Oop, I didn't mean to send that just yet. Oh well, it's good enough.
In any case, I'm very happy to see your thesis, and I enjoyed reading it. I
hope to see more sometime.
On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 10:32 AM Yachay Wayllukuq <yachaywayllu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I like a lot the new vocabulary that the thesis introduces as well as the
> themes that it tackles, and I'd like to give a response to its conclusions.
> This isn't intended to be a review, just a reply.
>
> - "Firstly, let's experiment with holistic offices and gameplay (...)":
> I'm very open to experimentation, but I think that resorting to our "code
> libraries" isn't a bad idea. Not using switches or established mechanics
> seems fine to do for fun to see what happens, but I don't think that
> routinely ignoring them is a better approach than just simply using them.
> We also don't have infinite time and effort to write cod- I mean ruletext,
> and it's often much more economical to just use what already exists and
> seems to work well.
>
> - "Secondly, reject bugfixes when you can. (...)": I don't think that this
> is a good idea, because bugfixes are fun - for me at least. Proposals
> currently have a negligible cost and seeing the rules tinkered around and
> observing the attempts to improve them is entertaining for me. It might not
> be entirely required or practical, but neither are most things that
> people do for fun. I also don't see how this point emerges from the
> previous ones in your thesis.
>
> - "Thirdly, be clear and unambiguous in your statements when YOU interpret
> it. Your opinion matters, don't get rolled over by Agora. (...)": This
> seems important for any nomic, although I understand the motivation as to
> why traditionalists or other kinds of factionalism may emerge. There's
> power and safety in being in a group (and we instinctively know this at an
> unga bunga ape level, as social animals), and because of the arguments in
> the third paragraph in "Agoran Chemistry", people want power. In any case,
> it's reassuring to see this hammered down in a thesis, because I'm a bit
> anxious sometimes about it as a newer player.
>
> - "Fourstly, play a role in this game.": If that's what's fun for you,
> sure, although I wouldn't prescribe it to everyone in general. I don't
> think everyone would benefit as much from feeling like they fit into some
> kind of archetype, some just wouldn't care and I think that's fine. I also
> don't see how "playing a role" emerges from your main body of arguments.
>
> - "Fifthly, express your opinion, and express it hard.": I feel like this
> was already covered in the third point.
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 1:01 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> I submit the following horribly long thesis specifically to qualify for a
>> degree, AND, AS REFEREE, also because I am a great antagonist that hates
>> you all, especially the people who signed up to read thesises!
>> MWAHAHAHAHA!
>> <3
>> (Maybe I should change my registered name to Sithrak... Hmm...)
>>
>> (OOC: Just kidding, y'all are great, and thanks for being here and coming
>> to my TED talk.)
>>
>> {
>> Agoran Particle Physics:
>> A collection of Agoran Theories
>> and A case against Platonism
>>
>> (AKA one big pointless opinion)
>>
>> 0) Too Long, Didn't Read!
>>
>> For those of you uninterested in specifics:
>> 1 posits that Agora is a game of expression, but it is also pretty
>> platonic. (Yes, this is completely in contrast to nomic being a game of
>> Self-Amendment.)
>> 2 elaborates on what could be some basic atomic categories of a completely
>> platonic system.
>> 3 builds upon 2, and I attempt to identify all potential atoms of those
>> categories.
>> 4 is a whole section is probably garbage I decided to keep in, and
>> therefore, represents my namesake. :D
>> 5 argues we shouldn't strive for total platonism, so I present some
>> theories on why it currently is that way.
>> 6 has my opinions on ways to fix the current situation based on the prior
>> evidence. Arguably the most contentious part, so the only one worth
>> reading.
>> 7 has some summaries of other theses (and drafts), and links to sources.
>>
>> 1) Agoran Chemistry
>>
>> Proposals are one of two things: most are expressions of opinion, and some
>> are expressions of idea. Expressions of opinion tend to fix something:
>> either the game wasn't working, the game wasn't working as intended, or
>> the
>> game's intentions were misaligned. And yes, these are all opinions: the
>> first two are opinions of the majority of players in alignment: that the
>> game's text is completely wrong, and something to be formally fixed. This
>> is generally a platonic view of things: the rules' text is the rules text.
