DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Generalize complexity
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 23:35 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote: Create a rule titled Interest Index of Judicial Cases with Power 1.5 and this text: Each judicial case has an interest index, which CAN be set by its initiator at the time of initiation, and CAN be changed by any player without 3 objections, or by the Clerk of the Courts or Justiciar without 2 objections. The second half of this is redundant; w3o is easier than w2o, not harder, so the CotC would just use the first method rather than the second method. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: PBA, milling
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 17:43 -0800, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: The PNP withdraws one 5 crop from the PBA for ^8. The PNP withdraws one 5 crop from the PBA for ^9. Using a Addition Mill, the PNP mills 5 + 5 = X. The PNP deposits one X crop into the PBA to gain ^30. The PNP withdraws one 4 crop from the PBA for ^10. The PNP withdraws one 7 crop from the PBA for ^14. Using a Division Mill, the PNP mills 4 / 7 = X. The PNP deposits one X crop into the PBA to gain ^29. The PNP withdraws one 4 crop from the PBA for ^11. The PNP withdraws one 9 crop from the PBA for ^13. Using a Addition Mill, the PNP mills 4 + 9 = 2. The PNP deposits one 2 crop into the PBA to gain ^30. I think this all fails because it used an out-of-date PBA report and therefore got the rates wrong. (/me zooms off to look at the code to see if e can prevent that happening again...)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PBA, milling
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 09:14 +, Alex Smith wrote: On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 17:43 -0800, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: The PNP withdraws one 5 crop from the PBA for ^8. The PNP withdraws one 5 crop from the PBA for ^9. Using a Addition Mill, the PNP mills 5 + 5 = X. The PNP deposits one X crop into the PBA to gain ^30. Works, I think. The PNP withdraws one 4 crop from the PBA for ^10. The PNP withdraws one 7 crop from the PBA for ^14. Using a Division Mill, the PNP mills 4 / 7 = X. The PNP deposits one X crop into the PBA to gain ^29. Also works, I think. The PNP withdraws one 4 crop from the PBA for ^11. The PNP withdraws one 9 crop from the PBA for ^13. Using a Addition Mill, the PNP mills 4 + 9 = 2. The PNP deposits one 2 crop into the PBA to gain ^30. And this works too, I think. I think this all fails because it used an out-of-date PBA report and therefore got the rates wrong. Ignore that, I forgot how the rates worked for a moment... (It's only 8 Crops which had the wrong rate on the PBA report it used, out of the PBA assets which the PNP messes around with.) -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Argument: Other amendment processes don't necessarily 'violate' it in the sense of making it not counting as having agreed to the amendment either; for instance, without-objection, or without member objection, or any method that gives people a chance to leave the contract before it's resolved. I think pretty much all popular contracts at the moment have such an agreement-safe mechanism. Well, unanimous consent isn't rules-defined; I'd say without objection + a chance to review an amendment is equivalent to unanimous consent; every party has implicitly consented to the change by not objecting to it (or by leaving the contract).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Generalize complexity
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 07:18, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Presumably the idea is that high-rank cases would be more difficult, complicated and time-consuming to judge, whereas low-rank cases would be for typical CFJspam. The problem now is for people to decide which cases are important, hard to judge, and landmark-setting, and which ones are just spam; everyone thinks their own CFJs are important, often... -- I personally dislike judging the spammy CFJs with little or no effect on the game, but enjoy judging those CFJs which are truly controversial. Under such a system I would prefer to only judge cases with interest level 1. NOTE: I have been criticized for expressing this preference in the past. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
Just filling in some Power of Attorney history here: In this case, CFJ 1941 seems to establish that in May this year, it was already established custom that an effective Power of Attorney was grantable in practice via contracts, once the rules no longer gave a method of doing so. Going back earlier, CFJ 1815 implies that partnerships were considered to be capable of acting via act-on-behalf (this makes sense because otherwise partnerships would not have the R101 right to participate); The partnership intuition is correct. Pretty soon after Partnerships were judged to be persons, CFJ 1695 found that on-behalf-of had to work for partnerships so as to not violate their participation rights. This did not address issues of granting acting PoA between first-class persons. Following that, there was substantial discussion at the time as to whether PoA abilities existed between persons if granted by contract, since the explicit PoA rules had been repealed (I at the time believed they didn't work). Judge Zefram firmly established them however in the very-thorough CFJ 1719, which included custom references back to some of the dimmest early periods of the game and showed it to be a quite natural custom in the absence of specific legislation. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
ais523 wrote: However, two of the parties to the contract don't want to call an equity case, and the third tried to but potentially it was remotely retracted. (This is yet another TITE scam, that rule severely needs fixing; however, it is not the place of a judge to deprive players of a valid Scam merely because it was a scam, just to determine whether it worked or not.) If TITE were more widely supported, I think this would be a relatively strong argument in favour of the act-on-behalf not working; however, TITE is controversial, buggy, and not generally agreed upon, and so I can't take it as influencing game custom all that strongly. It is a rule, though, so this argument is mildly in favour. I think the problem with this judgement is that you dismissed R101(ii) too quickly. TITE explictly claims precedence over the Inquiry courts for resolving matters of controversy involving contracts and claims to be the process for resolving contract disputes. Thus, a blocking of the equity court does indeed have the potential for violating R101(ii) rights, even though an inquiry case could be called - the fact is that inquiry cases aren't the specified formal process for these particular matters of controversy. TITE may be a buggy formal process, but it is the formal process in question. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
ais523 wrote: This question has come up once before, around the Vote Market was modified from majority support for changes to without-3-objections. In http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg05818.html, Goethe argues that it is not protective of an individual's interests to allow a majority-consent change (foretelling the scam this CFJ is about, incidentally); I meant this comment in the narrow sense of not being protective of my economic/voting interests, unrelated to rights. In other words, I recognized that the contract had the legal ability to mousetrap me to greater restrain my voting ability, and it was in my interest (and others' interest I hope) to try to drive a change in the change approval mechanisms. (It was my own fault for not paying attention to the majority issue when I joined). If someone is mousetrapped into a contract or an amendment on it, then act-on-behalf does not work, because it was never granted, neither explicitly nor implicitly. Being mousetrapped into a new contract is one thing (not allowed). Wilfully entering a contract with limited escape clauses and the stated ability to change by majority (or whatever level is specified) can get you in trouble, and I think that's quite legal, provided you have the reasonable opportunity to review the changes. This right to review doesn't necessarily guarantee the ability to escape if you don't like the proposed changes - the right to terminate a contract is conspicuously absent. This is why, for example, it's important to assume that all contract change methods must be specified in the contract; even a unanimous meta-agreement to end a contract can't terminate a contract in the absence of a contract clause allowing it. Remember, again, that the Proposal System ca. 2006-2007 was considered to be an example of a system that is protective of rights, and that system hasn't changed substantially, so could be used as a model; that includes majority changes being permitted, even if those majority changes make it possible to mousetrap someone. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Generalize complexity
BobTHJ wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 00:35, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Create a rule titled Judicial Rank with Power 1.5 and this text: Judicial rank is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the Courts, with the same range and default as interest indices. A player is poorly qualified to judge judicial cases whose interest index exceeds eir judicial rank. This seems backward to me. Wouldn't more judges be interested in higher interest cases instead of less? The idea is that higher interest = higher complexity. Thus, rank 1 = I can handle judging simple cases for low pay, rank 3 = I can handle judging complex cases for high pay. Hmm, one more tweak coming up.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:02, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wilfully entering a contract with limited escape clauses and the stated ability to change by majority (or whatever level is specified) can get you in trouble, and I think that's quite legal, provided you have the reasonable opportunity to review the changes. This right to review doesn't necessarily guarantee the ability to escape if you don't like the proposed changes - the right to terminate a contract is conspicuously absent. This is why, for example, it's important to assume that all contract change methods must be specified in the contract; even a unanimous meta-agreement to end a contract can't terminate a contract in the absence of a contract clause allowing it. Note that I did not have a reasonable chance to review the first change that ehird and Wooble made to the Protection Racket (the change that removed my ability to leave the contract and permitted them to change it at will - it all happened while I was asleep). I don't know how this effects the judgment. I did have a reasonable chance to review the later changes. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Generalize complexity
