Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On 2020-06-06 10:52, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
On 6/6/2020 9:33 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
On Saturday, June 6, 2020 10:18:59 AM CDT ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
There's absolutely no way this will pass, but I'm going to try it
anyways. Aris, I don't remember exactly when the midweek distribution
deadline is, but don't worry about including this proposal in it.
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Bank Robbery
AI: 1.0
Author: ATMunn
Co-author(s):
Enact a rule entitled "Heists" with the following text:
{
At any time, any player CAN, by announcement, perform a Heist. Upon
doing so, e CAN transfer up to half of the coins owned by Agora, rounded
down, to emself. However, players MAY NOT perform a Heist. Doing so is
the Class 3 Crime of Robbery.
}
G. will very likely have more to say about this but around the early 2000s
there was a system this vaguely reminds me of. Players could become rebels,
which was illegal and therefore earned em blots, but if the rebellion was
strong enough (which was determined by how many rebels there were and some
other factors, like certain holidays) the rebels could revolt.
I think this version might be a little too strong, but in general I like the
idea of there being some intentional misdeeds when we have blots and blot
cards.
Yeah, this is one of those initial conditions problems in an otherwise
fine idea. If Agora had 0 coins right now it would be fine. No incentive
for the Assessor, and coins would build up in Agora and then people could
decide when it's worth it to grab - timing the grab would be fun.
Is there any reason Agora needs 1,976 coins right now? Maybe the real
simple solution is just to add a "Destroy all coins in Agora's possession"
to the proposal before enacting the rule. (or "Destroy all except 50" if
you want a buffer or something, I'm pretty sure the Assessor wouldn't grab
25 coins in exchange for 3 blots).
Maybe a dedicated entity for us to steal from, perhaps called the
"Bank", which receives coins every payday?
--
Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On 6/6/2020 11:16 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > If no one else is interested in preparing a draft for this, I’ll get to it > later this weekend. I think the conversation/proto I was misremembering was the discussion around high crimes and treason, so you're the perfect person...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 18:17, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > If no one else is interested in preparing a draft for this, I’ll get to it > later this weekend. Thanks! - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
If no one else is interested in preparing a draft for this, I’ll get to it later this weekend. > On Jun 6, 2020, at 13:54, James Cook via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 17:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: >> On 6/6/2020 10:28 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > This is great! but I'm likely to vote AGAINST unless we get a > crime/infraction distinction and this becomes an infraction, i.e. not > actually against the rules. Is this something that is currently being proposed, or no? I know there's something related to blots and stuff in the proposal pool currently, but I don't remember what it actually does. If not, I could probably add some form of that to the proposal. >>> >>> No, G. sketched an idea in the thread "Rule Violation Options" but it >>> hasn't been turned into a proposal yet. The idea is that actions >>> defined as "crimes" are rule violations but actions described as >>> "infractions" aren't, but still incur penalties. >> >> Wasn't there a longer proto before that, by someone else? The final draft >> would have to include going through all current SHALLs and SHALL NOTs in >> the rules and classifying them, amending a lot of rules (I definitely >> wasn't leading the drafting on that!) >> >> -G. > > I remember this topic being discussed, but I don't remember an actual > proto. So much has been going on lately that I'll readily believe > there was such a proto. Closest I could find was this by nch (May 27, > subject "Re: DIS: Back-Awarding of Silver Quills") > >> Referee Cards were fun, and there's no reason they couldn't work with an >> asset >> system like the upcoming Sets (except for the confusion of names). You'd just >> make Green and Yellow payable with different amounts of Blot-B-Gones, and Red >> would probably not be payable at all. >> >> In fact, it may be a good idea to have two separate tiers of crimes anyway: >> small infractions that earn you some blots, and serious ones that come with a >> punishment you can't pay off. I think that'd reconcile the ideas of "justice >> as >> a game mechanic" and "justice as a way to deal with bad faith >> actors/actions." > > and then later from you: > >> Sure, that's why you divide things into felonies, misdemeanors, traffic >> fines, civil offenses, etc. But you write that into the law so it's clear >> you don't use the same language for all of those. In a game sense, in this >> iterative social contract (where your "reputation" is part of the >> trade-off) it's good to be clear between "yeah that's part of playing the >> game, we'll give you a blot but we won't be mad" and "we're going to yell >> a lot, consider your victory tainted, and try to hit you with heavy >> penalties". Just so we all get along better, you know? >> >> We don't have that right now - our "Class N" system is really incomplete >> and inconsistent. Previously (when we had differential designations we >> didn't have any violations where we didn't say that it was either a Crime >> or Infraction (that is, every SHALL NOT was paired with whether it was a >> Crime or Infraction). We'd have to go to every