>> And I've heard many Agorans agree: if the ruleset were to be ossified in a
>> way that couldn't start again, even if all other players were to agree to
>> unossify it, rewind time, what have you, that this would no longer be a
>> game worth playing, despite this being the pragmatic approach to nomic.
>> When we delve even further on how these fixes work, and how CFJ's work, we
>> even see this difference of interpretation despite having the same
>> conclusion: for example, a recent discord conversation about how paying
>> fees works: it works, but people had different theories about how it
>> worked.
>>
>> Expressions of idea happen less often, but they happen from time to time.
>> Instead of living in the realm of Agora proper, they're thinking about
>> what
>> could be. These kinds of proposals don't come from nowhere, and I'm sure
>> there's much discussion, either externally or internally, before such
>> proposals come to light. And I find it sad to see them go away, and for
>> them to go away for good. Since they are relatively infrequent, I'll be
>> mostly leaving them out. (And sometimes these two are combined: an
>> expression of idea becomes an infectious opinion. Something that once
>> worked, now works no longer.)
>>
>> We want to express our opinions and ideas to the sky. We want to have our
>> proposals adopted, our votes matter, our judgements to be seen and
>> regarded, and slights against us to be punished. A game of drama. However,
>> (in discord), I also see the opinion that Agora is strictly platonic, that
>> what the rules say, goes. That the rules are the formal system, and when
>> you break them, the rules don't care, and that things stop working. For
>> example, proposal 8639 was brought up as not working, despite, at the
>> time,
>> everyone had thought it had worked, and now that it is time to Ratify The
>> Ruleset, we can't accept this slight against "da rules". So we layer these
>> opinions, pretending that they aren't opinions because some things are
>> what
>> they are, and that they are platonic and Truth. Harkening back to the
>> thesis "Pragmatic vs Platonic", this is exactly what e reviewed then as
>> well. This isn't new. But we treat this level of Platonism as Truth, yet
>> we
>> still accept CFJs on these most trivial matters.
>>
>> Some exceptions still exist, as not everything is deeply expressionate.
>> Sometimes, people just want to win, and others just like to see how things
>> unfold in this great drama. Despite this, it is still true that everyone
>> is
>> here ultimately for that expression, so that game can continue to churn.
>>
>>
>> 2) Subagoran Particles
>>
>> From the prior theory, we see that these quibbles can even happen over the
>> same word, and even happen across the same phrasing, same dependencies,
>> just the temporal context changes. So words and collections of words are
>> no
>> longer basic units. So what ARE basic units, then? This is difficult to
>> define, as we, as a group, are trying to communicate our opinions to
>> eachother, and to take this a step further, agree on those opinions.
>>
>> I have thought about this, and I baselessly propose that building blocks
>> are these things (and I am likely biased by being a coder):
>> 1) Cause
>> 2) Effect
>> 3) Variables
>>
>> Triggers are the building block of "autonomous action" or "cause and
>> effect". They are the bane of officers and the foundation of emergent
>> gameplay. Something happens, and then something else happens, or something
>> changes. They are the cognitive cycles we spend. Sometimes it seems simple
>> enough "I expunge a blot", but even that entails checking some things: you
>> hadn't done so this week, so now you have 1 less blot, and oh look, now
>> your voting strength has increased, oh, and someone just decided to base
>> their action on your voting strength.... Even time cannot escape the grasp
>> of triggers, as officers must make their reports weekly or face the wrath
>> of disgruntledness.
>>
>> However, triggers aren't a basic unit, and are created from cause AND
>> effect. Starting with Causes, causes are an opinion of occurance. Did
>> something actually happen? Did it meet some criteria? Is the cause
>> actually
>> A or is it actually B? Causes are players and their interactions with
>> rules. So consider that a player publishes "I support all intents"
>> compared
>> with "I support each and every intent". Are these different in cause? Do
>> they create the same effects? Do they have the same conditions for
>> occuring? These are all evaluated, under the context of the current
>> ruleset
>> and CFJ history, in order to come to whatever conclusion may be. Causes
>> can
>> be even more miniscule as well: what variables changed, when, in what
>> order, and why?
