Re: DIS: Protos: Referral and High Crimes
> The newspaper just called me out for telling lots of old stories, but It wasn't a criticism! - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Protos: Referral and High Crimes
PSS wrote: On May 22, 2020, at 20:07, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: PSS wrote: If the Referee is the investigator and the Arbitor is not the perpetrator, the Arbitor is the Judge. If the Arbitor is the Investigator or the perpetrator, the Speaker is the Judge. Okay, so Rule 2478 includes this: The Referee is by default the investigator for all Finger Pointing. If the Referee is the perp, then the Arbitor CAN become the investigator of that Finger Pointing by announcement. so the other clause appears to cover all the Could you clarify which other clause? I’m not sure to what you’re referring. The one that I quoted right before "Okay, so Rule 2478".
Re: DIS: Protos: Referral and High Crimes
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 8:53 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > > > > On May 22, 2020, at 20:07, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > > > PSS wrote: > > > >> If the Referee is the investigator and the Arbitor is not the > >> perpetrator, the Arbitor is the Judge. If the Arbitor is the > >> Investigator or the perpetrator, the Speaker is the Judge. > > > > Okay, so Rule 2478 includes this: > > > > The Referee is by default the investigator for all Finger > > Pointing. If the Referee is the perp, then the Arbitor CAN > > become the investigator of that Finger Pointing by announcement. > > > > so the other clause appears to cover all the > > Could you clarify which other clause? I’m not sure to what you’re referring. > > > bases (the investigator is > > either the Referee or the Arbitor), it's just confusing. What about: > > > > The Judge of an Indictment is the Arbitor, unless the Arbitor is > > the investigator or perp, in which case the Judge is the Speaker. Thanks for this rephrasing! I've figured out what you meant and like your new version much better.
Re: BUS: [Proposal] Re: DIS: Protos: Referral and High Crimes
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:24 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > > On 5/21/2020 9:52 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > In retrospect those aren't the best examples, because we do use this pretty > > frequently for scams and releveling economies (there's even such a provision > > in the Sets proposal to give everyone cards). > > > > I didn't think about the restrictions Aris mentioned, but I bet there's > > still > > clever things we could do here that we haven't explored yet. > > > > It's pretty easy to get around Aris's restrictions there - instead of > saying the Treasuror SHALL make coin changes in a timely fashion, just say > that the coin changes happen instantly when the proposal takes effect, and > then the Treasuror's standing reporting requirements means e has to > back-calculate the result anyway. > > For lasting effects, it *might* be possible for a proposal to create a > contract, if the proposal includes a consent clause. (I thought about a > tournament but I don't think that works). > > Let's test that: > > I submit the following proposal, "a Proposed Contract", AI-1: > > > When this proposal takes effect, the following contract is created. > Voting FOR this proposal is considered contextual agreement to the > contract. > > > - > Contract: Cold Cash Lotto > > This proposal CAN be terminated with Agoran Consent; non-parties are > not eligible to support or object to an intent to do so. A non-party > CAN join this contract for a fee (payable to the contract) of 5 coins. > > A party's Investment is 1 + the number of coins that party has ever > transferred to this contract. > > If this contract has been in existence for 4 or more days, and no coins > have been transferred to the contract in the previous 24 hours, then > any party (hereafter the iceman) CAN Freeze the Pot by announcement. > > Within 24 hours of freezing the pot, the iceman SHALL, using a public > and readily confirmable method, select a random party to win the > pot and announce the choice. If e does not do so within 24 hours, > then any party CAN do so. The probabilities for the selection are > proportional to each party's investment at the time the pot was frozen. > > Upon such a selection, this contract transfers all of its coins to the > selected winner. After such a transfer, this contract ceases to exist. No, it doesn't transfer them. The only way this can happen is by the the mechanism in Rule 1742, which requires a party to do it by announcement. I think you want "Upon such a selection, the iceman CAN and SHALL, by announcement, cause this contract to transfer all of its coins to the selected winner." -Aris
Re: DIS: Protos: Referral and High Crimes
> On May 22, 2020, at 20:07, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion > wrote: > > PSS wrote: > >> If the Referee is the investigator and the Arbitor is not the >> perpetrator, the Arbitor is the Judge. If the Arbitor is the >> Investigator or the perpetrator, the Speaker is the Judge. > > Okay, so Rule 2478 includes this: > > The Referee is by default the investigator for all Finger > Pointing. If the Referee is the perp, then the Arbitor CAN > become the investigator of that Finger Pointing by announcement. > > so the other clause appears to cover all the Could you clarify which other clause? I’m not sure to what you’re referring. > bases (the investigator is > either the Referee or the Arbitor), it's just confusing. What about: > > The Judge of an Indictment is the Arbitor, unless the Arbitor is > the investigator or perp, in which case the Judge is the Speaker. > > Also, are there any possible corner cases when one or more of the > offices changes holder after the Indictment is initiated? I hadn’t thought about this, I’ll have to think about the best way to resolve this. > There's > definitely one where Arbitor and Speaker are the same player, though > at that point we might decide "okay, if you succeed in landing Speaker > then you're allowed to get away with that for the duration". I think it should definitely be separated, so I’ll add the PM as a back-up because that person can’t be the same as the Speaker at the same time. I will still have to think more about how to address changes in offices over time.
Re: DIS: Protos: Referral and High Crimes
PSS wrote: If the Referee is the investigator and the Arbitor is not the perpetrator, the Arbitor is the Judge. If the Arbitor is the Investigator or the perpetrator, the Speaker is the Judge. Okay, so Rule 2478 includes this: The Referee is by default the investigator for all Finger Pointing. If the Referee is the perp, then the Arbitor CAN become the investigator of that Finger Pointing by announcement. so the other clause appears to cover all the bases (the investigator is either the Referee or the Arbitor), it's just confusing. What about: The Judge of an Indictment is the Arbitor, unless the Arbitor is the investigator or perp, in which case the Judge is the Speaker. Also, are there any possible corner cases when one or more of the offices changes holder after the Indictment is initiated? There's definitely one where Arbitor and Speaker are the same player, though at that point we might decide "okay, if you succeed in landing Speaker then you're allowed to get away with that for the duration".
Re: DIS: Protos: Referral and High Crimes
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 12:23 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 5/21/2020 8:59 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 5/21/20 6:59 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion > > wrote: > >> > >> For this > >> decision, the vote collector is the Judge, the options are GUILTY, > >> NOT GUILTY, REJECT, and PRESENT, and the voting method is AI- > >> majority with AI=1.5. > > > > For an AI decision, the only options are FOR and AGAINST (see R2528). > > > > Yeah, can't have all options have a 1.5 threshold. You want GUILTY to be > the equivalent of ADOPTED. How about just say an AI-1.5 decision with > standard options, where an ADOPTED would result in the outcomes associated > with GUILTY? How does this text work as a solution? By dividing the decisions, it maintains the full array of outcomes. Title: High Crimes and Treason AI: 1.7 Author: P.S.S. Coauthors: Amend Rule 2478 by appending the following text to the end of the rule: A high crime is any crime specified as being class 4 or greater. The Referee CANNOT levy the Cold Hand of Justice to punish a high crime, notwithstanding Rule 2478. Amend Rule 2478 by amending the list to read in full: - Imposing the Cold Hand of Justice on the perp for the cited rule violation, as described elsewhere; - Issuing an Indictment against the perp for the cited rule violation, as described elsewhere; or - if e believes that no rules violation occurred or that it would be ILLEGAL or INEFFECTIVE to levy a fine for it, announcing the Finger Pointing to be Shenanigans. Create a new AI-1.7 rule, "Indictment", with the following text: When the rules authorize an investigator to issue an Indictment for a violation, e CAN do so by announcement, specifying a fine of blots to be issued and the perpetrator and making an argument for the conviction of the accused. When an investigator has issued an Indictment, the perpetrator CAN state a defence. Within 10 days but no less than 4 days after the indictment has been issued, the judge SHALL initiate two Agoran Decisions, one to determine whether to convict the perpetrator and one to determine whether to accept the indictment. For these decision, the vote collector is the Judge and the voting method is AI-majority with AI=1.5. When initiating the decisions, the Judge SHALL, in the same message, publish the full texts of the Indictment and the defence. If both decisions are resolved as ADOPTED, the investigator CAN and SHALL impose the fine stated in the indictment. If the decision to convict is resolved as ADOPTED but the decision to accept is resolved as REJECTED, the investigator CAN issue a new Indictment. If the decision to convict is resolved as REJECTED, a fine SHALL NOT be imposed for the crime stated in the indictment. If the Referee is the investigator and the Arbitor is not the perpetrator, the Arbitor is the Judge. If the Arbitor is the Investigator or the perpetrator, the Speaker is the Judge. > > Also realize, if you're going the Decision route, there's nothing > currently stopping punishment proposals, and even if this rule is > implemented there's nothing stopping someone from changing the AI > threshold by doing this: "I submit the following proposal, AI-[whatever I > like]: Whereas PSS is guilty of Treason, when this proposal takes effect > 10 Blots are created in eir possession". > This was my initial thought, but I want to maintain the duty to resolve and investigate and there was opposition to involving proposals in official duties.
Re: DIS: Protos: Referral and High Crimes
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 11:41:02 AM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/21/2020 9:32 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > Sometimes I think it'd be interesting if we more often did gamestate > > changing proposals with little to no rule changes in them. For instance > > we could do things like: > > > > "Destroy all coins in every players possession. For each player, e earns > > 100 coins." > > The newspaper just called me out for telling lots of old stories, but > can't resist mentioning that a currency-destroying proposal like this was > the opening move (or properly speaking, opportunity window) in the scam > that created the town fountain. > > In the last few years we've done this with Black Ribbons a couple times. > > -G. In retrospect those aren't the best examples, because we do use this pretty frequently for scams and releveling economies (there's even such a provision in the Sets proposal to give everyone cards). I didn't think about the restrictions Aris mentioned, but I bet there's still clever things we could do here that we haven't explored yet. -- nch
Re: DIS: Protos: Referral and High Crimes
On 5/21/2020 9:32 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > Sometimes I think it'd be interesting if we more often did gamestate > changing proposals with little to no rule changes in them. For instance > we could do things like: > > "Destroy all coins in every players possession. For each player, e earns > 100 coins." > The newspaper just called me out for telling lots of old stories, but can't resist mentioning that a currency-destroying proposal like this was the opening move (or properly speaking, opportunity window) in the scam that created the town fountain. In the last few years we've done this with Black Ribbons a couple times. -G.