BobTHJ wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 07:18, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Presumably the idea is that high-rank cases would be more difficult, complicated and time-consuming to judge, whereas low-rank cases would be for typical CFJspam. The problem now is for people to decide which cases are important, hard to judge, and landmark-setting, and which ones are just spam; everyone thinks their own CFJs are important, often... -- I personally dislike judging the spammy CFJs with little or no effect on the game, but enjoy judging those CFJs which are truly controversial. Under such a system I would prefer to only judge cases with interest level 1. NOTE: I have been criticized for expressing this preference in the past. If this passes, then I'll generally assign high-II cases first and assign high-JR players to those cases first (similar to current practice with criminal/equity cases and hanging judges), so you would have at least a somewhat better shot of getting what you want.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that I did not have a reasonable chance to review the first change that ehird and Wooble made to the Protection Racket (the change that removed my ability to leave the contract and permitted them to change it at will - it all happened while I was asleep). I don't know how this effects the judgment. I did have a reasonable chance to review the later changes. R101 (iv) does not consider such amendments to be ineffective if you did not have a reasonable opportunity to review them; it merely allows you to consider yourself not bound by them until you do have such a reasonable opportunity.
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
comex wrote: R101 (iv) does not consider such amendments to be ineffective if you did not have a reasonable opportunity to review them; it merely allows you to consider yourself not bound by them until you do have such a reasonable opportunity. Hmm... can't I consider myself not bound by a contract even if I have reviewed them? Not that that does anything... -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: Re: BUS: PBA, milling
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 18:43, The PerlNomic Partnership [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Using a Addition Mill, the PNP mills 4 + 9 = 2. The PNP deposits one 2 crop into the PBA to gain ^30. Unless I have something wrong this last milling failed because the PNP only has one + mill. As a result the subsequent deposit of a 2 crop also fails. FYI ehird, this changes your PBA report.
DIS: RE: Re: BUS: PBA, milling
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 18:43, The PerlNomic Partnership [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Using a Addition Mill, the PNP mills 4 + 9 = 2. The PNP deposits one 2 crop into the PBA to gain ^30. Unless I have something wrong this last milling failed because the PNP only has one + mill. As a result the subsequent deposit of a 2 crop also fails. FYI ehird, this changes your PBA report. It has two + mills, I'm pretty sure; at least it did last I checked, did one get demolished by water rights or something? I'll see if I can dig out the last published AAA report to check. -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: RE: Re: BUS: PBA, milling
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:44, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 18:43, The PerlNomic Partnership [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Using a Addition Mill, the PNP mills 4 + 9 = 2. The PNP deposits one 2 crop into the PBA to gain ^30. Unless I have something wrong this last milling failed because the PNP only has one + mill. As a result the subsequent deposit of a 2 crop also fails. FYI ehird, this changes your PBA report. It has two + mills, I'm pretty sure; at least it did last I checked, did one get demolished by water rights or something? I'll see if I can dig out the last published AAA report to check. -- Per the last AAA report (my online automated system is also in agreement): PNP land #94 Digit Ranch (3) land #0 Mill (+) School of Rationality Mill (/) Garden of Adonis Mill (*)
DIS: RE: Re: BUS: PBA, milling
ais523 wrote: It has two + mills, I'm pretty sure; at least it did last I checked, did one get demolished by water rights or something? I'll see if I can dig out the last published AAA report to check. It seems that you missed land #0 (a + mill) off a report sometime in October; it had it at the start of October but not at the end of October, with no obvious way to have lost it in the meantime (unless it was destroyed by a late water rights enforcement at the start of October, I didn't check for that). This has since self-ratified; but if the + mill in question was destroyed accidentally by ratification, we should probably equity to get it back. -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: Re: BUS: PBA, milling
ais523 wrote: ais523 wrote: It has two + mills, I'm pretty sure; at least it did last I checked, did one get demolished by water rights or something? I'll see if I can dig out the last published AAA report to check. It seems that you missed land #0 (a + mill) off a report sometime in October; it had it at the start of October but not at the end of October, with no obvious way to have lost it in the meantime (unless it was destroyed by a late water rights enforcement at the start of October, I didn't check for that). This has since self-ratified; but if the + mill in question was destroyed accidentally by ratification, we should probably equity to get it back. Ah, it was land #131 that went missing due to October's water rights. I'll have to go tell the PNP it doesn't have as many lands as it thinks... (Or some kind PerlNomicite could give it a + mill, I suppose.) -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PBA, milling
