Re: DIS: art degrees

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 at 14:15, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion  wrote:
> On 7/1/20 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> >
> > tl;dr What do people think about a separate method for arts degrees that's
> > more akin to applause and somehow brings in Bard?  (just in general).
> >
> > longer:
> >
> > I didn't think about this when voting last month, but the new art degrees
> > are kind of how we used to award Bard.  A person produces Good Art, and by
> > acclaim they are awarded Bard.
> >
> > I'd be a bit sad to see that sidelined, plus the peer-review process seems
> > a bit stuffy for art.  Not that art *can't* be reviewed critically and
> > academically, but (1) most people are producing it for the applause not
> > the analysis when they publish and (2) it's just less fun to do a piece of
> > performance art, get told "that's just a draft here's the critiques in
> > your rhyme scheme" and publish it again.  Better for people to applaud and
> > say "that's some good art, any 'mistakes' are just little happy trees and
> > part of the performance."
> >
> > So just thinking about writing a method for that and looking for general
> > feedback first.
> >
> > -G.
> >
>
> My thinking here is that people can choose which to use. If someone
> doesn't want to use peer review, e can state that and I'll try to give
> em the Bard, but if e wants a degree, e has to go through peer review.
> This is similar to the difference between being recognized for good art
> by a professional association and being granted an MFA.

One strange thing here is that Bard is mixed in with a long list of
other titles in R2581, but (from this point of view) is arguably more
similar to degrees than those other titles.

Also, I recently noticed the description of Bard says it's for
*repeated* creative wit or poetry. Though I think we recently awarded
it for a single work.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: art degrees

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 16:17, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> tl;dr What do people think about a separate method for arts degrees that's
> more akin to applause and somehow brings in Bard?  (just in general).
>
> longer:
>
> I didn't think about this when voting last month, but the new art degrees
> are kind of how we used to award Bard.  A person produces Good Art, and by
> acclaim they are awarded Bard.
>
> I'd be a bit sad to see that sidelined, plus the peer-review process seems
> a bit stuffy for art.  Not that art *can't* be reviewed critically and
> academically, but (1) most people are producing it for the applause not
> the analysis when they publish and (2) it's just less fun to do a piece of
> performance art, get told "that's just a draft here's the critiques in
> your rhyme scheme" and publish it again.  Better for people to applaud and
> say "that's some good art, any 'mistakes' are just little happy trees and
> part of the performance."
>
> So just thinking about writing a method for that and looking for general
> feedback first.
>
> -G.

Having a different process for art degrees sounds reasonable. Were you
thinking of keeping the existing degrees and just changing the
process?

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Hidden Action Fixes

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 21:17, ATMunn via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> aww man, I was going to try to bury an apathy intent

R2595 requires the intent to have been published "conspicously" and
"without obfuscation". My understanding is that comes from a period of
time when people were sticking hidden things in messages and it got
annoying looking for them.

- Falsifian

DIS: Re: BUS: @Referee Giving a Blot B Gone to G

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

> Also I intend to declare apathy (just kidding)

I object.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Objections

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 12:27 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On 6/30/20 10:26 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > > I object to all and any intents to exile nch.
> > >
> > > I withdraw these objections.
> > >
> >
> > I object to all and any intents to exile R. Lee.
> >
> > I withdraw these objections.

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 14:28, Becca Lee via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> In my email client, I beat you by 1 minute.

Agreed that R. Lee beat Jason.

The latest time I see in the headers of R. Lee's scam email is 14:26:39:

Received: (Haraka outbound); Tue, 30 Jun 2020 14:26:39 +000

The earliest time I see in the headers of Jason's scam email is 14:26:59:

Received: from mail-qt1-f171.google.com (mail-qt1-f171.google.com
[209.85.160.171]) by vps.qoid.us (Haraka/2.8.25) with ESMTP id
DF4B4117-DBF8-4F51-BDE7-4B282E0F89F1.1 envelope-from
; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 14:26:59 +

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Falsifian, Treasuror, Notary] Quickexchange use

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 17:49, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion  wrote:
> On 6/29/20 1:47 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 17:41, Becca Lee via agora-business
> >  wrote:
> >> Nice, I transfer 2 Pendants to QuickExchange
> >
> > Er... I think you just gave 2 Pendants to QE for free.
> >
> > I consent to the following amendment to the Dragon QuickExchange contract:
> >
> > {
> >
> > Append one paragraph at the end. It says: { If R. Lee has ever
> > transferred 2 Pendants to this contract not as part of a payment in
> > exchange for Credits, then R. Lee CAN once take 2 Pendants from this
> > contract. After e does so, this paragraph is removed. }
> >
> > }
> >
> > I think we're the only parties, so if you consent the change will be 
> > applied.
> >
> While you're at it, why not just add a general fix?

Good idea.

How about this:


Replace the two paragraphs starting "An Allowed Conversion" and
"Whenever this contract owns Credits" with the following two:

If X to Y is an Allowed Conversion, X is in Credits, and this contract
owns at least Y, then any player CAN pay a fee of X to take Y from it.
Players CANNOT destroy Credits in any other way.

If X to Y is an Allowed Conversion and Y is in credits, then every
time a player transfers X to this contract, e is granted Y.


New text:

{

-- Overview --

In a hurry to convert a couple of Cards? This contract permits exchange
of Cards for Products at a reasonable rate within a single message.

Players can also make a profit by doing card-to-product conversions for
this contract.

-- Basic use --

If this contract owns at least 2 of a type of Product, any player CAN
pay 1 of the corresponding Card to this contract to take 2 of that
Product from this contract.

-- Advanced use --

Victory Credits, Justice Credits, Legislative Credits and Voting Credits
are liquid currencies backed by this contract.

The Allowed Conversions are as follows:

* 1   Cardto 100 Credits
* 47  Credits to   1 Product
* 1   Product to  44 Credits
* 100 Credits to   1 Card

If X to Y is an Allowed Conversion, X is in Credits, and this contract
owns at least Y, then any player CAN pay a fee of X to take Y from it.
Players CANNOT destroy Credits in any other way.

If X to Y is an Allowed Conversion and Y is in credits, then every
time a player transfers X to this contract, e is granted Y.

When Cards and Products are destroyed due to a VP win, all Credits are
destroyed as well.

-- Management --

Any player CAN join or leave this contract by announcement.

Any player CAN by announcement transfer assets from this contract to the
Dragon Corporation, if explicitly permitted by the Dragon Corporation's
text.

If an Amendment Proposal for the Dragon Corporation is adopted (as
specified by the Dragon Corporation text) and specifies changes to this
contract, then first any parties to this contract who did not consent to
those changes ceases to be a party, and then the changes are applied.

}


- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Falsifian, Treasuror, Notary] Quickexchange use

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

lol, I think you need to retry now that I pf'd.

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 17:49, Becca Lee via agora-business
 wrote:
>
> Oops, I consent, take the pendants, and transfer them back to QE in
> exchange for 84 credits
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 3:48 AM James Cook via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 17:41, Becca Lee via agora-business
> >  wrote:
> > > Nice, I transfer 2 Pendants to QuickExchange
> >
> > Er... I think you just gave 2 Pendants to QE for free.
> >
> > I consent to the following amendment to the Dragon QuickExchange contract:
> >
> > {
> >
> > Append one paragraph at the end. It says: { If R. Lee has ever
> > transferred 2 Pendants to this contract not as part of a payment in
> > exchange for Credits, then R. Lee CAN once take 2 Pendants from this
> > contract. After e does so, this paragraph is removed. }
> >
> > }
> >
> > I think we're the only parties, so if you consent the change will be
> > applied.
> >
> > - Falsifian
> >
>
>
> --
> From R. Lee

DIS: Re: BUS: [Falsifian, Treasuror, Notary] Quickexchange use

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 17:47, James Cook  wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 17:41, Becca Lee via agora-business
>  wrote:
> > Nice, I transfer 2 Pendants to QuickExchange
>
> Er... I think you just gave 2 Pendants to QE for free.

I think you need to say you pay 1 Pendant in order to be granted 44
Legislative Credits. (Other wording might work, but if you don't say
what the payment is for, it certainly looks like a simple transfer.)

- Falsifian

DIS: Re: BUS: [Falsifian, Treasuror, Notary] Quickexchange use

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 17:41, Becca Lee via agora-business
 wrote:
> Nice, I transfer 2 Pendants to QuickExchange

Er... I think you just gave 2 Pendants to QE for free.

I consent to the following amendment to the Dragon QuickExchange contract:

{

Append one paragraph at the end. It says: { If R. Lee has ever
transferred 2 Pendants to this contract not as part of a payment in
exchange for Credits, then R. Lee CAN once take 2 Pendants from this
contract. After e does so, this paragraph is removed. }

}

I think we're the only parties, so if you consent the change will be applied.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Draft Regulations for Diplonomic Birthday Tournament

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Sun, 28 Jun 2020 at 01:30, Ed Strange via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> Im not sure this contract itself can technically override No Faking,
> however it should be clear from context as the game goes on that nobody
> intends their statenents to be true.

If it's still a worry, we could require all game messages to begin
with a disclaimer that they might be full of lies.

- Falsifian

DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday Tournament Regulations

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

Sorry, I didn't get around to reading these until now. Thanks for
going to the effort to write these! Comments inline.

> 4. The judge is the final arbitor on matters of this tournament, and eir
> decisions can overturned if and only if a CFJ finds eir decisions were

"can overturned"

> 8. At any time, any Contestant CAN submit a Proposal to change the rules
> by announcement. Any Contestant CAN withdraw any Proposal e has
> submitted by announcement. When a Proposal has been submitted but not
> withdrawn, any Contestant other than the Proposer CAN privately send a
> vote to the Judge. When a Proposal has received at least three
> non-withdrawn votes in favor, the Judge SHALL, in a timely fashion, and
> CAN enact the proposal by publishing the new text of the regulations and
> the number of votes in favor and against. The Judge SHALL NOT reveal the
> votes of specific Contestants.

Will this bog down the game once four players are eliminated from the
board but have majority voting power?

> 10. Contestants SHALL NOT offer favors outside of this Tournament in
> order to influence the outcome of it. Contestants CAN and SHOULD lie and
> engage in deceit for personal gain.

I think it would be good to forbid pledges, contracts or any other
enforcable agreements too.

> 16. Each turn represents six months of time. The first turn is called a
> Spring turn and the next a Fall turn. After each Fall turn, each Great
> Power must reconcile the number of units it controls with the number of
> supply centers it controls. At this time some units are removed and new
> ones are built. After a Fall turn, if one Great Power controls 18 or
> more supply centers, all other Contestants cease to be Contestants.

Maybe add "as specified elsewhere in these regulations" after "new
ones are built"? I was confused when I first read this regulation that
it's e.g. missing the requirement that you only build at home.

Also, I didn't realize I'm supposed to include this as conditionals in
my orders for the turn until re-reading. You might want to remind
players.

> 19. If two units of equal strength or which are equally supported are
> trying to occupy the same province, all remain where they began. If two
> or more units are ordered to the same province, none of them can move.

Shouldn't the one with more support win?

> If two units are each ordered to the province that the other occupies,
> neither can move.

Same (or is my Diplomacy knowledge rusty?)

> If an attack is successful, the attacking unit moves
> into the province to which it was ordered. If the unit that was attacked
> had no orders of its own to move elsewhere, it’s defeated and dislodged
> from the province. The dislodged unit must retreat or be disbanded.

"Attack" isn't defined. Would it make sense to phrase more neutrally
in terms of "move"?

- Falsifian

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

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Sun, 28 Jun 2020 at 23:07, nch via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On 6/23/20 7:33 PM, nch via agora-business wrote:
> > On 6/23/20 7:32 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> >> On 6/23/20 7:29 PM, nch via agora-business wrote:
> >>> I ditched the idea of Ready Proposals for something more similar to the
> >>> old disinterested proposals system. The way this works is by calling
> >>> proposals pended with pendants "sponsored" proposals, and making that a
> >>> condition of getting the LC and coin rewards. I left a support mechanism
> >>> for the Promotor because this scam convinced me that it's a good
> >>> mechanism (if there was no support mechanism, the opposition wouldn't
> >>> have been able to get their proposal in in time, which wouldn't have
> >>> been nearly as fun). We can tweak it as we see what happens with it.
> >>>
> >>> Also, while I was at it, I rewrote the second paragraph of Popular
> >>> Proposal Proposer Privilege. It should be functionally identical but
> >>> less verbose.
> >> So I forgot to rename this after changing the name of the system... I
> >> withdraw Interested Proposals and submit but do not pend the following
> >> proposal:
> >>
> >> {
> >>
> >> Title: Sponsored Proposals
> >> AI: 1.0
> >> Author: nch
> >> Coauthors: G., Trigon
> >>
> >> Amend R2622, "Pending Proposals", to read in full:
> >>
> >>  Pended is an untracked negative boolean proposal switch.
> >>
> >>  Any player CAN pay 1 Pendant to flip the Pended switch of a
> >>  specified proposal to True. If the player did not create the
> >>  proposal and is not listed in the list of co-authors of the
> >>  proposal, e is added to the list of co-authors. When e does so,
> >>  the proposal becomes sponsored.
> >>
> >>  The Promotor CAN, with 2+X support, flip the Pended switch of a
> >>  proposal in the Proposal Pool to true. For this, X is equal to the
> >>  number of times e has done so in the past 7 days.
> >>
> >>  Any player CAN, without objection, flip the Pended switch of a
> >>  proposal in the Proposal Pool to true.
> >>
> >>  A proposal with a Pended switch set to True is 'pending'.
> >>
> >> Repeal R2626 "Certifiable Patches".
> >>
> >> Amend R2623, "Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege", by replacing:
> >>
> >>  The player who proposed the adopted proposal whose referendum had
> >>  the greatest popularity among all referenda assessed in the last 7
> >>  days CAN once earn one Legislative Card by announcement, provided
> >>  that no referendum initiated in the same message as it remains
> >>  unresolved. If there is a tie, all authors of the tied proposals
> >>  can do so once each.
> >>
> >> with:
> >>
> >>  The author of the most popular sponsored proposal adopted in the
> >>  last 7 days CAN once earn one Legislative Card by announcement,
> >>  provided that no referenda initiated in the same message as it
> >>  remain unresolved. If there is a tie, all authors of the tied
> >>  proposals can do so once each.
> >>
> >> Amend R2496, "Rewards", by replacing "an adopted proposal" with "an
> >> adopted sponsored proposal".
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >> --
> >> nch
> >> Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
> >>
> >>
> > TTttPF
> >
> > --
> > nch
> > Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
> >
> >
> Does anyone have any thoughts or feedback on this? Don't want to pend it
> with no idea what anyone thinks about it.

