I'd like my name to just be Tyler On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 2:07 PM <agora-discussion-requ...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> Send agora-discussion mailing list submissions to > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/agora-discussion > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > agora-discussion-requ...@agoranomic.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > agora-discussion-ow...@agoranomic.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of agora-discussion digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...? > (Kerim Aydin) > 2. Re: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...? > (James Cook) > 3. Re: BUS: registration (James Cook) > 4. Re: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...? > (Kerim Aydin) > 5. Re: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...? > (James Cook) > 6. Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3837 Assigned to grok (grok) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2020 10:24:21 -0700 > From: Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> > To: "Agora Nomic discussions (DF)" <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> > Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever > had...? > Message-ID: <6b7cb13a-5043-8b66-5a8f-119b5ba57...@uw.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > > 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. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2020 17:28:45 +0000 > From: James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu> > To: "Agora Nomic discussions (DF)" <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> > Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever > had...? > Message-ID: > < > cahpmpocdpa+5vmzkzqfclz9poscfekrqfbavubagpurbdrw...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > 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 > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2020 17:38:18 +0000 > From: James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu> > To: "Agora Nomic discussions (DF)" <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> > Subject: DIS: Re: BUS: registration > Message-ID: > < > cahpmpodevhfbphgktte+vdpwi1hw2dnb2buwcxhn4hvigte...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 16:32, Tyler M via agora-business > <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > I would like to have citizenship. > > Welcome to Agora. What name would you like to use? > > My take on the current state of the game: a big change is expected to > be enacted next week (Sets v1.4) which will create an economy with > many different kinds of resource, and we don't know what the relative > values will be. An exchange, "NAX" has been set up in anticipation of > this. The change will also make it no longer free to put a proposal up > for voting, which may explain why there's currently a high rate of > proposals (on all topics) being submitted. > > - Falsifian > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2020 10:37:10 -0700 > From: Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> > To: "Agora Nomic discussions (DF)" <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> > Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever > had...? > Message-ID: <0a27ddc1-ee03-9479-f4ef-4dd5b0ffa...@uw.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > > 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. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2020 17:54:18 +0000 > From: James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu> > To: "Agora Nomic discussions (DF)" <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> > Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever > had...? > Message-ID: > <CAHpmPOBOooUrA8VmGHGn5ubse= > shdsxx4tusgel3ncu8_yp...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 17:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> 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 > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2020 13:07:34 -0500 > From: grok <grokag...@gmail.com> > To: "Agora Nomic discussions (DF)" <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> > Subject: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3837 Assigned to grok > Message-ID: > < > cadcny1ffj+d2iul4pzjc07m-ahwf-2m390r1nur_ob3pbfz...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2020, 8:33 PM James Cook via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, 31 May 2020 at 19:35, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > > <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 5/31/2020 12:29 PM, nch via agora-business wrote: > > > > On Sunday, May 31, 2020 2:06:51 PM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-official > > wrote: > > > >> The below CFJ is 3837. I assign it to grok. > > > >> > > > >> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3837 > > > >> > > > >> =============================== CFJ 3837 > > =============================== > > > >> > > > >> Falsifian owns at least one blot if and only if English > > Wikipedia > > > >> has an article titled "Sponge". > > > >> > > > >> > > > ========================================================================== > > > > > > > > Gratuitous: This CFJ should be found FALSE because the rules do not > > define a > > > > biconditional relationship between these facts, regardless of whether > > either > > > > individual fact is TRUE or FALSE. > > > > > > > > > > Gratuitous: A judgement of IRRELEVANT is also appropriate - to > evaluate > > > this, we are required to consider a world in which a common subject > like > > > "sponge" is not in Wikipedia. A world like this might be strange in > > other > > > ways. This is, literally and directly, an "overly hypothetical > > > extrapolation of the game or its rules to conditions that don't > actually > > > exist" as defined for IRRELEVANT in R591. > > > > Gratuitous response: > > > > If you accept my previous argument, i.e. that my statement should be > > interpreted in the classical logic way, then there's nothing > > hypothetical in my statement. > > > > If you don't, then this seems like a good argument to me. > > > > - Falsifan > > > > With current events I have been...distracted this week. I intend to submit > my judgment on this CFJ today. > > > -grok > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > agora-discussion mailing list > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/agora-discussion > > > ------------------------------ > > End of agora-discussion Digest, Vol 80, Issue 37 > ************************************************ >