On 11 Nov 2008, at 19:36, Roger Hicks wrote: Unless I have something wrong this last milling failed because the PNP only has one + mill. As a result the subsequent deposit of a 2 crop also fails. O Gastrnheseco, you must advance quicker. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Generalize complexity
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 08:09 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 07:18, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Presumably the idea is that high-rank cases would be more difficult, complicated and time-consuming to judge, whereas low-rank cases would be for typical CFJspam. The problem now is for people to decide which cases are important, hard to judge, and landmark-setting, and which ones are just spam; everyone thinks their own CFJs are important, often... -- I personally dislike judging the spammy CFJs with little or no effect on the game, but enjoy judging those CFJs which are truly controversial. Under such a system I would prefer to only judge cases with interest level 1. NOTE: I have been criticized for expressing this preference in the past. Probably it's best to set IIs for fact-based CFJs low and rule-based CFJs high. -- ais523
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto-Contract: Political Action Committee
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When a first-class player registers one Lobbyist is created in eir possession. I think players generally don't register. --Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote: On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 09:35 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote: I CFJ on the following: Contracts CAN be amended by a mechanism other than unanimous consent of all parties. Argument: The ruling in CFJ 2246 strongly implies that any amendment process other than unanimous consent violates R101. Argument: Other amendment processes don't necessarily 'violate' it in the sense of making it not counting as having agreed to the amendment either; for instance, without-objection, or without member objection, or any method that gives people a chance to leave the contract before it's resolved. I think pretty much all popular contracts at the moment have such an agreement-safe mechanism. Gratuitous: When the rights clauses of R101 were written, there was wording in the Rules that the Rules themselves should be treated as a contract. This was since removed and/or broken, but at the time there was the following passage (R1503/6): The proposal, fora, and registration processes shall, prima facie, be considered to be protective of a Player's rights and privileges with respect to making and changing the agreement to be bound by the rules. This strongly suggests that a Proposal-type process, though non- unanimous, was seen as reasonable model for constituting reasonable opportunity to review an amendment to a contract. While that direct link between contracts and Rules is no more, the wording of that right has not substantially changed nor have those standards been strongly challenged by precedent to my knowledge, strongly suggesting that contracts containing non-unanimous processes with adequate distribution and decision-time requirements would not violate R101 rights. [n.b. I haven't fully digested CFJ 2246 so don't have a specific opinion there as of yet]. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Generalize complexity
comex wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I retract my previous proposal with this title. Proposal: Generalize complexity CFJ 1647. In that case, I missed changing the proposal text. In this case, I'm pretty sure I didn't.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Generalize complexity
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I retract my previous proposal with this title. Proposal: Generalize complexity CFJ 1647.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2261 assigned to Warrigal
On 11 Nov 2008, at 12:20, Warrigal wrote: If possible, I judge UNDETERMINED. Even if a piece of ASCII art is a statement, it's too nonsensical to have a truth value. - UNDECIDABLE :-) -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Argument: Other amendment processes don't necessarily 'violate' it in the sense of making it not counting as having agreed to the amendment either; for instance, without-objection, or without member objection, or any method that gives people a chance to leave the contract before it's resolved. I think pretty much all popular contracts at the moment have such an agreement-safe mechanism. Well, unanimous consent isn't rules-defined; I'd say without objection + a chance to review an amendment is equivalent to unanimous consent; every party has implicitly consented to the change by not objecting to it (or by leaving the contract). It was fully and completely intended that opportunity to review means that there's a voting process/viewing where everyone sees the amendment (e.g. no secret changes), but not necessarily full consent. The difference between rights wording--consent (needed to enter the agreement) and review (needed to change the agreement)--is marked, was present from the beginning, and is direct evidence of the intent and appropriate reading. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Generalize complexity
