DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Ned Strange via agora-discussion]

This is not a working link if you aren't aware.;

Regards

On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 9:18 AM nix via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> file:///tmp/Screenshot_2023-10-12_17-16-26.png
>


-- 
>From R. Lee

DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Granting Champion

[Ned Strange via agora-discussion]

On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 10:30 AM nix via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 2/5/23 20:52, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
> > I notice the rock garden, specifying Murphy.
>
> I award Murphy the patent title of Champion. Currently planning to
> record it as Rock Gardening.
>
> --
> nix
> Herald, Collector
>
>
> There are already stone wins in the Scroll recorded as by 'Gauntlet',
though after the flavor change that isn't ideal. But under many names and
iterations of points we've still always used the name 'High Score', so all
stone wins should have the same name. I suggest champion by Masonry for all
of those wins.

-- 
>From R. Lee

Re: DIS: A proto

[Ned Strange via agora-discussion]

I think that you don't need to ask 'hard questions' about why trans people
are trans. I'm quite open about my gender and why I'm trans, but I don't
think anything I have said in any way invited 'hard questions' to be posed
about the subject. Sure, I have spoken from a more academic perspective
about what I believe about gender and my own struggles with the subject -
because I believed at that time I wouldn't receive absurd pushback from you
or your ilk. I will not discuss those things again, which is actually quite
sad for me because some of these people are my friends and I want to be
open with my friends. There may be a forum for discussing 'hard questions'
of gender and race - I believe the rest of us unanimously agree that any
agora nomic forum is not it. Open discussion is one thing, but making
strange insinuations about how trans women are actually men or randomly
bringing up biological racial differences and blaming political correctness
out of nowhere is not it, chief.

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022, 18:48 Madrid via agora-discussion, <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> Before I get dogpiled for being called a "racist" - different races, in a
> very general way, have different medical needs.
>
> What I mainly wanted to bring up back then was that it puts those in a
> racial minority at a disadvantage when general medical culture seems (often
> unintentionally) catered towards a particular racial majority and
> 'political correctness' silences voices that want to bring up that these
> minorities generally have different inborn vulnerabilities than the
> majority. It seems racist to say "darker skinned people need more sunlight
> to be healthy". But it's true. I'm darker skinned myself, I want to know
> these things to get the vitamin D I need! This doesn't only apply to skin
> color, but ultimately, what's more important, political correctness, or
> people's health?
>
> About trans people, I think I'm the only guy making hard questions about
> the phenomenon. I curious about these things that people seem so hushed
> about. Like, for example:
>
> Why are the vast majority of women on Agora, trans?
>
> Stone me, burn me on the stake, I am legitimately curious.
>
> On Wednesday, August 31, 2022, Sarah S. via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 9:40 AM Sarah S. 
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 3:32 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
> > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> On 8/30/2022 9:25 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> > >> > On Tue, 2022-08-30 at 18:14 +0200, Madrid via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > >> >> Its true that I don't care much about upholding ancient tradition.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> It's nomic, a game of change, and I'm very willing to see Spivak
> > >> >> removed.
> > >>
> > >> [snip]
> > >>
> > >> > I probably wouldn't object to a widespread change to singular-they
> if
> > >> > the general view of the playerlist is that that would be preferable,
> > >> > but it would be likely to add a little extra confusion for no real
> > >> > benefit (the distinction between singular "e" and plural "they"
> makes
> > >> > it easier to parse what a rule is saying).
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Just as a minor clarification, I'm not arguing for Spivak per se based
> > on
> > >> "ancient tradition" but more along the lines you suggest here, of
> > >> evaluating our community standards continuously but generally
> > >> respectfully.  The important point for me is that this is not just an
> > >> isolated quibble over a single instance of language use (and a single
> > >> unfortunate comparison), but rather an inability to reach a reasonable
> > >> accommodation with the current community's longstanding/currently-
> > standing
> > >> practices.
> > >>
> > >> That stuff is just exhausting and not fun in any gaming group, beyond
> > any
> > >> historical points or future changes.
> > >>
> > >> -G.
> > >>
> > >> I personally support spivak - any change to referring to players
> always
> > > by the singular 'they' would probably offend me - I'm not a they, I'm a
> > > she. E/em pronouns, as something that are generally confined within the
> > > game, don't annoy me in the same way that 'they' would and I enjoy our
> > odd
> > > little game pronouns. That said, Agora Is A Nomic and people are free
> to
> > > advocate changing to the use of preferred pronouns if they like - this
> > > doesn't bother me particularly much when Madrid does it. I too find
> them
> > > odd to adapt to (and get them wrong quite often), and blognomic did
> start
> > > with spivak then abolish them many years ago. And yes, I do think
> > > traditions ought to be questioned - a substantial majority of the
> player
> > > base is newer and if they choose to revise something that doesn't work
> > for
> > > them, they should do so.
> > >
> > > What bothers me rather more is Madrid's attitude to trans people and
> > women
> > > expressed 

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor)

[Ned Strange via agora-discussion]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 2:42 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> (I'm not sure where discussions are, but I think something needs to be done
> right now. A proposal will take some time to pass anyways, but at least it
> will be something to look towards as this unravels.
>
> If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of
> the oppressor.
> - Desmond Tutu
> )
>
> I submit the following proposal:
> {
> Title: Temporary Justice
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: 4st
> Co-author(s):
>
> Destroy all coins in Madrid's possession.
> Destroy all stamps in Madrid's possession.
> Grant Madrid 100 blots.
> Remove all patent titles from Madrid.
> }
>
> --
> 4st
> Referee
>
> [image: width=]
> <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail
> >
> Virus-free.www.avast.com
> <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail
> >
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>

I can't agree with removing patent titles - they are a historical record
rather than something that enables a player to play the game.
-- 
>From R. Lee

DIS: Re: [@Notary] Re: BUS: [@Treasuror] Black List Clean-Up

[Ned Strange via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 3:42 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 2:24 PM nix via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I intend, without objection, to transfer 5000 coins from the L to
> > myself.
> >
> > I intend, without objection, to transfer 1 wincard from the L to
> myself.
> >
>
> I table each of the above intents again.
>
> If it clears things up, "myself" refers to me.
>
> Having received no objections, I transfer 5000 coins from the L to
> myself
>
> Having received no objections, I transfer 1 wincard from the L to
> myself.
>
> This may work because each intent is ripe (tabled within the past 14 days)
> and mature (tabled at least 4 days ago).
>
> I perform the following actions 5 times:
> {
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 2:24 PM nix via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I intend, without objection, to transfer 1 wincard from the L to
> myself.
>
>
> I table the above intent again.
>
> Having received no objections, I transfer 1 wincard from the L to
> myself.
>
> }
>
> Precedent on this? This seems way too broken to work, and like I'm probably
> missing something.
> --
> secretsnail
>

'Myself' coming from nix surely is just a substitute for nix.

If I said quang means snail for the purpose of this message, quang means
snail. Similarly, the word 'myself' implcitly operates in that way -
'myself' refers to the tabler of the intent.
-- 
>From R. Lee

DIS: Re: BUS: [DoV?] Apathy resolution

[Ned Strange via agora-discussion]

In the usual case I would have been emailed or messaged in some way which
means I would be able to see the message. I was offline the whole time this
message was unedited. It can't be to me if it never reached me at any point.

On Mon, 7 Mar 2022, 4:45 am nix via agora-business, <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 3/6/22 11:27, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
> > Finding that a discord message was sent "to" me just because it says it
> > was is ATEOISIDTHIDTHPAFALT, even if I'm known to sometimes be on that
> > forum.  As it happens, I was on vacation.  When I came back to Discord
> > (about 24 hours after the alleged notice), there were two messages where
> I
> > had been pinged while I was away and I replied to those.  Those were
> > clearly sent*to*  me using the technology of the forum.  Given that
> > mechanism in Discord more or less defines sending a message "to" someone,
> > any lost in the crowd weren't sent "to" me, any more than the message in
> > DIS was by the CFJ 1888 precedent.
>
> To me this is the most compelling argument. Just saying something *in* a
> space I'm in isn't saying it *to* me. CFJ1888 indicates similar
> thinking, that you have to in some way indicate you're sending it *to*
> people. If this was done with an @everyone it would be clearly *to*
> everyone.
>
> --
> nix
> Herald
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection

[Ned Strange via agora-discussion]

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 4:16 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 2/20/22 20:49, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Mon, 2022-02-21 at 02:47 +0100, nethack4.org dicebot via agora-
> > business wrote:
> >> The dice roll was: 41
> >> This is R2137, The Assessor.
> > For reference:
> > {{{
> >   The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for
> >   collecting votes and keeping track of related properties.
> > }}}
> >
> > Well, I guess I know which sentence we're going to pick this week! Any
> > suggestions on what word to replace?
> >
>
> I am of course biased and vote for "The Assessor is an device; its
> holder is responsible for collecting votes and keeping track of related
> properties."
>
> If you go with this, please don't put it in the "device is on" section.
> I'd prefer to not cease to exist at the end of my time window (though I
> guess we all will eventually...).
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>
It does say the time window is 60 days unless the Device states otherwise,
so I assume you could just state otherwise (say, a billion years).

I also back this suggestion because all other options would either create
an office or make the assessor track more.
-- 
>From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Registrar] Weekly Report

[Ned Strange via agora-discussion]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 10:40 AM Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Aug 2021, Ned Strange via agora-official wrote:
>
> > Fora
> > 
> >
> > The publicity switch values (Rule 478) are self-ratifying.
> >
> > PublicityLocation or description Typical use
> > ---- ---
> > Public   agora-official at agoranomic.orgofficial reports
> > Public   agora-business at agoranomic.orgother business
> > Discussion   agora-discussion at agoranomic.org  discussion
> > Discussion   https://discord.gg/JCC6YGc  discussion
> > Foreign* irc://irc.libera.chat:6667/##nomic  discussion
> > Public   agora at listserver.tue.nl  backup
> > Public   agoranomic at groups.io **  backup
>
> > The IRC channel does not require subscription; set your IRC client to
> > server irc.freenode.net, port 6667, channel ##nomic, and whatever
> > nickname you like.
>
> This server name is out of date.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>

It will be fixed next time
-- 
>From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3922 Assigned to Murphy (attn Treasuror)

[Ned Strange via agora-discussion]

You can't reply to d. Wet by discussion because e won't see it, e
intentionally chooses not to subscribe to the discussion list.

On Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 8:56 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
> On 8/9/2021 3:13 PM, D. Wet via agora-business wrote:
> > I will wait for the final judgement of CFJ 3922 or August 16th, which
> > ever comes first, before taking the next action.
>
> As an alternative if you want, you can sent a public message now, that
> says something like "I withdraw any proposal I submitted, if I submitted
> one".  This way, whether you did or not, you end up in the same place (no
> proposal).
>
> Then you can resubmit a proposal with the edits that were suggested that
> make it work (I think I saw some edit suggestions on how to improve it?)
>
> The CFJ will eventually find out whether the original one was or wasn't a
> proposal in the first place, but by then it won't matter because you
> withdrew it before it was distributed for voting.
>
> -G.
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3923 Assigned to G.

[Ned Strange via agora-discussion]

oh sorry

On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 12:05 PM Telna via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 2021-08-09 11:54, Ned Strange via agora-discussion wrote:
> > G. isn't an interested judge (as is correctly listed on your report).
> It's
> > too late now, but.
> E favoured the case.
>


-- 
>From R. Lee

DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3923 Assigned to G.

[Ned Strange via agora-discussion]

G. isn't an interested judge (as is correctly listed on your report). It's
too late now, but.

On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 11:44 AM Telna via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> The below CFJ is 3923. I assign it to G.
>
> =
>
> The quoted message is a distribution message as outlined in Regulation AM0.
>
> Called by Trigon: Fri 06 Aug 2021 22:24:15
>
> =
>
> On 2021-08-07 08:17, Trigon via agora-business wrote:
> > On 06/08/2021 21:38, Trigon via agora-official wrote:
> >> The Retrieval Period of the Second Victory Auction of Jun 2021 having
> >> ended at 13:07:41 on 6 August 2021, I hereby bring an end to this
> >> auction.
> >>
> >> 
> >> BIDS ON THIS AUCTION
> >> 
> >>
> >> -- FOR THE WIN CARD --
> >>
> >> [2021-07-21 05:38:48] Trigon 400cn
> >> [2021-07-21 06:12:45] R. Lee 500cn
> >> [2021-07-23 00:53:00] Falsifian  700cn
> >> [2021-07-23 00:56:16] Trigon 800cn
> >> [2021-07-23 23:57:57] *** G. ( 2^(82,589,933) − 1 )cn
> >> [2021-07-24 16:49:34] *** G. (withdrawal)
> >> [2021-07-27 14:29:49] Falsifian cn
> >> [2021-07-30 02:28:28] (3) Trigon1200cn
> >> [2021-07-30 05:04:57] (2) R. Lee1500cn
> >> [2021-07-30 12:39:17] (1) Falsifian 1717cn
> >> [2021-07-30 13:07:41] (4) D. Wet  22cn
> >>
> >> -- FOR THE JUSTICE CARD --
> >>
> >> [2021-07-21 06:12:45] (2) R. Lee   1cn
> >> [2021-07-23 00:56:16] (1) Trigon  50cn
> >>
> >> Bids marked with numbers in parenthesis are active bids.
> >> Bids marked with asterisks are bids from withdrawn players.
> >>
> >> 
> >> DISTRIBUTION
> >> 
> >>
> >> Falsifian wins the first lot for 1717cn.
> >> Trigon wins the second lot for 50cn.
> >>
> >> No other lots exist.
> >>
> >> If all of the following succeed I do them:
> >> { I revoke from Falsifian 1717cn. I grant em one victory card. }
> >>
> >> If all of the following succeed I do them:
> >> { I revoke from Trigon 628cn. I grant em one justice card. }
> >>
> > CFJ: The quoted message is a distribution message as outlined in
> > Regulation AM0.
> >
> > ARGUMENTS: This may not be a distribution message because of a textual
> > error: I intended to award myself a new justice card for a price 578
> > coins greater that what I bid on it. What, if anything, did this message
> > do? Did it fail as it did not meet the criteria for a distribution
> > message? Did the distribution message succeed and I just violated the
> > "SHALL destroy and transfer" bit?
> >
> > EVIDENCE:
> >
> > Ambiguous quoted text:
> >
> >> Trigon wins the second lot for 50cn.
> > ...
> >> If all of the following succeed I do them:
> >> { I revoke from Trigon 628cn. I grant em one justice card. }
> >
> > Relevant part of AM0:
> >
> >DISTRIBUTION: The auctioneer for an auction CAN and SHALL, within
> >seven days of the ending of that auction's retrieval period,
> >create a public message (henceforth the "distribution message")
> >that contains a full history of bids on the auction and
> >withdrawals from the auction. It must also clearly indicate each
> >awardee and the lot e recieves. In this message, the auctioneer
> >CAN and SHALL destroy the amount to be paid from the inventory
> >each awardee and transfer to that player (or create in eir
> >possession if the item is new) the set of assets associated with
> >the lot e won. Failing to publish a distribution message
> >constitutes the Class 3 Crime of Auction Abandonment.
> >
>


-- 
>From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Proposal

[Ned Strange via agora-discussion]

Nah I don't think the proposal would do anything if enacted. The pronoun
can only have one referent and the referent is G, in the action of sejdinf
an email

On Mon, Aug 9, 2021, 11:11 AM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 2021-08-08 at 17:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business
> wrote:
> > I create a proposal with this sentence as its text, and make it
> > pending.
>
> I think that if this proposal is enacted, it makes a new proposal (a
> copy of itself) with no author. I was expecting this to be disallowed
> by some high-powered rule, but as far as I can tell, there's no
> requirement for a proposal to have an author (proposals with no author
> can't be created by the usual mechanism, but there's no security
> against a rule or proposal doing so). It's possible to pend proposals
> at power 1, too.
>
> I'm not 100% certain it's possible to distribute (if challenged) a
> proposal with no author, though, as the author is an essential
> parameter, so a missing author would be a missing essential parameter.
>
> --
> ais523
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: A finger pointer is me

[Ned Strange via agora-discussion]

This is ineffective because your finger was resolved this week, you'll have
to wait until about 3 hours from now, new week utc. Said this on discord
just saying on list for posterity.

On Mon, Aug 9, 2021, 6:30 AM Trigon via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I gain a justice card.
>
> --
> Trigon
>
>   ¸¸.•*¨*• Play AGORA QUEST
>
> I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.
> 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: Fwd: [cfj] simultaneous again

[Ned Strange via agora-discussion]

I know. that's why it's in the rules, though

On Sat, Aug 7, 2021 at 12:11 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 8/6/21 9:49 PM, Ned Strange via agora-discussion wrote:
> > I think we allow people to make multiple actions in one message because
> > it's often a useful and necessary shortcut. I think it's possible to make
> > two simultaneous actions by sending 2 emails with the same timestamp, to
> > the second. So there isn't a good reason not to allow simultaneous
> actions
> > in one message.
>
>
> Putting two actions in one message isn't a shortcut, it's directly
> permitted by the rules. There's no requirement that only one "by
> announcement" can be in a message, all one has to do is fulfill the
> requirements, and that can be done multiple times.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason
>
>

-- 
>From R. Lee

DIS: Re: BUS: Fwd: [cfj] simultaneous again

[Ned Strange via agora-discussion]

I think we allow people to make multiple actions in one message because
it's often a useful and necessary shortcut. I think it's possible to make
two simultaneous actions by sending 2 emails with the same timestamp, to
the second. So there isn't a good reason not to allow simultaneous actions
in one message.

This wouldn't mean G has two ministry foci of course, because that rule
uses the singular 'the', meaning that if there is no most recently
specified focus, it is not flipped.

Actually because the two possible options are either that he took
sequential actions (flipping to participation) or simultaneous actions (no
flip) there is no circumstance this CFJ is anything but FALSE. So the judge
doesn't have to resolve the underlying issue.

On Sat, Aug 7, 2021, 11:06 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
> [lol sigh.  one more err want to get this exact.]
>
> I withdraw the most recent CFJ I called.
>
>
> I simultaneously plan to flip my focus to Legacy and plan to flip my focus
> to Compliance.
>
>
> I CFJ:  Assuming G. announces no further focus plans, eir focus will flip
> to Legacy at the beginning of the next month.
>
>
> Evidence:
>
> Rule 2638/0[extract]
>   An active player CAN Plan to Flip eir own Ministry Focus,
>   specifying any valid value for eir Ministry Focus, by
>   announcement. At the beginning of a month, every active player's
>   Ministry Focus is set to the value e mostly recently specified by
>   Planning to Flip. If a player did not Plan to Flip eir Ministry
>   Focus switch in the last month, it is not flipped.
>
> Arguments:
>
> Rule 478/39 reads in part:
> Any action performed by sending a message is
>performed at the time date-stamped on that message. Actions in
>messages (including sub-messages) are performed in the order they
>appear in the message, unless otherwise specified.
>
> The "unless otherwise specified" seems like a bit of a security hole,
> given that several mechanisms in the rules would break if people could
> perform multiple actions simultaneously.  But I can't find a prohibition
> against that - the "in the order they appear" is written not as a limit,
> but as a default that can be overridden - can it go so far to specify "at
> exactly the same moment (simultaneous)"?
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] decimation

[Ned Strange via agora-discussion]

How about

"Rules and Regulations to the contrary notwithstanding, all auctions that
are ongoing in the last week of September 2021 SHALL and CAN be resolved by
announcement during that week, using the bids currently in place and
disregarding any other time period. Any ongoing auctions as of 1 November
2021 are terminated with no winner. At the end of September 2021, each
entity's coin balance is divided by ten (rounding to the nearest whole).
The Buoyancy Target is then flipped to its previous value divided by 10"

The autoflipping of the BT won't be perfect (it will take itself from the
treasuror's previous report which will disregard some transactions) but
does that work?

