Something else fun: > If an entity other than Agora owns any facilities with upkeep > costs, e must ****pay**** them before the first day of the next > Agoran month.
If I paid once, two months ago, I've still paid them before the first day of the next month: therefore each facility only has to pay once ever. On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Corona wrote: > Well, that would mean that Trigon would inevitably lose eir farm. (e > couldn't pay upkeep) > > According to R2125, you must use methods "explicitly specified" in the > rules (which I did, the rule should be IMO interpreted as simply not caring > about the recipient), I don't see anything about rules needing to > "explicitly describe" methods? > > If the CFJ is going to be called, I'd like it to be judged till the end of > the week if possible. It's frustrating having buildings or other assets in > an uncertain gamestate. > > ~Corona > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > Really the problem is that defining "pay" = "transfer" is a complete > > redefinition of "pay" from common usage, and everyone's using common > > usage... unfortunately that definition is in a high-powered rule. > > > > BUT: > > > > Does everyone accept that "pay without destination" automatically > > mean "paying anyone" counts? An alternate interpretation is that, > > if the destination isn't defined, the rule is ambiguous and you > > can't actually pay. This would be supported by R2125: "paying" > > without a destination is not an unambiguous way of "explicitly > > describing" a method for doing things. > > > > (I'm not going to call the CFJ unless others think this interpretation > > might work). > > > > On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Corona wrote: > > > Whoops... (emphasis mine) > > > " > > > If an entity other than Agora owns any facilities with upkeep > > > costs, e must ****pay**** them before the first day of the next > > Agoran > > > month. Failing to do this destroys the facility. In the second to > > > last Eastman week of the Agoran Month, the Cartographor SHOULD > > > issue a humiliating public reminder to all those who have not paid > > > upkeep fees on any of eir facilities." > > > > > > ~Corona > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:49 PM, Aris Merchant < > > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:00 AM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I like the multiset. The wording seems to me to be a clean, > > > > > generic > > > > > > > > > > > > In my intuition, all multisets of assets are currently sets, > > because > > > > > there are > > > > > > no *truly* identity-free assets. But it might be better for other > > > > > people's > > > > > > intuition I guess. > > > > > > > > > > I think, legally, there are identity-free assets, unless I > > misunderstand > > > > > what > > > > > you mean by that? > > > > > > > > > > Corona gives me a coin. Aris gives me a coin. I then give a coin to > > > > > Trigon. There's no way of knowing/tracking/distinguishing whether > > > > Trigon > > > > > now has Corona's coin or Aris's coin. > > > > > > > > > > > > No, Ørjan is probably right. I think the difference is between > > identity and > > > > interchablity. Currencies are interchangeable (well, fungible, which > > means > > > > the same thing) so we can't tell the difference between them, but it > > > > doesn't mean that they don't have identity. As a real world example, > > let's > > > > say you have a penny and I have a penny. Neither of them is marked in > > any > > > > weird way, and be couldn't tell the difference between them. Then I > > use my > > > > penny to pay for something. Your penny hasn't been used to pay for > > > > something, only mine has, so they have separate identity. By contrast, > > if > > > > we both think of the number 1, we're both thinking of the exact same > > > > number, because it's a singleton. Even only currency instances with the > > > > same owner lacked identity, you wouldn't be able to transfer a paper > > > > without transferring all of it. This works fine so long as the set of > > > > assets is clearly described as a set of instances, because asset types > > are > > > > definitely singletons. > > > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
