Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Blot Expansion v2

[Kerim Aydin]

When we last had shambling entities we had a rule that any punishments 
for crimes transferred to the master.  Worth doing.

On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Oh, dang it, forgot to hand incense out to existing players. Without
> objection, I'm going to make it non-zombie players only, because
> zombies don't really have any blots to worry about and I don't want
> the people who have zombies to feel like they can get away with
> murder.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 6:01 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> > I submit the following proposal.
> >
> > -Aris
> > ---
> > Title: Blot Expansion v2
> > Adoption index: 3.0
> > Author: Aris
> > Co-author(s): Ørjan
> >
> > Amend Rule 2483, "Economics", by: {
> >   Appending "10. incense", as a new list item after "9. fabric"; and
> >
> >   Changing "Stones, apples, and corn are considered unrefinable currencies;"
> >   to read "Stones, apples, corn, and incense are considered unrefinable
> >   currencies;"
> > }
> >
> > Amend Rule 2563, "Production Facilities", by appending
> >
> >   "4. Temples
> >  -  Build Cost: 2 lumber, and 3 fabric
> >  -  Upkeep Cost: n-1 fabric
> >  -  Production Details: 3n incense
> >  -  Upgrade Costs:
> > -  Rank 2: 4 coins, 1 lumber, 1 fabric
> > -  Rank 3: 6 coins, 2 lumber, 3 fabric
> > -  Rank 4: 8 coins, 4 lumber, 2 stones, 5 fabric
> > -  Rank 5: 10 coins, 6 lumber, 4 stones, 7 fabric"
> >
> > Amend Rule 2559, "Paydays", by appending "D. 3 incense", as a new list item
> > after "C. 2 papers".
> >
> > Amend the rule defining welcome packages by adding as a new item, 
> > appropriately
> > numbered, at the end of the list "5 incense".
> >
> > Amend Rule 2557, "Removing Blots", by changing the first paragraph to read
> >   "A player CAN, by announcement, destroy N incense in eir possession to
> >   expunge N of eir blots. When e does so, e is STRONGLY ENCOURAGED to 
> > publicly
> >   and grandiloquently apologize to the Spirit of the Game for eir grave 
> > crime
> >   in breaking the rules, to verbosely praise the same spirit, and to 
> > fervently
> >   request forgiveness."
> >
> > Amend Rule 2556, "Penalties", by appending the text
> >
> >   "A player CAN, with 7 days notice, deregister (exile) a specified player
> >   (the outlaw) who has more than 40 blots."
> >
> > as a new paragraph at the end of the rule.
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Blot Expansion v2

[Aris Merchant]

Oh, dang it, forgot to hand incense out to existing players. Without
objection, I'm going to make it non-zombie players only, because
zombies don't really have any blots to worry about and I don't want
the people who have zombies to feel like they can get away with
murder.

-Aris

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 6:01 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> I submit the following proposal.
>
> -Aris
> ---
> Title: Blot Expansion v2
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-author(s): Ørjan
>
> Amend Rule 2483, "Economics", by: {
>   Appending "10. incense", as a new list item after "9. fabric"; and
>
>   Changing "Stones, apples, and corn are considered unrefinable currencies;"
>   to read "Stones, apples, corn, and incense are considered unrefinable
>   currencies;"
> }
>
> Amend Rule 2563, "Production Facilities", by appending
>
>   "4. Temples
>  -  Build Cost: 2 lumber, and 3 fabric
>  -  Upkeep Cost: n-1 fabric
>  -  Production Details: 3n incense
>  -  Upgrade Costs:
> -  Rank 2: 4 coins, 1 lumber, 1 fabric
> -  Rank 3: 6 coins, 2 lumber, 3 fabric
> -  Rank 4: 8 coins, 4 lumber, 2 stones, 5 fabric
> -  Rank 5: 10 coins, 6 lumber, 4 stones, 7 fabric"
>
> Amend Rule 2559, "Paydays", by appending "D. 3 incense", as a new list item
> after "C. 2 papers".
>
> Amend the rule defining welcome packages by adding as a new item, 
> appropriately
> numbered, at the end of the list "5 incense".
>
> Amend Rule 2557, "Removing Blots", by changing the first paragraph to read
>   "A player CAN, by announcement, destroy N incense in eir possession to
>   expunge N of eir blots. When e does so, e is STRONGLY ENCOURAGED to publicly
>   and grandiloquently apologize to the Spirit of the Game for eir grave crime
>   in breaking the rules, to verbosely praise the same spirit, and to fervently
>   request forgiveness."
>
> Amend Rule 2556, "Penalties", by appending the text
>
>   "A player CAN, with 7 days notice, deregister (exile) a specified player
>   (the outlaw) who has more than 40 blots."
>
> as a new paragraph at the end of the rule.

DIS: Proto: Consolidated Patch

[Aris Merchant]

Here's a proto of that patch proposal. Should people only be able to
transfer things to processing facilities?

-Aris
---
Title: Consolidated Patch
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Aris
Co-author(s): Trigon, G.

Reenact Rule 2456, "The Treasuror" (Power = 1.0), with the following text:
  The Treasuror is an office.

  The Treasuror's weekly report includes the list of all public classes
  of assets.

Make Gaelan the Treasuror.

If Rule 2499 is not currently enacted, re-enact it with the following
text: {

 If a player has not received a Welcome Package since e most
  recently registered, any player CAN cause em to receive one by
  announcement.

  When a player receives a Welcome Package, Agora creates the
  following assets in eir possession:

  1. 10 coins
  2. 5 lumber
  3. 5 stones
  4. 10 apples
  5. 3 papers
}

If a proposal entitled "Gray Land and the Fountain" has not passed: {
  Amend Rule 2561, Asset Generation with Facilities, by inserting before
  the text

"A player can take a number of assets from a facility's inventory
by announcement if eir location is the same as the facility's and
  the following criteria are met:"

  the text

"A player CANNOT transfer assets to a facility not at eir location."
}
otherwise: {
  Amend Rule 2561, Asset Generation with Facilities, by inserting before the
  text
"A player can take a number of assets from an Production or Processing
facility's inventory by announcement if eir location is the same as the
facility's and the following criteria are met:"

  the text

  "A player CANNOT transfer assets to a facility not at eir location."
}

Amend Rule 2003, Actions in Arcadia, by changing the text "substitute 3
apples for 1 corn" to read "substitute 1 coin for three or fewer apples".

