DIS: Re: BUS: Your promise, Cuddlebeeeam ♥

[Kenyon Prater]

I approve of any agoran CFJs that get might called on blognomic actions,
and any blognomic Cfjs that might get called on Agoran actions.

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> For context, this is for this thing here: https://blognomic.com/archive/
> ahab
>
> The Captain role is really powerful but can only be elected by the 3 Mates
> unanimously. I requested Corona to pledge here in Agora since there is no
> such mechanic on Blognomic.
>
> On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 7:48 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>
> > *thumbs up*
> >
> > On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 7:29 PM, C. V. 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> ​I pledge to do all of the following in Blognomic's current dynasty​:
> >>
> >> -always ahoy
> >> ​ Gams​
> >>
> >> -call hunts most of the time
> >> -not change derrick’s or Cuddlebeam’s position if they perform their
> >> duties
> >> adequately (scrubbing, joining hunts if healthy…)
> >> -scrub the decks whenever I
> >> am online​ and can do so
> >>
> >> -generally work toward the preservation of the ship and the lives of
> >> sailors, and maximizing profits
> >>
> >>
> >> ~Corona
> >>
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Making small forks in the river that is Agora

[Kenyon Prater]

With so few players already, splitting the playerbase further seems bad?

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 12:16 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> Going off the idea of it's just activity and legal recognition which makes
> Agora this "continuous" game so far, what if, from that "stream", we made a
> little branching stream? Or many?
>
> Maybe you could take a "sapling" of Agora home lol.
>
> This is mostly for the philosophical fun of it.
>
> Proto:
>
> Title: Branching streams
> Content:
>
> Agora can split off into Branches. Branches can be created by announcement,
> along stating a set of rules for it which includes Rule 101. Branches
> created this way are considered to share Rule 101 with this Ruleset, with
> each ruleset they are in to each be part of a greater whole, although play
> via each ruleset is entirely formally independent once the Branch is fully
> created.
>

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Kenyon Prater]

It might be interesting to allow contracts to define fee based actions in
the same way that  contracts can define assets. Other than that, which I'm
not sure is worth the headache, I like this proto.

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 11:56 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Proto :  Let's really define payment solidly please, finally.
>
>
> Create the following Rule, Fee-based actions:
>
>If the Rules associate a non-negative fee (syn: cost, price,
>charge), with an action, or state that an action CAN be performed
>by paying a fee, that action is a fee-based action.  If the
>specified cost is not an integer, the actual fee is the next
>highest integer.  The currency of the fee is either the
>currency associated with that action, or Coins if no currency
>is specified.
>
>To perform a fee-based action, an entity (the Actor) who is
>otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e
>is performing the action and announce that there is a fee for
>performing that specific action, specifying the correct amount
>and currency of the fee.
>
>Upon such an announcement:
>
>- If the Rules specify a recipient for the fee, and the Actor
>CAN transfer that specified fee from emself to the recipient,
>then that fee is transferred from the Actor to the recipient
>and the action is performed simultaneously;
>
>- If the Rules do not specify a recipient, and the Actor CAN
>destroy the amount of the fee in eir possession, then that
>amount in eir possession is destroyed and the action is
>performed simultaneously.
>
>- Otherwise, no changes are made to asset holdings and the
>action is not performed.
>
> [Todo:  change rules to use this wording]
>
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
> >
> > > I was about to build something, but then I noticed:
> > >
> > >A player CAN increase the rank of a facility e owns that is at eir
> > >  location by exactly 1 by announcement by paying any upgrade costs
> > >  of the facility for that specific rank.
> > >
> > > What does "paying" mean here, if anything? Is it actually possible to
> > > upgrade facilities, or is it ill defined and thus broken?
> >
> > "paid" is a synonym for transferred, defined in rule 2166.
> >
> > What's broken here is that it doesn't restrict *who* the payment is to...
> > which presumably means you can pay to any entity that can accept the
> assets.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Ørjan.
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: a dumb defense

[Kenyon Prater]

It's "since April 1, 2018" not "as of", no? There are other reasons why I
don't think this works though.

On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Not published as of the 1st. Don't worry about the proposal too much.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2018, 1:18 PM Kenyon Prater <kprater3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I publish the following body of text, labeled TALES OF THE ZOMBIE
> > APOCALYPSE: {
> > Nothing happens.
> > }
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8033-8041

[Kenyon Prater]

This was Nttpf I think.

On Sat, Apr 14, 2018, 12:55 AM Ned Strange  wrote:

> I vote as follows:
> 8033: PRESENT
> 8034: FOR
> 8035: FOR
> 8036: FOR
> 8037: FOR
> 8038: AGAINST, foiled by power
> 8039: Regrettably, FOR
> 8040: AGAINST. I think 5 blots+3 a month will be more than enough for
> everybody to be blot-free, which means that there is no incentive to
> buy temples (paper is the only resource, along with apples, that
> really is useful but anyway). Also, as a nefarious criminal who was
> once prohibited from all game actions against his consent, all
> w/o-consent deregistrations are bad juju.
> 8041: FOR
>
> I also have PSS vote as I do.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> > quorum is 3.0, the voting method is AI-majority and the valid options
> > are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional
> > votes).
> >
> > ID Author(s)AI   Title Pender
> >
> ---
> > 8033*  Kenyon, [1]  2.0  Gray Land and the FountainKenyon
> > 8034*  G.   2.0  Paydays Fix   Kenyon
> > 8035*  G., [2]  1.0  Nothing to worry aboutG.
> > 8036*  Aris 2.0  Impeachment   Aris
> > 8037*  ATMunn   1.0  Medals of Honour Correction Act   ATMunn
> > 8038*  V.J. Rada1.0  V.J. Rada Equitable Remedy.   Corona
> > 8039*  Aris, [4]2.1  V.J. Rada Equitable Remedy v2 Aris
> > 8040*  Aris, [5]3.0  Blot Expansion v3 Aris
> > 8041*  Aris, [6]2.0  Consolidated PatchAris
> >
> > The proposal pool is currently empty.
> >
> > [1] Aris, Cuddle Beam, Gaelan, Trigon
> > [2] omd, pokes, o
> > [3] Medals of Honour Correction Act
> > [4] V.J. Rada
> > [5] Ørjan
> > [6] Trigon, G.
> >
> > Legend: * : Proposal is pending.
> >
> > A proposal may be pended for 1 Paper.
> >
> > The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below.
> >
> > //
> > ID: 8033
> > Title: Gray Land and the Fountain
> > Adoption index: 2.0
> > Author: Kenyon
> > Co-authors: Aris, Cuddle Beam, Gaelan, Trigon
> >
> >
> > Amend "Land Types" (Power=2.0):
> > Replace "whose values are "Black", "White", and "Aether"", with the
> > text "whose values are "Black", "White", "Gray", and "Aether""
> >
> > Create a new rule "Facility Categories", (Power=2.0):
> > A facility's Category is a switch whose possible values are
> > “Production”, “Processing”, “Monument”, and “Miscellaneous”.  An “x
> > facility”, where x is a Category, refers to a facility that has
> > Category switch set to x.
> >
> > Amend "Asset Generation with Facilities" (Power=2.0) to read the
> following:
> >   When an Production or Processing facility creates assets, the assets
> >   are added to the facility's possession. The rule that creates an
> >   Production or Processing facility CAN specify a carrying capacity for
> >   assets. If, at any time, the amount of an asset in the possession of an
> >   Production or Processing facility exceeds that asset's carrying
> >   capacity, an amount of that asset is destroyed until the amount of that
> >   asset in the possession of the facility is equal to its carrying
> >   capacity.
> >
> >   At the end of every Agoran Week, Agora creates a number of assets in a
> >   Production facility specified by the rule which creates the facility.
> >
> >   At the end of every Agoran Week, Agora destroys any refinable assets in
> >   the possession of each Processing facility that that facility can
> >   change into refined assets and replaces them with a corresponding
> >   number of refined assets to be specified by the rule that creates the
> >   facility.
> >
> >   A player can take a number of assets from an Production or Processing
> >   facility's inventory by announcement if eir location is the same as
> >   the facility's and the following criteria are met:
> >1. if the facility is built on unconserved Public Land, none.
> >2. if the facility is built on preserved Public Land and less than
> >four days have passed since assets were created in the facility most
> >recently, e must not have taken any assets from the inventory of
> >another facility located on a preserved Land Unit within this Agoran
> >week.
> >3. if the facility is built on Communal Land, e must be a party to
> >that contract and the text of the contract must permit em to do so.
> >4. if the facility is built on Private Land, e must own the facility,
> >or the owner must have consented.
> >
> > Amend "Facility 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Creation

[Kenyon Prater]

A related question, if a contact's state rests on something that is
guaranteed to have a definite solution, but producing that solution
computationally intractable, is there a mechanism for resolving that? It
isn't paradoxical or indeterminate, it's just that we don't have the
ability to determine the correct game state. (I'm reminded of the SHA-512
hash proposal)

On Apr 11, 2018 5:42 AM, "Ned Strange"  wrote:

I found the answer, contracts can only amend themselves by
announcement (meaning my original contract there made does not work).

I think contracts can only act by announcement, which seriously makes
me wonder how I'm going to get all my assets back.


