DIS: Re: BUS: [@Treasuror] Re: OFF: [Assessor] Rewards for Proposals 8459-8472
On 7/7/20 9:46 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > On 7/7/2020 6:27 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: >> For the adoption of Proposal 8460, I grant G. 11-0=11 coins. > I grant myself a legislative card for this proposal. -G. > > > This is INEFFECTIVE. The popularity of P8460 is 0.846, while the max popularity of the assessment was 1.000. -- Jason Cobb
Re: [Parley] Stricter Tattle-Taling Rules (Re: @ Notary Pledge Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Shiny Loot)
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 5:48 PM ATMunn via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 7/7/2020 8:44 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > I object. We're planning to auction these off (or at least there is/was a > > proposal in the pipeline to do so). > > > > -Aris > > Is this an objection to the Parley or the intent to transfer the > promise? I assume the latter? > The Parley. Yes, I'm aware it doesn't do anything meaningful. It's just a way of letting people know my thoughts. -Aris
Re: [Parley] Stricter Tattle-Taling Rules (Re: @ Notary Pledge Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Shiny Loot)
well the intent to transfer the promise is npwhere quoted in aris's message, so it certainly didn't work! On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 10:48 AM ATMunn via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 7/7/2020 8:44 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > I object. We're planning to auction these off (or at least there is/was a > > proposal in the pipeline to do so). > > > > -Aris > > Is this an objection to the Parley or the intent to transfer the > promise? I assume the latter? > > -- > ATMunn > friendly neighborhood notary here :) > -- >From R. Lee
Re: [Parley] Stricter Tattle-Taling Rules (Re: @ Notary Pledge Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Shiny Loot)
On 7/7/2020 8:44 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: I object. We're planning to auction these off (or at least there is/was a proposal in the pipeline to do so). -Aris Is this an objection to the Parley or the intent to transfer the promise? I assume the latter? -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
DIS: Re: BUS: Shiny Loot
Distributing this promise would be easy because it's just 200 coins, which we could Parley to extract from omd and then evenly distribute that. On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 10:18 AM ATMunn via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 7/7/2020 8:10 PM, N. S. via agora-business wrote: > > I intend w/o objection to transfer the "treasure" promise from the LF > > Department to the Plundership > > > I object. > > This does not put me in Davy Jones' Locker, as this was not a transferal > of coins: > > > Any person who has objected to a transferral of coins to the > > Plundership are in Davy Jones’ Locker. A person in Davy Jones’ Locker > > cannot become a Pirate, and they immediately cease to be a Pirate if > > they already were one. > > If this intent succeeded, the promise would just sit there in the > Plundership's ownership with no way to get it out. We could make a > Parley to allow more types of assets to be transferred, but I don't know > how distributing them among Pirates would work. > > Either way, I think a Parley should be made to put anyone who objected > to a transferal of any asset, not just coins, in Davy Jones' Locker. > > -- > ATMunn > friendly neighborhood notary here :) > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: just a normal action
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 5:00 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 7/7/20 7:55 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: > > I cease to exist. > > > > This is probably a regulated action because it would change information > for which the Registrar is the recordkeepor, and thus you would need a > method provided by a statute to cease to exist Even if it weren't, this is blatantly ATEOISIDTIDWHPAFALT. -Aris > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: just a normal action
On 7/7/2020 8:00 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: On 7/7/20 7:55 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: I cease to exist. This is probably a regulated action because it would change information for which the Registrar is the recordkeepor, and thus you would need a method provided by a statute to cease to exist stupid technicalities -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
DIS: @Arbitor contract leaving CFJ
On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 10:02 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 7/7/20 8:01 PM, N. S. via agora-business wrote: > > Ok I CFJ: "I am no longer a party to Trigon's 6th secret contract" > > > > Argument: That contract says in relevant part" "No party can leave this > > contract until the Secret > > Action has been performed." which would seem to mandate that I can't > leave > > that contract before the action is performed (at the time of calling it > > hasn't been). Having said that a contract is very simply "an agreement > > between players", and I unambiguously don't agree to that contract in any > > way, which means it's no longer a contract with me. > > > I favour this CFJ. > > -- > Jason Cobb > > Just changing the subjectl ine for flagging requirements -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: just a normal action
