Re: [s-d] [s-b] BobTHJ's Refresh Proposal

["William P. Berard" <william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Okay, folks, new version, new comments... I see that BobTHJ seem to 
have a philosphy quite opposite to mine, trying to asses large issues 
in the ruleset rather than quickfixing specific crisis issues. I am not 
completely unhappy about that, I just think it is a bit of a shame as 
the vote system for refresh proposal makes it risky for a large scope 
proposal to be able to pass, as it is a law package, everything or 
nothing, and, as one cannot vote for  sub-proposal individually, 
effectively giving it a larger chance to fail as voter might reject the 
whole thing on the grounds of one specific point... (That's the problem 
of voting a constitution...)

But anyway, I see some very good ideas, there, let me comment (for the 
sake of readability, I'm going to paste my previous comments):


Le 26 nov. 07, à 22:51, Roger Hicks a écrit :

> I revise my refresh proposal to read as follows:
>
> {
> All Proposals which have been assigned a number with a status of
> Pending or Open become Historical with a win-state
> of Lost. No awards or penalties are assessed. All Proposals which have
> not yet been assigned a number cease to be proposals.

See my previous comment :
Is this really necessary? This pops up in a lot of refresh proposals, 
but I see many good proposals that will have to be re-submitted. After 
all, I do not think the game stability is endangered by any proposal, 
and even if it was, those will still be voted upon... what do you 
think?



>
> All Consultations which have been assigned a number and are currently
> Waiting become Zotted. All Consultations which have not yet been
> assigned a number cease to be Consultations.
>

Fair enough, but again, is it really necessary? the current crisis 
spawned from the problem on how Consultations, or, more accurately, 
their answers, effectively changed the ruleset. What we need is a 
stronger stance on how this should happen. One could argue, after all, 
that someone could have exploited the device creation loophole before 
the consultation, since the Judgement merely confirmed that the 
loophole existed.  Here again, I think we need a more efficient 
oricularity system, and something that states that either game actions 
are only regulated by rules, and that Judgements (Answers to 
Consultations) can only be acted upon once they have made it to the 
ruleset, or that game actions can be based on judgements only at the 
beginning of the nWeek after the judgement was passed (or some other 
time delay that would leave time for objection, and ponderation. The 
problem with objections, and I agree with 0x44 which was on IRC not too 
long ago, is that the recent change in active status condition makes 
the Quorum very hard to reach, and hence enable Judgements to pass 
anyway.



> The AFO ceases to be a player (if it is one). The AFO ceases to
> be a Faction (if it is one).
>
> Agora ceases to be a player or a faction (if it is one).
>
> Dice Master ceases to be a player (if it is one).
>
> All Devices and Blueprints are destroyed.

Okay, but, here again, I'm sticking to my "minimum changes to the 
gamestate"... what about the Holy Hand Grenade? I am new to the game 
and don't know the context of its creation, but it was prior to the 
device crisis we are facing. If anything, players having spend money on 
devices should have their money back.


>
> Repeal rules 3-12 and 3-14.

This is my main point of disagreement. The device crisis did not stem 
from those rules, it started  because of a lack of details about the 
conditions of device creation. I was the one who submitted the three 
consultatiosn on device and blueprints, because I liked the idea of 
having them in the game, and would like to submit proposal to build 
some sort of economy and industry in the game. repaling those rules 
would have us start from scratch device-wise, and this would be lenghty 
process.

Assuch, I think amending them to specifiy the creation conditions for 
devices and blueprints should be enough. furthermore, even if 3-12 and 
3-14 were to stay the same, your "Whatever is not prohibited or 
regulated by a rule is permitted an unregulated." rule would 
effectively prevent anyone abusing the creation loophole until it is 
fixed.


>
> Amend Rule 1-4 by removing:
> {{
> He may do this if and only if he fulfills the following requirements:
>
>    * He is capable of passing a Membership Test, although he may not
> be required to take said test
>    * He is not currently a Player
>    * He has a working e-mail address
> }}
>
> and by replacing:
> {{
> The Registrar may refuse to allow any External Force to become a
> player, and may refuse to recognize any otherwise-legal name change,
> if e believes the External Force's proposed name (or existing player's
> new name) would be ambiguous or confusing, or could otherwise damage
> the integrity of this game. The Registrar is encouraged, but not
> required, to state the reason for such refusal.
> }}
>
> with:
> {{
> The Registrar may cause any Player who has become a player within the
> past 12 ndays to cease to be a Player with 2 Support. He must state
> the reason for such action, which must be one of the following:
> * The Player's name is ambiguous, unclear, or in conflict with the
> name of an already existing Player
> * The Registrar believes that the new Player is identical to an
> already existing Player or Faction.
> * The Player was previously denied playerhood for any valid
> still-existant reason.
> }}
>


I see the point in this, but I think you are attcking the problem with 
the wrong angle : your proposal would effectively wipe out objective 
condition of playerhood to replace them by an individual decision by 
the registrar. I think this is contrary to the spirit of the game, and 
dangerous. because even though you propose that the Registrar need 2 
support to kick a player, there is no such democratic safeguard to 
_allow_ player in. as such, were the position of Registrar to be 
compromised, the game would be open to lots of trouble.