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 07:15 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 00:35, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Create a rule titled Judicial Rank with Power 1.5 and this text: Judicial rank is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the Courts, with the same range and default as interest indices. A player is poorly qualified to judge judicial cases whose interest index exceeds eir judicial rank. This seems backward to me. Wouldn't more judges be interested in higher interest cases instead of less? Presumably the idea is that high-rank cases would be more difficult, complicated and time-consuming to judge, whereas low-rank cases would be for typical CFJspam. The problem now is for people to decide which cases are important, hard to judge, and landmark-setting, and which ones are just spam; everyone thinks their own CFJs are important, often... -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Generalize complexity
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 00:35, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Create a rule titled Judicial Rank with Power 1.5 and this text: Judicial rank is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the Courts, with the same range and default as interest indices. A player is poorly qualified to judge judicial cases whose interest index exceeds eir judicial rank. This seems backward to me. Wouldn't more judges be interested in higher interest cases instead of less? BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, comex wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that I did not have a reasonable chance to review the first change that ehird and Wooble made to the Protection Racket (the change that removed my ability to leave the contract and permitted them to change it at will - it all happened while I was asleep). I don't know how this effects the judgment. I did have a reasonable chance to review the later changes. I would say this is perfect grounds for throwing the change out. R101 (iv) does not consider such amendments to be ineffective if you did not have a reasonable opportunity to review them; it merely allows you to consider yourself not bound by them until you do have such a reasonable opportunity. Absurd. Where's the 'until' you claim in R101(iv)? It's absolute. It says e does not have to consider emself bound by it [at all] if e didn't have an opportunity to review it [before it was made]. Your interpretation makes it utterly meaningless in that it would still trap the person effectively whether e reviewed it or not. Now whether that means the change isn't binding to anyone, whether it means e isn't bound by the contract at all afterwards, or whether e is now the only member of the previous contract and the others who did review it are members of another contract, that's a darn good question... it could use legislative clarification, but I'm guessing the good of the game argument would make the change ineffective for everyone. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Absurd. Where's the 'until' you claim in R101(iv)? It's absolute. It says e does not have to consider emself bound by it [at all] if e didn't have an opportunity to review it [before it was made]. Your interpretation makes it utterly meaningless in that it would still trap the person effectively whether e reviewed it or not. When e has a reasonable opportunity to review the amendment, it is no longer an amendment to an agreement which e has not had the reasonable opportunity to review. Accordingly, e no longer has the right to not be considered bound by it. This is, obviously, not the only interpretation of the clause, but it's reasonable, as the original purpose of Rule 101 (iv) was (as you know) to protect against a true Mousetrap, where a person is actively bound to a contract the text of which e doesn't know. Under my interpretation this protection would still be effective. (As I ranted in ##nomic, people insist on genericizing the term mousetrap to mean any contract someone is bound to against eir will, but the real Mousetrap was quite a bit more than that.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
On 12 Nov 2008, at 00:26, comex wrote: (As I ranted in ##nomic, people insist on genericizing the term mousetrap to mean any contract someone is bound to against eir will, but the real Mousetrap was quite a bit more than that.) Ditto with walrus to any vote-for-this-and-reap-rewards scam. The terms are useful, so whatever. -- ehird
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2245 assigned to Taral
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
== Equity Case 2245 ==
The Protection Racket was clearly not envisioned as an
entrapment scheme for one or more of its parties.
[Note: proto-judgement]
In order to escape the mousetrap, BobTHJ suffered material costs.
Therefore, the court intends to enter the following judgement:
{{
ehird and Wooble SHALL jointly ensure that 10VP are transferred to
BobTHJ as soon as possible.
The parties to the Protection Racket bound by this equation SHALL act
to remove any of the following clauses that are still present from The
Protection Racket as soon as possible:
BobTHJ generally CAN modify the text of this contract by announcement.