On 7/7/20 7:55 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: > I cease to exist. > This is probably a regulated action because it would change information for which the Registrar is the recordkeepor, and thus you would need a method provided by a statute to cease to exist -- Jason Cobb
[@R. Lee] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Secret Contracts
On 2020-07-07 17:54, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: The contract says "No party can leave this contract until the Secret Action has been performed." Seriously, I put that in there? Weird. If I am the only party to Secret Contract No. 6, I amend the contract by removing the sentence beginning "No party can leave this contract". If I am not, then I simply propose to amend the contract as such. -- Trigon I LOVE SPAGHETTI transfer Jason one coin nch was here I hereby don't... trust... the dragon... don't... trust... the dragon... Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Secret Contracts
The contract says "No party can leave this contract until the Secret Action has been performed." On 7/7/2020 7:43 PM, N. S. via agora-business wrote: i have one card now, i cease to be a member of contract 6 though On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 9:40 AM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: On 2020-07-07 17:03, N. S. via agora-business wrote: I become a party to each of Trigon's secret contracts. I feel obligated to bring this up. Contract 3 states: Parties to this contract SHOULD have at least one card when the Secret Action is performed. and Contract 6 states: Parties to this contract SHOULD have at least three cards when the Secret Action is performed. These two contracts are the ones whose party limits you have triggered. I won't say much about it other than that you might want to take this advice and acquire some cards from somewhere. -- Trigon I LOVE SPAGHETTI transfer Jason one coin nch was here I hereby don't... trust... the dragon... don't... trust... the dragon... Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
DIS: Re: BUS: Secret Contracts
On 2020-07-07 17:03, N. S. via agora-business wrote: I become a party to each of Trigon's secret contracts. I feel obligated to bring this up. Contract 3 states: Parties to this contract SHOULD have at least one card when the Secret Action is performed. and Contract 6 states: Parties to this contract SHOULD have at least three cards when the Secret Action is performed. These two contracts are the ones whose party limits you have triggered. I won't say much about it other than that you might want to take this advice and acquire some cards from somewhere. -- Trigon I LOVE SPAGHETTI transfer Jason one coin nch was here I hereby don't... trust... the dragon... don't... trust... the dragon... Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
DIS: Re: BUS: [Contract] Public Lockers
On 7/7/20 6:02 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: > When a person transfers any number of assets to this contract, those > assets are considered to be in eir account. A party to this contract CAN > transfer any number of assets from eir account to emself. Attempts to > transfer more assets to emself than are in eir account are INEFFECTIVE. The most important part of the existing locker contracts are the "acting as emself" clauses, which means that nobody can steal assets from the contract, even if they could steal assets from the person emself. This contract does not appear to have such a clause. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [LoAFER] [Poll] Thread of Grievances @Officers
The text of the contract. Basically so people can see "what does this contract do?" without having to read through the text. Apologies if that was not clear. On 7/7/2020 5:00 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote: what would contract summaries involve? a summary of their text content or the actions taken? On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 9:22 PM ATMunn via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: I think this is a worthwhile thread to use, so I'll bump it and go first: Honestly, I'm pretty content at this point. Things were crazy when I first got the office because people were making tons of proposals, but now that things have settled down, it's not too bad. People generally seem to remember to signal me which is very helpful and appreciated. The only request I have is this: please submit some summaries of contracts. I really would like to add those to my reports (specifically the web reports), and I'd like to not have to write them myself. I made a pledge saying that I would pay anyone who submits a summary. (Thread: [Pledge] Contract Summaries) On 7/6/2020 12:15 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: Officers of Agora, have ye any grievances? Now that we are a bit more settled in with the new economy, I have decided to create this thread in order that the officers of Agora have a place where they can discuss any problems they may have with how their official duties are handled by the Agoran Community. My hope is that this thread will lead to legislation and new traditions that will improve quality-of-life for Agoran Officers. TL;DR: What can the Agoran Community do better to help you as an officer? -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :) -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