On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 2:19 PM Ned Strange  wrote:

> Ah, I see the buoyancy issue. You wouldn't have time to flip the switch. I
> retract the proposal decimation times 9. It should flip the switch itself
> and also it should restart any auctions.
>
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2021, 2:15 PM Ned Strange  wrote:
>
>> It is timed at the end of the month (as it says) as it says which avoids
>> the bouyancy problem, and likely the auction problem.
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 6, 2021, 2:13 PM Trigon via agora-discussion <
>> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/08/2021 03:44, Ned Strange via agora-business wrote:
>>> > There are too many coins. let's delete some. This will do nothing but u
>>> > know aesthetics.
>>> >
>>> > I create and pend the following proposal by using a pendant
>>> >
>>> > Title: decimation times 9
>>> > Ai 1
>>> > Text
>>> > Create a power 1 rule called "temporary inflation reduction" with the
>>> text
>>> > "At the end of the month this rule was adopted, each entity's coin
>>> balance
>>> > is divided by 10, rounded to the nearest whole number. This rule then
>>> > automatically repeals itself."
>>> >
>>>
>>> This neglects the buoyancy variables. They'll still be at their normal
>>> values until the start of the next month. If this passes, this will be
>>> the equivalent of 220 current coins per boatload. That will destabilize
>>> everything.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, if there are any auctions going on when this passes, we
>>> will all have bid far over what we intended. There isn't really an easy
>>> way to counteract that if there are no special cases, other than to all
>>> agree to bid using new values and potentially screw someone over who
>>> isn't in on the plan. I'd prefer to give auction bids a special case if
>>> we want to pass this.
>>>
>>> Also, I remember back when we were hashing out this system, we mentioned
>>> including special cases for specific contracts whose values are
>>> contingent on exact values in coins. Perhaps we should also discuss that
>>> before this goes up for vote.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Trigon
>>>
>>>   ¸¸.•*¨*• Play AGORA QUEST
>>>
>>> I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.
>>> 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
>>>
>>

-- 
>From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] decimation

[Ned Strange via agora-discussion]

It is timed at the end of the month (as it says) as it says which avoids
the bouyancy problem, and likely the auction problem.

On Fri, Aug 6, 2021, 2:13 PM Trigon via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 06/08/2021 03:44, Ned Strange via agora-business wrote:
> > There are too many coins. let's delete some. This will do nothing but u
> > know aesthetics.
> >
> > I create and pend the following proposal by using a pendant
> >
> > Title: decimation times 9
> > Ai 1
> > Text
> > Create a power 1 rule called "temporary inflation reduction" with the
> text
> > "At the end of the month this rule was adopted, each entity's coin
> balance
> > is divided by 10, rounded to the nearest whole number. This rule then
> > automatically repeals itself."
> >
>
> This neglects the buoyancy variables. They'll still be at their normal
> values until the start of the next month. If this passes, this will be
> the equivalent of 220 current coins per boatload. That will destabilize
> everything.
>
> Furthermore, if there are any auctions going on when this passes, we
> will all have bid far over what we intended. There isn't really an easy
> way to counteract that if there are no special cases, other than to all
> agree to bid using new values and potentially screw someone over who
> isn't in on the plan. I'd prefer to give auction bids a special case if
> we want to pass this.
>
> Also, I remember back when we were hashing out this system, we mentioned
> including special cases for specific contracts whose values are
> contingent on exact values in coins. Perhaps we should also discuss that
> before this goes up for vote.
>
> --
> Trigon
>
>   ¸¸.•*¨*• Play AGORA QUEST
>
> I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.
> 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: New Rule: Onboarding of Newly Activated Players

[Ned Strange via agora-discussion]

I do believe this proposal is effective. It only needs to specify its text.

For future reference, proposals usually have a title and an adoption index
equal to the power of what it does. Power is essentially a ranking of how
important rules are and when creating a new rule it's important to note
whether it is power 1 2 or 3.

On Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 2:31 AM D. Wet via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I propose to create a new Rule in the Agoran commmunity to be adopted
> according to the current rule adoption procedure. The Rule is:
>
> Onboarding of Newly Activated Players
>
> 1. Newly Activated Players MUST be requested to take their first Action
> in a timely fashion after being switched to Active.
>
> 2. Players that are Active less than one month MUST actively be educated
> when their Action is IMPOSSIBLE within the current Ruleset.
>
> 3. The education in referred to in 2. MUST contain references to N
> specific Rules numbers as to why their Action is ILLEGAL within the
> current Ruleset. N is at least 1 and at most 3 and NEED NOT to lead to a
> POSSIBLE Action when taken into account during the next try to act.
>

DIS: Testo Testerino

[Ned Strange]

Test

-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: I'm no longer getting BUS messages

[Ned Strange]

I think it might be time to start using the method of doing actions by
directly messaging each player

On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Ned Strange  wrote:
> I am getting BUS including your tests
>
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>> I haven't received anything from BUS in my inbox for 48 hours.
>> It's clear froM DIS that others have, I'm missing major threads.
>> Is anyone else NOT receiving from BUS (but is from DIS?)  Never
>> had this issue before.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: I'm no longer getting BUS messages

[Ned Strange]

I am getting BUS including your tests

On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> I haven't received anything from BUS in my inbox for 48 hours.
> It's clear froM DIS that others have, I'm missing major threads.
> Is anyone else NOT receiving from BUS (but is from DIS?)  Never
> had this issue before.
>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft

[Ned Strange]

youre obligated to make a weekly proposal pool report, simply saying
that it contains a proposal you wish would be withdrawn doesn't count

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> Here's a draft. I have a bad feeling that I'm missing something, but
> there's been a ton of traffic and I'm rather busy, so hopefully
> someone can point it out. Also, a warning: I'll be out of state next
> week, and, while I can hopefully still devote some time to the game,
> will be commenting at a reduced rate and will likely be unable to
> publish a report.
>
> -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
> ---
> 8053*  G., Aris   1.0  patch patch patch G. [1]
> 8054+  Aris, [2]  3.0  Minimalist Contracts v2   Aris
> 8055+  Aris, G.   3.0  Distributed Assets v3 Aris
> 8056+  Aris, G.   3.0  Deregulation Act v2   Aris
>
> The Proposal Pool contains a proposal which V.J. Rada will hopefully
> withdraw soon, and no other proposals.
>
> [1] Ruberstamped official proposal
> [2] G., V.J. Rada
>
> Legend: * : Proposal is pending.
> + : By publishing this report, I pay a paper to pend
> the marked proposal.
>
> //
> ID: 8053
> Title: patch patch patch
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: G.
> Co-authors: Aris
>
>
> Amend the rule defining welcome packages by adding as a new item,
> appropriately numbered, at the end of the list "5 incense".
>
> Create 5 incense in the possession of each player who received a
> welcome package since April 28, 2018.
>
> //
> ID: 8054
> Title: Minimalist Contracts v2
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors: G., V.J. Rada
>
>
> Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets ("[]")
> have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any 
> rules
> created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
> have been removed before its resolution.
>
> [This proposal saves allowing contracts to control or auction assets until we
> decide to allow them to be persons, which is its own can of worms.]
>
> # 1 Repeal
>
> Destroy all contracts.
>
> Repeal rules 2524, 2526, 2520, 2525, 2522, 2523, 2521, 2527, and 2517, in
> that order.
>
> In rule 2545 "Auctions", delete the text "or contract"
>
> In rule 2547 "The Auctioneer", delete the text "or contracts",
> change the last comma in the last sentence of the second paragraph
> to a period, deleting the all parts of the sentence beyond it, and delete
> the last paragraph.
>
> In rule 2548 "The Auction Announcer" delete the text "or contract" and
> the last sentence.
>
> In rule 2549 "Auction Initiation", delete all instances of the text
> "or contract"
>
> In rule 2550 "Bidding", replace the last comma with a full stop and
> delete all text after it, and delete all instances of the text "or
> contract"
>
> In rule 2483 "Economics", delete the text "contracts,"
>
> In rule 1994 "Ownership of Land", delete the text "Land belonging to a
> contract is called Communal Land." and delete the text "Together,
> Communal Land and Private Land are called Proprietary Land." and
> replace the text "Land belonging to any other entity is called Private
> Land." with "Land belonging to any other entity is called Private Land
> (syn. Proprietary Land)
>
> In rule 2561 "Asset Generation with Facilities", delete the text "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." and
> renumber the fourth bullet point 3.
>
> # 2 Replacement
>
> Reenact Rule 1742, "Contracts", at power 2.5, with the following text:
>
>   Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may
>   make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be
>   binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement
>   is known as a contract. A contract may be modified, including
>   by changing the set of parties, by agreement between all existing
>   parties. A contract may also terminate by agreement between all
>   parties. A contract automatically terminates if the number of
>   parties to it falls below two. For the purposes of this rule,
>   agreement includes both consent and agreement specified by
>   contract.
>
>   Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in
>   accordance with that contract. This obligation is not 

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Minimalist Contracts v2

[Ned Strange]

I never actually pended it or submitted it to the proposal pool

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> I submit the following proposal. V.J., you might want to retract
> yours, as I've fixed a ton of bugs and included it in this.
>
> -Aris
> ---
>
> Title: Minimalist Contracts v2
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors: G., V.J. Rada
>
>
> Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets ("[]")
> have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any 
> rules
> created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
> have been removed before its resolution.
>
> [This proposal saves allowing contracts to control or auction assets until we
> decide to allow them to be persons, which is its own can of worms.]
>
> # 1 Repeal
>
> Destroy all contracts.
>
> Repeal rules 2524, 2526, 2520, 2525, 2522, 2523, 2521, 2527, and 2517, in
> that order.
>
> In rule 2545 "Auctions", delete the text "or contract"
>
> In rule 2547 "The Auctioneer", delete the text "or contracts",
> change the last comma in the last sentence of the second paragraph
> to a period, deleting the all parts of the sentence beyond it, and delete
> the last paragraph.
>
> In rule 2548 "The Auction Announcer" delete the text "or contract" and
> the last sentence.
>
> In rule 2549 "Auction Initiation", delete all instances of the text
> "or contract"
>
> In rule 2550 "Bidding", replace the last comma with a full stop and
> delete all text after it, and delete all instances of the text "or
> contract"
>
> In rule 2483 "Economics", delete the text "contracts,"
>
> In rule 1994 "Ownership of Land", delete the text "Land belonging to a
> contract is called Communal Land." and delete the text "Together,
> Communal Land and Private Land are called Proprietary Land." and
> replace the text "Land belonging to any other entity is called Private
> Land." with "Land belonging to any other entity is called Private Land
> (syn. Proprietary Land)
>
> In rule 2561 "Asset Generation with Facilities", delete the text "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." and
> renumber the fourth bullet point 3.
>
> # 2 Replacement
>
> Reenact Rule 1742, "Contracts", at power 2.5, with the following text:
>
>   Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may
>   make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be
>   binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement
>   is known as a contract. A contract may be modified, including
>   by changing the set of parties, by agreement between all existing
>   parties. A contract may also terminate by agreement between all
>   parties. A contract automatically terminates if the number of
>   parties to it falls below two. For the purposes of this rule,
>   agreement includes both consent and agreement specified by
>   contract.
>
>   Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in
>   accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired
>   by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or
>   between the contract and the rules.
>
>   A party to a contract may act on behalf of another party to
>   it as allowed in the contract.



