Re: DIS: Logo?

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> When any Player requires an image that e may use to represent Agora or
> the interests thereof, e must use an image which accurately depicts the
> blazon presented here.

Note the context of "representing Agora" was that we had an active foreign
policy at the time that recognized diplomatic relations with other nomics.

Re: DIS: Logo?

[Kerim Aydin]

I don't recall who drew that particular image.  But the heraldic description was
mandated by a proposal by GreyKnight adopted in 2007 (it was later made into
a rule):

Proposal 4898 by Greyknight, AI=1, Ordinary
Agoran Arms

The coat of arms of Agora is defined by the following blazon:

  Tierced palewise sable, argent, and sable, charged with a quill and an
axe in saltire, proper, and in the chief a capital letter A, gules.

When any Player requires an image that e may use to represent Agora or
the interests thereof, e must use an image which accurately depicts the
blazon presented here.

On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote:

> I know that the coat of arms was once defined by the rules. That might help
> finding out more about it.
> 
> --
> Trigon
> 
> On Nov 23, 2017 9:56 PM, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:
> 
> > who was the original maker of it anyway lol
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 4:52 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >
> > > Does anyone know the licensing and copyright situation around the Agora
> > > logo at ?
> > >
> > > -o
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Logo?

[Reuben Staley]

I know that the coat of arms was once defined by the rules. That might help
finding out more about it.

--
Trigon

On Nov 23, 2017 9:56 PM, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:

> who was the original maker of it anyway lol
>
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 4:52 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know the licensing and copyright situation around the Agora
> > logo at ?
> >
> > -o
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Logo?

[VJ Rada]

is anyone actually stealing our logos/rules to make money?

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> The ruleset is a collective work of the players. I suspect we all share
> copyright, although that should probably be made explicit.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:31 PM Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know it for the ruleset?
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 22:53 Owen Jacobson,  wrote:
>>
>> > Does anyone know the licensing and copyright situation around the Agora
>> > logo at ?
>> >
>> > -o
>> >
>> >
>>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Logo?

[Cuddle Beam]

who was the original maker of it anyway lol

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 4:52 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> Does anyone know the licensing and copyright situation around the Agora
> logo at ?
>
> -o
>
>

Re: DIS: Logo?

[Aris Merchant]

The ruleset is a collective work of the players. I suspect we all share
copyright, although that should probably be made explicit.

-Aris

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:31 PM Alexis Hunt  wrote:

> Does anyone know it for the ruleset?
>
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 22:53 Owen Jacobson,  wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know the licensing and copyright situation around the Agora
> > logo at ?
> >
> > -o
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Logo?

[Alexis Hunt]

Does anyone know it for the ruleset?

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 22:53 Owen Jacobson,  wrote:

> Does anyone know the licensing and copyright situation around the Agora
> logo at ?
>
> -o
>
>

DIS: Logo?

[Owen Jacobson]

Does anyone know the licensing and copyright situation around the Agora logo at 
?

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: [Proto Contract] MiniNomic

[Madeline]

There's no clear requirement that votes cast have to be valid.


On 2017-11-24 13:15, ATMunn wrote:

I wasn't originally going to make this a proto, so that's why this
contains actions and not just the contract itself. I just want to make
sure that this isn't totally broken before I create it. I'm also aware
that some people might not be up for this sort of thing right now (we
sort of have enough trouble going on in the real nomic right now, we
don't need another one!), but I think it's a fun idea, and I want to
see what people think. If enough people say they don't want it, I won't
make the contract (but I'll still keep it saved in case I want to bring
it up again later).

[by the way, this took way longer than I expected; I was originally
just going to have it say "Any party to this contract CAN amend it with
2 Agoran Consent from part members" or something like that, but then I
decided to make it defined in a bit more detail, and it just kept going
from there.]

I cause the ACU to pay me 1 shiny by destroying 10 of my bills. I create
the following contract, entitled "MiniNomic", paying 1 shiny to Agora to
do so:


---IMMUTABLE SECTION
Text in the section of this contract below the dividing line labeled
"IMMUTABLE SECTION" is considered immutable. Text below the dividing
line labeled "MUTABLE SECTION" is considered mutable.

