Re: [Attn: G.] Re: Contract charities (was Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification)
On 6/25/2020 11:33 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 17:03, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: >> On 6/25/2020 9:33 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: >>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 14:00, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion >>> wrote: On 6/24/2020 8:47 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > Bump. Here's an updated text; all I did was remove the once-per-month > restriction. G., what do you think about submitting this before nch's > and R. Lee's possible victory? I'm happy to pend it (assuming > DracoLotto worked as intended). I'm 99% sure the victory will either succeed or fail before this can be voted on (quite possibly before it's distributed) so I don't see an issue there? -G. >>> >>> My concern is that our Pendants will disappear. Just trying to save on >>> the pending cost. >> >> Oh - you mean "does this count as tweaking the game too soon" in general, >> because you might rush to pend? I might leave that to nch this seems like >> a nice feature not a big tweak but others may vary... >> >> -G. > > I don't think that's what I meant either... > > I think it's a nice and simple proposal. I would submit and pend it > myself now, but I don't want to steal authorship from you. I'm > suggesting there's a (very mild) urgency because we have some Pendants > that could disappear at any moment, and I don't want them to go to > waste. oh, duh. everyone's been going back and forth so much with ideas and drafts I wasn't thinking of ownership at all. go for it!
Re: [Attn: G.] Re: Contract charities (was Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification)
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 17:03, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/25/2020 9:33 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 14:00, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > > wrote: > >> On 6/24/2020 8:47 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > >>> Bump. Here's an updated text; all I did was remove the once-per-month > >>> restriction. G., what do you think about submitting this before nch's > >>> and R. Lee's possible victory? I'm happy to pend it (assuming > >>> DracoLotto worked as intended). > >> > >> I'm 99% sure the victory will either succeed or fail before this can be > >> voted on (quite possibly before it's distributed) so I don't see an issue > >> there? > >> > >> -G. > > > > My concern is that our Pendants will disappear. Just trying to save on > > the pending cost. > > Oh - you mean "does this count as tweaking the game too soon" in general, > because you might rush to pend? I might leave that to nch this seems like > a nice feature not a big tweak but others may vary... > > -G. I don't think that's what I meant either... I think it's a nice and simple proposal. I would submit and pend it myself now, but I don't want to steal authorship from you. I'm suggesting there's a (very mild) urgency because we have some Pendants that could disappear at any moment, and I don't want them to go to waste. - Falsifian
Re: [Attn: G.] Re: Contract charities (was Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification)
On 6/25/2020 9:33 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 14:00, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: >> On 6/24/2020 8:47 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: >>> Bump. Here's an updated text; all I did was remove the once-per-month >>> restriction. G., what do you think about submitting this before nch's >>> and R. Lee's possible victory? I'm happy to pend it (assuming >>> DracoLotto worked as intended). >> >> I'm 99% sure the victory will either succeed or fail before this can be >> voted on (quite possibly before it's distributed) so I don't see an issue >> there? >> >> -G. > > My concern is that our Pendants will disappear. Just trying to save on > the pending cost. Oh - you mean "does this count as tweaking the game too soon" in general, because you might rush to pend? I might leave that to nch this seems like a nice feature not a big tweak but others may vary... -G.
Re: [Attn: G.] Re: Contract charities (was Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification)
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 14:00, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/24/2020 8:47 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > Bump. Here's an updated text; all I did was remove the once-per-month > > restriction. G., what do you think about submitting this before nch's > > and R. Lee's possible victory? I'm happy to pend it (assuming > > DracoLotto worked as intended). > > I'm 99% sure the victory will either succeed or fail before this can be > voted on (quite possibly before it's distributed) so I don't see an issue > there? > > -G. My concern is that our Pendants will disappear. Just trying to save on the pending cost. - Falsifian
Re: [Attn: G.] Re: Contract charities (was Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification)
On 6/24/2020 8:47 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > Bump. Here's an updated text; all I did was remove the once-per-month > restriction. G., what do you think about submitting this before nch's > and R. Lee's possible victory? I'm happy to pend it (assuming > DracoLotto worked as intended). I'm 99% sure the victory will either succeed or fail before this can be voted on (quite possibly before it's distributed) so I don't see an issue there? -G.
