DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Medals of Honour fix

[Aris Merchant]

Want to pend this?

-Aris

On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 6:38 AM, ATMunn  wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Name: Medals of Honour Correction Act
> AI: 1
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-author(s): none
>
>
> In rule 2529 "Medals of Honour", amend the first paragraph after the bullet
> list to read as follows:
> {
> Beginning in the second Eastman week of an Agoran month and ending when the
> next Agoran month begins, if there are any players who are eligible for a
> Medal of Honour, the Herald CAN, by announcement, initiate an Agoran
> Decision on who is to be awarded a Medal of Honour. E SHALL do so within the
> second Eastman week of that Agoran month. For this decision, the valid
> options are all players who are eligible for a Medal of Honour, the vote
> collector is the Herald, and the voting method is instant-runoff. Upon the
> resolution of this decision, the Herald CAN, and SHALL in a timely fashion,
> award the outcome of the decision a Medal of Honour by announcement. After a
> player is awarded a Medal of Honour, all players who were previously
> eligible for a Medal of Honour become no longer eligible.
> }
>
> [Changes: Allowed the election to be started late if needed, and changed
> "valid votes" to "valid options" so the election isn't trying to override
> the valid votes.]

DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:


I object both for myself and PSS.


to which intent? :P

Greetings,
Ørjan.


On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:

Well, I object. There is no reason we should allow you to reclaim your
assets from a badly designed scam contract. I intend, with 2 Agoran
consent, to destroy the contract "Hi".

-Aris

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:13 PM Ned Strange 
wrote:


I object and intend to amend "Hi!" without objection to have the new
text "VJ Rada can transfer all assets in this contract to emself by
announcement".

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Ned Strange 
wrote:

I intend to amend the contract called "Hi", without objection. The new
text of that contract would state "VJ Rada can remove all assets from
this contract by announcement".

--
From V.J. Rada




--
From V.J. Rada





--

From V.J. Rada

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

[Reuben Staley]

Currently, fabric is only used in some upper-level rank-up payments. I 
think it is the least useful of the nine economic assets right now. If 
someone wanted to help with that, I would appreciate it lots.


On 4/11/2018 9:33 PM, Ned Strange wrote:

I do have a question. What does fabric do?

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Reuben Staley  wrote:

After thinking this whole thing through, I'm not sure that it's actually a
problem if people with zombies have tons of money. It's completely possible
to amass a fortune by living off of public land, so little guys can still
get money that they can spend on zombies and/or land eventually. The monthly
salary ensures that less affluent players have a constant source of income
that they can use to survive.

Included in the salary is 10 coins, 5 apples, and 2 papers. I will now
explain how this allows one to sustainably live.

Having some coins ensures that a player can, with enough time, gain wealth
by using careful spending. If you don't purchase anything for two months and
are just living off of the base salary, you have 20 coins. That's more than
enough to buy land unit, as demonstrated by the previous land unit auction,
where the highest selling unit was worth 16 coins. And as long as you take
some public action during that time, you are safe from the legal theft of
zombiehood. Additionally, with time, some land units will become more
valuable to control, leaving others neglected. Going for neglected land
units will make it so that you won't have to pay nearly as much to get
yourself started.

Having some apples ensures that you can move around the map. Assuming you
stay around the origin, you can do a few rounds of nabbing stuffs to get
even more resources. Inconveniently, more coins are out of your reach, but
that's intentional since I wanted you to have to work for a little while
before you can basically print money. But, as demonstrated in the past few
weeks, you can get more apples and more corn from the preserved farm and
orchard, making it completely possible to stay living in the center of the
map for a while.

Proposals are the most powerful thing in the game, and under the current
rules, you're guaranteed to be able to submit some every month because you
get two papers every month. Perhaps there can be a coin reward for a
proposal passing. I think we had that under the proportional economy rules.
If we institute this change, then it provides incentive to create good
proposals. I think it would give these less affluent players more
opportunity as well, which is a good thing.

But that's not even all of it. As we all know, officers are given 5 coins
and 1 corn at the beginning of the month for faithful service. Less affluent
players can get a low-effort office that no one is currently occupying,
which allows them to receive extra income. But, as I've made clear before,
I'm dissatisfied with the way officers are paid, since some offices clearly
require more recordkeeping than others. See this message[1] for my
previously published ideas on how to fix it.

In conclusion, I think it's clear now that less affluent people actually
have way more opportunities than lots of people here estimate. Even still, I
think some reforms are in order to improve the state of the economy, namely
the officer fix and reinstitution of proposal rewards.

It is because of all this that I don't think redistribution to poor players
is the reform we need.

[1]
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg42699.html


On 4/11/2018 5:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:




On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:


I think Corona was talking about the thing where Agora would get all the
money that people spent and distribute it tbuno the poorest players. That
was
under the proportional economy where only 1000 shinies could exist.

I think if we were to reimplement that system, it would be too easy to
scam, with zombies and contracts and whatnot, so I'm not sold just yet.
If
another proposal comes forth proposing a different way of filtering
assets
back into the economy, I might be willing to support it.



The issue I had with that system is you couldn't distinguish "poor because
I don't have an income source/others are always ahead" from "poor because
I
had a bunch of money and just now spent it."  If you award the latter it
leads to weird incentive systems to either hold everything or spend
everything but not to stay in between.

In "game-balancing" here, there's two separate issues to think about:

1.  Can someone get enough possessions to participate on a basic level on
a
regular basis?  (e.g. by pending proposals, walking around the map, and
other fixed-cost things to buy).  For this, monthly salary takes care of
it
(more or less), secondarily land production.  This was what redistribution
was supposed to accomplish when salaries and land production didn't exist,
but now that we have salaries that's fine (if it's not enough, just
increase

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

[Ned Strange]

I do have a question. What does fabric do?

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Reuben Staley  wrote:
> After thinking this whole thing through, I'm not sure that it's actually a
> problem if people with zombies have tons of money. It's completely possible
> to amass a fortune by living off of public land, so little guys can still
> get money that they can spend on zombies and/or land eventually. The monthly
> salary ensures that less affluent players have a constant source of income
> that they can use to survive.
>
> Included in the salary is 10 coins, 5 apples, and 2 papers. I will now
> explain how this allows one to sustainably live.
>
> Having some coins ensures that a player can, with enough time, gain wealth
> by using careful spending. If you don't purchase anything for two months and
> are just living off of the base salary, you have 20 coins. That's more than
> enough to buy land unit, as demonstrated by the previous land unit auction,
> where the highest selling unit was worth 16 coins. And as long as you take
> some public action during that time, you are safe from the legal theft of
> zombiehood. Additionally, with time, some land units will become more
> valuable to control, leaving others neglected. Going for neglected land
> units will make it so that you won't have to pay nearly as much to get
> yourself started.
>
> Having some apples ensures that you can move around the map. Assuming you
> stay around the origin, you can do a few rounds of nabbing stuffs to get
> even more resources. Inconveniently, more coins are out of your reach, but
> that's intentional since I wanted you to have to work for a little while
> before you can basically print money. But, as demonstrated in the past few
> weeks, you can get more apples and more corn from the preserved farm and
> orchard, making it completely possible to stay living in the center of the
> map for a while.
>
> Proposals are the most powerful thing in the game, and under the current
> rules, you're guaranteed to be able to submit some every month because you
> get two papers every month. Perhaps there can be a coin reward for a
> proposal passing. I think we had that under the proportional economy rules.
> If we institute this change, then it provides incentive to create good
> proposals. I think it would give these less affluent players more
> opportunity as well, which is a good thing.
>
> But that's not even all of it. As we all know, officers are given 5 coins
> and 1 corn at the beginning of the month for faithful service. Less affluent
> players can get a low-effort office that no one is currently occupying,
> which allows them to receive extra income. But, as I've made clear before,
> I'm dissatisfied with the way officers are paid, since some offices clearly
> require more recordkeeping than others. See this message[1] for my
> previously published ideas on how to fix it.
>
> In conclusion, I think it's clear now that less affluent people actually
> have way more opportunities than lots of people here estimate. Even still, I
> think some reforms are in order to improve the state of the economy, namely
> the officer fix and reinstitution of proposal rewards.
>
> It is because of all this that I don't think redistribution to poor players
> is the reform we need.
>
> [1]
> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg42699.html
>
>
> On 4/11/2018 5:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
>>>
>>> I think Corona was talking about the thing where Agora would get all the
>>> money that people spent and distribute it tbuno the poorest players. That
>>> was
>>> under the proportional economy where only 1000 shinies could exist.
>>>
>>> I think if we were to reimplement that system, it would be too easy to
>>> scam, with zombies and contracts and whatnot, so I'm not sold just yet.
>>> If
>>> another proposal comes forth proposing a different way of filtering
>>> assets
>>> back into the economy, I might be willing to support it.
>>
>>
>> The issue I had with that system is you couldn't distinguish "poor because
>> I don't have an income source/others are always ahead" from "poor because
>> I
>> had a bunch of money and just now spent it."  If you award the latter it
>> leads to weird incentive systems to either hold everything or spend
>> everything but not to stay in between.
>>
>> In "game-balancing" here, there's two separate issues to think about:
>>
>> 1.  Can someone get enough possessions to participate on a basic level on
>> a
>> regular basis?  (e.g. by pending proposals, walking around the map, and
>> other fixed-cost things to buy).  For this, monthly salary takes care of
>> it
>> (more or less), secondarily land production.  This was what redistribution
>> was supposed to accomplish when salaries and land production didn't exist,
>> but now that we have salaries that's fine (if it's not enough, just
>> increase
>> salary rather than adding a separate 

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

[Reuben Staley]

After thinking this whole thing through, I'm not sure that it's actually 
a problem if people with zombies have tons of money. It's completely 
possible to amass a fortune by living off of public land, so little guys 
can still get money that they can spend on zombies and/or land 
eventually. The monthly salary ensures that less affluent players have a 
constant source of income that they can use to survive.