Any player CAN become a party (or cease to be a party) to this contract
by announcement.

Amendment Proposals are a type of fixed asset, which can only be owned
by this contract. This contract is willing to receive Amendment
Proposals.

Any party to this contract CAN cause an Amendment Proposal to be created
in this contract's possession, by announcement, specifying the amendment
e wishes to make. This is known as Proposing an Amendment.

Immutable text CANNOT be amended. Instead, in order for a block of
immutable text to be amended, it must first be moved to the mutable
section. This is known as transmutation. Transmutation can also consist
of moving a block of mutable text to the immutable section.

A valid amendment is transmutation of a block of immutable text to
mutable text or vice versa, or deletion, changing, or adding of mutable
text. An invalid amendment CANNOT be made.

After a valid amendment is proposed, a voting period for that amendment
begins. All parties to this contract (including the party who proposed
the amendment) are considered Voters. Any Voter CAN cast a vote on an a
mendment by announcement. Valid votes are YAY and NAY. All Voters SHALL
cast a vote on amendments in a timely fashion after they are proposed.

After 7 days have passed from the proposing of an amendment, no more
votes can be cast, and any party CAN resolve the vote by announcement.
When the vote is resolved for an Amendment Proposal, the Amendment
Proposal is destroyed, and if more than half of the votes (rounded up)
were YAY, then the Proposal passes and the amendment is made. Otherwise,
the Proposal fails, and nothing happens.
MUTABLE SECTION-

DIS: [Proto Contract] MiniNomic

[ATMunn]

I wasn't originally going to make this a proto, so that's why this
contains actions and not just the contract itself. I just want to make
sure that this isn't totally broken before I create it. I'm also aware
that some people might not be up for this sort of thing right now (we
sort of have enough trouble going on in the real nomic right now, we
don't need another one!), but I think it's a fun idea, and I want to
see what people think. If enough people say they don't want it, I won't
make the contract (but I'll still keep it saved in case I want to bring
it up again later).

[by the way, this took way longer than I expected; I was originally
just going to have it say "Any party to this contract CAN amend it with
2 Agoran Consent from part members" or something like that, but then I
decided to make it defined in a bit more detail, and it just kept going
from there.]

I cause the ACU to pay me 1 shiny by destroying 10 of my bills. I create
the following contract, entitled "MiniNomic", paying 1 shiny to Agora to
do so:


---IMMUTABLE SECTION
Text in the section of this contract below the dividing line labeled
"IMMUTABLE SECTION" is considered immutable. Text below the dividing
line labeled "MUTABLE SECTION" is considered mutable.

Any player CAN become a party (or cease to be a party) to this contract
by announcement.

Amendment Proposals are a type of fixed asset, which can only be owned
by this contract. This contract is willing to receive Amendment
Proposals.

Any party to this contract CAN cause an Amendment Proposal to be created
in this contract's possession, by announcement, specifying the amendment
e wishes to make. This is known as Proposing an Amendment.

Immutable text CANNOT be amended. Instead, in order for a block of
immutable text to be amended, it must first be moved to the mutable
section. This is known as transmutation. Transmutation can also consist
of moving a block of mutable text to the immutable section.

A valid amendment is transmutation of a block of immutable text to
mutable text or vice versa, or deletion, changing, or adding of mutable
text. An invalid amendment CANNOT be made.

After a valid amendment is proposed, a voting period for that amendment
begins. All parties to this contract (including the party who proposed
the amendment) are considered Voters. Any Voter CAN cast a vote on an a
mendment by announcement. Valid votes are YAY and NAY. All Voters SHALL
cast a vote on amendments in a timely fashion after they are proposed.

After 7 days have passed from the proposing of an amendment, no more
votes can be cast, and any party CAN resolve the vote by announcement.
When the vote is resolved for an Amendment Proposal, the Amendment
Proposal is destroyed, and if more than half of the votes (rounded up)
were YAY, then the Proposal passes and the amendment is made. Otherwise,
the Proposal fails, and nothing happens.
MUTABLE SECTION-

Re: DIS: PAoaM v3: Not rushed this time and also better in general

[Alexis Hunt]

Fair enough.

