EAV:

The post in question was already a join request by me, specifying that I will be playing on Agora’s behalf.

The email discussion over on the agora discussion list implies differently.

And if that was your intention, then vote FOR this to clear it up.

Ienpw, could you elaborate on the external discussion? It may help to have an understanding of the context behind this.

Most of the discussion is agora-relevant - deciding if it is legal within agora’s rules.
There is a part, however, where Tiger said

So this:

  When the office of Ambassador first becomes filled, the holder
  SHALL as soon as possible attempt to cause Agora to become a
  player of BlogNomic.

is kind of pointless? It allows for me to cause Agora to become a
player, rather than ruling that Agora should become a player, so this
far it’s explicitly me on behalf of it. But yeah, there’s nothing at
all about Agora taking actions elsewhere, now that it is a player
there.

/Tiger

Which implies that Agora itself is intended to be a player

Here’s a link. It looks like they’re going to be controlling a human player of BlogNomic by whatever means they decide upon.

It certainly can’t hurt to restrict “anybody” to a clear singular, but I can’t see that the join post was anything other than a request from a single, human ambassador. From our perspective we just have a new human player whose decisions will be based on the advice of some other humans (and we have plenty of those around already).

I’m not sure that the ambiguity harms us in this case anyway. I would imagine it would be more harmful to them; if Agora-the-Nomic because a player in BlogNomic, then under BlogNomic’s rule 1.1 our ruleset would take precedence over theirs…

However, this also means we need to decide what ‘control’ means in “A single person should not control more than one Gladiator within BlogNomic.” if, for example, coppro were to achieve a dictatorship on the Agora side.

That’s a good point, Bucky. Even coppro’s (for example) vote in Agora is a small amount of control.

[Ienpw] That’s extremely small compared to some of the “grab a player from IRC, ask them to unidle, tell them what to do to assist your scam, pat them on the head” behaviour we see among entirely human players, though. Maybe we need to reword this to “directly control”, or something that explicitly covers logging into the account in a browser?

Kevan: The difference (from my point of view) is that this Agoran Ambassador could potentially be forced to perform actions, while the people in IRC could simply refuse to help you if they wanted.

My own take on this is that the Ambassador’s requirement is to change the rules of both Agora and BlogNomic to allow one nomic to play the other (something that’s not currently possible in either ruleset). Just turning up at BlogNomic and going “hi, I’m Agora” is unlikely to make much legal sense.

If you look at the word ‘Anybody’ strictly in terms of logic - it is actually synonymous with the word ‘Everybody’. So as it stands, the sentence means:

“There is a set of individuals, which includes everybody, who may apply to join BlogNomic.”

The proposed change amends actually does not change this at all (except of course requiring these individuals are human - which I guess we were assuming anyway). So the amendment actually only serves to exclude non-human players, which I presume is not the point ;).

To amend the rules to specify that only one player (and not a syndicate) may join BlogNomic as a player, this rule is not the problem, as this rule is about who can and who can’t join. You need to amend the “(if they are not already playing)” sub-clause to:

“(if they are not already playing, and they represent a single individual)”.

Repeating my vote now I’m a gladiator.

[Anduril] Not quite - “anybody” can be read as a plural, but “any human” can’t (it would have to be “any humans”).

Could be interpreted as “Every human” which implies a single group of people, or plural individuals.