On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:33 PM, Kerim Aydin 
wrote:
>
>
> A couple things:
>
> 1.  Can a zombie "willfully" consent to joining a contract (R869
> requirement)?  I don't think so - see R2519.  Nonetheless this may
> count as a "scare" since on reading that first message, people
> might not have known that.
>
> 2.  I thought there was an "all parties have to have had an
> opportunity to review an agreement change or it doesn't work" clause
> in the rules - that was there for a long time was it taken out
> when the current contract rules were written?  (that would govern
> your question - the standard would be that evidence would have to
> exist eg in an email that all parties agreed to a particular thing).
>
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
>> Hey absolute hypothetical fellas: what would happen if I made a
>> contract that said "this contract automatically amends itself to
>> whatever text V.J. Rada speaks in front of his computer after saying
>> zibbledy zobbldy zam" or something like that. would that work? and
>> could I make the position of assets unknowable to that technology?
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:04 PM, Ned Strange 
wrote:
>> > I create the following contract and transfer to it all of my assets. I
>> > also have PSS join this contract, acting on eir behalf. This contract
>> > appears to be a scam, having PSS join it is therefore scary to the
>> > game, therefore I switch PSS's Owes a Scare Switch to FALSE.
>> >
>> > Is anyone keeping track of Owes a Scare Switches?
>> >
>> > Title: Hi!
>> > Text: Nobody can join this contract except V.J. Rada and Publius
>> > Scribonius Scholasticus. Whenever V.J. Rada provides an action for
>> > this contract to take via agora-discussion, this contract takes that
>> > action. Whenever V.J. Rada provides a dispersal of assets from this
>> > contract via agora-discussion, this contract disperses those assets in
>> > the specified way. Whenever V.J. Rada provides a new text for this
>> > contract via agora-discussion, this contract amends itself to have the
>> > specified text.
>> >
>> > This contract can own any and all assets.
>> > --
>> > From V.J. Rada
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>



--
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] The Map of Arcadia -- April 11, 2018

[Kenyon Prater]

Thank you! On the online version the link to last change thing seems to be
broken, I'm getting:

link to last change: https://31241

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 11:21 PM Reuben Staley 
wrote:

> THE MAP OF ARCADIA -- APRIL 2, 2018
> View an interactive version of this report here:
> https://agoranomic.org/Cartographor/maps/map-2018-04-11.html
>
>
>
> LAND TYPE MAP
> 
>
>  LONGITUDE
>
>  - 6543210123456 +
> - -
> 6  *  6
> 5  *  5aether (*)
> 4  *  4(b)lack
> L  3  *  3(w)hite
> A  2  *  2
> T  1  wwwbb  1
> I  0  wwbbb  0
> T  1  wwbbbw***  1
> U  2  **bwb  2
> D  3  *  3
> E  4  *  4
> 5  *  5
> 6  *  6
> + +
>  - 6543210123456 +
>
>
>
> OWNERSHIP MAP
> 
>
>  LONGITUDE
>
>  - 6543210123456 +
> - -
> 6  *  6
> 5  *  5Agora, Aether (*)
> 4  *  4Agora, Non-Aether (.)
> L  3  *  3(G)aelan
> A  2  *  2(K)enyon
> T  1  G...K  1(T)rigon
> I  0  T...C  0(C)orona
> T  1  C.***  1
> U  2  **...  2
> D  3  *  3
> E  4  *  4
> 5  *  5
> 6  *  6
> + +
>  - 6543210123456 +
>
>
>
> PRESERVATION MAP
> 
>
>  LONGITUDE
>
>  - 6543210123456 +
> - -
> 6  f  6
> 5  f  5(t)rue
> 4  f  4(f)alse
> L  3  f  3
> A  2  f  2
> T  1  ftttf  1
> I  0  ftttf  0
> T  1  ftttf  1
> U  2  f  2
> D  3  f  3
> E  4  f  4
> 5  f  5
> 6  f  6
> + +
>  - 6543210123456 +
>
>
>
> FACILITIES
> 
>
> (-1, -1): Preserved Rank 1 Mine, owned by Agora
>Assets: 3 stones, 2 ore
> (-1, +1): Preserved Rank 1 Orchard, owned by Agora
>Assets: 3 apples, 3 lumber
> (+1, -1): Preserved Rank 1 Farm, owned by Agora
>Assets: 3 corn, 3 cotton
> (+1, +1): Preserved Rank 1 Mine, owned by Agora
>Assets: 3 stones, 2 ore
>
>
>
> LOCATIONS OF ENTITIES
> 
>
> Player   Last report   This Report
> ---
> omd  ( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)
> o( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)
> Aris (-1, -1)  (-1, -1)
> DFF[1]   ( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)
> Quazie   ( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)
> P.S.S.[2]( 0,  0)  (-1, -1)
> Gaelan   ( 0,  0)  (-1, -1)
> nichdel  ( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)
> G.   ( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)
> Cuddlebeam   (-1, -1)  (-1, -1)
> Trigon   ( 0,  0)  (+1, +2)
> Telnaior ( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)
> Corona   ( 0,  0)  (+1, +1)
> pokes( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)
> Murphy   ( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)
> VJ Rada  ( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)
> Kenyon   (-1, +1)  (-1, +1)
> ATMunn   (-1, +1)  (-1, +1)
> Ouri ( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)
>
> [1]: In Full, 天火狐
> [2]: In Full, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
>
>
> ALTERNATING LAND TYPE
> 
>
> The alternating land type has been switched 4 times.
> The current value is Black.
>
>
>
> CHANGES IN LAND TYPE AND OWNERSHIP
> 
>
> Date Unit  FromTo
> ---
> 2018-04-09   (-1, +2)   Agora   Kenyon
> 2018-04-09   ( 0, -2)   Agora   Trigon
> 2018-04-09   (+1, -2)   Agora   Corona
> 2018-04-09   ( 0, +2)   Agora   Corona
> 2018-04-10   (-1, -2)   Agora   Gaelan
>
> --
> Trigon
>

DIS: FLR and SLR on the website are current

[Kenyon Prater]

https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr.txt
https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/slr.tx

Sorry for the wait!

Re: DIS: Processing facilities

[Kenyon Prater]

My impression is that any player or contract can transfer any currencies
defined in Economics into any facility regardless of location.

Assets:
  An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. paid, given) by
  announcement by its owner to another entity, subject to
  modification by its backing document. A fixed asset is one defined
  as such by its backing document, and CANNOT be transferred; any
  other asset is liquid.

Economics:
  The following currencies are defined, and are tracked by the
  Treasuror. They can be owned by Agora, players, contracts, and
  facilities.

Since facilities can own the refinable assets and Economics doesn't
prohibit them from being transfered to them, any player can give any
refinable asset to them. There's no requirement of being on the same tile
or anything.

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> I think a reasonable argument can be made that "replaces them" implies puts
> them where the old things were?
>
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
> > I was just going over the facility rules, and given that:
> >
> > At the end of every Agoran Week, Agora destroys any refinable
> >   assets in the possession of each processing facility that that
> >   facility can change into refinable assets and replaces them with a
> >   corresponding number of refined assets to be specified by the rule
> >   that creates the facility.
> >
> > Is there any mechanism for putting the refinable assets in the factory's
> > possession? I can't find it.
> >
> > --
> >
> > ~Corona
> >
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: don't worry about this one

[Kenyon Prater]

Awww come on use sha1 to at least make it interesting...

I love the idea of this proposal though. Doesn't mean I'm voting for it..

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018, 6:56 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> I submit the following proposal, "Nothing to worry about", AI-1.
> Co-authors:  omd, pokes, o.
>
> I spend 1 paper to pend it.
>
> 
>
> When this proposal takes effect:
>
>IF a body of text labelled TALES OF THE ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE has been
>published since April 1, 2018,
>
>AND that body of text has the following SHA-512 Hash:
>  40ae885e13bb285c25cc19aba4d5d73bf98908781a800a2a389925aa7eb3ad49
>  17aee5e4cfa14fd615193fa1fe2ba3d15fc246c98fb13f159034ae135beafbdf
>
>THEN:
>
>- First, the power of that body of text is set to the adoption
>  index of this proposal;
>- Second the provisions contained in that body of text take effect;
>- Finally, the power of that body of text is set to 0.
>
> 
>
>
> Aq

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: payday fix

[Kenyon Prater]

We all already get 2 paper a month, so I'm worried about reintroducing
without objection and making mills worthless.

I'm gonna try and write a contract to coordinate the altruism but I don't
know if it'll work.

On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>
>
> That is v. annoying.  I'm not feeling altruistic (I mean I might once, but
> not against an ongoing defect in the rules) - I wonder how if people will
> pay for bugfixes?  Anyway, I don't plan to pay to pend it - not asking
> anyone
> else to but feel free if you like :P
>
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2018, Kenyon Prater wrote:
> > PAoaM amends 2445 by removing Without Objection as a method of pending a
> > proposal. Want me to pend it with paper?
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I submit the following proposal, Paydays Fix, AI-2.
> > >
> > > I intend to pend it without objection (plenty of time before the next
> > > payday).
> > >
> > > -
> > > Amend Rule 2559 (Paydays) by replacing the text:
> > >e was not issued any Cards other than Green for eir conduct
> > >in that office
> > > with:
> > >no unforgivable fines were levied on em for eir conduct in that
> > >office
> > > -
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: payday fix

[Kenyon Prater]

PAoaM amends 2445 by removing Without Objection as a method of pending a
proposal. Want me to pend it with paper?

On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> I submit the following proposal, Paydays Fix, AI-2.
>
> I intend to pend it without objection (plenty of time before the next
> payday).
>
> -
> Amend Rule 2559 (Paydays) by replacing the text:
>e was not issued any Cards other than Green for eir conduct
>in that office
> with:
>no unforgivable fines were levied on em for eir conduct in that
>office
> -
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Status of the rules

[Kenyon Prater]

I'm KenyonPrater on GH.  Why do we need a major patch?

On Sat, Apr 7, 2018, 12:30 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Darn it, looks like we're going to need another major patch. What's your
> GitHub username?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sat, Apr 7, 2018, 12:16 PM Kenyon Prater <kprater3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I just published the FLR and SLR deputizing as Rulekeepor. CoE away! If
> > people get a chance, I'd appreciate as many eyes as possible on them,
> since
> > I'm betting there's at least a couple errors I missed somewhere.
> >
> > My current understanding of the state of the rules is:
> >  - Welcome Packages fail because they try to reenact an incorrect rule.
> >  - Paydays still mention cards because the PAoaM Patch overwrites any
> > changes that may have existed.
> >  - There is no mechanism to put items into a facility.
> >  - Medal of Honor votes are broken because they attempt to redefine
> "valid
> > votes".
> >  - Other things are working as intended, including PAoaM stuff.
> >
> > I'll submit a pull request to the agora github and to the gh-pages branch
> > soon.
> >
> > ... or at least I think I sent the FLR and SLR, but they aren't showing
> up
> > on the archives yet. Has anybody else gotten them? I'm wondering if there
> > might have been a problem in sending them...
> >
> > Kenyon
> >
>

DIS: Status of the rules

[Kenyon Prater]

I just published the FLR and SLR deputizing as Rulekeepor. CoE away! If
people get a chance, I'd appreciate as many eyes as possible on them, since
I'm betting there's at least a couple errors I missed somewhere.