Re: DIS: Protos: Referral and High Crimes
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 9:33 AM nch via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Thursday, May 21, 2020 11:20:21 AM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Also realize, if you're going the Decision route, there's nothing > > currently stopping punishment proposals, and even if this rule is > > implemented there's nothing stopping someone from changing the AI > > threshold by doing this: "I submit the following proposal, AI-[whatever I > > like]: Whereas PSS is guilty of Treason, when this proposal takes effect > > 10 Blots are created in eir possession". > > Sometimes I think it'd be interesting if we more often did gamestate > changing > proposals with little to no rule changes in them. For instance we could do > things like: > > "Destroy all coins in every players possession. For each player, e earns > 100 > coins." > > Or even > > "The Treasuror SHALL, in a timely fashion after this proposal is adopted, > add > up all existing coins, destroy all existing coins, and cause every player > to > earn TOTAL/PLAYERS coins in an announcement." > > Obviously we've always had a bias towards doing things by rule, and I > think > there's a lot of good arguments for that convention. But it might be fun > to > push the boundaries here a bit sometimes. > > The later example doesn't work, because proposals are instantaneous and cannot extend their own effects. This was a deliberate policy decision, resulting from us not wanting to have untracked proposal mandates piling up. It also makes everything a bit cleaner. The first example works fine though, and we could definitely consider doing things like that. -Aris
Re: DIS: Protos: Referral and High Crimes
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 11:20:21 AM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Also realize, if you're going the Decision route, there's nothing > currently stopping punishment proposals, and even if this rule is > implemented there's nothing stopping someone from changing the AI > threshold by doing this: "I submit the following proposal, AI-[whatever I > like]: Whereas PSS is guilty of Treason, when this proposal takes effect > 10 Blots are created in eir possession". Sometimes I think it'd be interesting if we more often did gamestate changing proposals with little to no rule changes in them. For instance we could do things like: "Destroy all coins in every players possession. For each player, e earns 100 coins." Or even "The Treasuror SHALL, in a timely fashion after this proposal is adopted, add up all existing coins, destroy all existing coins, and cause every player to earn TOTAL/PLAYERS coins in an announcement." Obviously we've always had a bias towards doing things by rule, and I think there's a lot of good arguments for that convention. But it might be fun to push the boundaries here a bit sometimes. -- nch
Re: DIS: Protos: Referral and High Crimes
On 5/21/2020 8:59 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/21/20 6:59 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion > wrote: >> >> For this >> decision, the vote collector is the Judge, the options are GUILTY, >> NOT GUILTY, REJECT, and PRESENT, and the voting method is AI- >> majority with AI=1.5. > > For an AI decision, the only options are FOR and AGAINST (see R2528). > Yeah, can't have all options have a 1.5 threshold. You want GUILTY to be the equivalent of ADOPTED. How about just say an AI-1.5 decision with standard options, where an ADOPTED would result in the outcomes associated with GUILTY? Also realize, if you're going the Decision route, there's nothing currently stopping punishment proposals, and even if this rule is implemented there's nothing stopping someone from changing the AI threshold by doing this: "I submit the following proposal, AI-[whatever I like]: Whereas PSS is guilty of Treason, when this proposal takes effect 10 Blots are created in eir possession". -G.
Re: DIS: Protos: Referral and High Crimes
On 5/21/20 6:59 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > > > Title: High Crimes and Treason > AI: 1.7 > Author: P.S.S. > Coauthors: Aris, Jason > > Create a new rule, "High Crimes", with the following text: > > A high crime is any crime specified as being class 4 or greater. > The Referee CANNOT levy the Cold Hand of Justice to punish a high > crime, notwithstanding Rule 2478. Instead of (ab)using precedence, it might be better to just add the condition to Rule 2478 directly. Another option would be to place the restriction in Rule 2557. > Create a new rule, "Indictment", with the following text: > > When the rules authorize an investigator to issue an Indictment > for a violation, e CAN do so by announcement, specifying a fine of > blots to be issued and the perpetrator and making an argument for > the conviction of the accused. > > When an investigator has issued an Indictment, the perpetrator > CAN state a defence. Within 10 days but no less than 4 days after > the indictment has been issued, the judge SHALL initiate an Agoran > Decision to determine whether to convict the perpetrator. For this > decision, the vote collector is the Judge, the options are GUILTY, > NOT GUILTY, REJECT, and PRESENT, and the voting method is AI- > majority with AI=1.5. For an AI decision, the only options are FOR and AGAINST (see R2528). -- Jason Cobb