Looks good to me.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Honor among Pirates [Attn. All "Pirates"]

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 21:45, nch via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On 6/16/20 3:17 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> > I could have just let this pass and banked some MAJOR coinage but the
> > long-term consequences of having people be paranoid about my contracts
> > isn't worth it imo, I much prefer to have people's trust that I won't
> > betray them on contracts. So, the thing is that there is a bug in the
> > Plunder contract - nobody could join because there was no join mechanism.
> >
> > So nobody became a Pirate. I suggest you all rejoin. I'm also adding the
> > latest Parley patch.
> >
> > I propose the following Parley:
> Since it was found that everyone did successfully join, this failed. And
> afaict Falsifian never resolved either eir intent to amend with consent
> of the party members or eir intent to ratify a version without objection.

The original Plundership text just said the contract is amended if 2/3
of Pirates agree. No additional triggering action is specified. So, I
think it was amended the moment the 2/3-th pirate agreed.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Contract charities

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 00:53, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion  wrote:
> On 6/26/20 8:45 PM, James Cook via agora-business wrote:
> >   This SHOULD only be done if the
> >   contract's provisions ensure that its funds will be used solely
> >   for the betterment of Agora.
>
> I think we should change this to:
>   This SHOULD only be done if the contract's provisions ensure that
>   the funds received from Agora will be used solely for the
>   betterment of Agora.
>
> Some contracts may receive both Agoran and private funds, and only the
> Agoran funds should be restricted.

That's a good point.

An alternative would be for such a contract to be split into two
pieces, like when a corporation has a charitable foundation attached
to it. I think that would be kind of fun so am inclined to leave the
text as is, but could be persuaded to change it.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:08, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On 6/26/2020 8:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote:
> >> The below CFJ is 3851.  I assign it to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
> >>
> >> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3851
> >>
> >> ===  CFJ 3851  ===
> >>
> >>   R. Lee attempted to perform a forbidden action in the message in
> >>   evidence.
> >>
> >> ==
> >> Caller:G.
> >> Barred:R. Lee
> >>
> >> Judge: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >>
> >> ==
> >>
> >> History:
> >>
> >> Called by G.: 19 Jun 2020 02:49:52
> >> Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:  [now]
> >>
> >> ==
> > First, let's look at the common language definition of "attempt", one of
> > which is "[To] make an effort to achieve or complete".[0] By this
> > definition, it seems clear that, since an intent is an effort to
> > complete the intended action, R. Lee did attempt to perform a forbidden
> > action; however, we should also look to the use of "attempt" as a term
> > of art in jurisprudence. Here, we find possibly conflicting definitions:
> > "Any act that is more than merely preparatory to the intended commission
> > of a crime"[1] and "the crime of having the intent to commit and taking
> > action in an effort to commit a crime that fails or is prevented".[2]
> > The second of these is clearly fulfilled as R. Lee stated eir intent
> > publicly and took action towards the commission of the crime, but the
> > first rests upon whether the intent was "merely preparatory". Given that
> > the statement of intent was a necessary condition for the later
> > commission of the crime and could not have reasonably served any other
> > purpose, I find that the intent was more than merely preparatory. Given
> > that the three definitions are agreeable with respect to the
> > circumstances, we need not further analyze which is best to use. As a
> > result, I assign a judgment of TRUE to CFJ 3851.
> >
>
> Actuallly I forgot about this, but I thought of something else here.
>
> I took it for granted that changing the ruleset below Power=4 to "Meep"
> would ossify agora.  However, this would remove the explicit definition of
> contract, which would make the document (potentially) a "common-law"
> agreement that in Agoran custom, could be modified by the consent of all
> parties.
>
> And we'd still have the description of agora in Rules 101 and 1689.
>
> And you can make various arguments like - R101 still tells us a little
> about the pieces we need to change an agreement (parties and an agreed
> forum).  Before the change we knew who the parties were, and we didn't
> explicitly change that so they're the same; before the change we knew what
> "public" meant, so that's still a common-law method of determining proof
> of consent, etc.  Also noting the recent judgement (on shines) that found
> that rules-terms could persist in custom more than previously allowed.
>
> Or just tell me I'm silly and obviously the change would ossify agora,
> that's fine too...
>
> -G.

I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with
just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest
out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly.

It doesn't sound that silly for Agora to still work with just the
power-4 rules plus Meeps. The rules sort of say "There are fora; you
say your actions over the fora; proposals change the gamestate; here's
an example "fountain" rule some people made; now go have fun!"

Given the absence of other guidance, R1698 might be interpreted as
implying that the players can adopt proposals, and that they take
effect unless they would ossify Agora.

- Falsifian

DIS: Re: BUS: [Dragon] Rejoining

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 21:35, Aris Merchant via agora-business
 wrote:
> I don't think I ever consented to the latest amendment, so I believe I
> am no longer a party. I become a party to the Dragon Corporation.
>
> -Aris

Oops, welcome back! Sorry, probably should have bumped that thread first.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Statement from the Opposition

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 19:39, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:36 PM nch via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > On 6/25/20 2:35 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:16 PM nch via agora-discussion
> > >  > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 6/25/20 2:11 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> > > > Free Tournaments require only 2 Agoran consent to initiate, while
> > > > Emergency Regulations require 3, so the easiest option is a Free
> > > > Tournament that automatically grants a certain person the win.
> > > However,
> > > > this intent is also vetoable by the Speaker, which would be
> > > incentivized
> > > > to do so in order to keep eir post. This means that bribing the
> > > current
> > > > Speaker with a free win might be the best option. This would
> > > also remove
> > > > the need to control Prime Minister.
> > >
> > > Making up a fake win is better than a scam win? Also this can't be
> > > done
> > > in time. The only way you can delay us long enough would allow us to
> > > delay this long enough.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes. Part of the fun of scams is that they should be resisted using
> > > any legal game mechanic. If it requires producing an extra win, so be it.
> > >
> > > -Aris
> >
> > How is that different than a scam at that point?
> >
>
> It's a matter of purpose, not of form. The purpose is to block the scam. We
> don't want someone to win because we want a win, we want someone to win
> because we can't think of a better way of blocking your scam. When someone
> starts a scam, everyone will do everything they can to block it. It's
> like... once you start using scam tactics, it becomes fair play to use them
> back against you.
>
> -Aris

This is an attitude I hadn't been aware of.

My goals in Agora are: win; make sure nobody else wins; and other
stuff like having fun. I never thought of preventing scams as an end
in itself. I am not inclined to support a free win for some other
player just to prevent a different set of wins. Maybe I would support
an "everyone wins" free tournament, because me winning with everyone
else is better than me being left out of a win?

- Falsifian

Re: [Attn: G.] Re: Contract charities (was Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification)

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 17:03, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On 6/25/2020 9:33 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 14:00, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> >  wrote:
> >> On 6/24/2020 8:47 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> >>> Bump. Here's an updated text; all I did was remove the once-per-month
> >>> restriction. G., what do you think about submitting this before nch's
> >>> and R. Lee's possible victory? I'm happy to pend it (assuming
> >>> DracoLotto worked as intended).
> >>
> >> I'm 99% sure the victory will either succeed or fail before this can be
> >> voted on (quite possibly before it's distributed) so I don't see an issue
> >> there?
> >>
> >> -G.
> >
> > My concern is that our Pendants will disappear. Just trying to save on
> > the pending cost.
>
> Oh - you mean "does this count as tweaking the game too soon" in general,
> because you might rush to pend?  I might leave that to nch this seems like
> a nice feature not a big tweak but others may vary...
>
> -G.

I don't think that's what I meant either...

I think it's a nice and simple proposal. I would submit and pend it
myself now, but I don't want to steal authorship from you. I'm
suggesting there's a (very mild) urgency because we have some Pendants
that could disappear at any moment, and I don't want them to go to
waste.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Talismans Auction Patch

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 16:39, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion  wrote:
> On 6/25/20 12:37 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 14:05, Jason Cobb via agora-business
> >  wrote:
> >> I submit the following proposal:
> >>
> >> Title: Talismans auction patch
> >>
> >> Author: Jason
> >>
> >> Coauthors: Trigon
> >>
> >> Adoption index: 2.0
> >>
> >> {
> >>
> >> Amend Rule 1885 by deleting the sentence beginning "The method to be
> >> used for this auction".
> >>
> >> [This fixes a specification bug in the talismans proposal, since
> >> auctions are now supposed to have their method determined by the
> >> auctioneer, rather than a rule. If talismans has not been adopted, then
> >> this will have no effect.]
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jason Cobb
> >
> > This also means the Registrar rather than the Treasuror is in charge
> > of figuring out how zombie auctions work, which I'm happy with given
> > the Treasuror is defining a good default for when I'm feeling lazy.
> >
> > - Falsifian
> >
>
> For simplicity, would it be possible for the Registrar to adopt
> regulations defering to the Treasuror's regulations?

I'm not sure where Registrar regulations come into the picture... are
you requesting that I run zombie auctions according to one of the
methods defined in the Treasuror's regulations?

I think that's a good idea for the first zombie auction, since we
should test those regulations.

For later ones, I'm not sure. I'll almost certainly circulate a draft
before trying anything fancy.

- Falsifian

Re: [Attn. R. Lee] Re: DIS: [Reportor] Last Week in Agora

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 15:45, nch via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On 6/25/20 10:43 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:
> > The Discord invite link no longer works. It probably expired; Discord
> > invites expire after a week or 3 days or something by default.
> >
> > On 6/24/2020 11:20 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> >> https://discord.gg/UGxm3v  --- Agora suddenly has an unofficial Discord
> >> server. This happened when a downside of Agora's recent increased
> >> activity becomes impossible to ignore: the activity is hard to keep up
> >> with, and it might even be scaring new players away. There was some
> >> discussion of different strategies, but for now R. Lee went ahead and
> >> just created the server.
> > --
> > ATMunn
> > friendly neighborhood notary here :)
>
> Forgot that, by default, discord links expire. Here's one that doesn't
> expire: https://discord.gg/JCC6YGc
>
> --
> nch
> Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Thanks. Updated in the online version of last week's summary, in case
people check for it there.

- Falsifian

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Talismans Auction Patch

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 14:05, Jason Cobb via agora-business
 wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Talismans auction patch
>
> Author: Jason
>
> Coauthors: Trigon
>
> Adoption index: 2.0
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 1885 by deleting the sentence beginning "The method to be
> used for this auction".
>
> [This fixes a specification bug in the talismans proposal, since
> auctions are now supposed to have their method determined by the
> auctioneer, rather than a rule. If talismans has not been adopted, then
> this will have no effect.]
>
> }
>
> --
> Jason Cobb

This also means the Registrar rather than the Treasuror is in charge
of figuring out how zombie auctions work, which I'm happy with given
the Treasuror is defining a good default for when I'm feeling lazy.

- Falsifian

Re: [Attn: G.] Re: Contract charities (was Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification)

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 14:00, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On 6/24/2020 8:47 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Bump. Here's an updated text; all I did was remove the once-per-month
> > restriction. G., what do you think about submitting this before nch's
> > and R. Lee's possible victory? I'm happy to pend it (assuming
> > DracoLotto worked as intended).
>
> I'm 99% sure the victory will either succeed or fail before this can be
> voted on (quite possibly before it's distributed) so I don't see an issue
> there?
>
> -G.

My concern is that our Pendants will disappear. Just trying to save on
the pending cost.

- Falsifian

DIS: Re: OFF: Report Routing

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 04:40, Aris Merchant via agora-official
 wrote:
> I would prefer for Reportor reports to be sent to OFF, even in the absence
> of a rule making the Reportor an office. People often read OFF to get a
> summary of game affairs at a given time. The Reportor's entries are
> astoundingly useful for that purpose. What does everyone else think about
> this?
>
> Also, great work Falsifian! There's a lot going on, and you're doing an
> amazing job.
>
> -Aris

Sure, I'll start sending to OFF (remind me if I forget).

Yeah, I'm hoping the summaries will be useful for future historical research.

- Falsifian

[Attn: G.] Re: Contract charities (was Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification)

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 19:30, James Cook  wrote:
> > The idea of a contract charity (which we've done before) is intriguing and
> > this makes me want to go for the strongest standard (w/o objection).
>
> I was just in the middle of drafting a Reportor contract. Here's a
> copy of your proto for charity contracts from last month:
>
> > Proto
> > -
> > Enact the following rule, Charities:
> >
> >   Donation Level is a natural switch for contracts, tracked by the
> >   Notary, with a default of 0 and a maximum of 25.  A contract with
> >   nonzero donation level is called a Charity.
> >
> >   The Notary CAN flip a contract's donation level to a non-default
> >   value with 3 Agoran consent, provided e has not done so for any
> >   contract in the current Agoran month.  This SHOULD only be done if
> >   the contract's provisions ensure that its funds will be used solely
> >   for the betterment of Agora.  Any player CAN flip a contract's
> >   donation level to 0 with Agoran consent.
> >
> >   Whenever a payday occurs, half of each charity's coin holdings
> >   (rounded down) are destroyed, and then each charity earns a
> >   number of coins equal to its donation level.
> >
> > [the 'half are destroyed' bit is because we don't want charities to build
> > up big bankrolls if they don't give things away].
>
> DIS thread "simple way to give out funds". A few thoughts there
> already, e.g. removing the one-per-month limit.
>
> - Falsifian

Bump. Here's an updated text; all I did was remove the once-per-month
restriction. G., what do you think about submitting this before nch's
and R. Lee's possible victory? I'm happy to pend it (assuming
DracoLotto worked as intended).

