Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Space Rebel Uprising

[Nicholas Evans]

I'll be a good Agoran if such a proposal makes it through. But I'm also
understanding of the reason this limit exists, even if I think 30 days is a
bit much.

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 3:16 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 2019-07-25 at 07:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > idk, as much as I don't want nch to sit out for 30 days, we've had people
> > deregister themselves to do a scam and in the past said "hey well that's
> the
> > price of scamming" (if it was accidental for non-scammy reasons we try to
> > get em back definitely).  Just a discussion not absolutely set to vote
> > against this.  -G.
>
> The Registrar's report has a "deregistered emself by mistake" entry for
> a reason :-D
>
> This is a bit different, it's "deregistered emself intentionally
> without realising the consequences". I'm not totally against giving
> people a pass for that, even if it was part of a scam, but with a
> caveat that they mustn't have gained any benefit from the scam attempt
> (and only once per person, obviously).
>
> --
> ais523
>
>

Re: DIS: Editorial fixes

[Nicholas Evans]

On Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 12:55 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
> > "Blot" vs "blot": I think this should be "Blot" because it's being used
> as
> > a proper noun to refer to the single currency, but current consensus
> seems
> > to be "blot".
>
> This is incorrect by all style guides (checked three, American and
> British).
> Correct is "I have five dollars and thirty cents" without capitals.  One
> issue here is that with non-written numbers ("500 dollars") one is supposed
> to use a currency symbol instead of the name, but we don't have one.  Coins
> have been stable for a while - maybe we should introduce a currency
> symbol?
>

Given that they'd be Agora Nomic Coins (ANC) I vote for ㋹.

DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Publish/Announce definition fix

[Nicholas Evans]

Might be nice to add "unambiguously contains" while we're at it.

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019, 11:10 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:

> I submit the following proposal:
>
>
> Title: No, you didn't publish that
>
> Author: Jason Cobb
>
> AI: 3
>
> Text:
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 478 ("Fora") by replacing the text
>
> A person "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public
> message.
>
> with the text
>
> A person "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public
> message whose body contains that thing.
>
> }
>
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
>

Re: DIS: reality check

[Nicholas Evans]

I've been reading and have a proposal I want to get out in June (not
concerning to current economic game), but need to wait for an updated
ruleset, and don't have any plans to do anything in the interim. So feel
free to continue to use my zombieness.

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 9:07 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

> On Fri, 25 May 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> The age-old refugee problem - that's kind of like arguing about whether
>> Battlestar Galactica starting a colony is a "true" continuation of its
>> homeworld.  IIRC (just from some conversations back then), even while in
>> NW, FRC just wanted to play its own game as a departure from NW/Agora
>> nomic play style, and so in spirit was an independent game hosted within
>> NW even back then (Ørjan, I'm thinking of conversations with Storm in
>> particular...).  The fact they put the ability to change fora into the
>> ordinances shows they were definitely thinking independently (unless that
>> was put in as an emergency change under the impending collapse?)
>>
>
> The provision was definitely already there, otherwise there may not even
> have been time enough to make a change... I don't think Nomic World stayed
> up for as long as a week, which I vaguely think was the standard time
> period for voting.  Whether someone suspected such a thing could happen
> when they created the ordinances, I don't know...  I for one don't recall
> suspecting Nomic World's death before this happened.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Without Objection is Too Harsh

[Nicholas Evans]

It'd also encourage some interesting attempts at shorthand.

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 8:42 PM, ATMunn  wrote:

> Haven't read the rest of the discussion, but what if there was a rule that
> maybe, say, allowed a free pend every week, as long as the proposal is
> under some character count. It might need some tweaking, but it could work.
>
>
> On 2/14/2018 6:21 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>
>> I find that, when economic limits are put on proposals, inevitably it
>> becomes less "why do I need to pay to propose" and more "why do I need to
>> pay to fix this typo". It's true that I did pay in this case, but pending
>> a
>> proposal is very expensive right now (non-officeholders can only propose
>> 3/month if anyone else objects). Making it harder to propose simple fixups
>> is very bad for the game because they tend not to get written. If you have
>> 3 proposals per month, are you really going to spend one of those on a
>> small fix that everyone agrees is good? Imposing delays on simple fixup
>> proposals is not good either, especially since they're the sort of
>> proposals that are easily forgotten so the author may forget to resolve
>> the
>> intent.
>>
>> It's tempting to play spoiler and just to object to all intents to prove a
>> point, honestly.
>>
>> (disclaimer: in the above, when I say typo, I'm assuming that we can't use
>> the cleaning rule on it because it involves some semantic change)
>>
>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 at 18:12, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>>>
 That still has the problem of delaying proposals by an additional 4
 days,
 which is the exact opposite of what we want to do with controversial

>>> ones.
>>>
>>> I feel like review periods are good things, especially when you're
>>> specifically
>>> asking Agora if the proposal is enough in the good interests of the game
>>> to get
>>> out of paying for it.
>>>
>>> Given the Promotor's schedule (close to a fixed weekly time, say
>>> Mondays),
>>> there's only 4 days in the week (e.g. Thu-Sun) that it would delay
>>> anything.
>>> And since the Assessor might delay up to a week anyway, the 4 days is
>>> not big.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Without Objection is Too Harsh

[Nicholas Evans]

There's always Agoran Consent. We can make it a trivial ratio, such as 1.1.

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:54 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:

> Sounds fine to me.
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 22:48, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Last time we did this, 3 players created a contract so that anyone
> > could act on their behalf to get the support automatically.  This
> > needs objections or the proposal Economy is completely devalued.
> >
> > On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >
> > > I think that's a lot better for what its trying to do actually.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:07 AM, Alexis Hunt 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Proposal: Supportive Proposals (AI=1)
> > > > {{{
> > > > Amend Rule 2445 by replacing "Without Objection" with "With 3
> Support".
> > > > }}}
> > > >
> > > > This is intended in part to make the cycle faster, rather than
> adding 4
> > > > days for a free proposal.
> > > >
> > > > -Alexis
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Win by paradox?

[Nicholas Evans]

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:27 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> Well it seems viable to me so I'll give it a shot I guess lol.
> (Wielding paradoxes is a weird thing, I hope I'm doing it right). Here are
> the proto-actions:
> ​​
>
> I create a contract by paying 1 shiny to Agora, with the following text:
> ---
> "This sentence is false."
> If the statement above is true, I owe 1 shinies to Agora, but if its false,
> I owe no shinies to Agora.
> If I owe a positive amount of shinies, I cannot make any transfer of
> shinies until I fulfill paying the amount owed.  // <--- Mainly so that it
> can't be shot down as "irrelevant", because shinies are a game mechanic.
>

​I'm not caught up on recent discussions but my reading of 2520 makes me
wonder if a contract can prohibit action. That said, I think this works:

​
I create a contract by paying 1 shiny to Agora, with the following text:
---
"This sentence is false."
If the statement above is true, I owe 1 shinies to Agora, but if its false,
I owe no shinies to Agora.
While I owe any Shinies to Agora, I also owe 1 shiny to CuddleBeam but I do
not owe any shinies to any person.
I shall, must, have to, and do so automatically, if possible, pay Agora and
CuddleBeam what I owe them within a week of owing.
---

​I raise a CFJ on the following: The above contract compels me to ​pay
CuddleBeam at least one shiny.



> ---
>
> I raise a CFJ on the following: I owe Agora an amount of shinies due to the
> contract above.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 5:32 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>
> > Maybe this is a dumb question but, wouldn't it be possible to just
> > "program" yourself some kind of paradox into a contract, for example,
> some
> > variant of the Paradox of the Court
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_the_Court where I have to pay
> > someone or not, then request in a CFJ to know if I have to pay them or
> not?
> >
> > Then, have that CFJ gain a verdict of "Paradox" (and not because of the
> > case itself, but because of the contract you've engineered to make the
> CFJ
> > read from it that value of "Paradox", to avoid "PARADOXICAL is not
> > appropriate if (...) the undecidability arises from the case itself or in
> > reference to it.")
> >
> > Then claim a win via the Paradox rule.
> >
> > Sounds viable?
> >
>

Re: DIS: A Fearmongor's Halloween - braaains

[Nicholas Evans]

I support.

On Oct 25, 2017 9:04 PM, "Kerim Aydin"  wrote:

>
>
> [OK, you folks with your forced deregistrations by proposal are rushing
> me].
>
> PLEASE withdraw those deregistrations.  This is a much better idea - Trust
> me!
>
>
> Draft Proposal, AI-2 (re-enactment for fearmongor):
>
> Re-enact the following Rule (I need to look up the Rule number):
>
> Master is a player switch with possible values of any player,
> and Agora.  Every player's default Master is emself.  A player
> CAN always set eir own master to emself by announcement.
>
> A person whose Master is not emself is a Zombie.
>
> If a player has not made a public announcement in 60 days, then
> any player CAN flip that player's Master to Agora by announcement.
>
> A zombie's master CAN act on behalf of the zombie to perform
> any LEGAL action that the Zombie CAN perform via public
> announcement.
>
> Whenever a player has Agora for a master, the Registrar SHALL
> in a timely fashion initiate an auction for that zombie.
> (insert auction specifics here).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Quick question about rule 1728

[Nicholas Evans]

Messages to a-d don't count for deregistration, iirc, but you can make a
filter for your own name and just object when anyone attempts the
deregistration.

On Oct 19, 2017 4:17 PM, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:

> Random message to keep self alive.
>
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 4:05 PM, ATMunn .  wrote:
>
>> Ah, I see. Okay.
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>>
>>> Nope, read the rest of the rule. This rule only provides a definition of
>>> what those terms mean; it does not apply anywhere where the terms aren't
>>> used.
>>>
>>> We used to have a rule implying that you could weaken the conditions
>>> (e.g. perform independent actions dependently, or perform an action with
>>> more support or without more fewer objections than required) but it was
>>> removed.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017, 09:11 ATMunn .,  wrote:
>>>
 Rule 1728 states the following:

>  A rule which purports to allow a person (the performer) to
>   perform an action by a set of one or more of the following
>   methods (N is 1 unless otherwise specified):
>
>1. Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no
>   greater than 8.  ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this
>   method with N = 1.)
>2. With N Supporters, where N is a positive integer.  ("With
>   Support" is shorthand for this method with N = 1.)
>3. With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1
>   with a minimum of 1.
>4. With Notice.
>5. With T Notice, where T is a time period.
>
>   [snip]
>
> ​Now, the sentence at the top basically says that a rule can allow a
 person to perform an action by one of the methods in the list. However, I
 was wondering whether or not a person can perform an action by one of those
 methods WITHOUT a rule requiring em to, specifically With Notice/With T
 Notice.​

>>>
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Guaranteed Stampage

[Nicholas Evans]

I was intending to propose a minimum value at least for stamps. Same idea
different implementation.

On Sep 26, 2017 7:00 PM, "Kerim Aydin"  wrote:



On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
>If a player has not received one since e most recently became a
>player, any player CAN, by announcement, cause em to receive a
>Welcome package. When a player receives a Welcome Package:
>
>   * Agora transfers em 1/10th the FV in shinies and

I was going to say this could hurt a poor player coming in during a low FV,
but that made me realize that there's a deeper issue that could have a
simple fix.

Part of the issue, I think, is that when FV goes low, the whole pricing
structure pancakes due to rounding.  How about the following instead:

- The Base Value is 1/40 the FV, minimum 1.
- Proposals cost 2 x BV
- Stamps cost 8 x BV

etc.

This would preserve the relative structure regardless of FV, and for example
make sure a new player could always pend 2 proposals the week e comes in.
Stamps would still be relatively cheap investment at 1 BV but would actually
raise some funds for Agora when bought.

Re: DIS: Screw all of this

[Nicholas Evans]

Somewhere on the wiki is instructions for a gmail filter that should save
any agora emails that might go to spam. It works for me (i receive all of
trigon's emails with a 'saved from spam by filter' notice attached).
Someone should dig it up as I'm in transit for the rest of the day.

On Sep 25, 2017 1:52 AM, "VJ Rada"  wrote:

> Oh I got two of yours as spam and two of PSS's also as spam! Don't
> know why. I think that made one of my old ADoP reports inaccurate,
> because one of the registrar reports was listed as spam.
>
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 4:51 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> > Got that one, I think you're now good. Yeah, I'm on gmail too lmao.
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Rubin Stacy 
> wrote:
> >> Literally how? Most of this list uses Gmail. Maybe it just ended up in
> your
> >> Spam folder? You probably already checked, but I'm just trying to come
> up
> >> with any reason this would have failed because I'm tired of this mess.
> >>
> >> On Sep 24, 2017 11:57 PM, "VJ Rada"  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I _still_ did not receive this message. You're cursed.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Alex Smith 
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > On Sun, 2017-09-24 at 22:50 -0600, Rubin Stacy wrote:
> >>> >> I made a new gmail so that I can play the game. Please respond so I
> >>> >> know that it's working now.
> >>> >
> >>> > I received this, at least.
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > ais523
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> From V.J. Rada
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > From V.J. Rada
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: proto: losing conditions

[Nicholas Evans]

On Sep 24, 2017 7:19 PM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

I actually think that we should continue to allow scammed wins because it
is one of the most interesting parts qqwerr of the
game./


Are you qwert alright there?


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:02 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> The problem is that most scams happen in one message, meaning there
>> isn't time to card the violator before e scams a win. I might suggest
>> some rule that makes winning via a deliberate rule violation
>> automatically invalidate the win, but I don't know how I'd word that.
>
> Fair enough.  Here's an attempt at the simple method:
>
> --
>  A Checkered Card is a type of Card that is appropriate for
>  violations of the rules that directly and substantially result
>  in a Win.  When a Checkered Card has been issued and not been
>  the subject of an open CFJ for seven days, [the win is revoked]
>
>
> [how is the win "revoked"?  this means a win could be invalidated 14+
> days after it occurred (i.e. after a CFJ is called and settled).
> What's the minimal method of taking away the win - does ratifying that
> it didn't happen 14 days ago perturb the game too much?  Make us
> question the speaker identity for too long?  Etc.  Or do we let em
> have the win, and strip em of the titles later?]
>
> --
>
> [Of course, it could be possible that none of this is necessary and
> I'm solving a problem that's not a big deal...]
>
>
>

Re: DIS: proto: losing conditions

[Nicholas Evans]

I don't think i feel as strongly as CB but I do feel similarly. Both issues
would be fixed with a) decentralizing (my prefered format is similar to a
CFJ: separate the finger pointer, referee, and judge) cards and b) allowing
forgiveness without apology (perhaps as Agoran Consent). To make up for the
delay a would cause, we could make cards revoke wins that happened after
the cardable event but before the conclusion.