BobTHJ generally CAN act on behalf of any Don by announcement. If
ehird and Wooble each transfer 50 PBA Coins to BobTHJ (for no other
effect than to fulfill this provision) this section is repealed.
BobTHJ SHALL return any PBA Coins transferred to em in order to
fulfill the above clauses as soon as possible after the successful
removal of said clauses.
The obligations above are only satisfied if the actions are taken for
no other purpose than the satisfaction of that obligation.
}}
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2245 assigned to Taral
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The parties to the Protection Racket bound by this equation SHALL act to remove any of the following clauses that are still present from The Protection Racket as soon as possible: BobTHJ generally CAN modify the text of this contract by announcement. BobTHJ generally CAN act on behalf of any Don by announcement. If ehird and Wooble each transfer 50 PBA Coins to BobTHJ (for no other effect than to fulfill this provision) this section is repealed. Ew, that reads poorly. I'll set off that quoted text in the final judgement. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2245 assigned to Taral
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 8:58 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In order to escape the mousetrap, BobTHJ suffered material costs. ... ehird and Wooble SHALL jointly ensure that 10VP are transferred to BobTHJ as soon as possible. This is why I hate equity. Having been thwarted in their attempts at mousetrapping BobTHJ, ehird and wooble are now forced to pay em damages!? I recommend ehird or Wooble call a new equity case, stating that their amended Protection Racket was clearly not envisioned as an entrapment scheme for them. I suggest an appropriate judgement for this case would be to require BobTHJ to transfer 10 VP to ehird and wooble (split between them evenly).
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2245 assigned to Taral
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:31 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is why I hate equity. Having been thwarted in their attempts at mousetrapping BobTHJ, ehird and wooble are now forced to pay em damages!? It's not a final judgement. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: [PBA] Coinkeepor's report
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 17. Every midnight (UTC) that the PBA has zero of a given Eligible Currency, that currency's exchange rate goes up by 2. Every Monday midnight (UTC) that the PBA has a non-zero amount of a given Eligible Currency, that currency's exchange rate goes down by 2. Now, I was going to say that in theory, this results in undefined behavior around non-Monday midnights when the PBA has 0 of something, but then I realized that this is only true when the PBA's exchange rate is equal to the value, i.e. the PBA has at least 1 of it. When the PBA has 0 of something, the exchange rate is merely less than or equal to the value, and so it's free to vary without regard for price. I guess Monday midnights are more interesting. When the PBA's holdings are non-zero, exchange rate is equal to value, which means that it cannot change in a predictable manner. However, non-zero Monday midnights do have exchange rate (equal to value) changing in a predictable manner, which means that non-zero Monday midnights cannot exist. But there is no economic motivation to withdraw everything in preparation for a Monday midnight, as prices are about to fall, not rise. This all seemed inconsistent until I realized that there's another way for values to remain unpredictable: the exchange rate can fall to 0 as people *deposit*, as they are economically motivated to; an exchange rate of 0 cannot go lower. So, in theory, every Monday midnight, either the PBA's holdings or the exchange rate will go to 0. I don't think we've actually seen this happen, which goes to show you that mathematics is interesting but useless. --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2245 assigned to Taral
On 12/11/2008, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:31 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is why I hate equity. Having been thwarted in their attempts at mousetrapping BobTHJ, ehird and wooble are now forced to pay em damages!? It's not a final judgement. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown Nor an acceptable Proto. I intend to leave the Racket.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [PBA] Coinkeepor's report
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Warrigal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, in theory, every Monday midnight, either the PBA's holdings or the exchange rate will go to 0. I don't think we've actually seen this happen, which goes to show you that mathematics is interesting but useless. Because people are lazy. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2245 assigned to Taral
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nor an acceptable Proto. I intend to leave the Racket. I hope you don't think this will affect your obligations under equity. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2245 assigned to Taral
On 12/11/2008, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nor an acceptable Proto. I intend to leave the Racket. I hope you don't think this will affect your obligations under equity. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown it will stop bobthj acting on my behalf as I will not be a don.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2245 assigned to Taral
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:52 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it will stop bobthj acting on my behalf as I will not be a don.