It seems to be a major flaw in this proposal, and I have to point out 
for the record that, although I am new to Nomics in general, I have 
noticed on Wikinomic that you are a player of Agora...



> In Rule 5-2 replace:
> {{
> * The Agreement is not already a Faction
> }}
> with:
> {{
> * The Agreement is not already a Faction or Player
> }}

This would imply that Agreement could be players. If we want to be 
tight about this, I'd suggest amending 5-1 to state that no Agreement 
can be, nor become, a player. On the grounds that a player, anyway, has 
to pass a membership test which can consist of speaking of himself in 
the first person without awkwardness, a thing that an Agreement (by 
definition constituted of at least two external forces) could not do 
unless it was desperately poor in grammar. ;-]


>
> Add the following rule to Section 1:
> {{
> Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and
> unregulated. However, for the purposes of this rule an action or 
> object is
> regulated if described by a rule.
> }}

Previous comment :
This is a wiiiide topic. I think this is a good compromise without 
being prohibitionist, but it might be a bit of an overkill. If this is 
to pass, and stay in the game, we can expect a much slower paced game 
as we probably will have to pass lots of rules to explicetely permit 
otherwise accepted things.

In my spirit of bringing the minimum changes to the gamestate, I have 
to point out that it seems that you included this to try and solve the 
loophole of device creation. As I mentioned previously, if this rule is 
to pass, then you do not need to repeal the device rules. And if you 
repeal or fix the device rules, and possibly, as soon as the pani is 
over, quickly try and implement a workable, efficient system or 
oracularities, maybe we could do without that.


I think we all want the panic to end quickly, and I agree with the 
general spirit of your proposal, but my philosophy of a minimum changes 
to the gamestate is based on the fact that the less changes you 
propose, the less likely you are to have people voting against your 
proposal. This rule is very controversial, and has a far larger scope 
than solving the present crisis. It would shift a lot of paradigms in 
the game, and I think it needs to be discussed independently, once the 
panic is over.

to sum up, If I were you, I would remove it for the time being to 
insure I would not lose vote because of it, since you can already 
adress the critical issues without this rule, then propose it, as a 
stand alone proposition, once the panic is over.

NEW comment :

How does this fit in your view of fast, oracularities-based 
legislation? Don't you think that this rule become redundant within the 
system you propose? you state yourself that apparently invalid actions 
can be valid unless objected to, and if they are objected to they can 
still be deemed valid by a priest's judgement, although people can 
object, but we can reach a gamestate where an action in contradiction 
with the rules can be deemed valid?



Now we are getting to the new stuff :


>
> Append to Rule 1-10 "Game Actions":
> {{
> Any player (as a Game Action) may declare any Game Action which has
> occurred within the past NDay to be Invalid, unless that Game Action
> was to declare another Game Action invalid, or to submit a
> consultation. An invalid Game Action is treated as if it never
> occurred. An Outsider whose Game Action has been declared invalid may
> submit a consultation whose text reads "XXX is valid", where XXX is
> the Game Action they attempted to perform. When that consultation
> becomes Pondered, the Player who declared that game action to be
> invalid loses 10 Points.
>

What if the Priest Answers "NO" ? maybe if the action is confirmed to 
be invalid, and 4ndays pass without objection, the player who did the 
invalid action loses points?

> Any Game Action which has not been declared invalid by the above
> within the allowed timespan is considered to be valid in every way,
> even if it is in contradiction to the rules.
> [[Note: This ensures that illegal actions can not cause the gamestate
> to be reversed more than one day]]
> }}

Hmm, I don't like the idea of a game action being valid while in 
contradiction to the rules. Hopefully, if such a game action was to be 
deemed valid, the Priest would submit an Oracularity which would change 
the rules so as to make it valid. But perhaps "Hopefully" is not 
enough, and if a game action in contradiction to the rules is valid, 
the priest SHOULD have to submit an Oracularity?

>
> Delete the section titled "Oculatiries" from Rule 2-2

"Oracularities"... hehe, tricky one, innit? I keep getting it wrong 
myself...