My current understanding of the state of the rules is:
 - Welcome Packages fail because they try to reenact an incorrect rule.
 - Paydays still mention cards because the PAoaM Patch overwrites any
changes that may have existed.
 - There is no mechanism to put items into a facility.
 - Medal of Honor votes are broken because they attempt to redefine "valid
votes".
 - Other things are working as intended, including PAoaM stuff.

I'll submit a pull request to the agora github and to the gh-pages branch
soon.

... or at least I think I sent the FLR and SLR, but they aren't showing up
on the archives yet. Has anybody else gotten them? I'm wondering if there
might have been a problem in sending them...

Kenyon

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] the Great Zombie Auction for April

[Kenyon Prater]

Or even more specifically, is the delta between zombie one and zombie two
worth that much?

Needless to say I'm very excited to see what you're trying to pull with
this.

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018, 11:34 PM Corona <liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Huh? Is a zombie really worth that much?
>
> On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 7:42 AM, Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > It appears I have 30. I bid that amount of coins.
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I bid 15 coins on this auction, or all coins I have, whichever is
> higher.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Kenyon Prater <kprater3...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> tttpf
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 10:54 PM, Kenyon Prater <kprater3...@gmail.com
> >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I bid 3.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 10:16 PM, Corona <
> liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > I bid 3.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Kerim Aydin <
> ke...@u.washington.edu
> > >
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I bid 3 coins in this auction.  -G.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Thu, 5 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > >> > > > > I bid 4 coins.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > -Aris
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 4:24 PM Kenyon Prater <
> > >> kprater3...@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > I bid one coin in this auction.
> > >> > > > > > I bid one coin in this auction.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Based on my reading of the rules, I'm allowed to do that?
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:03 AM, ATMunn <
> > iamingodsa...@gmail.com
> > >> >
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > I bid 2 coins in this auction.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > On 4/2/2018 1:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >>> * LOTS (from highest to lowest winning bid):
> > >> > > > > > >>>   pokes, o, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus,
> nichdel,
> > >> > Quazie
> > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> I bid 1 Coin in this auction.
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --
> > >> > >
> > >> > > ~Corona
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > From V.J. Rada
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > From V.J. Rada
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> ~Corona
>

DIS: History of rules reenacted by PAoaM

[Kenyon Prater]

I'm hoping to deputize rulekeepor so we can have an up to date FLR again,
but I'm lost on some parts.

PAoaM reenacts a bunch of rules, eg 1993/1, 1994/0, 1995/0, but I can't
find any of them on the archives and they aren't on the github reposity.
I'd like to find them so I can list the revision history properly. Does
anybody have their revision history / is there a place I can look that has
a longer history / is it there and I'm just missing it?

Also, to complicate things further, PAoaM and PAoaM patch refer to
reenacting 2599 "Welcome Packages", but my understanding of the archives is
that "Welcome Packages" had id 2499. (See
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08269.html).

Since both PAoaM and PAoaM patch specifically call to "reenact" and 105
says "A repealed rule identified by its most recent rule number MUST be
reenacted with the same ID number and the next change identifier." this
could be a problem.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] the Great Zombie Auction for April

[Kenyon Prater]

I bid 3.

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 10:16 PM, Corona <liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I bid 3.
>
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I bid 3 coins in this auction.  -G.
> >
> > On Thu, 5 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > I bid 4 coins.
> > >
> > > -Aris
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 4:24 PM Kenyon Prater <kprater3...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I bid one coin in this auction.
> > > > I bid one coin in this auction.
> > > >
> > > > Based on my reading of the rules, I'm allowed to do that?
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:03 AM, ATMunn <iamingodsa...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I bid 2 coins in this auction.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 4/2/2018 1:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> * LOTS (from highest to lowest winning bid):
> > > > >>>   pokes, o, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, nichdel, Quazie
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I bid 1 Coin in this auction.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> ~Corona
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] the Great Zombie Auction for April

[Kenyon Prater]

Darn. Thanks.

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>
>
> The second bid cancels the first, so sure?
>
> (If you missed it it's in R2550:
>If a person submits a bid on an Auction, all bids previously placed
>on that Auction by that person are withdrawn.)
>
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, Kenyon Prater wrote:
> > I bid one coin in this auction.
> > I bid one coin in this auction.
> >
> > Based on my reading of the rules, I'm allowed to do that?
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:03 AM, ATMunn <iamingodsa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I bid 2 coins in this auction.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/2/2018 1:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> * LOTS (from highest to lowest winning bid):
> > >>>   pokes, o, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, nichdel, Quazie
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> I bid 1 Coin in this auction.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>
>

DIS: Grey Land and the Fountain V2

[Kenyon Prater]

Title: Gray Land and the Fountain
Co-authors: Aris, Cuddle Beam, Gaelan, Trigon
AI: 2.0
Contents: {

Amend "Land Types" (Power=2.0):
Replace "whose values are "Black", "White", and "Aether"", with the
text "whose values are "Black", "White", "Gray", and "Aether""

Create a new rule "Facility Categories", (Power=2.0):
A facility's Category is a switch whose possible values are
“Production”, “Processing”, “Monument”, and “Miscellaneous”.  An “x
facility”, where x is a Category, refers to a facility that has
Category switch set to x.

Amend "Asset Generation with Facilities" (Power=2.0) to read the following:
When an Production or Processing facility creates assets, the assets
are added to the facility's possession. The rule that creates an
Production or Processing facility CAN specify a carrying capacity for
assets. If, at any time, the amount of an asset in the possession of an
Production or Processing facility exceeds that asset's carrying
capacity, an amount of that asset is destroyed until the amount of that
asset in the possession of the facility is equal to its carrying
capacity.

At the end of every Agoran Week, Agora creates a number of assets in a
Production facility specified by the rule which creates the facility.

At the end of every Agoran Week, Agora destroys any refinable assets in
the possession of each Processing facility that that facility can
change into refined assets and replaces them with a corresponding
number of refined assets to be specified by the rule that creates the
facility.

 A player can take a number of assets from an Production or Processing
 facility's inventory by announcement if eir location is the same as
 the facility's and the following criteria are met:
 1. if the facility is built on Public Land, none.
 2. if the facility is built on Communal Land, e must be a party to
 that contract and the text of the contract must permit em to do so.
 3. if the facility is built on Private Land, e must own the facility,
 or the owner must have consented.

Amend "Facility Ranks" (Power=2.0) to read the following:
Rank is a facility switch tracked by the Cartographor defaulting to 1.
Its possible values include all integers between 1 and 5, inclusive.

If a facility specifies upgrade costs, a player CAN increase the rank
of a facility e owns that is at eir location by exactly 1 by
announcement by paying any upgrade costs of the facility for that
specific rank. If no upgrade costs are specified for a facility, a
player CANNOT increase the rank of that facility unless specified in
other rules.

Create a new rule "Facility Colors" (Power=2.0):
A facility's Allowed Land Types is a switch with allowed values of a
list of allowed values of the Land Type switch, with a default value of
{"Black", "White"}. A facility may not have a Parent Land Unit whose
Land Type is not an element of their Allowed Land Types. If an action
or set of actions would cause a facility to be created with a Parent
Land Unit whose Land Type is not an element of its Allowed Land Types,
that action or set of actions fails. If a facility's Parent Land Unit's
Land Type is flipped to a color that is not in that facility's Allowed
Land Types, that facility is destroyed.

An “x facility”, where x is a Land Type or list of Land Types, refers
to a facility that has the Allowed Land Types switch set to x.

Create a new rule "Gray Land" (Power=2.0):
Gray Land is preserved and owned by Agora. If Land becomes Gray Land,
it, along with any facilities with it as their Parent Land Unit, is
transferred to Agora.

Amend “Actions in Arcadia” (Power=1.0) by replacing the first two element
in the list with:
1. 1 apple to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit if their Land
Types are the same or one of them is gray, and the destination is not
Aether;

2. 2 apples to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit if their
Land Types differ, neither is gray, and the destination is not Aether;

Create a new rule "Monument Facilities" (Power=1.0):
For each type of Monument facility, there may only be one instance of
that facility in existence at any one time. An action CANNOT cause an
Monument facility to exist while another Monument facility of the same
type is already in existence.

Create a new rule "The Fountain" (Power=1.0):
A fountain is a Gray Monument facility. A fountain has no upkeep cost.

Create a new rule "Wishing Fountain", (Power=1.0):
If a player's location is the same as a fountain, e CAN destroy a coin
to Throw A Coin into the fountain. This does nothing, unless specified
in another Rule. A player MAY announce what e wishes for when e Throws
A Coin.

Set (0, 0)'s Land Type to "Gray".
Create a fountain at (0, 0) belonging to Agora.
}

Major changes from last time: 

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Land Auctions for April week 1

[Kenyon Prater]

10 on 4 and 5.

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Corona <liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually, I bid 8 coins on auctions 1-3 each. Let's make it short.
>
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 8:26 PM, Corona <liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I bid 6 coins on auctions 1-3 each, and 8 coins on auctions 4 & 5 each.
> We
> > will bury you!
> >
> > ~Corona
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 8:05 PM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I bid 5 coins on auctions 1-3
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/3/2018 9:41 AM, Kenyon Prater wrote:
> >>
> >>> I bid 7 coin on 4 and 5.
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Corona <liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I bid 4 on each of auctions 1-3, and I bid 5 on each of auctions 4-5.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I bid 3 on auction 3.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Gaelan
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Apr 2, 2018, at 3:32 PM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Land auctions now work. Hooray.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There are currently 6 public, unpreserved, non-aether land units in
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> existence. As the Cartographor, I am to choose 5 of them to be
> >>>>> auctioned
> >>>>> off.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> auctioneer, and the minimum bid is 1 coin:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (-1, -2)
> >>>>>> AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at ( 0, -2)
> >>>>>> AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, -2)
> >>>>>> AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (-1, +2)
> >>>>>> AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at ( 0, +2)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> ~Corona
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> ---
> >>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> >>> http://www.avg.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Trigon
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > ~Corona
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> ~Corona
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: becoming a player

[Kenyon Prater]

People are generally pretty helpful and forgiving of mistakes (thankfully,
because I make a lot of them). If you have specific questions, just ask.