Amend Rule 2551, "Auction End", by changing the text

  "When e does so, the Auctioneer SHALL transfer the items in that lot
  to that winner in a timely fashion. If the Auctioneer is not a
  person, then a person authorized to cause the Auctioneer to transfer
  those items SHALL do so in a timely fashion after the winner pays the
  Auctioneer, instead."

  to read

  "When e does so, if the auctioneer CAN transfer the items in that lot to
  that winner at will, e immediately does so; otherwise, e SHALL do so in a
  timely fashion. For this purpose, a contract CAN do whatever it could
  do if it were a person in addition to what it can do as a contract,
  and Agora CAN do anything."

Amend Rule 1885, Zombie Auctions, by removing the final paragraph and by
appending the text "For the purpose of such a auction, to transfer a zombie to
a player is to set that zombie's master switch to that player." to the third
paragraph.

DIS: Emotions

[Aris Merchant]

Should we repeal the emotions rule? No one seems to be using it.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Call for Patches

[Aris Merchant]

I know, but I disapprove of the idea on general principle [1].
Additionally, your contract doesn't write up the proposal text for
people who don't have the time to do it themselves.

-Aris


[1] vide 
https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=FAQ#Do_conditional_clauses_work.3F

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 7:21 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> I have a contract in place for exactly this purpose.
>
> Gaelan
>
>> On Apr 13, 2018, at 12:48 AM, Aris Merchant 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Okay, I'm going to write up a patch proposal. I'll take any reasonably
>> uncontroversial patches, whether in typed up form or just with a
>> description of the problem and a link to any previous discussion.
>>
>> Things I'm aware of:
>>
>> - Treasuror is undefined
>> - Welcome packages are undefined
>> - The 1 auction/5 auctions problem
>> - The thing where you can transfer things into a facility from everywhere
>>
>> If I've missed anything, or you disagree with any of these, please let me 
>> know.
>>
>> -Aris
>

Re: DIS: Call for Patches

[Kerim Aydin]

I mean it's a problem with the ruleset in general that leads to more
mistakes of this nature.  Of course each one cam be patched up as
it's found.

On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I don't think it should be too hard. All we have to do is specify that
> "If the auctioneer CAN transfer the items in the lot to the winner at
> will, e immediately does so; otherwise, e SHALL do so in a timely
> fashion." Presuming that Agora can do whatever it wants to do, that
> works fine because Rule 2457 states that "A clause in a Contract
> purporting to make an entity which is neither the Contract itself nor
> a party to the Contract the Auctioneer of an Auction defined by that
> Contract is INEFFECTIVE."  So we don't have to worry about a contract
> making Agora the auctioneer or something.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> 
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> > The real difficulty is many of the rules that have "or contract"
> > generalizations when describing how things work.  It would be so much easier
> > if we could just assume all of auctions were transfers-from-agora and write
> > some auto transfer-from-agora language, but we have to (all over the place)
> > defer to "but if it's a contract it's a different auctioneer" etc...
> >
> > This means navigating a lot of edge-cases in the rules that are prone to
> > error for relatively little benefit (contracts mostly don't do this).
> >
> > On the last round of Contracts, we did it the other way.  Auctions would
> > be defined in the Rules for Agora only.  Then if a Contract wanted to
> > auction, it would write (in the Contract) "This Contract auction works
> > just like Agoran auctions, but with this Contract in place of Agora".
> >
> > Since Contracts were adjudicated by placing weight on intent/equity
> > instead of the technicalities of each loophole, this worked pretty well.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> >> Sigh. I really don't like it when other people are right. I guess that
> >> should be in the patches somewhere.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 14:42 Aris Merchant <
> >> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > But where does it actually say that Agora actually ever makes such a
> >> > transfer?
> >> >
> >> > -Aris
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Reuben Staley 
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > The Cartographor doesn't make the transfer as the Cartographor is only
> >> > the
> >> > > Announcer. Agora, the auctioneer, is authorized the make the transfer.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 14:00 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> However, (and this is the third time I've asked) can anyone point me 
> >> > >> to
> >> > >> where it says in the rules that the cartographer actually CAN make a
> >> > >> transfer of land from Agora to a land auction winner?
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> > >> > I don't consider 1 auctions/5 auctions to be a patch.  It works as 
> >> > >> > is,
> >> > >> > but some people want it a different way (never mind that includes 
> >> > >> > the
> >> > >> > original author).  As it's controversial, please leave it on its 
> >> > >> > own.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >> > >> > > Okay, I'm going to write up a patch proposal. I'll take any
> >> > reasonably
> >> > >> > > uncontroversial patches, whether in typed up form or just with a
> >> > >> > > description of the problem and a link to any previous discussion.
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > Things I'm aware of:
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > - Treasuror is undefined
> >> > >> > > - Welcome packages are undefined
> >> > >> > > - The 1 auction/5 auctions problem
> >> > >> > > - The thing where you can transfer things into a facility from
> >> > >> everywhere
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > If I've missed anything, or you disagree with any of these, please
> >> > let
> >> > >> me know.
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > -Aris
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >>
> >
> >
> >
>

DIS: Proto: Reinstituting rewards

[Reuben Staley]

As it turns out, two of the reforms I was pushing for, proposal rewards 
and unique officer salaries, could both be found in a rule from last 
year! In an effort to get discussion going quick, I haven't actually 
made the salaries unique yet. A proto-proposal follows:


{

Title: Reinstituting rewards
AI: 2
Author: Trigon
Co-authors:

Amend rule 1006 "Offices" by appending the following paragraph:

  An office's salary is a non-null set of assets to be described in
  the rule defining the office. If no salary is defined for an
  office, then the salary is set to 3 coins.

Re-enact rule 2496 "Rewards" [1].

Amend rule 2496 "Rewards" by replacing its text with:

  A Reward is a specified amount of assets associated with a Reward
  Condition. For each time a player meets a Reward Condition, e CAN
  claim the specified award, by announcement, exactly once within 7
  days of meeting the Reward Condition. When a player claims a
  reward, e SHOULD list which assets e receives.

  When a player 'claims' a Reward, Agora creates in that Player's
  possession the correct amount of assets.

  Below is an exhaustive list of Reward Conditions and their
  associated rewards:

  -  Being the author of an adopted proposal: 3 coins

  -  Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: the officer's salary

Amend Rule 2559 "Paydays" by replacing its text with:

  Whenever a Payday occurs, the following assets are created in the
  possession of each player:

  -  10 coins
  -  5 apples
  -  2 papers

  The occurrence of Paydays is secured.  At the beginning of each
  month, a Payday occurs.

}

[1] The full history of the mentioned rule:
History:
Enacted by Proposal 7867 "Economics Overhaul v2" (nichdel; with o,
  grok, Aris), Aug 30, 2017
Amended(1) by Proposal 7871 "Minor fixes (sans typos)" (V.J. Rada),
  Sep 07, 2017
Amended(2) by Proposal 7876 "Float On" (o), Sep 26, 2017
Amended(3) by Proposal 7888 "BILLY MAYS HERE" (o; with V.J. Rada), Sep
  26, 2017
Amended(4) by Proposal 7897 "University Funding" (Cuddle Beam), Sep
  26, 2017
Amended(5) by Proposal 7911 "Infinite Money Fix" (V.J. Rada), Oct 15,
  2017
Amended(6) by Proposal 7980 "" (ATMunn; with Alexis), Nov 26, 2017
Repealed by Proposal 8004 "Rusty" (G.), Jan 31, 2018

--
Trigon

Re: DIS: Call for Patches

[Aris Merchant]

I don't think it should be too hard. All we have to do is specify that
"If the auctioneer CAN transfer the items in the lot to the winner at
will, e immediately does so; otherwise, e SHALL do so in a timely
fashion." Presuming that Agora can do whatever it wants to do, that
works fine because Rule 2457 states that "A clause in a Contract
purporting to make an entity which is neither the Contract itself nor
a party to the Contract the Auctioneer of an Auction defined by that
Contract is INEFFECTIVE."  So we don't have to worry about a contract
making Agora the auctioneer or something.

-Aris


On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> The real difficulty is many of the rules that have "or contract"
> generalizations when describing how things work.  It would be so much easier
> if we could just assume all of auctions were transfers-from-agora and write
> some auto transfer-from-agora language, but we have to (all over the place)
> defer to "but if it's a contract it's a different auctioneer" etc...
>
> This means navigating a lot of edge-cases in the rules that are prone to
> error for relatively little benefit (contracts mostly don't do this).
>
> On the last round of Contracts, we did it the other way.  Auctions would
> be defined in the Rules for Agora only.  Then if a Contract wanted to
> auction, it would write (in the Contract) "This Contract auction works
> just like Agoran auctions, but with this Contract in place of Agora".
>
> Since Contracts were adjudicated by placing weight on intent/equity
> instead of the technicalities of each loophole, this worked pretty well.
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
>> Sigh. I really don't like it when other people are right. I guess that
>> should be in the patches somewhere.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 14:42 Aris Merchant <
>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > But where does it actually say that Agora actually ever makes such a
>> > transfer?
>> >
>> > -Aris
>> >
>> > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Reuben Staley 
>> > wrote:
>> > > The Cartographor doesn't make the transfer as the Cartographor is only
>> > the
>> > > Announcer. Agora, the auctioneer, is authorized the make the transfer.
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 14:00 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> However, (and this is the third time I've asked) can anyone point me to
>> > >> where it says in the rules that the cartographer actually CAN make a
>> > >> transfer of land from Agora to a land auction winner?
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > >> > I don't consider 1 auctions/5 auctions to be a patch.  It works as is,
>> > >> > but some people want it a different way (never mind that includes the
>> > >> > original author).  As it's controversial, please leave it on its own.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> > >> > > Okay, I'm going to write up a patch proposal. I'll take any
>> > reasonably
>> > >> > > uncontroversial patches, whether in typed up form or just with a
>> > >> > > description of the problem and a link to any previous discussion.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > Things I'm aware of:
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > - Treasuror is undefined
>> > >> > > - Welcome packages are undefined
>> > >> > > - The 1 auction/5 auctions problem
>> > >> > > - The thing where you can transfer things into a facility from
>> > >> everywhere
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > If I've missed anything, or you disagree with any of these, please
>> > let
>> > >> me know.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > -Aris
>> > >> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Call for Patches

[Kerim Aydin]

The real difficulty is many of the rules that have "or contract" 
generalizations when describing how things work.  It would be so much easier
if we could just assume all of auctions were transfers-from-agora and write
some auto transfer-from-agora language, but we have to (all over the place)
defer to "but if it's a contract it's a different auctioneer" etc...

This means navigating a lot of edge-cases in the rules that are prone to
error for relatively little benefit (contracts mostly don't do this).

On the last round of Contracts, we did it the other way.  Auctions would
be defined in the Rules for Agora only.  Then if a Contract wanted to
auction, it would write (in the Contract) "This Contract auction works
just like Agoran auctions, but with this Contract in place of Agora".

Since Contracts were adjudicated by placing weight on intent/equity 
instead of the technicalities of each loophole, this worked pretty well.


On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Sigh. I really don't like it when other people are right. I guess that
> should be in the patches somewhere.
> 
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 14:42 Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > But where does it actually say that Agora actually ever makes such a
> > transfer?
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Reuben Staley 
> > wrote:
> > > The Cartographor doesn't make the transfer as the Cartographor is only
> > the
> > > Announcer. Agora, the auctioneer, is authorized the make the transfer.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 14:00 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> However, (and this is the third time I've asked) can anyone point me to
> > >> where it says in the rules that the cartographer actually CAN make a
> > >> transfer of land from Agora to a land auction winner?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >> > I don't consider 1 auctions/5 auctions to be a patch.  It works as is,
> > >> > but some people want it a different way (never mind that includes the
> > >> > original author).  As it's controversial, please leave it on its own.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > >> > > Okay, I'm going to write up a patch proposal. I'll take any
> > reasonably
> > >> > > uncontroversial patches, whether in typed up form or just with a
> > >> > > description of the problem and a link to any previous discussion.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Things I'm aware of:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > - Treasuror is undefined
> > >> > > - Welcome packages are undefined
> > >> > > - The 1 auction/5 auctions problem
> > >> > > - The thing where you can transfer things into a facility from
> > >> everywhere
> > >> > >
> > >> > > If I've missed anything, or you disagree with any of these, please
> > let
> > >> me know.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > -Aris
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>

Re: DIS: Call for Patches

[Reuben Staley]

Sigh. I really don't like it when other people are right. I guess that
should be in the patches somewhere.

