, rarely, never]
5. How often do you access the matrix?
[daily, weekly, monthly, rarely, never]
6. What, if any, assistive technology do you use?
[none, screen reader, screen magnification, alternate input]
Email Resources
---
7. Do you use an email account (non-alias) exclusively for Agora?
8. (Open Ended) How do you organize agora emails? Do you use filters,
folders, labels, aliases, or other features of email?
9. (Open Ended) How do you access old agora messages/emails?
Website
---
10. How often do you use the website?
[daily, weekly, monthly, rarely, never]
11. What pages on the website do you use most frequently?
Improvement
---
12. (Open Ended) What is the most difficult part of Agora, from a
tech/accessibility standpoint?
13. (Open Ended) What technology would you like to see Agora adopt or
use more?
14. (Open Ended) What other questions should this survey include, and
what would your answer be?
Belatedly:
1. Thunderbird
2. Weekly
3. Usually daily
4. Last time was years ago, probably pre-dating the Discord bridge
5. Never
6. None
7. Mostly
8. Filter to folders (technically labels), manually move some to others
9. Save reports to local files like ruleset.txt; "Archive" label;
search private web archives
10. Sporadically, usually if away from my PC
11. Ruleset, CFJ archive, usually if away from my PC
12. High message volume during archive searches
13. Something like Blognomic's generic database (perform actions by
updating relevant entries), with option to generate list of
recent changes to copy/paste into a report
14. Where do you place yourself on the new/experienced player spectrum
Re: DIS: Looking for coauthors
juan wrote: Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion [2023-03-09 15:12]: On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 5:05 AM juan via agora-discussion wrote: On thing your recent Fingerprints proposal got me wanting to try is pre-planned moves with cards - that is, you have to commit to "these are my next three card plays" ahead of time. That would be really interesting to me (we've done a couple trading card games before, they can be really fun, but we've never done anything other than "play when you want" in terms of play mechanics). Ok. Here's what I had thought of. It's only in that sense of playing matches against each other, but it could be modified because its quite flexible. Cards would be assets. They'd have the following attributes: * Rarity (some kind of number) * Name (a string) * Action (a text) * Condition (a text) * Effect (a text) A player would have a deck (the cards e owns) and a hand (the cards e's able to use). The rate at which one can draw cards from the deck is a way to control the flow of the minigame. But not the only one: revealing cards (the equivalent of putting them down at the table) is one as well. At last, cards could also be discarded, if it was a kind of one-off game. A match (or something else) would grant or remove tcg-points according to the results (tcg-points could be a kind of card with no actions!). At the end of the month, a pool of Agoran points would be distributed according to the ranking. "Points card with no actions" works well for Dominion, along with starting with a small deck and buying more cards as you go. (Generally you want to build an efficient buying engine, then use it to buy points cards; buy points cards too early and you stall your engine, buy them too late and you can't catch up before someone else triggers endgame.)
DIS: Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] Experiment 00075 - Rule Selection
Janet wrote:
EXPERIMENT 00075 RULE SELECTION
As selected on Discord #botspam, the rule for this week is Rule 2327
("Read the Ruleset Week"). I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the
best of my knowledge, the process used in this selection had the correct
distribution.
Please send suggestions if you have them!
The text of Rule 2327 is reproduced below for convenience:
Rule 2327/3 (Power=1)
Read the Ruleset Week
The first Agoran week each year which falls entirely in February
is Read the Ruleset Week. Agorans are encouraged to read the
ruleset during Read the Ruleset Week.
The first Agoran device each year which falls entirely in February is
Read the Ruleset Device.
Re: DIS: Revamping public secrets
juan wrote:
Here's the new version:
{
A Fingerprint for a document (the Plaintext) is a document that could
not have been reasonably created without knowledge of the Plaintext, and
which is related to the Plaintext in such a way that one could not
reasonably produce another document related to that Fingerprint in the
same way.
Where the rules define an action that a person CAN perform "by
commitment" to a particular kind of document, that person performs
that action by performing it by announcement while, in the same
message, also publishing a what is purportedly a Fingerprint for a
document of that kind.
}
I think this needs at least a write-up for the second half of the
process, e.g.
Where the rules define an action (the Pitch) that a person CAN
perform "by fulfillment" to a particular kind of document, that
person performs that action by performing it by announcement
while, in the same message, also publishing a document of that
kind, specifying an action (the Wind-Up) that e previously
performed by commitment to that kind of document, and specifying
enough information to verify that the Wind-Up's Fingerprint
corresponds to the Pitch's document. The Wind-Up is thereby
fulfilled. A person CANNOT perform a Pitch by specifying a Wind-Up
that was previously fulfilled.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Distributor/Proposal) Player-Defined Nonsense
ais523 wrote: (Also, nkep feels like it fits into this sort of framework somehow, but I'm not sure how.) For those unfamiliar, "nkep" was basically the "I floop" concept combined with private-agreement shenanigans. A search of the CFJ archive turns up the following, there were probably some others: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1799 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2626
DIS: Proto: Schrodinger's Dice
Proto-Proposal: Schrodinger's Dice (co-author = ais523) Amend Rule 2505 (Random Choices) by replacing this text: The selecting person SHOULD make the selection method public, and SHOULD use a method for which the final probability distribution can be readily confirmed. with this text: The selecting person SHOULD announce the selection method ahead of time, SHOULD use a method for which the final probability distribution can be readily confirmed, and SHALL NOT perform any other regulated actions between performing the selection method and announcing its result. [Maybe these SHOULDs should be upgraded to SHALLs, either across the board, or in certain cases such as officer duties. Or we could just impeach officers suspected of abusing their discretion. Lying about the validity of a method would constitute a No Faking violation, though I expect we will continue to generally trust that Agorabot is not being tampered with behind the scenes, just as we generally trust that no one is using sock-puppet accounts. For context, all random choices currently defined are tied to offices: the Stonemason for Collection Notices, the Mad Engineer for rule selections to mutate the Device, and the Horsened for motivating the horses (anyone CAN do it, but the Horsened SHALL do it unless someone else already did that week).]
Re: DIS: Proto: Limited tracking
Janet wrote: On 2/5/23 19:18, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: Proto-Proposal: Limited tracking (AI = 3) Amend Rule 2162 (Switches) by replacing "other instances are at their default value" with "other tracked instances are at their default value". Amend Rule 2606 (Proposal Classes) by replacing this text: Proposals created since the enactment of this rule have a secured untracked Class switch with possible values ordinary (the default) and democratic. with this text: Proposals created since the enactment of this rule have a secured Class switch, tracked only for proposals in the Proposal Pool, with possible values ordinary (the default) and democratic. Amend Rule 1950 (Decisions with Adoption Indices) by replacing this text: Adoption index (AI) is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran decisions and proposals, secured at power 2. with this text: Adoption index (AI) is a switch possessed by Agoran decisions and proposals, secured at power 2, tracked only for Agoran decisions not yet resolved and proposals in the Proposal Pool. Amend Rule 991 (Calls for Judgement) by replacing this text: Judge is an untracked CFJ switch with possible values of any person or former person, or "unassigned" (default). with this text: Judge is a CFJ switch, tracked for all CFJs except those which have been assigned a judgement for at least the past week, with possible values of any person or former person, or "unassigned" (default). Tracked by whom? Oh right, by the Promotor (proposals) / Assessor (decisions) / Arbitor (CFJs).
DIS: Proto: Limited tracking
Proto-Proposal: Limited tracking (AI = 3) Amend Rule 2162 (Switches) by replacing "other instances are at their default value" with "other tracked instances are at their default value". Amend Rule 2606 (Proposal Classes) by replacing this text: Proposals created since the enactment of this rule have a secured untracked Class switch with possible values ordinary (the default) and democratic. with this text: Proposals created since the enactment of this rule have a secured Class switch, tracked only for proposals in the Proposal Pool, with possible values ordinary (the default) and democratic. Amend Rule 1950 (Decisions with Adoption Indices) by replacing this text: Adoption index (AI) is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran decisions and proposals, secured at power 2. with this text: Adoption index (AI) is a switch possessed by Agoran decisions and proposals, secured at power 2, tracked only for Agoran decisions not yet resolved and proposals in the Proposal Pool. Amend Rule 991 (Calls for Judgement) by replacing this text: Judge is an untracked CFJ switch with possible values of any person or former person, or "unassigned" (default). with this text: Judge is a CFJ switch, tracked for all CFJs except those which have been assigned a judgement for at least the past week, with possible values of any person or former person, or "unassigned" (default).