Enact the following rule, Charities:

  Donation Level is a natural switch for contracts, tracked by the
  Notary, with a default of 0 and a maximum of 25.  A contract with
  nonzero donation level is called a Charity.

  The Notary CAN flip a contract's donation level to a non-default
  value with 3 Agoran consent.  This SHOULD only be done if the
  contract's provisions ensure that its funds will be used solely
  for the betterment of Agora.  Any player CAN flip a contract's
  donation level to 0 with Agoran consent.

  Whenever a payday occurs, half of each charity's coin holdings
  (rounded down) are destroyed, and then each charity earns a
  number of coins equal to its donation level.

- Falsifian

DIS: [Reportor] Last Week in Agora

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

Archived at https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Reportor/tree/master/weekly_summaries

Report for the week of 2020-06-15..21:


# Summary

Welcome Zyborg!

https://discord.gg/UGxm3v --- Agora suddenly has an unofficial Discord
server. This happened when a downside of Agora's recent increased
activity becomes impossible to ignore: the activity is hard to keep up
with, and it might even be scaring new players away. There was some
discussion of different strategies, but for now R. Lee went ahead and
just created the server.

We have a new PM, a new Notary, shiny new reports, some new things on
the Web, and some possible regulations for the Github org. We might even
be getting a new logo soon! See the "Offices, reports, website" section.

There was debate this week about the Certification rule, starting with a
question about what the Rulekeepor is allowed to certify. Eventually R.
Lee just decided to start illegally certifying everything. The economics
of proposal costs, and alternative proposals, were discussed.

A healthy batch of proposals was adopted this week, but some had bugs
preventing them from being applied. New proposals up for voting include
a new Card-based subgame, officer regulations, and a term limit for the
Prime Minister.

Agora's current Contract craze continues: lots of trading and other
Contract-based activity going on. Even space in Trigon's signature is
for sale. See "Contracts and trading" below.

Plenty of fixes and patches large and small are in the works, including
handling zombies with assets instead of switches. See "Proposals to fix,
simplify, etc" and "Other Proposals" below. Plenty more rule-related
questions in the "Rules questions" section.


# Email volume and chat clients

Bögtil triggers a discussion on moving some discussion to chat rooms
when e announces that e is leaving for now in the thread "Leaving"
(retitled to "Leaving or something like that").

There's discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of IRC,
Discord, Matrix and other options, which is continued in the threads
"[Poll] A chat client for Agora" and "Fora and Accessibility", and a
small side-discussion on archiving (thread: "Archival Continuity and
Discussion Accessibility").

R. Lee goes ahead and creates a Discord server at
https://discord.gg/UGxm3v , and nch reports some activity. Thread:
"Action Is better than words"


# Certification debate

There's debate about how and whether it should be possible to pend
bugfix proposals for free.

* Partly the debate this week is triggered by Jason's argument that
  being Rulekeepor means all rules bugs relate to em so e's allowed to
  certify patches. Threads: "Black ribbon patch", "CFJ 3853 Assigned to
  nch"; this is also mentioned in the Rules questions section.

* There's some discussion of the economic implications of being able to
  pend any proposal for a blot penalty in the thread "Black ribbon
  patch".

* When CFJ 3853 is assigned to nch, e says: "As someone who strongly
  opposed the relevant rule, specifically because of its ambiguity, I
  feel like I've been Cassandra'd." - nch

* Aris starts the thread "How and Whether to Change Patch Certification"
  for discussion.

* R. Lee proposes to make patching unconditionally a crime. Thread: "We
  Might As Well Be Honest". The retitling of Rule 2626 to "Costly
  Certification" in eir proposal probably relates to this econonic
  perspective.

* R. Lee then just goes ahead and certififies everything, then points
  eir finger at emself, in the thread "actually fuck it".

* nch proposes a change which allows (effectively) pending without
  objection, and also tracks such proposals as "Special" instead of
  "Pending". Thread: "Ready Proposals"


# Voting, and adoption of proposals

* The decisions on whether to adopt Proposals 8431-8441 are resolved.
  Adopted:

  * Reduce rewards for high-AI proposals (8431)

  * Lower the bar for motions of no confidence, and stress they're not
personal (8434, 8435)

  * Remove much of the Defense Against the Dark Arts rule (8437)

  * Give the Tailor an official weekly reporting duty (8438)

  * Allow election candidates to withdraw (8439)

* The Rulekeepor identifies bugs in Proposals 8412, 8426 and 8429 that
  prevent them from being applied. Thread: "Notes on Application of
  Proposals 8409-8430"

  * R. Lee proposes fixes. Thread: "Rulekeeping Bug Fixes"

* Voting begins on Proposals 8442-8457:

  * A subgame involving Cards. (8442)

  * A term limit for Prime Minister. (8443)

  * Change "in an officially timely fashion" to "in a sedate fashion".
(8444)

  * Make it easier to change rule titles. (8445)

  * Auction off Victory Cards. (8446)

  * Ban scams involving new rules. (8447)

  * Another pass at officer-approved administrative regulations with an
application for the Herald (8448, 8449)

* The difference from the previous attempt is that now all players,
  not just officers, are eligible to support or object to
  regulations.

* G. 

Re: DIS: [Notary] Web Report Survey

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

> - Should everything be in one long webpage, or should each contract be
> split into its own page?

Having a one-page version available would be convenient for searching.

- Falsifian

DIS: Re: BUS: Petty corruption

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

> I transfer a voting card from omd to myself.

Nothing about omd's promise makes this text effective.

However, omd granted you a Voting Card when you cashed the promise, so
I think the end effect is what you intended.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Why did PAoaM fail?

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 00:15, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> It's generally agreed that the PAoaM economic model didn't work out. Unlike
> the shinies economy, which is generally agreed to have suffered from
> unpredictable boom bust cycles that were more annoying than anything else,
> I don't know any consensus about why it failed. And unlike Politics, which
> was IMO an excellent system that failed almost entirely due to simple
> disinterest, in PAoaM's case I think there was a problem in the economy
> itself. What was the problem? Why did PAoaM fail?
>
> I'm thinking about future possible economies, which I may discuss further
> on the Discord. Nothing near term (we have sets right now), just things we
> can transition to when we get bored of this economic model. Not knowing why
> PAoaM failed makes it hard to avoid the same fate.
>
> -Aris

What's PAoaM?

I'm looking forward to nch's Economics thesis, if e is still working on it!

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: [DracoLotto Administrator] Draft Lottery Resolution

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 00:50, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> [Here's my draft resolution for the DracoLotto. Please look it over
> and let me know if you see any errors.]

I skimmed it and didn't notice any errors. The Treasuror going through
the public version is likely our best double-check that everything
went right, for better or worse.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Put the discord on the agora home page

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 21:16, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On 6/22/2020 1:55 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 20:53, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
> > agora-discussion  wrote:
> >> On 6/22/20 4:06 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> >>> On 6/22/20 3:00 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 6/22/20 3:50 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> >>>>> I can do that without objection
> >>>> I can save everyone time by saying that I will object.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> 
> >>>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate
> >>>> Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
> >>>
> >>> Can I ask what detriment you feel there is to having an extra optional
> >>> discussion forum? We already have the irc and it doesn't seem to impede
> >>> normal play...
> >>>
> >>
> >> For me, I am concerned that it could normalize the use of a proprietary,
> >> locked-in platform as an official place of discussion.
> >
> > My concern exactly.
>
> It's a place that a critical mass of agorans are currently hanging out so
> as long as that's true, it should be advertised somehow regularly to be
> open/welcoming to newcomers.   Maybe at the top of the Newspaper, I dunno.
> Whether than makes it worth a buried mention in the Registrar's report
> alongside the nearly entirely defunct IRC channel is more of a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯,
> tho having the IRC listed while we're all over on discord pretty much
> confirms our fuddy-duddy nature...

Added it to the Registrar weekly (as Foreign asterisk)
https://agoranomic.org/Registrar/weekly/fresh.txt

I'll mention it in the Reportor summary for last week too.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Put the discord on the agora home page

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

> I still think it would be nice to have a party in Aris's and Jacob's
> MUD some time : ) (Could *that* be bridged to IRC/Discord?)
>
> - Falsifian

Er, sorry, Jason. (I shouldn't try to write emails while distracted.)

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Put the discord on the agora home page

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 21:05, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion  wrote:
> On 6/22/20 5:02 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 1:55 PM James Cook via agora-discussion
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 20:53, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
> >> agora-discussion  wrote:
> >>> On 6/22/20 4:06 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> >>>> On 6/22/20 3:00 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> On 6/22/20 3:50 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> >>>>>> I can do that without objection
> >>>>> I can save everyone time by saying that I will object.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate
> >>>>> Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
> >>>>
> >>>> Can I ask what detriment you feel there is to having an extra optional
> >>>> discussion forum? We already have the irc and it doesn't seem to impede
> >>>> normal play...
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> For me, I am concerned that it could normalize the use of a proprietary,
> >>> locked-in platform as an official place of discussion.
> >>
> >> My concern exactly.
> >
> > Would you two be less concerned if there were an IRC-Discord bridge?
> >
> > -Aris
> >
>
> I would be less concerned but still somewhat concerned. If that were set
> up, I'd still want to ensure that the official designation were given to
> the general location and not specifically the Discord interface for it.

Same. Personally I feel a little guilty asking for someone to go to
the effort, though, since I don't expect to use it a lot. I do think
it's nice R. Lee went to the effort already to set up a discussion
channel people (apparently) are more likely to use than IRC.

I still think it would be nice to have a party in Aris's and Jacob's
MUD some time : ) (Could *that* be bridged to IRC/Discord?)

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Put the discord on the agora home page

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 20:53, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion  wrote:
> On 6/22/20 4:06 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On 6/22/20 3:00 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion
> > wrote:
> >> On 6/22/20 3:50 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> >>> I can do that without objection
> >> I can save everyone time by saying that I will object.
> >>
> >> --
> >> 
> >> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate
> >> Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
> >
> > Can I ask what detriment you feel there is to having an extra optional
> > discussion forum? We already have the irc and it doesn't seem to impede
> > normal play...
> >
>
> For me, I am concerned that it could normalize the use of a proprietary,
> locked-in platform as an official place of discussion.

My concern exactly.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: How to keep up

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 03:16, Zyborg Mao via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> I just signed up and already have 50+ messages. I'm not sure how to deal
> with this. Any hints/tips?

You could see if my weekly summaries help:
https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Reportor/tree/master/weekly_summaries

Not a complete solution (especially since they're delayed) but this is
one of the reasons I started writing them.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Put the discord on the agora home page

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 1:12 PM Rebecca via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > See title
> >
> > Also all should join it, it has been a fun and very active atmosphere,
> > although too small.


On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 03:17, Rebecca via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> https://discord.gg/FwmJW8

You might consider trying to switch the Publicity of that forum from
Foreign to Discussion (R478).

As Registrar I can do that without objection, but I have mixed
feelings about endorsing a proprietary service. I would rather see it
done by proposal (and I'm not sure how I'd vote).

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: is this too morbid?

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:00 PM ATMunn via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I feel like I vaguely recall this being discussed at some point
> > previously, but I thought I would go for it anyways.
> >
> > I initiate a Call for Judgement on the following statement: "If a player
> > dies unbeknownst to all persons involved in Agora, e is still a person."
> >
> > Rule 869 states that
> >Any organism that is generally capable of freely originating and
> >communicating independent thoughts and ideas is a person. Rules to
> >the contrary notwithstanding, no other entities are persons.
> >
> > If someone dies, e is no longer capable of freely originating and
> > communicating independent thoughts and ideas; therefore, e is not a
> > person. FALSE.
> >
> > ...but if nobody knows that e died, then e has to still be a person. We
> > can't assume without proof that anyone is dead and declare em not a
> > person. So PARADOXICAL? Maybe?
> >
> > --
> > ATMunn
> > friendly neighborhood notary here :)

On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 02:05, Rebecca via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3411

Past discussions:

It came up in the discussion thread "The Very Worst Thing That Could
Possibly Happen (Attn. Distributor)" in Jan-Feb. Maye start at
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-January/056441.html

>From that thread, this Oct 2018 thread "What if a player dies?" was
linked, with the comment that discussion petered out with no
conclusion: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg45140.html

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Action Is better than words

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 at 20:13, nch via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On 6/20/20 8:47 PM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote:
> > Therefore, please join this discord server I made
> > https://discord.gg/UGxm3v
> >
> > Tell me what channels you want all up in there and stuff
> > --
> >  From R. Lee
>
> Just wanted to point out since this isn't obvious on the list: 6 of us
> joined last night and there's been a decent amount of chatter, some of
> which has actually been productive and some of which has just been fun
> in a way the lists aren't conductive towards. I don't think it's been in
> any way detrimental to the lists.

Thanks for the report! Let me know if anything happens worth
mentioning in the weekly summaries.

- Falsifian

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

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 22:02, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On 6/20/2020 2:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I don't think we need continuity/historicity on every card transfer, and
> > the only reason for some of the other reports to have timestamped
> > documents (e.g. Treasuror) is to have self-ratified rollback points.
>
> What do people think about a type of self-ratification that ratifies a
> particular git commit as being the authoritative version?  That's
> cloneable if any single platform flakes on us.