>>
>> Compare this with effects, which are tightly coupled with causes. The
>> effect is more straightforward: we have already considered the precise
>> cause, so what effect does it have? For example, if "I support all
>> intents"
>> is the cause, does this support a single intent "all intents"? Does it
>> support multiple intents? Does it support only a subset of intents? This
>> effect can be even more miniscule: what variables does the effect, in what
>> order or simultaneously, and how?
>>
>> Variables are the building block of "storage". They're what most officers
>> are actually here for: to track the gamestate. They're the assets, the
>> properties of assets. They're the players themselves: who is registered,
>> who is active. It's the entirety of the ruleset, even. It's the recent
>> CFJs
>> and their rulings. Agora has so much gamestate when you consider how much
>> history factors into decisions. Some of this history is contradictory
>> even,
>> but not paradoxical. New CFJs overwrite the old ones and all that.
>> Variables store the "effect", and their value affects affects.
>>
>> Variables are also more meta: which data is permitted for use in Agora?
>> How
>> should data be stored and tracked? Which data is correct? Variables can
>> also be more miniscule as well: for example, time is a variable, and there
>> is no rule to increment it, but it does anyways. This is shown by the
>> proposal Time B Safe: Agora would stop "time" itself over the smallest
>> change to the actual ruleset or any other gamestate to fix it, and this
>> data was fixed to point to a different source for time.
>>
>> 3) Standard Model of Agoran Particles
>>
>> However, not all blocks are created equal. To be perfectly platonic, we
>> have to operate on the subagoran level, to assure us there is no
>> confusion,
>> no ambiguity, and perfect clarity. Since Agora is self-referential in
>> nature, the blocks build on eachother, we have to find the agoran
>> particles. Ideal agoran particles would leave absolutely no ambiguity in
>> any of the 3 areas to formulate an agoracule: 1) It would have a clear and
>> unambiguous cause in every situation and every context. 2) It would have a
>> clear and unambiguous effect in every situation and every context. 3)
>> Variables would have clear, well defined, and unambiguous values in every
>> situation and context.
>>
>> To find elementary particles for cause, I look to the causes that already
>> exist: Time, Players, Combination, and Variable Change. For each of these,
>> we have almost codified, completely, these particles. My theory on that is
>> that this eased work on officers, and reduced the amount of Judgement (IE
>> agoracule collisions) required. Time is in UTC. For a player to be a
>> cause,
>> evidence must be supplied: Agorans typically keep this to messages sent to
>> Public Fora, but in the past this wasn't always the case. For Combination,
>> we take any 3 of the other causes, and combine them with basic logic
>> operators. Finally, for Variable Change, this is the least codified
>> element, and when we talk to elementary Variables, we'll see why.
>>
>> To find the elementary particles for effect, I look to the effects that
>> already exist: Variable Change. Yes, there is only one effect, because
>> everything that Agora can represent is simply a variable. Agora cannot
>> change real-life, which has been codified and represented clearly: if it
>> could, Agorans would simply leave the game. This posits a potentially
>> menacing scam to deregister all players for failing to complete some IRL
>> requirement, and this even has potential to ossify Agora, but so far, this
>> black-hole particle has not been sought, and it should not be sought. To
>> seek it is to break the implicit social contract that this is a
>> free-to-play game. The only thing that this game has required is optional:
>> time from officers to keep it afloat.
>>
>> To find the elementary particles for variables, I look to the variables
>> that already exist: primary data and pointers. Primary data is
>> straightforward and well defined: it is specific text, a number, the
>> real-world Time, CFJ results. This is the text of the ruleset, the text of
>> proposals, the text of CFJs, and is also otherwise primarily represented
>> by
>> switches. Pointers are a level above this: they are groups of variables or
>> otherwise variables that point to other variables.
>>
>> Note: when we look at Variable Change as a cause, with these elementary
>> variables in mind, we notice that variables are such a large, and nebulous
>> class. To interpret variables change, we have to determine which variable,
>> precisely, changed, and the value it had before, and the value it had
>> after. Since variables are usually in motion, the uncertainty principle
>> only allows some degree of precision, and CFJs allow us to make
>> measurements.
>>
>> 4) Agoran Compilation and Simulation
>>
>> So we now have the pieces of the puzzle. Firstly, the game would like to
>> become more platonic, as we see in the opinions of a few officers, and it
>> would greatly decrease the threshold for agreement, which should
>> theorhetically increase efficiency. Secondly, we have building blocks that
>> can be perfectly platonic.