A general (bad) summary of the version of the game right now is that it's a
mix of Go, Catan, and Harvest Moon. There's a 13x13 game board that are
either white, black, or empty tiles. We can walk around on these tiles and
create new ones by consuming apples and corn. If a group of tiles is
encircled by the other color such that there are no blank spaces, the
encircled tiles get turned blank. Then, you can buy tiles (there's a land
auction going on right now) and build facilities on them like mines and
farms that produce or refine resources. You can move around the map and
pick up resources produced at your facilities, refine them, upgrade your
facilities, and trade resources to other players and generally try to
expand your production chain. Of course, if you have ideas to improve this
game, anything could be changed with a vote.

(Note, these rules aren't in the ruleset online because it hasn't been
updated recently. Here's my messy version of what the map rules look like
currently to the best of my understanding:
https://gist.github.com/KenyonPrater/bb32158fc9cdfacaadc823608b7566ef)
Obviously there are a ton more rules governing contracts, running for
office, voting, etc.

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 9:49 AM, אורי פופקו  wrote:

> I read the rules, but it is hard to grab them as they are. Any tutorial
> that can help me ease in?
>
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 19:10 Gaelan Steele,  wrote:
>
> > Generally we sign messages with our preferred names.
> >
> > Gaelan
> >
> > > On Apr 3, 2018, at 8:59 AM, ⁨אורי פופקו⁩ <⁨ouri.pou...@gmail.com⁩>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you for dancing the dance of welcoming :>
> > > I am very confused here as a new comer.
> > > For instance - is your name Benjamin Schultz? Or Oscar Meyr?
> > >
> >
> >
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Nabbing the Stuffs: April 1st-7th edition

[Kenyon Prater]

How would people feel about a rule that either:
1) Automatically takes newly created contents from a facility that a player
owns or is contractually allowed to take from and is located on they same
land that e is located at?
2) Players can designate some text as a command that they automatically do
when new resources are created, treated as if they had sent that message to
a public forum in the instant after the resources were created.

Obviously there's a lot of room for issues of who's command executed first
in both of these, but especially once all of us start having multiple
facilities, it might become somewhat spammy to have threads claiming
resources every week.

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 9:24 AM, Kenyon Prater <kprater3...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I take all the contents of the orchard at (-1, 1).
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8031

[Kenyon Prater]

Does that conditional vote include PRESENT votes?

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 9:46 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >
> ---
> > 8031*  [1]  2.0  Nomicbots Minigame  CuddleBeam  1 Paper
>
> I vote conditionally:
> If there are 4 or more valid ballots cast on 8031 (other than this one)
> that
> evaluate to FOR at the end of the voting period, FOR.  Otherwise AGAINST.
>
> -G.
>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8029-8030

[Kenyon Prater]

I vote FOR both as well.

On Mar 19, 2018 10:54 PM, "Kerim Aydin"  wrote:



> 
---
> 8029*  G., Aris 3.0  Blots v1.0  G.  1 Paper
> 8030*  Aris, [1]3.0  PAoaM Patch v4  Aris1 Paper

I vote FOR both.

(since blots attempts to re-write paydays, I'll resolve these in
reverse-order).

Re: DIS: PAoaM Patch v3

[Kenyon Prater]

Does something need to retroactively make land auctions and
resource-nabbing current? I don't see that included in here. My
understanding is that the Cartographor doesn't exist which probably makes
land auctions and maybe all movement on the map broken? Or are we starting
with new land auctions and such after this passes?

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

>
>
> > On Mar 18, 2018, at 3:34 PM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  Information about a Convergence (but not
> >  the resulting state) is inherently uncertain and is thus excluded from
> >  self-ratification.”
>
> Do we need to specify that the history leading up to the convergence
> doesn’t self-ratify either?

DIS: Re: BUS: Nabbing the stuffs part 2

[Kenyon Prater]

If the orchard at (-1, 1) is nonempty I take all the contents of the
orchard at (-1, 1).

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 5:27 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If the mine at (-1, -1) is nonempty, then I do the following:
>
> Destroy 1 apple to move from (0, 0) to (-1, 0)
> Destroy 1 apple to move to (-1, -1)
> Take all the contents of the mine at (-1,-1)
>
> I likewise intend to respect EFDoA, and encourage everyone else to do the
> same.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 5:12 PM, Kenyon Prater <kprater3...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I take all the contents of the orchard at (-1, 1).
> >
> > I intend to respect EFDoA and will hold off on claiming anything else
> until
> > 4 days has passed.
>

Re: DIS: Draft: PAoaM Patch v2

[Kenyon Prater]

I didn't see the "entities other than Agora" change, that works.

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 12:46 AM, Kenyon Prater <kprater3...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> In "Facilities":
>
>If a player 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.
>
> Should include something about a contract owning a facility with upkeep
> costs. Probably it can just become something like "If a player or
> contract owns any facilities with upkeep costs..." but I'm not sure if that
> has any issues I'm not seeing. And just to confirm, we want public
> facilities to be upkeep-free, right? That has a bit of an exploit if I,
> say, transferred all of the land I owned to Agora and wrote a script to
> send an email claiming the products at exactly 0:00 UTC or something, but
> it seems mostly fair.
>
> Kenyon
>
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 12:09 AM, Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandlight17@
> gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Okay, everyone, here's a revised patch. Please point out any other
>> issues you see. All changes more significant than a typo fix have been
>> moved to a new section for reader's convenience . Gaelan, some version
>> of this will be in this week's distribution, so you can withdraw your
>> original.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> ---
>> Title: PAoaM Patch v2
>> Adoption index: 3.0
>> Author: Aris
>> Co-authors: Gaelan, Trigon
>>
>>
>> In Rule 105 “Rule Changes,” replace
>>
>>   "If the reenacting proposal provides new text for the rule, the rule
>>   must have materially the same purpose as did the repealed version;
>>   otherwise, the attempt to reenact the rule is null and void.”
>>
>> with
>>
>>   “If the reenacting proposal provides new text for the rule, the
>>   rule SHOULD have materially the same purpose as did the repealed
>> version."
>>
>> The Rulekeepor MAY list historical annotations for changes made by the
>> following portion of this proposal (until the text “END CLEANUP”) however
>> e
>> wishes, including incorrectly or not at all.
>>
>> If Rule 2599 is not currently enacted, re-enact it with the following
>> text; if it is enacted but does not have the following text, amend it
>> to have the following text: {
>>
>>  If a player has not received a Welcome Package since e most
>>   recently registered, any player CAN cause em to receive one by
>>   announcement.
>>
>>   When a player receives a Welcome Package, Agora creates the
>>   following assets in eir possession:
>>
>>   1. 10 coins
>>   2. 5 lumber
>>   3. 5 stones
>>   4. 10 apples
>>   5. 3 papers
>> }
>>
>> If no rule titled “Paydays” exists, create it at power 2 with the
>> following
>> text; if it exists but does not have the following text, amend it to have
>> the
>> following text: {
>>
>>   Whenever a Payday occurs, the following events happen in order:
>>
>>   1. The following assets are created in the possession of each
>>  player:
>>  A. 10 coins
>>  B. 5 apples
>>  C. 2 papers
>>
>>   2. For each office, if a single player held that office for 16 or
>>  more days in the previous month and e was not issued any Cards
>>  other than Green for eir conduct in that office during that
>>  time, the following assets are created in the possession of
>>  that player:
>>  A. 5 coins
>>  B. 1 corn
>>
>>   The occurrence of Paydays is secured.  At the beginning of each
>>   month, a Payday occurs.
>> }
>>
>> If Rule 1993 is not currently enacted, re-enact it with the following
>> text;
>> if it is enacted but does not have the following text, amend it to have
>> the
>> following text: {
>>
>>   Arcadia is a land entirely defined by the Arcadian Map (the Map).
>>   The Map is the term for the set of all Land Units.
>>
>>   The Map divides Arcadia into a finite, discrete number of Units of
>>   Land, or simply Land. Each Unit of Land is an indestructible asset
>>   specified by an ordered pair of integers known as its Latitude and
>>   Longitude.
>>
>>   Every unique ordered pair of integers within the limits defined in
>>   the Rules for Latitude and Longitude signifies an ex

Re: DIS: Draft: PAoaM Patch v2

[Kenyon Prater]

In "Facilities":

   If a player 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.

Should include something about a contract owning a facility with upkeep
costs. Probably it can just become something like "If a player or contract
owns any facilities with upkeep costs..." but I'm not sure if that has any
issues I'm not seeing. And just to confirm, we want public facilities to be
upkeep-free, right? That has a bit of an exploit if I, say, transferred all
of the land I owned to Agora and wrote a script to send an email claiming
the products at exactly 0:00 UTC or something, but it seems mostly fair.