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 14:42 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> But where does it actually say that Agora actually ever makes such a
> transfer?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Reuben Staley 
> wrote:
> > The Cartographor doesn't make the transfer as the Cartographor is only
> the
> > Announcer. Agora, the auctioneer, is authorized the make the transfer.
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 14:00 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> However, (and this is the third time I've asked) can anyone point me to
> >> where it says in the rules that the cartographer actually CAN make a
> >> transfer of land from Agora to a land auction winner?
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> > I don't consider 1 auctions/5 auctions to be a patch.  It works as is,
> >> > but some people want it a different way (never mind that includes the
> >> > original author).  As it's controversial, please leave it on its own.
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >> > > Okay, I'm going to write up a patch proposal. I'll take any
> reasonably
> >> > > uncontroversial patches, whether in typed up form or just with a
> >> > > description of the problem and a link to any previous discussion.
> >> > >
> >> > > Things I'm aware of:
> >> > >
> >> > > - Treasuror is undefined
> >> > > - Welcome packages are undefined
> >> > > - The 1 auction/5 auctions problem
> >> > > - The thing where you can transfer things into a facility from
> >> everywhere
> >> > >
> >> > > If I've missed anything, or you disagree with any of these, please
> let
> >> me know.
> >> > >
> >> > > -Aris
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>

Re: DIS: Call for Patches

[Aris Merchant]

But where does it actually say that Agora actually ever makes such a transfer?

-Aris

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Reuben Staley  wrote:
> The Cartographor doesn't make the transfer as the Cartographor is only the
> Announcer. Agora, the auctioneer, is authorized the make the transfer.
>
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 14:00 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> However, (and this is the third time I've asked) can anyone point me to
>> where it says in the rules that the cartographer actually CAN make a
>> transfer of land from Agora to a land auction winner?
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > I don't consider 1 auctions/5 auctions to be a patch.  It works as is,
>> > but some people want it a different way (never mind that includes the
>> > original author).  As it's controversial, please leave it on its own.
>> >
>> > On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> > > Okay, I'm going to write up a patch proposal. I'll take any reasonably
>> > > uncontroversial patches, whether in typed up form or just with a
>> > > description of the problem and a link to any previous discussion.
>> > >
>> > > Things I'm aware of:
>> > >
>> > > - Treasuror is undefined
>> > > - Welcome packages are undefined
>> > > - The 1 auction/5 auctions problem
>> > > - The thing where you can transfer things into a facility from
>> everywhere
>> > >
>> > > If I've missed anything, or you disagree with any of these, please let
>> me know.
>> > >
>> > > -Aris
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: DIS: Call for Patches

[Reuben Staley]

The Cartographor doesn't make the transfer as the Cartographor is only the
Announcer. Agora, the auctioneer, is authorized the make the transfer.

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 14:00 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> However, (and this is the third time I've asked) can anyone point me to
> where it says in the rules that the cartographer actually CAN make a
> transfer of land from Agora to a land auction winner?
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I don't consider 1 auctions/5 auctions to be a patch.  It works as is,
> > but some people want it a different way (never mind that includes the
> > original author).  As it's controversial, please leave it on its own.
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > Okay, I'm going to write up a patch proposal. I'll take any reasonably
> > > uncontroversial patches, whether in typed up form or just with a
> > > description of the problem and a link to any previous discussion.
> > >
> > > Things I'm aware of:
> > >
> > > - Treasuror is undefined
> > > - Welcome packages are undefined
> > > - The 1 auction/5 auctions problem
> > > - The thing where you can transfer things into a facility from
> everywhere
> > >
> > > If I've missed anything, or you disagree with any of these, please let
> me know.
> > >
> > > -Aris
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Call for Patches

[Aris Merchant]

AFAICT it doesn't, so e can't. I presume we're letting last week's
auctions self-ratify, so that shouldn't be a problem for those. I
think the best fix is to specify that if Agora is the auctioneer and
the Auction is rule specified, the transfer is automatic unless
specified otherwise.

-Aris

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> However, (and this is the third time I've asked) can anyone point me to
> where it says in the rules that the cartographer actually CAN make a
> transfer of land from Agora to a land auction winner?
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I don't consider 1 auctions/5 auctions to be a patch.  It works as is,
>> but some people want it a different way (never mind that includes the
>> original author).  As it's controversial, please leave it on its own.
>>
>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> > Okay, I'm going to write up a patch proposal. I'll take any reasonably
>> > uncontroversial patches, whether in typed up form or just with a
>> > description of the problem and a link to any previous discussion.
>> >
>> > Things I'm aware of:
>> >
>> > - Treasuror is undefined
>> > - Welcome packages are undefined
>> > - The 1 auction/5 auctions problem
>> > - The thing where you can transfer things into a facility from everywhere
>> >
>> > If I've missed anything, or you disagree with any of these, please let me 
>> > know.
>> >
>> > -Aris
>> >
>>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Call for Patches

[Aris Merchant]

Yeah, sure.

-Aris

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> However, (and this is the third time I've asked) can anyone point me to
> where it says in the rules that the cartographer actually CAN make a
> transfer of land from Agora to a land auction winner?
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I don't consider 1 auctions/5 auctions to be a patch.  It works as is,
>> but some people want it a different way (never mind that includes the
>> original author).  As it's controversial, please leave it on its own.
>>
>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> > Okay, I'm going to write up a patch proposal. I'll take any reasonably
>> > uncontroversial patches, whether in typed up form or just with a
>> > description of the problem and a link to any previous discussion.
>> >
>> > Things I'm aware of:
>> >
>> > - Treasuror is undefined
>> > - Welcome packages are undefined
>> > - The 1 auction/5 auctions problem
>> > - The thing where you can transfer things into a facility from everywhere
>> >
>> > If I've missed anything, or you disagree with any of these, please let me 
>> > know.
>> >
>> > -Aris
>> >
>>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Call for Patches

[Aris Merchant]

Sure, I'll leave it out.