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Petition for Correction

[Ned Strange]

aren't people specifically banned from changing rules to all caps or
from them in this way

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 2:30 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> Despite this being a meaningful semantic change, it's also a blatantly
> obvious typo fix. Without objection, I intend to change the text
> "SHALL" to "shall" in Rule 2515, "Distributing Assets".
>
> -Aris
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 9:25 PM Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>>
>> Without objection, I do so.
>>
>> -Aris
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 6:51 PM Aris Merchant
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > Without objection, I intend to change the text "statment" to
>> > "statement" in Rule 2471, "No Faking".
>> >
>> > -Aris



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: How silly is silliness?

[Ned Strange]

that cfj decided that the sillyness of an action is an inextricable conditional.

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 1:16 AM, Benjamin Schultz
 wrote:
> Testing the lmits of Sillyness by contract, I act on behalf of VJ Rada to
> issue a trust token to me.  Because the open-ended nature of the contract
> is just plain silly.
>
> OscarMeyr, who hasn't had enough coffee to parse CFJ 3641



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

[Ned Strange]

t;>> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
>>> Precedence: list
>>> List-Id: "Agora Nomic reports, etc. \(PF\)"
>>> >>>
>>>>
>>> List-Unsubscribe: <
>>> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/agora-official>,
>>><mailto:agora-official-requ...@agoranomic.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>> List-Archive: <
>>> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/>
>>> List-Post: <mailto:agora-offic...@agoranomic.org>
>>> List-Help: <mailto:agora-official-requ...@agoranomic.org?subject=help>
>>> List-Subscribe: <
>>> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/agora-official>,
>>><mailto:agora-official-requ...@agoranomic.org?subject=subscribe>
>>> Reply-To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
>>> Errors-To: agora-official-boun...@agoranomic.org
>>> Sender: "agora-official" 
>>> X-Sophos-SenderHistory:
>>>
>>> ip=71.19.146.223,fs=117188,da=5528554,mc=8,sc=0,hc=8,sp=0,fso=5001784,re=1,sd=4,hd=8
>>>
>>>
>>> I resolve the Agoran Decisions to adopt Proposals 8050-8052 as follows.
>>> Quorum is 6 for all of these proposals.
>>>
>>> [Remainder of message cut]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:34 PM Kerim Aydin 
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Er, might want to check the Proposal # in the CFJ statement...
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll re-send the resolution to converge the gamestate in case it failed
>>>>> before.  I think the only things I did for zombies were
>>>
>>> announcements-of-
>>>>>
>>>>> intent so I don't think the time difference breaks anything (yet!)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just checked the unofficial OFF mail archive. The message got eaten
>>>
>>> on
>>>>>
>>>>> its
>>>>>>
>>>>>> way to me, and maybe some other people, but definitely went to,
>>>
>>> which is
>>>>>>
>>>>>> super scary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I CFJ "Proposal 1905 has been resolved."
>>>>>> Arguments:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Per CFJ 1905, non-receipt of a message by those who have arraigned to
>>>>>> receive messages via the forum is grounds to regard actions taken
>>>
>>> therein
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as invalid. My spam filter didn't eat it (I've checked, and it's
>>>
>>> also set
>>>>>>
>>>>>> never to eat Agora stuff) so it probably never entered my technical
>>>>>
>>>>> domain
>>>>>>
>>>>>> of control.
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We really need to figure out these server problems ASAP.
>>>>>> -Aris
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 12:06 PM Aris Merchant <
>>>>>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you ever resolve proposal 8050? I certainly can't find a
>>>>>
>>>>> resolution...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Aris
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:09 AM Kerim Aydin <
>>>
>>> ke...@u.washington.edu>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You couldn't have anyway because PLEDGES CAN NO LONGER BE
>>>
>>> DESTROYED,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WITHOUT OBJECTION OR OTHERWISE.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They can't be destroyed at all because they're no longer assets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> read
>>>>>>>> Proposal 8050 - the only way for a pledge to end is to time out
>>>
>>> (and
>>>>>
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> doesn't outright "destroy" it, it jus

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Got some new toys.

[Ned Strange]

I'm not offended.

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:51 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> I wasn't aware of that definition of "silly" (I can't find it in the FLR, so 
> I assume the rule was repealed). But in any case, I think common sense 
> indicates that your own assessment of what "significantly harms" you is more 
> accurate than mine, so since you disagree, I believe that means my actions on 
> your behalf fail.
>
> I didn't mean to cause any offense, I just thought it was amusing. :)
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>
> On June 12, 2018 10:47 AM, Ned Strange  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I call a CFJ with the statement "The four below actions are each
>>
>> extremely silly, and none significantly harm my standing in the game".
>>
>> None of them are remotely silly. Silly in an Agoran context is a
>>
>> common-law term of art related to Silly proposals. Even if not, no
>>
>> ordinary meaning of the word silly encompasses these game actions. And
>>
>> also, even if losing two apples doesn't harm me, losing 3 stone, two
>>
>> ore and 2 apples does. The actions must all be evaluated seperately,
>>
>> so even if the first three actions work, the fourth should not.
>>
>> Anyway, significantly should be interpreted as "not de minimis", and
>>
>> any asset loss is more than a minimal effect on my standing in the
>>
>> game.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:39 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
>>
>> > I become a party to the contract "Sillyness by contract".
>> >
>> > I act on behalf of V.J. Rada to perform the following actions: {
>> >
>> > Destroy 1 apple to move V.J. Rada to (0, -1).
>> >
>> > Destroy 1 apple to move V.J. Rada to (-1, -1).
>> >
>> > Transfer all liquid assets from the mine at (-1, -1) to V.J. Rada.
>> >
>> > Transfer 3 stone and 2 ore from V.J. Rada to Trigon.
>> >
>> > }
>> >
>> > This meets the requirement of being extremely silly because it is only 
>> > necessary due to a minor grammatical error on Trigon's part, and it meets 
>> > the requirement of not harming V.J. Rada's standing in the game 
>> > significantly because eir only loss from these actions is 2 apples (which 
>> > ey already have plenty of) and the right to transfer assets from a 
>> > preserved facility before next Friday (which ey already have enough assets 
>> > not to have much need of).
>> >
>> > -twg
>> >
>> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> >
>> > On June 12, 2018 10:31 AM, Ned Strange edwardostra...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > > it doesn't, do it again
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:25 PM, Reuben Staley reuben.sta...@gmail.com 
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Could you guys let me do one thing in this game without pointing out 
>> > > > how I
>> > > >
>> > > > messed up?
>> > > >
>> > > > Okay, okay. Here's a flimsy argument for why this works:
>> > > >
>> > > > I could only possibly transfer items to myself from a facility on a 
>> > > > land
>> > > >
>> > > > unit I'm on. Therefore, "that unit" should mean "the unit I'm on" since
>> > > >
>> > > > that's the only option for transferring. Therefore, the attempt 
>> > > > succeeds.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018, 04:13 Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > On June 12, 2018 8:25 AM, Reuben Staley reuben.sta...@gmail.com 
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > I destroy a coin to make (-2, -1) black and switch the alternating 
>> > > > > > type.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I transfer the mine on that unit's resources to myself.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this fails, because (-2, -1)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > doesn't have a mine on it, and wasn't where you were standing 
>> > > > > anyway. I
>> > > > >
>> > > > > think you meant to reference the mine at (-1, -1), but I can't come 
>> > > > > up with
>> > > > >
>> > > > > a parsing where "that unit" refers to anything other than (-2, -1).
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -twg
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > >
>> > > From V.J. Rada
>>
>> --
>>
>> From V.J. Rada
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Got some new toys.

[Ned Strange]

it doesn't, do it again

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:25 PM, Reuben Staley  wrote:
> Could you guys let me do one thing in this game without pointing out how I
> messed up?
>
> Okay, okay. Here's a flimsy argument for why this works:
>
> I could only possibly transfer items to myself from a facility on a land
> unit I'm on. Therefore, "that unit" should mean "the unit I'm on" since
> that's the only option for transferring. Therefore, the attempt succeeds.
>
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018, 04:13 Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
>
>> On June 12, 2018 8:25 AM, Reuben Staley  wrote:
>>
>> > I destroy a coin to make (-2, -1) black and switch the alternating type.
>> >
>> > I transfer the mine on that unit's resources to myself.
>>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this fails, because (-2, -1)
>> doesn't have a mine on it, and wasn't where you were standing anyway. I
>> think you meant to reference the mine at (-1, -1), but I can't come up with
>> a parsing where "that unit" refers to anything other than (-2, -1).
>>
>> -twg
>>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Draft: Minimalist Contracts v1

[Ned Strange]

If Rule 2166, "Assets", does not include the word "contract": {
  In Rule 2166, change the sentence containing the text "(hereafter
  its backing document)" to read

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> Thanks for the spelling correction. I don't see a misplaced opening curly 
> brace?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 7:48 PM, Ned Strange  wrote:
>> Reenact not renact. there's a misplaced { in the middle of the
>> second-last change.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 12:42 PM, Aris Merchant
>>  wrote:
>>> Okay, here's a contracts system based on the model proposed by G. I
>>> welcome any clean-up suggestions or other improvements, although I
>>> think I've kept it fairly minimal, with the exception of the
>>> provisions in the assets rule, which will remain problematic until it
>>> sees its own reform.
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Title: Minimalist Contracts v1
>>> Adoption index: 2.5
>>> Author: Aris
>>> Co-authors: G., V.J. Rada
>>>
>>> [This proposal saves allowing contracts to control assets until we decide
>>> to allow them to be persons, which is its own can of worms.]
>>>
>>> Renact Rule 1742, "Contracts", at power 2.5, with the following text:
>>>
>>>   Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may
>>>   make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be
>>>   binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement
>>>   is known as a contract. A contract may be modified, including
>>>   by changing the set of parties, by agreement between all existing
>>>   parties. A contract may also terminate by agreement between all
>>>   parties. A contract automatically terminates if the number of
>>>   parties to it falls below two. For the purposes of this rule,
>>>   agreement includes both consent and agreement specified by
>>>   contract.
>>>
>>>   Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in
>>>   accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired
>>>   by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or
>>>   between the contract and the rules.
>>>
>>>   A contract may act as a backing document, as permitted by other
>>>   rules. A party to a contract may act on behalf of another party
>>>   to it as allowed in the contract.
>>>
>>> [Comments on whether the backing document bit belongs here would be
>>> appreciated.]
>>>
>>> [The portion below may be messy, but that's existing assets rule
>>> messiness, which is also my fault and also needs fixing.]
>>>
>>> If Rule 2166, "Assets", does not include the word "contract": {
>>>   In Rule 2166, change the sentence containing the text "(hereafter
>>>   its backing document)" to read
>>>
>>> "An asset is an entity defined as such by a (a) rule, (b)
>>> authorized regulation, (c) group of rules and/or authorized
>>> regulations (but if such regulations modify a preexisting asset
>>> class defined by a rule or another title of regulations, they must
>>> be authorized specifically to do so by their parent rule), or (d)
>>> contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely
>>> because its backing document defines its existence."
>>>
>>>   In Rule 2166, append the paragraph
>>>
>>> "An asset or class of assets is private, rather than public, if its
>>>  backing document is a contract."
>>>
>>>   to the end of the rule.
>>> }
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Draft: Minimalist Contracts v1

[Ned Strange]

Reenact not renact. there's a misplaced { in the middle of the
second-last change.

