Jonatan Kilhamn | 25 Nov 08:17 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: OFF: [King Azaz] Word Overload

On 25 November 2014 at 01:53, omd <c.ome.xk <at> gmail.com> wrote:

Word Card holdings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Tiger          a / be / its / person's / recordkeeper / the

So, do I have "recordkeeper" or not?
omd | 25 Nov 01:44 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [King Azaz] Royal Banquet

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
<jonatan.kilhamn <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>> I trade in my "be" word card for an "a" one.
>> I trade in me "considered" word card for a "recordkeeper" one.
>>
>>
>> I order my word cards into the following Inventory:
>> "a person's recordkeeper"
> I perform the above actions (i.e. I try again).

"recordkeeper" trade and subsequent ordering fails due to the rule
actually only containing "recordkeepor".  (Sorry, just noticed that.)

omd | 25 Nov 00:16 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: testing some informal arragements

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Edward Murphy <emurphy42 <at> zoho.com> wrote:
> For each proposal decision for which the voting period is in progress
> and omd has cast no votes (except possibly on someone else's behalf),
> I vote on omd's behalf: (endorse ais523).

Too late.

Kerim Aydin | 20 Nov 20:02 2014

DIS: making semi-trusted dice?


Hey folks,

If I put up a (in programming sense trivial) dice server tailored
to Agoran needs, are there folks out there who know a little bit
about security who can advise on a way it can be "trusted"?
(E.g. Hash of the source code mailed with result; source code is
available on site to confirm inspectable source's hash matches).

I suspect you might say that as long as I have (minor) control 
over the server there's no trusted method, but it's not my area...
suggestions to get to an agora level of trust welcome...

-G.

Kerim Aydin | 19 Nov 22:17 2014

DIS: random text


Proto: Random is as random does

[V 0.1 - Used R1079/4 (2005-Nov) as a base.
       - Numbered notes are for proto-version only.
]

Enact the following rule, "Randomness":

      When a Rule requires that a player (the "Shooter") make a random 
      choice (a "roll"), then the roll shall be made using whatever 
      probability distribution among the possible outcomes the Rules 
      provide for making that roll. If the Rules do not specify a 
      probability distribution, then a uniform probability distribution 
      shall be used.  A roll is not considered made until it is 
      announced.

      When making a roll as required by the Rules, the Shooter may 
      rely on any physical or computational process whose probability 
      distribution for the final[1] outcome among the possible outcomes 
      is reasonably close to that required by the Rules.  The Courts are 
      the final arbiter of whether a method's probability distribution 
      among the possible outcomes is reasonably close to that required 
      by the Rules.

      If a roll requires multiple steps[2] to complete the process, and 
      the Shooter allows a materially significant time[3] to pass 
      between steps, then the roll is invalid and the Shooter commits 
      the Class-6 infraction of Hiding the Dice.

      If the Shooter errs, in good faith, in making a roll, and that 
      error does not greatly change the probability of most possible
      outcomes, the roll shall be allowed to stand. [4]      

      In general, Shooters are ENCOURAGED to use services or methods that
      are confirmably fair, where key portions of the selection process
      are out of direct control of the Shooter and results are clearly
      revealed to all players (including the Shooter) simultaneously, 
      whenever practicable. 

[1] Word "final" is meant to convey that the "process" for which we look
    at a distribution includes any post-roll selection as well as 
    initial "rolls".

[2] E.g. rolls a physical dice, then reports it, includes multiple steps.   

[3] Materially significant time = fun new concept for precedents.  
    My thought: it's material if someone profits from the delay.

[4] Whether we want this Pragmatism is open for discussion.  It was
    absolutely needed in Cards, which were broken and stalled for most of 
    the time this clause wasn't in effect.  Also of course "greatly 
    change" is another term for the courts to battle over.  I can give
    examples from the cards era.

Alex Smith | 19 Nov 11:34 2014
Picon
Picon

DIS: Proto: Organizations

So, recently, there's been a bunch of people (including me) deciding
that we need some substitute for Contracts/Promises, and a bunch of
people (including me) deciding that we need an economy. So this is my
proposal for a proposal for Organizations, which are designed to work as
a Contract substitute /and/ an economy!