>>
>> Historically, Agoran chemistry has operated on almost-platonic agoracules.
>> Without a solid model, however, Agoran chemistry won't proceed too much
>> further than it currently has: for now, we see that proposal and rule
>> science has stalled, there was some experimentation with infection,
>> mutation, and evolution, but those mechanisms fell out of favor. The only
>> science we seek now is to keep Agora alive, but we should remember that
>> Agora is a resilient being, with layers keeping it safe. This being said,
>> that would be the perfectly platonic approach. Agora would become a
>> self-modifying compiler of a game, much like many dead nomics based in a
>> programming language in the past. THUS, this is a case against Platonism:
>> becoming completely platonic will, based on previous nomics, result in the
>> death of Agora. And even if it doesn't, would it be an Agora for anyone,
>> or
>> just the few who can understand the arcane beaurocracy?
>>
>> 5) Separation and Condensation of Agoracules
>>
>> However... is perfectly platonic what Agora should want? Arguably, it's
>> not. A specific example would be the Banning of Madrid. It was, on the
>> majority, clear that this is the appropriate response. However, the
>> beaurocracy entailed to perform this activity resulted in a Cantus Cygnus
>> from myself, and it took several weeks to enact the appropriate
>> legislature. Contrarily, a pragmatic approach might have looked like a
>> small proposal: "Ban Madrid". This may result in several judgements along
>> the way, which take into account situational context. The way we currently
>> operate with rules aligns with a Deontological point of view: the rules
>> being perfectly suited to limit and qualify the means, and which ends they
>> allow. (This means it also comes with all the problems in Deontology.)
>>
>> The most surprising aspect of this is that these Agoran Particle Physics
>> are not new. The Propositional Nomic, Pragmatism and Platonism: Two
>> Approaches to Nomic, and A Completely Formal Nomic are three prior theses
>> that closely examine the idea that we can find this perfection somewhere.
>> But I don't think we can, as Agora is terribly Philosophical, and such
>> things are meant to make you think.
>>
>> So what happened to veer us into the territory of Platonism? I'm not
>> really
>> qualified to say; I haven't been here as long as other players, and I
>> haven't caught up on the history. But I will posit some theories anyways.
>>
>> Firstly, I think players like feeling validated by the different voting
>> processes. To garner more approvals, we try to keep things "platonic", and
>> then we hide behind the rules. Describing how things happen, rather than
>> the result, also allows someone to hide our intentions.
>>
>> Secondly, I think the referee and blots system has not been adequately
>> exercised, and the CFJ system requires judges to look at things completely
>> objectively: so to reduce stresses on these systems, we thought it'd make
>> more sense to codify our concerns. I believe this has the opposite effect:
>> it makes any judgements that have to be made even more intricate and
>> detailed. (I don't doubt, however, that some of this is desired.) These
>> judgement systems desire to be pragmatic: something bad has happened, and
>> now we need to deal with the consequences, hopefully sooner rather than
>> later.
>>
>> Thirdly, it is possible that pragmatism doesn't result in "interesting"
>> for
>> one reason or another. I'm not sure why this is the case, maybe there's
>> historical reasoning for this, but it doesn't appear to be in a thesis
>> anywhere, and this thesis has some argument that atomic platonism can be
>> just as dull.
>>
>> Fourstly, I think the pragmatism was sectioned off into it's own domains.
>> We have the Referee and Arbitor as judgement. We have Ratification Without
>> Objection to handle when things become too complex, and to clarify all the
>> history that needs to be examined to determine a platonic outcome. We also
>> have ossification, sectioned off as a "necessity", yet a clear indicator
>> that pragmatism is necessary. We still have officer regulations, which
>> look
>> to be an intended pragmatic solution to how an officer gets whatever it is
>> completed. I'm sure there's other small subsets, but they are surely
>> small,
>> since we've battered down the switches and bugfixed our hows to
>> Perfection,
>> leaving little room for misinterpretation for the judgement system to
>> handle.
>>
>> 6) A Quantum Model
>>
>> Some more Pragmatism would be better for Agora, as it would run smoothly
>> and be easily understood, with little cause for concern about
>> ossification:
>> Pragmatism generally allows reinterpretation. Ossification is one of the
>> few primary ways to Treat Agora badly. I proceed with the argument that we
>> should find ways to become more pragmatic.