On Sep 24, 2017 5:26 PM, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:

> Would make tactical card-flinging (tactically exaggerating other people's
> wrong-doings for example) a thing and I feel very queasy about giving our
> subjective things that kind of power.
>
> >Until e publishes such an apology, as a penalty, the bad sport is
> disqualified from winning,
>
> I'm also very against near-compulsory apologizing, this is like holy shit
> wtf tier stuff for me.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 12:09 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Proto:  "losing conditions"
>>
>> [Right now, it's probably worth it to break the rules to win, because wins
>> are far more tangible and lasting than cards.  Let's change the
>> equation...]
>>
>>
>> Amend Rule 2449 (Winning the Game) by replacing:
>>   When the Rules state that a person or persons win the game,
>>   those persons win the game;
>> with:
>>   When the Rules state that a person or persons win the game,
>>   and those persons are not Disqualified from winning as
>>   described by the Rules, those persons win the game;
>>
>>
>> Amend the Rule titled "Such is Karma" by appending:
>>   Etas are disqualified from winning.
>>
>>
>> Amend Rule 2427 (Yellow Cards) by replacing:
>>   Until e publishes such an apology, as a penalty, the bad sport's
>>   voting strength
>> with:
>>   Until e publishes such an apology, as a penalty, the bad sport
>>   is disqualified from winning, and the bad sport's voting strength
>>
>>
>> Amend Rule 2475 (Red Cards) by replacing:
>>   of the Card is reduced by 2.
>> with:
>>   of the Card is reduced by 2, and e is disqualified from winning
>>   for 30 days.
>>
>>
>> Amend Rule 2476 (Pink Slips) by appending the following sentence to
>> the last paragraph:
>>   The bad sport is disqualified from winning for 30 days from the
>>   issuance of the card.
>>
>> [Was trying to decide what the right length of time was for Red and
>> Pink, something between 14-30 I think].
>>
>> [Any other losing conditions?]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7872-7875

[Nicholas Evans]

On Sep 12, 2017 10:00 PM, "Owen Jacobson"  wrote:

> On Sep 12, 2017, at 1:27 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>
> I resolve the decision(s) to adopt proposal(s) 78572-7875 as below.
>
> 
>
> [This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to adopt the
>  following proposals.  For each decision, the options available to
>  Agora are ADOPTED (*), REJECTED (x), and FAILED QUORUM (!). If a
>  decision's voting period is still ongoing, I end it immediately
>  before resolving it and after resolving the previous decision.]
>
> ID Author(s) AI   Title   Pender  Pend fee
> 
---
> 7872*  o 2.0  Estate Auction Cleanup  o   1 AP
> 7873*  o, babelian   2.0  Agoracultureo   1 AP
> 7874*  o 2.0  Shorter Apologies   o   3 sh.
> 7875*  nichdel   1.0  Better Accounting   o   1 AP
>
> || 7872 | 7873 | 7874 | 7875 |
> |+--+--+--+--+
> |Aris| F| P| F| F|
> |nichdel | P| P| F| F|
> |o   | F| F| F| F|
> |+--+--+--+--+
> |F/A | 2/0  | 1/0  | 3/0  | 3/0  |
> |AI  | 2.0  | 2.0  | 2.0  | 1.0  |
> |V   | 3| 3| 3| 3|
> |Q   | 3| 3| 3| 3|
> |P   | T| T| T| T|
>
>
> The full text of the adopted proposal(s) is included below.

If this portion of your report is self-ratifying, then I challenge the
veracity of this report.


It's not, but I'd also suggest that the list doesn't claim to be only
adopted proposals.


> //
> ID: pp1
> Title: Organization Repeal

This proposal was not adopted.

If it is still in the proposal pool, I retract the proposal Organization
Repeal.

-o

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Severe email problems

[Nicholas Evans]

On Sep 11, 2017 1:46 PM, "Kerim Aydin"  wrote:


Well, the real issue is that, as written, the rules were totally broken.
Whether fixing it is called "massive bug fix" or "scam repair" is a side
point really...


A handful of 'bugs' were intentional (I didn't plan to use them but rather
see if anyone else did). Others weren't. The interactions of the intended
and unintended were worse than expected.

Re: DIS: [very early proto/idea] Inter-Nomic Currency

[Nicholas Evans]

Using tge same cyrrency for distinct markets with distinct financial
controls is usually a bad idea in the real world where people are
incentivized to maintain it. It'll be worse in a virtual world.

I'd still support if Subers didn't supplant shinies but rather was
exchangeable.

On Sep 11, 2017 4:05 AM, "Gaelan Steele"  wrote:

Idea: a “universal” currency that can be used across Nomics. I’d propose
the name as “Subers,” but I’m not super attached to that. I’d implement it
such that each Suber always belongs to one nomic. A nomic may internally
allocate their Subers however they wish, but that isn’t visible to other
nomics. This allows us a lot of freedom with regards to things like
Contracts owning Subers. In terms of record keeping, I’d have each nomic
track the Subers in its possession. Wording would vary across nomics of
course, but I figure around here Subers would be assets, and we would have
something along the lines of “A player CAN create any number of Subers in
their possession by announcement if an equal number of Subers were
destroyed in another nomic with the intent of transferring them to that
player in Agora. The Subers in the other nomic must be able to be traced
back to a Suber Creation Event that was authorized by Agora. Any player CAN
destroy any number of Subers in their possession. If they do so, they SHALL
create the equivalent number of Subers in  another nomic, citing this
destruction as the source, within the next two hours. If they do not do so,
the Subers are recreated and are not considered destroyed for the purposes
of foreign rules.”

I guess the most important question is whether there is another nomic that
would be interested in such a mechanic; it seems like something BlogNomic
wouldn’t be willing to keep around for more than a dynasty; I don’t know
FRC well enough to know how they would react to such a thing. Are there any
other nomics around that have overlap with our player base?

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Registration Delay Fix

[Nicholas Evans]

Simple proto: At the eginning of the m9nth, every player who has 0 stamps
and less than the current stamp value in shinies can and may claim enough
shinies to have whatever the stamp value was at 00:00 on the first of the
month.

On Sep 10, 2017 4:46 PM, "Kerim Aydin"  wrote:

>
>
> A friendly reminder that I am voting Against this until minimum salary
> or other basic shiny supply is passed.
>
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > I submit the below proposal, “Registration Delay Fix”, AI 3: {
> > diff --git a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora b/rules/How to Join and
> Leave Agora
> > index 4683d3d..91e2b6c 100644
> > --- a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
> > +++ b/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
> > @@ -63,7 +63,8 @@ text: |
> >consent.
> >
> >A player CAN deregister (cease being a player) by announcement.
> > -  If e does so, e CANNOT register by announcement for 30 days.
> > +  If e does so, e CANNOT cause register emself to become a player
> > +  for 30 days.
> >
> >If a player has not sent a message to a public forum in the last
> >month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection.
> > }
> > 
> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Clearing up the game state

[Nicholas Evans]

Per Assets: "An asset generally CAN
 be destroyed by its owner by
announcement, subject to modification by its backing document."

On Sep 7, 2017 3:14 AM, "V.J Rada"  wrote:

So we need to make that a CAN and add "a stamp they own". I don't have
AP but someone should make and pend that.

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Sep 7, 2017, at 4:06 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 2017-09-07 at 00:52 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>> The reason I have seen is public now (I made an attempt). The events
>>> went down something like this, AFAIK:
>>
>> My reason was different, and I don't see any reason not to make it
>> public (other than wanting the last Secretary's report to self-ratify).
>>
>> Rule 2498, as far as I can tell, doesn't do anything other than
>> override rule 2471 due to outpowering it, by making it legal to attempt
>> to make or cash in a Stamp. It doesn't actually give any ability or
>> mechanism to do so. (Rule 2152 is clear that MAY means that performing
>> the action is not a rules violation, but doesn't have any opinion on
>> whether the action is possible or not; rule 2125 makes it impossible,
>> as it modifies recordkeepor information, without a rule specifically
>> making it possible.)
>
> Since I always get this wrong, I might as well ask it now:
>
> Is this grouping meaningfully incorrect?
>
> * MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED, NEED NOT, OPTIONAL,
MAY, MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, and MANDATORY refer to the card-legality of an
action, for lack of a better name for the concept: they don’t constrain,
but they do define the bounds of what will draw a penalty.
>
> * CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID, and CAN refer to the
platonic-legality of an action: they constrain the possible actions, and
the possible states the game may visit.
>
> * SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED, SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, and
RECOMMENDED advise additional consideration before undertaking an action.
>
> I always get MAY and CAN crossed up, but if MAY is about penalties and
CAN is about possibilities, that would be much easier for me to remember.
>
> -o
>



--
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Monsters

[Nicholas Evans]

I really like this.

On Sep 5, 2017 9:44 AM, "Kerim Aydin"  wrote:

>
>
> Proto:  Portfolio wins.
>
>  Estates are worth 10 points each.  Stamps are worth 2 points each
>  Monsters are worth 5 points each.  (other possible assets other
>  than shinies).
>
>  A Portfolio is a combination of assets worth 200 or more points.
>  A Player CAN submit an SHA-512 hash of a text detailing a specific
>  portfolio (specific, non-conditionally defined set of assets) -
>  this becomes eir target portfolio.   If a player has submitted a
>  target portfolio and not changed it in 6 weeks, e CAN win the game
>  if e possesses all the assets in the target portfolio and publishes
>  eir target portfolio (confirmable via hash).
>
>  [add some text so the same portfolio can't win multiple times, etc]
>
>
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> > Right now, under my reading, Monsters don't do anything when created? In
> > my experience stub mechanics wither before being expanded upon. I'd
> > suggest making a more clear usage of Monsters. Additionally your
> > proposal should specify AI and Power for the enacted rule.
> >
> >
> > On 09/04/17 23:16, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > > I create the following proposal and pend it with 1 Action Point:
> > >
> > > - Title: Monsters
> > >
> > > - Content: Create a rule that titled "Monsters" and with the following
> > > content:
> > >
> > > "Monsters are entities that exist within Estates and are tracked by
> > > the Surveyor. Monsters have a name which is a string of text and an
> > > amount of Power, which is equal to the amount of characters their name
> > > string has. (eg, an "Imp" has a Power of 3, and a "Pit Demon" has a
> > > power of 9).
> > >
> > > Players CAN, by announcement, cause themselves to lose a positive
> > > integer amount of Stamps and create a Monster at an Estate of their
> > > choice with Power equal to, at most, the square of the Stamps they
> > > chose to lose."
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Promotor draft report

[Nicholas Evans]

I withdraw the proposal titled Debts.

On Sep 1, 2017 1:21 AM, "Aris Merchant" 
wrote:

> nichdel, is debts being pulled? I should be releasing fairly soonish (as
> in the next day or two).
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 3:30 PM Nic Evans  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 08/31/17 16:50, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
>> >>> I'm opposed to anything that doesn't scale with need. A regular payday
>> >>> would mostly benefit the already successful players.
>> > This is where I disagree, primarily.  We've never had a system that
>> didn't
>> > allow a base level of activity on a weekly or monthly level (proposals
>> & CFJs)
>> > just for being a player.
>>
>> I'm not sure I see the complaint here. Under AP there is a minimum, and
>> in Debts you can just keep making CFJs and proposals indefinitely - you
>> just can't buy stamps or estates until you settle debts.
>>
>> What I mean here is that giving X shinies to each player is a
>> compounding advantage for players that are really good with shinies.
>> They don't need that advantage. Thus, any free shinies should be given
>> out based on need, and when a player reaches a point where they can
>> efficiently use their shinies, they don't receive the bonus anymore.
>>
>> >
>> > And officer-work, volunteer as it is, has always granted perks within
>> the
>> > system, and I think it's important to reward work.  I'm not sure why a
>> regular
>> > payday is a bad thing - if accumulation is an issue, I'd suggest
>> dealing with
>> > it on the other side with taxes.
>> >
>> > I'm willing to try various systems, but don't like moving away from the
>> > two principles of "everyone's allowed to have a base activity level" and
>> > "officers get some rewards above that".
>> >
>> >> Actually, on this note maybe we should consider a monthly set of shiny
>> >> rewards for minor achivements. Things like:
>> >>
>> >> *Authoring the most passed proposals in the last month
>> >> *Judging the most CFJs in the last month
>> >> *Being the director of the most used agency in the last month
>> >> *Etc
>> >>
>> >> Ideally, things that any player could accomplish at any time.
>> > An old system we had:
>> >
>> > You could be awarded Boons for doing good things and Albatrosses for
>> doing
>> > bad things.  Everything from standard office-keeping to random
>> occasional
>> > things (like Birthday recognition) granted boons.  Monthly activity
>> level
>> > each month was Base + Boons - Albatrosses (as earned in previous month).
>> >
>> > Glance through following randomly-selected ruleset for Boon to see
>> range of
>> > things we awarded:
>> > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/
>> agora-official/2004-September/001691.html
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>

DIS: Re: OFF: [Reportor] Weekly Report

[Nicholas Evans]

This is too funny to fix, for now.

On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 10:43 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:

> Title: I can't believe I get paid for this Weekly Times.
>
> Reportor notices own position is sinecure, refuses to
> work---
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Payment of Pending List Price for Proposal "Agoraculture v. 2.0"

[Nicholas Evans]

I assume you got the PLP from the current ruleset. This morning a new
economic proposal passed, and it changed the way the price is calculated.
Right now the price is 10 shinies (1/20th of something called the 'Floating
Value'). The online ruleset lags behind rule changes a bit, which can be
confusing for big changes.

I'm not sure if this attempt cost you 5 shinies, but in any case: I
transfer 5 shinies to babelian.

On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Ajay Kumar Raja 
wrote:

> I pay Agora 5 shinies to pay the Pending List Price for my proposal
> "Agoraculture v. 2.0" to flip its Imminence switch to "pending".
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Calling 2 CFJs

[Nicholas Evans]

On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 7:24 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:

> I hope these are remotely meritorious. I remember some controversy about
> whether
> the overhaul rule violated 217, I don't agree that it does but I wish to
> put it to rest.
>
> I call a CFJ on "The rule change purporting to enact a rule entitled
> Economics
> Overhaul 2.0 is "wholly void and without effect" under rule 217, which
> prohibits any
> rule that would "prevent a person from initiating a formal process to resolve
> matters
> of controversy, in the reasonable expectation that the controversy will
> thereby be
> resolved"
>
> The new rule creates an obligation to pay 1 ap or some amount of shinies
> to pend
> any CFJ. While we know that a reasonable limit on how many CFJs may be
> called
> is legal (I think?), we're not sure if stopping anyone bereft of Shinies
> or APs is legal
> especially if APs and Shinies are also needed to do other game actions.
>

First, I'd suggest using AP or shinies to call these to ensure they're
successful. Secondly, you're excluding a third option. Any person who is
not a player can call a CFJ. That means that, regardless of how much AP or
how many shinies you have, it's always possible to call a CFJ. There should
be no violation of R217.​



> -
> I call a CFJ on "A player that announces intent to perform an action
> without N
> objections does not need to wait four days before performing it"
>
> The operable text is "If the action is to be performed *With N Objections*,
> With N
> Agoran Consent, or With Notice, if the intent was announced at least 4
> days earlier."
>
> "With N objections" is meant to say "Without N objections" but there is no
> time
> period enumerated for performing an action without N objections. I guess a
> time
> period should be read in as a matter of common law (to stop people from
> ratifying
> themselves winners instantly) but still.
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

[Nicholas Evans]

I think the duty to publish the report is being filled regardless of if the
report ratifies. However, there is the duty of publishing a correc

On Jul 30, 2017 18:19, "grok (caleb vines)" <grokag...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Nicholas Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > <p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> The Weekly Report of July 3 and the Monthly Report of June 30, if not
> >> earlier.
> >
> >
> > There was no July 3rd report. There was one published [1] on the 2nd,
> but it
> > didn't ratify because of a CoE [2].
> >
> > Also, Grok didn't register again until the 6th [3] so that doesn't
> matter.
> >
> > There was also a report on the 24th [4], but it too didn't ratify [5].
> >
> > To be clear 'accepting' a CoE does nothing by itself. If you don't deny
> or
> > CFJ, you must publish a corrected report (see R2201). The original
> document
> > won't ratify because it is still 'doubted'.
> >
> > [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/m
> sg08118.html
> > [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/m
> sg28799.html
> > [3] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/m
> sg28820.html
> > [4] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/m
> sg28911.html
> > [5] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/m
> sg28918.html
>
>
> I was about to start the CFJ but this looks pretty good. Thanks for
> saving me the time, heh.
>
> It also tells me that the Registrar's office is available for
> deputisation, because the Registrar has not ratified a report since
> June and has a weekly report as port of eir duties.
>
>
​Since the reports have been published I don't believe you can deputize to
publish them. But there is a SHALL for publishing a correction, and you
could deputize for that if it hasn't been done.​



>
> -grok
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

[Nicholas Evans]

On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> The Weekly Report of July 3 and the Monthly Report of June 30, if not
> earlier.
>

There was no July 3rd report. There was one published [1] on the 2nd, but
it didn't ratify because of a CoE [2].

Also, Grok didn't register again until the 6th [3] so that doesn't matter.

There was also a report on the 24th [4], but it too didn't ratify [5].

To be clear 'accepting' a CoE does nothing by itself. If you don't deny or
CFJ, you must publish a corrected report (see R2201). The original document
won't ratify because it is still 'doubted'.

[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08118.html
[2] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28799.html
[3] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28820.html
​
[4] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28911.html
[5] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28918.html



> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Jul 30, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> >
> > On 07/30/2017 02:22 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> >> I am not sure whether to accept this or not. I accepted a CoE last
> week, but I shouldn’t have because you had been deregistered by
> ratification, so should I accept this?
> >> 
> >> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> >>
> >
> > 1) If the last report had em and it ratified, e got reregistered by
> ratification.
> >
> > 2) What ratification deregistered em?
> >
> >
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Small round trip

[Nicholas Evans]

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> I'm a bit embarrassed about everything going on, so I'll deregister.
>

​I don't believe there's such a thing as an unforgivable mistake, so I'd be
pleased to see you come back sometime. The rest of this is my attempt to
explain why these things are more frustrating to other players than you
seem to believe.​



>
> In my defense for the latest thing, I did take a situation which is
> entirely innocuous to the rest of the game (trust tokens, who uses them?
> And even then, you could still issue them yourself whenever. No urgency or
> significant connection to everything else, unless you make it so.) and I
> did put a warning that it was exotic territory: http://www.mail-
> archive.com/agora-busin...@agoranomic.org/msg28889.html, and I repeated
> it as I discussed it.
>
>
​1) Wins are not innocuous, they're a big deal. They can trigger several
major game changes (repeal of minor rules, changing the Speaker). 2) People
are using trust tokens, just covertly (note one is issued when you endorse
someone). I know this is a bit trickier to see as a new player, but it's
happening.



> So, I was aware that it deviant. That's why I made it separate and I put a
> notice about it in the first place. But then it started to escalate and I
> don't mind when its limited to the lounge of talking about what I've
> brought up, but then it started to spill everywhere else somehow, and that
> wasn't my intent.
>
> I tried for it to be separate from everyone else's concerns and whoever
> was interested in it, could participate, with me deliberately choosing a
> situation that I believed that pretty much anyone not into it could just
> ignore. That's why I chose that compartmentalized situation it and added
> frequent notices that yes, I'm going pretty off-shore with what I'm using
> as premises. Or maybe trying to do stuff like that doesn't work at all at
> the Agoran context. At least, for me personally, it does work. I ignore
> pretty much everything except replies on my own things on a-b, for example.
> And I haven't read any of the discussion about the economy or all of those
> doohickeys, because whatever result about that will be cool with me. But
> maybe its not the same for everyone else.
>

​You *have to* realize that officers have to read nearly every email.
Officers need to know the gamestate so they can tell other players, and all
sorts of subtle actions can affect the gamestate. Everytime anything hits
a-b, nearly every officer reads it to make sure it doesn't affect their
part of the game. This game is administered by people, not machines, and so
there's always a cognitive load for anything that happens.​ It's not
possible to compartmentalize.



>
> If I'm guilty of using deviant interpretation, sure. That was what I was
> using. I already know that it has an extremely low chance of being broadly
> taken as correct, because it uses a set of "axioms" (which are arbitrary),
> which don't have much in common with the majority. But while it has that
> extremely low chance - if by some feat of skill, discovery and luck, I
> actually *do* make it work, then whoa. That makes it worthwhile for me.
> Proving the impossible.
>

​This is another issue with the 'take it in a vacuum' thought. If you
propose to accomplish something in an unlikely way and it's allowed, we've
created precedent that that is the correct interpretation. The rules bend,
and eventually break, when we're too permissive with them. So everybody has
a vested interest in keeping our interpretations solid.​



>
> But oh well. I think its better for the both of us if I dereg for now. I
> do enjoy discussing things with several people here, perhaps once I learn
> to how to better separate the shell from the oyster we can dine on good
> discussion together here again.
>

​Most people here just want to play games with people. We might be
skeptical when you come back, but if you show you get what the issues were,
we'll be happy to play with you again.



>
> (and I'll go and suck on my shells somewhere else lol).
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[Nicholas Evans]

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If we don't specify that proposal text can be arbitrary, it can't be
> arbitrary? We aren't explicitly authorized to put anything we want, just
> that a text is there.
>
>
​It's not about whether it's arbitrary, it's about whether we're empowered
to specify that thing and have it have an effect. The rules governing
proposals cover this:

2350: "A player <http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule869> CAN
<http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2152> create a proposal
<http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2350> by announcement, *specifying its
text* and optionally specifying any of the following attributes:"​

106: "Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal
<http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2350> that takes effect CAN
<http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2152> and does, as part of its effect,
*apply the changes that it specifies.*"

You claim you can create a Murphy Trust Token and it has an effect. My
argument is that, from a legal perspective, it's not a Trust Token issued
by Murphy because there is nothing in the rules that allows you to specify
that and have it affect the gamestate.

I submit the above as gratuitous arguments.



> ...I made a diagram. Hopefully it proves that I'm not Faking (can "No
> Faking" be pulled against any interpretation you disagree with?) but
> defending a position:
> https://i.gyazo.com/100225cef8b9829cccf2955ec5eb52df.png
>
> (I assume that Trust Tokens are created when issued.)
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Nicholas Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 20, 2017 09:17, "Cuddle Beam" <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> And yes, I agree with that entirely, but I'm considering it from a
>> different framework. I'll relate it back to (and I'm sorry for going around
>> your scam so often, but it's a recent one and it's also about "a X") "a
>> ballot".
>>
>> "A ballot". That's "any" ballot, yes? Any ballot of your choosing.
>> So "a Trust Token" is "any Trust Token of my choosing"?
>>
>> Unlike the ballot thing, where you select from existing things and do an
>> operation on it - making it be withdrawn, Trust Tokens create things (I
>> assume), so you need to select from an imaginary thing and then do an
>> operation on that - making it exist. (For example, when you create "An
>> Estate" - note that "AN" there! - you take an imaginary - and arbitrary! -
>> non-Estate then do the operation of making it exist in "realspace").
>>
>> Again, this is pretty obscure/abstract though.
>>
>>
>> No it's not. You just fail to see the difference between specifying and
>> creating a legal fiction. The latter requires rule authorization, like how
>> the rules tell you what can be specified about an estate.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 15:32 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>>> > I don't force anyone to create tokens. I agree with that, with this
>>> method,
>>> > I can't make anyone give anything. I attempt to create a token such
>>> that
>>> > would have the same characteristics as if that person had
>>> created/granted
>>> > it (which would be a type of Token, given that I can grant "a Token",
>>> which
>>> > can be a Blue Token, a Fuzzy one - but those kind of can't exist by
>>> virtue
>>> > of the ruleset right now, but a token of the kind that, for example,
>>> you
>>> > could create, is a kind of Token that the Ruleset could generate, and
>>> > that's the kind of Token I attempt to grant, because it's "a Token").
>>>
>>> Creating an object with arbitrary properties is only possible if doing
>>> so isn't impossible, rather tautologously. Creating an object with the
>>> property of having been created by someone else (which is the property
>>> you're trying to set) is a contradiction on its face.
>>>
>>> It's certainly possible that a rule could permit a legal fiction to be
>>> created that an entity had been created by someone other than the
>>> person who actually created it (Agencies pretty much do this, for
>>> example). But the rules don't let people create arbitrary legal
>>> fictions; legal fictions only come about when the rules try to
>>> contradict established fact (because the rules /always/ win disputes).
>>> On the other hand, if there's no contradiction between the rules and
>>> reality (e.g. when the rules check to see who created something and
>>> don't specify how that's calculated), the obvious principle is "the
>>> ordinary-language definition is used", rather than "the person who
>>> performed the action can cause arbitrary legal fictions in the
>>> results". At some point, you have to defer to ordinary language when
>>> interpreting the meaning of rules, otherwise you'd never be able to get
>>> started understanding anything.
>>>
>>> See also CFJ 1936 (which was an attempted scam along essentially the
>>> same lines as yours, but considerably more plausible; it didn't work).
>>>
>>> --
>>> ais523
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[Nicholas Evans]

On Jul 20, 2017 09:17, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:

And yes, I agree with that entirely, but I'm considering it from a
different framework. I'll relate it back to (and I'm sorry for going around
your scam so often, but it's a recent one and it's also about "a X") "a
ballot".

"A ballot". That's "any" ballot, yes? Any ballot of your choosing.
So "a Trust Token" is "any Trust Token of my choosing"?

Unlike the ballot thing, where you select from existing things and do an
operation on it - making it be withdrawn, Trust Tokens create things (I
assume), so you need to select from an imaginary thing and then do an
operation on that - making it exist. (For example, when you create "An
Estate" - note that "AN" there! - you take an imaginary - and arbitrary! -
non-Estate then do the operation of making it exist in "realspace").

Again, this is pretty obscure/abstract though.


No it's not. You just fail to see the difference between specifying and
creating a legal fiction. The latter requires rule authorization, like how
the rules tell you what can be specified about an estate.


On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 15:32 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > I don't force anyone to create tokens. I agree with that, with this
> method,
> > I can't make anyone give anything. I attempt to create a token such that
> > would have the same characteristics as if that person had created/granted
> > it (which would be a type of Token, given that I can grant "a Token",
> which
> > can be a Blue Token, a Fuzzy one - but those kind of can't exist by
> virtue
> > of the ruleset right now, but a token of the kind that, for example, you
> > could create, is a kind of Token that the Ruleset could generate, and
> > that's the kind of Token I attempt to grant, because it's "a Token").
>
> Creating an object with arbitrary properties is only possible if doing
> so isn't impossible, rather tautologously. Creating an object with the
> property of having been created by someone else (which is the property
> you're trying to set) is a contradiction on its face.
>
> It's certainly possible that a rule could permit a legal fiction to be
> created that an entity had been created by someone other than the
> person who actually created it (Agencies pretty much do this, for
> example). But the rules don't let people create arbitrary legal
> fictions; legal fictions only come about when the rules try to
> contradict established fact (because the rules /always/ win disputes).
> On the other hand, if there's no contradiction between the rules and
> reality (e.g. when the rules check to see who created something and
> don't specify how that's calculated), the obvious principle is "the
> ordinary-language definition is used", rather than "the person who
> performed the action can cause arbitrary legal fictions in the
> results". At some point, you have to defer to ordinary language when
> interpreting the meaning of rules, otherwise you'd never be able to get
> started understanding anything.
>
> See also CFJ 1936 (which was an attempted scam along essentially the
> same lines as yours, but considerably more plausible; it didn't work).
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[Nicholas Evans]

But it doesn't exist. It can just potentially exist. Just because 'a rotten
banana' or 'a Murphy trust token' are validly described and plausibly
existent things doesn't mean an instantiation currently exists, that you
have access to that instantiation, or that you can create that
instantiation.

On Jul 20, 2017 08:38, "Cuddle Beam" <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It kind of reminds me when I tried to give myself a "Badge that doesn't
> exist yet" (R2415: Any player CAN award a badge that does not yet exist)
> with a bunch of overpowered things because a badge with those overpowered
> things actually doesn't exist - so I can attempt to grant such an
> impossible badge.
>
> Although in the badge case it was more of trying to create stuff that
> doesn't exist while this Trust Token thing is for things that does exist
> (in certain circumstances) and trying to use the breadth of "a X" to access
> it.
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't force anyone to create tokens. I agree with that, with this
>> method, I can't make anyone give anything. I attempt to create a token such
>> that would have the same characteristics as if that person had
>> created/granted it (which would be a type of Token, given that I can grant
>> "a Token", which can be a Blue Token, a Fuzzy one - but those kind of can't
>> exist by virtue of the ruleset right now, but a token of the kind that, for
>> example, you could create, is a kind of Token that the Ruleset could
>> generate, and that's the kind of Token I attempt to grant, because it's "a
>> Token").
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Nicholas Evans <nich...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But nobody else created them. You're only claiming they did. I point my
>>> finger at CB for violation of No Faking. E can't possibly believe e can
>>> force otger players to create tokens.
>>>
>>> On Jul 20, 2017 08:25, "Cuddle Beam" <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd prefer to spend a CFJ slot be spent but it's not an urgent CFJ at
>>>> all. I'm be up for retracting it if you pledge that you'll resubmit it when
>>>> the CFJ queue is empty enough (and if the economy eventually makes CFJs
>>>> have a price, I'll refund you).
>>>>
>>>> The reasoning is a bit offshore, though, definitely. But a Trust Token
>>>> that someone else has created *is* still "a Trust Token", after all.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 15:07 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>>>>> > Note R2452: "Any player can issue a Trust Token to another person by
>>>>> > announcement."
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Be a TrustToken[A, B] a Trust Token such that player A would issue to
>>>>> > player B if A posted a message of "I grant a Trust Token to B",
>>>>> where B is
>>>>> > Player B's name, to a-b;
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Once, for each player except Murphy, I issue a Trust Token[A, B] to
>>>>> Murphy,
>>>>> > where A is that player and B is Murphy, to Murphy.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think it holds up to logical scrutiny (or any kind of common
>>>>> sense) that you can create something in such a way that it was created
>>>>> by someone else. Or to put it another way, it's impossible to create an
>>>>> object with an arbitrary history, because history doesn't work like
>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Will you retract the CFJ, or do I really have to assign it?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ais523
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[Nicholas Evans]

But nobody else created them. You're only claiming they did. I point my
finger at CB for violation of No Faking. E can't possibly believe e can
force otger players to create tokens.

On Jul 20, 2017 08:25, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:

> I'd prefer to spend a CFJ slot be spent but it's not an urgent CFJ at all.
> I'm be up for retracting it if you pledge that you'll resubmit it when the
> CFJ queue is empty enough (and if the economy eventually makes CFJs have a
> price, I'll refund you).
>
> The reasoning is a bit offshore, though, definitely. But a Trust Token
> that someone else has created *is* still "a Trust Token", after all.
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Alex Smith 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 15:07 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> > Note R2452: "Any player can issue a Trust Token to another person by
>> > announcement."
>> >
>> > Be a TrustToken[A, B] a Trust Token such that player A would issue to
>> > player B if A posted a message of "I grant a Trust Token to B", where B
>> is
>> > Player B's name, to a-b;
>> >
>> > Once, for each player except Murphy, I issue a Trust Token[A, B] to
>> Murphy,
>> > where A is that player and B is Murphy, to Murphy.
>>
>> I don't think it holds up to logical scrutiny (or any kind of common
>> sense) that you can create something in such a way that it was created
>> by someone else. Or to put it another way, it's impossible to create an
>> object with an arbitrary history, because history doesn't work like
>> that.
>>
>> Will you retract the CFJ, or do I really have to assign it?
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[Nicholas Evans]

You when by bein issued trust tokens _by_ players, so I don't think it
matters who tge token is supposedly originally from. Even if you
successfully issued a Murphy trust token to me, it was still issued by you
and not Murphy.

On Jul 20, 2017 08:07, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:

> This isn't consequential to other actions/offices, it's just related to
> Trust Tokens which people have been hardly using lately anyway.  Here, I
> attempt to grant Trust Tokens via that "a Trust Token" means any kind of
> Trust Token, much how "a banana" can be a rotten banana, my banana, your
> banana, a ripe banana, etc.
>
> Note that this treads into fairly abstract territory due to how open "a X"
> can be via the banana reasoning.
>
>
> *--
>
> Note R2452: "Any player can issue a Trust Token to another person by
> announcement."
>
> Be a TrustToken[A, B] a Trust Token such that player A would issue to
> player B if A posted a message of "I grant a Trust Token to B", where B is
> Player B's name, to a-b;
>
> Once, for each player except Murphy, I issue a Trust Token[A, B] to
> Murphy, where A is that player and B is Murphy, to Murphy.
>
> Then, I do the same, again, but for the beneficiary to be another player
> instead of Murphy (for example, "Once, for each player except Ais523, I
> issue a Trust Token[A, B] to Ais523, where A is that player and B
> is Ais523, to Ais523."), until I have done the sequence for all Players
> (except myself, because I can't issue myself Trust Tokens).
>
> I CFJ: "All Players except Cuddlebeam now have enough Trust Tokens to win
> the game."
>
> I then informally plead for anyone to send me Trust Tokens via this
> technique as well, so that I can claim victory too.
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[Nicholas Evans]

The argument 'I wouldn't do all that work in order to fake' is fallacious.
Of course you would if you thought you could get away with it.

I think you constantly violate no faking by purposely misconstruing the
rules to have meanings favorable to you, even when those meanings are
nonesense. Then you plead ignorance when someone calls it out, or you stop
responding and move onto the next bad faith attempt.

I'd accept one or two peculiar interpretations from a single player as good
faith, but you've purported many unlikely beliefs, and somehow they all
favor your goals.

Cut the bullshit out.

On Jul 10, 2017 03:43, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:

> ...I totally understand why it could be be appropriate to card me for
> trying the stick-up, but @grok, I don't understand the card part of if I
> *fail* to deputize for Surveyor just yet. If the argument is that using a
> loophole to try to get the office is "bad", shouldn't I be carded
> *regardless* of if I fail or succeed? How does succeeding to get the office
> somehow spare me of getting a card? (Either way, I'll accept the carding,
> but I just want to understand that part better)
>
> All that aside, well, yeah. I accept all charges (except for the no faking
> part, I wouldn't have written that wall of text if I didn't believe it had
> at least a slither of chance of working. Or, on the flip side, I wouldn't
> have written a huge wall of text with the aim to get a card when just
> writing something way shorter is way easier. I totally get that it feels
> heinous to try to pull off a stick-up like this though, but then again, if
> it worked, it could all just pass quickly if people simply vote FOR lol.
> But yeah, pretty evil.)
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:09 AM, grok (caleb vines) 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Aris Merchant
>>  wrote:
>> > I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violation of Rule 2471. I argue
>> > that air actions were so implausible that e could not reasonably have
>> > believed them, and that at the very least e is absurdly negligent.
>> > Given that this is having a huge impact on the players and the game
>> > (look at the deregistrations), I recommend a sentence of a Red Card.
>> >
>> > -Aris
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>> >> I would support, with a fair implementation.
>> >>
>> >> I point my finger at CB for failure to treat Agora Right Good Forever.
>> >>
>> >> I previously deregistered because I thought my explosive response to CB
>> >> was my own issue, that e needed time to adjust, and I needed time to
>> >> cool off. But I'm now convinced that's not the case. Everything CB does
>> >> disrespects the time, effort, and feelings of every other player.
>> >>
>> >> I challenge people who are on the fence about this to point to a single
>> >> time that CB has considered other players, or done necessary work, or
>> >> done anything at all to make the game better or more enjoyable to
>> anyone
>> >> but emself.
>>
>>
>> With these two finger points in play now, I'd like to make a quick
>> reminder that I recommended Cuddlebeam be carded if eir attempt to
>> deputize as Surveyor fails[1].
>>
>> [1]: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/m
>> sg28819.html
>>
>>
>> -grok
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3532 judged TRUE

[Nicholas Evans]

Main problem is that Assessor and Rulekeepor are really demanding for
different reasons and it may be difficult to get someone to fill a combined
role consistently.

On Jul 8, 2017 16:16, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:

> "Ghost" Rulesets like the one we have now are disorientating.
>
> Proto:
> Merge Assesor and Rulekeepor, and have them publish the new ruleset once a
> proposal amending it is enacted.
>
> On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Judge's arguments for CFJ 3532:
>>
>> This call for judgment inquires whether the "existing solely" clause
>> (hereinafter The Clause) of Rule 2166, which defines assets, prevents
>> assets
>> referenced by multiple rules from existing. I turn first to the relevant
>> text
>> of the rule, which is as follows:
>>
>>   An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing
>>   document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
>>   existence.
>>
>> Clearly The Clause prevents, say, the sun from being defined as an asset.
>> This
>> is good, because if the sun could be an asset the rules might make it
>> destructible, and then we'd be forced to accept, for game purposes, that
>> there
>> was no sun. It would be even more problematic if we accepted persons, and
>> therefore players, as assets. Obviously the rules are free to make such
>> definitions anyway (although we might argue over whether they would have
>> any
>> effect, considering the interests of the game). However, in the past
>> we've allowed contracts to define assets, explaining the necessity of such
>> restrictions.
>>
>> The Clause prevents another class of situations as well. It prevents
>> two different rules from defining the same asset. In older forms, it has
>> done
>> the same for a rule and a contract (CFJs 1922-1923). The question raised
>> here is
>> whether even referencing an asset would create such a situation. This
>> raises
>> interesting questions about the way we interpret the rules. It has long
>> been
>> understood that even if a term used in the rules is undefined, we are
>> obliged to
>> try our best to figure out what it means. Thus, even without the rule
>> defining
>> shinies, we would "interpret them into existence". Without shinies,
>> pending
>> would be impossible, and we would be unable to pay out salaries, among
>> other
>> problems. So, it is apparent that we might consider shinies existent even
>> without the intervention of their defining rule, arguably triggering The
>> Clause.
>>
>> The historical interpretation of The Clause, however, does not support
>> this
>> argument. There are no precedents that clearly apply to this situation,
>> although
>> in CFJ 3381 the Honorable Judge ais523 appears to assume in passing that
>> such
>> things are possible. But our current situation is not unprecedented,
>> there are
>> merely no applicable _judicial_ precedents. Rule 2166 is not a new rule.
>> It was,
>> in fact, a rather aged rule at time it was repealed, and it only seems
>> new to
>> us because of its recent reenactment. One example of a similar situation
>> is the
>> point, which was the general unit of currency under this [1] ruleset. I
>> can find
>> no record of anyone complaining that they didn't exist.
>>
>> If we were to ignore history, would we find? Well, the idea that we
>> interpret
>> terms in the rules in a way that gives them effect is largely a matter of
>> tradition. No rule says that, in the absence of a definition from either
>> conventional English or the rules, we have to try to interpret the rules
>> the way
>> they are intended to be read. Another consideration is the interests of
>> the
>> game; certainly it would seem to be in the game's best interest to have a
>> definition for shinies, and all of the clarifications of their behavior
>> that
>> come with it.
>>
>> I know all the Platonists (if that is the right term, perhaps Logicians
>> would
>> be better) in the crowd out jeering at me for refusing to consider the
>> matter
>> logically, a priori, from the wording on up. I will therefore close with
>> two
>> arguments that I hope will placate them. First, the doctrine that the
>> rules and
>> the terms in them must be given meaning in accordance with common sense
>> exists
>> to make the game playable. If every typo or invented but undefined term
>> stopped
>> the game, then the game would long since have ended. We have to keep
>> playing,
>> and in order to keep playing, we often need to interpret the rules the
>> way they
>> are intended to be read. The core thesis of the doctrine is that the
>> rules need
>> to have their common sense meaning; using it to rob the rules of what
>> they are
>> plainly intended to mean violates that principle. It would essentially be
>> using
>> the doctrine to violate its own basis for existence.
>>
>> Second, and perhaps most convincingly, the argument that the rules
>> conflict
>> with each other is 

Re: DIS: Trollmode Arbitor

[Nicholas Evans]

CFJs aren't really that powerful. They're guidelines, not legally binding.
If the guideline is absurd everyone ignores it.

On Jul 8, 2017 06:25, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:

> Yes, but the Arbitor could then CFJ "I've gotten Pink Slipped" and judge
> it as FALSE.
>
> What would happen then?
>
> (I believe CFJs supercede what people percieve things to be - for example,
> if you think that something should be interpreted one way and me another,
> if a CFJ to solve it appears and it falls in your favor, I would need to
> act with necessary hypocrisy (I dont have a better word for it, where
> "behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel") and act
> from then on as if the gamestate was according to the CFJ's verdict, due to
> the perspectivism there is on Agora's reality. The idea is to subject
> everyone to that hypocrisy via (troll, but valid, due to perspectivism,
> except nobody is the holder of that perspective. And even then, nothing
> stops people from being dishonest in Judgements anyway, there just wouldn't
> be any lulling of the audience via rhethoric in the troll case) CFJs.
> Although, it feels like I shouldn't be able to.)
>
> On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> A pink slip is issued to you and someone takes your spot.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 8, 2017, at 6:24 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>> >
>> > What would happen in the following case (and has it been tried before?)
>> >
>> > I'm Arbitor for example, and then CFJ "I've achieved victory and won
>> every ribbon" and then assign it to myself and judge it as TRUE, for bogus
>> reasons.
>> >
>> > I'd likely get that challenged and get carded, but what if I then CFJ
>> "There is no reconsideration/Moot/etc applicable to that CFJ and no
>> applicable cards, nor have any cards been granted to Cuddlebeam lol" and
>> then assign it to myself and judge it as TRUE.
>> >
>> > But then someone could say, "Yeah, that's silly, what about ' an
>> absurdity that can be concluded from the assumption that a stateme-'"
>> >
>> > SHUSH! I as Arbitor CFJ "There is absurdity in my CFJs and Judgements"
>> and then I assign it to myself and judge it as FALSE! because PANCAKES.
>> >
>> > ""
>> >
>> > "You're not treating Agora Good Right For-"
>> >
>> > SHUSH! I as Arbitor CFJ "Cuddlebeam is treating Agora Right Good
>> Forever extremely well" and then I assign it to myself and judge it as
>> TRUE! because MORE PANCAKES.
>> >
>> > etc etc etc
>> >
>> > Basically use the power that CFJs have to alter the gamestate to
>> enforce any gamestate you want and if someone tries to stop you - CFJ it
>> away. Would be absurd, yeah but, CFJ: "is it absurd?"... FALSE.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Surveyor

[Nicholas Evans]

You never depitized. You have to announce intent to depitize for occupied
offices.

On Jul 6, 2017 06:11, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:

> This is a bit of a mess I've caused to him really, lol. I'll help tidy it
> up a bit so that things are more clear:
>
> Gratuitous argument for that CFJ:
>
> There has been a bit of tumbling, but with people's input, the most recent
> version of my scam goes like this:
>
> ▪ In R2491 we have: "At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least
> one Estate, the Surveyor shall put one Estate which is owned by Agora up
> for auction, by announcement. Each auction ends seven days after it
> begins.". During the "Start of the Month", even if the Surveyor puts just
> the first Estate up to Auction, "if Agora owns at least one Estate" is
> still true. There are still Estates in Agora's ownership even after the
> Surveyor put the first one up to auction. Ergo, it would be required to put
> up yet another Estate. And another, and another, until there are no more
> Estates, during the time it was his duty to do so. This is the obligation I
> deputized for, from *last month's* auctions - The June Auctions - because
> it has "expired more than fourteen days ago".
>
> ▪ I did the deputization and auctions here: http://www.mail-archive.
> com/agora-busin...@agoranomic.org/msg28798.html
>
> ▪ This is my conjecture, but I believe that he has lost the office and
> that I have it now (hence his doubts, I suspect, please let me know if I'm
> wrong and its something else), via R2160: "When a player deputises via
> normal deputisation for an elected office, e becomes the holder of that
> office.". I deputized for the office of Surveyor, so I've now become the
> Surveyor.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Alex Smith 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 01:57 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> > I CFJ on the statement “I am the Surveyor.”
>>
>> This is likely to be dismissed due to lack of context. What's the
>> controversy that might affect whether or not you're the Surveyor?
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Complete Shiny Economy Overhaul

[Nicholas Evans]

On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:

> On Sun, 2017-07-02 at 15:06 -0500, Nicholas Evans wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk>
> > wrote:
> > > I know, but you never make a /profit/ by spending Shinies. So
> > > failing to make a loss is the best you can manage.
> >
> > That's not true. Since FV changes weekly, and it takes a week for a
> > proposal to pass, you just need to pend a week before an FV increase.
> > Pending itself will (marginally) increase FV. Buying a stamp would do
> > so even more. The more people pending and buying things W1, the more
> > the proposal will payout W2.
>
> Doesn't FV decrease over time, though (as more Shinies accumulate in
> the hands of people who won't use them)? Timing a pend for just before
> an FV increase seems almost impossible.
>
>
​FV decreasing means stamps get cheaper though. Week-over-week hoarding and
FV decrease should lead to a wave of stamp purchases. That wave should lead
to a sudden spike in FV, which continues the cycle.

That's the theory of course. If you're right and it stagnates in the
mid-term, we can try to patch it then.​



> I guess it's possible you'd get into a pattern where people alternated
> between having a week where everyone pends, and a week where nobody
> pends, in an attempt to make a profit. But that sort of extreme FV
> manipulation seems unlikely to be something that people would bother to
> do in practice, and even then it'd be unlikely to counteract the
> general downwards trend of the FV longterm (in fact, it would
> accelerate it).
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Complete Shiny Economy Overhaul

[Nicholas Evans]

On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:

> On Sun, 2017-07-02 at 14:48 -0500, Nicholas Evans wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk>
> > wrote:
> > > I think the AP stuff was economically problematic as given as there'd
> > > very rarely be a need to spend shinies. How often does a typical player
> > > do three proposals/CFJs in a week? The answer is "not often", and all
> > > those players would just hoard Shinies as they have no reason to spend
> > > them.
> > Note that AP-actions don't pay out. You can hoard your shinies and use AP
> > instead, but you'd make more shinies if you effectively used them for
> > proposals. Honestly I would do an AP of 1 if I thought it wouldn't be
> > opposed, but people have already asked for 5.
>
> I know, but you never make a /profit/ by spending Shinies. So failing
> to make a loss is the best you can manage.
>
>
​That's not true. Since FV changes weekly, and it takes a week for a
proposal to pass, you just need to pend a week before an FV increase.
Pending itself will (marginally) increase FV. Buying a stamp would do so
even more. The more people pending and buying things W1, the more the
proposal will payout W2.​



> I know I'd never have any reasons to spend Shinies under the AP system
> you suggested, meaning I'd likely just hoard them forever. The people
> asking for 5 are basically looking for a way to bypass the economy
> entirely; I don't think I've seen 5 of this sort of action done in a
> week except as a consequence of a scam or as excessively spammy CFJs.
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Complete Shiny Economy Overhaul

[Nicholas Evans]

I'll have more detailed thoughts later, but overall I'm concerned about
Support slowing things down and creating more uncertainty (players having
to check if something has received enough Support). In my version, I tried
to make the decisions as self-contained as possible so we're not waiting
for responses and double-checking conditions being met.