The basic idea is that players can fund Organizations; the funds aren't
"spent" in that you get them back once you stop funding the
Organization, and act as a limit on how much funding you can do at once.
(Each player has the same ability to fund; the economy comes down to how
efficiently you can spend your funds.) If you're funding an Organization
to any positive extent, the Organization itself can force you to fund it
more, or allow you to fund it less; this is the Contract-like behaviour
(you can create an Organization that punishes you for performing certain
actions by tying up more of your funds). You SHALL NOT allow yourself to
become oversubscribed in terms of funding, and bad things happen if you
do (in addition to any criminal penalty, and the fact that you've broken
the rules).

Meanwhile, the more heavily funded an Organization is, the better the
chance that it becomes able to grant wins. So, you (perhaps with
co-conspirators) can run an Organization for your own benefit in the
hope of gaining a win, if you like. However, the most likely
Organizations to grant wins are ones which are widely funded by
everyone; most likely, these will be ones that act like Contests used to
(nothing's forcing them to be fair or balanced, but if they aren't, they
may have trouble attracting funding).

You can destroy an Organization by underfunding it (and currently, by no
other means, although as an Organization can adjust its own funding,
this makes it possible for an Organization to intentionally
self-destruct). This prevents at least some members of the Organization
(whichever members were the last to escape the wreck) from becoming
members of (or creating and becoming the founding member of)
Organizations for seven days, in order to prevent rapid-fire creation
and destruction of Organizations.

The basic strategy to get yourself into the best possible position for a
win, then, is to try to create an asymmetry between how likely an
Organization is to give you a win if it gets the opportunity, and how
much you're funding that Organization. The optimum situation is to put
minimal funds into lots of Organizations, with other players heavily
funding those Organizations, but with the Organizations' Charters set up
to nonetheless give you the win anyway.

There's been quite a bit of effort in this to shut down possible scams
pre-emptively; in particular, I've tried my best to prevent anything
similar to Fool's attempted scam, and any scams along the line of "I
repeatedly generate random results until I get one I like, then send
just that one to a public forum".

One other thing I'd like to add is an equity court, but I'm not quite
sure how to word a rule like that in such a way that it's actually
capable of sorting out disputes but does not allow for judicial
mousetrapping. Given that this proto's quite long already, that's
probably best left for a future proposal as it is.

So without further ado, the proto (AI 1.2):
{{{{
Create a new Power-1.2 rule, "The Secretary":
{{{
The Secretary is an office, responsible for tracking Organizations and
related gamestate. The duties of the Secretary are described elsewhere.
}}}

Create a new Power-1.2 rule, "Organizations":
{{{
An Organization is a type of entity. The following changes are secured:
creating, modifying, or destroying an Organization; and causing an
entity to become an Organization or cease to be an Organization. No
entity that existed before the enactment of the first revision of this
rule is an Organization.

Budget is a switch belonging to (Organization, player) pairs (i.e. there
is one instance of the switch for each combination of an Organization
and a player), tracked by the Secretary, whose legal values are integers
from 0 to 100 inclusive, defaulting to 0. An Organization's Income is
the total value of all Budget switches for pairs that include that
Organization. A player's Expenditure is the total value of all Budget
switches for pairs that include that player. Changes to Budget are
secured.

A "member" of an Organization is a player for which the pair consisting
of that Organization and that player has a nonzero Budget.

It is IMPOSSIBLE, by any means, to change a Budget switch from a zero to
nonzero value, except with the consent of the player included in the
pair to which that Budget switch applies. This rule takes precedence
over any rule that might make such a change possible.
}}}

Create a new Power-1.2 rule, "Organizational Restructuring":
{{{
Charter is an Organization switch, tracked by the Secretary, whose legal
values are texts, and with default value "An amendment to this
Organization is Appropriate if and only if all members of this
Organization consent to it.".

Each possible modification to an Organization, or to a switch that
pertains to an Organization or a pair including that Organization, is
considered to be either Appropriate or Inappropriate. An Organization's
Charter SHOULD contain a method of determining the appropriateness of
any attempt to modify that Organization.