Included in the salary is 10 coins, 5 apples, and 2 papers. I will now 
explain how this allows one to sustainably live.


Having some coins ensures that a player can, with enough time, gain 
wealth by using careful spending. If you don't purchase anything for two 
months and are just living off of the base salary, you have 20 coins. 
That's more than enough to buy land unit, as demonstrated by the 
previous land unit auction, where the highest selling unit was worth 16 
coins. And as long as you take some public action during that time, you 
are safe from the legal theft of zombiehood. Additionally, with time, 
some land units will become more valuable to control, leaving others 
neglected. Going for neglected land units will make it so that you won't 
have to pay nearly as much to get yourself started.


Having some apples ensures that you can move around the map. Assuming 
you stay around the origin, you can do a few rounds of nabbing stuffs to 
get even more resources. Inconveniently, more coins are out of your 
reach, but that's intentional since I wanted you to have to work for a 
little while before you can basically print money. But, as demonstrated 
in the past few weeks, you can get more apples and more corn from the 
preserved farm and orchard, making it completely possible to stay living 
in the center of the map for a while.


Proposals are the most powerful thing in the game, and under the current 
rules, you're guaranteed to be able to submit some every month because 
you get two papers every month. Perhaps there can be a coin reward for a 
proposal passing. I think we had that under the proportional economy 
rules. If we institute this change, then it provides incentive to create 
good proposals. I think it would give these less affluent players more 
opportunity as well, which is a good thing.


But that's not even all of it. As we all know, officers are given 5 
coins and 1 corn at the beginning of the month for faithful service. 
Less affluent players can get a low-effort office that no one is 
currently occupying, which allows them to receive extra income. But, as 
I've made clear before, I'm dissatisfied with the way officers are paid, 
since some offices clearly require more recordkeeping than others. See 
this message[1] for my previously published ideas on how to fix it.


In conclusion, I think it's clear now that less affluent people actually 
have way more opportunities than lots of people here estimate. Even 
still, I think some reforms are in order to improve the state of the 
economy, namely the officer fix and reinstitution of proposal rewards.


It is because of all this that I don't think redistribution to poor 
players is the reform we need.


[1] 
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg42699.html


On 4/11/2018 5:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:



On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:

I think Corona was talking about the thing where Agora would get all the
money that people spent and distribute it tbuno the poorest players. That was
under the proportional economy where only 1000 shinies could exist.

I think if we were to reimplement that system, it would be too easy to
scam, with zombies and contracts and whatnot, so I'm not sold just yet. If
another proposal comes forth proposing a different way of filtering assets
back into the economy, I might be willing to support it.


The issue I had with that system is you couldn't distinguish "poor because
I don't have an income source/others are always ahead" from "poor because I
had a bunch of money and just now spent it."  If you award the latter it
leads to weird incentive systems to either hold everything or spend
everything but not to stay in between.

In "game-balancing" here, there's two separate issues to think about:

1.  Can someone get enough possessions to participate on a basic level on a
regular basis?  (e.g. by pending proposals, walking around the map, and
other fixed-cost things to buy).  For this, monthly salary takes care of it
(more or less), secondarily land production.  This was what redistribution
was supposed to accomplish when salaries and land production didn't exist,
but now that we have salaries that's fine (if it's not enough, just increase
salary rather than adding a separate mechanism).

2.  Is someone so far behind they can never be competitive in auctions?
This is the bigger issue, if zombie-owners always earn at 2x the rate they
will always outbid and raise prices.  This is multiplicative - the more
auctions they win, the more they get and so on so early leads 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Creation

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Kenyon Prater wrote:


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)


The "reasonably" in rule 2518 might be interpreted to imply that this is 
already indeterminate.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

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

[Ned Strange]

We could change the Boo Lien switches to some serious requirement
instead of just "something scary" so that zombies actually are costly
to hold on to.


On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 9:58 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
>> I think Corona was talking about the thing where Agora would get all the
>> money that people spent and distribute it tbuno the poorest players. That was
>> under the proportional economy where only 1000 shinies could exist.
>>
>> I think if we were to reimplement that system, it would be too easy to
>> scam, with zombies and contracts and whatnot, so I'm not sold just yet. If
>> another proposal comes forth proposing a different way of filtering assets
>> back into the economy, I might be willing to support it.
>
> The issue I had with that system is you couldn't distinguish "poor because
> I don't have an income source/others are always ahead" from "poor because I
> had a bunch of money and just now spent it."  If you award the latter it
> leads to weird incentive systems to either hold everything or spend
> everything but not to stay in between.
>
> In "game-balancing" here, there's two separate issues to think about:
>
> 1.  Can someone get enough possessions to participate on a basic level on a
> regular basis?  (e.g. by pending proposals, walking around the map, and
> other fixed-cost things to buy).  For this, monthly salary takes care of it
> (more or less), secondarily land production.  This was what redistribution
> was supposed to accomplish when salaries and land production didn't exist,
> but now that we have salaries that's fine (if it's not enough, just increase
> salary rather than adding a separate mechanism).
>
> 2.  Is someone so far behind they can never be competitive in auctions?
> This is the bigger issue, if zombie-owners always earn at 2x the rate they
> will always outbid and raise prices.  This is multiplicative - the more
> auctions they win, the more they get and so on so early leads build into big
> ones.  Redistribution won't help that unless you redistribute so much that
> it wipes out all leads (if it does that, why would anyone bother to play the
> subgame?)
>
> There are ways to address both, but I don't think redistributing to poorest
> players addresses either?
>
>
>
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:04 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > That's what monthly salary is right?
>> >
>> > Problem of course is that applies to zombies too - excluding zombies from
>> > salary would balance though of course would devalue zombies.
>> >
>> > I was really surprised that the zombie auction prices were so low.  In the
>> > current system, the ability to occupy multiple land units/move in multiple
>> > directions and place multiple bids in auctions is huge (that wasn't planned
>> > on my part when I made zombies - I was pretty much thinking of them as a
>> > way to get an extra vote or two).
>> >
>> > On the flip side, zombies are a precarious investment because you can lose
>> > them at any time.
>> >
>> > On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
>> > > Well, it would be good IMO if something like the now repealed
>> > > redistribution of Agora's money to the poor was enacted.
>> > >
>> > > On Wednesday, April 11, 2018, Reuben Staley 
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I'm starting to think I've opened a proverbial Pandora's Box of sorts
>> > and
>> > > > that the map and zombie mechanics are going to spiral out of control to
>> > > > create some ultra-capitalist society in the future. Oh well.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 07:33 ATMunn  wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Actually I believe this failed, as I tried to move from black to
>> > white
>> > > > > by spending only one apple.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > If I am still currently standing at (-1, +1) then I spend 2 apples to
>> > > > > move to (-1, 0) and another to move to (-1, -1).
>> > > > > I then transfer all of the assets from the facility where I am
>> > standing
>> > > > > to me.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On 4/11/2018 9:27 AM, ATMunn wrote:
>> > > > > > I transfer all of the assets where I am standing to me.
>> > > > > > I spend 1 apple to move to (-1, 0) and then another to move to (-1,
>> > > > -1).
>> > > > > > I then transfer all of the assets where I am standing to me.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I also act on Nichdel's behalf to transfer all of eir assets to me.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On 4/11/2018 2:22 AM, 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 +
>> > > > > >>

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

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> I think Corona was talking about the thing where Agora would get all the
> money that people spent and distribute it tbuno the poorest players. That was
> under the proportional economy where only 1000 shinies could exist.
> 
> I think if we were to reimplement that system, it would be too easy to
> scam, with zombies and contracts and whatnot, so I'm not sold just yet. If
> another proposal comes forth proposing a different way of filtering assets
> back into the economy, I might be willing to support it.