>
> Revise the last sentence of the section "Consultations" in Rule 2-5 to 
> read:
> {{
> A Consultation is in one of the states of Waiting, Answered, ZOTTED
> and Pondered. A Consultation is initially Waiting.
> }}
>
> In rule 2-5 under the section "The Answer" replace:
> {{
> At the beginning of the fourth nday (or ndelay if the clock is off)
> after the Answer has been submitted to a public forum, the state of
> the Consultation becomes Pondered.
> }}
> with:
> {{
> When a Priest submits the answer to a public forum that Consultation
> becomes Answered. If a Consultation remains Answered for four full
> Ndays (or Ndelays if the clock is off), it becomes Pondered.
> }}
>
> Delete the section titled "The Whole Point" from Rule 2-5
>
> Append a section titled "Ocularities" to rule 2-5 under the section
> titled "The Answer" with the text:
> {{
> As part of their answer a Priest may submit an Ocularity. An Ocularity
> is a lGame Document which includes a list of changes to the rules and
> gamestate of B Nomic. By nature, an Ocularity is a transaction and is
> implied to be enclosed in "BEGIN TRANSACTION" and "END TRANSACTION"
> clauses.
>
> If the answered question is in relation to an ambiguity in the rules,
> the Ocularity should address that ambiguity by including changes to
> the rules in question to clarify.
>
> If the answered question is in relation to the validity of a Game
> Action that has been declared invalid, and the priest determines that
> action to be valid, then the Ocularity should include a list of
> changes to current the gamestate to simulate what it might be if the
> action in question had actually occurred.
>
> When a Consultation becomes Pondered, if the answer for that
> Consultation is the same as the answer originally supplied by its
> Priest, then any Ocularity submitted with that answer is followed and
> the gamestate and rule changes it calls for take effect.
> }}

As you mention further down in the text, this effectively enable to fix 
the ruleset in a quick and efficient manner. Now, I think one could 
argue that this also boils down to effectively alter the ruleset, 
adding, removing or changing rules, with a cut/down voting system. 
Although This would probably be a minor problem given the current pace 
of the game, I find it dangerous.

The problem with the claim system as it was before was the high quorum. 
you adress this issue, below, by simply tallying without needing the 
quorum, but the problem will remain for regular proposal vote. I agree 
with 0x44 who pointed out on IRC that the recent change inthe 
definition of an active player in rule 3-15 has had the side effect of 
increasing the quorum to the point of non managability. It is not 
completely far fetched to think that, out of all the players who post 
in a given nWeek, half of them could not be able or willing to vote 
during the Voting Period. If you want to go for a deep change in the 
rules, I think you need to lower the quorum or change the active status 
condition.


>
> Rewrite the section of rule 2-5 titled "Overriding Consultations" to 
> read:
> {{
> When a Priest submits an answer to a consultation, within three ndays
> (or ndelays if the clock is off) since its submission, any player
> except the Unbeliever and the Supplicant may, as a Game Action, make a
> Claim as to the Answer's (and Ocularity's) Consistency with the
> current rules. Such Claims will ultimately state that the player
> believes the answer to be Consistent or Inconsistent. If a Player
> submits multiple Claims, only the last one submitted shall be counted.
>
> At the end of the third nday (or ndelay) since the Answer has been
> submitted the Oracle shall tally any such Claims. If there exist more
> Claims of Inconsistency than claims of Consistency, the consultation
> ceases to be Answered and becomes Waiting. The Oracle shall then
> immediately assign a new Priest to the Consultation. The previous
> Priest's answer and Ocularity (if any) is discarded.
> }


I quite fancy the idea of fixing gamestate quantuum conflicts quickly, 
and I love the idea of a fast paced game, but I think, although I 
cannot think of any better solution to the gamestate quantuum thingy 
issue, that there is a very strong underlying danger in this system. 
But hey, that is the fun of the game.

This basically mean Players will be able to indirectly change rules 
through a minimal and fast voting system. It is not completely unlekely 
to imagine a "low tide" player frequentation situation where a couple 
of players could do something very nasty to the ruleset.

Not only is it dangerous internally, but it makes the game vulnerable 
to external takeover as well.

Also look at how you propose to tally votes "If there exist more Claims 
of Inconsistency than claims of Consistency, the consultation ceases to 
be Answered and becomes Waiting. " it means in case of egality, the 
controversial action remains valid... Of course, the Supplicant can't 
vote, so at least there's already an obvious vote taken off. but the 
unbeliever cannot vote either. I suspect than when loggin a validity 
consultation, one would target the objecting player as the unbeliever. 
What about the priest? can he vote on the consistency? he will tend to 
defend the consistency of his answer.