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 12:42 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> Okay, here's a contracts system based on the model proposed by G. I
> welcome any clean-up suggestions or other improvements, although I
> think I've kept it fairly minimal, with the exception of the
> provisions in the assets rule, which will remain problematic until it
> sees its own reform.
>
> -Aris
> ---
>
> Title: Minimalist Contracts v1
> Adoption index: 2.5
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors: G., V.J. Rada
>
> [This proposal saves allowing contracts to control assets until we decide
> to allow them to be persons, which is its own can of worms.]
>
> Renact Rule 1742, "Contracts", at power 2.5, with the following text:
>
>   Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may
>   make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be
>   binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement
>   is known as a contract. A contract may be modified, including
>   by changing the set of parties, by agreement between all existing
>   parties. A contract may also terminate by agreement between all
>   parties. A contract automatically terminates if the number of
>   parties to it falls below two. For the purposes of this rule,
>   agreement includes both consent and agreement specified by
>   contract.
>
>   Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in
>   accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired
>   by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or
>   between the contract and the rules.
>
>   A contract may act as a backing document, as permitted by other
>   rules. A party to a contract may act on behalf of another party
>   to it as allowed in the contract.
>
> [Comments on whether the backing document bit belongs here would be
> appreciated.]
>
> [The portion below may be messy, but that's existing assets rule
> messiness, which is also my fault and also needs fixing.]
>
> If Rule 2166, "Assets", does not include the word "contract": {
>   In Rule 2166, change the sentence containing the text "(hereafter
>   its backing document)" to read
>
> "An asset is an entity defined as such by a (a) rule, (b)
> authorized regulation, (c) group of rules and/or authorized
> regulations (but if such regulations modify a preexisting asset
> class defined by a rule or another title of regulations, they must
> be authorized specifically to do so by their parent rule), or (d)
> contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely
> because its backing document defines its existence."
>
>   In Rule 2166, append the paragraph
>
> "An asset or class of assets is private, rather than public, if its
>  backing document is a contract."
>
>   to the end of the rule.
> }



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Technically Notary] Rubberstamp Repeal

[Ned Strange]

We have a CFJ claiming that Powers of Attorney agreements are valid as
a matter of common law. Obviously all the Contracts infrastructure
forecloses such an agreement because of all the specifications in it.
But they would presumably work afterwards. See CFJs 3474 and 2397
(judged by you) and 1719

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
>> Will this work? No. But I hate complicated systems that nobody uses.
>> And this one is incomprehensible and not what the game is really about
>> anymore. So I'm making the following point.
>
> I wholly agree with you.  But can we add in a very simple stub that
> says something like "players can make agreements, and the agreements
> can include act-on-behalf" or something equally simple to empower
> that?
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Agora and G. accumulate more wealth; zombies & public facilities bankrupt, as always

[Ned Strange]

It's a really badly written paragraph (I wrote it) and unreadable, so my
apologies for that. I couldn't be bothered to make a numbered list that
made sense

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 8:19 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Ah, I misread a conjunction in that rule.  apologies.
>
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > See Rule 2531, which requires, among other things, that the
> > perpetrator did some action prohibited by law. You haven't named a
> > rule that Corona violated.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 3:02 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > This one I think?  Did I use it wrong?
> > >
> > > Rule 2479/5 (Power=1.7)
> > > Official Justice
> > >
> > >The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
> > >Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a
> fine
> > >of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the
> > >Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
> > >proceeding.
> > >
> > >The Referee CANNOT impose Summary Judgement more than three
> times
> > >a week.
> > >
> > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > >> Excuse me, but under which provision of which rule?
> > >>
> > >> -Aris
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > I Object to the intent.
> > >> >
> > >> > I Levy a fine of 2 Blots on Corona (Summary Judgement) for this
> > >> > abuse of office.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > >> >> I object to Corona's intent to win by Apathy.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I nominate myself for Treasuror.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> -twg
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On June 10, 2018 8:12 PM, Corona 
> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > [Sun Jun 10 22:12] This line is not a part of the report. Corona
> intends to
> > >> >> win by Apathy without objection.
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Agora and G. accumulate more wealth; zombies & public facilities bankrupt, as always

[Ned Strange]

Don't we have a CFJ ruling that trying to insert apathy wins in a report
was an abuse? Or it might have been the opposite. But I vividly remember
such a CFJ.

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 7:52 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> y'know, that was a silly reaction.  I give 2 incense to Corona.
>
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I Object to the intent.
> >
> > I Levy a fine of 2 Blots on Corona (Summary Judgement) for this
> > abuse of office.
> >
> > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > > I object to Corona's intent to win by Apathy.
> > >
> > > I nominate myself for Treasuror.
> > >
> > > -twg
> > >
> > > ​​
> > >
> > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > >
> > > On June 10, 2018 8:12 PM, Corona  wrote:
> > >
> > > > ​​[Sun Jun 10 22:12] This line is not a part of the report. Corona
> intends to
> > > win by Apathy without objection.
> > >
> >
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Agora and G. accumulate more wealth; zombies & public facilities bankrupt, as always

[Ned Strange]

holy shit i have 19 paper and 80 coins i'm a rich boi maybe i should
actually pay attention to this land system

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:12 AM, Corona  wrote:

> (This report is also a revision of the last report)
>
>
> +-++++---+++
> ++++
> |Entity   |Ston|Appl|Corn|Ore|Lmbr|Cotn|
> Coin|Papr|Fabr|Incs|
> +-++++---+++
> ++++
> |ATMunn   |   6|  32|   1|  0|   7|   0|  64|  14|   0|
> 14|
> |Aris |   5|  30|   9|  0|   5|   0|  97|   7|   0|
> 11|
> |Corona   |  34|  72|  25|  0|  10|  27|  90|  29|   0|
> 20|
> |CuddleBeam   |  11|  18|   9|  4|   8|   9|  50|  10|   0|
> 11|
> |G.   |  25|  99|  15|  0|  18|   0| 221|  52|   0|
> 33|
> |Gaelan   |  14|  28|   2|  6|   2|   0|  47|  10|   0|
> 11|
> |Kenyon   |  14|  37|   4|  6|  20|   3|  45|   9|   0|
> 11|
> |Murphy   |   5|  30|   4|  0|   8|   0|  70|  11|   0|
> 11|
> |PSS  |   0|   5|   0|  0|   0|   0|  10|   2|   0|
>  3|
> |Quazie   |   0|   0|   0|  0|   0|   0|   0|   0|   0|
>  0|
> |Telnaior |   0|   0|   0|  0|   0|   0|   0|   0|   0|
>  0|
> |Trigon   |   3|  25|  12|  2|   4|  12|  32|   7|   0|
> 11|
>
> |twg  |   5|  15|   0|  0|   5|   0|  20|   5|   0|
>  3|
> |VJ Rada  |  10|  55|   2|  0|  10|   0|  80|  19|   0|
> 11|
> |nichdel  |   0|   5|   0|  0|   0|   0|  10|   2|   0|
>  3|
> |o|   0|   0|   0|  0|   0|   0|   0|   0|   0|
>  0|
> |omd  |   0|   0|   0|  0|   0|   0|   0|   0|   0|
>  0|
> |Ouri |   0|  10|   0|  0|   0|   0|  24|   4|   0|
> 11|
> |pokes|   0|   0|   0|  0|   0|   0|   0|   0|   0|
>  0|
> |天火狐|   0|   5|   0|  0|   0|   0|  10|   2|   0|   3|
> +-++++---+++
> ++++
> |farm at 1,-1 |   0|   0|   0|  0|   0|   0|   0|   0|   0|
>  0|
> |mine at -1,-1|   0|   0|   0|  0|   0|   0|   0|   0|   0|
>  0|
> |mine at 1,1  |   0|   0|   0|  0|   0|   0|   0|   0|   0|
>  0|
> |orchard at -1,1  |   0|   0|   0|  0|   0|   0|   0|   0|   0|
>  0|
> |Corona’s refinery at -1,1|   0|   0|   0| 33|   0|   0|   0|   0|   0|
>  0|
> |Corona’s mine at -1,1|   0|   0|   0|  0|   0|   0|   0|   0|   0|
>  0|
> |Corona’s orchard at -1,1 |   0|   0|   0|  0|   0|   0|   0|   0|   0|
>  0|
> |ATMunn’s farm at 1,3 |   0|   0|   9|  0|   0|   9|   0|   0|   0|
>  0|
> |FPW  |   0|   0|   0|  0|   0|   0|   0|   0|   0|
>  0|
> |Agora|   0|   0|   0|  0|   0|   0| 349|   0|   0|
>  0|
> +-++++---+++
> ++++
>
> The following abbreviations are used in the table above:
>
> Ston = stone
>
> Appl = apples
>
> Lmbr = lumber
>
> Cotn = cotton
>
> Coin = coins
>
> Papr = papers
>
> Fabr = fabric
>
> Incs = incense
>
>
>
> PSS = Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> FPW = Finger Pointing Workaround
>
>
>
> Recent changes (most recent first, times in UTC, non-self-ratifying):
>
> [Sun Jun 10 19:44:17] Corona built & upgraded facilities, spending 3
> apples, 11 coins, 13 lumber and 19 stones; Corona also put all eir ore in a
> refinery
>
> [Sun Jun 10 19:32:46] Corona, via Quazie, looted all public facilities,
> spending 8 apples to move around
>
> [Sun Jun 3 18:46:43] G. expunged a blot with 1 incense
>
> [Fri Jun 1 18:17:07] Telnaior (acted on behalf of by G.) moved around using
> a bug, destroying 6 apples, 10 coins total
>
> [Fri Jun 1 17:29:46] Trigon attempted to loot the public orchard (-1,1). E
> is standing elsewhere though.
>
> [Fri Jun 1 17:07:37] G. moved around, destroying 6 coins, 1 apple total
>
> [Fri Jun 1 16:55:04] G. robbed the graves of o, omd, Telnaior, pokes
>
> [Fri Jun 1 16:42:03] o (acted on behalf of by G.) moved around using a bug,
> destroying 5 apples, 10 coins total
>
> [Fri Jun 01 00:00] new month began (payday). Some facilities were destroyed
>
> [Thu May 24 21:46:42] twg registered and got a welcome package
>
> [Mon May 21 05:39:56 UTC 2018] Corona & Quazie each paid 12 coins to Agora
> for land units (+2,-2),(+2,-1)
>
> [Mon May 21 05:37:32 UTC 2018] Corona paid Agora 25 coins for zombie 天火狐,
> looted eir body
>
> [Mon May 21 00:00] new week begins (assets are produced in facilities)
>
> [Sun May 20 21:41:41] Trigon paid Agora 11 coins for land unit (+4,0)
>
> [Sun May 20 19:52:54] G. & o each paid 15 coins to Agora for land units
> (+2,-1), (+3,0)
>
> [Sun May 20 19:49:44] G. paid Agora 30 coins for zombie Telnaior, looted
> eir body
>
> [Mon May 14 04:03:54] VJ Rada looted PSS’s corpse
>
> [Mon May 14 00:00] new 