DIS: Re: BUS: [Pledge] Contract Summaries
On 2020-07-04 11:08, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: I pledge to transfer 3 coins to every person who submits a 1-2 sentence summary of a contract e is party to. If a person submits summaries for multiple contracts, I will transfer 3 coins for every contract e submitted a summary for. Multiple summaries for the same contract do not count. The time window for this pledge shall be 14 days. The title of this pledge shall be "Contract Summaries". Summaries for Secret Contracts 1-6: "It's a secret to everybody" 18 coins please! -- Trigon I LOVE SPAGHETTI transfer Jason one coin nch was here I hereby don't... trust... the dragon... don't... trust... the dragon... Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
Re: DIS: [LoAFER] [Poll] Thread of Grievances @Officers
what would contract summaries involve? a summary of their text content or the actions taken? On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 9:22 PM ATMunn via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I think this is a worthwhile thread to use, so I'll bump it and go > first: > > Honestly, I'm pretty content at this point. Things were crazy when I > first got the office because people were making tons of proposals, but > now that things have settled down, it's not too bad. People generally > seem to remember to signal me which is very helpful and appreciated. > > The only request I have is this: please submit some summaries of > contracts. I really would like to add those to my reports (specifically > the web reports), and I'd like to not have to write them myself. I made > a pledge saying that I would pay anyone who submits a summary. (Thread: > [Pledge] Contract Summaries) > > On 7/6/2020 12:15 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > > Officers of Agora, have ye any grievances? > > > > Now that we are a bit more settled in with the new economy, I have > > decided to create this thread in order that the officers of Agora have a > > place where they can discuss any problems they may have with how their > > official duties are handled by the Agoran Community. My hope is that > > this thread will lead to legislation and new traditions that will > > improve quality-of-life for Agoran Officers. > > > > TL;DR: What can the Agoran Community do better to help you as an officer? > > > -- > ATMunn > friendly neighborhood notary here :) >
Re: DIS: [Protos] Some ideas I've been kicking around
On 7/7/2020 1:09 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2020-07-07 13:59, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 7/7/2020 3:54 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >>> >>> On 7/7/2020 12:28 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: ADoP: 2 Arbitor: 1 >>> >>> If we got this route I might see about formalizing the CotC? The strict >>> Arbitor's duties (which can just be assignment on the fly and few records >>> kept) is probably a 1, but keeping it organized/archived is where all the >>> work is? [and the periods of time when an Arbitor was assigning by >>> replying to CFJs is the hardest to go back and reconstruct, so it's >>> definitely value-added I think!]. >>> >> >> I'm not opposed to CotC being formalized. It's a lot of work for >> currently no game reward. Plus, it would make it a bit clearer for new >> players to understand what it actually is. > > If I'm being completely honest, I thought the CotC tags were just > autogenerated and was just an old name for Arbitor. > Sorta. In 2014 we went back to basics and repealed the CotC and had the Speaker assign cases. Then when that got too much again we brought the office back, but under the new name. The old CotC had an official "post the case after the fact" duty, and the new job description left that all out. After a while we realized missing the archive posts was a Bad Thing. So sometime in, I dunno 2015 maybe?, ais523 (I think) agreed to to Arbitor if e didn't have to keep all the records, and I agreed to do CotC as long as I didn't have to be timely (could catch up monthly or whatever). So we agreed to that split and never formalized it. I'm comfortable doing both atm because a lot of what I did manually before is now automated, but it's nice to have the option of splitting the job (and/or not moving the archives with the office). If I resigned Arbitor I'd give the new Arbitor the option of em doing CotC or me doing it (unless we make it two offices of course). I'm using the [CotC] tag to signal "this is after the fact and I'm not performing any official duties here". -G.