>
> Let me take a moment here to describe what I am doing in the last
> section of this proposal:
>
> Hose brought to light an important point: Any disputed action
> essentially causes two different gamestates; One in which the action
> is valid and another in which it is invalid. As the only way to
> resolve which gamestate is correct is through a consultation, this
> requires a minimum of 4 days (usually more) before the correct
> gamestate can be resolved. In the interim, players are taking more
> game actions which in turn creates even more possible gamestates.
> Also, if consultations are not answered clearly, or if the dispute is
> over a consultation, there may be no way of clearly resolving the
> plethora of possible gamestates.
>
> This proposal attempts to solve this problem. If this were to pass,
> every game action would be valid unless it is declared invalid within
> 1 Nday. Therefore, should a game action be declared invalid, at the
> most we would have to reverse only one day's worth of gamestate. Any
> player may (within the allotted time) declare any action to be
> invalid, with the exception of calling for a consultation (since the
> judicial process should be protected). There are of course protections
> to prevent players from arbitrarily calling actions invalid (including
> a 10 point penalty).
>
> If a player has their action declared invalid, and they believe it is
> in fact valid under the current rules, they may submit a consultation
> to have this issue resolved. However, their original action remains
> invalid. Once the consultation is pondered, if the priest agrees with
> them that the action was indeed valid, the priest may change the
> gamestate to "simulate" what it might be if the original action was
> indeed valid. Notice that this is quite distinct from making the
> original action valid. The current gamestate does not need to be
> unwound and then re-compiled (incurring a retroactivity headache),
> instead the current gamestate is modified according to the priest's
> best approximation of what it might be.
>
> Note that throughout this process there is never any question as to
> what the current gamestate might in fact be. The current gamestate is
> always a known quantity. The largest possible "quantum gap" that can
> exist under this system is the time it takes someone to respond to an
> action and declare it invalid, which with our current level of
> activity should be less than an hour.
>
> There is of course a checks & balances system in place to prevent
> priests from using Ocularities to arbitrarily re-write the gamestate
> to their liking. This essentially "puts it to a vote" without taking a
> large amount of time to do so. If the Priest's Ocularity is found to
> be abusive, it is discarded along with the answer to the consultation
> and a new priest steps in.
>

There lies the problem. the fast vote is also a weak one. I think this 
will make the game unstable, and thereby very interesting, so I 
actually support this proposal (the last part, that is. my old comments 
still stand). I could think of plenty of examples of fun things to do 
with this system, but I would not want to give anyone any ideas... :p


> This also neatly solves the Ocularity / stare decisis problem that has
> been discussed. The only rules of the game are in the ruleset. There
> is no need to hunt through past consultations to find answers to what
> is and is not permitted. Also, Ocularities under this revision are not
> proposals (although they have a similar effect) and operate under a
> separate set of guidelines, allowing them to be implemented more
> quickly, and without the extra red-tape. Finally, Ocularities (in a
> roundabout way) allow for more rapid changes to the B Nomic gamestate
> and rules as has been proposed while still ensuring a protected
> process.
>

Without going through the example of an obviously abusive invalid 
action, this system would allow an invalid action to be validated, and 
a corresponding rule to be added to the ruleset as an oracularity. the 
problem is, it then becomes very difficult to remove this rule by 
regular voting : it is a more lenghthy process, there is a quorum to be 
reached, etc... I suspect people will tend then to use the same system 
to reverse the rule, deliberately violating the new rule to try and 
reverse it through a quick vote.... I am just thinking out loud, but 
thing about it....

To sum up, I actually quite like the idea of the new oracularity 
system, Just for the sake of making a fast paced and interesting game, 
and because I would like to see it in place to see how it would work 
and how it would shift the paradigms of the game. So you've got my 
support on that (although maybe doing something about the tallying of 
the Claims votes, the priests being able to vote, and implementing a 
punishment system for an action confirmed to be invalid could be good).

For the rest, my comment still stand. I really do not like the power 
you want to give to the Registrar, I woul hat to see the device rules 
completely scrapped, and I think the metaphysical 
permitted/regulated/prohibited rule would soon become irrelevant in the 
new oracularities system : effectively ,anything is permitted if it is 
not objected by a player, and if it is, it still can be if a priest 
decides so, unless people claim inconsistency, and if they do, it can 
still be valid if the quick vote is won. wo there is not much point in 
saying that anything regulated must be explicitely permitted, otherwise 
it is prohibited...

--

Will.


_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss