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: Small round trip

[V.J Rada]

I retract any and all CFJs

We could even not burden the arbitor further with text such as
"Any player may, without objection, make themselves judge of any
unassigned CFJ they reasonably believe to be wholly insubstantial
and frivolous and assign it a judgement of DISMISS"

(Stealing the words wholly insubstantial and frivolous from American
law, but not sure if they're even needed).

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 16:27 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
> > You're right, the rules are strangely different as to deregistration.
> > Probably because it has consequences by barring you from registering for
> a
> > while. I think when playing a game, the form "I'll do X" is acceptable as
> > "I do X". eg: "I'll go to attacks" is always interpreted as "I go to
> > attacks" in the card game I have played, and is a normal form.
> >
> > I'm only arguing this because if CB is deregistering out of embarrassment
> > it is unlikely that they will check their nomic-using email for a while,
> > and waiting two months isn't optimal to deregister em.
> >
> > The pledge theory isn't bad either.
>
> Do you want me to assign the CFJ? Or is this explanation good enough?
> In the later case, you should retract the CFJ or I'll be legally
> obliged to award it anyway.
>
> Proto: Summary judgement on both CFJs and finger-points, subject to a
> very easy mechanism (e.g. 1 support) for overriding it and going to a
> full case with judges, etc.. This allows the Arbitor or Referee
> respectively to solve a controversy if e thinks the situation is simple
> and unambiguous, and only requires a drawn-out process if other people
> disagree.
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Small round trip

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 16:27 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
> You're right, the rules are strangely different as to deregistration.
> Probably because it has consequences by barring you from registering for a
> while. I think when playing a game, the form "I'll do X" is acceptable as
> "I do X". eg: "I'll go to attacks" is always interpreted as "I go to
> attacks" in the card game I have played, and is a normal form.
> 
> I'm only arguing this because if CB is deregistering out of embarrassment
> it is unlikely that they will check their nomic-using email for a while,
> and waiting two months isn't optimal to deregister em.
> 
> The pledge theory isn't bad either.

Do you want me to assign the CFJ? Or is this explanation good enough?
In the later case, you should retract the CFJ or I'll be legally
obliged to award it anyway.

Proto: Summary judgement on both CFJs and finger-points, subject to a
very easy mechanism (e.g. 1 support) for overriding it and going to a
full case with judges, etc.. This allows the Arbitor or Referee
respectively to solve a controversy if e thinks the situation is simple
and unambiguous, and only requires a drawn-out process if other people
disagree.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Small round trip

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 07:21 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 16:17 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
> > CFJ: (at the time of calling) Cuddlebeam is a player.
> > 
> > Are "I'll deregister" and "I think its better for the both of us if
> > I dereg
> > for now."
> > unambiguous intent to deregister?
> 
> This is irrelevant, unambiguously intending to deregister doesn't
> actually deregister you, only acting by announcement does that.
> 
> At most, you could perhaps argue that it implicitly creates a pledge.

Huh, and just looking at the registration/deregistration rule, I saw a
neat scam: deregistration by announcement prevents registration by
announcement for 30 days, but registration doesn't have to be done by
announcement nowadays (it does have to be done to a public forum, but
the indication is allowed to fall below the normal standards of an
announcement). So the reregistration timer isn't all that effective
right now.

Perhaps we should fix that, or perhaps it's a feature rather than a
bug. The main purpose to a timeout that I can see is to prevent people
deregistering to dodge a punishment or the like, and that can be fixed
with careful criminal justice design.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Small round trip

[V.J Rada]

You're right, the rules are strangely different as to deregistration.
Probably because it has consequences by barring you from registering for a
while. I think when playing a game, the form "I'll do X" is acceptable as
"I do X". eg: "I'll go to attacks" is always interpreted as "I go to
attacks" in the card game I have played, and is a normal form.

I'm only arguing this because if CB is deregistering out of embarrassment
it is unlikely that they will check their nomic-using email for a while,
and waiting two months isn't optimal to deregister em.

The pledge theory isn't bad either.

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 16:17 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
> > CFJ: (at the time of calling) Cuddlebeam is a player.
> >
> > Are "I'll deregister" and "I think its better for the both of us if I
> dereg
> > for now."
> > unambiguous intent to deregister?
>
> This is irrelevant, unambiguously intending to deregister doesn't
> actually deregister you, only acting by announcement does that.
>
> At most, you could perhaps argue that it implicitly creates a pledge.
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Small round trip

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 16:17 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
> CFJ: (at the time of calling) Cuddlebeam is a player.
> 
> Are "I'll deregister" and "I think its better for the both of us if I dereg
> for now."
> unambiguous intent to deregister?

This is irrelevant, unambiguously intending to deregister doesn't
actually deregister you, only acting by announcement does that.

At most, you could perhaps argue that it implicitly creates a pledge.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Small round trip

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 22:57 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I have no clue what the appropriate response is, so I'm just going to
> restrict this to a technical point (note that I take no game actions
> in this message): you have to actually say "I deregister".

Or to clarify: you don't have to use that exact wording, but you do
have to clearly state that you deregister.

"I'll deregister" = "I will deregister" is ambiguous as to the timing,
so it doesn't fulfil the conditions to be a valid action by
announcement. (In general, you can't perform actions at future times
anyway, even if the time is specified unambiguously.)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Small round trip

[Owen Jacobson]

You might be surprised at this, but I'll be sad to see you go, and glad if you 
return. While I agree with others that certain ideas you've tried were poorly 
thought out at best, and that you carried them on far longer than was wise, in 
other respects you've shown some interesting capacity for experiments on 
Agora's rules.

I'd much prefer that we learned to have an Agora which could include you, too, 
in the long run, and I don't think you've made yourself permanently unwelcome.

I hope you reconsider. Embarrassment passes. 

-o

> On Jul 21, 2017, at 1:57 AM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>> I'm a bit embarrassed about everything going on, so I'll deregister.
>> 
>> 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-business@agoranomic.org/msg28889.html, and
>> I repeated it as I discussed it.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> (and I'll go and suck on my shells somewhere else lol).
> 
> I have no clue what the appropriate response is, so I'm just going to
> restrict this to a technical point (note that I take no game actions
> in this message): you have to actually say "I deregister".
> 
> -Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: Small round trip

[Aris Merchant]

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> I'm a bit embarrassed about everything going on, so I'll deregister.
>
> 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-business@agoranomic.org/msg28889.html, and
> I repeated it as I discussed it.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> (and I'll go and suck on my shells somewhere else lol).

I have no clue what the appropriate response is, so I'm just going to
restrict this to a technical point (note that I take no game actions
in this message): you have to actually say "I deregister".

-Aris