What's the advantage over just including the text to be ratified in the message?

Also, we could probably already do this under the current rules. Just
ratify the document at path X at git commit Y (and include a link
where it can be found at the time the message is sent).

- Falsifian

DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] let's just match the promotor's reality shall we

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 at 15:52, Kerim Aydin via agora-business
 wrote:
> [This confuses everyone regularly, except Aris.  Let's just make it clear]
>
> I submit the following proposal "no backdating needed", AI-3:
>
> 
>
> Amend Rule 1607 (Distribution) by replacing:
>   The Promotor's report includes a list of all proposals in the
>   Proposal Pool
> with:
>   The Promotor's report includes a list of all proposals that were
>   in the Proposal Pool at the beginning of the current Agoran week
>
> 

Should we do it with other reports too? This would help us get
complete snapshots. If we really wanted to, we could even split asset
tracking between Dealor/Treasuror as mentioned in the other thread and
still have snapshots.

Dunno how much complete snapshots matter outside of asset tracking.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Fora and Accessibility

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

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

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

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

- Falsifian

DIS: Draft Reportor contract

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

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

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

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

Title: Agoran Press

{

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

-- Joining and leaving --

Parties to this contract are called Reportors.

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

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

-- Assignment --

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

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

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

The Weekly Assignment can be transferred as follows:

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

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

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

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

-- Payment --

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

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

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

-- Amendment --

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

}

- Falsifian

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

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

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

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

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

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

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

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

One voter's perspective:

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

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

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

- Falsifian

DIS: [Reportor] Last Week in Agora

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

Archived at https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Reportor/tree/master/weekly_summaries

Report for the week of 2020-06-08..14:


# Summary

nch's long-awaited Sets economy was adopted this week, and we've already
seen three contracts for moving Cards and Products around (one of which
has been revealed to be a scam, so far) as well as proposals for new
rules to go with Sets.

There's nothing like an imminent proposal pending fee to get Agorans'
creativity flowing. Sets comes as part of a massive two rounds of
resolved proposals this week, with many changes adopted including a
drastic change to auctions. A large number were distributed this week as
well.

We saw a rare victory by the difficult mechanism of Raising a Banner,
almost drowned out by the intense buzz of activity around Sets. This
makes G. our latest Champion. G. was also honoured for eir academic
work, receiving a Juris Doctor of Nomic. And on the subject of culture,
the proposal awarding the 2016 Silver Quill was adopted this week.

nch was elected Webmastor, and immediately gave Agora's website some
well-deserved attention, and also staged a benevolent Github coup (for
our protection). Other elections are under way: voting began for Prime
Minister, and our new ADoP started another ADoP election to give the old
one a chance to fight to get it back.

Most active players hop on a new pirate ship to loot the Lost and Found
Department. Is it really piracy if it's done without objection?

That's only the tip of the iceberg. Plenty of other happenings this
week, from proposed judicial reforms to actions in Spanish to an occult
store, listed below.


# Polls, report formats, putting things on the web, and a new person

* The Webmastor asks some questions to Agorans. Thread: "[Webmastor]
  Informal Polling"

  * New poster lucidot makes eir first Agora posts in this thread,
giving some feedback, and is welcomed.

  * Discussion topics include what should go on the home page, the
experience for new players, and how to easily put reports on the
web.

* The Treasuror drafts a new format for eir reports (now that there are
  many kinds of asset for em to track), including an HTML version on the
  web, and gets feedback in the thread "[Treasuror] New Report Format"

* Webmastor nch reduces the number of owners in the Agoranomic Github
  org. There's some discussion about how to pick the set of owners.
  Thread: "[Webmastor] A Github Coup"

* The Webmastor makes some small updates to the homepage. Thread:
  "[Webmastor] Tiny Homepage Updates"

* A tweak to the Assessor's assessment format is suggested and
  implemented in the thread "Resolution of Proposals 8409-8430"


# Games and the Sets Economy

* The Sets economy (Proposal 8408) is adopted.

* G. proposes a game built on the new Sets economy. Thread: "Barrel
  rolling"

  * There's some debate about phrasing triggering R2579 to make winning
require payment of 100 barrels, and whether winning the game is an
action.

* G. proposes to rephrase winning by paradox to be a new action
  (Transcending Logic) which causes winning, to address potential
  bugs related to fee-based actions and whether winning the game is
  an action. Thread: "indirect wins"

* The question of whether winning the game should be an action comes
  up in the thread "ribbon win question".

  * There's discussion of ways players could collude to win.

* G. proposes regular auctions of Victory Cards together with assets
  owned by the Lost and Found Department. Thread: "Victory auctions"

* There's some discussion about possible economic loopholes in Sets and
  related proposals, and whether this is an unavoidable part of starting
  a new system. Thread: "Victory auctions"

  * Cuddlebeam proposes to ban scamming rules less than 90 days old.

* ATMunn drafts a proposal for "amulets" that are auctioned off and
  grant powers. Discussion includes mention of an earlier proto "Stones"
  by G., tuning the power of the amulets, the possibility of an unusual
  auction mechanism, and pooling resources.

* Trading and pooling:

  * The Needlessly Abstract Exchange gets tested out. Mistake(s) are
made and bugs are fixed. Threads have "NAX" in the subject line.

  * Contracts for pooling Cards to efficiently convert them to Products:

* Aris announces DracoLotto, a pooling contract where the Dragon
  Corporation contract earning some profit. Same players contribute.
  Thread: "DracoLotto"

* R. Lee announces the Combinotron, which does not take a profit. E
  later reveals it to be an attempted scam and destroys it,
  forgetting that e had transferred some of eir assets to it, which
  go to the Lost and Found Department (L). Discussion turns to a
  question about specifying assets when announcing intent to
  transfer assets from the L Threads: "[Important and Very Cool
  Contract] Combinotron", 'Fine, I destroy "Combinotron"'

  * Cuddlebeam suggests making a contract to 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Non-fee based mechanisms for fee-based actions

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 03:32, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On 6/18/20 11:29 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> > What would the text look like then? (I don't follow how the "invoke"
> > phrasing relates to the requirement about specifying zero fee.)
>
>
> I would phrase it as "If a fee-based method to perform an action has a
> fee of no assets, that action CAN be performed by announcement, but the
> actor SHOULD announce that there was a 0 or empty fee." (just dropping
> the "invoke" phrasing entirely).
>
> --
> Jason Cobb

Thanks, looks good.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Non-fee based mechanisms for fee-based actions

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

> >> If the Rules define a fee-based mechanism to perform an action, but the
> >> specified set of assets is the empty set, then the mechanism can be
> >> invoked by announcement, but the announcement must include that there is
> >> an (empty or 0) fee for the mechanism.
> > I'm not sure if the meaning of "invoking" a mechanism/method is clear
> > enough. What if we kept "then the action can be performed by
> > announcement" here? I don't feel strongly; both versions seem vaguely
> > fishy to me for different reasons.
> >
> > - Falsifian
>
>
> Yeah, I knew the "invoke" phrasing was weird when I wrote it, and the
> rules only define performing actions by announcement, not using methods
> by announcement. The cleanest solution might be to just drop the
> requirement of announcing a zero fee (or turn it into a SHOULD).
>
> --
> Jason Cobb

What would the text look like then? (I don't follow how the "invoke"
phrasing relates to the requirement about specifying zero fee.)

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] What's a card game without a deck?

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 20:37, ATMunn via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> Here's a proto-proposal I came up with somewhat on the spot. Opinions
> welcome.
>
>
> Title: The Deck
> AI: 1.0
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-author(s):
>
> Enact a power-1 rule entitled "The Deck" with the following text:
> The Deck is an entity. The Deck CAN own Cards, but no other types of
> assets.
>
> If the Deck owns at least one Card, any player CAN pay 10 coins to
> Draw a Card. When a player does so, the Dealor CAN by announcement,
> and SHALL in a timely fashion, transfer a Card from the Deck to the
> player who Drew a Card. The Dealor SHALL make the choice of which
> card to transfer randomly, with the probability of each type of Card
> being exactly proportional to the number of that Card that the Deck
> owns. Failure to use random chance in this transfer is the Class-2
> Crime of Stacking the Deck.

It seems ambiguous whether the probability of drawing a Justice card
is proportional to the number of Justice Cards, or the probability of
drawing *each* justice card is. (I'm pretty sure the former is what's
intended.)

I think changing "make the choice of which card" to "make the choice
of which type of card" would fix the ambiguity.

(Example: if the Deck owns a. Justice, b. Justice, c. Victory, then we
don't want to say the distribution is 2/5, 2/5, 1/5.)

> The Dealor's includes the card ownership of the Deck.

a word

(Also, the Treasuror already would need to report this. Does it help
to have two officers reporting it?)

- Falsifian

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Non-fee based mechanisms for fee-based actions

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

> If the Rules associate payment of a set of actions (hereafter the fee

s/actions/assets/

> for the action; syns: cost, price charge) with performing an action,

You lost a comma after "price".

> that mechanism for performing that action is a fee-based mechanism.

Shouldn't it be "method" rather than "mechanism"? (Everywhere in the proposal.)

The rules do talk about mechanisms in some places. I'm not sure what
the difference is, but e.g. R2125 and 1728 use the word "method" for
the sort of thing I think this proposal is trying to describe.

> If the Rules define a fee-based mechanism to perform an action, but the
> specified set of assets is the empty set, then the mechanism can be
> invoked by announcement, but the announcement must include that there is
> an (empty or 0) fee for the mechanism.

I'm not sure if the meaning of "invoking" a mechanism/method is clear
enough. What if we kept "then the action can be performed by
announcement" here? I don't feel strongly; both versions seem vaguely
fishy to me for different reasons.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Fixing fee-based actions (was winning - more direct or less direct?)

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 02:54, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On 6/18/20 10:47 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> > I don't have a strong preference but just directly winning does seem 
> > simpler.
> >
> > Either way I think R2579 should be clarified so it's clear that a
> > fee-based win method doesn't make all other win methods also require
> > that fee.
> >
> > I haven't reviewed this carefully, but here's a quick proto amendment to 
> > R2579:
>
>
> I already submitted (w/o pending) a proposal at [0], but it could use
> another set of eyes.
>
> [0]:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-June/043448.html

Sorry, yeah, just saw it. Catching up slowly...

- Falsifian

DIS: Fixing fee-based actions (was winning - more direct or less direct?)

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 17:36, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> Minor discussion topic here.
>
> Right now, as evidenced by recent CFJ, the rules are in a slightly weird
> place in winning where sometimes you do a thing (Raise a Banner) that
> causes you to win, and sometimes what you do is "win by announcement" if
> certain conditions are met.  These can break in different ways so the
> inconsistency may be frustrating.  So, if we were to try to regularize
> this somehow, we could go "more direct" or "less direct".
>
> More direct:  Winning is always an action, and everything is re-written as
> something like:  "A Player CAN win by (some type of announcement, perhaps
> involving fees or other expenditures on the player's part, if conditions
> are met)."  Implication here is that if someone tries to win, and
> conditions aren't met, nothing happens (e.g. if you paid a fee to win, but
> you have some blots, the fee isn't paid and you keep your money).
>
> Less direct:  Something like ribbons:  A player who performs certain
> actions "earns" the right to award emself a win (say for 7 days), but e
> can't actually do so if another rule says e can't win.  So e can earn the
> win condition (say by a fee), expunge eir blots, and then actually award
> emself the win if e does it within the time limit.  However, if e times
> out before e expunges eir blots, e doesn't get a win and eir fee is lost.
>
> We've had both ways in the past (either seems workable).  No preference
> myself except that the current ambiguous middle-ground could use a push in
> one direction or the other?
>
> -G.

I don't have a strong preference but just directly winning does seem simpler.

Either way I think R2579 should be clarified so it's clear that a
fee-based win method doesn't make all other win methods also require
that fee.

I haven't reviewed this carefully, but here's a quick proto amendment to R2579:

--

Replace the first sentence with

If the Rules define payment of a set of assets (hereafter the fee
for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) as a method for performing
an action, that method is a fee-based method.

Replace "To perform a fee-based action" with "To use a fee-based method".

Replace "If the Rules define a fee-based action" with "If the Rules
define a fee-based method".

- Falsifian

DIS: Re: BUS: Honor among Pirates [Attn. All "Pirates"]

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 20:17, Cuddle Beam via agora-business
 wrote:
> I could have just let this pass and banked some MAJOR coinage but the
> long-term consequences of having people be paranoid about my contracts
> isn't worth it imo, I much prefer to have people's trust that I won't
> betray them on contracts. So, the thing is that there is a bug in the
> Plunder contract - nobody could join because there was no join mechanism.

It's not obvious to me that it doesn't work without a mechanism.

R2125 is what prevents actions without mechanisms from working, but it
only applies to bodies of law. Is a contract a body of law?

- Falsifian

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3843 Assigned to Murphy

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

> The set {Cuddlebeam's Master Switch, Agora's Ruleset} fails to satisfy
> the second part.

Jason argued the set is distinct from its elements. I don't think it
would change the judgement, but it might change the arguments. Not
sure if it's worth re-opening.

(Jason argued that the contract could indeed destroy the set, but that
wouldn't do anything because it's just the set that's destroyed. A
possible counter to that could be that the set exists independent of
whether anything happens to refer to it, since we seem to have a
Platonic attitude here, which would mean Murphy's argument that it
fails the second condition still works.)

- Falsifian

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer’s locker

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

> Cuddlebeam is the only party to this contract. Cuddlebeam, while acting as
> Cuddlebeam and with Cuddlebeam’s consent, CAN amend this contract by
> announcement.
>
> Cuddlebeam, while acting as Cuddlebeam and with Cuddlebeam’s consent, CAN
> transfer Assets from this Contract to Cuddlebeam.

I'm not sure the "acting as Cuddlebeam" language does what it's meant
to. Someone acting on your behalf via a contract scam is already
"acting as Cuddlebeam".

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Who is aiming for Victory Cards/Points?

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 19:36, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On 6/14/2020 12:15 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Small survey for who is aiming for Victory Cards/Points because barring a
> > scam surprising us, it’s going to be way harder to win if someone has to
> > compete with someone else to get that 20 VP margin.
> >
> > I personally would like to aim for VPs, but if anyone else is, I don’t mind
> > making a deal with them or just conceding the race in exchange for coins or
> > other stuff.
> >
>
> The fact that a VP win resets the whole economy means there may be
> significant pressure to stop it even from those who aren't trying to win.
> "Winning" by VPs is effectively economic revolution (destroys any existing
> oligarchy and makes everyone equal again).
>
> (I'm not committing to any strategy personally right now, just pointing
> that out - far to early to commit to a particular strategy).
>
> -G.

It seems to me winning is the point of a game, so I would probably try
to prevent people other than myself from winning just on that
principle (unless we're winning together).

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: [Webmastor] Informal Polling

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

> * What should be on the main page? [it's pretty outdated now, and I feel
> like it could use a facelift and some new copy]

Information for people who want to know what Agora is. I think the
current content is pretty good for that.

I think having recent events and up-to-date information about the game
state is useful, since it serves as an example for someone learning
about Agora, but isn't more important than other general information
about the game. So, I'm not keen on reformatting the whole thing as a
blog, but adding a "recent events" section could be good. Maybe just
links to the last few weekly summaries? I could make updating those part
of my routine.

The styling seems fine to me.

> * What kinds of tips should go on a New Player page?

Not directly answering this...

Right now the home page says "there ... 130 rules, but you are not
expected to know all of them when you start" but also says "Before
joining, you should probably read the rules". These seem mildly
contradictory, and personally, I lean toward the second statement: it's
good to know the rules. (This is one argument for trying to keep the
ruleset simple.)

> * What online resources do you use the most?

I keep https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr-fresh.txt open in a tab most
of the time.

Other than that: G.'s CFJ archive, and the list archives (for sending
links to messages, and for looking up things from before I subscribed).

> * What resources do you wish were online?

Old theses!

> * How do you access Agora? [your email's web client, a desktop client,
> phone client]

GMail. (I'm in the process of moving away from GMail but haven't figured
out which client I'll use.)

> * Any tips or tricks that you use on the devices/software that you
> access Agora through that you find indispensable?

I've got my own quirky way of handling GMail. I disable conversation
view so that I can archive individual emails as I deal with them, and so
that an entire thread doesn't leap back out of the archive just because
of one reply to it. To cope with the lack of threading I use a lot of
searches like [in:inbox subject:informal]. Er, you probably shouldn't
give this advice to anyone, but there you are.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer now has a pegleg and an eyepatch

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 at 12:19, nch via agora-business
 wrote:
> On 6/14/20 10:32 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> >> I propose the following Parley:
> >>
> >> {
> >>
> >> Replace the last sentence (under PARLEY) with:
> >>
> >> If a Parley was proposed at least 2 days ago, at least 2/3rds (rounded
> >> up) of all Pirates consent to its contents, and it has not yet been
> >> applied, then any Pirate can apply it by announcement, causing this
> >> contract to be amended according to it.
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >> (Motivation: give players a chance to escape if 2/3 try to bind the
> >> remaining 1/3 to unfavourable terms. I'd prefer 4 days, but starting
> >> with 2 since it's closer to the current situation.)
> >>
> >> - Falsifian
> > My tally so far:
> >
> > Consented:
> > Jason, P.S.S., Falsifian, R. Lee
> >
> > Not consented:
> > Cuddlebeam, nch, G.
> >
> > I think if one more party consents (and nobody joins) the Parley will
> > be enacted.
> >
> > - Falsifian
>
> I consent to the above parley
>
> --
> nch
> Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager, Pirate

I forgot to count Bögtil, who joined in another thread, so we're only
at 5/8, not enough.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer now has a pegleg and an eyepatch

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

> I propose the following Parley:
>
> {
>
> Replace the last sentence (under PARLEY) with:
>
> If a Parley was proposed at least 2 days ago, at least 2/3rds (rounded
> up) of all Pirates consent to its contents, and it has not yet been
> applied, then any Pirate can apply it by announcement, causing this
> contract to be amended according to it.
>
> }
>
> (Motivation: give players a chance to escape if 2/3 try to bind the
> remaining 1/3 to unfavourable terms. I'd prefer 4 days, but starting
> with 2 since it's closer to the current situation.)
>
> - Falsifian

My tally so far:

Consented:
Jason, P.S.S., Falsifian, R. Lee

Not consented:
Cuddlebeam, nch, G.

I think if one more party consents (and nobody joins) the Parley will
be enacted.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agora Birthday

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 02:22, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> Proto:  "Registrar's monthly report highlights birthdays coming up in the
> next month."  (or maybe just a suggestion to the registrar :) )

Hm, maybe I will do this.

I thought about it before but didn't, partly because of "Players are
ENCOURAGED to announce their Agoran Birthdays." But people don't seem
to be doing it much so I guess it would make sense to step in.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: humble agoran farmer's birthday

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

Is that the same as this message:

https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-May/034726.html

If so, the archives think it was sent 22:09 UTC on May 20. Could it be
a time zone issue?

- Falsifian

On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 at 19:45, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> That message wasn't considered to be my registration iirc. This one was
> https://i.gyazo.com/01b292873845ea08041c2d56b5596048.png
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 9:41 PM James Cook via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 at 16:25, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion
> >  wrote:
> > > I was reading the rules and I found Rule 2585. My Agoran Birthday is May
> > > 21st, this is me announcing this.
> > >
> > > Anyways, just that, cheers.
> >
> > Are you sure it's not May 20? I have May 20, 2017 in my monthly
> > report, and found this:
> >
> >
> > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-May/034711.html
> >
> > But I haven't looked too deeply, so it could be wrong if e.g. the
> > registration turned out not to have worked or that was a different
> > person.
> >
> > - Falsifian
> >

Re: DIS: humble agoran farmer's birthday

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 at 16:25, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> I was reading the rules and I found Rule 2585. My Agoran Birthday is May
> 21st, this is me announcing this.
>
> Anyways, just that, cheers.

Are you sure it's not May 20? I have May 20, 2017 in my monthly
report, and found this:

https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-May/034711.html

But I haven't looked too deeply, so it could be wrong if e.g. the
registration turned out not to have worked or that was a different
person.

- Falsifian

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8431-8441

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

I vote as follows:

> ID Author(s)AITitle
> ---
> 8431l  Aris, ais523 1.0   Proposal Reward Trimming
endorse Aris

> 8432*  Aris, Alexis, Falsifian  3.0   The Administrative State
PRESENT

> 8433p  Aris, [1]1.5   Simpler Heraldry
conditional: if Proposal 8432 has been adopted, or the outome would be
ADOPTED if resolved now, then FOR, otherwise endorse Aris

> 8434f  Aris 1.0   Majoritarian Confidence
PRESENT

> 8435f  Aris, nch, Trigon1.0   No Confidence Isn't Personal
PRESENT

> 8436f  Aris 2.0   Stately Officiation
FOR

> 8437l  R. Lee, G.   1.0   Guilderoy Lockhart
endorse R. Lee

> 8438e  R. Lee   1.0   Tailor Pay
endorse P.S.S.

> 8439f  P.S.S.   2.0   Termination of Candidacy
endorse P.S.S.

> 8440j  R. Lee, P.S.S.   1.7   0 blots patch
AGAINST

> 8441e  nch, Trigon  1.0   Transmutation
AGAINST

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer now has a pegleg and an eyepatch

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

> ‍☠️ PARLEY
>
> Any Pirate can propose a Parley by announcement, which describes amendments
> to this contract. If at least 2/3rds (rounded up) of all Pirates consent to
> the Parley’s contents, this contract is amended according to the Parley.

There should be a minimum notice period. Otherwise if 2/3 of the
members are all online at the same time, they can quickly amend the
contract to say the other 1/3 agree to transfer their assets to them.

The Dragon Corporation kicks out members who don't agree to the change.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] can you believe nicknames are entirely undefined?

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

Sorry about that. I've seen both, and as Registrar, I should have
asked for clarification.

Updated for the next weekly report.

- Falsifian

On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 13:42, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> Please change mine to Cuddlebeam instead of Cuddle Beam. Cuddlebeam is my
> real Agora name, it's a bit annoying that Cuddle Beam keeps being tossed
> around.
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 2:54 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On 6/12/20 12:57 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote:
> > > On 2020-06-11 22:49, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:
> > >> On 2020-06-11 22:26, Rebecca via agora-business wrote:
> > >>> -- From R. Lee
> > >> Who the heck is "R. Lee"?
> > > While I'm at it, I change my nickname to "The Found and Lost Department"
> > >
> >
> > Both of your ruleset annotations have been updated [0].
> >
> > [0]: https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr-fresh.txt
> >
> > --
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> >

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] End of June zombie auction

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 01:06, Rebecca via agora-business
 wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:11 AM James Cook via agora-official <
> agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > The June zombie auction has ended. It began 2020-06-04 at 00:37, and
> > ended 2020-06-11 at 00:37. All times UTC.
> >
> > Agora is the auctioneer. In accordance with Rule 2551, the winner of each
> > lot
> > is required to pay a fee to Agora to satisfy eir auction debt.
> >
> > Here are the lots and winning bids:
> >
> > Lot Winner Bid, in Coins
> > --- -- -
> > twg G. 323
> > Tcbapo  R. Lee 107
> >
> > Here are the bids that were not withdrawn.
> >
> > Amount (Coins)  Bidder   Time (UTC)Notes
> > --  --     -
> > 323 G.   2020-06-06 15:32
> > 107 R. Lee   2020-06-06 00:08
> > 1   Cuddle Beam  2020-06-09 16:51
> >
> > Here are the bids that were withdrawn.
> >
> > Amount (Coins)  Bidder   Time (UTC)Withdrawn
> > --  --     -
> > 99  R. Lee   2020-06-04 00:51  2020-06-06 00:08
> > 202 G.   2020-06-04 02:07  2020-06-06 15:32
> > 203 Jason2020-06-06 14:52  2020-06-06 15:34
> > 106 Falsifian2020-06-05 18:14  2020-06-09 16:24
> >
> > - Falsifian
> >
> I pay Agora 107 coins
>
> I would suggest in the next auction rules or regulations, not to allow
> withdrawing other than withdrawing to replace with a higher bid
>
> --
> From R. Lee

Sounds reasonable. I've been thinking about sealed bids as an
alternative but that might be too complicated.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 16:48, nch  wrote:
> On 6/12/20 11:42 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 22:12, nch  wrote:
> >> On 6/11/20 2:28 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> >>> Actually, that could be a use for a limited asset. Call them Fingers,
> >>> you pay one to point a finger, at most N Fingers exist at any given
> >>> time, and they're gradually replenished somehow when there are fewer
> >>> than N (auctions?). Not actually advocating for doing this now, but
> >>> maybe if Referee load actually became an issue...
> >> If anything this discourages pointing fingers, which feels like the
> >> wrong direction. I'd rather punish people for too many shenanigans (like
> >> I suggested in the Competitive Finger Pointing proto) than do this.
> > Did you mean to reply to the list? Feel free to add the list back in
> > if you like.
> >
> > I mostly agree. Just wondering what to do if contracts start to make
> > heavy use of the Referee's time. Then it wouldn't necessarily be
> > Shenanigans. Thinking about it more, that seems unlikely to happen.
> >
> > - Falsifian
>
> Oops, totally did mean to send this to list. Thanks for catching it.

Actually, I confused myself. I think you did reply to the list the first time.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: indirect wins

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 22:24, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On 6/11/2020 2:48 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On 6/11/20 3:29 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
> >>
> >> I submit the following proposal, "win indirection", AI-1:
> >> 
> >> Amend Rule 2553 (Win by Paradox) by replacing:
> >>
> >> that case's initiator CAN, by announcement, win the game.
> >>
> >> with:
> >>
> >> that case's initiator, CAN, by announcement, Transcend Logic.  When
> >> a person transcends logic, e wins the game.
> >>
> >>
> >> [This should make all wins in the rules indirect:  Ribbons,
> >> Tournaments, and Apathy are indirect already]
> >> 
> >>
> >>
> > Unfortunately I think Sets breaks this style.
> >
>
> Yah I figured a Sets win was at least a month away (I hope!) so there
> would be time - was thinking about the "proposals for a not-even-adopted
> yet system" thing. :)
>
> But interestingly, if Falsifian's theory is correct, exactly 1 win method
> would be allowed to be "direct", which would stop any other "direct" win
> methods but still allow for indirect ones.  So even if it isn't changed,
> it's fine for now if the above proposal is adopted.
>
> -G.

Sets uses "by announcement". As long as winning the game is not
associated with a fee anywhere in the rules, I don't see a problem.
Still, I support extending this proposal to Sets after it passes, in
case there still is a problem, and to keep a consistent style.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

> I also contributed three stone videos in the original thread in May
> 2019 (subject "the end never games"):

s/videos/ideas/

Not sure how that happened.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

> > This has a lot in common with G.'s "stones" proto. Last posted in
> > September, I think:
> >
> > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-September/055498.html
> >
> > I thought the rules about stones escaping were fun. Also, there were
> > some creative kinds of stone which you might want to combine with your
> > list.
>
> Ooh, this is definitely interesting. I will probably steal-er, take some
> inspiration from some of these ideas.