-Aris

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> I don't consider 1 auctions/5 auctions to be a patch.  It works as is,
> but some people want it a different way (never mind that includes the
> original author).  As it's controversial, please leave it on its own.
>
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> Okay, I'm going to write up a patch proposal. I'll take any reasonably
>> uncontroversial patches, whether in typed up form or just with a
>> description of the problem and a link to any previous discussion.
>>
>> Things I'm aware of:
>>
>> - Treasuror is undefined
>> - Welcome packages are undefined
>> - The 1 auction/5 auctions problem
>> - The thing where you can transfer things into a facility from everywhere
>>
>> If I've missed anything, or you disagree with any of these, please let me 
>> know.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>

Re: DIS: Call for Patches

[Kerim Aydin]

However, (and this is the third time I've asked) can anyone point me to
where it says in the rules that the cartographer actually CAN make a
transfer of land from Agora to a land auction winner?


On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: 
> I don't consider 1 auctions/5 auctions to be a patch.  It works as is,
> but some people want it a different way (never mind that includes the
> original author).  As it's controversial, please leave it on its own.
> 
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Okay, I'm going to write up a patch proposal. I'll take any reasonably
> > uncontroversial patches, whether in typed up form or just with a
> > description of the problem and a link to any previous discussion.
> > 
> > Things I'm aware of:
> > 
> > - Treasuror is undefined
> > - Welcome packages are undefined
> > - The 1 auction/5 auctions problem
> > - The thing where you can transfer things into a facility from everywhere
> > 
> > If I've missed anything, or you disagree with any of these, please let me 
> > know.
> > 
> > -Aris
> >
>

Re: DIS: Call for Patches

[Reuben Staley]

One thing I just realized might be useful: while you're fixing that, can
you also make it so that one corn can replace 3 or fewer apples instead of
only 3?

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 01:51 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Oh, one that I'd forgotten about: the place in Rule 2003 where it says
> "Players CAN, while performing the above actions, substitute 3 apples
> for 1 corn" should actually be the other way around.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:48 AM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> > Okay, I'm going to write up a patch proposal. I'll take any reasonably
> > uncontroversial patches, whether in typed up form or just with a
> > description of the problem and a link to any previous discussion.
> >
> > Things I'm aware of:
> >
> > - Treasuror is undefined
> > - Welcome packages are undefined
> > - The 1 auction/5 auctions problem
> > - The thing where you can transfer things into a facility from everywhere
> >
> > If I've missed anything, or you disagree with any of these, please let
> me know.
> >
> > -Aris
>

Re: DIS: Call for Patches

[Kerim Aydin]

I don't consider 1 auctions/5 auctions to be a patch.  It works as is,
but some people want it a different way (never mind that includes the
original author).  As it's controversial, please leave it on its own.

On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Okay, I'm going to write up a patch proposal. I'll take any reasonably
> uncontroversial patches, whether in typed up form or just with a
> description of the problem and a link to any previous discussion.
> 
> Things I'm aware of:
> 
> - Treasuror is undefined
> - Welcome packages are undefined
> - The 1 auction/5 auctions problem
> - The thing where you can transfer things into a facility from everywhere
> 
> If I've missed anything, or you disagree with any of these, please let me 
> know.
> 
> -Aris
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Call for Patches

[Aris Merchant]

Thank you!

-Aris

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 1:04 AM Reuben Staley 
wrote:

> As all of these are my fault, directly or indirectly, I transfer one
> paper to Aris for the purpose of pending the patch proposal outlined below.
>
> This is a notice of honour {
>
> +1 Aris for eir patching work
> -1 Telnaior for being inactive
>
> }
>
> I cannot think of any patches that I think should be included, but I
> would like to submit a warning that without careful planning, some of
> the patches may conflict with GLatF. Please, we don't want other rules
> to fail because of a patch.
>
> On 04/13/2018 01:48 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Okay, I'm going to write up a patch proposal. I'll take any reasonably
> > uncontroversial patches, whether in typed up form or just with a
> > description of the problem and a link to any previous discussion.
> >
> > Things I'm aware of:
> >
> > - Treasuror is undefined
> > - Welcome packages are undefined
> > - The 1 auction/5 auctions problem
> > - The thing where you can transfer things into a facility from everywhere
> >
> > If I've missed anything, or you disagree with any of these, please let
> me know.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
>

Re: DIS: Proto: Crystals

[Aris Merchant]

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 9:56 AM Reuben Staley 
wrote:

> Comments inline
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 18:47 Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Title: Crystals
> > Adoption index: 2.0
> > Author: Aris
> > Co-author(s):
> >
> >
> > [I'm changing it so that players CAN upgrade facilities they don't own,
> > let me know if that's a problem.]
> >
>
> Not necessarily a problem, but I struggle to see an application for such
> abilities outside of maybe bribery or something


Mostly so people can upgrade contract land units.

Amend Rule 2562, Facility Ranks, to read as follows:
> >
> >   Rank is a secured facility switch tracked by the Cartographor
> defaulting
> >   to 1, with possible values of all positive integers.
> >
> >   A player CAN increase the rank of a facility that is at eir location by
> >   exactly 1 by announcement by paying any upgrade costs of the facility
> for
> >   that specific rank, provided that e has not already done so twice for
> > that
> >   facility in the same Agoran week. A player CAN increase the rank of a
> >   facility by N by announcement by destroying N crystals in eir
> possession.
> >
>
> To clarify, you can increase the rank of any facility anywhere with
> crystals, but you can only increase the rank of facilities without crystals
> on that LU? That's what it seems like. If this is not the intent, revise
> the proposal. If this is the intent, it could be phrased more obviously.


Yep, that's what I'm going for. I'll make it more explicit.

>
> Enact a new rule, entitled "Crystals" (Power = 2.0), with the following
> text
> >
> >   Crystals, are a currency, with the Treasuror as their recordkeepor.
> >   They may be owned by Agora, persons, and contracts. The following units
> >   are defined:
> >
> >   - Bronze Crystal, 1 crystal
> >   - Silver Crystal, 2 crystals
> >   - Gold Crystal, 4 crystals
> >   - Platinum Crystal, 8 crystals
> >
>
> I'm not sold on these names since they really don't sound very crystalline.
> Perhaps types of gems like "quartz, ruby, diamond, tanzanite"? That's just
> my opinion though.


I thought of that, but those don't form as clear a hierarchy. I'm not set
on this though,

>
> Amend the rule defining welcome packages by adding as a new item,
> > appropriately
> > numbered, at the end of the list "1 Bronze Crystal".
> >
>
> I'm fine with this as long as those with welcome packages are also given
> the same gift.