DIS: Proto: Yes, Prime Minister
Proto-Proposal: Yes, Prime Minister (AI = 3) Amend Rule 2139 (The Registrar) by replacing "The Registrar is an office;" with "The Registrar (syn. Minister of Domestic Affairs) is an office;". Amend Rule 1607 (Distribution) by replacing "The Promotor is an office;" with "The Promotor (syn. Minister of Suggestion) is an office;". Amend Rule 2137 (The Assessor) by replacing "The Assessor is an office;" with "The Assessor (syn. Minister of Reform) is an office;". Amend Rule 1051 (The Rulekeepor) by replacing "The Rulekeepor is an office;" with "The Rulekeepor (syn. Minister of Law) is an office;". Amend Rule 2138 (The Associate Director of Personnel) by replacing "The Associate Director of Personnel (ADoP) is an office;" with "The Associate Director of Personnel (ADoP) (syn. Minister of Administrative Affairs) is an office;". Amend Rule 2616 (The Webmastor) by replacing "The Webmastor is an office." with "The Webmastor (syn. Minister of Information Retrieval) is an office." Amend Rule 2555 (Blots) by replacing "The Referee is an office," with "The Referee (syn. Minister of Health) is an office,". Amend Rule 991 (Calls for Judgement) by replacing "The Arbitor is an office," with "The Arbitor (syn. Minister of Justice) is an office,". Amend Rule 2608 (The Notary) by replacing "The Notary is an office." with "The Notary (syn. Minister of Commerce) is an office." Amend Rule 2659 (Stamps) by replacing "The Collector is an office." with "The Collector (syn. Minister of Representation) is an office." Amend Rule 2675 (Dream of Wandering, or whatever it may have been retitled to) by replacing "The Dream Keeper is an office;" with "The Dream Keeper (syn. Minister of Imagination) is an office;". Amend Rule 2640 (Stones) by replacing "The Stonemason is an office," with "The Stonemason (syn. Minister of Excavation) is an office,". Amend Rule 2655 (The Mad Engineer) by replacing "The Mad Engineer is an office;" with "The Mad Engineer (syn. Minister of Pseudoscience) is an office;". Amend Rule 2668 (Horses) by replacing "The Horsened is an office" with "The Horsened (syn. Minister of Competition) is an office". Amend Rule 2438 (Ribbons) by replacing "The Tailor is an office," with "The Tailor (syn. Minister of Celebration) is an office,". Amend Rule 649 (Patent Titles) by replacing "The Herald is an office;" with "The Herald (syn. Minister of Distinction) is an office;". Amend Rule 2575 (The Distributor) by replacing "The Distributor is an imposed office" with "The Distributor (syn. Minister of Communication) is an imposed office". Amend Rule 103 (The Speaker) by replacing "The Speaker is an imposed office" with "The Speaker (syn. Minister Without Portfolio) is an imposed office".
DIS: RtRW brain dump
Rule 869 (How to Join and Leave Agora): What would count as "duly harassment"? Rule 2679 (Restrictions on Participation): Either change the definition of "unwelcome" to "if and only if", or change the securing of "designations of unwelcomeness" to "other designations". Also, maybe be more explicit here and/or Rule 2678 (Expectations of Participation) that being unwelcome is "not in line with Agora's rules". Rule 2152 (Mother, May I?): We should probably amend it to confirm that it also covers passive uses, e.g. a player who interpreted the rules as proscribing an unregulated action would thereby violate the SHALL NOT in Rule 2125 (Regulated Actions). Rule 1728 (Tabled Actions): "e is authorized to perform its action due to holding a rule-defined position" (etc.) should probably either specifically check who held it when the action was tabled - rather than potentially requiring someone to check whether e ever held that position over the entire history of Agora - or not care at all whether the person who tabled it previously held it. Maybe e expected to hold it later, or maybe e just wanted to get the ball rolling and nudge the holder. Rule 2518 (Determinacy): If we enacted a rule "Humidity is a singleton number switch that, once the Forecastor announces a Prediction, is thereafter flipped to (1 - its current value) at the start of each day", would that count as "alternat[ing] indefinitely between values"; in particular, would it trigger the anti-indeterminate guard clause in Rule 2162 (Switches)? Rule 1586 (Definition and Continuity of Entities): "A rule, contract, or regulation ... when the rule first came to include ..." should mention contracts and regulations again in the second clause, or define a term for the phrase and then use that term in both clauses. Speaking of, how is precedence between two non-rule entities within this set resolved? Regulation vs regulation, Rule 2493 (Regulations) says that a regulation "has only the effect that rule explicitly gives it", so such a conflict would create a conflict between the authorizing rules. Contract vs contract, Rule 1742 (Contracts) requires you to obey them all (and if they're contradictory, then tough), and limits CANs to a few things that shouldn't cause any overlap issues. Rule 2162 (Switches): Annotate that "To become X", where the value X corresponds to another entity, does not cause the first entity to become the same entity as the second. Rule 2350 (Proposals): "A list of one or more co-authors (none of which is the author)". Also, is the omission of co-authors from "cannot be changed" intentional? (It may be impossible anyway if the rules don't specify a method.) Probably should reuse "essential parameters" from Rule 1607 (Distribution); Rule 2141 (Role and Attribute of Rules) instead uses "substantive aspects", but this is probably too generic a phrase for a generic definition to be useful. Also, add this: "In general, proposals in the Pool are distributed by the Promotor (removing them from the Pool and creating an Agoran decision), as described by other rules." Until then, the Rulekeepor can add unofficial historical annotations, but only to the FLR, per Rule 1681 (The Logical Rulesets). (And add more "in general ... as described elsewhere" clauses, e.g. "a higher Adoption Index is required to affect higher-Power rules, but also requires stronger support from voters".) Rule 2606 (Proposal Classes): "Untracked" should be dialed down to e.g. "tracked by the Promotor, but only for proposals>", and similar for other untracked switches. Then Rule 2162 (Switches) should be changed from "other instances are at their default value" to "other tracked instances". Rule 217 (Interpreting the Rules): Probably should add "reasonable expectation of " to (2), otherwise it either goes too far (someone could spam CFJs "I should not be punished for X") or not far enough (we could theoretically enact "All CFJs submitted by Alice are dismissed one second later", as opposed to something reasonable like "All CFJs after the submitter's fifth per week", noting that X can be e.g. "any of this long list of things"). Rule 105 (Rule Changes): Reenacting a rule should explicitly state that it becomes a rule again. Rule 2486 (The Royal Parade): Still needs a name updated. Rule 879 (Quorum): What about moving this to a singleton switch? The Assessor could track it (giving em a report on top of eir non-report duties), and update it up to once per week based on the previous week's referenda (if any). Rule 2127 (Conditional Votes): Instant runoff could use an example, e.g. "Alice, ([Bob, Charlie] if is true, [David] otherwise), Egbert". Rule 2168 (Extending the Voting Period): "...except if it is already at least that long and/or this has already happened for the decision in question." Rule 2630 (The Administrative State): 2) seems redundant with promises. Rule 2154 (Election
DIS: Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] Experiment 00071 - Rule Selection
Janet wrote:
EXPERIMENT 00071 RULE SELECTION
As selected on Discord #botspam, the rule for this week is Rule 2575
("The Distributor"). I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the
best of my knowledge, the process used in this selection had the correct
distribution.
Please send suggestions if you have them!
The text of Rule 2575 is reproduced below for convenience:
Rule 2575/3 (Power=3)
The Distributor
The Distributor is an imposed office whose holder is generally
responsible for the management of the primary Agoran fora. The
holder CANNOT be changed except without objection or by proposal.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Distributor CANNOT
deregister or be deregistered.
The device CANNOT be changed except without objection or by proposal.
Re: DIS: [agoranomic.org] How To Play Page
nix wrote: I added a new page to the website, intended to give people an idea of what to do after they join. Any feedback appreciated: https://agoranomic.org/play.html Vote on Proposals: May want to explain PRESENT as "you just count toward the minimum number of voters", and endorse as "you vote the same way they do". Submit Proposals: May want to add "[proposal]" to the template at the end, and also explain "if your proposal would add/change/remove any rule with Power > 1, then you need to request an Adoption Index to match, or it won't work". May also want to move this to "Things to Do Once You Feel Comfortable with the Basics", along with "Run for Office".
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Slightly less self-interested proposal
Janet wrote: On 1/22/2023 1:55 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: On 1/22/23 12:42, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: Janet wrote: [Currently, I'm effectively locked out of owning any actually useful stone without setting a Dream, which isn't really fair. If I attempt to Is this actually true? I thought that had something to do with auctions, which were repealed about a month ago, and any rule or regulation actually putting the Stonemason on different footing may have been repealed earlier than that (I spot-checked about four months back but didn't spot anything relevant). The Mason's stone both does nothing and will generally be owned by me, and thus count towards the 30-day lockout for getting actually useful stones. Seems like just repealing it would fix both issues. Does being the Stonemason give any advantage on the 30-day thing? Again, I suspect it was originally enacted to solve some problem that no longer exists. It would theoretically give the Stonemason first dibs after collection notices. How about just disallowing transfers within 24 hours after a collection notice, or something like that?
DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport
I wrote: =Metareport= You can find an up-to-date version of this report at http://zenith.homelinux.net/adop/report.php Date of last report: 2023-01-15 Date of this report: 2023-01-20 Unofficial CoE, accepted: "Date of this report" should have been 2023-01-22. (The script that generated the report uses the most recent event date, which is appropriate for the web site to not seem more up-to-date than it is, but potentially needs to be tweaked when copy/pasting it into e-mail. It usually isn't an issue for ADoP because there are usually some events earlier that day anyway, but I've got a thing this afternoon so I worked on it earlier than usual.)