Kenyon

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 12:09 AM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Okay, everyone, here's a revised patch. Please point out any other
> issues you see. All changes more significant than a typo fix have been
> moved to a new section for reader's convenience . Gaelan, some version
> of this will be in this week's distribution, so you can withdraw your
> original.
>
> -Aris
>
> ---
> Title: PAoaM Patch v2
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors: Gaelan, Trigon
>
>
> In Rule 105 “Rule Changes,” replace
>
>   "If the reenacting proposal provides new text for the rule, the rule
>   must have materially the same purpose as did the repealed version;
>   otherwise, the attempt to reenact the rule is null and void.”
>
> with
>
>   “If the reenacting proposal provides new text for the rule, the
>   rule SHOULD have materially the same purpose as did the repealed
> version."
>
> The Rulekeepor MAY list historical annotations for changes made by the
> following portion of this proposal (until the text “END CLEANUP”) however e
> wishes, including incorrectly or not at all.
>
> If Rule 2599 is not currently enacted, re-enact it with the following
> text; if it is enacted but does not have the following text, amend it
> to have the following text: {
>
>  If a player has not received a Welcome Package since e most
>   recently registered, any player CAN cause em to receive one by
>   announcement.
>
>   When a player receives a Welcome Package, Agora creates the
>   following assets in eir possession:
>
>   1. 10 coins
>   2. 5 lumber
>   3. 5 stones
>   4. 10 apples
>   5. 3 papers
> }
>
> If no rule titled “Paydays” exists, create it at power 2 with the following
> text; if it exists but does not have the following text, amend it to have
> the
> following text: {
>
>   Whenever a Payday occurs, the following events happen in order:
>
>   1. The following assets are created in the possession of each
>  player:
>  A. 10 coins
>  B. 5 apples
>  C. 2 papers
>
>   2. For each office, if a single player held that office for 16 or
>  more days in the previous month and e was not issued any Cards
>  other than Green for eir conduct in that office during that
>  time, the following assets are created in the possession of
>  that player:
>  A. 5 coins
>  B. 1 corn
>
>   The occurrence of Paydays is secured.  At the beginning of each
>   month, a Payday occurs.
> }
>
> If Rule 1993 is not currently enacted, re-enact it with the following text;
> if it is enacted but does not have the following text, amend it to have the
> following text: {
>
>   Arcadia is a land entirely defined by the Arcadian Map (the Map).
>   The Map is the term for the set of all Land Units.
>
>   The Map divides Arcadia into a finite, discrete number of Units of
>   Land, or simply Land. Each Unit of Land is an indestructible asset
>   specified by an ordered pair of integers known as its Latitude and
>   Longitude.
>
>   Every unique ordered pair of integers within the limits defined in
>   the Rules for Latitude and Longitude signifies an existent Unit of
>   Land. No other Units of Land exist. Units of Land CAN only be
>   created or destroyed by changing the limits of Latitude and
>   Longitude defined in the Rules.
>
>   All values for Latitude and Longitude MUST lie between -6 and +6,
>   inclusive.
>
>   The Total Land Area of Arcadia is the number of existent Units of
>   Land defined by permissible Latitude and Longitude pairs.
> }
>
> If Rule 1994 is not currently enacted, re-enact it with the following text;
> if it is enacted but does not have the following text, amend it to have the
> following text: {
>
>   Any existent Land for which ownership has not been explicitly
>   changed belongs to Agora.
>
>   Land belonging to Agora is called Public Land. Land belonging to
>   a contract is called Communal Land. Land belonging to any other
>   entity is called Private Land. Together, Communal Land and Private
>   Land are called Proprietary Land.
> }
>
> If Rule 1995 is not 

DIS: PAoaM Patch status

[Kenyon Prater]

It still isn't pended right? Is there a reason/what still needs to happen
before that?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nabbing the stuffs

[Kenyon Prater]

I'd be willing to just contract it to a redistribution contract or just
transfer it to people or something. I agree it's pretty unfair. What was
the goal of the public facilities? Maybe we need to redo them to better
achieve that goal

On Mar 4, 2018 6:03 PM, "Aris Merchant" <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Sigh. We really need to do something to make the distribution of
assets fair again. I mean, we can't take everything away, because
there's no rule violation involved, but we could at least even it out
a bit. The asset distribution is so unfair at the moment that I'm
worried about the long term impact. Opinions?

-Aris

On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 5:55 PM Kenyon Prater <kprater3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If the mine at (-1, -1) is nonempty, then I do the following:
>
> Destroy 1 apple to move from (0, 0) to (-1, 0)
> Destroy 1 apple to move to (-1, -1)
> Take all the contents of the mine at (-1,-1)
> Destroy 1 apple to move to (0, -1)
> Destroy 1 apple to move to (1, -1)
> Take all the contents of the farm at (1, -1)
> Destroy two apples to move to (1, 0)
> Destroy one apple to move to (1, 1)
> Take all the contents of the mine at (1, 1)
> Destroy one apple to move to (0, 1)
> Destroy one apple to move to (-1, 1)
> Take all the contents of the orchard at (-1, 1)

Re: DIS: Grey Land and the Fountain

[Kenyon Prater]

Agreed with Gaelan re teleporters and ornaments, unless I'm misreading what
you're saying, Cuddle Beam.

An example of two categories would be a unique (Agoran Monument) production
facility like a wonder in Civ. You can imagine a race to build it/steal it
from other players, with whoever has it having an advantage but having to
work to defend their claim.

Or, imagine you had facilities that could pollute the environment, defining
a Polluter category and then simply adding all the facilities that caused
pollution to that category, without having to copy the same rule across
many locations.

I do think that this is maybe a case of premature optimization and that one
category would work just as well. I'd be happy to change it if people are
unconvinced and want the simple version.

Kenyon

On Mar 3, 2018 8:36 AM, "Gaelan Steele" <g...@canishe.com> wrote:

Ornaments and teleporters would both fit in an "other" category—they
wouldn't need to be both production and processing.

Gaelan

> On Mar 3, 2018, at 3:37 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I suggest adding an example along that extensibility to market the idea of
> it better. Swag purely aesthetics ornaments, walls and teleporters,
> perhaps? (Not entirely necessary though, it just makes it look better
> because it has a purpose instead of being blank)
>
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm happy to admit that I may have been wrong on this one. However,
>> extensibility is important. I was hoping we could do it in a short
>> paragraph, not a whole rule. What do you guys think?
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 9:05 PM Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry I forgot to bring this up earlier, but I think unless we have a
use
>>> case for facilities with multiple types, we should just have a simple
>>> production/processing/{monument,other} option. This is well-written, but
>>> until we need it I think it would be better to avoid the complexity.
>>>
>>> Gaelan
>>>
>>>> On Mar 2, 2018, at 1:37 PM, Kenyon Prater <kprater3...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Gray Land and Fountain Draft 1 {
>>>>
>>>> Amend rule 1995/0 "Land Types" (Power=2.0):
>>>>   Replace "whose values are "Black", "White", and "Aether"", with the
>>>>   text "whose values are "Black", "White", "Gray", and "Aether""
>>>>
>>>> Create a new rule "Facility Categories", (Power=2.0):
>>>>   A Category is an entity specified as such by the rule that creates
>> it.
>>>>   A facility's Categories may be defined in the rule that creates it,
>>> and
>>>>   may be any set of Categories defined in the rules. If no Categories
>>> are
>>>>   defined in the facility's creating rules, the facility's Categories
>> is
>>>>   the null set.
>>>>
>>>>   A facility belongs to [Category] if that Category is an element in
>> its
>>>>   Categories. A [Category] facility refers to a facility that belong
>> to
>>>>   [Category]. A Pure-[Category] facility refers to a facility that
>>> belong
>>>>   to [Category] and no others.
>>>>
>>>> Amend "Asset Generation with Facilities" (Power=2.0) to read the
>>> following:
>>>>   Asset Generator is a Category of facilities. When an Asset Generator
>>>>   facility creates assets, the assets are added to the facility's
>>>>   possession. The rule that creates an Asset Generator facility CAN
>>>>   specify a carrying capacity for assets. If, at any time, the amount
>> of
>>>>   an asset in the possession of an Asset Generator facility exceeds
>> that
>>>>   asset's carrying capacity, an amount of that asset is destroyed
>> until
>>>>   the amount of that asset in the possession of the facility is equal
>> to
>>>>   its carrying capacity.
>>>>
>>>>   Production is a Category of facilities. A facility that is a
>>> Production
>>>>   facility is also an Asset Generator facility. At the end of every
>>>>   Agoran Week, Agora creates a number of assets in a Production
>> facility
>>>>   specified by the rule which creates the facility.
>>>>
>>>>   Processing is a Category of facilities. A facility that is a
>>> Processing
>>>&g

Re: DIS: Grey Land and the Fountain

[Kenyon Prater]

On the use of switches: Is it appropriate to have something be a switch if
there isn't really any case in which its value would change other than a
rule change? I originally had a facility's Categories and Allowed Land
Types as Switches but I couldn't find any examples of them being used like
that. (Where under normal circumstances, nobody can flip them to a
different value except through proposal). The other changes are very
helpful, thanks! And re the MMI, I'll try and fix what I notice. If there's
things I don't fix in the next draft, let me know specifically where they
are, I feel like I might be missing some.

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Comments inline.
>
> On 3/2/2018 2:37 PM, Kenyon Prater wrote:
>
>> Gray Land and Fountain Draft 1 {
>>
>> Amend rule 1995/0 "Land Types" (Power=2.0):
>>  Replace "whose values are "Black", "White", and "Aether"", with the
>>  text "whose values are "Black", "White", "Gray", and "Aether""
>>
>> Create a new rule "Facility Categories", (Power=2.0):
>>  A Category is an entity specified as such by the rule that creates
>> it.
>>
>
> I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. Categories are entities?
> Why?
>
>  A facility's Categories may be defined in the rule that creates it,
>> and
>>  may be any set of Categories defined in the rules. If no Categories
>> are
>>  defined in the facility's creating rules, the facility's Categories
>> is
>>  the null set.
>>
>>  A facility belongs to [Category] if that Category is an element in
>> its
>>  Categories. A [Category] facility refers to a facility that belong to
>>  [Category]. A Pure-[Category] facility refers to a facility that
>> belong
>>  to [Category] and no others.
>>
>
> I'd recommend replacing "[Category]" with a single-letter variable like x
> or n or maybe even c. Not that this is wrong, it's just more Agoran to have
> it the other way.
>
> Amend "Asset Generation with Facilities" (Power=2.0) to read the following:
>>
>
> Rename this rule to something like "Types of Facilities" or smth.
>
>
>  Asset Generator is a Category of facilities. When an Asset Generator
>>  facility creates assets, the assets are added to the facility's
>>  possession. The rule that creates an Asset Generator facility CAN
>>  specify a carrying capacity for assets. If, at any time, the amount
>> of
>>  an asset in the possession of an Asset Generator facility exceeds
>> that
>>  asset's carrying capacity, an amount of that asset is destroyed until
>>  the amount of that asset in the possession of the facility is equal
>> to
>>  its carrying capacity.
>>
>>  Production is a Category of facilities. A facility that is a
>> Production
>>  facility is also an Asset Generator facility. At the end of every
>>  Agoran Week, Agora creates a number of assets in a Production
>> facility
>>  specified by the rule which creates the facility.
>>
>>  Processing is a Category of facilities. A facility that is a
>> Processing
>>  facility is also an Asset Generator facility. At the end of every
>>  Agoran Week, Agora destroys any refinable assets in the possession of
>>  each processing facility that that facility can change into refined
>>  assets and replaces them with a corresponding number of refined
>> assets
>>  to be specified by the rule that creates the facility.
>>
>>  A player can take a number of assets from an Asset Generator
>> facility's
>>  inventory by announcement if eir location is the same as the
>> facility's
>>  and the following criteria are met:
>>
>>  1. if the facility is built on Public Land, none.
>>
>>  2. if the facility is built on Communal Land, e must be a party to
>> that contract and the text of the contract must permit em to do
>> so.
>>
>>  3. if the facility is built on Private Land, e must own the
>> facility, or the owner must have consented.
>>
>
> This is a problem with the original PAoaM, not your proposal, but it sure
> looks like players can't transfer assets to facilities. Gaelan, better add
> that to the PAoaM patch proposal.
>
> Amend "Facility Ranks" (Power=2.0) to read the following:
>>  Rank is a facility switch tracked by the Cartographor defaultin