[Attn: G.] Re: Contract charities (was Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification)
On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 19:30, James Cook wrote: > > The idea of a contract charity (which we've done before) is intriguing and > > this makes me want to go for the strongest standard (w/o objection). > > I was just in the middle of drafting a Reportor contract. Here's a > copy of your proto for charity contracts from last month: > > > Proto > > - > > Enact the following rule, Charities: > > > > Donation Level is a natural switch for contracts, tracked by the > > Notary, with a default of 0 and a maximum of 25. A contract with > > nonzero donation level is called a Charity. > > > > The Notary CAN flip a contract's donation level to a non-default > > value with 3 Agoran consent, provided e has not done so for any > > contract in the current Agoran month. This SHOULD only be done if > > the contract's provisions ensure that its funds will be used solely > > for the betterment of Agora. Any player CAN flip a contract's > > donation level to 0 with Agoran consent. > > > > Whenever a payday occurs, half of each charity's coin holdings > > (rounded down) are destroyed, and then each charity earns a > > number of coins equal to its donation level. > > > > [the 'half are destroyed' bit is because we don't want charities to build > > up big bankrolls if they don't give things away]. > > DIS thread "simple way to give out funds". A few thoughts there > already, e.g. removing the one-per-month limit. > > - Falsifian Bump. Here's an updated text; all I did was remove the once-per-month restriction. G., what do you think about submitting this before nch's and R. Lee's possible victory? I'm happy to pend it (assuming DracoLotto worked as intended). Enact the following rule, Charities: Donation Level is a natural switch for contracts, tracked by the Notary, with a default of 0 and a maximum of 25. A contract with nonzero donation level is called a Charity. The Notary CAN flip a contract's donation level to a non-default value with 3 Agoran consent. This SHOULD only be done if the contract's provisions ensure that its funds will be used solely for the betterment of Agora. Any player CAN flip a contract's donation level to 0 with Agoran consent. Whenever a payday occurs, half of each charity's coin holdings (rounded down) are destroyed, and then each charity earns a number of coins equal to its donation level. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification
I disagree, honestly. I don't think it's a good idea, especially in regards to new players, to say "hey, so if there's a problem with the rules, you can do this to fix it, but you can get massively punished for doing something for the good of Agora." And if someone is unfamiliar with our criminal punishment system, it might look more like "you will be punished massively." On 6/19/2020 9:47 PM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: i actually genuinely think that the proposal i created is probably the best fix for this, it means you can certify a proposal but you accept the risk of a massive fine (and that fine will be nominal if it's actually, manifestly, incredibly necessary or whatever) On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:45 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: I think we need a free way of pending patch proposals. The voters appear to agree with me. I know some prominent and respected voices disagree, but the proposal passed, so clearly public sentiment presently favors something along these lines. However, the mechanism I proposed might have been messy. There are alternative ideas that would cause fewer CFJs. This gets a bit logistically interesting though because it's preferable for any such mechanism to be a) fast, and b) discourage abuse. Unfortunately, those things go against each other. This is why I suggested a criminal mechanism, which punishes abuse after the fact. The obvious alternative is a dependent action. 2 Agoran Consent works pretty well as a cure to abuse of anything. It also takes 4 days, which is too long for patches IMO. That leaves with N support. The problem with actions taken with N support is that you've gotta pick a value of N that is high enough to stop a cabal of taking advantage of it and low enough to be easily achievable. That being said, something like with 5 support backed by a SHOULD might do it. A final solution, which I'm tossing in mostly as a joke, would be to just take the once a week limitation off my emergency pending powers. Or, of course, we could just repeal it. A repeal does remove the problem, though at the cost of also removing a mechanism that we've collectively agreed is a good idea. Thoughts? -Aris -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Contract charities (was Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification)