If a Charter does not specify the appropriateness of a modification, or
if it attempts to specify the appropriateness of a modification but in a
way that is unclear, ambiguous, circular, inconsistent, paradoxical, or
that depends on information that is impossible or unreasonably difficult
to determine, the modification is Inappropriate; otherwise, it is
Appropriate if and only if the Charter specifies that it is.

Organizations CAN be modified as follows:

 a) A member of an Organization CAN modify that Organization's Charter
    by announcement, if such a modification is Appropriate.

 b) Any player CAN flip a Budget Switch by announcement, if such a
    modification is considered Appropriate by the Organization to which
    the switch pertains, except where other rules disallow the change.

 c) A member of an Organization can modify its Charter without
    objection, even if such a modification is Inappropriate. Players
    SHOULD only use this mechanism to recover from situations where
    bugs in an Organization's charter prevent it from being modified
    via the normal mechanisms, and/or if the Charter forgets to specify
    circumstances under which a certain class of modifications would be
    Appropriate.
}}}

Create a new Power-1.2 rule, "Death and Birth of Organizations":
{{{
If an Organization's Income is ever lower than 50, that Organization
Collapses, destroying the Organization. Any players who were members of
the Organization immediately before its Income reduced below 50 CANNOT
become (or be caused to become) members of Organizations (regardless of
who actually flips the switch), and cannot create Organizations, for 7
days after the collapse.

If a player's Expenditure is 50 or lower, that player CAN create an
Organization by announcement (except where disallowed by the preceding
paragraph or by other rules), specifying a name for the Organization
that is unique among Organizations, and that Organization's initial
Charter. When a player creates an Organization this way, the Budget for
the pair consisting of that player and that Organization becomes 50
(with other Budget switches for pairs including that Organization
starting at their default of 0), and its Charter is set as the player
specified.
}}}

Create a new Power-1.2 rule, "Bankruptcy":
{{{
While a player's Expenditure exceeds 100, then any player CAN cause that
player to become Bankrupt by announcement. The Secretary SHALL NOT allow
any player's Expenditure to exceed 100 for more than a week.

When a player becomes Bankrupt, then all Budget switches for pairs that
include that player are flipped to 0.

Players SHALL ensure that their Expenditure never exceeds 100.

If a player has become Bankrupt within the past 30 days, that player
CANNOT create or modify Organizations or Budget switches in any way,
rules to the contrary notwithstanding. This is in addition to any
penalty that might be levied on that player for violating the
requirement of the preceding paragraph.
}}}

Create a new Power-1.2 rule, "Organizational Rewards":
{{{
A "Medal-Granting Ceremony" consists of the following steps:

 a) A "dice server" or similar randomization device is sent a
    description of how to randomly determine an Organization in a
    weighted manner (where each Organization has a probability
    proportional to its Income of being selected), together with
    appropriate configuration that causes it to send its random
    choice, as well as a copy of the description in question, to a
    public forum;

 b) The device in question makes the random choice, in accordance
    with the description sent in step a);

 c) The device sends the description it was sent in step a), and the
    random choice that was made in step b), to a public forum.

Despite this description, a process is not a Medal-Granting Ceremony if
the device chooses whether to perform step c) based on what choice it
randomly made in step b). Persons SHALL NOT attempt to mislead anyone as
to whether or not a particular purported Medal-Granting Ceremony has
actually occurred.

The description in question may consist partly of machine readable
instructions, and partly of instructions in English (or a similar
natural language) that specify how to interpret the random result. For
example, if there were two organizations, "Small Organization" with an
Income of 50 and "Large Organization" with an Income of 150, one method
of constructing an appropriate description would be to write
machine-readable instructions to generate a uniform random integer from
1 to 4 inclusive, accompanied by the English text "1: Small
Organization, 2-4: Large Organization".

Medal Count is an Organization switch, tracked by the Secretary, whose
legal values are the non-negative integers, and which has a default of
0.

A Medal-Granting Ceremony is Early if this rule has existed for fewer
than 75 days, or if an Organization's Medal Count has increased within
the past 75 days. When a Medal-Granting Ceremony chooses an
Organization, and that Medal-Granting Ceremony is not Early, that
Organization's Medal Count increases by 1.

If no Organization's Medal Count has increased for 75 days, the
Secretary SHALL, in a timely manner, attempt to cause a Medal-Granting
Ceremony to occur (unless somebody else does so first). The Secretary's
report includes the first date on which a Medal-Granting Ceremony would
not be Early.

A player can Award a Medal from an Organization to a specified player by
announcement, if that Organization considers doing so Appropriate and if
the Organization's Medal Count is nonzero. Doing so causes the
Organization's Medal Count to reduce by 1, that player to win the game,
and a new game to start. The beginning of a new game does not cause any
changes to the game state not specified by the rules; in particular,
Agora does not end and the ruleset remains unchanged. The Herald is then
authorized to award that player the Patent Title of Champion.
}}}
}}}}

--

-- 
ais523

Kerim Aydin | 17 Nov 22:35 2014

DIS: Re: BUS: testing some informal arragements


On Mon, 17 Nov 2014, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > I withdraw my votes on all Agoran Decisions currently in their
> > voting periods.
> >
> > I, being of as sound mind and body as could reasonably be expected
> > of an Agoran, hereby grant the player known as omd a strictly limited
> > Power of Attorney[*] for the sole purpose of casting Votes on
> > Agoran Decisions on my behalf, by announcement, from now until the
> > end of Nov 30, 2014 UTC.
> >
> > If mutual agreement is required, either a clear statement from omd
> > indicating acceptance of this PoA, or an attempt on omd's part to
> > vote on my behalf, shall be considered an acceptance of terms on
> > omd's part.
> 
> I do the same two actions, but granting the PoA to Murphy to cast
> votes on my behalf.
> 
> I vote on G.'s behalf: 7726 AGAINST, 7727 PRESENT, 7728 AGAINST, 7729 AGAINST.

I just realized that voting may be a poor test case, as it could
be argued (barely, but perhaps within the bounds of reason) that these 
amount to Endorsements.

omd | 16 Nov 20:18 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Re OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of proposals 7728-7729

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Joe Piercey <joerpiercey <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> My votes:
>
> 7725 present
> 7726 against
> 7727 present
> 7728 for
> 7729 present

You're too late for 7725; others should be good.

Edward Murphy | 15 Nov 21:22 2014

DIS: [IADoP] Metareport

Offices and Reports

Date of this report: Sat 15 Nov 14
Date of last report: Sun  9 Nov 14

Rule  Office          Holder        Since      Last Election
------------------------------------------------------------
  991  Arbitor         G.            15 Oct 14   7 Apr 14
2137  Assessor        omd            8 Jul 14  12 Jul 14
2437  Dungeon Master~ the Warrigal  30 Sep 14  30 Oct 14
  649  Herald          woggle        11 Nov 14  30 Oct 14
2138  IADoP*          Murphy        11 Nov 14  30 Oct 14
????  King Azaz       omd           10 Nov 14    never
2435  Minister GNP**  Eritivus      18 Oct 14    never
2423  Prime Minister  Henri         11 Nov 14  30 Oct 14
1607  Promotor        aranea        26 Oct 14  13 Jul 14
2426  Referee         Eritivus       4 Nov 14^ 30 Oct 14
2139  Registrar       woggle        30 Aug 14  31 Aug 14
1051  Rulekeepor      omd            4 Feb 14   3 Jun 14
  103  Speaker***      omd            1 May 14  21 Apr 14
2438  Tailor          aranea         4 Nov 14    never
------------------------------------------------------------

*   Interstellar Associate Director of Personnel
**  Minister for GNP Evaluation
*** Imposed
~   May not exist (reason unknown)
^   Iff any rule violation occurred between 3 Nov 00:00 and 4 Nov
       00:01. Otherwise 11 Nov. One possible such violation was
       determined not to have occurred (CFJ 3440).