Re: DIS: Grey Land and the Fountain

[Kenyon Prater]

ibed in Actions in Arcadia for the
purposes of spending corn.]

Create a new rule "Agoran Monuments" (Power=1.0):
Agoran Monument is a Category of facilities. For each type of Agoran
Monument facility, there may only be one instance of that facility in
existence at any one time. If an action would cause an Agoran Monument
facility to exist while another Agoran Monument facility of the same
type is already in existence, that action fails.

Create a new rule "The Fountain" (Power=1.0):
A fountain is a facility with Allowed Land Types of {"Gray"}, and
Categories {Agoran Monument}. A fountain has no upkeep cost.

Create a new rule "Wishing Fountain", (Power=1.0):
If a player's location is the same as a fountain, e CAN and MAY destroy
a coin to Throw A Coin into the fountain. This does nothing, unless
specified in another Rule. A player MAY announce what e wishes for when
e Throws A Coin.

Set (0, 0)'s Land Type to "Gray".
Create a fountain at (0, 0) belonging to Agora.
}

Reasons for rules:
 - "Land Types" needs to be amended to add Gray as a Land Type.
 - "Facility Categories" is an implementation of Aris' suggestion of
defining facility categories.
 - "Asset Generation with Facilities" is amended to turn production and
processing into Categories. The actual rules for specific
facilities can be unmodified, I think.
 - "Facility Ranks" is modified so it's clear what happens if a facility
doesn't define ranks, like the fountain right now.
 - "Facility Colors" is Trigon's suggestion of "X facilities"
 - "Gray Land" defines how Gray Land works, including Trigon's suggestion
of specifying that Gray Land is always preserved.
 - "Gray Actions" allows walking on Gray Land.
 - "Agoran Monuments" specifies a Category used for unique structures that
can only exist one place in Arcadia.
 - "The Fountain" is self explanatory, creates a unique gray fountain.
 - "Wishing Fountain" is just so fountains have a use, even a useless one.

Corrections, fixes, ideas, etc would all be highly appreciated.

Kenyon

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:39 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think non-Proc/Prod facilities would be great. Walls or streets for
> example would be cool.
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:01 AM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd go with solution 2, but modified. What if we made it so that each
> > facility could fit into (0 or more) "categories", and defined Production
> > and Processing as categories. That way, we could extend it later without
> > dealing with an exponential increase in the number of types. It also
> leave
> > flexibility if we want to do 3 later.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 2:15 PM Kenyon Prater <kprater3...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I ran into a problem that I figured I'd share and ask for input.
> > >
> > > "Asset Generation with Facilities" specifies that "Each facility is
> > either
> > > a production facility or processing facility". The draft up there
> > specifies
> > > that a fountain is a facility, but that it neither produces nor
> processes
> > > anything. There are a couple solutions that I see:
> > >
> > > 1) A fountain is a production facility that produces nothing, or a
> > > processing facility that processes nothing. Easy, kinda a hack, but
> it'll
> > > work.
> > > 2) Modify "Asset Generation with Facilities" so facilities can have a
> > type
> > > of any element in {None, Production, Processing, Production &
> > Processing},
> > > and fountains are type None.
> > > 3) Define "buildings" as a superset/superclass of facilities, move the
> > > shared rules to new rules about Buildings, and have fountain and
> facility
> > > be types of buildings with their own specific sub-rules. Easily the
> most
> > > flexible, but requires a fairly significant refactor, so it only really
> > > seems worth it if this is going to be a recurring problem. If the
> > fountain
> > > is the only non-facility-facility we add, we might as well go with 1 or
> > 2.
> > > If we're adding a ton of non-production buildings (arenas, houses,
> roads,
> > > whatever) then this might be worth it?
> > >
> > > Not sure if there's a smarter solution here, but I just wanted to get
> > > feedback to see if people were OK with 1 or if they thought 2 and 3
> were
> > > better, or

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald][Scroll of Agora]

[Kenyon Prater]

I support both.

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:18 AM, Corona  wrote:

> Oh well.
>
> I intend to award the title of Champion by Politics to Aris with 2 Agoran
> Consent.
>
> I intend to award the (new) title of Reformist Bug to Trigon with 2 Agoran
> Consent.​
>
> On 23:20, Mar 1, 2018, at 23:20, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Corona wrote:
> >> I intend to award the title of Champion by Politics to Aris with 2
> >Support.
> >> I intend to award the (new) title of Reformist Bug to Trigon with 2
> >Support.
> >
> >2 Consent, not 2 Support I'm afraid.  Need to re-announce intent with
> >the
> >correction (R1728).
> >
> >(Champion needing consent is a bug btw.  Should be by announcement I
> >think).
>

Re: DIS: Grey Land and the Fountain

[Kenyon Prater]

I ran into a problem that I figured I'd share and ask for input.

"Asset Generation with Facilities" specifies that "Each facility is either
a production facility or processing facility". The draft up there specifies
that a fountain is a facility, but that it neither produces nor processes
anything. There are a couple solutions that I see:

1) A fountain is a production facility that produces nothing, or a
processing facility that processes nothing. Easy, kinda a hack, but it'll
work.
2) Modify "Asset Generation with Facilities" so facilities can have a type
of any element in {None, Production, Processing, Production & Processing},
and fountains are type None.
3) Define "buildings" as a superset/superclass of facilities, move the
shared rules to new rules about Buildings, and have fountain and facility
be types of buildings with their own specific sub-rules. Easily the most
flexible, but requires a fairly significant refactor, so it only really
seems worth it if this is going to be a recurring problem. If the fountain
is the only non-facility-facility we add, we might as well go with 1 or 2.
If we're adding a ton of non-production buildings (arenas, houses, roads,
whatever) then this might be worth it?

Not sure if there's a smarter solution here, but I just wanted to get
feedback to see if people were OK with 1 or if they thought 2 and 3 were
better, or if there's another option I didn't consider.

Thanks,
Kenyon

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Comments inline.
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Aris Merchant
> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I like this. I'll have more detailed comments when it's typed up in a
> > proposal, but I think that this fits with the spirit of what we're going
> > for. Certainly it is a good idea to have a neutral spawn point, even if
> the
> > colors don't mean that much yet. I suggest just calling the facility type
> > "fountain", and letting people refer to it as "the fountain", because
> > there's only one. You could even make it an explicit singleton. Something
> > to the effect of "There is a unique facility, know as 'the fountain', and
> > (0, 0). It... ." I'd also suggest not referencing
> >  Rule 2029 by number (and definitely don't include the revision id).
> > Instead, either just say "the town fountain", or let people figure it out
> > for themselves (my personal favored option).
>
> I agree with everything Aris said here.
>
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:05 PM Kenyon Prater <kprater3...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> A very rough draft for a proposal. I'm going to hold off on writing it
> up
> >> until the current mess is resolved, but I wanted to get feedback on
> whether
> >> the idea is interesting to people
> >>
> >> The proposal would: {
> >>
> >> Create a Land Type of "Gray". Land that has Land Type "Gray" is gray
> land.
> >>
> >> Gray land cannot support any facilities except those specifically
> stated to
> >> be allowed on gray land. If land becomes gray land, any facilities on it
> >> are destroyed, except for those specifically stated to be allowed on
> gray
> >> land.
>
> Maybe to avoid redundancy, you could term these facilities "gray
> facilities". Or even make a rule that says "X facilities" where X is a
> land type in case we decide to restrict the land types some facilities
> can be on in the future.
>
> >> Gray land cannot be owned by any entity other than Agora. If land
> becomes
> >> Gray land, it is transfered to Agora.
>
> *transferred. Maybe also say that Gray land is always preserved. That
> way, no one can modify any of the facilities on the gray land.
>
> >> Gray land is treated as "the same" as both white and black for the
> purposes
> >> of movement, ie it only costs one apple to move from any non-aether
> land to
> >> gray, and only one apple to move from gray to any non-aether land.
> >>
> >> Set (0, 0) to Gray land.
> >>
> >> Create a new facility type "the fountain". Only one the fountain may
> exist
> >> at any one time. The fountain may exist on gray land, and may only
> exist on
> >> gray land. Players MAY and SHOULD think of this fountain as referring to
> >> the one depicted in Rule 2029/0 "Town Fountain". The fountain may only
> be
> >> owned by Agora. The fountain has no upkeep cost, and neither refines nor
> >> produces anything, except as specified in other proposa

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proposal: Ensure fair distribution of assets

[Kenyon Prater]

I'm confused? The assets are created at the end of every Agoran Week, which
would be at midnight UTC on the Sunday-Monday interface, no?