I also contributed three stone videos in the original thread in May
2019 (subject "the end never games"):

Duplicity Stone (monthly, 50%): Specify a player and a contract they
are party to. The player ceases to be a party to the contract.

Sloth Stone (monthly, 70%): Wielding the stone fulfills all of the
wielder's monthly duties, except any duty to publish a Collection
Notice.

Stone of Obligation (weekly, 25%): Specify a player. That player MUST
perform The Ritual in the following Agoran week.
(I'm not sure if this works, since the stone's power reverts to 0
after wielding.)

(The last one doesn't make sense under the current ruleset.
"Collection Notice" is a Stonekeepor duty.)

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

> In general, defining one method for doing something excludes "unregulated"
> methods from working, but doesn't exclude other regulated methods in the
> rules from working.
>
> For example, saying (under certain conditions) that the Herald CAN award
> Champion by announcement (Rule 2449) doesn't prevent the Herald from
> awarding Champion using the generic w/2 Agoran Consent method for patent
> titles (R649).
>
> The wording I used was "A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100
> barrels."  which could be read as "any time a player CAN win the game
> (under any win method) it will additionally cost em 100 barrels."  Saying
> "A player CAN win the game by paying a fee of 100 barrels" doesn't stop
> other regulated methods in the rules from working independently (but it
> does put "win the game" into the "regulated" category which blocks wholly
> unregulated methods from succeeding).

I don't understand how the first phrasing could give R2579 any more
force compared to the second phrasing. In both cases, the sole reason
R2579 comes into effect is because payment of a set of assets has been
associated with the action of winning the game.

R2579 clearly says what *must* be done to perform a fee-based action.
It is not written as if it's designed to provide an additional method.
"To perform a fee-based action, an entity ... must ... indicate intent
to pay that fee" and later "Otherwise ... the action is not
performed". If another rule claims that it's possible to perform such
an action a different way, then the rules are in conflict.

Responding to Jason re R2125: yes, R2125 implies the possibility of
multiple methods, but ultimately, it defers to the body of law (i.e.
other rules): "that body of law prevents the action from being
performed except as described within it". The "including by limiting
the methods" part is in addition to that.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Prime Minister Election Voting Phase

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 19:09, James Cook via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 00:05, Rebecca via agora-official
>  wrote:
> > I initiate an agoran decision for the election of the Prime Minister. The
> > quorum is 7, the vote collector is the ADoP, the method is IRV, and the
> > valid options are any candidates for PM, which currently are R. Lee, nch
> > and ATMunn.
> >
> > I vote [R. Lee, nch]
> >
> > --
> > From R. Lee
>
> I vote [nch].
>
> (nch has put a lot of effort into Sets so I expect e'd work hard to
> get our new economy working. I think R. Lee and ATMunn would be great
> too but haven't decided on a preference between them so did not list
> them.)
>
> - Falsifian

Oops, sorry for sending to agora-official.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

> > What is the advantage of arbitration by contract over just having the
> > Referee / CFJ system handle things?
>
> The Referee and judges didn't necessarily opt in to being involved in
> every possible contract dispute (and it allows more flexibility than the
> rules currently do). And, if we end up using contracts more, then it
> allows spreading dispute resolution between more people than shunting it
> all onto the Referee.

I like the idea of relieving the Referee's burden. I wonder if we
should actually encode some relief in the rules somehow, because as I
understand it, taking the burden off the Referee with a contract like
this is an entirely voluntary measure. I don't know how that would
work. Maybe finger-pointing fees?

Actually, that could be a use for a limited asset. Call them Fingers,
you pay one to point a finger, at most N Fingers exist at any given
time, and they're gradually replenished somehow when there are fewer
than N (auctions?). Not actually advocating for doing this now, but
maybe if Referee load actually became an issue...

> > Here's a thought. Punishing contract members with blots is a net loss
> > to parties to that contract. Maybe a contract would wish to have its
> > own punishment mechanism where the loss of the convicted is the gain
> > of the other parties*. They would need some way to make decisions on
> > that. They could use the CFJ system to determine whether an infraction
> > occurred, but the Arbitration contract offers discretion in the size
> > of the penalty which could be an advantage.
>
> Interesting idea, but I don't think that needs to be in version 1.

Agreed, if you have customers for version 1 as written.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 18:16, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On 6/11/2020 10:55 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> >> When an Arbitration Case is unassigned, the Head Arbitrator CAN by
> >> announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, flip its Arbitrator to any
> >> other value. The Arbitrator SHALL NOT assign an Arbitration Case to a
> >> person who has a manifest interest in the case, whether monetary or
> >> otherwise.
> >
> > This puts the Arbitrator in a tough spot if everyone has an interest.
> > (I think it was mentioned equity cases in the past had a problem where
> > almost everyone had an interest.)
> >
> > What is the advantage of arbitration by contract over just having the
> > Referee / CFJ system handle things?
>
> Referee (or perhaps better, Notary) hasn't been tried and would be really
> interesting to do IMO.  But that could easily be private contract, too.

Oh, I just meant relying on the Referee and CFJ system as already
encoded in the rules. A contract can already defer punishment to the
Referee just by describing things as violations of the contract. (And
the CFJ system can come in when the Referee's levy is INEFFECTIVE
under R2531.)

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 17:36, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On 6/11/2020 10:12 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 9 June 2020, 20:16:09 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion 
> >>  wrote:
> >>> On 6/9/2020 11:21 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote:
> >>>> I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1:
> >>>>> A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels.
> >>>> This is unusual wording for this, and it looks a lot like it would 
> >>>> permit a player to win the game without having 100 barrels.
> >>>
> >>> Using what method?
> >>
> >> The rule states that a player CAN win the game. It doesn't specify a
> >> mechanism. So on a straightforward reading, either players can win the
> >> game, or they can't due to a lack of mechanism, but neither seems to
> >> have a dependency on their barrel quantities. (In particular, the rule
> >> states that players in general CAN win the game, not just players who
> >> have 100 barrels.)
> >>
> >> I guess the sentence in question is meant to be a) insufficiently
> >> precise to define a mechanism in its own right, thus preventing players
> >> who are short on barrels winning the game because they have no way short
> >> of an ISIDTID fallacy to attempt to do so; but b) sufficiently precise
> >> to trigger rule 2579, which provides the mechanism. By rule 2152, "CAN"
> >> means "Attempts to perform the described action are successful"; most
> >> rules that want players to be able to perform an action under certain
> >> circumstances state that attempts succeed under only those
> >> circumstances, whereas this rule is apparently defined so that
> >> attempting to perform the action is automatically successful, but limits
> >> the performance of the action by restricting what would count as an
> >> attempt. That's an almost unprecedented situation (and very unintuitive
> >> because it relies on the rule being reinterpreted into something other
> >> than the obvious reading by a higher-powered rule).
> >>
> >> For what it's worth, I think using ISIDTID to try to win the game
> >> without 100 barrels might actually work here. Assuming you think it
> >> works (or maybe even if you don't), an announcement "I win the game, but
> >> this costs me 100 barrels" is clearly an /attempt/ to win the game, and
> >> thus by the new rule, and rule 2152, the attempt succeeds. The
> >> announcement didn't actually trigger anything within the rules directly;
> >> but it was evidence of an attempt to trigger them, and by the rules, it
> >> succeeded!
> >>
> >> --
> >> ais523
> >
> > Doesn't R2125 (Regulated Actions) stop that ISIDTID from working?
> > Assuming G.'s proposal is precise enough to trigger R2579 (Fee-based
> > Actions) (it looks that way to me), then I think the rules (specifically
> > the conditions in R2579) make winning the game a regulated action. So,
> > R2125 says the rules prevent the action from occurring except as laid
> > out by the rules.
> >
> > In fact, I'm a little worried that associating a fee with winning the
> > game might mean you always need to pay that fee to perform that action.
> > E.g. even if you had 20 more victory cards than anyone else, R2579 would
> > *still* require you to pay 100 barrels to win, because that's the fee. I
> > think the fact that R478, which defines "by announcement", takes
> > precedence over R2579 prevents that problem, but I'm not sure.
>
> Ah, that *is* a problem with that wording I used - best argument I've seen
> against using it.  (I think it's the wording, not the association in
> general - we've got the association of winning with a fee in R2483: "A
> player CAN win the game by paying a fee of 1,000 Coins.")

Why does the wording make a difference?

I thought my comment applied to the 1,000 Coin rule as well, but
didn't bring it up because that's about to be repealed.

- Falsifian

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Prime Minister Election Voting Phase

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 00:05, Rebecca via agora-official
 wrote:
> I initiate an agoran decision for the election of the Prime Minister. The
> quorum is 7, the vote collector is the ADoP, the method is IRV, and the
> valid options are any candidates for PM, which currently are R. Lee, nch
> and ATMunn.
>
> I vote [R. Lee, nch]
>
> --
> From R. Lee

I vote [nch].

(nch has put a lot of effort into Sets so I expect e'd work hard to
get our new economy working. I think R. Lee and ATMunn would be great
too but haven't decided on a preference between them so did not list
them.)

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: [Proto] Competitive Finger Pointing

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 22:14, nch via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> This is a very early proto, but I figured I'd throw it out there for
> consideration while other criminal reforms are being discussed.
>
> The idea is:
>
> * Shenanigans is a 0+X crime, where X is the number of times in the last
> 7 days e has previously committed Shenanigans.
>
> * The player who did the most fingerpointing that resulted that results
> in fines in the last calendar week may once create a Blot-B-Gone card in
> eir possession. If their is a tie, only the first player to attempt to
> do so is successful.

I love it. Let's enforce the rules!

- Falsifian

DIS: Re: BUS: criminal behavior

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 22:27, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-business  wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 6:06 PM nch via agora-business
>  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 6/10/20 4:22 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
> > >
> > > I ossify Agora.
> > >
> > I point my finger at G. for Faking. At least one person believed e had
> > ossified Agora, and acted on it.
> >
> >
>
> I find this finger pointing to be valid; I impose the Cold Hand of
> Justice by levying an unforgivable fine of 1 blot on G. because this
> was clearly intentional but inconsequential. However, as a result of
> this, I believe that any attempt to impose a fine for the Indictment
> would be INEFFECTIVE because it is the same conduct for which e is
> being fined here. In other words, the plot thickens.

I'm not convinced it was made with the intent to mislead. It looked to
me like an obvious attempt to test DADA with an action that doesn't
actually do anything.

So now we have a buggy indictment process and a lesser fine which may
or may not have been successfully levied and so may or may not block
the indictment process from leading to a fine.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

> I've been rattling this idea around in my mind for a bit. I decided to
> put together a proto-proposal to see what others think.

This has a lot in common with G.'s "stones" proto. Last posted in
September, I think:

https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-September/055498.html

I thought the rules about stones escaping were fun. Also, there were
some creative kinds of stone which you might want to combine with your
list.


> Title: Amulets ver. 0.1
> AI: 1.0
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-author(s):
>
> Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulets" with the following text:
>  Amulets are a class of assets, tracked by the Teasuror, which can be
>  owned by players. Each amulet has the following attributes: type,
>  effect, tier. The effect and tier are tied to the type of the
>  amulet, and are all defined elsewhere in the rules.
>
>  Wearer is an amulet switch, with possible values of all active
>  players or none (the default). A player CAN wear (syn. put on,
>  equip) an amulet e owns by announcement, flipping the amulet's
>  wearer to emself. E is then said to be wearing that amulet. A player
>  CAN take off (syn. dequip) an amulet e is wearing, flipping the
>  amulet's wearer to none. Players CANNOT wear more than one amulet at
>  a time. An amulet with its wearer set to a player CANNOT be
>  transferred.
>
>  If the rules define the effect of a type of amulet to be passive,
>  then the effect takes place for as long as it is worn by a player.
>  If the rules define the effect of a type of amulet to be active,
>  then the wearer of the amulet CAN activate it, causing its effect to

This CAN needs a method. Also this is in conflict with the last
paragraph about expired amulets (though it's clear the last paragraph is
intended to override it).

>  occur. Active amulets have a cooldown attribute, which unless
>  specified otherwise, is 7 days after the time the amulet was most
>  recently activated. Attempts to activate an amulet during its
>  cooldown are INEFFECTIVE, even if the amulet's wearer has changed.
>
>  If an amulet has existed for at least 3 months, and/or it is an
>  active amulet and has been activated 5 or more times, it is
>  considered to be expired. Expired amulets have no effect and CANNOT
>  be activated. Any player CAN destroy an expired amulet by
>  announcement.
>
> Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulet Types" with the following text:
>  The following is a list of tier-1 amulet types and their effects:
>
>  - Amulet of Victory (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week,
>the wearer of this amulet earns a Victory Point.

This is pretty powerful compared to G.'s proposal of auctioning card per
week. I think it's roughly equivalent to winning half those auctions for
free.

>  - Amulet of Justice (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week,
>the wearer of this amulet earns a Blot-B-Gone.
>
>  - Amulet of Legislation (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran
>week, the wearer of this amulet earns a Pendant.
>
>  - Amulet of Voting (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week,
>the wearer of this amulet earns an Extra Vote.
>
>  - Amulet of Economy (passive): Every Payday, the wearer of this
>amulet earns an additional 10 coins.
>
>  The following is a list of tier-2 amulet types and their effects:
>
>  - Amulet of Drawing (passive): The wearer of this amulet CAN specify
>at any time, by announcement, a type of card e wishes to earn from
>this amulet. At the beginning of each Agoran week, e earns one of
>that type of card. If no type is specified, the type defaults to
>Victory Cards. The wearer MAY change the type of card specified,
>even if e has already earned cards of a different type.
>
>  - Amulet of Influence (active): Upon activation, the wearer's voting
>strength on any one proposal that e specifies is increased by two.

Jason suggestedout last month that voting strength is evaluated
continuously, and instantaneous changes like this won't do anything.