([a-z]-){2}[a-z]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, comex wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It says e does not have to consider emself bound by it [at all] if e didn't have an opportunity to review it [before it was made]. Your interpretation makes it utterly meaningless in that it would still trap the person effectively whether e reviewed it or not. When e has a reasonable opportunity to review the amendment, it is no longer an amendment to an agreement which e has not had the reasonable opportunity to review. Accordingly, e no longer has the right to not be considered bound by it. It depends on how you consider the making of amendment. In most cases (including the one under discussion) amendment-making is an action. If *when the action is taken* the player has not had an opportunity to review, the action fails in some way, because one member is not bound by the action. If the action is repeated after review happens, then fine, the excuse goes away. But after-the-action review does not retroactively mean the original change-action worked, this is against precedent, Agoran custom, and effectively R101. This is, obviously, not the only interpretation of the clause, but it's reasonable, as the original purpose of Rule 101 (iv) was (as you know) to protect against a true Mousetrap, where a person is actively bound to a contract the text of which e doesn't know. Nope, not at all, I'm not sure where you claim to be talking from authority about the original intent of this. (iii) was for Mousetraps. The original intent of (iv) was to protect against secret amendments and to ensure that the Proposal System remained the Proposal system, when the Rules were intended to be treated as an agreement. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [PBA] Coinkeepor's report
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Warrigal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, in theory, every Monday midnight, either the PBA's holdings or the exchange rate will go to 0. I don't think we've actually seen this happen, which goes to show you that mathematics is interesting but useless. Because people are lazy. Clearly, then, we should all abandon Agora for Normish, where one could easily write a computer program to do this. (If, that is, someone first implements currencies for Normish.) --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, not at all, I'm not sure where you claim to be talking from
authority about the original intent of this. (iii) was for Mousetraps.
The original intent of (iv) was to protect against secret amendments
and to ensure that the Proposal System remained the Proposal system,
when the Rules were intended to be treated as an agreement.
{
None of the rights in R101 were added when this version of R101 was written,
they were just pulled together from different parts of the Rules and
called rights. iv was a direct result of Mousetrap (biggest scam EVAR!!)
and has come up many times prior to the rights form (e.g. CFJs 1289-1290).
}
-you, http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg11255.html
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [PBA] Coinkeepor's report
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Warrigal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Clearly, then, we should all abandon Agora for Normish, where one could easily write a computer program to do this. (If, that is, someone first implements currencies for Normish.) I look forward to the day when Bayes can manipulate currencies. Then the PNP can have some competition. (Note: This would have already come but for my laziness and some ehird/me deadlocks. It's worth another serious look now that BobTHJ has economic automation.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:02 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: quote from before R101 renumbering I'm sorry, I just realized the stupidity of this quote. I'll get back to you on that.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:08 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:02 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
quote from before R101 renumbering
I'm sorry, I just realized the stupidity of this quote. I'll get back
to you on that.
Ah, here is what I was remembering when I said that:
{
And, while the Mousetrap's argument was deemed flawed in the courts,
it did lead to some decent legislation in the end. [...] And, finally,
we now have a Rule saying that no Player can be bound by a body of law
that has not been first made available to em.
}
from http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php/MousetrapThesis
It would make sense if a no-secret-contracts clause was created at
least in part based on a scam that apparently inflamed so many people
precisely because it involved secret contracts; however, I was not a
player at the time so you would know better than I.
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It depends on how you consider the making of amendment. In most cases
(including the one under discussion) amendment-making is an action.
If *when the action is taken* the player has not had an opportunity to
review, the action fails in some way, because one member is not bound
by the action. If the action is repeated after review happens, then
fine, the excuse goes away. But after-the-action review does not
retroactively mean the original change-action worked, this is against
precedent, Agoran custom, and effectively R101.