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 16:36 Kerim Aydin,  wrote:

>
>
> I wasn't being sarcastic - I quite enjoyed yesterday's brouhaha and
> it convinced me parties could be fun.  But that's probably because
> you were first to market.  Everyone has their own separate ideas
> how the underlying stuff (eg spending or justice or contracts) should
> work and *all* of them are in construction or repair right now- that's
> hard to build systems with, so I'll just enjoy what comes along with
> parties and stop trying to run along behind with the repair truck.
>
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> >
> > I'm kind of surprised parties passed, to be honest.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 14:04 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, <
> > p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I see this concern and this is why I am waiting on my courts overhaul.
> I
> > > wish that fewer people were perpetrating their major plans, when the
> > > underlying structure is like an airplane made out of cardboard and duct
> > > tape trying to fly from San Fransisco to Tokyo.
> > > 
> > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Nov 23, 2017, at 1:13 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > >> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Aris Merchant
> > > >>  wrote:
> > > >>> Have you considered the advantages and disadvantages of having
> > > >>> combined vs. separate proposal and CFJ currencies? Many systems
> I've
> > > >>> seen separate the two. In fact The Economic System from a few years
> > > >>> back (see G.'s thesis) had three usable currencies: one for
> proposals,
> > > >>> one for increasing votes, and one for removing blots (I'd like a
> slot
> > > >>> somewhere to stick a currency for that). You may want to get
> something
> > > >>> like that going in your proposal, because it encourages
> > > >>> specialization. One of the problems in the draft is that only two
> of
> > > >>> the currencies have uses in the main game: coins and paper. That's
> > > >>> good, but it means that people are going to be focused mainly on
> those
> > > >>> resources. If you add 1 for CFJs (or reuse an existing one) and we
> add
> > > >>> one for blots, as soon as that's ready, then there will be four
> > > >>> mini-game currencies with game purposes, three specialized and one
> > > >>> general. The monthly allowance would probably give out 1 (2 max) of
> > > >>> each.
> > > >>
> > > >> Actually, I take back what I said here. I would appreciate if the
> > > >> currencies stayed merged for now. I'm working on a secret project
> with
> > > >> relates to this. Trigon, I can tell you about it privately if you
> > > >> like, given that there's a significant amount of overlap.
> > > >
> > > > I've given up trying to fix or work on everything because everyone
> has
> > > > some huge project and it feels like nobody's listening to anyone
> else.
> > > > After politicians, I'm just going to sit back and vote for every
> huge new
> > > > clashes-with-everything-else idea and enjoy the chaos.
> > > >
> > > > I mean, yesterday I gave up something as simple as defining the word
> > > > "spend" because it has to support meaning like 4 different things
> > > > depending on context.  Better to just leave it undefined and have
> > > > everyone choose on their own what they want it to mean.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: PAoaM v3: Not rushed this time and also better in general

[Kerim Aydin]

I wasn't being sarcastic - I quite enjoyed yesterday's brouhaha and
it convinced me parties could be fun.  But that's probably because 
you were first to market.  Everyone has their own separate ideas
how the underlying stuff (eg spending or justice or contracts) should 
work and *all* of them are in construction or repair right now- that's 
hard to build systems with, so I'll just enjoy what comes along with
parties and stop trying to run along behind with the repair truck.