> The idea of a contract charity (which we've done before) is intriguing and > this makes me want to go for the strongest standard (w/o objection). I was just in the middle of drafting a Reportor contract. Here's a copy of your proto for charity contracts from last month: > Proto > - > Enact the following rule, Charities: > > Donation Level is a natural switch for contracts, tracked by the > Notary, with a default of 0 and a maximum of 25. A contract with > nonzero donation level is called a Charity. > > The Notary CAN flip a contract's donation level to a non-default > value with 3 Agoran consent, provided e has not done so for any > contract in the current Agoran month. This SHOULD only be done if > the contract's provisions ensure that its funds will be used solely > for the betterment of Agora. Any player CAN flip a contract's > donation level to 0 with Agoran consent. > > Whenever a payday occurs, half of each charity's coin holdings > (rounded down) are destroyed, and then each charity earns a > number of coins equal to its donation level. > > [the 'half are destroyed' bit is because we don't want charities to build > up big bankrolls if they don't give things away]. DIS thread "simple way to give out funds". A few thoughts there already, e.g. removing the one-per-month limit. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification
On 6/20/2020 11:29 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 01:45, Aris Merchant wrote: >> I think we need a free way of pending patch proposals. The voters appear to >> agree with me. A bit of spin here to correct :). 5 voters voted FOR, 5 voters voted AGAINST. The ministry (that you assigned?) is what swung this. Two of those against votes were zombies, sure. But your statement above is not quite on. nch, may I recommend that the proposal that goes in be submitted to the Chamber of Justice? I think the primary purpose of this proposal is to remove the unfair Crime (negotiating over the exact ease of pending is secondary). > One voter's perspective: > > I voted FOR only to protect for the case that someone finds a serious > bug with pending proposals. > > Personally I think it would be more fun to have a cost for even the > most trivial bugfix, at least until we get bored of it. (E.g. We could > create a Society of Concerned Agorans contract where people who want > to show their concern for the common good can pool Pendants for such a > purpose.) The idea of a contract charity (which we've done before) is intriguing and this makes me want to go for the strongest standard (w/o objection). Also note: if we're worried about true emergency bugs, we should bring back Urgent proposal that go through the whole system faster (perhaps even at higher base cost, not lesser). > I like the idea of making free pending a dependent action instead of > guarded by some particular SHALL condition. I'd probably vote for that > change, then object to any actual use of it unless we figure out > pending is broken. > > - Falsifian
Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification
On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 01:45, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > I think we need a free way of pending patch proposals. The voters appear to > agree with me. One voter's perspective: I voted FOR only to protect for the case that someone finds a serious bug with pending proposals. Personally I think it would be more fun to have a cost for even the most trivial bugfix, at least until we get bored of it. (E.g. We could create a Society of Concerned Agorans contract where people who want to show their concern for the common good can pool Pendants for such a purpose.) I like the idea of making free pending a dependent action instead of guarded by some particular SHALL condition. I'd probably vote for that change, then object to any actual use of it unless we figure out pending is broken. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification
On 6/19/20 9:08 PM, grok via agora-discussion wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020, 8:55 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On 6/19/20 9:44 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: >>> A final solution, which I'm tossing in mostly as a joke, would be to just >>> take the once a week limitation off my emergency pending powers. >> >> I... wouldn't be opposed to this. It seems like a reasonable office >> perk/responsibility (backed by the threat of appropriate punishment for >> abuse). >> > If we are worried about potential abuse, it would be relatively trivial to > increase the difficulty of additional emergency pends (first each week is 2 > Agoran Consent and subsequent are Without Objection, for example) > Just a note that it's currently possible (per R2622) for the Promotor to pend any proposal with 2 support. The only limit is once a week. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification
On 6/19/20 9:06 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > Maybe we can even exempt patch proposals from popularity and > rewards to make sure they're truly for the public good. > > -- > Trigon This is a must for me to vote FOR any mechanic like that. I've been meaning to write a proposal to make the language/mechanics around proposals a little nicer so that'd be easier. Something like replacing the binary pending switch with a switch that distinguishes proposals that were pended via pendant and proposals that are distributable through a different means, and then exempt that different means from rewards. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification
On 6/19/2020 7:06 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2020-06-19 19:44, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: >> I think we need a free way of pending patch proposals. The voters appear to >> agree with me. I know some prominent and respected voices disagree, but the >> proposal passed, so clearly public sentiment presently favors something >> along these lines. >> >> However, the mechanism I proposed might have been messy. There are >> alternative ideas that would cause fewer CFJs. This gets a bit logistically >> interesting though because it's preferable for any such mechanism to be a) >> fast, and b) discourage abuse. Unfortunately, those things go against each >> other. This is why I suggested a criminal mechanism, which punishes abuse >> after the fact. The obvious alternative is a dependent action. 2 Agoran >> Consent works pretty well as a cure to abuse of anything. It also takes 4 >> days, which is too long for patches IMO. That leaves with N support. The >> problem with actions taken with N support is that you've gotta pick a value >> of N that is high enough to stop a cabal of taking advantage of it and low >> enough to be easily achievable. That being said, something like with 5 >> support backed by a SHOULD might do it. >> >> A final solution, which I'm tossing in mostly as a joke, would be to just >> take the once a week limitation off my emergency pending powers. >> >> Or, of course, we could just repeal it. A repeal does remove the problem, >> though at the cost of also removing a mechanism that we've collectively >> agreed is a good idea. >> >> Thoughts? > > I think it's good to have free patch proposals, but I don't really like > the huge penalty of the current version. I feel like a much more > balanced system would be a simple dependent action thing. Like someone > can make their proposal a patch with some support or without some > objections or both. There don't have to be restrictions on what patch > proposals are about as long as people agree that it's meant to fix > something. Maybe we can even exempt patch proposals from popularity and > rewards to make sure they're truly for the public good. I would say w/o 3 objections at a guess. The 4-day waiting time, during which people are reading it with an eye to objection, is a great way to catch bugs in any bugfix.
Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020, 8:55 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/19/20 9:44 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > > A final solution, which I'm tossing in mostly as a joke, would be to just > > take the once a week limitation off my emergency pending powers. > > > I... wouldn't be opposed to this. It seems like a reasonable office > perk/responsibility (backed by the threat of appropriate punishment for > abuse). > If we are worried about potential abuse, it would be relatively trivial to increase the difficulty of additional emergency pends (first each week is 2 Agoran Consent and subsequent are Without Objection, for example) >
Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification
On 2020-06-19 19:44, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: I think we need a free way of pending patch proposals. The voters appear to agree with me. I know some prominent and respected voices disagree, but the proposal passed, so clearly public sentiment presently favors something along these lines. However, the mechanism I proposed might have been messy. There are alternative ideas that would cause fewer CFJs. This gets a bit logistically interesting though because it's preferable for any such mechanism to be a) fast, and b) discourage abuse. Unfortunately, those things go against each other. This is why I suggested a criminal mechanism, which punishes abuse after the fact. The obvious alternative is a dependent action. 2 Agoran Consent works pretty well as a cure to abuse of anything. It also takes 4 days, which is too long for patches IMO. That leaves with N support. The problem with actions taken with N support is that you've gotta pick a value of N that is high enough to stop a cabal of taking advantage of it and low enough to be easily achievable. That being said, something like with 5 support backed by a SHOULD might do it. A final solution, which I'm tossing in mostly as a joke, would be to just take the once a week limitation off my emergency pending powers. Or, of course, we could just repeal it. A repeal does remove the problem, though at the cost of also removing a mechanism that we've collectively agreed is a good idea. Thoughts? I think it's good to have free patch proposals, but I don't really like the huge penalty of the current version. I feel like a much more balanced system would be a simple dependent action thing. Like someone can make their proposal a patch with some support or without some objections or both. There don't have to be restrictions on what patch proposals are about as long as people agree that it's meant to fix something. Maybe we can even exempt patch proposals from popularity and rewards to make sure they're truly for the public good. -- Trigon Treasuror of Agora; Former Speaker (twice), Rulekeepor (12 months) and Cartographor (8 months) of Agora; Champion of Agora by High Score and Proposal; Bearer of the Badge of the Salted Earth; Founder of the League of Agorans Facilitating Effective Recordkeeping; Arcadian Revivalist; Sixth-Longest Continually Registered Player of Agora; Player and former Emperor of BlogNomic; Player, Book-keeper, and Originator of the Metaruleset of Infinite Nomic; Contributor to the nomic.club wiki and the Talk:Nomic page on Wikipedia.
Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification
On 6/19/20 9:44 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > I think we need a free way of pending patch proposals. The voters appear to > agree with me. I know some prominent and respected voices disagree, but the > proposal passed, so clearly public sentiment presently favors something > along these lines. I agree with free patch proposals, but I'm not sure it's right to say that "the voters" do: > PROPOSAL 8424 (Certifiable Patches) > CLASS: ORDINARY > CHAMBER: LEGISLATION > FOR (5): Aris&, Cuddle Beam, Falsifian, Jason&, Publius Scribonius > Scholasticus > AGAINST (5): G., R. Lee, Tcbapo, nch, twg > PRESENT (2): ATMunn, Trigon^ > BALLOTS: 12 > AI (F/A): 23/15 (AI=1.0) > POPULARITY: 0.000 > OUTCOME: ADOPTED This only passed at AI 1 because of office interests, and it means any change besides just repealing the rule has a decent chance of failing. > > However, the mechanism I proposed might have been messy. There are > alternative ideas that would cause fewer CFJs. This gets a bit logistically > interesting though because it's preferable for any such mechanism to be a) > fast, and b) discourage abuse. Unfortunately, those things go against each > other. This is why I suggested a criminal mechanism, which punishes abuse > after the fact. The obvious alternative is a dependent action. 2 Agoran > Consent works pretty well as a cure to abuse of anything. It also takes 4 > days, which is too long for patches IMO. That leaves with N support. The > problem with actions taken with N support is that you've gotta pick a value > of N that is high enough to stop a cabal of taking advantage of it and low > enough to be easily achievable. That being said, something like with 5 > support backed by a SHOULD might do it. Fair points on dependent actions. I think this is a reasonable application of indictments, so I'm tempted to suggest leaving it be and seeing what happens for now. > > A final solution, which I'm tossing in mostly as a joke, would be to just > take the once a week limitation off my emergency pending powers. I... wouldn't be opposed to this. It seems like a reasonable office perk/responsibility (backed by the threat of appropriate punishment for abuse). -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification
i actually genuinely think that the proposal i created is probably the best fix for this, it means you can certify a proposal but you accept the risk of a massive fine (and that fine will be nominal if it's actually, manifestly, incredibly necessary or whatever) On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:45 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I think we need a free way of pending patch proposals. The voters appear to > agree with me. I know some prominent and respected voices disagree, but the > proposal passed, so clearly public sentiment presently favors something > along these lines. > > However, the mechanism I proposed might have been messy. There are > alternative ideas that would cause fewer CFJs. This gets a bit logistically > interesting though because it's preferable for any such mechanism to be a) > fast, and b) discourage abuse. Unfortunately, those things go against each > other. This is why I suggested a criminal mechanism, which punishes abuse > after the fact. The obvious alternative is a dependent action. 2 Agoran > Consent works pretty well as a cure to abuse of anything. It also takes 4 > days, which is too long for patches IMO. That leaves with N support. The > problem with actions taken with N support is that you've gotta pick a value > of N that is high enough to stop a cabal of taking advantage of it and low > enough to be easily achievable. That being said, something like with 5 > support backed by a SHOULD might do it. > > A final solution, which I'm tossing in mostly as a joke, would be to just > take the once a week limitation off my emergency pending powers. > > Or, of course, we could just repeal it. A repeal does remove the problem, > though at the cost of also removing a mechanism that we've collectively > agreed is a good idea. > > Thoughts? > > -Aris > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification
I think we need a free way of pending patch proposals. The voters appear to agree with me. I know some prominent and respected voices disagree, but the proposal passed, so clearly public sentiment presently favors something along these lines. However, the mechanism I proposed might have been messy. There are alternative ideas that would cause fewer CFJs. This gets a bit logistically interesting though because it's preferable for any such mechanism to be a) fast, and b) discourage abuse. Unfortunately, those things go against each other. This is why I suggested a criminal mechanism, which punishes abuse after the fact. The obvious alternative is a dependent action. 2 Agoran Consent works pretty well as a cure to abuse of anything. It also takes 4 days, which is too long for patches IMO. That leaves with N support. The problem with actions taken with N support is that you've gotta pick a value of N that is high enough to stop a cabal of taking advantage of it and low enough to be easily achievable. That being said, something like with 5 support backed by a SHOULD might do it. A final solution, which I'm tossing in mostly as a joke, would be to just take the once a week limitation off my emergency pending powers. Or, of course, we could just repeal it. A repeal does remove the problem, though at the cost of also removing a mechanism that we've collectively agreed is a good idea. Thoughts? -Aris