Thread: "Sets v0.9"
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-May/057669.html

G.'s stones proto had the same problem.

Sets v1.4 amends R2422 to explicitly cover the case of paying an Extra
Vote. Maybe you could piggy-back on that by using the Buy Strength
action?

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

> When an Arbitration Case is unassigned, the Head Arbitrator CAN by
> announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, flip its Arbitrator to any
> other value. The Arbitrator SHALL NOT assign an Arbitration Case to a
> person who has a manifest interest in the case, whether monetary or
> otherwise.

This puts the Arbitrator in a tough spot if everyone has an interest.
(I think it was mentioned equity cases in the past had a problem where
almost everyone had an interest.)

What is the advantage of arbitration by contract over just having the
Referee / CFJ system handle things?

I agree with ais523 that it would be cool to do more things by contract.

Here's a thought. Punishing contract members with blots is a net loss
to parties to that contract. Maybe a contract would wish to have its
own punishment mechanism where the loss of the convicted is the gain
of the other parties*. They would need some way to make decisions on
that. They could use the CFJ system to determine whether an infraction
occurred, but the Arbitration contract offers discretion in the size
of the penalty which could be an advantage.

I'm not sure we've been using contracts heavily enough yet for any of
these complicated things to make sense to use.

*E.g. pseudo-blots that can be paid off by paying Coins to the
contract, with the threat of real blots if you don't pay them off.

- Falsifian

DIS: Re: BUS: [Notice of Honour]

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 21:06, nch via agora-business
 wrote:
>
> This is a Notice of Honour:
>
> +1 Falsifian (excellence in journalism)
>
> -1 Jason (to ensure eir ego doesn't grow too big up in the clouds above
> the rest of us)

Thanks, ATMunn and nch! I am glad you're enjoying the summaries.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

> On Tuesday, 9 June 2020, 20:16:09 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> > On 6/9/2020 11:21 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote:
> > > I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1:
> > >> A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels.
> > > This is unusual wording for this, and it looks a lot like it would permit 
> > > a player to win the game without having 100 barrels.
> >
> > Using what method?
>
> The rule states that a player CAN win the game. It doesn't specify a
> mechanism. So on a straightforward reading, either players can win the
> game, or they can't due to a lack of mechanism, but neither seems to
> have a dependency on their barrel quantities. (In particular, the rule
> states that players in general CAN win the game, not just players who
> have 100 barrels.)
>
> I guess the sentence in question is meant to be a) insufficiently
> precise to define a mechanism in its own right, thus preventing players
> who are short on barrels winning the game because they have no way short
> of an ISIDTID fallacy to attempt to do so; but b) sufficiently precise
> to trigger rule 2579, which provides the mechanism. By rule 2152, "CAN"
> means "Attempts to perform the described action are successful"; most
> rules that want players to be able to perform an action under certain
> circumstances state that attempts succeed under only those
> circumstances, whereas this rule is apparently defined so that
> attempting to perform the action is automatically successful, but limits
> the performance of the action by restricting what would count as an
> attempt. That's an almost unprecedented situation (and very unintuitive
> because it relies on the rule being reinterpreted into something other
> than the obvious reading by a higher-powered rule).
>
> For what it's worth, I think using ISIDTID to try to win the game
> without 100 barrels might actually work here. Assuming you think it
> works (or maybe even if you don't), an announcement "I win the game, but
> this costs me 100 barrels" is clearly an /attempt/ to win the game, and
> thus by the new rule, and rule 2152, the attempt succeeds. The
> announcement didn't actually trigger anything within the rules directly;
> but it was evidence of an attempt to trigger them, and by the rules, it
> succeeded!
>
> --
> ais523

Doesn't R2125 (Regulated Actions) stop that ISIDTID from working?
Assuming G.'s proposal is precise enough to trigger R2579 (Fee-based
Actions) (it looks that way to me), then I think the rules (specifically
the conditions in R2579) make winning the game a regulated action. So,
R2125 says the rules prevent the action from occurring except as laid
out by the rules.

In fact, I'm a little worried that associating a fee with winning the
game might mean you always need to pay that fee to perform that action.
E.g. even if you had 20 more victory cards than anyone else, R2579 would
*still* require you to pay 100 barrels to win, because that's the fee. I
think the fact that R478, which defines "by announcement", takes
precedence over R2579 prevents that problem, but I'm not sure.

- Falsifian

DIS: [Reportor] Last Week in Agora

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

Archived at https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Reportor/tree/master/weekly_summaries

Report for the week of 2020-06-01..07:


# Summary

Welcome, Tyler!

A very busy week. With nch's new "Sets" economy coming, there's a rush
to submit proposals while submitting them is still free, leading the
Promotor to perform an unusual second distribution within the week.
Plenty of interesting ones, summarized in the sections below.

nch creates the Needlessly Abstract Exchange in anticipation of the new
economy, and the Dragon Corporation president promises new plans to
come.

Many proposals were adopted this week, including the office of the
Webmastor (filled by nch), outlawing actions dangerous to Agora, and
another attempt to fix auctions (with a wild auction experiment coming
on its heels). Let's see if we finally get a working zombie auction.

R. Lee seized the office of ADoP by deputizing this week, and many
office elections are under way.

What does negative karma mean? Is issuing blots a rebuke? Discussion on
these and other topics, and on treating each other well, referenced in
the "Honour, minor crimes, being nice to each other, gaming" section
below.

The Flappy Bird tournament isn't happening, but Agora's Birthday
tournament is coming up, and it looks like it will be Diplonomic. On the
subject of birthdays, happy birthday to Jason!

Agora's scholarly traditions continue. G. transforms eir earlier
arguments about the status of the ancient CFJ 7 into a thesis, and many
rules questions are discussed in other threads, including one in
Spanish.

Some other topics this week: rules about player intent; choosing good
terminology; continued discussion whether players should follow the
rules (including bringing back a crime/infraction distinction).


# Registrations

* New player Tyler registers.


# Voting and elections

* ATMunn becomes a candidate for Notary, and R. Lee tries to withdraw
  but it's pointed out there's no mechanism for doing that. Voting
  begins. Threads: "Notary Election", "Notary Election Enters Next
  phase"

  * P.S.S. proposes to add a mechanism for withdrawing candidacy
(thread: "Termination of Candidacy").

  * R. Lee resigns as Notary.

* R. Lee takes the office of ADoP from Murphy by deputisation, and
  initiates elections for Prime Minister, ADoP, and Webmastor.

  * The Prime Minister election was actually initiated before e took
over ADoP; e also attempted to start elections for Promotor, ADoP,
Assessor, Arbitor and Registrar, saying e's interested in ADoP and
Registrar. Threads: "Election Time", "Prime Minister Election
Attempt".

  * The current H. Prime Minister says e will not run for a second term,
in accordance with tradition.

* Due to a large number of proposals in flight, there are two proposal
  distributions this week. Voting begins on the following:

  * Proposals 8405-8408:

* A small fix (8405)

* Replace the Line-item Veto rule with a Cabinet Order. (8406)

  * After 8406 was composed, proposal 8400 repealed Line-item Veto.

* Repeal auction definitions and defer the mechanism to the auctineer
  and Treasuror instead. (8407)

* A new game / economy! (8408)

  * Proposals 8409-8430:

* Fixes and other small changes (8410, 8412, 8413, 8415, 8416, 8417,
  8422, 8423, 8428)

* Academic reform (8409)

* New patent title about contracts (8411)

* Change ministry descriptions (8414)

* Define a new term "Referenda" for proposal decisions (8418)

* Define new executive orders (8419) but allow the Prime Minister to
  be recalled when that happens (8420)

* Allow exchanging any 3 Cards for 1 of a specified type (8421)

* Allow pending fixes without paying a Pendant (8424)

* Decreasing or removing punishment in certain cases: (8425, 8426,
  8427, 8429)

* Back-award the 2016 Silver Quill (8430)

* The decisions on whether to adopt proposals 8388-8404 are resolved.
  Adopted:

  * The office of the Webmastor (8388)

  * Strip old rule text including the Editor and Line-item Veto (8389,
8395, 8399, 8400)

  * Make crimes are punishable according to the rules at the time of the
event (8392)

  * Allow late nominations to otherwise uncontested elections. (8393)

  * Ban zombies from office (8394; originally attempted in 8228)

  * Fix auctions (8396)

  * Define "to refer" (8397)

  * Outlaw doing things that would harm Agora if it were not for R1698,
and introduce a new process for "high crimes" (8401, 8404)

  * Bring back Promises (8402)


# History and Academics

* R. Lee pledges a bounty for filling in all the gaps in the CFJ
  database in the years 2018 and 2019. Thread: "Pledge (attention COTC)"

* G. submits a thesis: "On the Continuity of the Agoran Judicial
  System". It is based on eir arguments as Arbitor in March 2020 that e
  could assign the ancient CFJ 7 to a new judge. It touches on how to
  handle uncertainty over what may have happened over 26 years of
  

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 16:25, nch via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On 6/9/20 11:05 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
> >
> > I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1:
> > 
> >
> > Create a power-1 rule, "The General Store", with the following text:
> >
> >Barrels are a currency tracked by the Coopor (an office) in eir
> >monthly report. A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100
> >barrels.
>
>
> Does this construction work like this? Shouldn't it be "A player CAN win
> the game by paying 100 barrels"?

I wondered about that too, but the wording in R2579 (specifically the
first paragraph) is pretty liberal.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

The below AIs are inconsistent:

> 8437l  R. Lee, G.   1.0   Guilderoy Lockhart

> //
> ID: 8437
> Title: Guilderoy Lockhart
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: R. Lee
> Co-authors: G.

- Falsifian

Re: [CFJ] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer opens a humble agoran occult shop

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 21:06, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On 6/8/20 4:51 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> > 1 seems unconvincing. The NAX now requires simple majority for
> > amendments (meaning not all members need to publicly consent to the next
> > change), and I think everyone would accept that that mechanism works
> > because all members consented to the mechanism.
> >
>
> Sure. Only one of the conditions for consent in Rule 2519 has to be met.
> A contract with an explicit amendment mechanism likely falls under
> condition 2 or condition 4, but I don't think it falls under condition 1.
>
> My reading of condition 1 is that the person had to explicitly consent
> to that specific change, but a failure to do that doesn't necessarily
> preclude the other conditions from saying e consented.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb

There are convincing arguments in this thread on my paradox attempt
won't work. Should I withdraw the CFJ, or just leave it open since the
judge has plenty of gratuitous argument they can cite? (They could
probably just cite Jason's argument and be done with it.)

I didn't have a lot of hope for this, but couldn't resist.

I'll add one more argument against a PARADOXICAL finding:

The precedent in CFJ 3768 makes me suspect any kind of attempt to
build a paradox only on a contract is bound to fail. If we pretend
grok's, Jason's and ATMunn's arguments in this thread fail, then I
suspect it just turns out Cuddle Beam's by announcement action was not
"unambiguously and clearly" specified, which would make this FALSE.
(So, kind of similar to Jason's point about consent.)

My summary of the other arguments presented

* grok points out the spell is only described as removing "scams", not
*all scams*.

* Jason argues Cuddle Beam probably didn't consent to eir contract
being changed.

* ATMunn points out "scam" isn't defined by the rules (though I wonder
if that means we need to figure out what "scam" means to Agorans,
since the contract doesn't explicitly define the term)

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 18:44, James Cook  wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 18:35, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
> > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On 6/8/2020 11:12 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 7:26 AM Rebecca wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:14 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > >>> On 6/7/2020 9:36 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > >>>>> Amend each of Rule 1023 ("Agoran Time"), Rule 2496 ("Rewards"), and
> > > >>>>> Rule 2602 ("Glitter"), in that order, by changing the text
> > > >>>>> "in an officially timely fashion" to read "in a stately fashion".
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This is another case (like my WILL last month) that adding a word like
> > > >>> "stately" that means nothing is more confusing than "officially 
> > > >>> timely"
> > > >>> which at least contains the appropriate concepts (official and 
> > > >>> timely).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -G.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >> Agreed, there is no concept of the passing of time whatsoever inherent
> > > in
> > > >> the phrase "stately fashion". "officially timely" is kind of gross but
> > > it's
> > > >> also something that doesn't matter enough for me to be mad about it.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, there is? From the OED, one of the definitions of stately is "Of
> > > > movement or gait: slow and dignified; deliberate, sedate". So it's
> > > > like saying, "in a sedate fashion". I could use that if people would
> > > > prefer?
> > >
> > > No, I think I'm having the same reaction to "stately" (or any other single
> > > word) that you had when I suggested replacing "CAN and SHALL" with WILL.
> > > The slight extra verbiage in "officially timely" is worth the precision,
> > > in that it ties into other rules-terms ("offices" and "timely fashion").
> >
> >
> > I opine that the two situations are completely different. In the "WILL"
> > situation, the change would break composition. It's pretty obvious what CAN
> > means, and pretty obvious what SHALL means, and pretty obvious what they
> > mean when you use them together, but when you introduce the term "WILL"
> > that gets hidden.
> >
> > By contrast, let's look at the difference between "officially timely" and
> > "timely". Looking at those terms, I have absolutely no clue what the
> > difference is. The word "officially" adds nothing, apart from the idea that
> > it applies to offices. But it doesn't tell me if it's a shorter amount of
> > time, a longer amount of time, or the same amount of them with some other
> > implication. Plus, "timely fashion" also often applies to offices, so the
> > extra word is actively confusing without adding any meaning. You say it
> > "ties into other rules-terms", which would be great if those terms added
> > some additional meaning, but they tell a reader absolutely nothing about
> > what the term actually means.
> >
> > Now let's look at the difference between "timely" and
> > "stately/sedate/whatever". "timely" implies promptness. The other terms
> > imply less promptness. So I can surmise that if an officer had to do
> > something in a "sedate fashion", that means e has more time to do it than
> > an officer who has to do it in a "timely fashion". This would be correct.
> > So it's actually easier for an uninformed reader to understand than the
> > current phrasing, despite adding a new term.
> >
> > -Aris
>
> For what it's worth, I read "stately" as a pun meaning kind of slow
> and also state-related, and immediately liked it.
>
> Thinking about it more, I guess if someone read  "the Officiator SHALL
> transfer the Orb in a stately fashion" in isolation, it might not be
> obvious that the "in a stately fashion" has anything to do with time.
> Still, it would be nice to be able to incorporate the terminology
> somehow because it's fun and reads more smoothly.
>
> - Falsifian

Maybe "in stately time" or "within a stately interval" or "with
stately dispatch" or something like that would make it more obvious
it's got to do with time?