On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:

> I think the AP stuff was economically problematic as given as there'd
> very rarely be a need to spend shinies. How often does a typical player
> do three proposals/CFJs in a week? The answer is "not often", and all
> those players would just hoard Shinies as they have no reason to spend
> them.
>
>
​Note that AP-actions don't pay out. You can hoard your shinies and use AP
instead, but you'd make more shinies if you effectively used them for
proposals. Honestly I would do an AP of 1 if I thought it wouldn't be
opposed, but people have already asked for 5.​

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Jump In While The Water's Tepid

[Nicholas Evans]

On Jun 29, 2017 13:05, "CuddleBeam"  wrote:

> database. Antagonizing another old, respected player who is currently making

> up for that deficit seems to me to be the definition of shooting yourself in
> the foot.


No amount of respect or other positive feelings I have for a person will
put them above the word of law.

That said, I agree with you entirely that Ais doesn't informally deserve it
at all. I'd support removing cards from him once granted, because I can do
anything I arbitrarily want via proposals, voting freedoms, etc


I primarily meant the pink slip attempt, but pointing your finger is a CAN
not a MUST. Piling on finger points for something not intentionally bad
form seems like needless antagonism.

Re: DIS: 1 person playing as many players?

[Nicholas Evans]

I'd support a rule to the effect of "a player can only be banned from Agora
by a power-3 (or higher) instrument". That both introduces the concept
legally and restricts without adding any other baggage.

On Jun 15, 2017 04:43, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I agree with o, any such punishment should be administered by proposal.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Jun 15, 2017, at 4:11 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 13, 2017, at 6:49 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> >>
> >> Proto Proposal:
> >> AI = 4
> >> Title: When two become one
> >> Rule: 'A short list of things that are too agregious to even attempt'
> >> Doing any of the following is `Treating Agora Right Bad Forever` and
> are bannable offenses:
> >> - A single person attempting to register as two players
> >>
> >> If a person is found to have `Treaded Agora Right Bad Forever` the
> Registrar CAN and SHALL  deregister em and permanently ban them from Agora,
> now and forever.  A banned person CANNOT register.
> >
> > Things that would get me on board with a “leave and never return, you
> can never play again” penalty: unrepentant bigotry, sincere threats of
> violence, inciting fights and refusing to take responsibility for them when
> confronted about it, and the promotion of same. Probably a few other
> things. The common theme is that these poison the social environment the
> game takes place in, not just the state of the game itself.
> >
> > Things that probably wouldn’t convince me to support a ban: severe
> examples of unsporting conduct, on its own. We can fix that damage through
> gameplay, or if necessary through ratification.
> >
> > I realize I’m just one Agoran, but please don’t put bans in the rules.
> I’ll vote against nearly any proposal that puts them into the cards/referee
> system as a standard punishment, too.
> >
> > -o
> >
>
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Interaction between CFJ 1709 and R869

[Nicholas Evans]

It's possibly a violation of No Faking if other people thought it was
effective.

On Jun 15, 2017 02:01, "Owen Jacobson"  wrote:

>
> > On Jun 13, 2017, at 5:17 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> >
> > "I Point My Finger at um... what's your nickname? Kerim, anyway. For
> clear reasons, let's see what happens though”
>
> I believe this is ineffective, as G. (Kerim) is not a player at this time.
> Under Rule 2478 (“Vigilante Justice”) you may only Point the Finger at a
> player. Under Rule 2479, the Referee may only issue Cards to players.
>
> However, just in case, I find the above finger-pointing to be Shenanigans.
>
> First, G. was not performing any official duty. G. likely understands why
> not, but in case it’s not obvious: saying that you’re publishing a report
> doesn’t mean that you’re actually doing so, and there’s no way G. could
> publish the Registrar’s Weekly Report at the time they sent the message in
> question.
>
> Second, It’s not at all clear to me that _saying_ that you purport a thing
> implies that you materially purport a thing, if that thing would be
> obviously and blatantly impossible for you to do or purport to do.
>
> I’d love to see an appeal on this, though. CFJ away.
>
> -o
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Nicholas Evans]

What about an analogous pending system for CFJs? Anyone can submit but they
only get assigned to a judge after someone has paid the fee. The fee should
be low and stable. The judge gets paid the fee upon judgment. Even 2
shinies is probably enough to slow tge pace down without stopping it, and
because other people can 'pend' your CFJ it doesn't completely lock out new
players.

On May 30, 2017 16:28, "Kerim Aydin"  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > I don't know if this was clear, but the intent of the proposal was
> > to avoid people getting "stuck" with CFJs they don't wish to judge.
> > Under this proposal, the only people bothered by a frivolous CFJ
> > are ais523 and anyone interested in judging (assuming others don't
> > mind skipping over the DIS messages). It's not perfect- -far from it-
> > -but it's better than nothing.
>
> It wasn't clear.  But being stuck with a CFJ you don't want is part of the
> job and random draw of being a judge, helping to clear the load.  (we
> should definitely have judicial compensation/salaries though).
>
> > Another idea: make CFJs with no effect on the current gamestate a
> > dependent action of some sort.
>
> "CFJ:  this cfj has an effect on the current gamestate."
>
>
>
>

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer

[Nicholas Evans]

This response makes me think you didn't read or comprehend my response. And
your recent behavior makes me think you don't attempt to comprehend the
rules before acting.

On May 29, 2017 10:35, "CuddleBeam"  wrote:

> >The rules allow withdrawing ballots and proposals explicitly, and explicitly
> mention what happens, so under those conditions it's clearly regulated.
>
> I disagree.
>
> An action is regulated if:
> * (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or permit its performance
> - There is no limitation, permission or enabling (unless 'unregulated'
> actions are allowed by the Rules, in which case, they're regulated, because
> they're allowed, and all actions in the universe are regulated as per my
> other proof, but I'm assuming that isn't true for the sake of argument)
>
> * (2) describe the circumstances under which the action would succeed or
> fail
> - There actually is no description about how a withdrawal of *objections*
> would succeed or not. Withdrawal of objections =/= withdrawal of ballots.
> Or it is, in which case, I should be able to expolate other terms out of
> their context and scam like that.
>
> * (3) the action would, as part of its effect, modify information for
> which some player is required to be a recordkeepor."
> - This is the odd one, because it seems that I'm not required to track
> until I need to actually publish, so it seems to me that withdrawals before
> that event are unregulated, and after it, are regulated.
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

[Nicholas Evans]

You should correct the player count while you're at it.

On May 28, 2017 7:30 AM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Accepted, I thought I included that.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On May 28, 2017, at 8:26 AM, Martin Rönsch 
> wrote:
> >
> > Call of Error: I am also a player
> >
> > Veggiekeks
> >
> > Am 28.05.2017 um 13:16 schrieb Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:
> >> I hereby act as registrar to publish the below weekly report.
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> 
> >>Registrar's Weekly Report
> >> 
> 
> >>
> >> (all times UTC)
> >>
> >> Date of last report: 18 May 2017
> >> Date of this report: 28 May 2017
> >>
> >> Recent events:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Players (17) (Rule 869, self-ratifying)
> >>
> >> Player   Contact
>  Registered
> >> --   ---
>  --
> >> ais523   callforjudgement at yahoo.co.uk [1] 20
> Mar 11
> >> aranea   aranea at aixea.de  31
> Aug 14
> >> Aris thoughtsoflifeandlight17 at gmail.com   13
> Sep 16
> >> Charles  charles.w.walker at gmail.com   11
> Jul 16
> >> Henrihenrib736 at gmail.com  07
> May 13
> >> Murphy   emurphy42 at zoho.com   27
> Oct 07
> >> nichdel  nichdel at gmail.com01
> Dec 15
> >> oowen at grimoire.ca 12
> Jul 16
> >> omd  comexk at gmail.com [2] 03
> Feb 11
> >> Sci_Guy12jwc.science at gmail.com14
> Jul 16
> >> Sprocklemsprocklem at gmail.com  19
> Oct 13
> >> Tekneek  tekgora at theglycerintekneek.com   12
> Jun 15
> >> Warrigal, the [3]tannerswett at gmail.com25
> Apr 15
> >> Yallyaarongoldfein at gmail.com  11
> Jul 16
> >> 天火狐draconicdarkness at gmail.com   06 Nov
> 16
> >> Zachary Watterson [4]tannerswett at gmail.com26
> Mar 17
> >> Quazie   quazienomic at gmail.com15
> Apr 17
> >> P. Scholasticus [5]  pscriboniusscholasticus at gmail.com[6] 16
> Apr 17
> >> tmanthe2nd   trstnbrdwg0 at gmail.com13
> May 17
> >> Gaelan   gbs at canishe.com  15
> May 17
> >> grok grokagora at gmail.com  18
> May 17
> >> Cuddlebeam   cuddlebeam at googlemail.com20
> May 17
> >> Ienpw IIIjames.m.beirne at gmail.com 21
> May 17
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] also ais523 at alumni.bham.ac.uk
> >> [2] officially, but technically equivalent c.ome.xk at gmail.com
> >> [3] previously Alfonso Machiavelli, the Warrigal
> >> [4] also known as Gumball
> >> [5] In full, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >> [6] officially, but technically equivalent p.scribonius.scholasticus at
> googlemail.com
> >>
> >> Fora (Rule 478, self-ratifying)
> >>
> >> Type Location  Typical use
> >>   ---
> >> Public   agora-official at agoranomic.org  official reports
> >> Public   agora-business at agoranomic.org  other business
> >> Discussion   agora-discussion at agoranomic.orgdiscussion
> >> Discussion   irc://irc.freenode.net:6667/##nomic   discussion
> >> Public   agora at listserver.tue.nlbackup
> >>
> >> Subscribe or unsubscribe from main lists:
> >> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
> >>
> >> Subscribe or unsubscribe from tue.nl backup list:
> >> http://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora
> >>
> >> The IRC channel does not require subscription; set your IRC client
> to
> >> server irc.freenode.net, port 6667, channel ##nomic, and whatever
> >> nickname you like.
> >>
> >> Other rules pertaining to this office
> >> -
> >> Rule 2139 (The Registrar)
> >> Rule 1789 (Cantus Cygneus)
> >>
> >> Watchers (4)
> >>
> >> The list of Watchers is not governed by the rules, but is
> >> traditionally maintained in the Registrar's Report.  If you'd like
> to
> >> be listed as a Watcher or removed from the list, feel free to email
> >> the fora or the Registrar directly.
> >>
> >> Watchers confirmed as of Sep 2016:
> >>
> >> Nickname  Contact
> >>   ---
> >> Ørjan oerjan at nvg.ntnu.no
> >>
> >> Watchers confirmed as of May 2013:
> >>
> >> Nickname  Contact
> >>   

Re: DIS: Find two contradictory CFJs -> Principle of explosion -> Do anything

[Nicholas Evans]

More like guidelines, and generally newer overrides older.

On May 26, 2017 9:30 PM, "CuddleBeam"  wrote:

> Would this be a valid way to scam?
>
> Or are CFJs more like guidelines?
>

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3509 Judgement (Dismissed, insufficient information)

[Nicholas Evans]

I think you misunderstand Agoran CFJs. The reasoning is more important than
the ruling. The purpose to judge DISMISS is to indicate that the judgement
doesn't answer any gamestate questions. Ideally, and in most such recent
cases, the text of the judgement still provides guidance on what to do if
the case becomes relevant in the future.

This is also much of how common law courts work. 'Precedent' refers to the
reasoning employee by judges more than the specific judgements.

On May 25, 2017 07:20, "CuddleBeam"  wrote:

> Sorry, I'm still a trainee-Judge of a sort and I wasn't aware of that
> tradition, so I'll Support that Motion to Reconsider and do a better job
> and avoid committing that same error again in the future.
>
> As for removing myself, I believe I am extremely appropriate for certain
> flavors of CFJ. I wish there was a way I could be assigned mostly those
> specifically.
>
> More notably, that Ambiguity CFJ, which a lot of people didn't want to
> deal with and play the DISMISS card on it to dodge the issue when there was
> perfectly valid, (although quibble-worthy) way to deal with it properly.
> Although I find myself to be in a minority to be motivated to deal with
> such offbeat CFJs, which is why I believed myself to be a great addition to
> the pool, because more CFJs could be dealt with and not DISMISSED whenever
> it felt uncomfortable or deviant.
>

Re: DIS: Streched Too Thin A.K.A. Woah there CuddleBeam, that's a lot of Agencies

[Nicholas Evans]

That'd still be preferable because all those sub agencies would have the
same 24 hour delay for modification, so it'd slow activitu down some.

On May 22, 2017 16:59, "CuddleBeam"  wrote:

> Agencies are Turing Complete currently (using its creator as output, the
> Power's text as memory and natural language as operators), so even if the
> amount of Agencies were limited, I would still be able to create
> "Sub-Agencies" within those Agencies, and then still have an arbitrary
> amount of things which are functionally equivalent to having a bazillion
> agencies.
>
> Here's an example template of an Agency which can emulate any arbitrary
> amount of Agencies (via Sub-Agencies):
>
> ---*---
>
> Name: Name here
> Agents: All persons
> Powers: For the purpose of this document, there exists "Sub-Agencies", as
> described within this Powers section, which is made up of a Name, Agents
> and Powers section which can be filled with text content. Only Agents which
> are part of the subset which Sub-Agency's Agents section refers to can
> employ the abilities described in the Powers section of that Sub-Agency.
>
> The following is a Sub-Agency:
> * Name: Sub-Agency 1
> * Agents: [Set of persons here]
> * Power: [Set of Powers here]
>
> The following is another Sub-Agency:
> * Name: Sub-Agency 2
> * Agents: [Set of persons here]
> * Power: [Set of Powers here]
>
> The following is another Sub-Agency:
> * Name: Sub-Agency 3
> * Agents: [Set of persons here]
> * Power: [Set of Powers here]
>
> etc
>
> ---*---
>
> So even if there were limitations to the amount of Agencies a person can
> have, I could still have the exact same thing (functionally), just written
> differently.
>

Re: DIS: The Crown Problem

[Nicholas Evans]

What about an office that can grant wins and titles and certain rule
changes that has no assumption method? Then you'd have to scam your way in,
and we'd all be more familiar with the bestowed powers than with a proposal
tailor-made for the scam. Incidentally there's a scam-only ribbon, but it's
a small reward for the effort.