No, that would flood the market. The idea is that people get them one at a
time when the register, not all at once right now.

>
> Amend Rule 2483, Economics, by changing the text "The following currencies
> > are
> > defined, and are tracked by the Treasuror." to read "The following
> > currencies,
> > known collectively as economic currencies, are defined, and are tracked
> by
> > the
> > Treasuror."
> > Enact a new rule, "Crystal Rewards" (Power = 2.0), with the following
> text:
> >
> >   When a person wins the game, if e has not won in the preceding month, 1
> > Bronze
> >   Crystal is created in eir possession.
> >
>
> I am not sure how much I approve of this. You said you wanted the price of
> crystals to be crazy high. I feel like this kinda devalues them.


Consider how rarely people actually win. I think the last one was in
December?

>
>   A player CAN, by announcement, destroy a crystal in eir possession
> >   to create 5 economic currencies of specified, possibly varying type.
> >
>
> So you get to choose? I'm actually a fan of that. It's like a last-ditch
> effort if you really are scrapped for resources but happen to have a
> crystal you haven't used.
>

Yeah. I might actually go up to 10 in the next version, but it shouldn't be
enough that people do it on a regular basis.

>
> [I expect the above to be expanded in future.]
> >
> > Enact a new rule, entitled "Crystal Auctions" (Power = 2.0), with the
> > following
> > text:
> >
> >   At the beginning of each month, the Treasuror CAN and SHALL initiate an
> >   auction. For this auction, the announcer is the Treasuror, the
> > auctioneer is
> >   Agora, the minimum bid is 1, and there is one lot, chosen as follows:
> >
>
> Interesting idea. I like the idea of having a schedule.


The idea is that rarity would drive up bidding even further when something
higher than a silver up for auction.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Proto: Crystals

[Reuben Staley]

Comments inline

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 18:47 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Title: Crystals
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-author(s):
>
>
> [I'm changing it so that players CAN upgrade facilities they don't own,
> let me know if that's a problem.]
>

Not necessarily a problem, but I struggle to see an application for such
abilities outside of maybe bribery or something.

Amend Rule 2562, Facility Ranks, to read as follows:
>
>   Rank is a secured facility switch tracked by the Cartographor defaulting
>   to 1, with possible values of all positive integers.
>
>   A player CAN increase the rank of a facility that is at eir location by
>   exactly 1 by announcement by paying any upgrade costs of the facility for
>   that specific rank, provided that e has not already done so twice for
> that
>   facility in the same Agoran week. A player CAN increase the rank of a
>   facility by N by announcement by destroying N crystals in eir possession.
>

To clarify, you can increase the rank of any facility anywhere with
crystals, but you can only increase the rank of facilities without crystals
on that LU? That's what it seems like. If this is not the intent, revise
the proposal. If this is the intent, it could be phrased more obviously.

Enact a new rule, entitled "Crystals" (Power = 2.0), with the following text
>
>   Crystals, are a currency, with the Treasuror as their recordkeepor.
>   They may be owned by Agora, persons, and contracts. The following units
>   are defined:
>
>   - Bronze Crystal, 1 crystal
>   - Silver Crystal, 2 crystals
>   - Gold Crystal, 4 crystals
>   - Platinum Crystal, 8 crystals
>

I'm not sold on these names since they really don't sound very crystalline.
Perhaps types of gems like "quartz, ruby, diamond, tanzanite"? That's just
my opinion though.

Amend the rule defining welcome packages by adding as a new item,
> appropriately
> numbered, at the end of the list "1 Bronze Crystal".
>

I'm fine with this as long as those with welcome packages are also given
the same gift.

Amend Rule 2483, Economics, by changing the text "The following currencies
> are
> defined, and are tracked by the Treasuror." to read "The following
> currencies,
> known collectively as economic currencies, are defined, and are tracked by
> the
> Treasuror."
> Enact a new rule, "Crystal Rewards" (Power = 2.0), with the following text:
>
>   When a person wins the game, if e has not won in the preceding month, 1
> Bronze
>   Crystal is created in eir possession.
>

I am not sure how much I approve of this. You said you wanted the price of
crystals to be crazy high. I feel like this kinda devalues them.

  A player CAN, by announcement, destroy a crystal in eir possession
>   to create 5 economic currencies of specified, possibly varying type.
>

So you get to choose? I'm actually a fan of that. It's like a last-ditch
effort if you really are scrapped for resources but happen to have a
crystal you haven't used.

[I expect the above to be expanded in future.]
>
> Enact a new rule, entitled "Crystal Auctions" (Power = 2.0), with the
> following
> text:
>
>   At the beginning of each month, the Treasuror CAN and SHALL initiate an
>   auction. For this auction, the announcer is the Treasuror, the
> auctioneer is
>   Agora, the minimum bid is 1, and there is one lot, chosen as follows:
>

Interesting idea. I like the idea of having a schedule.

- January: Gold Crystal
> - February: Silver Crystal
> - March: Silver Crystal
> - April: Gold Crystal
> - May: Silver Crystal
> - June: Silver Crystal
> - July: Platinum Crystal
> - August: Silver Crystal
> - September: Silver Crystal
> - October: Gold Crystal
> - November: Silver Crystal
> - December: Silver Crystal
>
>   When the winner of the auction pays eir bid, the auctioned crystal is
>   immediately created in eir possession.
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2

[ATMunn]

Yeah, I see what you mean. I just found that in the last land auction, I 
just wanted *a* land unit, not even looking at what the individual ones 
were, yet I always ended up getting outbid to the point where I felt it 
wasn't worth it to try to bid anymore. Besides, most players were simply 
bidding on all at once.


On 4/12/2018 9:50 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:

Here's my argument on why separate land auctions are better:

Imagine that land unit 1 has a Rank 4 facility on it, but land unit 2 
has nothing. More people will bid on land unit 1. This is completely 
justified since land unit 1 is definitely more valuable than land unit 
2. So someone might get land unit 2 for really cheaply, but that's 
because it's a worse land unit.


Now imagine land unit 3 is exactly the same as land unit 2 but is on the 
complete other side of the map. Hypothetical player A already owns two 
adjacent land units to land unit 3, but has nothing near land unit 2. 
Logically, land unit 3 is less valuable than land unit 2 to hypothetical 
player A.


Now, imagine hypothetical player B just barely joined, so any land is 
good by em. E'll notice that hypothetical player A will probably want to 
take land unit 3. E'll also notice that A is a lot richer than em and it 
wouldn't be productive for em to try and bid up A because e would lose. 
So B decides to focus on bidding up land unit 2.


Hypothetical player C comes along. C is very wealthy, and is not looking 
to get any more land this time. But, being the trickster that e is, e 
decides to bid up land unit 2 because e knows A wants it really badly.


This gag is already old, but the point is that I could go on. Separate 
auctions encourage more competitive play. Imagine if these were all lots 
in the same auction. Every bid would be a shot in the dark. You couldn't 
strategize and attempt to get one specific unit. Well, I mean, you could 
*try*, but in the end, you actually have very little control over what 
you get.


Single auctions work for lots that are similar to one another. Zombies, 
for instance. You most likely won't care which one you get, because the 
differences between zombies are slight. Land units have complex data 
surrounding them, and it is therefore crucial that players are able to 
strategize in auctions for them.


Or I could be wrong. As always, I'm open to argument, so if someone has 
a reason why single land auctions are better, please explain them to me.


On 4/12/2018 7:09 PM, ATMunn wrote:
Haven't read any of the other posts yet, but I would say that I would 
probably prefer it to be a single auction.


On 4/12/2018 4:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:



Reading R2004, it looks like it was *supposed* to be a single auction?
That's definitely not how the announcement below reads, and not how
people have been bidding, so I don't know what actually happened.
(R2004 only allows 1 auction to be started each week).

I'm also looking for anything that says the Cartographer CAN transfer
land in any circumstances, and all I'm finding is SHALLs.  (is there
a "SHALL implies CAN" somewhere?)


On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:

Oops, you're right. You know, it seems pretty likely that those ones
just never began in the first place.

-Aris

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin 
 wrote:



These are independent auctions so only the incorrect ones were just
terminated I think?  (Auctions 1,3,4).

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
I agree with G.'s interpretation. I believe that Rule 2549's 
statement

that "An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is
able to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots" is
applicable, given that the announced items do not in fact exist. Just
in case, I terminate the ongoing land auction, because some of the
lots are nonexistent and therefore "the Auctioneer of that Auction
cannot transfer any item included in a lot in that Auction" (Rule
2552).

-Aris

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Kerim Aydin 
 wrote:



My interpretation:

You describe a particular lot as a "white land unit at ".  
You do not have
a "white land unit at " to transfer, so anyone can terminate 
the auction.
If no one terminates it, I'm not sure whether you can satisfy 
your obligation

to transfer by transferring a black land unit at , or not.

(oh, just out of curiosity where does it say you CAN transfer 
particular
land units?  That wording of that would play into what you can or 
cannot

satisfy).

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
I'd say that these data are less relevant than the coordinates 
of the land
units, so it would not invalidate it. But that may just be me 
but wanting

to do work to fix it.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:24 Corona  
wrote:



Wait, I just looked it up (in your own report) and:

AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) <-- 
actually black

AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, 

Re: DIS: Call for Patches

[Corona]

I'd take "substitute 3 apples for 1 corn" to mean that a one-way conversion
only is possible (in the useless direction). Sure, we all know the rule
wasn't meant that way, but Agora tends to follow the letter of law, not its
spirit.

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ned Strange 
wrote:

> Doesn't it still work? I think any reasonable person would understand
> that 1 corn= 3 apples with that text.
>
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 5:51 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> > Oh, one that I'd forgotten about: the place in Rule 2003 where it says
> > "Players CAN, while performing the above actions, substitute 3 apples
> > for 1 corn" should actually be the other way around.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:48 AM, Aris Merchant
> >  wrote:
> >> Okay, I'm going to write up a patch proposal. I'll take any reasonably
> >> uncontroversial patches, whether in typed up form or just with a
> >> description of the problem and a link to any previous discussion.
> >>
> >> Things I'm aware of:
> >>
> >> - Treasuror is undefined
> >> - Welcome packages are undefined
> >> - The 1 auction/5 auctions problem
> >> - The thing where you can transfer things into a facility from
> everywhere
> >>
> >> If I've missed anything, or you disagree with any of these, please let
> me know.
> >>
> >> -Aris
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>



-- 

~Corona

Re: DIS: Call for Patches

[Gaelan Steele]

I have a contract in place for exactly this purpose. 

Gaelan

> On Apr 13, 2018, at 12:48 AM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> Okay, I'm going to write up a patch proposal. I'll take any reasonably
> uncontroversial patches, whether in typed up form or just with a
> description of the problem and a link to any previous discussion.
> 
> Things I'm aware of:
> 
> - Treasuror is undefined
> - Welcome packages are undefined
> - The 1 auction/5 auctions problem
> - The thing where you can transfer things into a facility from everywhere
> 
> If I've missed anything, or you disagree with any of these, please let me 
> know.
> 
> -Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land Auctions for April week 2, part 2

[Gaelan Steele]

I bid 1 coin. 

Gaelan

> On Apr 13, 2018, at 1:30 AM, Corona  wrote:
> 
> I bid 6 coins, and I act on Quazie's behalf to bid 6 coins.
> 
> On Friday, April 13, 2018, Aris Merchant 
> wrote:
> 
>> I bid 12 coins.
>> 
>> -Aris
>> 
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:50 AM, Reuben Staley 
>> wrote:
>>> Might as well try to do these still, right?
>>> 
>>> There are currently 5 public, unpreserved, non-aether land units in
>>> existence. All 5 are put up for auction.
>>> 
>>> For the following auction, I am the announcer, Agora is the auctioneer,
>> the
>>> minimum bid is 1 coin, and the lots are:
>>> 
>>> 1: the black land unit at (+1, +2)
>>> 2: the white land unit at (+1, +3)
>>> 3: the black land unit at (+2,  0)
>>> 4: the white land unit at (+2, +1)
>>> 5: the black land unit at (+2, +2)
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> ~Corona

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

[Gaelan Steele]

Oh boy, I get to figure out ratification!

Gaelan

> On Apr 12, 2018, at 7:05 PM, Edward Murphy  wrote:
> 
> G. 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".
> 
> How long has that been the case, so I can remove relevant bits from the
> ADoP database?
> 

Re: DIS: Call for Patches

[Ned Strange]

Doesn't it still work? I think any reasonable person would understand
that 1 corn= 3 apples with that text.

