Re: DIS: Straw poll: officers responsible for rewards?
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 16:01, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > There's been some comments lately on the degree of difficulty of some > offices, notably Treasuror, and it's definitely of note that twg proposed > to maintain the Glitter rewards in eir report. As Treasuror, I didn't feel particularly burdened by it. It might have become a problem if we'd gone longer without a Tailor report, or if people started claiming glitter rewards more often. I think it's only been claimed a handful of times so far. > How would people feel about changing to a model where rewards are primarily > awarded by officers in response to certain events? E.g. the Assessor would > give proposal rewards, the Tailor Glitter rewards, the CotC judging rewards. Sounds good to me, except the issue with Glitter you identified. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Straw poll: officers responsible for rewards?
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 13:26, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Alexis wrote: > > omd's fix proposal would make it so that the amount of the award is > > platonic, given when the player invokes the triggering phrase > > (presumably in response to our 21 different attempts to use the rule > > with different numbers). It would then be easy for the Tailor to give > > the appropriate awards by searching for instances of the triggering > > action. > > Yes, I think we agree on this. My issue with omd's fix is that it makes > it incumbent on the _Treasuror_, rather than the Tailor (as in my proto) > or the player (as it is currently), to calculate the correct amount for > the glitter reward. > > > Huh. I'm not sure of the incident you're referring to as Assessor, but > > historically the Assessor's primary prerogatives have been to resolve > > proposals out-of-order and to act first after resolution (including > > possibly being the only player able to act in a window of opportunity > > between two resolutions). I'm pretty sure Agora has accepted the > > Assessor doing this in the past. > > Yes, the objection to my behaviour was not about my illicit gains > themselves, but rather that, in the course of acquiring them, I > inadvertently nullified the effect of someone else's proposal. Twice. > (E was very nice about it, but several people took a far dimmer view.) > > -twg > These shenanigans happened a fair bit more when the quorum had been changed to a floating quorum based on the number of voters recently, but hadn't yet been moved to the start of the voting period fixing the quorum. The result was that only the first proposal in a batch would ever fail quorum, and if memory serves the Assessor occasionally picked the one e liked least rather than just the first numerically. Alexis
Re: DIS: Straw poll: officers responsible for rewards?
Alexis wrote: > omd's fix proposal would make it so that the amount of the award is > platonic, given when the player invokes the triggering phrase > (presumably in response to our 21 different attempts to use the rule > with different numbers). It would then be easy for the Tailor to give > the appropriate awards by searching for instances of the triggering > action. Yes, I think we agree on this. My issue with omd's fix is that it makes it incumbent on the _Treasuror_, rather than the Tailor (as in my proto) or the player (as it is currently), to calculate the correct amount for the glitter reward. > Huh. I'm not sure of the incident you're referring to as Assessor, but > historically the Assessor's primary prerogatives have been to resolve > proposals out-of-order and to act first after resolution (including > possibly being the only player able to act in a window of opportunity > between two resolutions). I'm pretty sure Agora has accepted the > Assessor doing this in the past. Yes, the objection to my behaviour was not about my illicit gains themselves, but rather that, in the course of acquiring them, I inadvertently nullified the effect of someone else's proposal. Twice. (E was very nice about it, but several people took a far dimmer view.) -twg
Re: DIS: Straw poll: officers responsible for rewards?
On 1/14/2020 9:51 AM, Alexis wrote: > On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 12:36, twg wrote: > Huh. I'm not sure of the incident you're referring to as Assessor, but > historically the Assessor's primary prerogatives have been to resolve > proposals out-of-order and to act first after resolution (including > possibly being the only player able to act in a window of opportunity > between two resolutions). I'm pretty sure Agora has accepted the Assessor > doing this in the past. It's a long time ago now and attitudes may have changed, but a critical aspect of the Town Fountain was that one of the scammers was the assessor and could hold off resolving the scam-blocking proposal (still keeping within time limits) until after the scam proposal had passed. The whole thing was a big controversy but that particular part of the strategy wasn't - instead the anti-scammers wondered if they could install a new assessor in time. Both the assessor's out-of-order resolution and replacing the assessor were considered "fair" play and counter-play at the time. It's also balanced because the Promotor can do same with the ordering (within the week's window). Having two separate people who can game proposal timing is one of the reasons the offices are incompatible. Aris has steadfastly refused to do so for a long time, which may be a reason we consider it less fair than we used to (nothing wrong with leading by example! but it's not been a universal attitude). To the extent that it's unfair, it's generally an election/political issue not a "so unfair it needs a reset" issue. -G.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Straw poll: officers responsible for rewards?
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 12:40, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I wrote: > > Here's a proto... > > I warrant that I did not intentionally include loopholes in any of the > proto-proposals I supplied in the referenced message. (Ribbons are > Serious Business.) > > -twg > A warranty that you did not make any loopholes in a proto makes the eventual proposal itself even *more* suspicious. ;)
Re: DIS: Straw poll: officers responsible for rewards?