The issue I had with that system is you couldn't distinguish "poor because
I don't have an income source/others are always ahead" from "poor because I
had a bunch of money and just now spent it."  If you award the latter it
leads to weird incentive systems to either hold everything or spend
everything but not to stay in between.

In "game-balancing" here, there's two separate issues to think about:

1.  Can someone get enough possessions to participate on a basic level on a
regular basis?  (e.g. by pending proposals, walking around the map, and
other fixed-cost things to buy).  For this, monthly salary takes care of it
(more or less), secondarily land production.  This was what redistribution
was supposed to accomplish when salaries and land production didn't exist, 
but now that we have salaries that's fine (if it's not enough, just increase
salary rather than adding a separate mechanism).

2.  Is someone so far behind they can never be competitive in auctions?
This is the bigger issue, if zombie-owners always earn at 2x the rate they
will always outbid and raise prices.  This is multiplicative - the more
auctions they win, the more they get and so on so early leads build into big
ones.  Redistribution won't help that unless you redistribute so much that
it wipes out all leads (if it does that, why would anyone bother to play the 
subgame?)

There are ways to address both, but I don't think redistributing to poorest 
players addresses either?


 
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:04 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > That's what monthly salary is right?
> >
> > Problem of course is that applies to zombies too - excluding zombies from
> > salary would balance though of course would devalue zombies.
> >
> > I was really surprised that the zombie auction prices were so low.  In the
> > current system, the ability to occupy multiple land units/move in multiple
> > directions and place multiple bids in auctions is huge (that wasn't planned
> > on my part when I made zombies - I was pretty much thinking of them as a
> > way to get an extra vote or two).
> >
> > On the flip side, zombies are a precarious investment because you can lose
> > them at any time.
> >
> > On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
> > > Well, it would be good IMO if something like the now repealed
> > > redistribution of Agora's money to the poor was enacted.
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, April 11, 2018, Reuben Staley 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm starting to think I've opened a proverbial Pandora's Box of sorts
> > and
> > > > that the map and zombie mechanics are going to spiral out of control to
> > > > create some ultra-capitalist society in the future. Oh well.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 07:33 ATMunn  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Actually I believe this failed, as I tried to move from black to
> > white
> > > > > by spending only one apple.
> > > > >
> > > > > If I am still currently standing at (-1, +1) then I spend 2 apples to
> > > > > move to (-1, 0) and another to move to (-1, -1).
> > > > > I then transfer all of the assets from the facility where I am
> > standing
> > > > > to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 4/11/2018 9:27 AM, ATMunn wrote:
> > > > > > I transfer all of the assets where I am standing to me.
> > > > > > I spend 1 apple to move to (-1, 0) and then another to move to (-1,
> > > > -1).
> > > > > > I then transfer all of the assets where I am standing to me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I also act on Nichdel's behalf to transfer all of eir assets to me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 4/11/2018 2:22 AM, 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
> > 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Creation

[Aris Merchant]

The contract's state would be fine, because it wouldn't be
indeterminate. However, any conditional that depended upon it "depends
on information that is indeterminate, or is impossible or unreasonably
difficult to determine, or otherwise requires an unreasonable effort
to resolve". We really should merge indeterminacy and inextricability.
Alexis suggested it, but I disagreed because they're separate
concepts. They are, it's just that they're really used for the exact
same thing.

-Aris


On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Kenyon Prater  wrote:
> 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

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Creation

[Corona]

That's golden, almost title-worthy...​

On 14:42, Apr 11, 2018, at 14:42, 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

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

[Reuben Staley]

I think Corona was talking about the thing where Agora would get all the
money that people spent and distribute it to the poorest players. That was
under the proportional economy where only 1000 shinies could exist.

I think if we were to reimplement that system, it would be too easy to
scam, with zombies and contracts and whatnot, so I'm not sold just yet. If
another proposal comes forth proposing a different way of filtering assets
back into the economy, I might be willing to support it.

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:04 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> That's what monthly salary is right?
>
> Problem of course is that applies to zombies too - excluding zombies from
> salary would balance though of course would devalue zombies.
>
> I was really surprised that the zombie auction prices were so low.  In the
> current system, the ability to occupy multiple land units/move in multiple
> directions and place multiple bids in auctions is huge (that wasn't planned
> on my part when I made zombies - I was pretty much thinking of them as a
> way to get an extra vote or two).
>
> On the flip side, zombies are a precarious investment because you can lose
> them at any time.
>
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
> > Well, it would be good IMO if something like the now repealed
> > redistribution of Agora's money to the poor was enacted.
> >
> > On Wednesday, April 11, 2018, Reuben Staley 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm starting to think I've opened a proverbial Pandora's Box of sorts
> and
> > > that the map and zombie mechanics are going to spiral out of control to
> > > create some ultra-capitalist society in the future. Oh well.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 07:33 ATMunn  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Actually I believe this failed, as I tried to move from black to
> white
> > > > by spending only one apple.
> > > >
> > > > If I am still currently standing at (-1, +1) then I spend 2 apples to
> > > > move to (-1, 0) and another to move to (-1, -1).
> > > > I then transfer all of the assets from the facility where I am
> standing
> > > > to me.
> > > >
> > > > On 4/11/2018 9:27 AM, ATMunn wrote:
> > > > > I transfer all of the assets where I am standing to me.
> > > > > I spend 1 apple to move to (-1, 0) and then another to move to (-1,
> > > -1).
> > > > > I then transfer all of the assets where I am standing to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > I also act on Nichdel's behalf to transfer all of eir assets to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 4/11/2018 2:22 AM, 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  

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

[Kerim Aydin]

That's what monthly salary is right?

Problem of course is that applies to zombies too - excluding zombies from
salary would balance though of course would devalue zombies.

I was really surprised that the zombie auction prices were so low.  In the
current system, the ability to occupy multiple land units/move in multiple
directions and place multiple bids in auctions is huge (that wasn't planned
on my part when I made zombies - I was pretty much thinking of them as a
way to get an extra vote or two).

On the flip side, zombies are a precarious investment because you can lose
them at any time.

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
> Well, it would be good IMO if something like the now repealed
> redistribution of Agora's money to the poor was enacted.
> 
> On Wednesday, April 11, 2018, Reuben Staley  wrote:
> 
> > I'm starting to think I've opened a proverbial Pandora's Box of sorts and
> > that the map and zombie mechanics are going to spiral out of control to
> > create some ultra-capitalist society in the future. Oh well.
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 07:33 ATMunn  wrote:
> >
> > > Actually I believe this failed, as I tried to move from black to white
> > > by spending only one apple.
> > >
> > > If I am still currently standing at (-1, +1) then I spend 2 apples to
> > > move to (-1, 0) and another to move to (-1, -1).
> > > I then transfer all of the assets from the facility where I am standing
> > > to me.
> > >
> > > On 4/11/2018 9:27 AM, ATMunn wrote:
> > > > I transfer all of the assets where I am standing to me.
> > > > I spend 1 apple to move to (-1, 0) and then another to move to (-1,
> > -1).
> > > > I then transfer all of the assets where I am standing to me.
> > > >
> > > > I also act on Nichdel's behalf to transfer all of eir assets to me.
> > > >
> > > > On 4/11/2018 2:22 AM, 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
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > 

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

[Corona]

Well, it would be good IMO if something like the now repealed
redistribution of Agora's money to the poor was enacted.

On Wednesday, April 11, 2018, Reuben Staley  wrote:

> I'm starting to think I've opened a proverbial Pandora's Box of sorts and
> that the map and zombie mechanics are going to spiral out of control to
> create some ultra-capitalist society in the future. Oh well.
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 07:33 ATMunn  wrote:
>
> > Actually I believe this failed, as I tried to move from black to white
> > by spending only one apple.
> >
> > If I am still currently standing at (-1, +1) then I spend 2 apples to
> > move to (-1, 0) and another to move to (-1, -1).
> > I then transfer all of the assets from the facility where I am standing
> > to me.
> >
> > On 4/11/2018 9:27 AM, ATMunn wrote:
> > > I transfer all of the assets where I am standing to me.
> > > I spend 1 apple to move to (-1, 0) and then another to move to (-1,
> -1).
> > > I then transfer all of the assets where I am standing to me.
> > >
> > > I also act on Nichdel's behalf to transfer all of eir assets to me.
> > >
> > > On 4/11/2018 2:22 AM, 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)   

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

[Corona]

I was under the impression I had already collected stuff from (-1,-1) via
Quazie. Anyways, you couldn't collect assets from two facilities, because
Ensure Fair Distribution of Assets passed.

On Wednesday, April 11, 2018, ATMunn  wrote:

> Actually I believe this failed, as I tried to move from black to white by
> spending only one apple.
>
> If I am still currently standing at (-1, +1) then I spend 2 apples to move
> to (-1, 0) and another to move to (-1, -1).
> I then transfer all of the assets from the facility where I am standing to
> me.
>
> On 4/11/2018 9:27 AM, ATMunn wrote:
>
>> I transfer all of the assets where I am standing to me.
>> I spend 1 apple to move to (-1, 0) and then another to move to (-1, -1).
>> I then transfer all of the assets where I am standing to me.
>>
>> I also act on Nichdel's behalf to transfer all of eir assets to me.
>>
>> On 4/11/2018 2:22 AM, 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
>>> 

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

[Reuben Staley]

I'm starting to think I've opened a proverbial Pandora's Box of sorts and
that the map and zombie mechanics are going to spiral out of control to
create some ultra-capitalist society in the future. Oh well.

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 07:33 ATMunn  wrote:

> Actually I believe this failed, as I tried to move from black to white
> by spending only one apple.
>
> If I am still currently standing at (-1, +1) then I spend 2 apples to
> move to (-1, 0) and another to move to (-1, -1).
> I then transfer all of the assets from the facility where I am standing
> to me.
>
> On 4/11/2018 9:27 AM, ATMunn wrote:
> > I transfer all of the assets where I am standing to me.
> > I spend 1 apple to move to (-1, 0) and then another to move to (-1, -1).
> > I then transfer all of the assets where I am standing to me.
> >
> > I also act on Nichdel's behalf to transfer all of eir assets to me.
> >
> > On 4/11/2018 2:22 AM, 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
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Creation

[Ned Strange]

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Creation

[Kerim Aydin]

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
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Monthly deregistration intents and zombifications

[Kerim Aydin]

A finger-pointing should be shenanigans if it happens 14 days after the
breach.  However, the way it's written, it's the final fine that's 
ineffective if it's levied after 14 days (R2531).  That should be
fixed I think - given that the referee has a week to respond to a
finger-pointing, e can let it timeout if e doesn't want to blot it.

I don't like the option of "just card the offense" because it puts the
referee's opinion at direct odds with a judge's opinion.  In this case
for example, I really believe it's Shenanigans (based on my arguments
for that CFJ), so it's appropriate for me to call it.  But if the CFJ
found the reverse, I'd want to honor that.

So if I'm forced to card before the CFJ is done, I either have to lie 
(and levy the fine when I don't believe it's appropriate just to keep
the option open for the CFJ) or be truthful (and prevent justice from
being served if the CFJ finds I'm wrong here).  I'm not fond of those
options.

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> So there's actually two limitations periods. The seven-day period for
> CHoJ and the fourteen-day one for overall response and Summary
> Judgement. The seven-day period should probably be tolled by pending
> CFJ, but I'm not sure about tolling the fortnight period. I suppose
> the fortnight period should be tolled if there is a Finger Pointed
> _and_ a CFJ but not otherwise? But I still see no need for tolling
> because it is simple to just card for the offense while the CFJ is
> pending and then have that card have never happened due to the CFJ if
> it comes out the other way.
> 
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> > And, in case I still wasn't referee, I resolve this other finger-pointing
> > as indicated below.
> >
> > On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> Fair enough.  (I think the proto is important in this case though - a
> >> CFJ should stop the 14-day clock on punishment).
> >>
> >> Given that there has been no time in the recent past that I had sufficient
> >> support to do the job in question within the time limit, my initial
> >> attempt that failed was as good as any other attempt would have been.
> >>
> >> I find Shenanigans.
> >>
> >> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> >> > That's not needed. The rules say punishment CAN only be imposed if a
> >> > rule is broken so the Ref can simply impose punishment and then if the
> >> > CFJ rules otherwise, the punishment never happened in the first place.
> >> > Or not, if he so chooses. The Ref is entitled to rule finger-pointing
> >> > as Shenanigans even when it is not Shenanigans if e believes sincerely
> >> > there is no breach.
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Kerim Aydin  
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > There is a CFJ pending as to whether this is shenanigans or not.
> >> > >
> >> > > Proto:  Add to the finger-pointing rule, a third option for the
> >> > > referee:  Impose justice, declare shenanigans, OR CFJ/point to an
> >> > > existing CFJ.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> >> > >> I point my finger at G. for failing to attempt to deregister each
> >> > >> inactive player. I suppose that because this isn't officially related
> >> > >> to the duties of the Referee, G must judge himself.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 3:39 PM, Aris Merchant
> >> > >>  wrote:
> >> > >> > I intend, without 3 objections, to assign this CFJ to myself.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > -Aris
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 11:47 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> >> > >> >  wrote:
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> [No coin needed, was planning to anyway.  Here's a CFJ!]
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> I deregister every one of the following players with 3 Agoran 
> >> > >> >> consent:
> >> > >> >> - Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >> > >> >> - 天火狐
> >> > >> >> - Telnaior
> >> > >> >> - omd (zombie)
> >> > >> >> - o (zombie)
> >> > >> >> - nichdel (zombie)
> >> > >> >> - pokes (zombie)
> >> > >> >> As the waiting period for Agoran consent has not passed following 
> >> > >> >> any
> >> > >> >> announcement of intent, I fully believe the above actions fail.
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> I free-CFJ on the following:  In the first Eastman week of April 
> >> > >> >> 2018,
> >> > >> >> G. attempted to deregister every player that did not sent a 
> >> > >> >> message to
> >> > >> >> a public forum in the preceding month.
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> Caller's Arguments
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> This is to see if my failed attempts have satisfied the 
> >> > >> >> requirements of
> >> > >> >> R2139.  Further arguments in this conversation:
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >>> >> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> >> > >> >>> >> > On Sun, 1 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> > >> >>> >> >
> >> > >> >>> >> > > I object to every one of the below intents.
> >> > >> >>> >> >
> 

DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Creation

[Ned Strange]

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Monthly deregistration intents and zombifications

[Ned Strange]

Also (as the person who made this paragraph because I couldn't be
assed to format bullet points), we really need to fix that massive
sentence with a bracketed list within the first clause regarding when
cards may be imposed.

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:08 PM, Ned Strange  wrote:
> So there's actually two limitations periods. The seven-day period for
> CHoJ and the fourteen-day one for overall response and Summary
> Judgement. The seven-day period should probably be tolled by pending
> CFJ, but I'm not sure about tolling the fortnight period. I suppose
> the fortnight period should be tolled if there is a Finger Pointed
> _and_ a CFJ but not otherwise? But I still see no need for tolling
> because it is simple to just card for the offense while the CFJ is
> pending and then have that card have never happened due to the CFJ if
> it comes out the other way.
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>> And, in case I still wasn't referee, I resolve this other finger-pointing
>> as indicated below.
>>
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> Fair enough.  (I think the proto is important in this case though - a
>>> CFJ should stop the 14-day clock on punishment).
>>>
>>> Given that there has been no time in the recent past that I had sufficient
>>> support to do the job in question within the time limit, my initial
>>> attempt that failed was as good as any other attempt would have been.
>>>
>>> I find Shenanigans.
>>>
>>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
>>> > That's not needed. The rules say punishment CAN only be imposed if a
>>> > rule is broken so the Ref can simply impose punishment and then if the
>>> > CFJ rules otherwise, the punishment never happened in the first place.
>>> > Or not, if he so chooses. The Ref is entitled to rule finger-pointing
>>> > as Shenanigans even when it is not Shenanigans if e believes sincerely
>>> > there is no breach.
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Kerim Aydin  
>>> > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > There is a CFJ pending as to whether this is shenanigans or not.
>>> > >
>>> > > Proto:  Add to the finger-pointing rule, a third option for the
>>> > > referee:  Impose justice, declare shenanigans, OR CFJ/point to an
>>> > > existing CFJ.
>>> > >
>>> > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
>>> > >> I point my finger at G. for failing to attempt to deregister each
>>> > >> inactive player. I suppose that because this isn't officially related
>>> > >> to the duties of the Referee, G must judge himself.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 3:39 PM, Aris Merchant
>>> > >>  wrote:
>>> > >> > I intend, without 3 objections, to assign this CFJ to myself.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > -Aris
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 11:47 PM, Kerim Aydin 
>>> > >> >  wrote:
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> [No coin needed, was planning to anyway.  Here's a CFJ!]
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> I deregister every one of the following players with 3 Agoran 
>>> > >> >> consent:
>>> > >> >> - Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>> > >> >> - 天火狐
>>> > >> >> - Telnaior
>>> > >> >> - omd (zombie)
>>> > >> >> - o (zombie)
>>> > >> >> - nichdel (zombie)
>>> > >> >> - pokes (zombie)
>>> > >> >> As the waiting period for Agoran consent has not passed following 
>>> > >> >> any
>>> > >> >> announcement of intent, I fully believe the above actions fail.
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> I free-CFJ on the following:  In the first Eastman week of April 
>>> > >> >> 2018,
>>> > >> >> G. attempted to deregister every player that did not sent a message 
>>> > >> >> to
>>> > >> >> a public forum in the preceding month.
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> Caller's Arguments
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> This is to see if my failed attempts have satisfied the 
>>> > >> >> requirements of
>>> > >> >> R2139.  Further arguments in this conversation:
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >>> >> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>>> > >> >>> >> > On Sun, 1 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> > >> >>> >> >
>>> > >> >>> >> > > I object to every one of the below intents.
>>> > >> >>> >> >
>>> > >> >>> >> > I'm wondering what is needed for you to be considered to have 
>>> > >> >>> >> > fulfilled
>>> > >> >>> >> > the
>>> > >> >>> >> > monthly requirement and whether your objections violate it.
>>> > >> >>> >> >
>>> > >> >>> >> >In the first Eastman week of every month the Registrar 
>>> > >> >>> >> > SHALL
>>> > >> >>> >> >attempt to deregister every player that has not sent a 
>>> > >> >>> >> > message to
>>> > >> >>> >> >a public forum in the preceding month.
>>> > >> >>> >>
>>> > >> >>> >> I've long-wondered how requirements to do something match with 
>>> > >> >>> >> methods
>>> > >> >>> >> that
>>> > >> >>> >> require support/objections or "attempts" to do something.
>>> > >> >>> >>
>>> > >> >>> >> I've wondered for example 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Monthly deregistration intents and zombifications

[Ned Strange]

So there's actually two limitations periods. The seven-day period for
CHoJ and the fourteen-day one for overall response and Summary
Judgement. The seven-day period should probably be tolled by pending
CFJ, but I'm not sure about tolling the fortnight period. I suppose
the fortnight period should be tolled if there is a Finger Pointed
_and_ a CFJ but not otherwise? But I still see no need for tolling
because it is simple to just card for the offense while the CFJ is
pending and then have that card have never happened due to the CFJ if
it comes out the other way.

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> And, in case I still wasn't referee, I resolve this other finger-pointing
> as indicated below.
>
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Fair enough.  (I think the proto is important in this case though - a
>> CFJ should stop the 14-day clock on punishment).
>>
>> Given that there has been no time in the recent past that I had sufficient
>> support to do the job in question within the time limit, my initial
>> attempt that failed was as good as any other attempt would have been.
>>
>> I find Shenanigans.
>>
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
>> > That's not needed. The rules say punishment CAN only be imposed if a
>> > rule is broken so the Ref can simply impose punishment and then if the
>> > CFJ rules otherwise, the punishment never happened in the first place.
>> > Or not, if he so chooses. The Ref is entitled to rule finger-pointing
>> > as Shenanigans even when it is not Shenanigans if e believes sincerely
>> > there is no breach.
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Kerim Aydin  
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > There is a CFJ pending as to whether this is shenanigans or not.
>> > >
>> > > Proto:  Add to the finger-pointing rule, a third option for the
>> > > referee:  Impose justice, declare shenanigans, OR CFJ/point to an
>> > > existing CFJ.
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
>> > >> I point my finger at G. for failing to attempt to deregister each
>> > >> inactive player. I suppose that because this isn't officially related
>> > >> to the duties of the Referee, G must judge himself.
>> > >>
>> > >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 3:39 PM, Aris Merchant
>> > >>  wrote:
>> > >> > I intend, without 3 objections, to assign this CFJ to myself.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > -Aris
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 11:47 PM, Kerim Aydin  
>> > >> > wrote:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> [No coin needed, was planning to anyway.  Here's a CFJ!]
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> I deregister every one of the following players with 3 Agoran 
>> > >> >> consent:
>> > >> >> - Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> > >> >> - 天火狐
>> > >> >> - Telnaior
>> > >> >> - omd (zombie)
>> > >> >> - o (zombie)
>> > >> >> - nichdel (zombie)
>> > >> >> - pokes (zombie)
>> > >> >> As the waiting period for Agoran consent has not passed following any
>> > >> >> announcement of intent, I fully believe the above actions fail.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> I free-CFJ on the following:  In the first Eastman week of April 
>> > >> >> 2018,
>> > >> >> G. attempted to deregister every player that did not sent a message 
>> > >> >> to
>> > >> >> a public forum in the preceding month.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Caller's Arguments
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> This is to see if my failed attempts have satisfied the requirements 
>> > >> >> of
>> > >> >> R2139.  Further arguments in this conversation:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>> >> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>> > >> >>> >> > On Sun, 1 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > >> >>> >> >
>> > >> >>> >> > > I object to every one of the below intents.
>> > >> >>> >> >
>> > >> >>> >> > I'm wondering what is needed for you to be considered to have 
>> > >> >>> >> > fulfilled
>> > >> >>> >> > the
>> > >> >>> >> > monthly requirement and whether your objections violate it.
>> > >> >>> >> >
>> > >> >>> >> >In the first Eastman week of every month the Registrar 
>> > >> >>> >> > SHALL
>> > >> >>> >> >attempt to deregister every player that has not sent a 
>> > >> >>> >> > message to
>> > >> >>> >> >a public forum in the preceding month.
>> > >> >>> >>
>> > >> >>> >> I've long-wondered how requirements to do something match with 
>> > >> >>> >> methods
>> > >> >>> >> that
>> > >> >>> >> require support/objections or "attempts" to do something.
>> > >> >>> >>
>> > >> >>> >> I've wondered for example what what happen if I just never 
>> > >> >>> >> followed
>> > >> >>> >> through
>> > >> >>> >> on a posted intent for such a SHALL and let it time out, given 
>> > >> >>> >> that other
>> > >> >>> >> supporters could complete it I could argue "I attempted but no 
>> > >> >>> >> one carried
>> > >> >>> >> through."
>> > >> >>> >>
>> > >> >>> >> Or maybe, since the requirement is literally to "attempt" to do 
>> > >> >>> >> it, if I
>> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Referee] Weekly Report

[Kerim Aydin]

Ah, I forgot that asset clause, and that pledges are assets.  We're all 
good then, you're right.  My deputization for finger-pointing should
be good, I think that's the only official duty I tried to do when we
thought I was Referee (other than a now-owed report).

The clause you're seeking is in R2143.

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> There is the following provision "The recordkeepor of a class of
> assets is the entity (if any)
> defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document. That
> entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class and
> their owners."
> 
> I'm 95% sure there was at one point a rule that said "if any report's
> time period is not specified, it's weekly" or something of the like,
> but I cannot find it now.
> 
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Ned Strange  wrote:
> >>I deputize for the Registrar
> >
> > You'll have to do this again.
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 9:55 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> GUESS WHAT:  It's worse than that.  There *is* no Referee's weekly report!
> >> There's no place I can find that puts together "referee" and "Report".
> >>
> >> While the rules say the Referee is the "recordkeepor" for pledges,
> >> it doesn't say that it's part of a Report.  R2143 says that if something is
> >> "part of a report" without saying each one, it's part of the weekly report.
> >> The same is true for Blots (R2555).  No report defined.
> >>
> >> I don't think there's anything in the rules that says that merely saying
> >> "recordkeepor" means "part of report"?  In fact, the only thing 
> >> "recordkeepor"
> >> does that I can find is make that quantity restricted as per R2125, I can't
> >> find any requirement to publish the record - the requirement comes from
> >> explicitly saying something is part of a report.  Of course this is a bug,
> >> it *should* be part of a report, but for the technicality of the recent
> >> deputization success this is important.  Is this clear enough or is it
> >> CFJ-worthy do you think?
> >>
> >>
> >> SO TO CONVERGE THE GAMESTATE IF THE OFFICE IS VACANT:
> >>
> >> I deputize for the Registrar conclude the investigation into Aris's recent
> >> finger-pointing as follows:
> >>
> >> The facts are correct.  Cold Hand of Justice Imposed:
> >>
> >> 2 Blots is the base penalty.  I think a first offense of a missed report
> >> should start with the lowest penalty (lowest common infraction as a
> >> baseline).  So I levy a fine of 1 blot on VJ Rada.
> >>
> >> This is forgivable, so does not take away salary for this month (no words
> >> specified for the apology).
> >>
> >> I'm not sure for future if the 2nd or 3rd missed report (14 or 21 days
> >> of "no work") would be the threshold for unforgivable for the purposes of
> >> losing a month's salary.
> >>
> >> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >>> I point my finger at V.J. Rada for failing to publish the Notary's weekly
> >>> report. In general I agreee with G.'s two week rule, but in this case the
> >>> person responsible failed to publish the report after being elected to the
> >>> office.
> >>>
> >>> -Aris
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> >>> Alert: As this report does not contain pledges, it is no report at
> >>> all. You are no referee but a mere IMPOSTOR
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 4:04 AM, Kerim Aydin  
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > I deputize for the Referee to publish the following weekly report:
> >>> >
> >>> >  
> >>> >   Referee's Weekly Report
> >>> >  
> >>> >
> >>> >No one has any Blots.  No instances of blots currently exist.
> >>> >
> >>> >  -end of report--
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Sun, 8 Apr 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> I resign Referee. Gnomic is starting to get inertia with its initial
> >>> >> culture and history and I'd like to help it out (it's also why I've 
> >>> >> been
> >>> >> away lately, sorry).
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 9:47 PM, Kerim Aydin  
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > As I mentioned several days ago, I plan in future to point fingers at
> >>> >> > officers who miss two successive weekly reports. Just to set a good
> >>> >> > standard going forward! (Others may still enforce a tougher standard
> >>> >> > if they wish, of course).
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > When this week ends in ~28 hours, officers who would be blotted would
> >>> >> > be Corona (Herald's weekly) and CuddleBeam (Referee's weekly).
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > (If I missed a report my apologies, I'll double-check before 
> >>> >> > blotting).
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > -G.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> From V.J. Rada
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > From V.J. Rada
> 
> 
> 
> 