>>
>> Firstly, let's experiment with holistic offices and gameplay (perhaps
>> again). Nextime you propose an office, do it without switches. Make it as
>> short as possible. Instead of specifying how something happens, just
>> describe the what. Escape from the imperative solutions and move towards
>> functional purity.
>>
>> Secondly, reject bugfixes when you can. Either it works or it doesn't.
>> Wait
>> until it's truly determined that it doesn't work.
>>
>> Thirdly, be clear and unambiguous in your statements when YOU interpret
>> it.
>> Your opinion matters, don't get rolled over by Agora. Remember this is a
>> game of expression, and you have power.
>>
>> Fourstly, play a role in this game. Get into character, have some fun, and
>> don't be afraid to be punished. If you are acting in good faith but are
>> still breaking the rules, then you may experience some negative side
>> effects, but you won't be banished. Recently, I collected taxes, implying
>> it was an officer duty, despite taxes not existing at all! Mwahaha! How do
>> actions like that make you feel? They are thinkers! We need more of this
>> pushing back against "da rules". Note that this also gives power back to
>> the officers, the people supporting the game, doing their deeds, and
>> supports vying for the offices they hold, campaigning, politics, and
>> DRAMA!
>>
>> Fifthly, express your opinion, and express it hard. Disclaim it as you
>> need
>> to. This is a game of opinion, it's ok. It's only not ok when someone
>> feels
>> personally insulted or discriminated against for reasons beyond their
>> control, and that is a system we need to work on. That's the other thing
>> about Agora: it's about the evolution and perfection of an (endless) game.
>> There could even be a circumstance in which Agora could end: at the time
>> of
>> writing, arbitrary proposals have to be able to be passed in a real-world
>> four-week period, after all. In addition to expressing opinion, the
>> bugfixes are also hinting that this is also a game of togetherness: Agora
>> wants to be clear to our new players.
>>
>> 7) References
>> Proposal analysis indicates (from a sample) that most proposals are
>> bugfixes. (link is the draft)
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg55469.html
>>
>> Metamagical themas (Douglas Hofstadter) featured Nomic, and also notes in
>> that article that Drama is part of the game.
>> [I couldn't find a link]
>>
>> Metagaming vs roleplaying also notes that Drama is part of the game. In
>> fact, it is a major part of the game, so much so that we often have
>> already
>> become the players we were playing as in the game, and we are personally
>> affected by the shenanigans of those around us. A proper "oops-ouch"
>> mechanism is once again missing from the referee system, that would
>> encourage us to play up this drama and highlight it properly. This also
>> highlights some problems with pragmatic plays: that they result in "bad
>> feelings" when it is not clear that Agora is a game of Expression.
>> https://agoranomic.org/Herald/theses/html/1998-XX-XX-Kolja.html
>>
>> Pragmatism and Platonism: Two Apporaches to Nomic illuminates the
>> difference between styles of play, and the importance of including not
>> only
>> Platonic views, but also Pragmatic views, and the pros and cons of both
>> styles. Specifically, Platonic assertions are great at addressing
>> precision
>> and correctness near the events that occur. Pragmatism is great for moving
>> on when the effort to undo any issue is too large or impossible. It also
>> provides a sample nomic ruleset to play with this dichotomy, and notes
>> that
>> conversion to pure Pragmatism or pure Platonism are both strongly
>> rejected.
>> https://agoranomic.org/Herald/theses/html/XXXX-XX-XX-Vanyel.html
>>
>> Deontology is somewhat associated with Platonism, whereas Consequentialism
>> is somewhat associated with Pragmatism.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism
>>
>> A Propositional Nomic provides a different atomic and platonic approach to
>> playing nomic.
>> https://agoranomic.org/Herald/theses/html/2009-11-23-Alexis.html
>>
>> A Completely Formal Nomic provides a different atomic and platonic
>> approach
>> to playing nomic, suitable for some sort of coding-style of nomic.
>> https://agoranomic.org/Herald/theses/html/XXXX-XX-XX-favor.html
>> }
>> --
>> 4st
>> Referee
>> Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
>>
>