On May 16, 2017 23:26, "Owen Jacobson"  wrote:

> Monarchs, of course, are a problem.
>
> A person, imbued with unlimited temporal power, must act both with perfect
> moral clarity and with perfect understanding of the reasons for and
> consequences of their actions, lest disaster befall eir realm. As this is
> impossible for a mere person to sustain for any meaningful length of time,
> Agora is instead governed by a deliberative process, in which temporal
> authority is enshrined in a process with well-defined rules for discussing,
> proposing, enacting, and reviewing change. This is, it is widely
> understood, a Good Thing for the health of the game.
>
> Unfortunately, a monarchy is also the only effective reward Agora offers
> to a masterful player. There is, to date, no higher achievement in the game
> beyond the privilege of transcending the deliberative process and imposing
> one’s will directly upon the game. To a certain strain of player - and I
> think we are all that player, sometimes - there is no worthier goal than to
> beat the system, and thus no victory offered by the rules will ever be as
> consistently tempting as victory over the rules themselves.
>
> It’s presently possible to win by accumulating Trust Tokens - but if
> anyone’s even bothering to track them, they’re not saying.
>
> It’s presently possible to win by accumulating Ribbons - but the Tailor’s
> office is cold and dusty.
>
> It’s presently possible to win by election - but there’s no sign of a
> victory election.
>
> In the last six months alone, we have had not one but two distinct
> monarchies.
>
> I think we have to deal with the fact that Agora will, inevitably,
> accumulate monarchs. We’ve been extremely fortunate that the players who
> have achieved a monarchy have treated it as a transient honour, and have
> put the health of the game ahead of their own accomplishments over it. I’d
> like to trust that this will always be true, but it might be worth
> evaluating ideas to ensure that it remains true even if some future monarch
> is rather more selfish.
>
> I happen to live in a country that has a real, bona fide monarch as part
> of its legal heritage. The standing convention, here, is that the Crown
> theoretically has the the authority of a monarchial head of state, and both
> consents to the enacting of bills and has the authority to veto them.
> However, any attempt to exercise this power other than on the advice of the
> prime minister and the governing parliament would immediately precipitate a
> constitutional crisis, and could easily cause the government to re-form
> itself such that the crown’s power is extinguished. To date, the Crown has
> chosen to retain symbolic authority rather than exercising temporal
> authority and risk losing both.
>
> Mining that for ideas, a bit: Could we instate such an office, and a
> system of succession for it, without destabilising the game? Would building
> in an office with the effective power of a monarch, along with systems to
> jettison that office if the monarch should ever prove willful, work on an
> Agoran scale?
>
> -o
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Time to close the loopholes

[Nicholas Evans]

On May 16, 2017 23:33, "Alex Smith"  wrote:

As such, I went for the simpler option (especially as IIRC there was a
proposal to simplify the pending price system floating around already,
and I didn't want to accidentally reverse it). If you strongly feel
that allowing a drift down is likely to make a positive difference to
gameplay, I can change it.


Said proposal didn't change the math (except for rounding differences), it
just removed the unnecessary distinction between list price and minimum.
That said I'm not particularly attached to that element of the economy.

Re: DIS: Officer Tech Chat

[Nicholas Evans]

I should add: I have labels for all office-related messages. I use filters
to catch most of them, and I manually move things that the filters don't
catch when I see them.

The keywords I use for Registrar are: registrar, register, deregister, 869,
registration, deregistration

The keywords I use for Assessor are: for, present, vote, endorse, present

These both pick up a lot of excess, but they rarely miss anything so it
probably halves or quarters the amount of potential work involved in
finding relevant messages.

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:12 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:

> Just curious: what's everyone using to manage eir various duties? It
> comes up in pockets of discussion, but I'm not sure I've seen them all
> layed out before.
>
> -For Registrar I used a python script that formatted the table and added
> annotations.
>
> -For knowing when to assess, I use a service called zapier to add a
> to-do job to my calendar when the promotor distributes.
>
> -For assessing, I have a Python script that reads a csv and creates the
> table. Then I manually add annotations.
>
> -All I have for Reportor is a template with the categories.
>
> I think both my scripts are buried somewhere in the wiki's repository. I
> should update them some and add wiki pages explaining them for my
> successors.
>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7848

[Nicholas Evans]

Admittedly I missed that. But I think ballots have to explicitly be
withdrawn before new ones are valid.

On May 14, 2017 01:55, "Quazie"  wrote:

> Claim of error - my email entitled 'votes' should've superseded my vote on
> this proposal I believe.
>
> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 05:38 nichdel  wrote:
>
>> I resolve the decision(s) to adopt proposal(s) 7848 as below.
>>
>> 
>>
>> [This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to adopt the
>>  following proposals.  For each decision, the options available to
>>  Agora are ADOPTED (*), REJECTED (x), and FAILED QUORUM (!). If a
>>  decision's voting period is still ongoing, I end it immediately
>>  before resolving it and after resolving the previous decision.]
>>
>> ID Author(s)  AI   Title
>> 
>> *7848  ais523 1.0  Emergency Scam Fix
>>
>> |  | 7848 |
>> |--+--+
>> |ais523| F|
>> |G.| A|
>> |o | F|
>> |Quazie [1]| A|
>> |天火狐   | F|
>> |Roujo  [2]| A|
>> |Sprocklem | F|
>> |--+--+
>> |F/A   | 4/3  |
>> |AI| 1.0  |
>> |V | 7|
>> |Q | 5|
>> |P | T|
>>
>> Final quorum: 4
>>
>> [1] "If I am able to vote (see various CFJS) I endorse G."
>>
>> [2] "If I can, I vote AGAINT. If I can't, I vote FOR."
>>
>> NB: Per CFJ 1885 AGAINT means AGAINST.
>>
>> The full text of the adopted proposal(s) is included below.
>>
>> //
>>
>> ID: 7848
>> Title: Emergency Scam Fix
>> Adoption index: 1.0
>> Author: ais523
>> Co-author(s):
>>
>>
>> Amend rule 2445 by replacing
>> {{{
>>   to "pending" by announcement.
>> }}}
>> with
>> {{{
>>   to "pending" Without 3 Objections.
>> }}}
>>
>> //
>>
>>
>>

Re: DIS: go for the gig

[Nicholas Evans]

I'm really interested in this idea, so I'm willing to pick it up.

On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> If anyone wants to go ahead with the next version of the Gig Economy draft,
> go for it.  I'm not following current economic proposals enough to make
> sure
> the mechanics behind it are in sync with the evolving new system.
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Payday

[Nicholas Evans]

For the monthly stipend that applies to players, it's all or nothing. If
there's any money in Agora's balance, everyone gets paid; if there isn't
any, nobody gets paid. Offices, on the other hand, are calculated
individually and can't get paid when there is or would be a non-positive
balance.

Ideally, when combined with the fact that offices are paid
alphabetically-by-office instead of by-office-holder, this system makes it
difficult to manipulate the economy into only paying specific people or not
paying specific people.

On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Quazie  wrote:

> I thought we agreed last time that you can't pay in such a way that
> agora's balance becomes negative?
>
> On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 12:02 AM Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> Date of this payday: Mon  1 May, 2017
>> Date of last payday: Sat  1 Apr, 2017
>>
>>
>> As Secretary, it is my pleasure to report that Agora has paid the
>> following salaries to players:
>>
>> Player   Shinies
>> 
>> ais52310
>> aranea10
>> Aris  10
>> Charles   10
>> G.10
>> Henri 10
>> Murphy10
>> nichdel   10
>> o 10
>> omd   10
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus   10
>> Quazie10 !
>> Roujo 10
>> Sci_Guy12 10
>> Sprocklem 10
>> Tekneek   10
>> Warrigal, the 10
>> Yally 10
>> Zachary Watterson 10
>> 天火狐 10
>>
>> Records marked with a ! are provisional until Quazie's status as a
>> player is resolved. If e is not a player, e receives 0 Shinies in
>> salary.
>>
>> Additionally, Agora has paid the following salaries to officers:
>>
>> Player  Office  Payrate
>> ---
>>
>> Agora’s balance is, as of this Payday, -145 Shinies (if Quazie is not a
>> player) or -155 Shinies (if Quazie is a player).
>>
>>

DIS: Considering our Economic Options

[Nicholas Evans]

Agora is about to enter a period of deficit. Now there's quite a few
suggestions to change/repair/replace the economy. I wanted to go back over
the philosophical underpinnings of the current economy, how successfully it
matches those, and how the existing proposals make that mapping better,
worse, or different.

First, why do we have an economy and what does it do?

The current economy is largely a result of a discussion about The Ideal
Grind started by G. in Jul 2016 [1]. The whole thread is a fantastic read
and I'd argue that it is required reading before proposing any new subgames
from now on.

[Warning: tooting my own horn!] If there is a single paragraph to take away
for our current situation, it is this thing that I said:

{
I'd make an argument that the commodity produced by Agora is the story of
Agora. Ultimately, the story of Agora thus far is what attracts new
players, and being a part of the story is often what influences people to
stay for a long period of time. This is why we have so many permanent
awards, why there's an (under-used) system for awarding degrees for
meta-texts.
}

Much later, in January [2], I refined that thought process into some
conditions for a functional economy:

{
1. It should reward adding to the story,
2. It should punish detracting from the story,
3. It should enable interesting behavior, and
4. It shouldn't bog Agora down with minutiae.
}

Of those, 3 is the one most related to the 'story as commodity' concept.

NB: I am open to reconsidering either these points or the original
argument. But for now I believe them the most fleshed-out ways to judge an
Agoran economy.

So, how are we doing? Well 2 is (purposely) non-existent right now, and 3
is debateably non-existent. Paying officeholders is an attempt at
accomplishing 1 while following 4. Paying to pend is arguably anti-1 but it
gives shinies a value by making them useful.

So, how do current proposals do by these measures? Let's take a look (in no
particular order):



Real Estate [3]

Primarily focuses on 3. If we assume shinies are being awarded according to
1, then it also follows 1 by giving you a way to use your earnings for more
power. Fairly simple (4), and has nothing to do with 2.



The Liquidity Proto-Proposal [4]

More of a replacement for the central banking mechanics than anything else.
Perhaps adds to 3. Not sure about 1. No interaction with 2. Maybe a little
complex.



Mint Chocolate [5]

Attempts to temporarily fix the current supply problem. Obeys 4 by being
the simplest way to 'improve' the current system. Otherwise equivalent to
the current system.



The Gig Economy [6]

More complex (4) but pays more directly for contributions (1). Arguably
better for 2 because it takes some payment from inactive officeholders.



Assets [7]

Nothing to do with 1 or 2. Basically a big trade-off between 3 and 4.



Of the existing proposals, I think we would see the biggest improvement
with the lowest overhead by adopting The Gig Economy, Mint Chocolate, and
Real Estate.

Overall, 2 is being ignored. Why? One possibility is that it's a faulty
rule. Another is that people are overly-cautious about punishments.
Possible implementations of 2:

- A flat or %-based fine when a card is received.
- A wealth tax - which can be seen as 'punishment' for hording money
instead of using it

[1]
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg33637.html
[2]
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg34236.html
[3] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg27974.html
[4]
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg34519.html
[5] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg27964.html
[6] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg27940.html
[7]
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg34306.html

Re: DIS: Liquidity proto-proposal

[Nicholas Evans]

There is a question about how fair we have to be. I imagine most Agorans
are willing to pend proposals for new players if need be, and if the Gig
Economy idea takes off, there will be a few low-investment ways to earn
money. Too much advantage to hording money makes the system unfair, but too
much redistribution makes it boring.

On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I have some thoughts on combining bonds with fairness, I'll try to
> write it up when I get a chance.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> > On Apr 28, 2017, at 11:33 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >
> >> * Allow the Secretary to sell Bonds on behalf of Agora, without
> objection[? maybe with support? probably not by announcement]. A bond is a
> binding promise that Agora will, on a fixed future date, pay the holder the
> given number of Shinies. The purchasor of a Bond pays Agora the price of
> the Bond, and will be paid, by Agora, the value of the Bond at a later
> date. Generally, the price of a Bond is lower than the Value of a bond.
> >
> > Having slept on it, I do not like this. As P.S.S. helpfully
> demonstrated, one major problem is that those who are without Shinies have
> no way to push the rules process forwards, as they cannot pay the pending
> fee (and can be priced out by those who can for quite a while). Selling
> bonds somewhat automatically privileges those who already have Shinies,
> since they’re the ones who can buy bonds.
> >
> > A two-pronged approach might be useful:
> >
> > 1. Issue a stipend to each new player, and
> > 2. Regular issue of Shinies to the player with the fewest.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > -o
> >
>

Re: DIS: Assets proto-proposal, v2

[Nicholas Evans]

On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Reenact rule 2166, Assets (Power = 2), with the following text:
>
>   An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing
>   document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
>   existence.
>
>   Each asset has exactly one owner.  If an asset would otherwise
>   lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost and Found Department.  If
>   an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class
>   of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred
>   to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned
>   by an entity outside that class (except for the Lost and Found
>   Department, in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it
>   without objection).
>

​Multiple ways here to destroy currency without changing the Supply Level,
which means it isn't replaced.


>
>   The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any)
>   defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document.  That
>   entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class
>   and their owners.  This portion of that entity's report is
>   self-ratifying.
>
>   An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by
>   announcement, and an asset owned by the Lost and Found
>   Department generally CAN be destroyed by its recordkeepor by
>   announcement, subject to modification by its backing document.
>   To "lose" an asset is to have it destroyed from one's
>   possession; to "revoke" an asset from an entity is to destroy it
>   from that entity's possession.
>

​Another way to destroy currency.


>
>   An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. payed) by its owner to
> another
>   entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing
>   document.  A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing
>   document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.
>

​Is it intentional the you can destroy a fixed asset?​


>
>   A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing
>   document.  Instances of a currency with the same owner are
>   fungible.
>

Implying instances wth different owners aren't fungible? Therefore, they
aren't guaranteed to have the same value?​


>
>   The "x balance of an entity", where x is a currency, is the number of x
> that
>   entity possesses. If a rule or proposal attempts to increase or decrease
> the
>   balance of an entity without specifying a source or destination, then the
>   currency is created or destroyed. Where it resolves ambiguity "Balance",
>   without any currency modifiers, refers to an entity's balance of
> whichever
>   currency is designated as "Agora's official currency", if there is one.
>
>   Assets are always public. [To provide for private contract based
> assets later.]
>
> Change the rule "Economics" to read in full:
>
>   Shinies (sg. shiny) are a liquid currency, and the official currency of
> Agora.
>   They may be owned by Agora, any player, or any organization. The
> Secretary is
>   the recordkeepor for Shinies.
>
>   The Secretary CAN cause Agora to pay any player or organization by
>   announcement if doing so is specified by a rule.
>
> Amend Rule 2459, Organizations, by adding as a paragraph at the end:
>
>   A member of an Organization can perform any action the rules authorize
> that
>   Organization to perform, if the Organization's charter states that doing
> so
>   is Appropriate.
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3476 assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

[Nicholas Evans]

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> There’s a fair bit of game convention that allows identifying players from
> eir email addresses, if it’s not otherwise ambiguous for some reason.
> Certainly, if I stopped signing my messages “-o”, nobody would have trouble
> attributing messages from this address to me.
>
> -o
>
>
​In fact I rarely sign at all.​ For all intents and purposes, my mailing
address is my signature.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Payday (Apr 2017)

[Nicholas Evans]

An early proto of what became this economy included taxes, but I think it
was scraped because of the logistical overhead. Ideas I considered at the
time:

-A tax on players' wealth (wouldn't stop players from hording shinies in
orgs)
-A tax on organizations' wealth (would require weird budget balancing for
escrow orgs like AAaAA and AVM)
-Replacing expenditure with a monthly org fee that the org can raise from
its members however it chooses (relies on orgs being interesting enough for
people to join them)
-
​A monthly auction of valuable assets​ (relies on the assets being valuable
enough for people to buy them)

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Sprocklem S <sprock...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Nicholas Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You're registrar (via deputization). When the month rolls around,
> announce
> > intent to deregister everyone who hasn't posted in the last month. Once
> you
> > deregister them, that will free up their shinies.
> >
>
> Is there any reason we don't have some sort of periodic tax on shinies,
> to prevent long term accumulation?
>
> --
> Sprocklem
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Payday (Apr 2017)

[Nicholas Evans]

You're registrar (via deputization). When the month rolls around, announce
intent to deregister everyone who hasn't posted in the last month. Once you
deregister them, that will free up their shinies.