Re: DIS: Birthday Tournament

[Ned Strange]

hate pop culture but sure

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 7:12 AM, C. V.  wrote:

> Um, I have a lot on my plate, so I'm going to post the actual regulations
> tomorrow or on Saturday (sorry), but I'd like to hear what would you all
> think of a Pokémon-themed tournament where you would actually walk around
> Arcadia to catch Pokémon, capture gyms etc.? I would try not to make the
> movement too resource-intensive, so that everyone can participate.
>
>
> ~Corona
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald][Karma]

[Ned Strange]

is e still around?

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Edward Murphy  wrote:

> Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> This is a notice of honor
>>
>> -1 Agora
>>
>> +1 Agora
>>
>> ---*---
>>
>> I CFJ the following: The above is a notice of honor.
>>
>
> This is CFJ 3638. I assign it to Gaelan.
>
>
> Grat. Arguments:
>> - It's not a notice of honor because it causes Agora's Honor to go further
>> away from 0 and only an individual action happens per instant as per CFJ
>> 2086, so the -1 would need to happen first, but since it would make
>> Agora's
>> Honor go further than 0, it doesn't happen.
>> - It's a notice of honor because the notice of honor as a single unit is
>> the action, not the individual movements it's composed of.
>> - It's a notice of honor because the above doesn't matter and the player
>> requirement implicitly only applies when a player is targeted.
>> - It's not a notice of honor because it doesn't "provide a reason for
>> specifying that Player" (and I never can, because Agora isn't a player).
>> And
>> the implicit rule mentioned above doesn't exist.
>>
>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:36 PM, C. V. 
>> wrote:
>>
>> This is a notice of honour
>>>
>>> -1 Telnaior (inactive)
>>>
>>> +1 Quazie (inactive)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also note that Trigon attempted to post a notice, but didn’t state any
>>> reasons so it was invalid.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Court:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> KarmaEntity
>>>
>>> -
>>>
>>> SAMURAI
>>>
>>> -
>>>
>>> +4   Aris <-- SHOGUN
>>>
>>> +3   Corona
>>>
>>> +3   G.
>>>
>>> +3   Trigon
>>>
>>> +1   ATMunn
>>>
>>> +1   Alexis
>>>
>>> +1   Kenyon
>>>
>>> -1   omd
>>>
>>> -2   Murphy
>>>
>>> -2   Gaelan
>>>
>>> -5   VJ Rada
>>>
>>> -6   CuddleBeam <-- HONOURLESS WORM
>>>
>>> -
>>>
>>> GAMMAS
>>>
>>> -
>>>
>>> KarmaEntity
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> All other entities have 0 Karma.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Notices of Honour:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Corona (23 May 2018)
>>>
>>> -1 Telnaior (inactive)
>>>
>>> +1 Quazie (inactive)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [New Week]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ATMunn (3 May 2018)
>>>
>>> +1 Corona (Treasuror report)
>>>
>>> -1 ATMunn (procrastinating on Tailor script)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> G. (3 May 2018)
>>>
>>> +1 Corona (catching up the balance sheet)
>>>
>>> -1 Gaelan (former treasuror who didn't keep up so much)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [New Week]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Aris (29 Apr 2018)
>>>
>>> -1 o (inactive)
>>>
>>> +1 Trigon (PAoaM)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [New Week]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Trigon (13 Apr 2018)
>>>
>>> +1 Aris (eir patching work)
>>>
>>> -1 Telnaior (inactive)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Corona (12 Apr 2018)
>>>
>>> -1 天火狐 (being inactive)
>>>
>>> +1 Agora (rebalancing)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> April Karmic Balance
>>>
>>> -1 Alexis
>>>
>>> +1 ProofTechnique
>>>
>>> +1 Ienpw III
>>>
>>> -1 Agora
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> VJ Rada (11 Apr 2018)
>>>
>>> -1 o (not existing, karma high)
>>>
>>> +1 Kenyon (rulekeeping)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ATMunn (8 Apr 2018)
>>>
>>> +1 CuddleBeam (rebalancing)
>>>
>>> -1 Aris (rebalancing)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [New Week]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> G. (2 Apr 2018)
>>>
>>> +1 Gaelan (an excellent April Fools)
>>>
>>> -1 G. (falling for it)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [New Week]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ATMunn (20 Mar 2018)
>>>
>>> -1 ATMunn (positive karma inertia, and deregistering)
>>>
>>> +1 CuddleBeam (being a good, contributing player recently)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [New Week]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Murphy (19 Mar 2018)
>>>
>>> -1 Murphy (needing to be
>>>
>>> reminded about election resolution)
>>>
>>> +1 G. (reminding Murphy)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> G. (19 Mar 2018)
>>>
>>> -1 G. (making Aris hunt for a pend message)
>>>
>>> +1 Aris (leading the land fix proposal)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [New Week]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> G. (7 Mar 2018)
>>>
>>> -1 Gaelan (pinning complaints about eir job on someone else)
>>>
>>> +1 CuddleBeam (not being shy about showing how legal moves work in the
>>>
>>> subgame)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gaelan (7 Mar 2018)
>>>
>>> -1 CuddleBeam (creating a large pile of transfers, inspiring others to do
>>>
>>> so)
>>>
>>> +1 Murphy (making Gaelan's job easier)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Trigon (7 Mar 2018)
>>>
>>> -1 Cuddle Beam (being the first to be that guy)
>>>
>>> +1 Gaelan (his joke is hilarious)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [New Week]
>>>
>>> ~Corona
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>


-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: "Corn" vs "coin"

[Ned Strange]

goddamnit this is why I have to start reading emails top-down.

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 7:32 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

> Well, you were named as a co-author! :P
>
> That's good. I thought it was probably a mistake, but I wanted to make
> sure.
>
> I create the following proposal:
>
> --
> Title: Reconsolidating Metapatch
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: twg
>
> Amend Rule 2003, Actions in Arcadia, by changing the text "substitute
> 1 coin for three or fewer apples" to read "substitute 1 corn for
> three or fewer apples".
>
> --
>
> [I would pend it but (a) I don't have much paper yet, and (b) as this is
> my first proposal, I'm not sure I did everything correctly and would like
> someone to check it.]
>
> -twg
> ​​
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>
> On June 1, 2018 8:34 AM, Reuben Staley  wrote:
>
> > That's definitely a mistake and breaks several things. Well, at least I
> can say that it wasn't me this time lol.
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 02:24 Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> >
> > > Since we're talking about proposals that aren't in the SLR yet, I
> noticed this in the Consolidated Patch (proposal 8041):
> > >
> > > > 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"
> > >
> > > Was the change from "corn" to "coin" intentional or a typo? And if it
> was intentional - what was the purpose? As far as I can see, it makes corn
> useless.
> > >
> > > -twg
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: reality check

[Ned Strange]

Noo! MY POWER IN THIS GAME IS GONE.

welcome back

On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Yes it was possible and yes you just did so.
>
> Great to have you (almost or in summer) back!!
>
> On Fri, 25 May 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > Given my imminent return, if it is possible to do so, I flip my master
> > switch to myself.
> > On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 19:29 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Just saw this thread and wanted to mention that as the summer rolls
> > > around, I may return.
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 19:08 Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOO
> > >>
> > >> though I think the software we're using was actually a MUD:
> > >>
> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUD
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, 26 May 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > What's MOO?
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 12:45 AM, Kerim Aydin <
> ke...@u.washington.edu>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > It wouldn't work over email, but this conversation also had me
> > >> wondering
> > >> > > whether the MOO and its final state lived on a disk anywhere!
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The rules and the MOO structure (rooms and programming) were very
> > >> > > intertwined,
> > >> > > e.g. the rules assume a MOO-programmed-solution for voting and all
> > >> other
> > >> > > interactions.  IMO it wouldn't be worth the effort even as a
> gimmick
> > >> UNLESS
> > >> > > the MOO was actually brought online.  It wouldn't be worth the
> effort
> > >> > > of porting to a mailing list because that's already been done -
> and
> > >> that's
> > >> > > Agora.  In a way, moving to the mailing list freed Agorans from
> their
> > >> > > "physical restrictions" and allowed them to be platonic idealists
> they
> > >> > > wanted to be, so Agora is more an evolution of that spirit and
> the MOO
> > >> > > would be an archaic step backward (though as you say it would be
> fun
> > >> to
> > >> > > revisit as a novelty).
> > >> > >
> > >> > > We had a brief fling with a new MOO circa 2004-2005, and it was
> > >> abandoned
> > >> > > fairly quickly probably in part because it was restrictive like
> that.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Fri, 25 May 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > >> > > > It would definitely strip it of a lot of its former "spirit"
> > >> although
> > >> > > isn't
> > >> > > > nomic about change in the first place?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > But yeah, it more about the formal gimmick. Not "reviving" the
> > >> spirit of
> > >> > > > Nomic World itself.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Alex Smith <
> > >> ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk>
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 18:07 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > >> > > > > > OH MAN.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > What if we managed to "hack" the defunct NW via FRC, to then
> > >> pull it
> > >> > > > > into a
> > >> > > > > > better place (like a mailing list or Discord server) so
> that it
> > >> can
> > >> > > be
> > >> > > > > > played again?
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Does anyone have FRC's old rules? How difficult could it be?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Nomic World on a mailing list would defeat the entire point
> of it
> > >> being
> > >> > > > > Nomic World. (You'd also quickly discover that most of the
> rules
> > >> > > > > wouldn't work in that context.)
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > There's a reason that Agora started as its own nomic.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > --
> > >> > > > > ais523
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>
>


-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: So I heard you were looking for more players

[Ned Strange]

Welcome! I assume your nickname is twg?

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 7:46 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

> I intend to register as a player at this time. I cause myself to receive a
> Welcome Package.
>
> - twg




-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: reality check

[Ned Strange]

are we the world's longest running internet game?

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 7:57 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>
>
> I was wondering a couple months back if a 25-year anniversary was an
> occasion for posting on various forums (e.g. a "hey check out a nomic
> that's been going for 25 years).
>
> On Wed, 23 May 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > Aside from poaching other nomics for players lol, what is a good approach
> > for recruiting? Posting in reddits/forums I guess?
> >
> > We could make a common copypasta for advertisement and go around with
> that.
> >
> > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:35 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 24 May 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> > > > Can we recruit new players lol? I miss o for one. And the japanese
> > > > character guy. 6-7 is far less than we once had.
> > >
> > > Yah it kind of got lost in the last exchange but that was a point...
> > > PSS too...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>


-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: reality check

[Ned Strange]

Can we recruit new players lol? I miss o for one. And the japanese
character guy. 6-7 is far less than we once had.

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 7:17 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 23 May 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > What could maybe be done is have Offices be "self-service" in a way. If
> you
> > want to do something related to it, you look for the last mail and
> continue
> > the chain.
> >
> > It would be a different Office paradigm though. But maybe it works. With
> > the current system, Offices don't scale well with low activity (but scale
> > really well into massive activity).
>
> How does it work with tracking microtransactions in a dozen currencies
> along with land production of same currencies?  In particular if we allow
> people to transfer "all their currencies" or similar not-immediately-
> determinate conditionals?)  Or if transfer success/failure depends on
> other game circumstances (e.g. you try to pay for pending a proposal but
> it's already pended).
>
> Self-service websites might work for basic transactions, but this drops
> flexibility (like allowing act-on-behalfs, contracts, etc.), and even if
> such a site captures 90% of the transactions, someone would still have to
> do the remaining 10% by hand and then the time savings are lost.
>
> The underlying issue is that part of "Flavor of Agora" to preserve is
> figuring out how you can use (or abuse) language to do all these
> complicated things within the constraints of announcements. And since we
> like to do that kind of thing, having "the next person in line" have to
> figure out whether your transaction succeeded before doing theirs is a
> recipe for uncertainty. (with an Officer, you get a consistent viewpoint
> and a single source of CFJ calling when the Officer can't sort it out).
>
> I'm not meaning to be negative here at all just thinking through the
> possibilities.  I'd *love* to do Land through a web interface with
> instant feedback.
>
>
>
>


-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: zombie nerfing discussion

[Ned Strange]

The only reason I'm apathetic/not bidding is I don't know how much stuff I
have because there's no Treasuror. And I didn't get paid I think because I
forgot to apologize and I can't pend proposals now because A: I didn't get
paid B: Two paper a month and ugh it's just an apathy recipe.

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> It could help to measure how activity fares after each nerf.
>
> Have nerfs historically been a good way to boost activity?
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:49 AM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 2:40 PM Kerim Aydin 
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 22 May 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > > > Hrmmm
> > > >
> > > > Blognomic did a "What is Fun and not Fun?" poll thing a while ago.
> Has
> > > one
> > > > ever been done for Agora? If not, it could be a good idea do to aid
> to
> > > > dispel the apathy.
> > >
> > > Heh - maybe not a "formal" poll but those discussions just about
> exactly
> > > a year ago led us to say "an economy would be fun"...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I'm going to suggest something that I've brought up before, which is a
> flat
> > cap on how long someone can be a zombie before they're deregistered. A
> lot
> > of the fun from zombies comes from them keeping the game dynamic. If
> zombie
> > auctions become a regular thing, we lose that. Unfortunately, the status
> > quo (zombies last forever) isn't terribly dynamic either, a fact that
> isn't
> > helped by the fact that zombies can't be transferred. So, I suggest
> placing
> > a limit (possibly 1) on the number of times a zombie can be auctioned
> > before being deregistered, and making zombies a transferable asset.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: zombie nerfing discussion

[Ned Strange]

oh man if we're doing this you have to repeal zombieception rip. i

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 7:15 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> The game was always fair to begin with, because everyone had the same
> chance.
>
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:09 PM, ATMunn  wrote:
>
> > Because he wants to make the game fairer.
> >
> >
> > On 5/22/2018 5:01 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >
> >> (I'm assuming that you're going to use your own voting power to get it
> >> removed because there isn't enough active interest to go against you for
> >> anything? But why shoot yourself in the foot like that?)
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 10:59 PM, Cuddle Beam 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> It might be a bit weird for me to bring this up but: *Why* nerf? You
> >>> earned those zombies, do as you please with them.
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 10:50 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> 
>  On Tue, 22 May 2018, C. V. wrote:
> 
> > Hmm, I like that the zombie market supply/demand currently
> fluctuates.
> >
>  Your
> 
> > reform would mean that the zombie situation would be completely
> static:
> >
>  1/3
> 
> > (or whatever is the ratio) of players would own one zombie each.
> >
> 
>  Do you think there should be some upper-limit?  Over time, there's
>  enough
>  turnover that the supply of zombies could outstrip the # of active
>  players
>  soon.  Not sure that's a good/great thing.  The tradeoff here forcing
>  turnover
>  every 90 days.   Would a good addition be "max auction at most X
> zombies
>  per
>  month"?  If there were 5 zombies, and you could auction a max of 3 a
>  month,
>  and they turned over every 90 days, you'd eventually have a 2 or 3
>  zombie
>  auction 2 out of 3 months - that seems like some reasonable
> turnover...?
> 
>  CB has a point, I have to say that zombies aren't really that fun. The
> > near-permanent boost in vote power is probably not healthy for Agora,
> >
>  and
> 
> > perhaps could be one of the causes of others' apathy toward Agora?
> >
> 
>  Forgetting the mechanism (zombies), what time scales of "power boost"
>  are
>  good?  One vote/person always?  Accumulate for short times?  What
>  time scale?  This has fluctuated tons over the years - we've had
> voting
>  power that was even more static (e.g. someone had 5 votes for over a
>  year)
>  and it meant the bidding was that much more intense when turnover
>  actually
>  happened.  And we've had accumulations that turned over weekly.  And 1
>  vote/person is the default we always return to.  No right answer but
>  curious
>  what people think is best for the current game.
> 
>  And if you need to collect assets from the other side of the map or
> w/e,
> > you could just ask another player to do that/allow you to do it on
> > their
> > behalf and offer them something in exchange, and that's more fun &
> > strategically challenging for everyone involved than just having some
> > mindless servant do it for you for free, as often as you want.
> >
> 
>  So what do you think is a good/specific nerf for this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Current State of the Game

[Ned Strange]

>1) Zombies are popular, and the zombie owners probably have the majority of
>votes by now. Most recent attempt to nerf them has been blocked by VJ Rada
>(alone!)

Seven people voted present for no good reason!!!

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 1:59 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> Hr it feels like joining Monopoly midway when a lot has already been
> occupied and some people are really rich vs having played from the start
> lol.
>
> "Having been active at an earlier time" is a real game advantage... (It
> feels like a mini-gerontocracy. Maybe the gerontocracy phenomenon is this
> same thing but at a much larger scale)
>
> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 3:27 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 21 May 2018, C. V. wrote:
> > > 1) Zombies are popular, and the zombie owners probably have the
> majority
> > of
> > > votes by now. Most recent attempt to nerf them has been blocked by VJ
> > Rada
> > > (alone!)
> >
> > I have to say it's a bit frustrating also that gameplay is generally
> > apathetic - e.g. there are several people who could have bid to make
> > the last round of zombies *really expensive* without risk to themselves
> > (if they'd won they'd get the coins back from the zombies instantly plus
> > a profit in other currencies, if they'd lost they'd force the winners to
> > bid high enough to drop out of the land auctions at least).
> >
> > Designing a game to not be exponential is one thing - designing it to be
> > "fair" to people who aren't really engaging in the competition is more of
> > a challenge.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: archives?

[Ned Strange]

maybe everyone just sent emails yesterday morning lol.

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 12:25 AM, ATMunn <iamingodsa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I had a similar thing happen this morning. My Agora Nomic folder showed
> as having no emails, until I clicked on it just now, and then there were
> like 30 messages. I have a feeling this might just be my client, though.
> I don't see how this could be a list-side issue.
>
>
> On 5/20/2018 7:49 PM, Ned Strange wrote:
>
>> I got no email for the past several days then just this morning about
>> 20
>>
>> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 5:48 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The mail list archives, eg. https://agoranomic.org/cgi-bin
>>> /mailman/private/agora-official/ seem
>>> to be redirecting to github pages and then 404ing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>


-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

[Ned Strange]

don't you have to track Owes a Scare switches?