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 18:35, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 6/8/2020 11:12 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 7:26 AM Rebecca wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:14 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >>> On 6/7/2020 9:36 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > Amend each of Rule 1023 ("Agoran Time"), Rule 2496 ("Rewards"), and
> > > Rule 2602 ("Glitter"), in that order, by changing the text
> > > "in an officially timely fashion" to read "in a stately fashion".
> > >>>
> > >>> This is another case (like my WILL last month) that adding a word like
> > >>> "stately" that means nothing is more confusing than "officially timely"
> > >>> which at least contains the appropriate concepts (official and timely).
> > >>>
> > >>> -G.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> Agreed, there is no concept of the passing of time whatsoever inherent
> > in
> > >> the phrase "stately fashion". "officially timely" is kind of gross but
> > it's
> > >> also something that doesn't matter enough for me to be mad about it.
> > >
> > > Yes, there is? From the OED, one of the definitions of stately is "Of
> > > movement or gait: slow and dignified; deliberate, sedate". So it's
> > > like saying, "in a sedate fashion". I could use that if people would
> > > prefer?
> >
> > No, I think I'm having the same reaction to "stately" (or any other single
> > word) that you had when I suggested replacing "CAN and SHALL" with WILL.
> > The slight extra verbiage in "officially timely" is worth the precision,
> > in that it ties into other rules-terms ("offices" and "timely fashion").
>
>
> I opine that the two situations are completely different. In the "WILL"
> situation, the change would break composition. It's pretty obvious what CAN
> means, and pretty obvious what SHALL means, and pretty obvious what they
> mean when you use them together, but when you introduce the term "WILL"
> that gets hidden.
>
> By contrast, let's look at the difference between "officially timely" and
> "timely". Looking at those terms, I have absolutely no clue what the
> difference is. The word "officially" adds nothing, apart from the idea that
> it applies to offices. But it doesn't tell me if it's a shorter amount of
> time, a longer amount of time, or the same amount of them with some other
> implication. Plus, "timely fashion" also often applies to offices, so the
> extra word is actively confusing without adding any meaning. You say it
> "ties into other rules-terms", which would be great if those terms added
> some additional meaning, but they tell a reader absolutely nothing about
> what the term actually means.
>
> Now let's look at the difference between "timely" and
> "stately/sedate/whatever". "timely" implies promptness. The other terms
> imply less promptness. So I can surmise that if an officer had to do
> something in a "sedate fashion", that means e has more time to do it than
> an officer who has to do it in a "timely fashion". This would be correct.
> So it's actually easier for an uninformed reader to understand than the
> current phrasing, despite adding a new term.
>
> -Aris

For what it's worth, I read "stately" as a pun meaning kind of slow
and also state-related, and immediately liked it.

Thinking about it more, I guess if someone read  "the Officiator SHALL
transfer the Orb in a stately fashion" in isolation, it might not be
obvious that the "in a stately fashion" has anything to do with time.
Still, it would be nice to be able to incorporate the terminology
somehow because it's fun and reads more smoothly.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Executive Expansion

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 19:29, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 12:24 PM James Cook via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
> >
> > >   - Imprimatur: The Prime Minister acts on behalf of the vote collector
> > > of an Agoran Decision to resolve that decision.

> > Also is power 2 high enough to do this?
>
> Yes, acting on behalf is secured at power 2.0.

I was confused by the text "This rule takes precedence over any rule
that would provide another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may
be resolved." in R208.

If that text means other rules can't define mechanisms for resolving
Agoran decisions, that might mean it overrules R2466, acting on
behalf, since that effectively defines a mechanism for someone other
than the vote collector to cause the decison to be resolved.

But I guess there's no reason to think that it rules out defining new
mechanisms, and that sentence just means other power-3 rules can't
e.g. waive conditions 1-4 from R208.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: [Attn: Herald] Birthday Tournament Discussion

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

> Oh those are really pretty simple too, chess-level simple or simpler (with
> some edge cases that come up as you go).

My experience learning Diplomacy was that the although rules are short
and seem simple, I found out about new (to me) edge cases constantly.
I love the game but I think the rule authors missed the mark somehow.
Not that I know how to improve it.

(I don't mean to say the rules haven't been nailed down by now: I
imagine the set of test cases at https://webdiplomacy.net/datc.php is
probably complehensive.)

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: [Protos] Rule Violation Options

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 06:26, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 10:14 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 6/6/2020 9:33 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> > >> E.g. "Certain actions are defined as infractions - these incur penalties
> > >> but not rule violations per se.  Certain actions are defined as crimes.
> > >> You're breaking the rules if you do those.  Really, don't do those."
> > >
> > > That would be nice. Is that how crimes and infractions were
> > > distinguished in the past?
> > >
> > > - Falsifian
> > >
> >
> > No, I don't think we've ever been explicit about that.
> >
> > It was there implicitly, to a degree.  The penalty structure was different
> > (higher penalties for crimes), and the method of finding fault made the
> > "crime" process more serious (you had to be convicted in court for a
> > crime, but an infraction was a direct penalty that could be applied by
> > announcement).  And the Agoran custom was at the time was to shrug at
> > infractions but always apply them (i.e. pretty much any late report would
> > earn you a blot infraction, IIRC, so a greater fraction of players carried
> > blot balances - side note that's what made rebellion work) but hesitate at
> > crimes unless there was malice/strong intent.  But there was nothing that
> > explicitly said "infractions aren't really cheating but crimes are
> > definitely cheating" or anything like that.
>
> Let's make it explicit this time! I like it when things are explicitly
> written out. :)
>
> -Aris

I think P.S.S. said e was going to work on this in the thread "The
dumbest idea I've ever had...?".

- Falsifian

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Administrative Reforms

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

>   eir's own office's Administrative Regulations. Administrative Regulations

Still not quite there : ) eir's

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Executive Expansion

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

>   - Imprimatur: The Prime Minister acts on behalf of the vote collector
> of an Agoran Decision to resolve that decision.

It worries me that this doesn't say how the decision is resolved.

Also is power 2 high enough to do this?

Sorry, didn't notice this until reviewing proposals to vote on.

- Falsifian

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Executive Expansion

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

>   - Corram Vobis: The Prime Minister enters a specified case, the current
> judgement of which was assigned within the past quarter, into Moot.

Should that be "Coram Nobis"

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8409-8430

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

> (1) use natural switches - current solution, bad metaphor;
>
> (2) use currencies - I think that's a bad fit, we don't really want to
> treat these quantities as tradable objects and we want to include negative
> karma, so with an even "worse" metaphor IMO;
>
> (3) invent something new in parallel to switches (A "dial" has more values
> than a switch.  A dial can go to 11.)  Is it worth the verbiage of a new
> name if it functions just like switches?;
>
> (4) just change the name of "switches" and the word "flip" (is there a
> term that's more intuitive?)

I definitely prefer 1 or 4.

When I first read the ruleset, the word "switch" seemed strange to me
(maybe because there are usually more than two values). So maybe a
different word would make sense.

But it's a simple and broadly-applicable concept. We can provide one
common definition of what it means to track a switch, what happens
when a switch's value is indeterminate, what it means to secure a
switch, etc. If I get around to submitting my ratification of events
proto, I'll just have to adjust the rules on ratifying switches in
reports, instead of tracking down a bunch of different switch-like
things and explaining ratification for them all individually.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: [Attn: Herald] Birthday Tournament Discussion

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

> I like FRCs, and I have really enjoyed that in the past, but I also
> think that we should try to be experimental with tournaments given the
> limited frequency with which they occur. Diplonomic seems interesting,
> and rules already exist for it, which we could modify to suit our
> needs.
>
> At BlogNomic, we've also recently been playing a side game of Rumble
> (https://kevan.org/rumble.cgi?genre=hero=rules), which could also
> be an interesting choice although that does use more private
> information than we tend to like over here at Agora.

Some fleshed out game with a dash of Nomic (like Diplonomic or Rumble)
sounds fun.

I've enjoyed playing ordinary Diplomacy. I think one of my favourite
aspects is the lack of any enforcement of promises, and the
expectation of lying and backstabbing. I would find it interesting to
try to come up with rule changes that preserve this aspect.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: [Proto] Judicial Diversification

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 01:09, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> This is intended to lay the groundwork for adding other types of judicial
> cases later. Thoughts?

Do you have any examples in mind? Also, I'm curious how this was done
in the past; I remember hearing about Agora once having a common law
system for resolving disputes equitably or something like that.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 18:17, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion  wrote:
> If no one else is interested in preparing a draft for this, I’ll get to it 
> later this weekend.

Thanks!

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 17:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On 6/6/2020 10:28 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> >>> This is great! but I'm likely to vote AGAINST unless we get a
> >>> crime/infraction distinction and this becomes an infraction, i.e. not
> >>> actually against the rules.
> >>
> >> Is this something that is currently being proposed, or no? I know
> >> there's something related to blots and stuff in the proposal pool
> >> currently, but I don't remember what it actually does. If not, I could
> >> probably add some form of that to the proposal.
> >
> > No, G. sketched an idea in the thread "Rule Violation Options" but it
> > hasn't been turned into a proposal yet. The idea is that actions
> > defined as "crimes" are rule violations but actions described as
> > "infractions" aren't, but still incur penalties.
>
> Wasn't there a longer proto before that, by someone else?  The final draft
> would have to include going through all current SHALLs and SHALL NOTs in
> the rules and classifying them, amending a lot of rules (I definitely
> wasn't leading the drafting on that!)
>
> -G.

I remember this topic being discussed, but I don't remember an actual
proto. So much has been going on lately that I'll readily believe
there was such a proto. Closest I could find was this by nch (May 27,
subject "Re: DIS: Back-Awarding of Silver Quills")

> Referee Cards were fun, and there's no reason they couldn't work with an asset
> system like the upcoming Sets (except for the confusion of names). You'd just
> make Green and Yellow payable with different amounts of Blot-B-Gones, and Red
> would probably not be payable at all.
>
> In fact, it may be a good idea to have two separate tiers of crimes anyway:
> small infractions that earn you some blots, and serious ones that come with a
> punishment you can't pay off. I think that'd reconcile the ideas of "justice 
> as
> a game mechanic" and "justice as a way to deal with bad faith actors/actions."

and then later from you:

> Sure, that's why you divide things into felonies, misdemeanors, traffic
> fines, civil offenses, etc.  But you write that into the law so it's clear
> you don't use the same language for all of those. In a game sense, in this
> iterative social contract (where your "reputation" is part of the
> trade-off) it's good to be clear between "yeah that's part of playing the
> game, we'll give you a blot but we won't be mad" and "we're going to yell
> a lot, consider your victory tainted, and try to hit you with heavy
> penalties".  Just so we all get along better, you know?
>
> We don't have that right now - our "Class N" system is really incomplete
> and inconsistent.  Previously (when we had differential designations we
> didn't have any violations where we didn't say that it was either a Crime
> or Infraction (that is, every SHALL NOT was paired with whether it was a
> Crime or Infraction).  We'd have to go to every SHALL NOT in the rules and
> categorize it to set this up again.
>
> It's especially important if we want to give the Officers any duties that
> involve exploitable powers - want to be clear "we're giving you these
> powers and don't expect you to abuse them, or the subgame is ruined."
>
> -G.

- Falsifian

DIS: Re: BUS: registration

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 16:32, Tyler M via agora-business
 wrote:
> I would like to have citizenship.

Welcome to Agora. What name would you like to use?

My take on the current state of the game: a big change is expected to
be enacted next week (Sets v1.4) which will create an economy with
many different kinds of resource, and we don't know what the relative
values will be. An exchange, "NAX" has been set up in anticipation of
this. The change will also make it no longer free to put a proposal up
for voting, which may explain why there's currently a high rate of
proposals (on all topics) being submitted.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

> > This is great! but I'm likely to vote AGAINST unless we get a
> > crime/infraction distinction and this becomes an infraction, i.e. not
> > actually against the rules.
>
> Is this something that is currently being proposed, or no? I know
> there's something related to blots and stuff in the proposal pool
> currently, but I don't remember what it actually does. If not, I could
> probably add some form of that to the proposal.

No, G. sketched an idea in the thread "Rule Violation Options" but it
hasn't been turned into a proposal yet. The idea is that actions
defined as "crimes" are rule violations but actions described as
"infractions" aren't, but still incur penalties.

- Falsifian

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

> Title: Bank Robbery
> AI: 1.0
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-author(s):
>
> Enact a rule entitled "Heists" with the following text:
> {
> At any time, any player CAN, by announcement, perform a Heist. Upon
> doing so, e CAN transfer up to half of the coins owned by Agora, rounded
> down, to emself. However, players MAY NOT perform a Heist. Doing so is
> the Class 3 Crime of Robbery.
> }

I'm not sure whether the second CAN needs a method. Maybe it should be
consolidated into one action / one CAN.

This is great! but I'm likely to vote AGAINST unless we get a
crime/infraction distinction and this becomes an infraction, i.e. not
actually against the rules.

- Falsifian