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> I have to agree. The IRL time race is annoying.
>
> I take all resources at the Mines here and transfer them to myself. (3
> Stones and 2 Ores).
>
> I destroy one of my apples to move from (-1,-1) to (0,-1)
> I destroy  one of my apples to move from (0,-1) to (1,-1)
>
> I take all resources at the Farm here and transfer them to myself. (3 Corn
> and 3 Cotton).
>
> I destroy two of my apples to move from (1,-1) to (1,0)
> I destroy one of my apples to move move from (1,0) to (1,1)
>
> I take all resources at the Mines here and transfer them to myself. (3
> Stones and 2 Ores).
>
> I destroy one of my apples to move from (1,1) to (0,1)
> I destroy one of my apples to move from (0,1) to (-1,1)
>
> I take all resources at the Orchard here and transfer them to myself. (3
> Apples and 3 Lumber).
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:18 PM, Corona 
> wrote:
>
> > As CuddleBeam has kindly demonstrated, the public facilities do not
> > function as intended (i. e. give all players some starting resources).
> The
> > map should not cause Agora to become a real-time game, where you just
> HAVE
> > to log in at the start of every week or be hugely disadvantaged.
> Therefore,
> > I submit the proposal below. I will pend it after addressing potential
> > comments.
> >
> > ~Corona
> >
> > [Essentially, you could take items only from one of the four public
> > facilities on preserved LUs each week. If nobody's interested in the
> other
> > items, you could take the rest after four days.]
> >
> > "Ensure fair distribution of assets"
> > AI=2
> > Amend rule "Asset generation with facilities" by replacing the first item
> > on the list with the following two items, renumbering the other items
> > appropriately:
> >
> > 1. if the facility is built on unconserved Public Land, none.
> >
> > 2. if the facility is built on preserved Public Land and less than four
> > days have passed since assets were created in the facility most
> recently, e
> > must not have taken any assets from the inventory of another facility
> > located on a preserved Land Unit within this Agoran week.​
> >
>

DIS: Grey Land and the Fountain

[Kenyon Prater]

A very rough draft for a proposal. I'm going to hold off on writing it up
until the current mess is resolved, but I wanted to get feedback on whether
the idea is interesting to people

The proposal would: {

Create a Land Type of "Gray". Land that has Land Type "Gray" is gray land.

Gray land cannot support any facilities except those specifically stated to
be allowed on gray land. If land becomes gray land, any facilities on it
are destroyed, except for those specifically stated to be allowed on gray
land.

Gray land cannot be owned by any entity other than Agora. If land becomes
Gray land, it is transfered to Agora.

Gray land is treated as "the same" as both white and black for the purposes
of movement, ie it only costs one apple to move from any non-aether land to
gray, and only one apple to move from gray to any non-aether land.

Set (0, 0) to Gray land.

Create a new facility type "the fountain". Only one the fountain may exist
at any one time. The fountain may exist on gray land, and may only exist on
gray land. Players MAY and SHOULD think of this fountain as referring to
the one depicted in Rule 2029/0 "Town Fountain". The fountain may only be
owned by Agora. The fountain has no upkeep cost, and neither refines nor
produces anything, except as specified in other proposals.

Create a "the fountain" at (0, 0) belonging to Agora.

}

My goal with the draft was to to;
1) make the number of preserved squares each color had equal.
2) To ensure that the spawn at (0,0) was neutral to both colors (right now,
a player residing on one of the colors has to spend an extra apple to move
back home as compared to somebody residing equally far on the other color).
3) To provide a meeting ground for players for future rules to use. One
could imagine a rule specifying that all players at (0,0) on Agora's
Birthday CAN [do something]. Or this could be integrated into the justice
reform; to rid themselves of weevils/blots/whatever, players must make a
pilgrimage to the fountain to give [currency].

Re: DIS: does pending work?

[Kenyon Prater]

Even if pending with paper didn't work, pending without objection is
untouched, right?

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Reuben Staley 
wrote:

> Yes.
>
> El 28 feb. 2018 13:19, "Kerim Aydin"  escribió:
>
> >
> >
> > I'll admit, I've been pretty much blipping over the details on
> > which parts of land failed to take effect. Is it safe to assume
> > I have a welcome package with paper to pend with?  I don't want
> > the circularity of using non-existent currency to pend and fix
> > a problem with currency.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Fwd: Some minor reforms

[Kenyon Prater]

Confused by "Job Points switch which can only be 5", and then that also
seems to be the switch that tracks how many points e gets per month? Is it
a max of 5, or what?

Other than that something like this could be good. Leaning towards the
second because it's more flexible--you could imagine the Tailor getting
paid largely in cloth for thematic reasons, or something like that



On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Reuben Staley 
wrote:

> Not that I'm in this for the fictional currency, but honestly, 3 coins a
> month for all this recordkeeping is not enough. I'm not writing up any
> ruletext yet, but I will talk about 2 ideas I had for an office reform.
>
> First idea:
>
> 1. Players have a Job Points switch which can only be 5.
> 2. Sort all the offices as such:
>   A. Low Paying Jobs:
> - Herald
> - Prime Minister
> - Referee
> - Reportor
> - Registrar
> - Regkeepor
> - Speaker
> - Tailor
>   B. Mid-Paying Jobs :
> - Promotor
> - Assessor
> - ADoP
> - Notary
>   C. High-Paying Jobs:
> - Arbitor
> - Cartographor
> - Rulekeepor
> - Arbitor
> 3. On paydays, holders of:
>  A. Low-Paying Jobs get 3 coins, 1 corn
>   B. Mid-Paying Jobs get 10 coins, 1 corn, 2 stones, 2 lumber
>   C. High-Paying Jobs get 15 coins, 1 corn, 5 stones, 5 lumber, 5 fabric
> 4. For every:
>   A. Low paying job a player has, give em 1 JP.
>   B. Mid paying job, 2 JP
>   C. High paying job, 3 JP
> 5. Players have a Worker Merit switch. Every month, it's increased by how
> many job points the player has.
> 6. When someone earns 50 worker merit, e wins.
>
> Second idea:
>
> "Official duties" are things that the ruleset requires an officer to do
> (e.g. publish report, start an auction, transfer assets, etc.) that need to
> be reported on. Every time a player successfully carries out an official
> duty, e gets some small reward.
>
> The first one is vastly more complex, but it would require a lot more
> record keeping.
>
> Discuss!
>

Re: DIS: Fwd: Facilities owned by contracts incur no costs

[Kenyon Prater]

That explains it. I think Gmail corrected to agora-business-request on both
(since I had sent the confirmation email it thought that was what I wanted,
I guess)  and I didn't catch it. Joining soon. Since I am not a player, I
do not free-CFJ.

Kenyon

On Feb 27, 2018 10:16 AM, "Kerim Aydin" <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:



Hi Kenyon,

Question from Registrar:  Did you attempt to register/become a player at
any point?
(Just looking at your "if I am a player..." below).  Can't find an attempted
registration.  Also noting you sent the below CFJ attempt to
agora-business-request,
not agora-business.

Also, you don't have to be a player to CFJ.  Non-players get one per week as
well as players.

-G.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2018, Kenyon Prater wrote:
> I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to CFJ this or if this was a matter I
> could just ask the public about. In the future for something like this,
> should I just ask?
>
> Kenyon
>
> ------ Forwarded message --
> From: Kenyon Prater <kprater3...@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 5:54 PM
> Subject: Facilities owned by contracts incur no costs
> To: agora-business-requ...@agoranomic.org
>
>
> If I am a player, I free-CFJ:
>
> If a player owns land with a production or processing facility on it,
> and transfers that land from
> emself to a contract, no upkeep costs will be incurred and the
facility
> will not be destroyed.
>
> Arguments:
>
> "Facilities" as specified in Proposal 8014 specifies that facilities are
> liquid assets, which by Rule 2166/25 "Assets", means that they can be
> transfered. Furthermore, "Unless modified by an asset's backing document,
> ownership of an asset is restricted to Agora, players, and contracts." And
> since facilities, established in "Facilities", does not specify that
> contracts cannot own facilities, they can own facilities.
>
> Furthermore "Facilities" specifies that "If the ownership of the Parent
> Land Unit of a Facilty is changed, that facility is transferred along with
> it." Since Rule 1993/1 specifies that "Land belonging to a contract is
> called Communal Land", it is clear that contracts can own land, and thus
> can own facilities built upon them.
>
> In "Facilities", the relevant text to upkeep is "If a player 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." Contracts
are
> not players, so they cannot be included in the list of players with
> facilities with upkeep costs. Since it doesn't apply, a contract has
> nothing to "fail to do", and so a facility would not be destroyed.
>
> Not trying to use this, but if it is indeed the case, I'd like to make
sure
> it gets amended soon so it can't be exploited.
>

Re: DIS: Fwd: Facilities owned by contracts incur no costs

[Kenyon Prater]

Sounds good, thanks.

On Feb 26, 2018 6:21 PM, "Reuben Staley" <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think a cfj is frivolous in this case. Just write a fix proposal, or tell
> a player to submit one such proposal as you yourself cannot.
>
> El 26 feb. 2018 19:00, "Kenyon Prater" <kprater3...@gmail.com> escribió:
>
> > I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to CFJ this or if this was a matter I
> > could just ask the public about. In the future for something like this,
> > should I just ask?
> >
> > Kenyon
> >
> > -- Forwarded message --
> > From: Kenyon Prater <kprater3...@gmail.com>
> > Date: Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 5:54 PM
> > Subject: Facilities owned by contracts incur no costs
> > To: agora-business-requ...@agoranomic.org
> >
> >
> > If I am a player, I free-CFJ:
> >
> > If a player owns land with a production or processing facility on it,
> > and transfers that land from
> > emself to a contract, no upkeep costs will be incurred and the
> facility
> > will not be destroyed.
> >
> > Arguments:
> >
> > "Facilities" as specified in Proposal 8014 specifies that facilities are
> > liquid assets, which by Rule 2166/25 "Assets", means that they can be
> > transfered. Furthermore, "Unless modified by an asset's backing document,
> > ownership of an asset is restricted to Agora, players, and contracts."
> And
> > since facilities, established in "Facilities", does not specify that
> > contracts cannot own facilities, they can own facilities.
> >
> > Furthermore "Facilities" specifies that "If the ownership of the Parent
> > Land Unit of a Facilty is changed, that facility is transferred along
> with
> > it." Since Rule 1993/1 specifies that "Land belonging to a contract is
> > called Communal Land", it is clear that contracts can own land, and thus
> > can own facilities built upon them.
> >
> > In "Facilities", the relevant text to upkeep is "If a player 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." Contracts
> are
> > not players, so they cannot be included in the list of players with
> > facilities with upkeep costs. Since it doesn't apply, a contract has
> > nothing to "fail to do", and so a facility would not be destroyed.
> >
> > Not trying to use this, but if it is indeed the case, I'd like to make
> sure
> > it gets amended soon so it can't be exploited.
> >
>

DIS: Fwd: Facilities owned by contracts incur no costs

[Kenyon Prater]

I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to CFJ this or if this was a matter I
could just ask the public about. In the future for something like this,
should I just ask?

