On Sun, Mar 3, 2024 at 8:55 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 3/1/24 17:26, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > > "There exists a document known as the Empireworld, which should describe > in > > some way a fictional world. Each player that has amended this document is > > said to have their own Empire in the Empireworld, and such players are > > Imperials. > > > > A player CAN amend the Empireworld once per week by announcement to > > narratively progress the Empireworld in some reasonable fashion. The > > message with this kind of announcement MUST include the latest form of > the > > Empireworld post-amendment. These amendments MUST follow relevant > guidance > > given in CfJs. Imperials are ENCOURAGED to shape this subgame through > CfJs. > > > "CFJ" is the Agoran style. "CfJ" is Blognomic style. > > What does "guidance given in CfJs" mean? That seems like a good issue to raise in a CFJ. > Arguments are not formally > required or associated with CFJs; we just track them informally. > Arguably this means that any guidance made in a CFJ statement MUST be > followed, regardless of any judgement assigned to the case. That interpretation seems interesting. I don't personally agree with it. > > Also, this seems to potentially place heavy load on the Arbitor and > judges who may have no interest or stake in this game. Yes, I agree. I also acknowledged that issue already in the Proposal. > Additionally, "reasonable" seems like an extremely weak requirement on a > document that controls wins. Is amending it to simply add "Janet has > hereby accomplished an extraordinary feat at midnight 2024-03-04 UTC" > unreasonable? Potentially that doesn't fulfill the "narratively" > requirement, I guess. And, in any case, tying squishy standards like > "reasonable" and "narratively progress" to CANs (rather than SHALLs) > isn't generally a good idea; for instance, if someone's amendment is > later found to have been, any future postings of the full document that > included that amendment would be ILLEGAL. > I deliberately used ambiguous language like "reasonable" because of the intent to offload what that means to CFJs, as per the game's design. I'm open to suggestions on how else that can be phrased while keeping that spirit. Having the "chained message" thing break with an ILLEGAL seems like something that is much more easily solved. I'll try to figure out something. > > > > Any person can amend the Empireworld without 2 objections and Imperials > are > > ENCOURAGED to attempt this action when ey believe it to be appropriate. > > > "when they believe". The antecedent is "Imperials". > Despite my best efforts to write in proper English, I'm not always great at it. I hope this won't significantly impact my ability to play Agora here or in the future. I'll take your feedback into account. > An Imperial can, by announcement, win the game without 2 objections if the > > Empireworld shows that ey have accomplished at least 3 extraordinary > feats > > in the fictional world that the Empireworld describes since ey last won > the > > game in this way. This rule does not describe what qualifies as an > > extraordinary feat." > > > "that e has accomplished". > > This *really* seems like an infinite free win generation machine. At the > *very* least there should be some cooldown between wins (I'd argue for a > global 30 day cooldown at minimum) > I'm flattered that my incompetence is mistaken for some kind of plot. The suggestion seems good and easy to implement to me. > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > >