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 4:55 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Printing more money seems to be the only reasonable option at this point.
>
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:48 PM Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>
>>> The previous message purporting to contain the April payday notice was
>>> incorrectly calculated. It incorrectly applied the rules from Proposal 7841.
>>>
>>> The following notice replaces it totally.
>>>
>>> -o
>>>
>>> Date of this payday: Sat  1 Apr, 2017
>>> Date of last payday: Wed  1 Mar, 2017
>>>
>>>
>>> As Secretary, it is my pleasure to report that Agora has paid the
>>> following salaries to players:
>>>
>>> Player   Shinies
>>> 
>>> ais52310
>>> aranea10
>>> Aris  10
>>> Charles   10
>>> G.10
>>> Henri 10
>>> Murphy10
>>> nichdel   10
>>> o 10
>>> omd   10
>>> Roujo 10
>>> Sci_Guy12 10
>>> Sprocklem 10
>>> Tekneek   10
>>> Warrigal, the 10
>>> Yally 10
>>> Zachary Watterson 10
>>> 天火狐 10
>>>
>>> Additionally, Agora has paid the following salaries to officers:
>>>
>>> Player  Office  Payrate
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Agora’s balance is, as of this Payday, 1 Shinies.
>>>
>>> Oh dear. We may need to increase supply. Anyone have any solutions other
>> than just printing more money?
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: Proto-lazy Sunday

[Nicholas Evans]

I like to imagine that, as is, the proposal specifies a random set of
deadlines to extend indefinitely every time.

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> This would work well with some fleshing out.
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 19, 2017, Quazie  wrote:
>
>> There exists a switch on Agora representing Agora current state of
>> activity - it has two values, Lazy and Happening.
>>
>> Agora's activity can be set to Lazy without 3 objections.
>>
>> Agora's activity can be set to Happening with 3 support.
>>
>> When Agora's activity is set to Lazy, all penalties for tardiness are
>> halved, also some deadlines are extended.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> The proposal needs some fleshing out to properly do the last paragraph,
>> and the proposal would also set the initial activity to Lazy.
>>
>
>
> --
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
>

Re: DIS: Robo-Ref-ideas

[Nicholas Evans]

I also wouldn't support punishment. During slow times I've published the
registrar's report roughly monthly instead of weekly. It didn't make much
difference because few things currently rely on the # of players. If I was
punished for that, I'd probably have just vacated the seat. If there's
someone else that wants it done more frequently they can (and should)
deputize. If not, then me leaving the seat would just worsen the situation.

A lazy officer is better than no officer.

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Maybe allow a status in which you become the provisional office and are
> not payed, but also not fined.
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 19, 2017, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> > Good point. I suggest that we also levy a fine. Maybe their officer
>> > pay from all of the months in which they didn't report, with some form
>> > of fine on top of that?
>>
>> Just as a note, I've been trying to give the Arbitor's job away for
>> a year and only come back to it because no one else picks it up.
>> Under those circumstances, I don't mind not getting a salary for not
>> being timely, but if there was "a fine on top of that" I'd drop it
>> entirely.
>>
>> If there was enough competition for jobs, this would be no issue,
>> but there's no one competing for these jobs as it is.
>>
>> -G.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: The gig economy

[Nicholas Evans]

I like this a lot in theory.

Bard would need careful definition to not be abused/impossible to satisfy

Tour Guide reminds me that I need to fix the agora wiki...

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> (Some jobs don't need regular Offices, but should be rewarded with payoffs
> as they are valuable to Agora).
>
> Proto:  The Gig Economy
>
> Create the following Rule, The Gig Economy:
>
>   If a task is defined by the rules as a Gig, then any Player
>   (the performer) CAN perform the task (perform the gig) if no
>   one has performed the task in the same Nomic Week.
>
>   If a performer does so, clearly specifying that eir action is
>   intended to fulfill a particular gig,  Agora SHALL pay that
>   player 5 shinies at the beginning of the next Nomic Week.
>
>   If a player purports to perform a gig, then any player CAN, with
>   2 Support, assert that it was a failed gig; if this occurs, the
>   performer is not paid.  This SHOULD only be asserted if the
>   attempted performance clearly falls short of the required effort.
>
>   The following Gigs are defined:
>
>   - Reporter:  Publish a report, at least 300 words in length, with
> a description of events that have happened in Agora in the last
> 2 months that the Reporter believes significant or interesting.
> This may contain editorialization or other pieces of Agora-related
> information, as long as it is neither i) factually incorrect nor
> ii) disrespectful to any person or Agora itself.  The goal of such
> reports is to create a more informed population.
>
>   - Research Assistant: Publish a report, at least 300 words in length,
> in response to a request for information about the history of
> Agora.
>
>   - Tour Guide:  Publish (including updating) a precis of Rules, a set
> of resources such as web links, or information that might serve as
> an entry in an Agoran FAQ.
>
>   - Bard: Publish, or publish a link to, a substantially creative and
> original Work of Art created by the Bard, relevant to and created
> for Agora, with the goal of evoking enlightenment, humor,
> entertainment,
> challenging ideas, or thoughtful contemplation in Agorans.
>
>  [Option:  a single Officer, the Managor, whose job it is to promote
> the
>   gig economy, track gigs (monthly report), and maintain an online
> archive
>   of gig-produced material].
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Proto-Research-Assistant

[Nicholas Evans]

This is basically what I intended for Reportor, with different flair.

I don't like the requests thing. The point is to create an easy reference
point for people to use for research in the future, not to do other
people's research for them.

Otherwise, I'd generally support this.

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Well, I am not sure that we need the Archivist to be writing about history
> because that is one of the reasons which you could receive a degree for.
>
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Quazie  wrote:
>
>> That's a great name - and monthly was a time frame I was looking at - I
>> might make it a switch actually that can be flipped without some objection
>> - if we get into an active period again it might be nice to easily switch
>> the type of reporting on a newspaper.
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 23:33 Aris Merchant <
>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> How about Archivist? Also, may I suggest that newspaper, if it is kept,
>>> should be made monthly?
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:25 PM Quazie  wrote:
>>>
 I was going to suggest that there be a new position of journalist or
 librarian or Local Blogger or something that combines the two ideas in a
 reasonable way - be a resource of information and possibly do some general
 summarizing of events with less obligation than is on the reporter - will
 the ability as a secondary rule for players to request some assistance from
 this officer given they should be more aware than others - it'll be some
 parts of each, not all of each.
 On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 23:22 Aris Merchant <
 thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I disagree. It seems perfectly reasonable to ask the reporter to link
> to resources, but requiring them to do research on request seems
> unnecessary. It doesn't fit well with my conception of the reporter's job
> description anyway.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:17 PM Quazie  wrote:
>
>> That's super reasonable - next draft will combine the two.
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 23:11 Kerim Aydin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2017, Quazie wrote:
>>> > [...] The Research Assistant [...]
>>>
>>> I think this should replace or be merged/combined with the very
>>> inactive (since its beginning) Reporter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Re: DIS: Offer to resign as Promotor

[Nicholas Evans]

Hope everything works out for you and your friend Aris.

These slow periods happen, but the lack of movement on proposals can
exacerbate them (especially if big changes are expected to pass). The
agency is a clever solution for the time being.

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:25 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I sent you a rough draft (privately, because it probably has errors).
> Other that that, no.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 8:22 PM Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
> I don’t suppose you have the current proposal pool handy, do you?
>
> -o
>
> > On Feb 13, 2017, at 10:26 PM, Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you so much! It isn't possible to deputize for an office without
> > taking it over per se, but what I can do is create an Agency with you
> > as Agent. I'll do that in a minute. Again, thank you!
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >> On Feb 11, 2017, at 3:38 AM, Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'm afraid I've been busy lately. I haven't published a report in more
> than a month (although there was the holiday). One of my freinds is in the
> hospital, and I have a major deadline in a few weeks. I expect these to
> clear up, but I feel a bit like I'm failing Agora. I am working on my
> report whenever I have a chance, but other obligations keep interrupting.
> I've been brushing all of this off as Agora is fairly inactive, but I may
> one of the reasons for that. I therefore offer to resign the office of
> promotor to whoever wants it. I'll pass on what I have of my next report,
> and they can take the office via deputization. If no one wants to do so,
> I'll stay and finish when I have time (my deadline is soon, so hopefully
> things will cool down after that, if not sooner).
> >>>
> >>> With a heavy heart,
> >>> -Aris
> >>
> >> Is it possible to deputise for the office without taking it over?
> >>
> >> More generally, the wheels do seem to have come off of Agora a little
> bit. Slow periods aren’t unusual, but this has been most of a month without
> any progress at all. My personal prediliction is to blame the introduction
> of a money economy - but the Promotor’s office is (at present) a vital
> organ, and its absence would do just as well.
> >>
> >> I’d be happy to take up the office for a while, if it’d help you get
> yourself unloaded and if it’d help the game move forward. I’m even happy to
> take the office, if you’re sure, but if you’d like to return to it later
> on, I don’t want to deny you that.
> >>
> >> -o
> >>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Health issues

[Nicholas Evans]

Rest up, get well!

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:

> Sorry everyone, but I deregister.
>
> Alexis
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: 登録書

[Nicholas Evans]

​天火狐 = "Sky (red) fox" or "Sky red panda", or possibly "Sky firefox".​

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Management

[Nicholas Evans]

Is there a relevant CFJ that suggests '7 days' equals 168 hours, instead of
7 calendar days?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Simple Economy

[Nicholas Evans]

 On 11/04/2016 08:05 PM, ais523 wrote:

The largest problem is that you haven't specified an officer to track
the switches.


Woops, lost it in editing. Meant to be the Secretary.

Currencies typically need to have multiple dimensions so that a varying
exchange rate can be set up between them.

Out of interest, is anyone else working on an economy proposal at the
moment? It might be worth sharing notes. (I've been having some
thoughts in that direction, but nothing concrete.)


There's the more complex one I spent a while on [1] that I dropped. My
concern is that we're barely filling the offices now, I don't want to
overwhelm officers with too many monthly tabulations. Thus the attempt at
one currency with variable prices.

[1] http://hearthgate.net/agorawiki/Econ-Proto

DIS: The State of Discussion, Mailing Lists, IRC, and things that were actually invented this century.

[Nicholas Evans]

There's been some frustration voiced about the three mailing list system,
again. I say again because there was a plan to migrate the mailing lists to
a unified solution this summer, but it fell by the wayside as, presumably,
the mailing list maintainer got busy. But now it's being brought up again.
I thought we'd have a unified discussion for it instead of putting it in
replies to other things.

(I'd like to link you to the appropriate discussions from this summer, but
since they're split among multiple archives it's difficult. Look in your
history, or the archives' history, for "Future of Agora", "might as well
try for a show of hands" and "Rule Improvements".)

1) OFF, BUS, and DIS. The split is useful, yes, but also a relic. One
reason we maintain this split (besides an incredible conservatism) is
because it prevents accidental action-taking or burying actions in mounds
of discussion. There's probably better solutions to this though.

2) Combining BUS and DIS. I'm not against this, but would like some sort of
Subject convention that makes it remain easy to find office-relevant
information.

3) The /other/ discussion forum: IRC. We're still using IRC. I'm 24, and
the fact that I know what IRC is is an anomaly. We're not going to bring
any youngsters into the IRC fold, especially when much nicer IRC-like
solutions like Discord and Slack dominate. Speaking of, I saw that
BlogNomic has a Slack and wondered what it'd be like to have a unified
Slack/Discord for nomics. For those of you unfamiliar: you have a server
with some number of text and voice channels. Slack's very popular among
tech and freelance professionals, and Discord is very popular among
gamers/them youths. Both are accessible from websites, downloadable
clients, and smartphone apps. We could co-operate with BlogNomic and have a
unified Nomic server with channels for each nomic, as well as a general
channel. No longer fragmented kingdoms of yore.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Draft of corrected proposal distribution

[Nicholas Evans]

Use a text editor that doesn't do any adjustments to the formatting. If
you're on Windows, notepad is fine for the job. If you want something nicer
on Windows try notepad++ or gedit. I'm on linux, and usually use gedit or
vim.

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>
> >
> > This paragraph should be indented.
> >
> >> When a Pink Slip is issued, as a penalty, within the next 7 days, any
> >> player CAN, with 2 Support, become the holder of one or more of those
> >> offices still held by the bad sport.
> >
> >
> > And this one.
> >
> >>
> >> When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL investigate the
> >> allegation and, in a timely fashion, SHALL conclude the investigation
> >> by:
> >
> >
> > And this one.
> >
> > And more.
> >
> > -Alexis
> I'll deal with that. I need a new text editor. (Sigh.) I'll try to get
> it out this evening. (UTC -7)
>
> -Aris
>

DIS: Wiki Status

[Nicholas Evans]

The wiki will be on and off this weekend. We apologize for the
inconvenience.

~The Management

DIS: Re: Assessor tardiness

[Nicholas Evans]

I've also already resolved 7813 nearly a month ago:
http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg07758.html

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Luis Ressel  wrote:

> I intend to deputise for the Assessor to resolve the Agoran decision of
> whether to adopt Proposal 7813.
>
> [Please note that I don't want to be the Assessor. I'll just resolve
> the current round of proposals and resign the office afterwards. If
> nichdel comes back, or someone else volunteers to take over the office,
> I'd be very happy.]
>
> --
> aranea
>

DIS: Re: Assessor tardiness

[Nicholas Evans]

​A combination of being busy elsewhere and having trouble with my email
client led to disinterest. Reports & al ​incoming.

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Luis Ressel  wrote:

> I intend to deputise for the Assessor to resolve the Agoran decision of
> whether to adopt Proposal 7813.
>
> [Please note that I don't want to be the Assessor. I'll just resolve
> the current round of proposals and resign the office afterwards. If
> nichdel comes back, or someone else volunteers to take over the office,
> I'd be very happy.]
>
> --
> aranea
>

Re: DIS: Proto for referee

[Nicholas Evans]

You might want to take a look at the discussion for the economic proposal -
part of it would include punishments you have to pay off.

In general, we have to be careful with punishments though. Making someone a
less capable player, or stigmatizing them, is not very likely to encourage
them to do their job better. An unreliable office-holder is better than no
office-holder.

I do like the vigilante part though, it might streamline things. Just need
to keep the reward modest to prevent abuses (collusion, or just extremely
petty carding).

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:

> I haven't worked on the exact wording, but I would like to ask others'
> opinions on this:
>
> Make the Referee into more of a vigilante system. Players can propose
> cards to the Referee, and the Referee is responsible for basically giving
> them approval. I think there should be a Card (or Cards) which impose
> tangible punishment less strict than the Red, but I'm working on a separate
> economy proposal so that will probably be a part of that. Players are
> rewarded for submitting correct allegations.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Alexis
>

Re: DIS: Watchers: a question about the weekly registrars report

[Nicholas Evans]

Fair point. I encourage any current watchers to reply to this thread, and
I'll add you to the list.

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Watchers confirmed still watching as of May 2013:" Shouldn't we verify
> again? That's a bit out of date.
>
> -Aris
>

Re: DIS: CFJs

[Nicholas Evans]

That seems like a logical short-term solution, though a database would
be nicer. The main problem is that no one wants to take on more
responsibility right now.

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Aris Merchant
<thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay that's a big problem. We need one. In theory it could just be a report,
> but have we considered putting it on the wiki?
>
> -Aris
>
>
> On Sunday, September 18, 2016, Nicholas Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> There is, unfortunately, no current CFJ archive. The best places to
>> look right now are the older archive, the Full Logical Ruleset, and
>> the general mailing archives.
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Aris Merchant
>> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Okay, I'm a bit confused about this. I think omd's CFJ archive hasn't
>> > been
>> > updated recently? Is there one that has? Sorry if I'm just wrong about
>> > this.
>> >
>> > -Aris

Re: DIS: CFJs

[Nicholas Evans]

There is, unfortunately, no current CFJ archive. The best places to
look right now are the older archive, the Full Logical Ruleset, and
the general mailing archives.