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Referee] Weekly Report

[Ned Strange]

There is the following provision "The recordkeepor of a class of
assets is the entity (if any)
defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document. That
entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class and
their owners."

I'm 95% sure there was at one point a rule that said "if any report's
time period is not specified, it's weekly" or something of the like,
but I cannot find it now.

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Ned Strange  wrote:
>>I deputize for the Registrar
>
> You'll have to do this again.
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 9:55 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>> GUESS WHAT:  It's worse than that.  There *is* no Referee's weekly report!
>> There's no place I can find that puts together "referee" and "Report".
>>
>> While the rules say the Referee is the "recordkeepor" for pledges,
>> it doesn't say that it's part of a Report.  R2143 says that if something is
>> "part of a report" without saying each one, it's part of the weekly report.
>> The same is true for Blots (R2555).  No report defined.
>>
>> I don't think there's anything in the rules that says that merely saying
>> "recordkeepor" means "part of report"?  In fact, the only thing 
>> "recordkeepor"
>> does that I can find is make that quantity restricted as per R2125, I can't
>> find any requirement to publish the record - the requirement comes from
>> explicitly saying something is part of a report.  Of course this is a bug,
>> it *should* be part of a report, but for the technicality of the recent
>> deputization success this is important.  Is this clear enough or is it
>> CFJ-worthy do you think?
>>
>>
>> SO TO CONVERGE THE GAMESTATE IF THE OFFICE IS VACANT:
>>
>> I deputize for the Registrar conclude the investigation into Aris's recent
>> finger-pointing as follows:
>>
>> The facts are correct.  Cold Hand of Justice Imposed:
>>
>> 2 Blots is the base penalty.  I think a first offense of a missed report
>> should start with the lowest penalty (lowest common infraction as a
>> baseline).  So I levy a fine of 1 blot on VJ Rada.
>>
>> This is forgivable, so does not take away salary for this month (no words
>> specified for the apology).
>>
>> I'm not sure for future if the 2nd or 3rd missed report (14 or 21 days
>> of "no work") would be the threshold for unforgivable for the purposes of
>> losing a month's salary.
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>> I point my finger at V.J. Rada for failing to publish the Notary's weekly
>>> report. In general I agreee with G.'s two week rule, but in this case the
>>> person responsible failed to publish the report after being elected to the
>>> office.
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
>>> Alert: As this report does not contain pledges, it is no report at
>>> all. You are no referee but a mere IMPOSTOR
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 4:04 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I deputize for the Referee to publish the following weekly report:
>>> >
>>> >  
>>> >   Referee's Weekly Report
>>> >  
>>> >
>>> >No one has any Blots.  No instances of blots currently exist.
>>> >
>>> >  -end of report--
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, 8 Apr 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> I resign Referee. Gnomic is starting to get inertia with its initial
>>> >> culture and history and I'd like to help it out (it's also why I've been
>>> >> away lately, sorry).
>>> >>
>>> >> On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 9:47 PM, Kerim Aydin  
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > As I mentioned several days ago, I plan in future to point fingers at
>>> >> > officers who miss two successive weekly reports. Just to set a good
>>> >> > standard going forward! (Others may still enforce a tougher standard
>>> >> > if they wish, of course).
>>> >> >
>>> >> > When this week ends in ~28 hours, officers who would be blotted would
>>> >> > be Corona (Herald's weekly) and CuddleBeam (Referee's weekly).
>>> >> >
>>> >> > (If I missed a report my apologies, I'll double-check before blotting).
>>> >> >
>>> >> > -G.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> From V.J. Rada
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Referee] Weekly Report

[Ned Strange]

>I deputize for the Registrar

You'll have to do this again.

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 9:55 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> GUESS WHAT:  It's worse than that.  There *is* no Referee's weekly report!
> There's no place I can find that puts together "referee" and "Report".
>
> While the rules say the Referee is the "recordkeepor" for pledges,
> it doesn't say that it's part of a Report.  R2143 says that if something is
> "part of a report" without saying each one, it's part of the weekly report.
> The same is true for Blots (R2555).  No report defined.
>
> I don't think there's anything in the rules that says that merely saying
> "recordkeepor" means "part of report"?  In fact, the only thing "recordkeepor"
> does that I can find is make that quantity restricted as per R2125, I can't
> find any requirement to publish the record - the requirement comes from
> explicitly saying something is part of a report.  Of course this is a bug,
> it *should* be part of a report, but for the technicality of the recent
> deputization success this is important.  Is this clear enough or is it
> CFJ-worthy do you think?
>
>
> SO TO CONVERGE THE GAMESTATE IF THE OFFICE IS VACANT:
>
> I deputize for the Registrar conclude the investigation into Aris's recent
> finger-pointing as follows:
>
> The facts are correct.  Cold Hand of Justice Imposed:
>
> 2 Blots is the base penalty.  I think a first offense of a missed report
> should start with the lowest penalty (lowest common infraction as a
> baseline).  So I levy a fine of 1 blot on VJ Rada.
>
> This is forgivable, so does not take away salary for this month (no words
> specified for the apology).
>
> I'm not sure for future if the 2nd or 3rd missed report (14 or 21 days
> of "no work") would be the threshold for unforgivable for the purposes of
> losing a month's salary.
>
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> I point my finger at V.J. Rada for failing to publish the Notary's weekly
>> report. In general I agreee with G.'s two week rule, but in this case the
>> person responsible failed to publish the report after being elected to the
>> office.
>>
>> -Aris
>
>
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
>> Alert: As this report does not contain pledges, it is no report at
>> all. You are no referee but a mere IMPOSTOR
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 4:04 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I deputize for the Referee to publish the following weekly report:
>> >
>> >  
>> >   Referee's Weekly Report
>> >  
>> >
>> >No one has any Blots.  No instances of blots currently exist.
>> >
>> >  -end of report--
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, 8 Apr 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> >
>> >> I resign Referee. Gnomic is starting to get inertia with its initial
>> >> culture and history and I'd like to help it out (it's also why I've been
>> >> away lately, sorry).
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 9:47 PM, Kerim Aydin  
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > As I mentioned several days ago, I plan in future to point fingers at
>> >> > officers who miss two successive weekly reports. Just to set a good
>> >> > standard going forward! (Others may still enforce a tougher standard
>> >> > if they wish, of course).
>> >> >
>> >> > When this week ends in ~28 hours, officers who would be blotted would
>> >> > be Corona (Herald's weekly) and CuddleBeam (Referee's weekly).
>> >> >
>> >> > (If I missed a report my apologies, I'll double-check before blotting).
>> >> >
>> >> > -G.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Monthly deregistration intents and zombifications

[Ned Strange]

That's not needed. The rules say punishment CAN only be imposed if a
rule is broken so the Ref can simply impose punishment and then if the
CFJ rules otherwise, the punishment never happened in the first place.
Or not, if he so chooses. The Ref is entitled to rule finger-pointing
as Shenanigans even when it is not Shenanigans if e believes sincerely
there is no breach.