Perhaps, but the right is to not be considered bound by an
amendment. As has been noted, the meaning of this is unclear in the
context of the present contract system. The condition would be
satisfied if such mousetrap amendments were entirely ineffective, but
also if the amendments were effective, but any obligations imposed by
them simply had no effect on anyone who did not previously have a
reasonable opportunity to review them. In this case Rule 101 would
take precedence over Rule 1742's Parties to a contract SHALL act in
accordance...
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2245 assigned to Taral
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Suggestion: Estimate the average PBA exchange rate for VP during the relevant time period. Say it's 8 (the current rate), then BobTHJ spent ^80 worth of VP to gain ^100, so require BobTHJ to give back about half the difference (i.e. ^5 to each of ehird and Wooble) and keep the rest. I think this inappropriate. A reversal as per the judgement is quite effective, unless the parties can show that some significant re-valuation has occurred in the relevant assets. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2245 assigned to Taral
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, comex wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 8:58 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In order to escape the mousetrap, BobTHJ suffered material costs. ... ehird and Wooble SHALL jointly ensure that 10VP are transferred to BobTHJ as soon as possible. This is why I hate equity. Having been thwarted in their attempts at mousetrapping BobTHJ, ehird and wooble are now forced to pay em damages!? Why is this a problem with equity per se? If the punishment doesn't fit the act, that's appeals business. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, not at all, I'm not sure where you claim to be talking from
authority about the original intent of this. (iii) was for Mousetraps.
The original intent of (iv) was to protect against secret amendments
and to ensure that the Proposal System remained the Proposal system,
when the Rules were intended to be treated as an agreement.
{
None of the rights in R101 were added when this version of R101 was written,
they were just pulled together from different parts of the Rules and
called rights. iv was a direct result of Mousetrap (biggest scam EVAR!!)
and has come up many times prior to the rights form (e.g. CFJs 1289-1290).
}
-you,
http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg11255.html
Good catch, I misspoke in the message you quoted and was blending (iii) and
(iv) without distinction. From memory, the right to review changes
was one I added in thinking of Rules as agreement and not part of the SLC
right to not join -- a quick glance back doesn't find right to review
anywhere prior to Rights though maybe I'm wrong.
By the way, equity used to be very very simple extension of agreements
back when we had Orders, needing only one paragraph for (inquiry) cases:
If the judge of such a CFJ finds that the
agreement was entered into with the intention that the agreement
be binding under the rules, and that the agreement has in fact
been broken, then e may order the breaching party to perform
according to the agreement, or perform substitute acts that
would fairly serve the interests of the agreement; e may further
order the other parties of the agreement to perform such acts as
may be necessary to preserve fairness and justice.
-Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, comex wrote: It would make sense if a no-secret-contracts clause was created at least in part based on a scam that apparently inflamed so many people precisely because it involved secret contracts; however, I was not a player at the time so you would know better than I. At a quick glance at SLC rules I didn't see anything about reviewing: A SLC is permitted to define its own mechanisms for changing its own content, and any change to a SLC adopted in accordance with its own mechanisms is legal. so it looks like I did in fact add it. Perhaps, but the right is to not be considered bound by an amendment. As has been noted, the meaning of this is unclear in the context of the present contract system. Yah, I fully agree that it's very unclear what not considered bound means in practice. Looks like it's time for (iii-iv) to get longer and more details the way (i..ii) have. It's pretty easy to write in non-rights terminology any change made without giving parties the reasonable opportunity to review is ineffective but more convoluted in rights- terminology. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2245 assigned to Taral
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This approach (both leave the ^80-worth-of-stuff on each side alone and split the difference on the rest) is based on the general philosophy (perhaps this should be legislated as a SHOULD) that equity should generally let scammers keep some of their scammed gains, based on how clever the scam was. Unfortunately nothing in the general principles of equity nor in the rules permits me to engage in such principles. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: Prep for Werewolves session #2
On Wednesday 12 November 2008 01:03:30 am Ed Murphy wrote: i) (in Agora) floor(P/N) points to each winner of the session, where P is the maximum number of points that a contest CAN award per week, and N is the number of winners of the session. This is probably a bug; it should say that this contest CAN award. As it stands, I think P is 5 times the number of all first-class players. Pavitra