On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>
> I'm kind of surprised parties passed, to be honest.
> 
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 14:04 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I see this concern and this is why I am waiting on my courts overhaul. I
> > wish that fewer people were perpetrating their major plans, when the
> > underlying structure is like an airplane made out of cardboard and duct
> > tape trying to fly from San Fransisco to Tokyo.
> > 
> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Nov 23, 2017, at 1:13 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Aris Merchant
> > >>  wrote:
> > >>> Have you considered the advantages and disadvantages of having
> > >>> combined vs. separate proposal and CFJ currencies? Many systems I've
> > >>> seen separate the two. In fact The Economic System from a few years
> > >>> back (see G.'s thesis) had three usable currencies: one for proposals,
> > >>> one for increasing votes, and one for removing blots (I'd like a slot
> > >>> somewhere to stick a currency for that). You may want to get something
> > >>> like that going in your proposal, because it encourages
> > >>> specialization. One of the problems in the draft is that only two of
> > >>> the currencies have uses in the main game: coins and paper. That's
> > >>> good, but it means that people are going to be focused mainly on those
> > >>> resources. If you add 1 for CFJs (or reuse an existing one) and we add
> > >>> one for blots, as soon as that's ready, then there will be four
> > >>> mini-game currencies with game purposes, three specialized and one
> > >>> general. The monthly allowance would probably give out 1 (2 max) of
> > >>> each.
> > >>
> > >> Actually, I take back what I said here. I would appreciate if the
> > >> currencies stayed merged for now. I'm working on a secret project with
> > >> relates to this. Trigon, I can tell you about it privately if you
> > >> like, given that there's a significant amount of overlap.
> > >
> > > I've given up trying to fix or work on everything because everyone has
> > > some huge project and it feels like nobody's listening to anyone else.
> > > After politicians, I'm just going to sit back and vote for every huge new
> > > clashes-with-everything-else idea and enjoy the chaos.
> > >
> > > I mean, yesterday I gave up something as simple as defining the word
> > > "spend" because it has to support meaning like 4 different things
> > > depending on context.  Better to just leave it undefined and have
> > > everyone choose on their own what they want it to mean.
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: PAoaM v3: Not rushed this time and also better in general

[Alexis Hunt]

I'm kind of surprised parties passed, to be honest.

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 14:04 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I see this concern and this is why I am waiting on my courts overhaul. I
> wish that fewer people were perpetrating their major plans, when the
> underlying structure is like an airplane made out of cardboard and duct
> tape trying to fly from San Fransisco to Tokyo.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 2017, at 1:13 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Aris Merchant
> >>  wrote:
> >>> Have you considered the advantages and disadvantages of having
> >>> combined vs. separate proposal and CFJ currencies? Many systems I've
> >>> seen separate the two. In fact The Economic System from a few years
> >>> back (see G.'s thesis) had three usable currencies: one for proposals,
> >>> one for increasing votes, and one for removing blots (I'd like a slot
> >>> somewhere to stick a currency for that). You may want to get something
> >>> like that going in your proposal, because it encourages
> >>> specialization. One of the problems in the draft is that only two of
> >>> the currencies have uses in the main game: coins and paper. That's
> >>> good, but it means that people are going to be focused mainly on those
> >>> resources. If you add 1 for CFJs (or reuse an existing one) and we add
> >>> one for blots, as soon as that's ready, then there will be four
> >>> mini-game currencies with game purposes, three specialized and one
> >>> general. The monthly allowance would probably give out 1 (2 max) of
> >>> each.
> >>
> >> Actually, I take back what I said here. I would appreciate if the
> >> currencies stayed merged for now. I'm working on a secret project with
> >> relates to this. Trigon, I can tell you about it privately if you
> >> like, given that there's a significant amount of overlap.
> >
> > I've given up trying to fix or work on everything because everyone has
> > some huge project and it feels like nobody's listening to anyone else.
> > After politicians, I'm just going to sit back and vote for every huge new
> > clashes-with-everything-else idea and enjoy the chaos.
> >
> > I mean, yesterday I gave up something as simple as defining the word
> > "spend" because it has to support meaning like 4 different things
> > depending on context.  Better to just leave it undefined and have
> > everyone choose on their own what they want it to mean.
>
>

Re: DIS: PAoaM v3: Not rushed this time and also better in general

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I see this concern and this is why I am waiting on my courts overhaul. I wish 
that fewer people were perpetrating their major plans, when the underlying 
structure is like an airplane made out of cardboard and duct tape trying to fly 
from San Fransisco to Tokyo.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Nov 23, 2017, at 1:13 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Aris Merchant
>>  wrote:
>>> Have you considered the advantages and disadvantages of having
>>> combined vs. separate proposal and CFJ currencies? Many systems I've
>>> seen separate the two. In fact The Economic System from a few years
>>> back (see G.'s thesis) had three usable currencies: one for proposals,
>>> one for increasing votes, and one for removing blots (I'd like a slot
>>> somewhere to stick a currency for that). You may want to get something
>>> like that going in your proposal, because it encourages
>>> specialization. One of the problems in the draft is that only two of
>>> the currencies have uses in the main game: coins and paper. That's
>>> good, but it means that people are going to be focused mainly on those
>>> resources. If you add 1 for CFJs (or reuse an existing one) and we add
>>> one for blots, as soon as that's ready, then there will be four
>>> mini-game currencies with game purposes, three specialized and one
>>> general. The monthly allowance would probably give out 1 (2 max) of
>>> each.
>> 
>> Actually, I take back what I said here. I would appreciate if the
>> currencies stayed merged for now. I'm working on a secret project with
>> relates to this. Trigon, I can tell you about it privately if you
>> like, given that there's a significant amount of overlap.
> 
> I've given up trying to fix or work on everything because everyone has
> some huge project and it feels like nobody's listening to anyone else.
> After politicians, I'm just going to sit back and vote for every huge new
> clashes-with-everything-else idea and enjoy the chaos.
> 
> I mean, yesterday I gave up something as simple as defining the word
> "spend" because it has to support meaning like 4 different things
> depending on context.  Better to just leave it undefined and have
> everyone choose on their own what they want it to mean.



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: PAoaM v3: Not rushed this time and also better in general

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> >  Have you considered the advantages and disadvantages of having
> > combined vs. separate proposal and CFJ currencies? Many systems I've
> > seen separate the two. In fact The Economic System from a few years
> > back (see G.'s thesis) had three usable currencies: one for proposals,
> > one for increasing votes, and one for removing blots (I'd like a slot
> > somewhere to stick a currency for that). You may want to get something
> > like that going in your proposal, because it encourages
> > specialization. One of the problems in the draft is that only two of
> > the currencies have uses in the main game: coins and paper. That's
> > good, but it means that people are going to be focused mainly on those
> > resources. If you add 1 for CFJs (or reuse an existing one) and we add
> > one for blots, as soon as that's ready, then there will be four
> > mini-game currencies with game purposes, three specialized and one
> > general. The monthly allowance would probably give out 1 (2 max) of
> > each.
> 
> Actually, I take back what I said here. I would appreciate if the
> currencies stayed merged for now. I'm working on a secret project with
> relates to this. Trigon, I can tell you about it privately if you
> like, given that there's a significant amount of overlap.

I've given up trying to fix or work on everything because everyone has
some huge project and it feels like nobody's listening to anyone else.
After politicians, I'm just going to sit back and vote for every huge new
clashes-with-everything-else idea and enjoy the chaos.

I mean, yesterday I gave up something as simple as defining the word 
"spend" because it has to support meaning like 4 different things 
depending on context.  Better to just leave it undefined and have
everyone choose on their own what they want it to mean.

Re: DIS: PAoaM v3: Not rushed this time and also better in general

[Aris Merchant]

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
>  Have you considered the advantages and disadvantages of having
> combined vs. separate proposal and CFJ currencies? Many systems I've
> seen separate the two. In fact The Economic System from a few years
> back (see G.'s thesis) had three usable currencies: one for proposals,
> one for increasing votes, and one for removing blots (I'd like a slot
> somewhere to stick a currency for that). You may want to get something
> like that going in your proposal, because it encourages
> specialization. One of the problems in the draft is that only two of
> the currencies have uses in the main game: coins and paper. That's
> good, but it means that people are going to be focused mainly on those
> resources. If you add 1 for CFJs (or reuse an existing one) and we add
> one for blots, as soon as that's ready, then there will be four
> mini-game currencies with game purposes, three specialized and one
> general. The monthly allowance would probably give out 1 (2 max) of
> each.

Actually, I take back what I said here. I would appreciate if the
currencies stayed merged for now. I'm working on a secret project with
relates to this. Trigon, I can tell you about it privately if you
like, given that there's a significant amount of overlap.

-Aris