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> There is a CFJ pending as to whether this is shenanigans or not.
>
> Proto:  Add to the finger-pointing rule, a third option for the
> referee:  Impose justice, declare shenanigans, OR CFJ/point to an
> existing CFJ.
>
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
>> I point my finger at G. for failing to attempt to deregister each
>> inactive player. I suppose that because this isn't officially related
>> to the duties of the Referee, G must judge himself.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 3:39 PM, Aris Merchant
>>  wrote:
>> > I intend, without 3 objections, to assign this CFJ to myself.
>> >
>> > -Aris
>> >
>> > On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 11:47 PM, Kerim Aydin  
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> [No coin needed, was planning to anyway.  Here's a CFJ!]
>> >>
>> >> I deregister every one of the following players with 3 Agoran consent:
>> >> - Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> >> - 天火狐
>> >> - Telnaior
>> >> - omd (zombie)
>> >> - o (zombie)
>> >> - nichdel (zombie)
>> >> - pokes (zombie)
>> >> As the waiting period for Agoran consent has not passed following any
>> >> announcement of intent, I fully believe the above actions fail.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I free-CFJ on the following:  In the first Eastman week of April 2018,
>> >> G. attempted to deregister every player that did not sent a message to
>> >> a public forum in the preceding month.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Caller's Arguments
>> >>
>> >> This is to see if my failed attempts have satisfied the requirements of
>> >> R2139.  Further arguments in this conversation:
>> >>
>> >>> >> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>> >>> >> > On Sun, 1 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > > I object to every one of the below intents.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > I'm wondering what is needed for you to be considered to have 
>> >>> >> > fulfilled
>> >>> >> > the
>> >>> >> > monthly requirement and whether your objections violate it.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >In the first Eastman week of every month the Registrar SHALL
>> >>> >> >attempt to deregister every player that has not sent a 
>> >>> >> > message to
>> >>> >> >a public forum in the preceding month.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> I've long-wondered how requirements to do something match with methods
>> >>> >> that
>> >>> >> require support/objections or "attempts" to do something.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> I've wondered for example what what happen if I just never followed
>> >>> >> through
>> >>> >> on a posted intent for such a SHALL and let it time out, given that 
>> >>> >> other
>> >>> >> supporters could complete it I could argue "I attempted but no one 
>> >>> >> carried
>> >>> >> through."
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Or maybe, since the requirement is literally to "attempt" to do it, 
>> >>> >> if I
>> >>> >> purposefully misspecify a parameter so the intent turns out to be 
>> >>> >> invalid,
>> >>> >> I've still"attempted" it so satisfied the requirement.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Or maybe, since a dependent action doesn't "happen" until the intent 
>> >>> >> is
>> >>> >> resolved, maybe "attempt" means that I'm required to say "I hereby do 
>> >>> >> X
>> >>> >> with
>> >>> >> 3 Support" even if I DON'T have enough support, or never announced 
>> >>> >> intent.
>> >>> >> That's a literal "attempt to do X with 3 support" that then happens to
>> >>> >> succeed or fail depending on whether intent was announced and got 
>> >>> >> support.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> I don't know the answer to any of these.  But I'm willing to bet that 
>> >>> >> IF
>> >>> >> I correctly announce intent, and IF I fully intend to carry out the 
>> >>> >> intent
>> >>> >> if it gets the right support (though this can't be proven), then a CFJ
>> >>> >> would hold that I made "a good faith attempt" to do my official duty 
>> >>> >> even
>> >>> >> if I objected to it personally. Maybe the judge would even set a new
>> >>> >> precedent distinguishing "clearly private actions" from official 
>> >>> >> duties
>> >>> >> in adjudicating how much I can impede a process and have it still 
>> >>> >> count as
>> >>> >> "an attempt".
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: what happened to the silver quill this year

[Kerim Aydin]

It was awarded in 2014 and 2015, but my memory (I think I was the Herald
then) is that voting was lackluster even then.  Agree with deletion.

Though I'll note that Corona is still required by law to resolve the
decision for this year (as Failed Quorum I assume).

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> I don't think a Quill has ever been awarded, let's just delete the rule.
> 
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:30 PM, Corona  wrote:
> > Nobody nominated a proposal & some said that the mechanism should be
> > altered, as the voting is usually kind of apathetic.
> >
> > -- Forwarded message --
> > From: *Ned Strange* 
> > Date: Wednesday, April 11, 2018
> > Subject: DIS: what happened to the silver quill this year
> > To: "Agora Nomic discussions (DF)" 
> >
> >
> > see title
> >
> > --
> > From V.J. Rada
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > ~Corona
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Monthly deregistration intents and zombifications

[Kerim Aydin]

There is a CFJ pending as to whether this is shenanigans or not.

Proto:  Add to the finger-pointing rule, a third option for the
referee:  Impose justice, declare shenanigans, OR CFJ/point to an
existing CFJ.

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> I point my finger at G. for failing to attempt to deregister each
> inactive player. I suppose that because this isn't officially related
> to the duties of the Referee, G must judge himself.
> 
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 3:39 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> > I intend, without 3 objections, to assign this CFJ to myself.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 11:47 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> [No coin needed, was planning to anyway.  Here's a CFJ!]
> >>
> >> I deregister every one of the following players with 3 Agoran consent:
> >> - Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >> - 天火狐
> >> - Telnaior
> >> - omd (zombie)
> >> - o (zombie)
> >> - nichdel (zombie)
> >> - pokes (zombie)
> >> As the waiting period for Agoran consent has not passed following any
> >> announcement of intent, I fully believe the above actions fail.
> >>
> >>
> >> I free-CFJ on the following:  In the first Eastman week of April 2018,
> >> G. attempted to deregister every player that did not sent a message to
> >> a public forum in the preceding month.
> >>
> >>
> >> Caller's Arguments
> >>
> >> This is to see if my failed attempts have satisfied the requirements of
> >> R2139.  Further arguments in this conversation:
> >>
> >>> >> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> >>> >> > On Sun, 1 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > > I object to every one of the below intents.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > I'm wondering what is needed for you to be considered to have 
> >>> >> > fulfilled
> >>> >> > the
> >>> >> > monthly requirement and whether your objections violate it.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >In the first Eastman week of every month the Registrar SHALL
> >>> >> >attempt to deregister every player that has not sent a 
> >>> >> > message to
> >>> >> >a public forum in the preceding month.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I've long-wondered how requirements to do something match with methods
> >>> >> that
> >>> >> require support/objections or "attempts" to do something.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I've wondered for example what what happen if I just never followed
> >>> >> through
> >>> >> on a posted intent for such a SHALL and let it time out, given that 
> >>> >> other
> >>> >> supporters could complete it I could argue "I attempted but no one 
> >>> >> carried
> >>> >> through."
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Or maybe, since the requirement is literally to "attempt" to do it, if 
> >>> >> I
> >>> >> purposefully misspecify a parameter so the intent turns out to be 
> >>> >> invalid,
> >>> >> I've still"attempted" it so satisfied the requirement.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Or maybe, since a dependent action doesn't "happen" until the intent is
> >>> >> resolved, maybe "attempt" means that I'm required to say "I hereby do X
> >>> >> with
> >>> >> 3 Support" even if I DON'T have enough support, or never announced 
> >>> >> intent.
> >>> >> That's a literal "attempt to do X with 3 support" that then happens to
> >>> >> succeed or fail depending on whether intent was announced and got 
> >>> >> support.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I don't know the answer to any of these.  But I'm willing to bet that 
> >>> >> IF
> >>> >> I correctly announce intent, and IF I fully intend to carry out the 
> >>> >> intent
> >>> >> if it gets the right support (though this can't be proven), then a CFJ
> >>> >> would hold that I made "a good faith attempt" to do my official duty 
> >>> >> even
> >>> >> if I objected to it personally. Maybe the judge would even set a new
> >>> >> precedent distinguishing "clearly private actions" from official duties
> >>> >> in adjudicating how much I can impede a process and have it still 
> >>> >> count as
> >>> >> "an attempt".
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: what happened to the silver quill this year

[Ned Strange]

I don't think a Quill has ever been awarded, let's just delete the rule.

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:30 PM, Corona  wrote:
> Nobody nominated a proposal & some said that the mechanism should be
> altered, as the voting is usually kind of apathetic.
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: *Ned Strange* 
> Date: Wednesday, April 11, 2018
> Subject: DIS: what happened to the silver quill this year
> To: "Agora Nomic discussions (DF)" 
>
>
> see title
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>
>
>
> --
>
> ~Corona



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Fwd: DIS: what happened to the silver quill this year

[Corona]

Nobody nominated a proposal & some said that the mechanism should be
altered, as the voting is usually kind of apathetic.

-- Forwarded message --
From: *Ned Strange* 
Date: Wednesday, April 11, 2018
Subject: DIS: what happened to the silver quill this year
To: "Agora Nomic discussions (DF)" 


see title

--
>From V.J. Rada



-- 

~Corona

DIS: what happened to the silver quill this year

[Ned Strange]

see title

-- 
>From V.J. Rada

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

[Reuben Staley]

That was simple oversight on my part. I wanted to just specify the message
number mail-archive gives and generate the rest of the URL, but in updating
the code, I must've forgotten to add the rest of the url. I'll fix it
tomorrow when I'm not incredibly sleep-deprived.

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 00:30 Kenyon Prater  wrote:

> 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
> >
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Regkeepor] ACORN

[Aris Merchant]

Oh, my, this is getting interesting. We'll just have to see how the judge
rules.

-Aris

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:41 PM Ned Strange 
wrote:

> So I do just want to respond to that.
> [quote]The Promulgator of a regulation is an officer, not a person[/quote]
> The term "officer" is defined by rule 1006 as "the holder of an
> office". The holder of an office is a person who holds it at a
> particular time. Rule 1006 also states that "If the holder of an
> office is ever not a player, it becomes vacant". That rule therefore
> compels the reading that the holders of offices are (usually) players.
> Players are people. Therefore, while not all people are officers,
> officers are all people. There is no distinction between an officer
> and a person who holds an office at a particular time.
> [quote]o only promulgated the regulation in eir persona as Notary,
> which has now passed to you[/quote]
> But the Promulgator of a Regulation (the word Promulgator is
> inconsistently capitalised btw, add that to your bugfixes) is
> explicitly defined as an officer. An officer is someone who holds an
> office at a particular time.
> [quote]I will also note that an assumption to the contrary risks
> entanglement of official powers and responsibilities from personal
> ones[/quote]
> Indeed it does. These official powers and responsibilities are already
> entangled by the rules in the most obvious way possible. The
> punishments for missing a deadline are the same as the punishments for
> personal crimes like breaking a contract. If President Trump's
> Executive Orders are found unconstitutional, he is not getting thrown
> into jail or being found civilly liable in his own right. However,
> that _is_ the Agoran way of doing things. An office is not some
> separate persona, but merely a set of powers and responsibilities laid
> on a player for a temporary period.
> [quote] In general, we have assumed that a responsibility ascribed to
> an officer changes hands with the office, and this case could call
> that into dispute[/quote]
> An office is a set of responsibilities superimposed upon a player's
> existing set. Once a player leaves an office, they no longer have said
> responsibilities. But that does not mean that the player entering an
> office is the same _officer_ as the player who left it.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> > Arguments (partly quoted from above):
> >
> > The Promulgator of a regulation is an officer, not a person. In this
> > case, the Promulgator is the Notary, not o. o only promulgated the
> > regulation in eir persona as Notary, which has now passed to you. I
> > therefore believe that V.J. Rada has the power to repeal the
> > regulation. I will also note that an assumption to the contrary risks
> > entanglement of official powers and responsibilities from personal
> > ones. Rule 2526 clearly states that "[t]he Notary CAN, by regulation,
> > exempt a contract from the preceding paragraph", which assigns the
> > power to the Notary, not some random player who happens to be Notary
> > at the moment. In general, we have assumed that a responsibility
> > ascribed to an officer changes hands with the office, and this case
> > could call that into dispute. If the honorable judge of this case
> > cares to rule that official and personal personalities are separate, I
> > recommend the use of the word persona, since person is already
> > defined.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:15 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I favor this one.
> >>
> >> As we haven't heard from the Arbitor for a bit, I intend to assign it
> >> to myself without  3 objections.
> >>
> >> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> >>
> >>> I call a CFJ with the following statement: V.J. Rada (The current
> >>> Notary) has the power to repeal Regulations promulgated by o. in
> >>> hisofficial capacity as Notary.
> >>>
> >>> The rules state that regulations are promulgated by "an officer (known
> >>> as the Promulgator)". An officer is (to quote google dictionaries) "a
> >>> person holding a position of authority". O was that person holding the
> >>> position of Notary. I am an officer, holding the same office, but I am
> >>> not the same officer, and therefore am not the Promulgator of those
> >>> regulations.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Aris Merchant
> >>>  wrote:
> >>> > I disagree. The Promulgator of a regulation is an officer, not a
> person. In
> >>> > this case, the Promulgator is the Notary, not o. o only promulgated
> the
> >>> > regulation in eir persona as Notary, which has now passed to you. I
> >>> > therefore believe that you have the power to repeal the regulation.
> >>> >
> >>> > -Aris
> >>> >
> >>> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 7:44 PM Ned Strange <
> edwardostra...@gmail.com>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> Do other people believe my 

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Regkeepor] ACORN

[Ned Strange]

So I do just want to respond to that.
[quote]The Promulgator of a regulation is an officer, not a person[/quote]
The term "officer" is defined by rule 1006 as "the holder of an
office". The holder of an office is a person who holds it at a
particular time. Rule 1006 also states that "If the holder of an
office is ever not a player, it becomes vacant". That rule therefore
compels the reading that the holders of offices are (usually) players.
Players are people. Therefore, while not all people are officers,
officers are all people. There is no distinction between an officer
and a person who holds an office at a particular time.
[quote]o only promulgated the regulation in eir persona as Notary,
which has now passed to you[/quote]
But the Promulgator of a Regulation (the word Promulgator is
inconsistently capitalised btw, add that to your bugfixes) is
explicitly defined as an officer. An officer is someone who holds an
office at a particular time.
[quote]I will also note that an assumption to the contrary risks
entanglement of official powers and responsibilities from personal
ones[/quote]
Indeed it does. These official powers and responsibilities are already
entangled by the rules in the most obvious way possible. The
punishments for missing a deadline are the same as the punishments for
personal crimes like breaking a contract. If President Trump's
Executive Orders are found unconstitutional, he is not getting thrown
into jail or being found civilly liable in his own right. However,
that _is_ the Agoran way of doing things. An office is not some
separate persona, but merely a set of powers and responsibilities laid
on a player for a temporary period.
[quote] In general, we have assumed that a responsibility ascribed to
an officer changes hands with the office, and this case could call
that into dispute[/quote]
An office is a set of responsibilities superimposed upon a player's
existing set. Once a player leaves an office, they no longer have said
responsibilities. But that does not mean that the player entering an
office is the same _officer_ as the player who left it.


On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> Arguments (partly quoted from above):
>
> The Promulgator of a regulation is an officer, not a person. In this
> case, the Promulgator is the Notary, not o. o only promulgated the
> regulation in eir persona as Notary, which has now passed to you. I
> therefore believe that V.J. Rada has the power to repeal the
> regulation. I will also note that an assumption to the contrary risks
> entanglement of official powers and responsibilities from personal
> ones. Rule 2526 clearly states that "[t]he Notary CAN, by regulation,
> exempt a contract from the preceding paragraph", which assigns the
> power to the Notary, not some random player who happens to be Notary
> at the moment. In general, we have assumed that a responsibility
> ascribed to an officer changes hands with the office, and this case
> could call that into dispute. If the honorable judge of this case
> cares to rule that official and personal personalities are separate, I
> recommend the use of the word persona, since person is already
> defined.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:15 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>> I favor this one.
>>
>> As we haven't heard from the Arbitor for a bit, I intend to assign it
>> to myself without  3 objections.
>>
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
>>
>>> I call a CFJ with the following statement: V.J. Rada (The current
>>> Notary) has the power to repeal Regulations promulgated by o. in
>>> hisofficial capacity as Notary.
>>>
>>> The rules state that regulations are promulgated by "an officer (known
>>> as the Promulgator)". An officer is (to quote google dictionaries) "a
>>> person holding a position of authority". O was that person holding the
>>> position of Notary. I am an officer, holding the same office, but I am
>>> not the same officer, and therefore am not the Promulgator of those
>>> regulations.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Aris Merchant
>>>  wrote:
>>> > I disagree. The Promulgator of a regulation is an officer, not a person. 
>>> > In
>>> > this case, the Promulgator is the Notary, not o. o only promulgated the
>>> > regulation in eir persona as Notary, which has now passed to you. I
>>> > therefore believe that you have the power to repeal the regulation.
>>> >
>>> > -Aris
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 7:44 PM Ned Strange 
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Do other people believe my interpretation is correct?
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Ned Strange 
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > The Regulations rule states that "Regulations may be repealed by their
>>> >> > promulgator". o. was the promulgator of the regulation you refer to, 
>>> >> > so I
>>> >> > believe I cannot repeal or amend that Regulation.

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
>