SHALL NOT in the rules and >> categorize it to set this up again. >> >> It's especially important if we want to give the Officers any duties that >> involve exploitable powers - want to be clear "we're giving you these >> powers and don't expect you to abuse them, or the subgame is ruined." >> >> -G. > > - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 17:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/6/2020 10:28 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > >>> This is great! but I'm likely to vote AGAINST unless we get a > >>> crime/infraction distinction and this becomes an infraction, i.e. not > >>> actually against the rules. > >> > >> Is this something that is currently being proposed, or no? I know > >> there's something related to blots and stuff in the proposal pool > >> currently, but I don't remember what it actually does. If not, I could > >> probably add some form of that to the proposal. > > > > No, G. sketched an idea in the thread "Rule Violation Options" but it > > hasn't been turned into a proposal yet. The idea is that actions > > defined as "crimes" are rule violations but actions described as > > "infractions" aren't, but still incur penalties. > > Wasn't there a longer proto before that, by someone else? The final draft > would have to include going through all current SHALLs and SHALL NOTs in > the rules and classifying them, amending a lot of rules (I definitely > wasn't leading the drafting on that!) > > -G. I remember this topic being discussed, but I don't remember an actual proto. So much has been going on lately that I'll readily believe there was such a proto. Closest I could find was this by nch (May 27, subject "Re: DIS: Back-Awarding of Silver Quills") > Referee Cards were fun, and there's no reason they couldn't work with an asset > system like the upcoming Sets (except for the confusion of names). You'd just > make Green and Yellow payable with different amounts of Blot-B-Gones, and Red > would probably not be payable at all. > > In fact, it may be a good idea to have two separate tiers of crimes anyway: > small infractions that earn you some blots, and serious ones that come with a > punishment you can't pay off. I think that'd reconcile the ideas of "justice > as > a game mechanic" and "justice as a way to deal with bad faith actors/actions." and then later from you: > Sure, that's why you divide things into felonies, misdemeanors, traffic > fines, civil offenses, etc. But you write that into the law so it's clear > you don't use the same language for all of those. In a game sense, in this > iterative social contract (where your "reputation" is part of the > trade-off) it's good to be clear between "yeah that's part of playing the > game, we'll give you a blot but we won't be mad" and "we're going to yell > a lot, consider your victory tainted, and try to hit you with heavy > penalties". Just so we all get along better, you know? > > We don't have that right now - our "Class N" system is really incomplete > and inconsistent. Previously (when we had differential designations we > didn't have any violations where we didn't say that it was either a Crime > or Infraction (that is, every SHALL NOT was paired with whether it was a > Crime or Infraction). We'd have to go to every SHALL NOT in the rules and > categorize it to set this up again. > > It's especially important if we want to give the Officers any duties that > involve exploitable powers - want to be clear "we're giving you these > powers and don't expect you to abuse them, or the subgame is ruined." > > -G. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On 6/6/2020 10:28 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: >>> This is great! but I'm likely to vote AGAINST unless we get a >>> crime/infraction distinction and this becomes an infraction, i.e. not >>> actually against the rules. >> >> Is this something that is currently being proposed, or no? I know >> there's something related to blots and stuff in the proposal pool >> currently, but I don't remember what it actually does. If not, I could >> probably add some form of that to the proposal. > > No, G. sketched an idea in the thread "Rule Violation Options" but it > hasn't been turned into a proposal yet. The idea is that actions > defined as "crimes" are rule violations but actions described as > "infractions" aren't, but still incur penalties. Wasn't there a longer proto before that, by someone else? The final draft would have to include going through all current SHALLs and SHALL NOTs in the rules and classifying them, amending a lot of rules (I definitely wasn't leading the drafting on that!) -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
> > This is great! but I'm likely to vote AGAINST unless we get a > > crime/infraction distinction and this becomes an infraction, i.e. not > > actually against the rules. > > Is this something that is currently being proposed, or no? I know > there's something related to blots and stuff in the proposal pool > currently, but I don't remember what it actually does. If not, I could > probably add some form of that to the proposal. No, G. sketched an idea in the thread "Rule Violation Options" but it hasn't been turned into a proposal yet. The idea is that actions defined as "crimes" are rule violations but actions described as "infractions" aren't, but still incur penalties. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On 6/6/2020 10:12 AM, ATMunn wrote:
> On 6/6/2020 1:05 PM, James Cook wrote:
>>> Title: Bank Robbery
>>> AI: 1.0
>>> Author: ATMunn
>>> Co-author(s):
>>>
>>> Enact a rule entitled "Heists" with the following text:
>>> {
>>> At any time, any player CAN, by announcement, perform a Heist. Upon
>>> doing so, e CAN transfer up to half of the coins owned by Agora, rounded
>>> down, to emself. However, players MAY NOT perform a Heist. Doing so is
>>> the Class 3 Crime of Robbery.
>>> }
>>
>> I'm not sure whether the second CAN needs a method. Maybe it should be
>> consolidated into one action / one CAN.
>
> Yeah, that's a good idea. I will consolidate it in the next version.
>
>>
>> This is great! but I'm likely to vote AGAINST unless we get a
>> crime/infraction distinction and this becomes an infraction, i.e. not
>> actually against the rules.
>
> Is this something that is currently being proposed, or no? I know
> there's something related to blots and stuff in the proposal pool
> currently, but I don't remember what it actually does. If not, I could
> probably add some form of that to the proposal.
There have been protos circulated and commented on this past month
(including a big reform one?), but nothing in the proposal pool yet.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On 6/6/2020 10:17 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On Saturday, June 6, 2020 12:08:48 PM CDT ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: >> The only other thing I'm wondering about is what class crime Robbery >> should be. I went with 3 because 2 seems too low (it is robbery after >> all), but 4 and above is considered "high crime" and seems to be >> reserved for more serious, game-disrupting actions. Anyone have any input? > > No matter what you set it to, it becomes an optimization problem. Players > have > to decide at which point X>Y, where X is the value they get from the robbery > and Y is the value they lose to the blots. 2 or 3 are best I think. Players > will probably be too hesitant to do 4 until it's very obviously a good deal, > and probably too eager to do 1 even if it's a bad deal. 2 or 3 has some risk > that might make people hesitate, but not too much. Assuming Sets pass, it's impossible to know until there's some more sense of justice card valuation. But in the current system trading off for "3 weeks of blot expunging" feels about right. I'd say either 3 or 4 would be fine using that baseline (I think 2 is a little low). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On 6/6/2020 1:17 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: On Saturday, June 6, 2020 12:08:48 PM CDT ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: The only other thing I'm wondering about is what class crime Robbery should be. I went with 3 because 2 seems too low (it is robbery after all), but 4 and above is considered "high crime" and seems to be reserved for more serious, game-disrupting actions. Anyone have any input? No matter what you set it to, it becomes an optimization problem. Players have to decide at which point X>Y, where X is the value they get from the robbery and Y is the value they lose to the blots. 2 or 3 are best I think. Players will probably be too hesitant to do 4 until it's very obviously a good deal, and probably too eager to do 1 even if it's a bad deal. 2 or 3 has some risk that might make people hesitate, but not too much. Okay. I'll stick with 3 then I think.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On Saturday, June 6, 2020 12:08:48 PM CDT ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > The only other thing I'm wondering about is what class crime Robbery > should be. I went with 3 because 2 seems too low (it is robbery after > all), but 4 and above is considered "high crime" and seems to be > reserved for more serious, game-disrupting actions. Anyone have any input? No matter what you set it to, it becomes an optimization problem. Players have to decide at which point X>Y, where X is the value they get from the robbery and Y is the value they lose to the blots. 2 or 3 are best I think. Players will probably be too hesitant to do 4 until it's very obviously a good deal, and probably too eager to do 1 even if it's a bad deal. 2 or 3 has some risk that might make people hesitate, but not too much. -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On 6/6/2020 1:05 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
Title: Bank Robbery
AI: 1.0
Author: ATMunn
Co-author(s):
Enact a rule entitled "Heists" with the following text:
{
At any time, any player CAN, by announcement, perform a Heist. Upon
doing so, e CAN transfer up to half of the coins owned by Agora, rounded
down, to emself. However, players MAY NOT perform a Heist. Doing so is
the Class 3 Crime of Robbery.
}
I'm not sure whether the second CAN needs a method. Maybe it should be
consolidated into one action / one CAN.
Yeah, that's a good idea. I will consolidate it in the next version.
This is great! but I'm likely to vote AGAINST unless we get a
crime/infraction distinction and this becomes an infraction, i.e. not
actually against the rules.
Is this something that is currently being proposed, or no? I know
there's something related to blots and stuff in the proposal pool
currently, but I don't remember what it actually does. If not, I could
probably add some form of that to the proposal.
- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On 6/6/2020 12:52 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
On 6/6/2020 9:33 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
On Saturday, June 6, 2020 10:18:59 AM CDT ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
There's absolutely no way this will pass, but I'm going to try it
anyways. Aris, I don't remember exactly when the midweek distribution
deadline is, but don't worry about including this proposal in it.
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Bank Robbery
AI: 1.0
Author: ATMunn
Co-author(s):
Enact a rule entitled "Heists" with the following text:
{
At any time, any player CAN, by announcement, perform a Heist. Upon
doing so, e CAN transfer up to half of the coins owned by Agora, rounded
down, to emself. However, players MAY NOT perform a Heist. Doing so is
the Class 3 Crime of Robbery.
}
G. will very likely have more to say about this but around the early 2000s
there was a system this vaguely reminds me of. Players could become rebels,
which was illegal and therefore earned em blots, but if the rebellion was
strong enough (which was determined by how many rebels there were and some
other factors, like certain holidays) the rebels could revolt.
I think this version might be a little too strong, but in general I like the
idea of there being some intentional misdeeds when we have blots and blot
cards.
Yeah, this is one of those initial conditions problems in an otherwise
fine idea. If Agora had 0 coins right now it would be fine. No incentive
for the Assessor, and coins would build up in Agora and then people could
decide when it's worth it to grab - timing the grab would be fun.
Is there any reason Agora needs 1,976 coins right now? Maybe the real
simple solution is just to add a "Destroy all coins in Agora's possession"
to the proposal before enacting the rule. (or "Destroy all except 50" if
you want a buffer or something, I'm pretty sure the Assessor wouldn't grab
25 coins in exchange for 3 blots).
-G.
I think that'll work.
The only other thing I'm wondering about is what class crime Robbery
should be. I went with 3 because 2 seems too low (it is robbery after
all), but 4 and above is considered "high crime" and seems to be
reserved for more serious, game-disrupting actions. Anyone have any input?
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
> Title: Bank Robbery
> AI: 1.0
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-author(s):
>
> Enact a rule entitled "Heists" with the following text:
> {
> At any time, any player CAN, by announcement, perform a Heist. Upon
> doing so, e CAN transfer up to half of the coins owned by Agora, rounded
> down, to emself. However, players MAY NOT perform a Heist. Doing so is
> the Class 3 Crime of Robbery.
> }
I'm not sure whether the second CAN needs a method. Maybe it should be
consolidated into one action / one CAN.
This is great! but I'm likely to vote AGAINST unless we get a
crime/infraction distinction and this becomes an infraction, i.e. not
actually against the rules.
- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On 6/6/2020 9:33 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Saturday, June 6, 2020 10:18:59 AM CDT ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
>> There's absolutely no way this will pass, but I'm going to try it
>> anyways. Aris, I don't remember exactly when the midweek distribution
>> deadline is, but don't worry about including this proposal in it.
>>
>>
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>>
>> Title: Bank Robbery
>> AI: 1.0
>> Author: ATMunn
>> Co-author(s):
>>
>> Enact a rule entitled "Heists" with the following text:
>> {
>> At any time, any player CAN, by announcement, perform a Heist. Upon
>> doing so, e CAN transfer up to half of the coins owned by Agora, rounded
>> down, to emself. However, players MAY NOT perform a Heist. Doing so is
>> the Class 3 Crime of Robbery.
>> }
>
> G. will very likely have more to say about this but around the early 2000s
> there was a system this vaguely reminds me of. Players could become rebels,
> which was illegal and therefore earned em blots, but if the rebellion was
> strong enough (which was determined by how many rebels there were and some
> other factors, like certain holidays) the rebels could revolt.
>
> I think this version might be a little too strong, but in general I like the
> idea of there being some intentional misdeeds when we have blots and blot
> cards.
>
Yeah, this is one of those initial conditions problems in an otherwise
fine idea. If Agora had 0 coins right now it would be fine. No incentive
for the Assessor, and coins would build up in Agora and then people could
decide when it's worth it to grab - timing the grab would be fun.
Is there any reason Agora needs 1,976 coins right now? Maybe the real
simple solution is just to add a "Destroy all coins in Agora's possession"
to the proposal before enacting the rule. (or "Destroy all except 50" if
you want a buffer or something, I'm pretty sure the Assessor wouldn't grab
25 coins in exchange for 3 blots).
-G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On Saturday, June 6, 2020 10:18:59 AM CDT ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
> There's absolutely no way this will pass, but I'm going to try it
> anyways. Aris, I don't remember exactly when the midweek distribution
> deadline is, but don't worry about including this proposal in it.
>
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
>
> Title: Bank Robbery
> AI: 1.0
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-author(s):
>
> Enact a rule entitled "Heists" with the following text:
> {
> At any time, any player CAN, by announcement, perform a Heist. Upon
> doing so, e CAN transfer up to half of the coins owned by Agora, rounded
> down, to emself. However, players MAY NOT perform a Heist. Doing so is
> the Class 3 Crime of Robbery.
> }
G. will very likely have more to say about this but around the early 2000s
there was a system this vaguely reminds me of. Players could become rebels,
which was illegal and therefore earned em blots, but if the rebellion was
strong enough (which was determined by how many rebels there were and some
other factors, like certain holidays) the rebels could revolt.
I think this version might be a little too strong, but in general I like the
idea of there being some intentional misdeeds when we have blots and blot
cards.
--
nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 11:53 AM ATMunn via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On 6/6/2020 11:34 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
> agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 11:19 AM ATMunn via agora-business
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> There's absolutely no way this will pass, but I'm going to try it
> >> anyways. Aris, I don't remember exactly when the midweek distribution
> >> deadline is, but don't worry about including this proposal in it.
> >>
> >>
> >> I submit the following proposal:
> >>
> >>
> >> Title: Bank Robbery
> >> AI: 1.0
> >> Author: ATMunn
> >> Co-author(s):
> >>
> >> Enact a rule entitled "Heists" with the following text:
> >> {
> >> At any time, any player CAN, by announcement, perform a Heist. Upon
> >> doing so, e CAN transfer up to half of the coins owned by Agora, rounded
> >> down, to emself. However, players MAY NOT perform a Heist. Doing so is
> >> the Class 3 Crime of Robbery.
> >> }
> >
> > Doesn't this give a huge advantage to the Assessor? I like the general
> > idea and would be interested in experimenting with it, but this gives
> > a significant advantage to the Assessor and actually uses Agora. If we
> > were going to do this, I would prefer that we establish some entity to
> > hold the money separately.
> >
>
> How does it give an advantage to the Assessor? What am I missing?
E will have the first opportunity to do so and could do so as many
times as necessary to cause Agora to have no coins in the same message
in which e resolves the proposal.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On 6/6/2020 11:34 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 11:19 AM ATMunn via agora-business
wrote:
There's absolutely no way this will pass, but I'm going to try it
anyways. Aris, I don't remember exactly when the midweek distribution
deadline is, but don't worry about including this proposal in it.
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Bank Robbery
AI: 1.0
Author: ATMunn
Co-author(s):
Enact a rule entitled "Heists" with the following text:
{
At any time, any player CAN, by announcement, perform a Heist. Upon
doing so, e CAN transfer up to half of the coins owned by Agora, rounded
down, to emself. However, players MAY NOT perform a Heist. Doing so is
the Class 3 Crime of Robbery.
}
Doesn't this give a huge advantage to the Assessor? I like the general
idea and would be interested in experimenting with it, but this gives
a significant advantage to the Assessor and actually uses Agora. If we
were going to do this, I would prefer that we establish some entity to
hold the money separately.
How does it give an advantage to the Assessor? What am I missing?
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?
On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 11:19 AM ATMunn via agora-business
wrote:
>
> There's absolutely no way this will pass, but I'm going to try it
> anyways. Aris, I don't remember exactly when the midweek distribution
> deadline is, but don't worry about including this proposal in it.
>
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
>
> Title: Bank Robbery
> AI: 1.0
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-author(s):
>
> Enact a rule entitled "Heists" with the following text:
> {
> At any time, any player CAN, by announcement, perform a Heist. Upon
> doing so, e CAN transfer up to half of the coins owned by Agora, rounded
> down, to emself. However, players MAY NOT perform a Heist. Doing so is
> the Class 3 Crime of Robbery.
> }
Doesn't this give a huge advantage to the Assessor? I like the general
idea and would be interested in experimenting with it, but this gives
a significant advantage to the Assessor and actually uses Agora. If we
were going to do this, I would prefer that we establish some entity to
hold the money separately.