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 5:51 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> Oh, one that I'd forgotten about: the place in Rule 2003 where it says
> "Players CAN, while performing the above actions, substitute 3 apples
> for 1 corn" should actually be the other way around.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:48 AM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>> Okay, I'm going to write up a patch proposal. I'll take any reasonably
>> uncontroversial patches, whether in typed up form or just with a
>> description of the problem and a link to any previous discussion.
>>
>> Things I'm aware of:
>>
>> - Treasuror is undefined
>> - Welcome packages are undefined
>> - The 1 auction/5 auctions problem
>> - The thing where you can transfer things into a facility from everywhere
>>
>> If I've missed anything, or you disagree with any of these, please let me 
>> know.
>>
>> -Aris



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment

[Corona]

What about amending "Hi" in such a way that everyone gets a coin and VJ Rada 
gets the rest back? I wouldn't object to that.​

On 10:13, Apr 12, 2018, at 10:13, Aris Merchant 
 wrote:
>Sigh. I tend to agree with you, actually. All of your assets is a bit
>much.
>That might be hard to recover from. However, it isn't terribly
>equitable
>for you to get off free after attempting a scam, even one that we've
>sort
>of encouraged with the Boo Lien system. Also, giving all of your assets
>to
>one contract is always a horrible idea. I'm curious what other think.
>Maybe
>you should get 1/2 or 3/4 or something of them back? Whatever it is,
>we'd
>need to come up with something that no one would object to, considering
>that the contract can only be amended without objection (also always a
>bad
>idea not to provide a way to amend a contract).
>
>-Aris
>
>On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:09 AM Ned Strange 
>wrote:
>
>> I really do think that me losing all of my assets over this is
>inequitable.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Ned Strange
>
>> wrote:
>> > That is, I object for myself and PSS to Aris's intent
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ned Strange
>
>> wrote:
>> >> I object both for myself and PSS.
>> >>
>> >> 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 <
>> edwardostra...@gmail.com>
>>  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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > From V.J. Rada
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>

Re: DIS: Call for Patches

[Aris Merchant]

Oh, one that I'd forgotten about: the place in Rule 2003 where it says
"Players CAN, while performing the above actions, substitute 3 apples
for 1 corn" should actually be the other way around.

-Aris

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:48 AM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> Okay, I'm going to write up a patch proposal. I'll take any reasonably
> uncontroversial patches, whether in typed up form or just with a
> description of the problem and a link to any previous discussion.
>
> Things I'm aware of:
>
> - Treasuror is undefined
> - Welcome packages are undefined
> - The 1 auction/5 auctions problem
> - The thing where you can transfer things into a facility from everywhere
>
> If I've missed anything, or you disagree with any of these, please let me 
> know.
>
> -Aris

DIS: Call for Patches

[Aris Merchant]

Okay, I'm going to write up a patch proposal. I'll take any reasonably
uncontroversial patches, whether in typed up form or just with a
description of the problem and a link to any previous discussion.

Things I'm aware of:

- Treasuror is undefined
- Welcome packages are undefined
- The 1 auction/5 auctions problem
- The thing where you can transfer things into a facility from everywhere

If I've missed anything, or you disagree with any of these, please let me know.

-Aris

DIS: Draft Promotor Report

[Aris Merchant]

Here's a draft, any corrections appreciated. Note that I have removed
the pend fee column, because there is only one way to pend a proposal
at the moment.

Thank you,
-Aris
---

I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 3.0, the voting method is AI-majority and the valid options
are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional
votes).

ID Author(s)AI   Title Pender
---
8033*  Kenyon, [1]  2.0  Gray Land and the FountainKenyon
8034*  G.   2.0  Paydays Fix   Kenyon
8035*  G., [2]  1.0  Nothing to worry aboutG.
8036*  Aris 2.0  Impeachment   Aris
8037*  ATMunn   1.0  Medals of Honour Correction Act   ATMunn

The proposal pool is currently empty.

[1] Aris, Cuddle Beam, Gaelan, Trigon
[2] omd, pokes, o
[3] Medals of Honour Correction Act

Legend: * : Proposal is pending.

A proposal may be pended for 1 Paper.

The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below.

//
ID: 8033
Title: Gray Land and the Fountain
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Kenyon
Co-authors: Aris, Cuddle Beam, Gaelan, Trigon


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

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

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

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

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

   A player can take a number of assets from an Production or Processing
   facility's inventory by announcement if eir location is the same as
   the facility's and the following criteria are met:
   1. if the facility is built on unconserved Public Land, none.
   2. if the facility is built on preserved Public Land and less than
   four days have passed since assets were created in the facility most
   recently, e must not have taken any assets from the inventory of
   another facility located on a preserved Land Unit within this Agoran
   week.
   3. if the facility is built on Communal Land, e must be a party to
   that contract and the text of the contract must permit em to do so.
   4. if the facility is built on Private Land, e must own the facility,
   or the owner must have consented.

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

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

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

  An “x facility”, 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment

[Ned Strange]

We should probably just remove the (syn. consents)

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
>>
>> > I withdraw my and Quazie's (acting on eir behalf) support for the
>> > destruction of "Hi" - let's just have the vote on that proposal, and
>> > possibly destroy the contract later, if the proposal fails.
>>
>> It seems possible to read the combination of rule 2519 and rule 2124 to imply
>> you cannot support on someone's behalf.
>
> I agree on that reading - fascinating - and it even makes reasonable sense
> to allow objections but not support (because objections aim to keep the
> status quo that the zombie has already "consented" to).
>
>> Rule 2519/0 (Power=3.0)
>> Consent
>>
>>   A person gives consent (syn. consents) to an action when e, acting
>>   as emself, publicly states that e agrees to the action. This
>>   agreement may be implied, but only if it is reasonably clear from
>>   context that the person wanted the agreement to take place.
>>
>> Rule 2124/22 (Power=2.0)
>> Agoran Satisfaction
>>
>>   A Supporter of a dependent action is an eligible entity who has
>>   publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for
>>   an announcement of intent to perform the action. An Objector to a
>>   dependent action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted
>>   (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent to
>>   perform the action.
>>
>>   [...]
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Ørjan.
>>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada