DIS: Re: BUS: re-tailor
On Thursday, 18 June 2020, 01:08:09 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > I award myself the following ribbons: [snip] > - Platinum (Speaker) > - Ultraviolet (Champion) These two work, but it feels like a bug that you should be able to get Ribbons off a Ribbon victory. Maybe the lockout should be two weeks? That would prevent recursive Ultraviolets, at least. -- ais523
Re: DIS: CoE question
On 6/17/2020 6:32 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: On 6/17/2020 3:15 PM, grok via agora-discussion wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 2020, 7:44 PM Rebecca wrote: either choice is perfectly valid and fine, but given that stuff is always changing, you may make a mistake with the new stuff and get caught in an infinite chain at that point lol On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:28 AM ATMunn via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: so I, as I imagine others do, keep an always-current version of my report, in addition to the actual published reports. However, my question is this: If I publish a report, then more stuff happens (e.g. a new contract is created), and then someone makes a CoE, is it *wrong* to include that new stuff? i.e., does the revision have to be accurate to the original time of publishing and nothing after, or can it (or should it) be accurate to the time of publishing of the revision? -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :) -- From R. Lee I think this would be a very interesting CFJ if the logic was ever used to COE a revised report. The rules don't specifically describe whether a report SHOULD or even CAN include newly reportable information unrelated to the Doubt if the report is revised. From a cursory glance, I think the two most important places to start are how you interpret the common definition of the word "revise" as used in R2201 and the interaction between "weekly" in R2143 and "Agoran week" in R1023. At least, that's where I would start preparing my arguments. For the record, R. Lee's answer is the most pragmatic. As a practical matter, if someone says at the top of a new report "this report includes the revisions made due to the CoE on the past report in addition to new transactions" I've never seen anyone complain (and I've done that). Though for self-ratifying reports (the notary rep isn't self-ratifying, right?), it's probably a better practice to publish the corrected old report right after seeing the CoE, so it can self-ratify cleanly without worrying about new errors. -G. The rules don't say that the notary's report self-ratifies, so I would assume it doesn't. But yeah, for revision 4, I included all the new stuff and just said "information is accurate to the date of this revision as far as my knowledge" or something like that. I don't know if I'll always do that, but for this report it would have been harder to do it the other way. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Resolving Prime Minister Election
congrats! On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:11 AM Rebecca via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I resolve the Agoran Decision for the election of the Prime Minister. The > quorum was 7 voting system was IRV. > > First Preference Votes > > R. Lee (1): R. Lee > > ATMunn (3): Aris, Jason, ATMunn > > Nch (4): Falsifian, PSS, nch, Trigon > > R. Lee is eliminated with the least votes. Eir one vote is distributed to > nch > > Second Round > > ATMunn (3): Aris, Jason, ATMunn > > Nch (5): Falsifian, PSS, nch, Trigon, R. Lee > > Nch is therefore the winner of this election in the second round. Nch is > installed as Prime Minister. > > > -- > From R. Lee > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8431-8441
On 6/17/2020 5:32 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/17/20 8:23 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: >> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8431-8441 >> = >> >> IDTitle Result >> >> 8431 Proposal Reward Trimming ADOPTED >> 8432 The Administrative State REJECTED >> 8433 Simpler Heraldry REJECTED >> 8434 Majoritarian Confidence ADOPTED >> 8435 No Confidence Isn't Personal ADOPTED >> 8436 Stately Officiation REJECTED >> 8437 Guilderoy LockhartADOPTED >> 8438 Tailor PayADOPTED >> 8439 Termination of Candidacy ADOPTED >> 8440 0 blots patch REJECTED >> 8441 Transmutation REJECTED > > > Any requests for more information or different formatting in the summary > table? I was about to reply thank you! For posterity/research this is the main thing. -G.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8431-8441
On 6/17/20 8:23 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: > RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8431-8441 > = > > IDTitle Result > > 8431 Proposal Reward Trimming ADOPTED > 8432 The Administrative State REJECTED > 8433 Simpler Heraldry REJECTED > 8434 Majoritarian Confidence ADOPTED > 8435 No Confidence Isn't Personal ADOPTED > 8436 Stately Officiation REJECTED > 8437 Guilderoy LockhartADOPTED > 8438 Tailor PayADOPTED > 8439 Termination of Candidacy ADOPTED > 8440 0 blots patch REJECTED > 8441 Transmutation REJECTED Any requests for more information or different formatting in the summary table? -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: CoE question
On 6/17/2020 3:15 PM, grok via agora-discussion wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020, 7:44 PM Rebecca wrote: > >> either choice is perfectly valid and fine, but given that stuff is always >> changing, you may make a mistake with the new stuff and get caught in an >> infinite chain at that point lol >> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:28 AM ATMunn via agora-discussion < >> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> >>> so I, as I imagine others do, keep an always-current version of my >>> report, in addition to the actual published reports. However, my >>> question is this: If I publish a report, then more stuff happens (e.g. a >>> new contract is created), and then someone makes a CoE, is it *wrong* to >>> include that new stuff? i.e., does the revision have to be accurate to >>> the original time of publishing and nothing after, or can it (or should >>> it) be accurate to the time of publishing of the revision? >>> >>> -- >>> ATMunn >>> friendly neighborhood notary here :) >>> >> >> >> -- >> From R. Lee >> > > I think this would be a very interesting CFJ if the logic was ever used to > COE a revised report. The rules don't specifically describe whether a > report SHOULD or even CAN include newly reportable information unrelated to > the Doubt if the report is revised. From a cursory glance, I think the two > most important places to start are how you interpret the common definition > of the word "revise" as used in R2201 and the interaction between "weekly" > in R2143 and "Agoran week" in R1023. At least, that's where I would start > preparing my arguments. > > For the record, R. Lee's answer is the most pragmatic. As a practical matter, if someone says at the top of a new report "this report includes the revisions made due to the CoE on the past report in addition to new transactions" I've never seen anyone complain (and I've done that). Though for self-ratifying reports (the notary rep isn't self-ratifying, right?), it's probably a better practice to publish the corrected old report right after seeing the CoE, so it can self-ratify cleanly without worrying about new errors. -G.
Re: DIS: CoE question
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020, 7:44 PM Rebecca via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > either choice is perfectly valid and fine, but given that stuff is always > changing, you may make a mistake with the new stuff and get caught in an > infinite chain at that point lol > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:28 AM ATMunn via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > so I, as I imagine others do, keep an always-current version of my > > report, in addition to the actual published reports. However, my > > question is this: If I publish a report, then more stuff happens (e.g. a > > new contract is created), and then someone makes a CoE, is it *wrong* to > > include that new stuff? i.e., does the revision have to be accurate to > > the original time of publishing and nothing after, or can it (or should > > it) be accurate to the time of publishing of the revision? > > > > -- > > ATMunn > > friendly neighborhood notary here :) > > > > > -- > From R. Lee > I think this would be a very interesting CFJ if the logic was ever used to COE a revised report. The rules don't specifically describe whether a report SHOULD or even CAN include newly reportable information unrelated to the Doubt if the report is revised. From a cursory glance, I think the two most important places to start are how you interpret the common definition of the word "revise" as used in R2201 and the interaction between "weekly" in R2143 and "Agoran week" in R1023. At least, that's where I would start preparing my arguments. For the record, R. Lee's answer is the most pragmatic. >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Notary] The Notes (revision 4)
Yeah, I have that with the full contract text down below. Honestly not sure why I didn't put it at the top too ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ On 6/17/2020 12:58 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: On 6/17/2020 9:36 AM, ATMunn via agora-official wrote: "TPP"[3]CuddleBeam, P.S.S.[2], Jason, R. Lee Not a CoE, but should probably have a "disputed" note here, too (the CFJs exist now, under the subject line "[CFJs] Plunder Partnership"). -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: DIS: Re: [Notary] The Notes (revision 2) [was: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Notary] The Notes (weekly report)]
On 6/17/20 12:19 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > When did that happen? https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-May/042905.html -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: [Notary] The Notes (revision 2) [was: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Notary] The Notes (weekly report)]
When did that happen? On 6/16/2020 7:00 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: On 6/16/20 6:55 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: On 6/16/20 6:53 PM, ATMunn via agora-official wrote: "The Dragon Corporation" Warrigal, Aris, Jason CoE: Falsifian is party to the dragon corporation Also, Warrigal was booted out because e didn't consent to an amendment proposal. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Humble Agoran farmer offers wood for sheep (oh, attn Notary btw)
oh snap we have another humble agoran farmer
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:14 AM Edward Murphy via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> PSS wrote:
>
> > I like this take on this process, but it doesn’t seem to have anything
> stopping the third person in line from withdrawing two cards and processing
> them inefficiently in order to bump me up the order.
>
> Inefficient processing requires Agoran consent of members ("we've been
> at 3 for a while, let's just cash those out for 2 products each"), and
> if you're not a member then you can become one any time. If I'm still
> overlooking something, then let me know.
>
> > This also doesn’t seem to account for resets.
>
> Oh, good catch. I intend (with Agoran consent of Collectors) to amend
> this contract to read, in full:
>
> Administrivia:
>
>1) The name of this contract is Card Collective Contract, Agoran
> (abbr. CCCA).
>
>2) Any player CAN join or leave CCCA by announcement. Members of CCCA
> are known as Collectors.
>
>3) Any Collector CAN amend CCCA with Agoran consent of Collectors.
>
>4) The Secretary General is Murphy.
>
>5) A Person of Interest is a player or former player.
>
> Balances:
>
>1) Each type of Card has a corresponding List, which is an ordered
> sequence of Persons of Interest (who may appear multiple times),
> initially empty.
>
>2) When a player transfers N instances of one type of Card to this
> contract, e is added N times to the end of that type's List.
>
>3) If at any time CCCA has no instances of a type of Card, then
> that Card's List becomes empty.
>
> Collection:
>
>1) To perform Collection for N instances of one type of Card is to do
> the following:
>
> a) Transfer that many instances from CCCA to oneself.
>
> b) Pay that many instances as a single set to earn Products.
>
> c) The Comrades are the first entries (up to N) in that type's
>List who are players. Transfer one Product earned in the
>previous step to the first Comrade (or keep it if that Comrade
>is the performer), then one to the second, etc., returning to
>the last Comrade after the first, until all those Products are
>transferred. Then remove those entries from that List.
>
> Other clauses notwithstanding, Collection may only be performed if
> it fully succeeds in one message and has at least one Comrade.
>
>2) Any Collector CAN perform Collection for N instances of one type of
> Card with Agoran consent of Collectors.
>
>3) If CCCA has at least as many instances of one type of Card as the
> largest single set that can be paid to earn Products, then the
> Secretary General CAN and SHALL perform Collection for such a
> maximal set of that type.
>
> Non-binding notes
>
>The Collectors SHOULD update these as needed for accuracy.
>
>Example:
>
>* Legislative Cards are deposited by (in order) A, B, C, A, D, E
>* LC List is now {A, B, A, C, D, E}
>* A performs Collection (4 LCs for 10 Pendants)
>* Comrades are A, B, A, C
>* A transfers those 10 Pendants as follows: keep, B, C, keep,
>(back to start) keep, B, C, keep, (back to start) keep, B
>* LC List is now {D, E}
>
>If B deregistered prior to this Collection, then instead:
>
>* Comrades are A, C, A, D
>* A transfers (total of) 3 to C, 2 to D, keeps other 5
>* LC List is now {B, E}
>
>Non-players can't own assets, but remain on Lists in case they
>re-register. Non-Collector players can deposit and benefit, but
>can't influence the timing of voluntary payouts.
>
>