DIS: Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] Experiment 00070 - Rule Selection
Janet wrote:
EXPERIMENT 00070 RULE SELECTION
As selected on Discord #botspam, the rule for this week is Rule 2630
("The Administrative State"). I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the
best of my knowledge, the process used in this selection had the correct
distribution.
Please send suggestions if you have them!
The text of Rule 2630 is reproduced below for convenience:
Rule 2630/2 (Power=2.0)
The Administrative State
Each officer CAN, with 1.5 Agoran consent, enact, amend, or repeal
eir own office's Administrative Regulations. If e has won an
election for the office in the last 7 days, e CAN repeal them by
announcement. Administrative Regulations have the following
properties:
1. An officer SHALL NOT violate requirements in eir office's
administrative regulations clearly intended to be punishable as
rules violations in the discharge of eir office.
2. Any player CAN act on behalf of an officer to exercise eir
official powers as authorized by eir office's administrative
regulations.
3. All players SHOULD abide by an officer's administrative
regulations in matters relating to eir area of responsibility.
Each officer CAN, with 1.5 Agoran consent, enact, amend, or repeal eir
own office's devices.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Slightly less self-interested proposal
Janet wrote: [Currently, I'm effectively locked out of owning any actually useful stone without setting a Dream, which isn't really fair. If I attempt to Is this actually true? I thought that had something to do with auctions, which were repealed about a month ago, and any rule or regulation actually putting the Stonemason on different footing may have been repealed earlier than that (I spot-checked about four months back but didn't spot anything relevant). The Mason's stone both does nothing and will generally be owned by me, and thus count towards the 30-day lockout for getting actually useful stones. Seems like just repealing it would fix both issues. Does being the Stonemason give any advantage on the 30-day thing? Again, I suspect it was originally enacted to solve some problem that no longer exists.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] Experiment 00069 - Rule Selection
Janet wrote:
EXPERIMENT 00069 RULE SELECTION
As selected on Discord #botspam, the rule for this week is Rule 2641
("Wielding Stones"). I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the
best of my knowledge, the process used in this selection had the correct
distribution.
Please send suggestions if you have them!
The text of Rule 2641 is reproduced below for convenience:
Rule 2641/2 (Power=2)
Wielding Stones
Except as otherwise specified by the rules, the owner of a stone
CAN wield it by announcement specifying any values needed to
interpret the stone's effects.
A stone with a frequency that has been wielded in the corresponding
Agoran time interval is Hot for the remainder of the time period
(e.g. if the frequency is daily, it is hot for the remainder of the
Agoran day it was wielded during).
While a stone is hot, it is IMPOSSIBLE to wield it or to transfer
it by announcement
When a stone is wielded, the Rule defining that stone applies any
effects that it defines as occurring when the stone is wielded.
The wielding of stones is secured.
Except as otherwise specified by the rules, the owner of a device
CAN wield it by announcement specifying any values needed to
interpret the device's effects.
When a device is wielded, the Rule defining that device applies any
effects that it defines as occurring when the device is wielded.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] Experiment 00068 - Rule Selection
Janet wrote:
EXPERIMENT 00068 RULE SELECTION
As selected on Discord #botspam, the rule for this week is Rule 2556
("Penalties"). I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the
best of my knowledge, the process used in this selection had the correct
distribution.
Please send suggestions if you have them!
The text of Rule 2556 is reproduced below for convenience:
Rule 2556/1 (Power=3)
Penalties
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an impure person CANNOT win
the game.
The voting strength of a player on an Agoran decision is reduced
by 1 for every 3 blots in eir possession.
A player CAN, with 7 days notice, deregister (exile) a specified
player (the outlaw) who has more than 40 blots.
The voting strength of a player on an Agoran decision is reduced
by 1 for every 3 devices in eir possession.
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Slightly less self-interested proposal
Janet wrote: [Currently, I'm effectively locked out of owning any actually useful stone without setting a Dream, which isn't really fair. If I attempt to Is this actually true? I thought that had something to do with auctions, which were repealed about a month ago, and any rule or regulation actually putting the Stonemason on different footing may have been repealed earlier than that (I spot-checked about four months back but didn't spot anything relevant).
DIS: Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] Experiment 00067 - Rule Selection
Janet wrote:
EXPERIMENT 00067 RULE SELECTION
As selected on Discord #botspam, the rule for this week is Rule 2201
("Self-Ratification"). I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the
best of my knowledge, the process used in this selection had the correct
distribution.
Please send suggestions if you have them!
The text of Rule 2201 is reproduced below for convenience:
Rule 2201/10 (Power=3)
Self-Ratification
When a public document is continuously undoubted for one week
after publication:
- If the rules define it as self-ratifying, it is ratified.
- If the rules define it as a self-ratifying attestation to a
given statement, the statement is ratified.
This clause is inapplicable if the statement to be ratified
cannot be reasonably ascertained from the ruleset and the
contents of the message.
Any person CAN by announcement issue a doubt (syn. claim of
error), identifying a document and explaining the scope and nature
of a perceived error in it (or in a statement it attests to).
When this happens, the publisher of the original document SHALL
(if e was required to publish that document) or SHOULD (otherwise)
do one of the following in a timely fashion, in an announcement
that clearly cites the claim of error:
1. Deny the claim (causing it to cease to be a doubt).
2. Publish a revision.
3. Initiate an inquiry case regarding the truth of the claim
(if the subject is actually a matter of law), or cite a
relevant existing inquiry case.
Any person CAN by announcement issue a doubt (syn. claim of
error), identifying a device and explaining the scope and nature
of a perceived error in it (or in a statement it attests to).
DIS: Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] Experiment 00066 - Rule Selection
Janet wrote:
EXPERIMENT 00066 RULE SELECTION
As selected on Discord #botspam, the rule for this week is Rule 2478
("Justice"). I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the
best of my knowledge, the process used in this selection had the correct
distribution.
Please send suggestions if you have them!
The text of Rule 2478 is reproduced below for convenience:
Rule 2478/24 (Power=1.7)
Justice
An Infraction is a violation of a rule. The person who committed
an infraction is its infracter.
The Investigator for an infraction is the Referee unless e is the
infracter. Otherwise, it is the Arbitor.
The Class of an infraction is 2 unless a rule specifies a
different Class for it.
The Base of an infraction is N, where N is the number of
previously-investigated, unforgiven infractions that have been
committed by the same person in the last 30 days. The previous
notwithstanding, if the base of an infraction would be greater
than its class, the infraction's base is equal to its class.
Within 14 days of an infraction being committed, the Investigator
CAN investigate the infraction by announcement, specifying a
number of blots between the Base and the Class of the infraction,
inclusive. When e does so, that many blots are created in the
possession of the infracter.
The previous notwithstanding, an Investigator CANNOT investigate
an infraction that has already been investigated or forgiven. The
Investigator of a noted, unforgiven infraction SHALL investigate
the infraction in a timely manner after it has been noted;
failure to do so is the Class N crime of Favoritism, where N is
equal to the Class of the noted infraction.
A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
committed by any other player in the last 7 days, specifying the
incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
it has one).
The Referee's weekly report contains a list of noted and
investigated Infractions committed in the previous week.
A device is a violation of a Rule.
Otherwise, it is the device.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Horsened] The Horses Finish! (1st Race)
snail wrote: The Horsened's Final Standings Report! Winning calculations and state immediately before the race began anew. Here's a quick and dirty Javascript animation of the full race: http://zenith.homelinux.net/horse_race1.html Displaying additional events is left as an exercise for someone more motivated than I am.
Re: DIS: Unofficial executive summary of Proposal 8872
I wrote: Coins were converted to score bonuses, roughly 25 per boatload, I thought that sounded unusually high. Looks like I somehow botched my arithmetic, and it was instead roughly 1 point per 25 boatloads.
DIS: Unofficial executive summary of Proposal 8872
Coin and stamp balances were reverted to mid-November values. Coins were converted to score bonuses, roughly 25 per boatload, then repealed, along with coin awards: * Monthly base income * Adopted proposals / ratio of votes in favor * Judging CFJ on time (replaced with +2 score) * Publishing report (replaced with increased voting strength on ordinary proposals equal to total complexity of your offices, max total +3) * Resolving referendum * Gaining a Degree * Charities * Welcome Package (now limited to 1 Stamp) * Birthday * Quarterly for top 3 score as well as paying coins to create Stamps (now requires Dream of Wealth, see below). Auctions were repealed (replaced with Dream of Charity, see below). Win by score is now limited to one player at a time, and must be announced by that player. Patent Title of Tycoon was repealed. Score award for having an Agoran Birthday was changed from 15 to the number of active players. Score awards for Patent Titles and Ribbons were repealed. Paying Stamps for coins was changed to paying Stamps for score. Dreamor was replaced by Dream Keeper, snail (Dreamor) was installed. Dreams are now updated weekly instead of monthly, with simplified transition mechanics. Dream options: * Wandering (default) does nothing. * Charity (new) gets one of the item type that the L owns the most of. * Justice gets to expunge a blot (previously 4 per month). * Sharing (new) gains score (roughly 0.5 per active player, split evenly across all players with this option). * Wealth gains stamps of eir type based on how many already exist (2 per week up to 8, then 1 per week up to 16, previously 5 per month). This is now the only way to create stamps. * Machinery can do stuff with the Device. * Gardens can gain the stone that Agora has owned the longest (previously could pay stamps to reduce chance of losing one of eir own stones). * Power has +2 voting strength on ordinary proposals. * Revolution (new) loses 1 score, unless it has a majority, in which case all scores are inverted (furthest from winning <-> closest to winning) and all Dreams are reset to Wandering. * Victory and Beasts were repealed.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] Experiment 00064 - Rule Selection
Janet wrote:
EXPERIMENT 00064 RULE SELECTION
As selected on Discord #botspam, the rule for this week is Rule 1607
("Distribution"). I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the
best of my knowledge, the process used in this selection had the correct
distribution.
Please send suggestions if you have them!
The text of Rule 1607 is reproduced below for convenience:
Rule 1607/55 (Power=3)
Distribution
The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving
and distributing proposals.
A referendum is the Agoran decision to determine whether to adopt
a proposal. For this decision, the vote collector is the
Assessor, the adoption index is initially the adoption index of
the proposal, or 1.0 if the proposal does not have one, and the
text, author, coauthors, and class of the proposal are essential
parameters. Initiating a referendum is known as distribution, and
removes the proposal from the Proposal Pool.
The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal
Pool at any time.
In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL distribute each
proposal that was in the Proposal Pool at the beginning of that
week, except for those excepted from automatic distribution by
other rules, or those that are otherwise removed from the Pool. If
there are ten or more undistributed proposals in the proposal
pool, the promotor MAY refrain from distributing the most recently
added 5 proposals if e distributes each other proposal in that
Agoran week.
Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the
Promotor.
If there is a Proposal in the Pool that it would otherwise be
IMPOSSIBLE for any player to distribute, then any player CAN
distribute that Proposal without 3 objections.
The Promotor's report includes a list of all proposals in the
Proposal Pool, along with their text and attributes. This portion
of a public document purporting to be a Promotor's report is
self-ratifying.
In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL distribute each device that
was in the Device Pool at the beginning of that week, except for those
excepted from automatic distribution by other rules, or those that are
otherwise removed from the Pool.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] Experiment 00063 - Rule Selection
Janet wrote:
EXPERIMENT 00063 RULE SELECTION
As selected on Discord #botspam, the rule for this week is Rule 2415
("Badges"). I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the
best of my knowledge, the process used in this selection had the correct
distribution.
Please send suggestions if you have them!
The text of Rule 2415 is reproduced below for convenience:
Rule 2415/1 (Power=1.5)
Badges
A Badge is any patent title with the word 'badge' as part of its
name. A badge SHOULD be used to award multiple persons for
participating in specific event of note within Agora. Any player
CAN award a badge that does not yet exist to three or more persons
simultaneously, with Agoran consent. The Herald CAN award an
existing badge to persons without objection.
The Herald CAN award an existing device to persons without objection.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] Experiment 00062 - Rule Selection
Janet wrote:
EXPERIMENT 00062 RULE SELECTION
As selected on Discord #botspam, the rule for this week is Rule 2677
("Etiquette"). I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the
best of my knowledge, the process used in this selection had the correct
distribution.
Please send suggestions if you have them!
The text of Rule 2677 is reproduced below for convenience:
Rule 2677/0 (Power=0.5)
Etiquette
Officers SHOULD:
- publish dates in -MM-DD or DD Mon YY format in reports,
whichever is more fitting to the situation;
- communicate a schedule of when regularly timed duties will
usually be done;
- maintain an online version of eir report(s) in a browser-native
format (such as html); AND
- maintain a repository of eir report(s) in a public place.
Players SHOULD:
- signal the official name of the primary action and/or the
relevant officer that tracks said actions in the title of a
public message; AND
- be kind.
Players SHOULD:
- signal the official name of the primary device and/or the
relevant officer that tracks said devices in the title of a
public message; AND
- be kind.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] Experiment 00061 - Rule Selection
Jason wrote:
EXPERIMENT 00061 RULE SELECTION
As selected on Discord #botspam, the rule for this week is Rule 2585
("Birthday Gifts"). I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the
best of my knowledge, the process used in this selection had the correct
distribution.
Please send suggestions if you have them!
The text of Rule 2585 is reproduced below for convenience:
Rule 2585/7 (Power=1)
Birthday Gifts
It is considered to be a player's Agoran Birthday on the
anniversary of the day e first registered. If the day a player
first registered is unknown, that player CAN, with Agoran consent,
declare a day to be eir Agoran Birthday. As long as the day a
player first registered remains unknown, it is considered to be
eir Agoran Birthday on the anniversary of the day e most recently
declared as eir Agoran Birthday.
During a player's Agoran Birthday and the 7 days following, each
other player CAN once acknowledge that person's birthday by
announcement. Doing so grants the birthday player 3 boatloads of
coins if it is actually the day of the player's birthday, and 2
otherwise.
Players are ENCOURAGED to announce their Agoran Birthdays.
"It is considered to be a player's Agoran device on the anniversary of
the day e first registered."
DIS: Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] Experiment 00060 - Rule Selection
Jason wrote:
EXPERIMENT 00060 RULE SELECTION
As selected on Discord #botspam, the rule for this week is Rule 1023
("Agoran Time"). I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the
best of my knowledge, the process used in this selection had the correct
distribution.
Please send suggestions if you have them!
The text of Rule 1023 is reproduced below for convenience:
Rule 1023/40 (Power=2)
Agoran Time
The following terms are defined:
1. The phrase "in a timely fashion" means "within 7 days". This
time period is set when the requirement is created (i.e. X days
before the limit ends). A requirement to perform an action at
an exact instant (e.g. "when X, Y SHALL Z"), but not "in the
same message", is instead interpreted as a requirement to
perform that action in a timely fashion after that instant.
2. The phrase "in an officially timely fashion" means "before the
end of the next Agoran week". This time period is set when the
requirement is created (i.e. between 7 and 14 days before the
period ends).
3. Agoran epochs:
1. Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.
2. Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday. Eastman
weeks begin at midnight UTC on the 1st, 8th, 15th, 22nd,
and 29th of each Gregorian month; the fifth one of the
month (if any) lasts till the end of the month.
3. Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of
each Gregorian month.
4. Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January,
April, July, and October begin.
5. Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January
begins.
6. A pivot is either the instant at which Agora Nomic began
(June 30, 1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200) or an instant at which
at least one person won the game. When used as a period of
time, a "Round" (historical syn: "game") is the period of
time between a pivot and the next pivot.
The "Agoran" qualifier is assumed unless a different definition
is indicated (e.g. Eastman weeks). These definitions do not
apply to relative durations (e.g. "within days after
").
4. Two points in time are within a month of each other if:
1. they occur in the same Agoran month;
2. they occur in two consecutive Agoran months, and the later
of the two occurs in an earlier day in the month than the
earlier one;
3. they occur in two consecutive Agoran months on the same day
of the month, and the later of the two occurs at the same
or earlier time of day.
"Agoran devices begin at midnight UTC."
DIS: Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] Experiment 00059 - Rule Selection
Jason wrote:
EXPERIMENT 00059 RULE SELECTION
As selected on Discord #botspam, the rule for this week is Rule 2632
("Complexity"). I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the
best of my knowledge, the process used in this selection had the correct
distribution.
Please send suggestions if you have them!
The text of Rule 2632 is reproduced below for convenience:
Rule 2632/0 (Power=1.0)
Complexity
Complexity is an office switch reflecting how complex it is to
fulfill the duties of its office. Its possible values are all
integers from 0 to 3 inclusive, where 1 is the default. It is
tracked in the ADoP's weekly report. The ADoP CAN, with 2 Agoran
consent, flip the complexity of an office.
The ADoP CAN, with 2 Agoran consent, flip the complexity of a device.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4000 Assigned to Murphy
G. wrote: [A nice historical question for the occasion!] The below CFJ is CFJ FOUR THOUSAND (4000). I assign it to Murphy. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4000 === CFJ 4000 === It is round 2,098. == Caller:nix Judge: Murphy == History: Called by nix:20 Oct 2022 17:20:44 Assigned to Murphy: [now] == Caller's Arguments: Rounds are defined in R1023 alongside pivots: A pivot is either the instant at which Agora Nomic began (June 30, 1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200) or an instant at which at least one person won the game. When used as a period of time, a "Round" (historical syn: "game") is the period of time between a pivot and the next pivot. FOR: By my calculations, there have been 2,097 wins. If each win is a pivot that starts a new round, then this is round 2,098. AGAINST: However, rounds are defined as "the period of time between a pivot and the next pivot". Many wins have happened in the same message (notably Jason won 1000 times in one message). Messages are considered to happen instantaneously but sequentially. Arguably, there is no "period of time" between these wins, and no rounds occurred between them. If this is the case, then we are closer to round 599. == As the caller notes, there can be multiple events occurring at the same instant. The pivot is defined as the instant, not the individual events. The most recent Herald's report lists (by my count) 1714 distinct wins, including Jason x1000 (which I believe were indeed simultaneous) and D. Margaux x501 (likewise). Whatever the exact number of rounds currently is, it clearly isn't nearly as high as 2098. I judge FALSE.
DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to initiate Registrar election
ziproot wrote: FALSE: One section of "Performing Tabled Actions" says "A rule purporting to allow a person to perform a tabled action allows em to do so by announcement, if, considering only intents for that action/method combination." Purporting is not defined anywhere, so a common sense definition is "whose purpose is." The purpose of "The Election Cycle" According to the Global Overmind, the primary definition of "purport" as a verb is "appear or claim to be or do something, especially falsely; profess". Due to Cretans, The Election Cycle does not purport to allow starting a Registrar election while another one is still ongoing. I think "purport" came into common Agoran usage in the context of "A document purporting to be X constitutes a self-ratifying Y". An early example was X = "'s report", which may self-ratify even if it turns out that the author didn't hold that office at the time (which I'm pretty actually happened at least once, prompting the legislation of the general pre-emptive approach).
DIS: An Agoran Rebuttal
Regarding the recent troubles, and in particular Anti-Cleisthenes's Cantus Cygneus: In one sense, nothing new has happened. Rules whose effects clearly include "Players can be deregistered via proposal" have been on the books for a long time. The reasons could be anything from "repeal corporate personhood", to "clean up after an ambiguous deregistration attempt", to "clean up after something that was intended to trigger deregistration but a mechanism turned out to be broken", to "execute a scam that involves the scammer and eir confederates briefly being the only players". In another sense, as far as I remember (having played Agora for most of its existence), the recent situation is indeed unprecedented. While a few other players have caused widespread upset, that was due to their disruptive actions affecting gamestate (e.g. Maud causing the Annabel Crisis, or Fool repeatedly doing something ambiguously effective and then intentionally going against the Agoran tradition of minimizing knock-on ambiguities); Madrid is the first instance of causing such upset via the discussion fora, with eir discussion pertaining more to the people playing the game than to the game itself. That said, A-C's claim that we jumped from zero to expulsion is disingenuous. There were some intermediate steps, also via discussion fora (and/or private e-mails / Discord messages): e was kicked off the Discord server (though allowed to rejoin); e was informed of the recurring and upsetting nature of eir actions in the eyes of several others, and presumably was similarly informed at various points in the past. Eir complete failure to express concern or attempt compromise, sticking to "I'm not actually X because Y", is on eir own head. (In contrast, Maud was clearly apologetic. Also, that particular form of disruption is basically a solved problem now, anyway.) The claim that the Banned switch is only intended for Madrid is also disingenuous. It's only intended for Madrid /right now/ because Madrid is the only person /right now/ who (a) is considered to warrant it due to eir behavior, and (b) would likely continue otherwise. Hopefully that remains the case, but if a new player joined the game and behaved similarly, then it would likely be applied to them at some point. Or if Fool returned and resumed eir previous style of gameplay, then it would probably at least be sincerely discussed as a hypothetical. I spent several years running a different type of game (I've mostly retired to an advisory role) that had a ban policy from day one (written by my predecessors, but it seemed sensible to me). It was intentionally broad (and has been used several times). Here are the high points, paraphrased, as they may offer useful guidance for an Agoran framework going forward (combined with a summary of some specific things agreed to be detrimental, such as R. Lee's recent proto). * The person's behavior must be doing the game more harm than good, and they must be very unlikely to behave differently in the future. * Almost always a judgment call. An objective system like "three strikes" lets a bad-faith person get away with it twice, while penalizing a good-faith person who makes mistakes. * Lesser in-game penalties are ineffective, as are shaming/belittling the person. * Actively hostile people should be told to stop. If they don't, then they may be temporarily banned to achieve a stop and demonstrate that this will happen. [The game uses real-time communication, plus mail/forum systems; standard length of a temporary ban there is three days.]
DIS: Proto: Lucid dreaming
Proto-Proposal: Lucid dreaming (AI = 2, co-author = ziproot) [Converts " Dreamer" to a switch, adds whitespace to the list of Mindsets and their effects, and generally cleans up wording. Includes changes based on ziproot's recent proto.] Change the title of Rule 2675 (Dream of Wandering) to "Dreams", and amend it to read: The Dreamor is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of the dreams of all active players. Mindset is a secured active player switch, tracked by the Dreamor in eir monthly report, with possible values Dream of Wandering (the default) and any Dream. Dream State is a secured active player switch, tracked by the Dreamor in eir monthly report, with values Sleeping (default), New, and Recurring. " Dreamer" is shorthand for "active player whose Dream State is ". An active player CAN Plan to Flip eir Mindset, specifying any valid value for eir Mindset, by announcement. The wandering occurs at the beginning of each month. When the wandering occurs, for each active player: - If e Planned to Flip eir Mindset since the last wandering, then eir Mindset is flipped to the value e most recently specified by Planning to Flip, and eir Dream State is flipped to New. - Otherwise, eir Dream State is flipped to Recurring. If an active player's Mindset is flipped to its default value due to being invalid, then eir Dream State is flipped to Sleeping. The following rules apply to each active player based on that player's Mindset: - Dream of Wandering: While e is a Recurring Dreamer, e CAN by announcement flip eir Mindset, upon which eir Dream State is flipped to New. - Dream of Victory: Upon a correct announcement of being the only player with eir Mindset Flipped to Dream of Victory, e wins the game. Upon winning the game, eir Mindset is flipped to its default value and eir Dream State is flipped to Sleeping. While e is a New Dreamer, e CAN by announcement gain 10 points, upon which eir Dream State is flipped to Sleeping. - Dream of Wealth: While e is a New or Recurring Dreamer, e CAN by announcement grant 5 stamps of eir own type to emself, upon which eir Dream State is flipped to Sleeping. - Dream of Justice: While e is a New or Recurring Dreamer, e CAN by announcement expunge up to 4 blots from emself, upon which eir Dream State is flipped to Sleeping. - Dream of Machines: E CAN, with Agoran consent, Flip the Device to either on or off. E CAN, with support, act on behalf of the device to take any action that the device CAN take by announcement. - Dream of Gardens: While E is a New or Recurring Dreamer, E CAN pay a fee of N stamps, specifying one of eir stones whose escape chance is not currently reduced in this way, and that stone's escape chance is reduced by N*5%, to a minimum of 0%, where N is a positive integer, upon which eir Dream State is flipped to Sleeping. This reduction is removed after the Stonemason publishes a collection notice. - Dream of Power: Eir Voting Strength is 2 greater. Each active player who was a Sleeping/New/Recurring Dreamer immediately before the adoption of this proposal has eir Dream State flipped to Sleeping/New/Recurring, respectively.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Dreamor] Dream Journal (August 2022)
juan wrote: On 9/1/2022 6:40 AM, juan via agora-business wrote: secretsnail9 via agora-official [2022-08-31 18:57]: DREAMOR'S MONTHLY REPORT All active players have a mindset of Dream of Wandering. All active players are Sleeping Dreamers. -- secretsnail CoE: My mindset is Dream of Victory. https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg43200.html If I am the only player with that Mindset, I announce that fact. I thought mine was, too (though if something set yours to something else, then it probably did the same to mine).
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Extermination
Jason wrote:
On 8/31/22 20:13, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
I submit the following proposal
Title: Extermination
Author: Jason
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 1.0
{
Each of the following rules is repealed, in ascending numerical order by ID:
* Rule 2660 (Birds)
* Rule 2661 (Permits)
* Rule 2662 (Playing with Birds)
* Rule 2663 (Bird Migration)
* Rule 2664 (One with Nature)
* Rule 2665 (The Birds)
}
I withdraw the above proposal.
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Extermination v1.1
Author: Jason
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 1.0
{
Repeal each of the following rules, in ascending numerical order by ID:
* Rule 2660 (Birds)
* Rule 2661 (Permits)
* Rule 2662 (Playing with Birds)
* Rule 2663 (Bird Migration)
* Rule 2664 (One with Nature)
* Rule 2665 (The Birds)
}
You missed the opportunity to title it "Birds Aren't Real".
Re: DIS: A proto
juan wrote:
Jason Cobb via agora-discussion [2022-08-29 13:23]:
We now have a player who is directly responsible for three FAGEs. I
believe that it's time we discuss a mechanism similar to the one below.
Title: Unfortunately
Author: Jason
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 3.0
{
Amend Rule 869 by appending the following paragraph:
{
Banned is a secured negative boolean person switch. A person is
unwelcome if e is Banned or if at least one part of em is unwelcome.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an unwelcome person CANNOT
register or be registered, and e is immediately deregistered if e is
ever a player. Designations of unwelcomeness are secured.
[snip]
But it's not. In adopting it, we would be stating clearly that we
believe in ostracism, and, most worringly for me, that we believe in
punishment for life.
[snip]
* Bans should not be permanent. There should be a way to appeal them,
and they should have time limits (though those can be unspecified and
unlimited). Times change, and so should we.
* We should have formal processes that implement some form of
restorative justice, upon whose failure, and only then, extreme
measures such as ostracism should prevail.
I don't disagree with either of these points, but I do disagree with
your characterization of this proto as clearly going against them (at
least the first one). It doesn't add any specified mechanism for
actually flipping a person's Banned switch, in either direction;
presumably that would be left up to proposals of the form "Flip
's Banned switch to ". And presumably such a
proposal would generate plenty of careful discussion, but adopting
rules along the lines of "a Banned switch can only be flipped if
was attempted and failed to achieve acceptable
resolution" may be a good idea; something similar to Defendant's
Rights, but addressing the rights of the people on both sides of
a "maybe this calls for a ban" dispute.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Voter Protection
4st wrote: I think my concern here is that current subgames and play is asset-based. No matter what the bribe is, it is already taking away from other players, which is equivalent to bullying, just hidden. Giving people coins increases the amount a boatload is, thus reducing the amount of boatloads other players have. Giving people points reduces the amount of points other player's have, as winning by points reduces others' points by half. Horses, stones, and birds are all things that only one person can earn. At some point, this probably needs to come down to consensus interpretation (possibly via CFJs). "Give Bob 5 coins because e was the only one affected by that one rule bug" will be received differently than "Give Bob 5 coins 'cos I feel like it", even though objectively the impact on assets is identical. (Another contrast that's been discussed in the past is "Doing X has a fee of 5 coins" vs. "Doing X has a fine of 5 coins".) There are some exceptions, e.g. G.'s dictatorship, but that one was based on how much trust G. had built up that e wasn't going to be a jerk and intentionally drive Agora into a Not Fun gamestate.
DIS: Re: BUS: Paranoia
Jason I respond to each petition that I am required to respond to as follows: "No. For more information please reread this response.". Proto: Don't.
Re: DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Assessor, Promotor) Re: BUS: CFJ 3978, CFJ 3979 assigned to ais523
secretsnail wrote: On 7/24/2022 2:04 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 3:57 PM Edward Murphy via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: In any case, the differences of opinion seem intractable at this point; best to just legislate something acceptable to all sides, and move on from there. I think my proposal codifying the invisible requirement would help somewhat, but it still doesn't get rid of this issue of "coloring". We shouldn't have to reexamine every new way of saying you take an action in worry of it not working for some entirely subjective reason, but I'm not sure if we can legislate that away. It's not very elegant to just codify in the rules "'I submit the following proposal X times:' doesn't work." and neither is it to codify that it does work. Is there any general clarification that would fix this? Maybe something like "If there is an ambiguity in an attempt to take an action, where it could either mean an attempt to take a possible action or an attempt to take an impossible action, it is instead an unambiguous attempt to take the possible action." That's broader than what I had in mind (but may still be worthwhile). I was just thinking more like: "If there would otherwise be an ambiguity in an attempt to create or otherwise identify or reference one or more entities, where it could either mean the same instance multiple times or multiple instances with matching attributes, it is interpreted as an unambiguous attempt to do the latter."
Re: DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Assessor, Promotor) Re: BUS: CFJ 3978, CFJ 3979 assigned to ais523
secretsnail wrote:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 6:16 PM Edward Murphy via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
Yes, you can create/submit a proposal by announcement. That doesn't mean
you can create *the same* proposal multiple times
I'd like a better explanation as to why that is, because it seems like
the opposite. Because tou can create a proposal by announcement, you can
create the same proposal multiple times by announcement, but that action
falls under the umbrella of creating a proposal by announcement.
That's what "the" means in ordinary language, and what the creation and
existence of entities means in ordinary language (backed up to some
extent by Definition and Continuity of Entities). You can't create *the
same* instance of anything more than once (unless perhaps it's repealed
or something in between, which is n/a here).
If I announced "81 times, I create the coin in my possession", then that
would be equally problematic (even if there was a rule "Murphy CAN
create coins in eir possession by announcement").
I'd argue this is more problematic just because we don't refer to coins as
"the coin" normally, but we do use "the proposal" a lot more.
It really depends on what entity you're creating, for coins it is strange,
but for promises, for example, it works.
"81 times, I grant myself the promise:
{
I plant potatoes
}."
would be perfectly fine, because we refer to promises that way. The same
goes for proposals. It should be obvious it's not actually one promise
being granted, but multiple instances of the same promise.
An example of this happening just fine:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2022-April/048821.html
If this should work, so should my proposals.
Also we should really look at the difference between "the same proposal"
and "the same instance of a proposal".
The text in question there was:
I grant the library 3 of the following promise, each titled
"Stamps for Stamps": (etc.)
which more clearly suggests an implied "instances" after the "3". This
is probably also colored by promises being a type of entity where we're
accustomed to someone creating multiple instances with the same text up
front (as opposed to "whoops, I re-submit this text as a proposal now
that some relevant part of the gamestate has changed", or scam attempts
like the recent one, neither of which is as common). And, yes, it's
probably *also* colored by "there was a scam attempt".
In any case, the differences of opinion seem intractable at this point;
best to just legislate something acceptable to all sides, and move on
from there.
Re: DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Assessor, Promotor) Re: BUS: CFJ 3978, CFJ 3979 assigned to ais523
On 7/17/2022 3:46 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
On Jul 17, 2022, at 4:31 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion
wrote:
secretsnail wrote:
This is my main issue with the judgement; it seems perfectly fine to create
something multiple times in natural language. We do that all the time with
coins, which are fungible, we create something that already exists.
No, we create instances of a class of entities, where the class already
exist but the instances don't.
But
importantly, even if it was against natural language, it's still defined as
possible in the rules.
Rule 2350 (Proposals)
A player CAN create a proposal by announcement,
specifying its text and optionally specifying any of the following
attributes:
So we can't just say you can't do it because of the "plain meaning",
especially when that meaning is contested. If I had used the word "create"
instead of "submit", I would have expected it to work just the same.
Yes, you can create/submit a proposal by announcement. That doesn't mean
you can create *the same* proposal multiple times
I'd like a better explanation as to why that is, because it seems like the
opposite. Because tou can create a proposal by announcement, you can create the
same proposal multiple times by announcement, but that action falls under the
umbrella of creating a proposal by announcement.
That's what "the" means in ordinary language, and what the creation and
existence of entities means in ordinary language (backed up to some
extent by Definition and Continuity of Entities). You can't create *the
same* instance of anything more than once (unless perhaps it's repealed
or something in between, which is n/a here).
If I announced "81 times, I create the coin in my possession", then that
would be equally problematic (even if there was a rule "Murphy CAN
create coins in eir possession by announcement").
You can create/submit multiple proposals with identical attributes, but
you need to spell that out explicitly. It's reasonably within ais523's
purview as judge to find that the clash between the verb expecting
multiple objects ("81 times, I submit") and being given only a single
one ("the proposal _") is sufficiently confusing that it doesn't
count as "specifying" the required things.
I disagree that the verb expects multiple objects. It makes much more sense to expect a single object since
i'm attempting the same action 81 times. It would be unnecessary for me to need to list the attributes of
every single proposal because, as "81 times" implies, it's going to be the same attributes for each
action, not multiple different attributes. If there's a reason as to why my proposals didn't work, this is
not it. If you could play with the wealth stone multiple times, and you said "5 times, I wield the
wealth stone, specifying secretsnail." That would fail under this interpretation, because it didn't
specify "secretsnail, secretsnail, secretsnail, secretsnail, and secretsnail" which I hope is not
the case.
Okay, more precisely: The verb is replicated 81 times. Announcing "81
times, I create _." is accepted as shorthand for announcing
{
I create _.
I create _.
(78 more instances)
I create _.
}
(There's precedent pertaining to creating an undue workload for
officers, but let's not worry about that here.)
If _ were "a proposal with ", then this would
work fine. But when _ is "*the* proposal with ",
then the expansion becomes:
{
I create the proposal with .
I create the proposal with .
(78 more instances)
I create the proposal with .
}
Now the first of these is worded awkwardly, but still sensible, as long
as no proposal with that list of attributes already existed. The rest
are nonsensical; at that point, a proposal with that list of attributes
*does* already exist, so the remaining statements cannot create *the*
proposal with that list of attributes.
IIRC the original statement was instead "81 times, I submit the proposal
", which gets into the other area of interpretation
that ais523 identified:
a) If "submit" is synonymous with "create" in the context of
proposals, then this doesn't work, per the above.
b) If "submit" isn't synonymous with "create", then it appears to not
make sense, which is a no-go. Earlier today, I started writing up
an example like this, to question how it would affect authorship:
* Alice sends a purported "proposal" to a-d named Blue Mood with
text
* Bob announces "I submit the proposal named Blue Mood that Alice
sent to a-d"
But the rules don't explicitly regulate submitting a proposal, they
regulate *creating* a proposal; in particular, creating a proposal
adds it to the pool
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Floating salaries (attn Treasuror)
secretsnail wrote: On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 8:07 PM Edward Murphy via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: I think the Unit of Flotation is still 104, in which case these expand to: * 5 boatloads of coins -> 520 coins * 10 boatloads of coins -> 1040 coins * 15 boatloads of coins -> 1560 coins The UoF is actually 147, so it should be * 5 boatloads of coins -> 735 coins * 10 boatloads of coins -> 1470 coins * 15 boatloads of coins -> 2205 coins I see that I also managed to miss the UoF changing to 128 at the start of June. I'll update this section with some text along the lines of "unofficial, Treasuror's report is generally definitive". FYI: I expunged a few entries mentioning the "Treasuror's monthly report" from my database, as it was formally repealed in April 2021.
DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Assessor, Promotor) Re: BUS: CFJ 3978, CFJ 3979 assigned to ais523
secretsnail wrote:
This is my main issue with the judgement; it seems perfectly fine to create
something multiple times in natural language. We do that all the time with
coins, which are fungible, we create something that already exists.
No, we create instances of a class of entities, where the class already
exist but the instances don't.
But
importantly, even if it was against natural language, it's still defined as
possible in the rules.
Rule 2350 (Proposals)
A player CAN create a proposal by announcement,
specifying its text and optionally specifying any of the following
attributes:
So we can't just say you can't do it because of the "plain meaning",
especially when that meaning is contested. If I had used the word "create"
instead of "submit", I would have expected it to work just the same.
Yes, you can create/submit a proposal by announcement. That doesn't mean
you can create *the same* proposal multiple times, and given that (under
the current rules) the only sensible reading of "submit a proposal" is
as a synonym for "create", you can't submit the same proposal multiple
times either.
You can create/submit multiple proposals with identical attributes, but
you need to spell that out explicitly. It's reasonably within ais523's
purview as judge to find that the clash between the verb expecting
multiple objects ("81 times, I submit") and being given only a single
one ("the proposal _") is sufficiently confusing that it doesn't
count as "specifying" the required things.
DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Assessor, Promotor) Re: BUS: CFJ 3978, CFJ 3979 assigned to ais523
ais523 wrote: What rules-defined effect does that have? Rule 2350 talks about both "creating" and "submitting" proposals, with almost everything caring about the creation rather than the submission. It also explicitly gives a mechanism for doing the creation, but there's no mechanism available for doing the submission. I can see two plausible readings: a) For proposals, "create" and "submit" are synonyms. b) "Creating" and "submitting" a proposal are two different actions, the latter action being impossible because there's no mechanism to perform it. If "submitting" is a different action, then it may be interpreted as unregulated and thus possible. (The rules regulate e.g. submitting ballots, but don't regulate "submitting" proposals, at least not using that exact word; they just react by assigning ownership.) But how can you submit a proposal that is neither previously created, nor created by the act of submission? So I agree with a), as you did.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Magical Substrate
Jason wrote: At the beginning of each week, each player who intended to change eir Magic Levels, announces the values of what they were changing eir Magic Levels to. A player that fails to do so by the end of the week fails to intend to change eir magic levels. Players only announce things by sending messages. I recommend avoiding any attempt to overload the terminology used for tabled actions (until/unless they're amended to directly address these variants), and instead just directly stating what's effective. Here's a suggested revision, starting with defining "public secret": A public secret is a public message purporting to include an encrypted form (the Cipher) of some other text (the Plaintext). A verification of a public secret is a public message clearly identifying that public secret and including its Plaintext, provided that it could not reasonably have different Plaintext. A secure public secret is a public secret whose Plaintext cannot reasonably be derived from its Cipher alone. [Example: Plaintext is "Enchantment 1, Conjuration 3, Illusion 5" followed by some arbitrary GUID; Cipher is the SHA hash of that combined text. The "provided that" clause rules out things like one-time pads. "Secure" is defined separately so that other rules can decide whether it's relevant to require it in a given context.] If a player announced a public secret during one week (the Magic Studying Period) and verified it during the following week (the Magic Practicing Period), then at the end of that Magic Practicing Period, each of eir Magic Levels is simultaneously flipped as specified in the Plaintext.
DIS: Re: (@ADoP) Re: BUS: Just intending
secretsnail wrote: On Sun, Jun 26, 2022 at 4:29 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: secretsnail wrote: On Jun 22, 2022, at 3:58 PM, Forest Sweeney wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 1:06 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: For each player in the below list, I intend, with support, to appoint em to the office of The Speaker, in order of the list. ... I support all intents in the above message. For each player in the below list, I appoint em to the office of The Speaker, in order of the list. ais523 CreateSource cuddlybanana duck G. Gaelan Jason juan Madrid Murphy nix R. Lee Trigon 4st I award myself a Platinum Ribbon. This fails. You do not qualify for the ribbon, you only qualify while you are the speaker, and you can only award someone a ribbon while they qualify for it. Ugh, I guess you're right. Will scrub it out of the Tailor database when I circle back on Sunday for my usual updates. Proto-Proposal: Normalize ribbons (AI = 3, co-author = secretsnail) Amend Rule 2438 (Ribbons) by replacing "qualifies for" with "earns" in the methods of obtaining these types of Ribbon: Green (G), Platinum (P), Lime (L), Transparent (T). Award a Platinum ribbon to each player who has been Speaker since 22 June 2022 at midnight UTC and has not had a Platinum ribbon since that time.
DIS: Re: (@ADoP) Re: BUS: Just intending
secretsnail wrote: For each player in the below list, I appoint em to the office of The Speaker, in order of the list. ais523 CreateSource cuddlybanana duck G. Gaelan Jason juan Madrid Murphy nix R. Lee Trigon 4st https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZS5uzHidIM
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Has-Beens
nix wrote:
I submit the following proposal:
{
Title: Has Beens
Author: nix
Co-authors: secretsnail, G., Madrid, 4st, Jason "cat" Cobb
AI: 3
Amend R103 by replacing:
If the office of Speaker has been held continuously by the same
person for 90+ days, then any player CAN appoint another player to
the office with support.
with:
If the office of Speaker has been held continuously by the same
person for the past 90+ days, then any player CAN appoint another
player to the office with support.
Amend 2438 by replacing:
White (W): A player qualifies for a White Ribbon if e has never
previously owned a White Ribbon (including under previous
rulesets). A player who has been registered for at least 30 days
and has never acted on eir own behalf to cause another person to
gain a White Ribbon (including under a previous ruleset) CAN act
on eir own behalf to award a White Ribbon to another person by
announcement.
with:
White (W): A player qualifies for a White Ribbon if e has never
previously owned a White Ribbon (including under previous
rulesets). A player who has been registered for the past 30+ days
or 180+ cumulative days and has never acted on eir own behalf to
cause another person to gain a White Ribbon (including under a
previous ruleset) CAN act on eir own behalf to award a White
Ribbon to another person by announcement.
G. is the speaker.
}
Needs a comma before "and has never acted", to pre-empt any attempt to
parse it as "(past 30+ days or (180+ cumulative days and X))".
DIS: Re: BUS: Duel completed: Let's keep going?
4st wrote: I create a new promise with the text, "If possible, the author votes FOR on the proposal of the bearer's choice. The author will not rescind this vote of their own will.", hereby referred to as my promise to support. Probably should reissue this promise with the second sentence changed to "The author pledges not to rescind" etc. (see Rule 2450, Pledges).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Sets Repeal Cases
G. wrote: On 6/12/2022 9:35 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: CFJ: "The entity at one point known as Rule 2658 is a Rule." CFJ: "The entity at one point known as Rule 2658 has performed at least one amendment of a Rule." CFJ: "The entity at one point known as Rule 2658 has been amended at once during the time when it is/was a Rule." The final CFJ (CFJ 3965) comes down to whether (3) "this rule is repealed" succeeded after the amendments/failed amendements in (2) were complete? Seems like the final CFJ is slightly broken in its wording (perhaps intended to ask "has been amended at least once"), but pretty clearly true (it amended itself at least once, namely while removing ~> <~ delimited portions of rules). It also seems pretty clear that Rule 2658 repealed itself. Rule 105 (Rule Changes) says that an ambiguous rule change renders *that* rule change ineffective, but also that rule changes occur sequentially rather than simultaneously. Rule 2658 specified an order of a) (multiple changes) repeal other rules in order listed b) (multiple changes) amend rules containing ~> <~ in ascending numerical order c) repeal self and, whatever happened to the last few changes within b), change c) was always after all of those.
Re: DIS: [Proto] Horse Racing?
secretsnail wrote: When the horses run, each player gains 1 hoof, movement resolves, and then if any horses have a Race Position of 16 and a Race Place of none, those horses win the race in alphabetical order of their names. "those horses cross the finish line" When the race ends: Add "each horse's Race Position is set to 0", or otherwise clarify that crossing the finish line is only effective while a race is in progress.
DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Treasuror, Mad Engineer; @Jason) BUS: Blowing up the economy
ais523 wrote CFJ, barring Jason: I won the game by Taking Over The Economy today. We therefore need to interpret what it means for the device to have a judge assigned. I can see three main possibilities: either there isn't any way for this to occur, and thus the Device is never in a state of having a judge assigned (even though it is possible to assign the Device to a person, this is distinct from assigning the person to the Device); or else the action of assigning the device to a person causes the person to become an assigned judge for that Device (which is how the Arbitor interpreted it, possibly as a counterscam attempt); or else the concept of a judge being assigned to a Device is a concept that's based on the mental state of the Arbitor (i.e. the Arbitor considers that player to be the primary judge for the Device). With the second interpretation, there's some inclarity because the "device changes" as a consequence of being assigned, which would turn it on (the Device is a switch with two states, so changing it would presumably cause it to change state) – and that causes the part of the rule about judge assignment to Devices to turn off, so it may cause the assignment to disappear in the same way that repealing the rules defining something normally cause that thing to disappear. FWIW, my take is that "assigning the device to a person" should be interpreted as analogous to what it most closely resembles, assigning a CFJ to a person: namely, it establishes a symmetric relationship, which (even if it isn't a switch) is still governed by Rule 1586 (Definition and Continuity of Entities), and thus doesn't cease to exist just because the conditions for changing it no longer hold; that would require actually repealing the clause, or else having it explicitly say something like "X is only defined while " and then having that condition be false. Thus, the scam failed because the condition "device is not assigned" was only true the first time. But I agree with interpreting the device "changing" or being "deactivated" as flipping it, and that tabled intents in general can be resolved multiple times.
DIS: Proto: Weekly privileges
Proto-Proposal: Weekly privileges (AI = 3) [Loosely based on the old Ergs system, basically a currency that was reset weekly. Repeals or otherwise cleans up some loose ends overlooked by R2658.] Create a rule titled "Weekly Privileges" with Power 2 and this text: Each player CAN do one of the following by announcement, provided that e has not already done any of them during the same week. * Cause a specified person (or emself if no one is specified) to Stuff the Ballot Box. A player's Voting Strength on a referendum on an ordinary proposal is 1 greater for each time e Stuffed the Ballot Box during that decision's voting period. * Expunge a blot from a specified person (or emself if no one is specified). * Cause a specified proposal to become sponsored. Sponsorship is an untracked negative boolean proposal switch. * Gain an Iridium Star. Iridium Stars are a fixed currency with ownership restricted to players. If a player has at least 10 more Iridium Stars than each other player, and no person has won the game this way in the past 30 days, then e CAN Buy the Town by announcement. When a player Buys the Town, e wins the game, then all Iridium Stars are destroyed. The winds die down, as defined by Rule 2658 (The Winds Die Down). [ R2658 then repeals, in this order: * 2620 (Cards and Sets) * 2623 (Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege) * 2629 (Victory Auctions) * 2624 (Card Administration) * 2622 (Pending Proposals) * 2651 (Proposal Recycling) * 2653 (Buying Strength) * All clauses delimited ~>like this<~, in rule number order * itself ] Repeal these rules, in this order: * 2621 (VP Wins) * 2636 (The Ministor) * 2638 (Player Focuses) Amend Rule 2645 (The Stones) by removing the definition of the Concentration Stone. Amend Rule 2654 (The Device) by removing each bullet point containing "Ministry Focus". Amend Rule 2665 (The Birds) by replacing the definitions of the Owl, Pigeon, Penguin, and Jay with the following: - Owl: A specified person (or emself if no one is specified) Stuffs the Ballot Box, as defined by other rules. - Pigeon: A specified person (or emself if no one is specified) has one blot expunged. - Penguin: The playmate gains an Iridium Star. - Jay: A specified proposal becomes sponsored.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Decriminalizing Lateness
nix wrote: Amend R2138 "The Associate Director of Personnel" by appending: 4. For filled offices, the percent of reports that have been published in a timely fashion since either this clause was added to the rules or the last change in officeholder for the office, whichever is more recent. A good start, but has room for improvement. Suggested revision: 4. For filled offices with a weekly report, the number of weeks in scope, and the number and percent of those weeks during which the officeholder published its weekly report. 5. For filled offices with a monthly report, the number of months in scope, and the number and percent of those months during which the officeholder published its monthly report. For this purpose, the 13 most recent complete weeks and 3 most recent complete months are in scope, but only those for which the officeholder held that office continuously since it started; and percentages of 0/0 are to be reported as n/a.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy-Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8672-8674
G. wrote: 8672* Murphy 3.0 Inclusivity AGAINST. Thought about this for a good bit. I'm not convinced that "reasonable" shouldn't stay wholly contextual/common law - we're accepting a lot of complex multipart moves that I'd call "reasonable for a well-informed officer but not "reasonable to players in general" so I'm wondering if this truly codifying the existing precedents or if this is making things more stringent. Either way, maybe need more discussion on this one. "_ need only be reasonably clear to the officer(s) required to track it" makes sense, but how to fill in that blank? (Probably throw in a "generally", and leave room for common law to deal with edge cases.) Current uses of "reasonable" or "reasonably" (** indicates that the rule explicitly defines a standard for that context): * R1698 (ossification), reasonable combination of actions * R869 (registration), reasonably clear/unambiguous intent * R869 (compelling non-players), reasonably implied consent * R2139 (registration history), reasonably available information * R2518 (indeterminate values), reasonably available information and determination * R2505 (random choices), reasonably close to what's required ** R217 (rule precedence), low-power rules reasonably clarifying definitions in high-power rules * R217 (right to resolve controversy), reasonable expectation of obtaining resolution * R1681 (FLR change history), reasonable accuracy * R1006 (holding office), reasonably implied consent * R2209 (ratification without objection), if a correct document could be produced with reasonable effort then trying to ratify an incorrect one requires more info to be legal * R2201 (self-ratification), statement to be ratified can't be reasonably ascertained from ruleset + message * R2531 (defendant's rights), reasonably possible standard of care in avoiding an action/inaction normally carrying a fine * R991 (judge rotation), reasonably equal opportunities to judge * R591 (judging DISMISS), insufficient info to judge with reasonable effort * R2492 (recusal), recusal after 4+ days requires apology and/or reasonable explanation before being assigned to another case * R2519 (consent), reasonably clear intent * R2634 (Buoyancy Target), reasonable judgement in calculating * R2545 (auctions), reasonably inferred intent regarding method * R2581 (Tapecutter et al), reasonably quick support/objection Current uses of "available" not already covered: * R1742 (contracts), information publicly or generally available * R2451 (Executive Orders), "The available Cabinet Orders are:" Current uses of "clear" not already covered: * R478 (Fora), clear intent to send a public message / act by announcement * R1789 (Cantus Cygneus), clearly labeled as being one * R106 (adopting proposals), clearly marked comments * R217 (rule interpretation), unclear rules text * R105 (rule changes), clear specification of method * R107 (Agoran decisions), clear specification of info * R683 (voting), clear identification of information and intent * R208 (resolving Agoran decisions), clear identification of what's being resolved ** R2127 (conditional votes), clearly specified/expressed * R2202 (ratification without objection), clear description to avoid Endorsing Forgery * R2201 (self-ratification), clear citation of CoE * R2450 (pledges), clear message * R2545 (auctions), clear intent of punishable requirements * R2654 (The Device), two clauses copied from elsewhere * R2566 (free tournaments), clearly malformed regulations etc.
DIS: Protos: Inclusivity, Limited power of attorney
(These both need specific values of N filled in) Proto: Inclusivity (AI = N) Create a rule "Inclusivity" with power N and this text: A requirement that something be "reasonable" or "reasonably ", or pertaining to the availability or clarity of information, implies "to players in general", unless otherwise specified. Proto: Limited power of attorney (AI = 2.5) Amend Rule 2618 (Promises) by replacing this text: A promise's bearer CAN, by announcement, cash the promise, with this text: A promise's bearer CAN, by announcement, cash the promise by paying a fee of N, Amend Rule 1742 (Contracts) by replacing this text: * Act on behalf of another party to the contract. with this text: * Act on behalf of another party to the contract by paying a fee of N.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Notary] The Notes (contracts, pledges, & promises)
secretsnail wrote: I deputize (not temporarily) to post the following Notary's weekly report: I've recorded that responding to your own petition did count as deputisation, and thus that publishing this report didn't (because the office wasn't vacant and the report wasn't overdue). If I'm managing to overlook something here, please let me know.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8657-8664
G. wrote: 8657* Murphy 3.0 Schrodinger's report AGAINST. It's a bit against the flow but I think Festivity *when it is relevant* is important to note weekly. The intent of the proposal is that the Tailor SHALL still announce the value weekly when it's relevant, just switching it from a "report" to a duty.
Re: DIS: Re: (@Referee) BUS: A finger
ais523 wrote: if the dicebot is misinformed as to which rules exist, it will roll a dice with the wrong number of sides and thus cause my entire Mad Engineer weekly action to be invalid. Question is, if the count is off by 1 out of (as of the last published FLR) 146, and no one notices right away, is that still "reasonably close" (R2505)? Do we want to rule that a choice purported to be reasonably close to a rule-mandated random weighting constitutes a self-ratifying statement of said claim?