Recent events
-------------
Thu  2 Oct 14 20:09     Sprocklem resigns Arbitor
Sun  5 Oct 14  4:14     omd deputises for IADoP
Sat 11 Oct 14  6:45     Eritivus deputises for Minister for GNP Eval.
Sun 12 Oct 14  4:15     Arbitor, Herald become vacant due to
                           self-ratification of IADoP's report
Wed 15 Oct 14 21:07     G. deputises for Arbitor
Wed 15 Oct 14 23:24     aranea deputises for Scorekeepor
Sat 18 Oct 14 21:23     Minister for GNP Evaluation becomes vacant due
                           to self-ratification of Registrar's report
Sun 19 Oct 14 19:30     Eritivus deputises for Minister for GNP Eval.
Sun 26 Oct 14  2:23     omd deputises for, resigns Promotor
Sun 26 Oct 14  3:20     omd deputises for, resigns Promotor
Sun 26 Oct 14 20:58     Elections initiated for Prime Minister, Referee,
                           Herald, Dungeon Master, IADoP
Sun 26 Oct 14 21:43:53  aranea deputises for Promotor
Thu 30 Oct 14 21:15     Voting begins for PM, Referee, Herald, DM, IADoP
Tue  4 Nov 14  0:01     Eritivus attempts to deputise for Referee (^)
Tue  4 Nov 14 20:35     aranea deputises for Tailor
----- time of last report -----
Sun  9 Nov 14 23:59:22  King Azaz created by Proposal 7711
Sun  9 Nov 14 23:59:22  Scorekeepor repealed by Proposal 7720
Mon 10 Nov 14 00:12:07  omd deputises for King Azaz
Tue 11 Nov 14 02:56:12  Henri elected Prime Minister
Tue 11 Nov 14 02:56:12  Eritivus elected Referee
Tue 11 Nov 14 02:56:12  woggle elected Herald
Tue 11 Nov 14 02:56:12  the Warrigal elected Dungeon Master
Tue 11 Nov 14 02:56:12  Murphy elected IADoP
Tue 11 Nov 14 18:14:04  scshunt deputises for Herald (ineffective, not
                           announced in advance and no longer vacant)

Edward Murphy | 15 Nov 19:11 2014

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Rulekeepor's notes on Proposals 7698-7710

G. wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Nov 2014, Edward Murphy wrote:
>> omd wrote:
>>
>>>> Proposal 7701 (AI=2) by Henri
>>>> Credits
>>>>        Replace every instance of the word "points" in the ruleset
>>>>        excluding the instances of the word "points" in Rule 1023 (Common
>>>>        Definitions) with "credits".
>>>
>>> Fails due to lack of specified order.
>>
>> CFJ, disqualifying omd:  The adoption of Proposal 7701 replaced at
>> least two instances of the word "points" in the ruleset with "credits".
>>
>> Caller's arguments:  Rule 105 (Rule Changes) says
>>
>>        Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.
>>
>> and
>>
>>        Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
>>        change to be void and without effect.
>>
>> However, the order of changes is arguably not an ambiguity in the
>> specification of a rule change, merely an ambiguity in the specification
>> of a set of rule changes.  There is no obvious substantive difference in
>> the overall effect on the gamestate from applying these rule changes in
>> one order versus another; in particular, note that Rule 2420 defines
>> "score" as a switch and "points" as shorthand for flipping that switch,
>> rather than defining "points" as a currency.  (Also note that scores
>> were not zeroed out until the adoption of Proposal 7703 later in the
>> same message, though that's not obviously relevant either.)
>
> Gratuitous arguments:
>
> Even if the order of changes isn't ambiguous (because it doesn't matter),
> "every instance" may be R105 ambiguous.  Is it "every instance" that the
> submitter is aware of?  The Rulekeepor?  What if there's an instance in
> the "true" ruleset that's not in the current SLR and FLR due to errors?
>
> In a previous asset system, asset transfer specifications (then) had
> to be as exactly specified as R105 says rule changes must be now.
> Under those rules, it was found that "I transfer all my assets to the
> bank" was ambiguous because it did not specify which assets were part
> of "all".

I'm pretty sure we've allowed "every instance in ascending order of
rule number" before, though it may have just been papered over by
ratification at some point.

omd | 15 Nov 17:04 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Expedition] Word Card fixes

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Luis Ressel <aranea <at> aixah.de> wrote:
> Why the hurry?

Mainly because I wanted to test out Expeditions.


Gmane