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 12:36, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > The only thing I'm a little concerned about is glitter. Rewards for > proposals, CFJs, reports and theses are all clearly associated with one > officer when they are awarded, but glitter might be in response to a > variety of different actions. I don't think the Tailor ought to have to > keep track of the votes on every proposal to see when someone earns an > orange ribbon. > omd's fix proposal would make it so that the amount of the award is platonic, given when the player invokes the triggering phrase (presumably in response to our 21 different attempts to use the rule with different numbers). It would then be easy for the Tailor to give the appropriate awards by searching for instances of the triggering action. > In the past, Agora has often taken an extremely pragmatic approach, where > > the officers in question would be given the power to make such awards > even > > if they were incorrect, with penalties for officers who abuse their > > position and possibly mechanisms to undo them. What are others' thoughts > on > > moving towards this model? > > Personally I'm not terribly worried about the risk of abusive officers. > As much as we pontificate about "protecting against scams", Agora is not > really as hyperliteralist as it seems - it's not quite as democratic as > BlogNomic's votes on whether someone meets a victory condition, but when > a scam is perpetrated that's obviously in poor taste, the responsible > party is rarely allowed to keep eir winnings. I can recall two incidents > where officers badly abused their offices for personal gain, the first > being when I rearranged proposals' order as Assessor to change their > effects, and the second when D. Margaux awarded emself infinite > political favours as Clork. Both were eventually reversed by proposal or > ratification, mine because it was unnecessarily disruptive to everyone > else and D. Margaux's because it was incredibly boring. (Honestly the > most interesting part was the CFJ on whether e deserved an infinite > fine.) > Huh. I'm not sure of the incident you're referring to as Assessor, but historically the Assessor's primary prerogatives have been to resolve proposals out-of-order and to act first after resolution (including possibly being the only player able to act in a window of opportunity between two resolutions). I'm pretty sure Agora has accepted the Assessor doing this in the past. Certainly, though, a fix proposal may be necessary if the results are that the ruleset becomes disrupted from what it should be, and it's not just e.g. to create a window of opportunity. As Aris said at the time: > > > Winning by flagrant rule violations is generally thought to be uncouth. > > -twg > Agreed that it is uncouth; we also should reinstate a protection in place against it. There have been such protections in the past, but currently blot awards are too slow to be effective. Alexis
Re: DIS: Straw poll: officers responsible for rewards?
Alexis wrote:
> How would people feel about changing to a model where rewards are primarily
> awarded by officers in response to certain events? E.g. the Assessor would
> give proposal rewards, the Tailor Glitter rewards, the CotC judging rewards.
That would certainly make things easier to keep track of. Except for
Glitter (see below), there's already an officer recording each event
associated with an award, so I don't see that it would add much to their
workloads (though I'd want their own confirmation on that before giving
my unbridled support). And it would massively simplify things for the
Treasuror.
If we required the reward to occur within 14 days of the action ("in a
moderately timely fashion"?), rewards could be made in the officer's
next weekly report. That would also make issuing rewards an action that
could be deputised for.
Here's a proto:
Amend Rule 2496 ("Rewards") as follows:
Replace its first two paragraphs with the following:
Each time a player fulfills a reward condition, the officer
associated with the condition CAN once, and SHALL within 14 days,
grant the associated set of assets to the player.
Below is a list of reward conditions and their associated assets
and officers.
Append "(Assessor)" to the first list item.
Append "(Arbitor)" to the second list item.
Append "(ADoP)" to the third list item.
Append "(ADoP)" to the fourth list item.
Append "(Herald)" to the fifth list item.
The only thing I'm a little concerned about is glitter. Rewards for
proposals, CFJs, reports and theses are all clearly associated with one
officer when they are awarded, but glitter might be in response to a
variety of different actions. I don't think the Tailor ought to have to
keep track of the votes on every proposal to see when someone earns an
orange ribbon.
Here's a proto that gives the Tailor the responsibility to evaluate the
number of coins due and award them, but not detect when a glitter-event
occurs. It also tidies up some of the ribbon language, and extends
glitter to work for all colours of ribbon (except black, obviously).
Amend Rule 2438 ("Ribbons") as follows:
Replace the paragraph starting "While a person qualifies..." with
the following:
A person qualifies for a type of Ribbon if e has earned that type
of Ribbon within the preceding 7 days (including earlier in the
same message).
Replace the list items starting "Gray" and "Transparent" with the
following:
Gray (A): Once each month, the Tailor CAN by announcement nominate
a person for a Gray Ribbon. E is ENCOURAGED to do so in the same
message in which e publishes eir monthly report. A person
qualifies for a Gray Ribbon if e is the most recent person to be
so nominated. [This allows the recipient some leeway about the
timing of their ribbon, to prevent em from losing the opportunity
to get a Transparent Ribbon on a technicality.]
Transparent (T): A person qualifies for a Transparent Ribbon if,
at any point during the last 7 days, e qualified for at least 5
other types of Ribbon. [With the other rewordings in this
proposal, this should come out equivalent to the previous wording
even though it does not explicitly mention "awarding" or
"earning".]
Move the list item starting "Emerald" so that it falls between the
list items starting "Green" and "Cyan". [This was bothering me.]
Append the following:
While a person qualifies for a type of Ribbon:
- If e has not owned that type of Ribbon within the preceding 7
days, any player CAN, by announcement, award em that type of
Ribbon.
- Otherwise, if e has not been awarded that type of Ribbon or
the corresponding type of Glitter since e last earned or
came to qualify for that type of Ribbon, e CAN, by
announcement, award emself that type of Glitter.
Amend Rule 2602 ("Glitter") to read:
For each type of Ribbon, there is a type of Glitter with the same
name. An attempt to award Glitter is INEFFECTIVE if the type of
Glitter is not specified. Awarding Glitter is secured.
Each time a player is awarded a type of Glitter, the Tailor CAN
once, and SHALL within 14 days, grant the player a number of coins
equal to the number of players who did not own the corresponding
type of Ribbon at the time of the award.
[Alternatively R2602 could be merged into R2438 (first para) and
R2496 (second para) to further simplify]
> In the past, Agora has often taken an extremely pragmatic approach, where
> the officers in question would be given the power to make such awards even
> if they were incorrect, with penalties for officers who abuse their
> position and possibly mechanisms to undo them. What are others' thoughts on
> moving towards this model?
Personally I'm not terribly worried about the