Kenyon

-- Forwarded message --
From: Kenyon Prater <kprater3...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 5:54 PM
Subject: Facilities owned by contracts incur no costs
To: agora-business-requ...@agoranomic.org


If I am a player, I free-CFJ:

If a player owns land with a production or processing facility on it,
and transfers that land from
emself to a contract, no upkeep costs will be incurred and the facility
will not be destroyed.

Arguments:

"Facilities" as specified in Proposal 8014 specifies that facilities are
liquid assets, which by Rule 2166/25 "Assets", means that they can be
transfered. Furthermore, "Unless modified by an asset's backing document,
ownership of an asset is restricted to Agora, players, and contracts." And
since facilities, established in "Facilities", does not specify that
contracts cannot own facilities, they can own facilities.

Furthermore "Facilities" specifies that "If the ownership of the Parent
Land Unit of a Facilty is changed, that facility is transferred along with
it." Since Rule 1993/1 specifies that "Land belonging to a contract is
called Communal Land", it is clear that contracts can own land, and thus
can own facilities built upon them.

In "Facilities", the relevant text to upkeep is "If a player 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." Contracts are
not players, so they cannot be included in the list of players with
facilities with upkeep costs. Since it doesn't apply, a contract has
nothing to "fail to do", and so a facility would not be destroyed.

Not trying to use this, but if it is indeed the case, I'd like to make sure
it gets amended soon so it can't be exploited.

Re: DIS: Proto: Nomicbots

[Kenyon Prater]

That looks really good. For the quadratic, maybe something like: (I'm sure
the language on these would need fixing first)

"A Nomicbot's capacity is a positive integer switch defaulting to 1. A
Player CAN, by announcement, destroy (X+1) ore, where X is the value of an
owned Nomicbot's capacity, to increase that Nomicbot's capacity by 1. A
Nomicbot's Instructions may at no point have more than 20*X characters in
it, and if a Nomicbot's Instructions would contain more than 20*X
characters, the Instructions are truncated at exactly 20*X characters,
where X is the Nomicbot's capacity. A Player CAN, by announcement, destroy
Y corn and stone to cause modifications to the text of the Instructions of
a Nomicbot which involve up to 20*Y characters, by announcement."

Or

"A Nomicbot's capacity is a positive integer switch defaulting to 1. A
Player CAN, by announcement, destroy 1 ore, to increase that Nomicbot's
capacity by 1. A Nomicbot's Instructions may at no point have more than
20*X characters in it, and if a Nomicbot's Instructions would contain more
than 20*X characters, the Instructions are truncated at exactly 20*X
characters, where X is the Nomicbot's capacity. A Player CAN, by
announcement, A Player CAN destroy Y*X corn and stone, where X is the
capacity of an owned Nomicbot, to cause modifications to the text of the
Instructions of that Nomicbot which involve up to 20*Y characters, by
announcement."

In the first one, the quadratic cost comes from upgrading your bot, but if
you somehow get a 100 capacity bot, programming it is linear. Creating and
programming a 1-capacity bot costs 1 ore + 1 corn/stone. Creating and
programming a 10-capacity bot costs 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10 = 55 ore, and 10
corn/stone, while editing an already extant bot costs 10 corn/stone.

In the second one, upgrading capacity is linear in ore (I imagine building
robots just involves duct taping more robots together, right?) but setting
20 characters of a higher capacity bot is much more expensive than setting
20 characters of a low capacity bot. Creating and programming a 1-capacity
bot again costs 1 ore and 1 corn/stone. There's a bit of an exploit, where
you could set text before upgrading capacity, so the first 20 chars only
cost 1 corn/stone, then upgrade, then set the next 20 for 2 corn/stone,
etc. In this case, a 10-capacity bot costs 10 ore and 55 corn/stone, but
editing an extant 10-capacity bot costs 100 corn/stone. I'm not entirely
happy with how that works, but I'm not sure I have better ideas?

I think I like the first version better, since it encourages people to pump
resources into building a champion Nomicbot, but they can fix small typos
easily without too much of a fuss. At the same time, quadratic costs in
editing would prevent Nomicbots from growing too large in the long term,
since it would be a ongoing cost not a fixed cost. I don't really know. Of
course, 20 was just a random number, all the costs could be changed, the
main idea here is just two different ways of implementing a capacity switch.

---

As a side question, would Nomicbots be transferable? If so, there should
probably be some language about what happens when a Nomicbot belongs to a
contract (or to Agora).

Kenyon

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 10:09 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

>  Haha, I love that. Screwing with other's Nomicbots.
>
> Also "Duel" is a horrible term for it lol, "Match" or "Battle" something
> would be better : P
>
> Anyways, with your input into my derpy draft, here is a more refined and
> decent version:
> (I want to add the linear cost increase to consonants/vowels but I can't
> think of an elegant way to write it)
>
> ---+---
>
> Players can have Nomicbots, which are assets with Instructions and a Name
> and a Banner. A Nomicbot's Instructions is a text document with
> instructions about its behavior. A Nomicbot's Instructions is blank by
> default. A Nomicbot's name is a string, defaulting to "Nomicbot". A
> Nomicbot's Banner is a switch with values of Risen or Lowered, defaulting
> to Lowered.
>
> A Player can create a Nomicbot by announcement along destroying 1 ore for
> this purpose. A Player can change their Nomicbot's Name or Banner by
> announcement. A Player CAN destroy X corn and stone to cause modifications
> to the text of the Instructions of one of their Nomicbots which involve up
> to X*3 characters, by announcement.
> --
>
> Nomicbots can Battle, and there is a Battle at the Main Arena among all
> eligible Nomicbots at the start of each Month, hosted by the Battlehost -
> this is the Monthly Battle. A Nomicbot is eligible if they are the only
> Nomicbot belonging to a player with a Banner with a value of Risen.
>
> If a Nomicbot wins the Monthly Battle, their owner earns 1/Z Merit (a
> non-transferable
> and indestructible asset), where Z is the amount of Nomicbots which won
> that Duel. When a player has 1 Merit, they win the game and lose all their
> Merit.
>
> Nomicbot Battles are games of 

Re: DIS: Proto: Nomicbots

[Kenyon Prater]

Not a player, but a fun way to avoid this would be that if a bot's action
is paradoxical, unreadable, unspecified, etc, it explodes, is removed from
the game, is removed from the duel, and automatically loses. So a clever
bot could do proposal "all players that vote no on this proposal win the
game". This defeats Gaelan's bot, since if bot votes yes, the proposal
hurts it. If it votes no, it benefits it. Thus it has a critical existence
failure and explodes.

Also maybe bots need a bit of encouragement to vote yes on proposals? I
imagine most bots would vote no on proposals that not proposed by them or
allies, since they could be potentially malicious. Which means to win
players either need a majority of the nomicbots to belong to their alliance
or it just comes down to chance. I don't have any ideas for that though,
but it seems like the more proposals pass the better

Kenyon

On Feb 26, 2018 6:30 AM, "Gaelan Steele"  wrote:

“Vote for all proposals which would benefit this bot”

Love the basic idea, though. Just needs to be written out a little more
clearly.

Gaelan

> On Feb 26, 2018, at 5:59 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>
> Some way to use our resources for a "minigame". You can spend them to get
> more consonants and vowels for a "bot" (which "runs" on natural language
> rather than any software language) to win a monthly game.
>
> For example, you could start off with a bot that just has "Always propose
'
> I win and the game ends ' and vote AGAINST all other proposals" as its
> "code", and then gradually make it better, smarter and more insidious as
> you get more riches.
>
> For example, upgrading it to:
>
> "Always vote FOR to DaisyBot's proposals and vote AGAINST all others,
> Always propose "Daisybot and I win and the game ends""
>
> ---*---
>
> Players can have Nomicbots, which are entities with Instructions. A
> Nomicbot's Instructions is a text document with instructions about its
> behavior. A Nomicbot's Instructions is blank by default.
>
> A Player can create a Nomicbot by destroying 1 ore for this purpose.
>
> A player can destroy X corn and Y stone to cause modifications to the text
> of the Instructions of one of their Nomicbots which involve up to X*10
> vowels and X*50 consonants.
>
> --
>
> Nomicbots can Duel, and there is a Duel among all Nomicbots at the start
of
> each Month, hosted by the [Office]. The [Office] shall publish a report
> with the processing of the Nomicbot's Instructions to play the Duel.
>
> Duels are games of Nomic, with the initial rules being Peter Suber's
> original Nomic Initial Ruleset. but:
> - With the players being the Nomicbots
> - all Judge and interpretation requirements defaulting to the [Office]
> hosting the Duel.
> - Nomicbots during duels that have no voting specifications in their
> Instructions do not count towards vote quorum/majorities.
>
> If a Nomicbot wins the game of the Duel, their owner earns 1/Z Merit (a
> non-transferable and indestructible asset), where Z is the amount of
> Nomicbots which won that Duel. When a player has 1 Merit, they win the
game
> and lose all their Merit.