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> Okay, I'm a bit confused about this. I think omd's CFJ archive hasn't been
> updated recently? Is there one that has? Sorry if I'm just wrong about this.
>
> -Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3461 assigned to Alexis

[Nicholas Evans]

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>
> nichdel's interpretation, that TRUE
> and/or FALSE are only valid for a true and false statement, respectively,
> lead to the even more absurd result that any attempt to assign an incorrect
> judgement fails platonically (since a judge can only assign valid
> judgements).
>

Being absurd doesn't generally make it untrue.

If your line of reasoning is upheld, CFJs have no meaning because they
do not refer to truth. If so, we have no conflict resolution system.
I'm concerned that purposely breaking the conflict resolution system
is not treating Agora Right Good Forever.

DIS: Re: BUS: A Proposal

[Nicholas Evans]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> I haven't though through the consequences of this at all.
> Proposal: Agencies (AI=3)

What's the goal here? We already have an organization system that spans
seven rules and isn't well utilized. Why not amend that system to
include these mechanics?

> and by replacing:
>a) A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the
>   action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and
>   method(s) (including the value of N for each method), at
>   most fourteen days earlier, and (if the action depends on
>   objections or notice) at least 4 days earlier.
> with
>a) A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the
>   action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and
>   method(s) (including the value of N and/or T for each method), at
>   most fourteen days earlier.
>
> b) If the action is to be performed With N Objections, With N Agoran
> Consent,
> or With Notice, if the intent was announced at least 4 days
> earlier.

Here you've included 'with notice' which makes notice at minimum 4 days.
Later you attempt to have something happen with 24hour notice. For the
record we have things at a minimum speed of 4 days because most players
can't check in daily. It keeps the game playable for busier people and
less scammable-by-swiftness.

>
> Enact a new power-1 rule entitled "TLAs" that reads as follows:
>   An Agency is a document empowering persons to act on behalf of another
>   player. A player may establish an Agency With 24 hours Notice and
> thereby
>   become its Director by specifying the properties of the new Agency:
> a) A title, which must be exactly three words, not counting
> conjunctions, articles,
> or prepositions.
> b) A non-empty list of persons other than the Head (the
> Agents).
> c) A description of a set of actions (the Powers).

By making b say 'persons' you're giving non-players the ability to act
on behalf of players.

>
>   The Powers of an Agency may only be stated as actions and, in
> particular, may not be
>   conditional on date, time, game state, or preconditions, except to the
> extent that they
>   are required for the action to be POSSIBLE. Except as allowed by this
> rule, any
>   conditions written in the Powers of an Agency are INEFFECTIVE without
> affecting
>   the overall validity of the Agency or its Powers.

I don't like this bit personally, but I should also note that it
probably won't work as intended because this rule is Power=1 and most
conditions are specified at higher powers.

Re: DIS: Wiki Status

[Nicholas Evans]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Nicholas Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The wiki will be offline sporadically for the next couple of days while I
> tinker with the server. Sorry for the inconvenience, but the existing
> materials can at least be seen here: https://github.com/nichdel/agorawiki
>

​Fingers crossed, but it looks like an upgrade went way more smoothly than
I expected. You can now get direct access to the repository, if you're into
that. Information here: http://hearthgate.net/agorawiki/Git​

DIS: Wiki Status

[Nicholas Evans]

The wiki will be offline sporadically for the next couple of days while I
tinker with the server. Sorry for the inconvenience, but the existing
materials can at least be seen here: https://github.com/nichdel/agorawiki

DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

[Nicholas Evans]

On 11 September 2016 at 10:41, Nicholas Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ​I publish the weekly Registrar's report as follows.
>

​Ugh, that formatting. The mailing lists currently seem to be rejecting
emails I send from my desktop client (debian's branch of thunderbird), so I
tried to send it through gmail's web interface.​ Apologies.

DIS: Re: BUS: Election: Reportor

[Nicholas Evans]

On 30 August 2016 at 16:07, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> I initiate an election for Reportor.
>
> I initiate an Agoran Decision to determine the new Reportor.
> The valid options are the players, the vote collector is the
> ADoP, and the voting method is instant runoff.
>
>
>
(I sent this vote, along with at least two other emails, last week and they
never hit the mailing list apparently. Unsure if this is a problem on my
end yet.)

I cast my vote as a list consisting of the first player who does not hold
an office who votes for emself and myself, in that order.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] 2015's first proposals

[Nicholas Evans]

On 01/19/2015 04:37 PM, Luis Ressel wrote:

7729*  Henri  1.0  The Agoran Newspaper

FOR

7730*  Henri  1.0  Monthly Deportation

PRESENT

7731*  Murphy 1.0  Quality over quantity

FOR

7732+  Murphy 3.0  Zebra crossing out

PRESENT

-nichdel

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgment of CFJ 3432

[Nicholas Evans]

I'm not sure the fact that the PoA is imaginary is all that relevant. If you 
add a rule to the PoA then the PoA can only specify imaginary events that occur 
regarding it, but it still clearly refers to the actual rule. The Dungeon 
Master is the one setting the property, and there is nothing that says the 
Dungeon Masters actions are imaginary or incapable of specifying aspects of 
outside entities.

-Original Message-
From: Eritivus eriti...@gmail.com
Sent: ‎11/‎12/‎2014 12:23 AM
To: Agora Nomic discussions (DF) agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgment of CFJ 3432

In case it's been forgotten, here is a possibly relevant bit of
discussion from before adoption:

On Fri, 2014-09-12 at 18:57 +, Luis Ressel wrote:
 On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:51:54 -0400, Tanner Swett wrote:
  This looks dangerous. What if the Dungeon Master said the following:
  
  I cause the rule The Dungeon Master to add itself to the Province
  of Agora. I cause the rule The Dungeon Master to set its own text
  property to that property's current value, with the following
  paragraph appended: The Dungeon Master CAN by announcement cause
  this rule to effect any effect which it CAN effect. I cause the rule
  The Dungeon Master to deregister all players.
 
  Personally, I don't really see the benefit in adding the additional
  wording.
  

 I don't think this could work. Rules are entities described by our
 ruleset, so, according to The Province of Agora (The PoA is imaginary
 and self-contained; it CANNOT specify aspects of outside entities.),
 the PoA can't describe them. It's arguable what exactly would happen,
 but IMO either adding the Dungeon Master rule to the PoA would fail or
 the rule would cease its existence as a formal rule entity the moment
 it is added to the PoA.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Speaker] CFJ 3401 assigned to nichdel

[Nicholas Evans]

On 2/23/2014 2:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote
Nichdel, have you judged this? Apologies if I missed a message. -G. 
Not yet. I've been reading all discussion on the matter and will want my 
judgment to cover all angles of argumentation. If expedience is not an 
issue, I will start drafting tonight and finish it Wednesday or Friday.


-nichdel

DIS: Re: BUS: Regarding r2419

[Nicholas Evans]

On 2/15/2014 4:52 PM, Brian Blomlie wrote:

-First thesis-
The contradiction consisting in having escape velocity and a score of 0

If there is a player of Agora who has escape velocity, then there doesn’t exist 
a player that has escape velocity. Here I’m making the assumption that the rule 
is to be read logically, in which case you have „one or more specified players 
have achieved escape velocity“ and „all players’ scores are set to 0“ happening 
at the same time.‹1› This is obviously a contradiction, and not a logically 
consistent way of winning the game.
This isn't logically inconsistent. have achieved escape velocity is a 
past-perfective statement, meaning that it doesn't matter if they 
currently have escape velocity, only that they once did. Even if the 
score reset explicitly happened before they won, the statement would 
hold true.

-Second thesis-
The contradiction in achieving escape velocity followed by/being the game 
ending, without the score being reset

Next up for consideration is for the game: (a) to be won, followed by (b) being 
ended and finally (c) the scores being reset. If the game is won and then ended 
(or winning is ending the game), the scores cannot be reset. The scores being 
reset follows necessarily from winning the game, but can’t follow if the game 
has ended. Therefore it isn’t possible for the game to be won, end and then 
finally the score being reset. Nor is it possible for the game to be won and 
end at the same time, being followed by the score being reset.
This is fallacious. It only necessarily follows if you assume the 
logical system still exists. If the game is over the rules have no power 
and the system no longer exists. In other words, the actual statement 
for any consequence in Agora is:

P(r) - r has power
R(c) - consequence c of rule R occurs
C(c2) - consequence c2 of consequence C occurs
R(c) AND P(r) - C(c2)

For a layman refutation, it's absurd to claim that a game can't end 
because rules specify events that happen after it ends. That would imply 
most games can't end because they don't explicitly say This happens, 
unless the game is over for every outcome.

-Third thesis-
The contradiction in achieving escape velocity followed by the score being 
reset and the game ending thereafter

Next up for consideration is for the game: (a) to be won, followed by (b) the 
score being reset, followed by (c) the game ending. If the game is won, the 
score will be reset. If the score has been reset, the game isn’t won anymore, 
therefore there would be no reason to end the game. From this it seems 
plausible to conclude that the game being ended must follow from the game being 
won. This is the only logically consistent way of winning the game, it does not 
however, and cannot, follow that the game is ended because of winning the game 
in this manner, as has been shown.

As has been shown, this relies on faulty premises.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Regarding r2419

[Nicholas Evans]

Sorry, the statement isn't past-perfctive but rather present-perfective. 
My statement still holds as perfectives refer to some event as a whole, 
not (necessarily) to any current state.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (Mis)Applying My Linguistics Skills

[Nicholas Evans]

On 2/12/2014 12:46 PM, omd wrote:

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Nich Del Evans nich...@gmail.com wrote:

I
also agree that they can imitate recursion to an even more limited extent.

Well, if a computer program can manage to parse a deeply nested
sentence, I expect it could proceed to manipulate it with far more
ease than a human.  e.g. if your equivalent in meaning sentence went
10 levels down.

As for Google Translate, here are some alternate languages:

Spanish: I am a green man is a meaning equivalent to I am the green
time and a man.
French: I'm a Green Man has the same meaning: I am green and a man.
German: I am a green man has the same meaning I am green and a man.
Italian: I am a green man is equivalent to the meaning of 'I am both
green and a man. 

1/4 basically correct, 2/4 grammatically incorrect but not nonsensical
(and we shouldn't mean to exclude people with bad grammar :).  You'd
know more than I, but I guess Google Translate's use of statistical
rather than rule-based translation deals better with the more
ambiguous sentences found in most texts at the cost of making this use
case look particularly bad.
I think we got off mark here though. To at least a minor extent we can 
both agree computers can emulate recursion and rephrasing. But I don't 
think many agree that they can emulate original thought. In fact, if 
they had original thought we'd probably have no objection to them 
playing. This revision was a response to the argument that a dog can 
communicate original thoughts, which seems true enough. But while a dog 
has original thoughts, it has very limited rephrasing and no recursion. 
So unless Lilly is hooked up to a machine that can then rephrase and 
recursively refer to Lilly's thoughts, these new restrictions should be 
sufficient. Otherwise, I see no reason that a dog-machine combination 
shouldn't be allowed to play, though I doubt they would do much.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (Mis)Applying My Linguistics Skills

[Nicholas Evans]

On 2/12/2014 8:24 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, omd wrote:


I'm somewhat skeptical of the word organism.

If it has to be biological, then just say human, there's no
guarantee hypothetical space aliens or AIs would be considered
organisms anyway. :)

[snip]

/me wonders whether speculating about Tines is too silly for the New
Agora.  Or is that the Old Agora?


Humans may not be very good at formulating classifications that are 
meant to separate themselves from unknown unknowns, without 
discriminating on the basis of biology.  Trying too hard might either 
create a distinction too hard to check over email, or accidentally 
exclude biological humans that should intuitively be included.


Greetings,
Ørjan.


This is the point of the Turing Test, actually. A method of determining 
if something is sentient or not over a text interface. Though I suppose 
in the normal TT at least one person needs to know who is and isn't a 
machine.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Speaker] Judicial List

[Nicholas Evans]

On 2/6/2014 4:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


Followup: here's my judicial list (combining people standing/sitting
in the old system who have posted since Jan 1 with people so far
expressing interest):

   ais523, G., woggle, omd, Tiger, Shredder, Murphy.

(Sprocklem, Nichdel, Yally would be good additions based on recent
activity level, but leaving them off until they say 'yea').

-G.

yea

-nichdel

Re: DIS: An Updated Agoran Library

[Nicholas Evans]

On 2/3/2014 1:03 AM, Alex Smith wrote:

On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 00:58 -0600, Nicholas Evans wrote:

I am now maintaining a new library of Agoran Theses:
http://hearthgate.net/nomic/agoran_library/

These within the library are categorized as either histories or theory
papers, for now. If I have missed any or have made mistakes, please tell me.

In the future, I hope to collect other documents related to nomic to
host alongside the agoran library.

You seem to have missed the most recent thesis, from which I got my
D.N.Phil:
http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg07043.html


Sorry about that oversight. Fixed now.

DIS: An Updated Agoran Library

[Nicholas Evans]

I am now maintaining a new library of Agoran Theses: 
http://hearthgate.net/nomic/agoran_library/


These within the library are categorized as either histories or theory 
papers, for now. If I have missed any or have made mistakes, please tell me.


In the future, I hope to collect other documents related to nomic to 
host alongside the agoran library.


--nichdel

Re: DIS: Collecting Agoran Theses

[Nicholas Evans]

On 1/22/2014 2:57 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On Sat, 18 Jan 2014, Nicholas Evans wrote:

I've been reading Blob's Agoran Library [1] and was wondering if anyone has
kept record of theses since 1999 (where Blob's records end). If not, I will
try to collect them myself.

[1]
ftp://ftp.cse.unsw.edu.au/pub/users/malcolmr/nomic/articles/agora-theses/library.html

scshunt published the following back in August:

The three qualifying theses published in the modern era were:

ais523: 
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2009-April/019479.html
scshunt: http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg04256.html
Murphy: 
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-November/008357.html

ais523 additionally published a thesis summarizing the wins over the
course of a few years, it was rejected due to a significant factual
error.

Thanks! I'm hoping to start my own little Agoran library for theses soon.

DIS: Collecting Agoran Theses

[Nicholas Evans]

I've been reading Blob's Agoran Library [1] and was wondering if anyone 
has kept record of theses since 1999 (where Blob's records end). If not, 
I will try to collect them myself.


[1] 
ftp://ftp.cse.unsw.edu.au/pub/users/malcolmr/nomic/articles/agora-theses/library.html

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7618-7620

[Nicholas Evans]

I vote as follows:

On 1/17/2014 1:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

Proposal 7618 by omd (AI=3, Ordinary)
No point slowing down proposals in lieu of proposal fees

Endorse woggle.

Proposal 7619 by woggle (AI=3, Ordinary)
Rules can't violate rules!

Endorse G.

Proposal 7620 by G. (AI=3, Ordinary)
Fire the Full Committee

Endorse omd.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Results for 7615-7617

[Nicholas Evans]

On 1/16/2014 12:27 AM, Nich Del Evans wrote:

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On Wed, 15 Jan 2014, omd wrote:

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu
wrote:

Wow.  Significant rules changes and a quite high voter count.  I'm happy.

Indeed... a bold new era of cleaning up the mistakes we just put into place,
but at least it was done by many voters acting unanimously.

So is it the Year of the Lemming? :P

That's a myth, a myth!!

(My phone is entirely unreliable apparently.)

Everyone seems to really 'jump off the cliff' with the myth...

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com