Re: DIS: [Protos] Some ideas I've been kicking around
On 2020-07-07 13:59, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: On 7/7/2020 3:54 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: On 7/7/2020 12:28 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: ADoP: 2 Arbitor: 1 If we got this route I might see about formalizing the CotC? The strict Arbitor's duties (which can just be assignment on the fly and few records kept) is probably a 1, but keeping it organized/archived is where all the work is? [and the periods of time when an Arbitor was assigning by replying to CFJs is the hardest to go back and reconstruct, so it's definitely value-added I think!]. I'm not opposed to CotC being formalized. It's a lot of work for currently no game reward. Plus, it would make it a bit clearer for new players to understand what it actually is. If I'm being completely honest, I thought the CotC tags were just autogenerated and was just an old name for Arbitor. -- Trigon I LOVE SPAGHETTI transfer Jason one coin nch was here I hereby don't... trust... the dragon... don't... trust... the dragon... Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
Re: DIS: [Protos] Some ideas I've been kicking around
On 7/7/2020 3:54 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: On 7/7/2020 12:28 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: ADoP: 2 Arbitor: 1 If we got this route I might see about formalizing the CotC? The strict Arbitor's duties (which can just be assignment on the fly and few records kept) is probably a 1, but keeping it organized/archived is where all the work is? [and the periods of time when an Arbitor was assigning by replying to CFJs is the hardest to go back and reconstruct, so it's definitely value-added I think!]. I'm not opposed to CotC being formalized. It's a lot of work for currently no game reward. Plus, it would make it a bit clearer for new players to understand what it actually is. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: DIS: [Protos] Some ideas I've been kicking around
On 7/7/2020 12:28 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > > ADoP: 2 > Arbitor: 1 If we got this route I might see about formalizing the CotC? The strict Arbitor's duties (which can just be assignment on the fly and few records kept) is probably a 1, but keeping it organized/archived is where all the work is? [and the periods of time when an Arbitor was assigning by replying to CFJs is the hardest to go back and reconstruct, so it's definitely value-added I think!]. -G.
Re: DIS: [Protos] Some ideas I've been kicking around
On 2020-07-07 13:28, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: On 7/7/2020 2:24 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: Title: Offices are complex AI: 1 Enact a new power-1 rule entitled "Complexity" with the text: Complexity is an office switch with the possible values of all integers from 0 to 3 inclusive, where 1 is the default. It is tracked in the ADoP's weekly report. The ADoP CAN, with 2 Agoran consent, flip the complexity of an office. Amend Rule 2496 "Rewards" by amending the text "5 coins" in the bullet point beginning "Publishing an office's weekly or monthly report" to read "5 coins times the complexity of the office" and in the bullet point beginning "Resolving a referendum" to read "5 coins times the complexity of the Assessor". I like this idea a lot. As pointed out on Discord, there should be some initial complexity values. I thought I would suggest some: Right. The intention was that I would receive suggestions for these. Guess I didn't communicate that very well. Or at all. Here are my thoughts on your suggestions. ADoP: 2 Usually I'd agree with this, but at this point in time ADoP is dead-simple. Arbitor: 1 I would bump this one up just because this position is messy at times. Assessor: 3 Coopor: 1 Distributor: N/A? At this point, Distributor doesn't have any report or anything so I guess that it doesn't really matter. However, I could see at some point a kind of list report, so I'd probably set this to 1 for that just in that eventuality. Herald: 1 Notary: 2 Prime Minister: 0 Promotor: 3 Referee: 2 Registrar: 1 Rulekeepor: 3 Speaker: 0 Tailor: 1 Treasuror: 2 Definitely biased here but my office is absolutely a 3. Webmastor: 1 Again, just suggestions; I didn't put a ton of thought into these, and I'm sure some will disagree. But I think something like this would work for the initial values. Overall, I agree for the most part. Thank you for your additions. -- Trigon I LOVE SPAGHETTI transfer Jason one coin nch was here I hereby don't... trust... the dragon... don't... trust... the dragon... Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
Re: DIS: [Protos] Some ideas I've been kicking around
On 7/7/2020 2:24 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: Title: Offices are complex AI: 1 Enact a new power-1 rule entitled "Complexity" with the text: Complexity is an office switch with the possible values of all integers from 0 to 3 inclusive, where 1 is the default. It is tracked in the ADoP's weekly report. The ADoP CAN, with 2 Agoran consent, flip the complexity of an office. Amend Rule 2496 "Rewards" by amending the text "5 coins" in the bullet point beginning "Publishing an office's weekly or monthly report" to read "5 coins times the complexity of the office" and in the bullet point beginning "Resolving a referendum" to read "5 coins times the complexity of the Assessor". I like this idea a lot. As pointed out on Discord, there should be some initial complexity values. I thought I would suggest some: ADoP: 2 Arbitor: 1 Assessor: 3 Coopor: 1 Distributor: N/A? Herald: 1 Notary: 2 Prime Minister: 0 Promotor: 3 Referee: 2 Registrar: 1 Rulekeepor: 3 Speaker: 0 Tailor: 1 Treasuror: 2 Webmastor: 1 Again, just suggestions; I didn't put a ton of thought into these, and I'm sure some will disagree. But I think something like this would work for the initial values. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: DIS: [LoAFER] [Poll] Thread of Grievances @Officers
I think this is a worthwhile thread to use, so I'll bump it and go first: Honestly, I'm pretty content at this point. Things were crazy when I first got the office because people were making tons of proposals, but now that things have settled down, it's not too bad. People generally seem to remember to signal me which is very helpful and appreciated. The only request I have is this: please submit some summaries of contracts. I really would like to add those to my reports (specifically the web reports), and I'd like to not have to write them myself. I made a pledge saying that I would pay anyone who submits a summary. (Thread: [Pledge] Contract Summaries) On 7/6/2020 12:15 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: Officers of Agora, have ye any grievances? Now that we are a bit more settled in with the new economy, I have decided to create this thread in order that the officers of Agora have a place where they can discuss any problems they may have with how their official duties are handled by the Agoran Community. My hope is that this thread will lead to legislation and new traditions that will improve quality-of-life for Agoran Officers. TL;DR: What can the Agoran Community do better to help you as an officer? -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
DIS: [Protos] Some ideas I've been kicking around
I have a couple protos I'd like some feedback on. I think these would both be good additions but they're just drafts at this point. --- Title: If it's not pending we don't care AI: 3 Amend Rule 1607 "Distribution" by removing the following paragraphs: - The paragraph beginning "If a proposal has been in the proposal pool for more than 7 days"; and - The paragraph beginning "The Promotor's report includes a list" then, by appending to the paragraph beginning "In a given Agoran week" the following: When e does this, all Proposals that were in the Proposal Pool and not pending at the beginning of that week are destroyed. --- Title: Offices are complex AI: 1 Enact a new power-1 rule entitled "Complexity" with the text: Complexity is an office switch with the possible values of all integers from 0 to 3 inclusive, where 1 is the default. It is tracked in the ADoP's weekly report. The ADoP CAN, with 2 Agoran consent, flip the complexity of an office. Amend Rule 2496 "Rewards" by amending the text "5 coins" in the bullet point beginning "Publishing an office's weekly or monthly report" to read "5 coins times the complexity of the office" and in the bullet point beginning "Resolving a referendum" to read "5 coins times the complexity of the Assessor". -- Trigon I LOVE SPAGHETTI transfer Jason one coin nch was here I hereby don't... trust... the dragon... don't... trust... the dragon... Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Victory Auction: July 2020
> I officially declare that all fractional and decimal bids placed on this auction DID NOT HAPPEN. What fractional and decimal bids? What are you talking about? On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 7:17 PM Reuben Staley via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 2020-07-07 11:13, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 7/7/20 12:01 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > >> I bid 35.0001 coins > > > > > > I may have started this, but it doesn't actually work. > > > > Rule 2509 says: > > > >>A "number" is considered to refer to a real number, unless > >>otherwise explicitly specified. A "number of (items)", where > >>(items) is a set of discrete entities, is considered to refer to > a > >>non-negative integer, unless otherwise explicitly specified. > > > > > > The auction method says: > > > >> 2. BIDDING: > >> * Players CAN place a bid on an open auction by specifying an amount > >> of the auction's currency as eir bid not equal to any bid on that > >> auction. >* Players CAN withdraw from an open auction by > announcement. > > > > > > "amount" is close enough to number that I think the rules would force it > > to be a non-negative integer. This means that all of the fractional bids > > were INEFFECTIVE. > > Utilizing my MYSTICAL AND ARCANE AUCTIONEER JURISDICTION POWERS, I > officially declare that all fractional and decimal bids placed on this > auction DID NOT HAPPEN. > > (to a-b to make it official ofc) > > -- > Trigon > > I LOVE SPAGHETTI > transfer Jason one coin > nch was here > I hereby > don't... trust... the dragon... > don't... trust... the dragon... > Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Victory Auction: July 2020
On 7/7/20 12:01 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > I bid 35.0001 coins I may have started this, but it doesn't actually work. Rule 2509 says: > A "number" is considered to refer to a real number, unless > otherwise explicitly specified. A "number of (items)", where > (items) is a set of discrete entities, is considered to refer to a > non-negative integer, unless otherwise explicitly specified. The auction method says: > 2. BIDDING: >* Players CAN place a bid on an open auction by specifying an amount > of the auction's currency as eir bid not equal to any bid on that > auction. >* Players CAN withdraw from an open auction by > announcement. "amount" is close enough to number that I think the rules would force it to be a non-negative integer. This means that all of the fractional bids were INEFFECTIVE. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Victory Auction: July 2020
On 7/7/2020 9:28 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2020-07-07 10:23, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 7/7/2020 9:12 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: >>> On 2020-07-07 10:08, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: On 7/7/20 12:06 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2020-07-07 10:01, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: >> I bid 35.0001 coins > This is funny and all, but I should probably mention that fractional and > decimal bids are likely unpayable since the auction logic I'm using > require fee-based actions to claim prizes, and assets can only be paid > in whole number increments. Don't think it's illegal to place these > bids, though, so there's nothing stopping you, I guess. > Rule 2579: > If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset, the > actual fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset. >>> >>> Ah, never mind then. Still, this is just a very roundabout way of saying >>> 36 coins. >> >> Not exactly. >> >> For the final fee, sure it will be 36. >> >> But since your bidding reg includes "as eir bid not equal to any bid on >> that auction." this is a way to place multiple unequal bids that all come >> out to paying 36. > > Yeah, I realized that as well. For some reason, the possibility of > fractional bids didn't even come to my mind. > ^ evidence that it's not a part of the common definition/understanding of how auctions work!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Victory Auction: July 2020
On 7/7/2020 9:23 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 7/7/2020 9:12 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 2020-07-07 10:08, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: >>> On 7/7/20 12:06 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: On 2020-07-07 10:01, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > I bid 35.0001 coins This is funny and all, but I should probably mention that fractional and decimal bids are likely unpayable since the auction logic I'm using require fee-based actions to claim prizes, and assets can only be paid in whole number increments. Don't think it's illegal to place these bids, though, so there's nothing stopping you, I guess. >>> >>> Rule 2579: >>> If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset, the actual fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset. >> >> Ah, never mind then. Still, this is just a very roundabout way of saying >> 36 coins. > > Not exactly. > > For the final fee, sure it will be 36. > > But since your bidding reg includes "as eir bid not equal to any bid on > that auction." this is a way to place multiple unequal bids that all come > out to paying 36. Actually I take that back, those bids might just fail. * Players CAN place a bid on an open auction by specifying an amount of the auction's currency as eir bid not equal to any bid on that auction. My memory is that we have something on the cfj books where "amount of a currency" is inherently in the units of that currency and excludes numbers outside of that? Is "common sense" here that they fail (because it's not an amount of an actual currency) or that they round up and thus loophole the unique bid part? I think "fail", personally. Minimum bid increments are a thing in "common auction definitions" and if the regs don't specify a minimum increment, 1 currency unit is a reasonable understanding. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Victory Auction: July 2020
On 2020-07-07 10:23, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: On 7/7/2020 9:12 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: On 2020-07-07 10:08, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: On 7/7/20 12:06 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: On 2020-07-07 10:01, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: I bid 35.0001 coins This is funny and all, but I should probably mention that fractional and decimal bids are likely unpayable since the auction logic I'm using require fee-based actions to claim prizes, and assets can only be paid in whole number increments. Don't think it's illegal to place these bids, though, so there's nothing stopping you, I guess. Rule 2579: If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset, the actual fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset. Ah, never mind then. Still, this is just a very roundabout way of saying 36 coins. Not exactly. For the final fee, sure it will be 36. But since your bidding reg includes "as eir bid not equal to any bid on that auction." this is a way to place multiple unequal bids that all come out to paying 36. Yeah, I realized that as well. For some reason, the possibility of fractional bids didn't even come to my mind. -- Trigon I LOVE SPAGHETTI transfer Jason one coin nch was here I hereby don't... trust... the dragon... don't... trust... the dragon... Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Victory Auction: July 2020
On 7/7/2020 9:12 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2020-07-07 10:08, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 7/7/20 12:06 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: >>> On 2020-07-07 10:01, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: I bid 35.0001 coins >>> This is funny and all, but I should probably mention that fractional and >>> decimal bids are likely unpayable since the auction logic I'm using >>> require fee-based actions to claim prizes, and assets can only be paid >>> in whole number increments. Don't think it's illegal to place these >>> bids, though, so there's nothing stopping you, I guess. >>> >> >> Rule 2579: >> >>>If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset, the >>>actual fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset. > > Ah, never mind then. Still, this is just a very roundabout way of saying > 36 coins. Not exactly. For the final fee, sure it will be 36. But since your bidding reg includes "as eir bid not equal to any bid on that auction." this is a way to place multiple unequal bids that all come out to paying 36. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Victory Auction: July 2020
On 2020-07-07 10:08, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: On 7/7/20 12:06 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: On 2020-07-07 10:01, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: I bid 35.0001 coins This is funny and all, but I should probably mention that fractional and decimal bids are likely unpayable since the auction logic I'm using require fee-based actions to claim prizes, and assets can only be paid in whole number increments. Don't think it's illegal to place these bids, though, so there's nothing stopping you, I guess. Rule 2579: If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset, the actual fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset. Ah, never mind then. Still, this is just a very roundabout way of saying 36 coins. (Also, the fact that you were able to find that clause and cite it in ninety seconds is absolutely hilarious for some reason. Rulekeepors, man.) -- Trigon I LOVE SPAGHETTI transfer Jason one coin nch was here I hereby don't... trust... the dragon... don't... trust... the dragon... Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Victory Auction: July 2020
On 7/7/20 12:06 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2020-07-07 10:01, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: >> I bid 35.0001 coins > This is funny and all, but I should probably mention that fractional and > decimal bids are likely unpayable since the auction logic I'm using > require fee-based actions to claim prizes, and assets can only be paid > in whole number increments. Don't think it's illegal to place these > bids, though, so there's nothing stopping you, I guess. > Rule 2579: > If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset, the > actual fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Victory Auction: July 2020
On 2020-07-07 10:01, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: I bid 35.0001 coins This is funny and all, but I should probably mention that fractional and decimal bids are likely unpayable since the auction logic I'm using require fee-based actions to claim prizes, and assets can only be paid in whole number increments. Don't think it's illegal to place these bids, though, so there's nothing stopping you, I guess. -- Trigon I LOVE SPAGHETTI transfer Jason one coin nch was here I hereby don't... trust... the dragon... don't... trust... the dragon... Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport (attempted, also attn Treasuror)
yet another unintuitive way this switch works (but yes e gets 2 extra votes on econ proposals) Btw Notice of Honour +1 Trigon for a really tough report in a crazy week -1 Murphy, I actually am upset that you stole ADoP from me on a technicality despite the fact that I won two elections for it. On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 10:39 AM ATMunn via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 7/6/2020 8:36 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 7/6/20 8:34 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > >> On 7/2/2020 8:38 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-official wrote: > >>> INTERESTS > >>> - > >>> > >>> Office Interest > >>> > > >> [snip] > >>> Treasuror Economy, Economy > >> I get that the Treasuror is *really* involved with the economy, but I > >> don't think the interest is supposed to be listed twice. > >> > >> > > > > It is, and it was set in the original interests proposal. See [0]. > > > > [0]: > > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2020-January/013387.html > > > Oh, interesting. (no pun intended) > > -- > ATMunn > friendly neighborhood notary here :) > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Victory Auction: July 2020
I bid 26. If we end up in obscene numbers I'm up for pooling cash On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 2:34 AM nch via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 7/6/20 7:10 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > > On 7/6/20 8:07 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: > >> On 7/6/2020 8:01 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > >>> On 7/6/2020 4:56 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-official wrote: > Whereas the Lost and Found Department owns no cards or products, the > lots of this auction are as follows: (1) a new Victory Card. > >>> I bid 11 coins. -G. > >>> > >> I bid 20 coins. > >> > > I bid 20.1 coins. > > > > -- > > Jason Cobb > > > I bid 25 coins. > > -- > nch > Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager > > >
