DIS: Re: BUS: Paradox Judgments

Simple gratuitous arguments: Twitter (specifically Cuddlebeam's) is not, and has never been, a public forum. I don't see how a contract could make it act as so. On 2/13/2018 10:11 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: https://twitter.com/Cuddlebeam/status/963611395257503744 I CFJ with shinies the

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

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. On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 at 17:44, Nicholas Evans wrote: > There's always Agoran Consent. We can make it a trivial ratio, such as

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

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

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

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

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

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. Simple alternative: Every Office gets one Official proposal (or 1 free pend) per week. SHOULD be

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

Yes, expensive proposals are a paradigm shift to what you're used to. We played like that (even more expensive, actually) from 2001-2005 or so. It worked fine. I would like to try it again and not have it sabotaged out of the gate. So I won't argue that it breaks things or doesn't. It's a

Re: DIS: FLR error

Nice catch. Fixed. On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 at 16:48, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > H. Rulekeepor, > > This annotation for R591: > > Amended(45) by Proposal 7975 "Auctions v6" (ATMunn; with o, Aris, >nichdel, G.), Nov 26, 2017 > > should be: > > Amended(45) by Proposal 7976

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

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

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

On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 15:24 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Yes, expensive proposals are a paradigm shift to what you're used to. > > We played like that (even more expensive, actually) from 2001-2005 or > so. It worked fine. I would like to try it again and not have it > sabotaged out of the gate.

DIS: Re: Proto-Contract: Micro-Proposals

Df > On Feb 14, 2018, at 7:58 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > This contract accepts shinies as long as it has fewer than ((Pend Cost) + 1) > shines. It accepts no other assets. > > This contract maintains a piece of state known as the Proposal Puddle, > containing a set of

Re: DIS: Re: Proto-Contract: Micro-Proposals

I disagree—just because a proposal provides the text of a document doesn’t mean that the document is part of the proposal and is evaluated when the proposal gains power. For instance, when a proposal creates a rule, the text of the rule doesn’t gain power as part of the proposal (the proposal

Re: DIS: Re: Proto-Contract: Micro-Proposals

This gives me the idea to make a master contract of a sort with a lot of sub-contracts. Nesting, ho! On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 6:09 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > I disagree—just because a proposal provides the text of a document doesn’t > mean that the document is part of the

Re: DIS: Re: Proto-Contract: Micro-Proposals

Can a contract give power to anything? On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote: > Df > > > On Feb 14, 2018, at 7:58 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > > > This contract accepts shinies as long as it has fewer than ((Pend Cost) + > > 1) shines. It accepts no other assets. >

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

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

Re: DIS: Re: Proto-Contract: Micro-Proposals

Ah gotcha - I don't think this works though, because R106 gives everything In the proposal power first? I think the opposite might work, where you depower each piece that fails. On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote: > Contract doesn’t give power. Contract obligates me to pend a proposal

Re: DIS: Re: Proto-Contract: Micro-Proposals

Contracts cannot do things on their own, which is why they have to have an agent to effect any actual change. But they can obligate a player to do something since they're basically a block of rule text that you get to choose if you want to follow. On Feb 14, 2018 21:46, "Gaelan Steele"

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto-Contract: Micro-Proposals

I like this a lot lol, good idea On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:58 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > This contract accepts shinies as long as it has fewer than ((Pend Cost) + > 1) shines. It accepts no other assets. > > This contract maintains a piece of state known as the Proposal

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

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 15:24 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Yes, expensive proposals are a paradigm shift to what you're used to. > > > > We played like that (even more expensive, actually) from 2001-2005 or > > so. It worked fine. I would like to try it

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

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

Re: DIS: Re: Proto-Contract: Micro-Proposals

No, it doesn't. If the full PROPOSAL is adopted, . r106 first gives power to the whole proposal, including all of its micro-proposals. Then, if the proposal doesn't give power to a micro-proposal, that micro-proposal still has the power it got from r106 and still goes into effect. On Wed,

DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: Paradox Judgments

Sorry for all of the CFJs lol, but I'm glad that it's all put into a bundle - they're all very similar. That sweet, alluring nectar of a Paradox win is teasing me so closely lol, I know I'm so near. On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:19 PM, Edward Murphy wrote: > Cuddle Beam wrote:

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

On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 17:36 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I was definitely thinking that once the shinies -> coins stabilized > we might tweak things like this! > > I went back to a 2002 ruleset to see how we coped with a low supply: OK, what about something like this: proposal supply is limited

Re: DIS: Re: Proto-Contract: Micro-Proposals

Yes, I know. The way the contract works is this: - People submit micro-proposals - Every week, I create and pend a proposal with all of the micro-proposals submitted that week - If adopted, the PROPOSAL simulates an Agoran Decision for each micro-proposal and “adopts” (gives power to) the ones

Re: DIS: Re: Proto-Contract: Micro-Proposals

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote: > I disagree—just because a proposal provides the text of a document doesn’t > mean that the document is part of the proposal and is evaluated when the > proposal gains power. R2350:A proposal is a type of entity consisting of a body of text and