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 5:27 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> 
> 
>   Registrar's Weekly Report
> 
> 
>
> Date of last report: 27 Apr 2018
> Date of this report: 04 May 2018
> (all times UTC)
>
> (इसका पता लगाएं, मेल क्लाइंट edition)
>
> Recent Events (recent events section not ratifying)
>01-Apr-18 20:41:27   G. flips Publius Scribonius Scholasticus' master
> switch to Agora.
>02-Apr-18 17:42:50   Zombie auction begins for pokes, o, Publius
> Scribonius Scholasticus, nichdel, Quazie
>03-Apr-18 15:14:11   Ouri registers.  Welcome, Ouri!
>09-Apr-18 17:42:50   Zombie auction ends.
>09-Apr-18 17:55:58   omd pays auction price of 21 coins for the zombie
> pokes.
>09-Apr-18 17:55:58   G. pays auction price of 21 coins for the zombie o.
>09-Apr-18 17:55:58   Registrar flips pokes' master switch to omd.
>09-Apr-18 17:55:58   Registrar flips o's master switch to G.
>10-Apr-18 01:12:02   V.J. Rada pays auction price of 12 coins for the
> zombie Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
>10-Apr-18 01:31:35   Registrar flips Publius Scribonius Scholasticus'
> master switch to V.J. Rada.
>10-Apr-18 05:23:17   Corona pays auction price of 5 coins for the zombie
> Quazie.
>10-Apr-18 05:36:54   Registrar flips Quazie's master switch to Corona.
>10-Apr-18 13:28:06   ATMunn pays auction price of 10 coins for nichdel.
>10-Apr-18 13:35:34   Registrar flips nichdel's master switch to ATMunn.
>17-Apr-18 21:34:31   Trigon flips 天火狐's master switch to Agora.
>17-Apr-18 21:34:31   Trigon flips Telnaior's master switch to Agora.
>
>(time of last report)
>
> 8-May-18 12:50:50   Registrar initiates zombie auction for Telnaior,
> 天火狐
>
>
> Players (19) (by Rule 869, Persons with 'Registered' Citizenship, z=zombie)
>
>   Player   Contact
>  Registered
>   --   ---
>  --
>   Aris thoughtsoflifeandlight17 at gmail.com   13 Sep
> 16
>   Gaelan   gbs at canishe.com  15 May
> 17
>   G.   kerim at u.washington.edu   25 Aug
> 17
>   Cuddle Beam  cuddlebeam at gmail.com 25 Aug
> 17
>   Trigon   reuben.staley at gmail.com  24 Sep
> 17
>   Corona   liliumalbum.agora at gmail.com  17 Nov
> 17
>   Murphy   emurphy42 at zoho.com   17 Dec
> 17
>   VJ Rada  edwardostrange at gmail.com 29 Dec
> 17
>   Kenyon   kprater3.14 at gmail.com27 Feb
> 18
>   ATMunn   iamingodsarmy at gmail.com  11 Mar
> 18
>   Ouri ouri.poupko at gmail.com03 Apr
> 18
>z  omd  comexk at gmail.com [3] 03 Feb
> 11
>z  oowen at grimoire.ca 12 Jul
> 16
>z  Quazie   quazienomic at gmail.com15 Apr
> 17
>z  P. Scholasticus [1]  pscriboniusscholasticus at gmail.com[2] 16 Apr
> 17
>z  nichdel  nichdel at gmail.com29 Jun
> 17
>z  pokespokes at botnoise.org   11 Dec
> 17
>z  天火狐draconicdarkness at gmail.com   06 Nov 16
>z  Telnaior jdga at iinet.net.au20 Oct
> 17
>
> [1] In full, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> [2] officially, but technically equivalent p.scribonius.scholasticus at
> googlemail.com
> [3] officially, but technically equivalent c.ome.xk at gmail.com
>
>
> Non-default Master Switches (Player:value, self-ratifying)
>
>   omd  : G.
>   Quazie   : Corona
>   nichdel  : ATMunn
>   o: G.
>   pokes: omd
>   Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: V.J. Rada
>   Telnaior : Agora
>   天火狐: Agora
>
>
> Fora (Rule 478, self-ratifying)
>
>   Type Location  Typical use
>     ---
>   Public   agora-official at agoranomic.org  official reports
>   Public   agora-business at agoranomic.org  other business
>   Discussion   agora-discussion at agoranomic.orgdiscussion
>   Discussion   irc://irc.freenode.net:6667/##nomic   discussion
>   Public   agora at listserver.tue.nlbackup
>
> Subscribe or unsubscribe from main lists:
> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
>
> Subscribe or unsubscribe from tue.nl backup list:
> 

DIS: Re: BUS: archives?

[Ned Strange]

I got no email for the past several days then just this morning about 20

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 5:48 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
>
> The mail list archives, eg.
> https://agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/
> seem to be redirecting to github pages and then 404ing.
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Bee Gees - Stayin' Alive (1977)

[Ned Strange]

sorry.

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
wrote:

>
>
> E never was a zombie e's published often enough to prevent that.
>
> On Fri, 18 May 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> > You're still a zombie until you unambiguously flip ur switch
> >
> > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 3:41 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > OK, posting it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_izvAbhExY
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 7:35 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In public, post this you must.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 17 May 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > > > > me no zombie wombie
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > From V.J. Rada
> >
>
>


-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Update in Tailor election

[Ned Strange]

Right, there was both an Assessor report and a "gamestate convergence"
version. The gamestate convergence version listed 10 votes but obviously 9
voters. I missed G's x2 vote so called the CFJ incorrectly. So its result
is clearly wrong, of course. The quorum is 7.

On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 12:19 PM, Edward Murphy  wrote:

> Tailor votes so far: V.J. Rada, ATMunn, G., Trigon, and Aris have all
> voted for ATMunn.
>
> I'm confused by CFJ 3634, which claims that:
> * The most recent resolved proposal (8041) listed 9 voters
> * However, V.J. Rada attempted to have PSS vote
> * Thus, quorum should be 10-2=8
> What confuses me is that PSS /was/ one of the 9 voters listed. So I
> think maybe this was a mis-read, and quorum at that time (and also
> for this election) was actually 7.
>
> Either way, the voting period is extended by a week, and this is a
> humiliating public reminder that the following players have not yet
> voted on it: Gaelan, Cuddle Beam, Corona, myself, Kenyon, Ouri, plus
> all eight zombies (omd, o, Quazie, PSS, nichdel, pokes, 天火狐, and
> Telnaior).
>
> I vote for ATMunn in this election. So that's 6 out of (7? 8?), now.
>
>


-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: pledge-b-gone

[Ned Strange]

I object: do this by proposal

On Saturday, May 5, 2018, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
>
> I intend to ratify the following document without objection:
> { No pledges existed on 04 May 18 19:55:00 UTC }
>
>
> The above document is not correct.  The pledges in existence before
> ratification are listed in the just-published Referee's Report:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/
> agora-official/2018-May/012389.html
> I believe every single one of them is out-of-date or lacks sufficient
> context/information to ever call in, therefore they serve no purpose.
>
>
>
>

-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Ned Strange]

This isn't a Notice, no reasons specified.

On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 5:52 AM, Reuben Staley  wrote:
> Oh, I must've missed that message. Oops. Either way, thanks for this
> deputization.
>
> Notice of Honour: +1 Corona; -1 Telnaior
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2018, 13:09 Corona  wrote:
>
>> Sorry, G. judged that paying without recipient doesn't mean transferring
>> to anyone but it means destruction (see below), so you didn't pay (you
>> would have attempted to transfer to Aris, right?) I'm for a proposal to
>> give you the farm back.
>>
>>
>> Oh heck, if there's a time for a political power play in pursuit of the
>> greater good, it's now.
>>
>> I issue a Cabinet Order of Certiorari (Arbitor) to assign the below case
>> to myself.
>>
>> I deliver the following judgement:
>> FALSE, based on the Caller's Arguments for FALSE.
>>
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > I CFJ on:  If the Rules say you CAN do something by paying assets,
>> without
>> > specifying a destination for the payment, you CAN do it by transferring
>> > those assets to anyone.
>> >
>> > Arguments:
>> >
>> > Straightforward argument for TRUE:
>> > R2166 overrides common definitions by making "pay" a synonym for
>> transfer:
>> > >  An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. paid, given) by
>> > >  announcement by its owner to another entity, subject to
>> > >  modification by its backing document.
>> >
>> > Straightforward argument for FALSE:
>> > Payments without destination are error-trapped by this later clause in
>> > R2166:
>> > >   If a rule, proposal, or other
>> > >  competent authority attempts to increase or decrease the balance
>> > >  of an entity without specifying a source or destination, then the
>> > >  currency is created or destroyed as needed.
>> > so if "payment without destination" is a method in the rules for doing
>> > something, it happens via asset destruction only (not transfer).
>> >
>>
>>
>> ~Corona
>>
>> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Reuben Staley 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Where's my farm though? I"paid" upkeep to the best of my ability.
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 3, 2018, 10:52 Corona  wrote:
>> >
>> > > I deputize for the Treasuror to post the following report. Please check
>> > > your actions and balances.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > +---++++---++---
>> > -+++++
>> > >
>> > > |Entity
>> > > |Ston|Appl|Corn|Ore|Lmbr|Cotn|Coin|Papr|Fabr|Incs|
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > +---++++---++---
>> > -+++++
>> > >
>> > > |ATMunn |  10|  35|   0|  0|  10|   0|  39|
>> 10|
>> > > 0|   5|
>> > >
>> > > |Aris   |   5|  25|   7|  0|   5|   0|  77|
>>  5|
>> > > 0|   5|
>> > >
>> > > |Corona |  24|  40|  21| 17|   9|  18|  89|
>> 16|
>> > > 0|   5|
>> > >
>> > > |CuddleBeam |  11|  13|   9|  4|   8|   9|  40|
>>  8|
>> > > 0|   5|
>> > >
>> > > |G. |  20|  90|  11|  0|  20|   0| 140|
>> 29|
>> > > 0|   5|
>> > >
>> > > |Gaelan |  14|  23|   2|  6|   2|   0|  37|
>>  8|
>> > > 0|   5|
>> > >
>> > > |Kenyon |  14|  32|   4|  6|  20|   3|  35|
>>  7|
>> > > 0|   5|
>> > >
>> > > |Murphy |   5|  25|   4|  0|   8|   0|  60|
>>  9|
>> > > 0|   5|
>> > >
>> > > |Publius Scribonius Scholasticus|   0|   5|   0|  0|   0|   0|  10|
>>  2|
>> > > 0|   0|
>> > >
>> > > |Quazie |   0|   0|   0|  0|   0|   0|   0|
>>  0|
>> > > 0|   0|
>> > >
>> > > |Telnaior   |   5|  25|   3|  0|   5|   0|  55|
>>  9|
>> > > 0|   0|
>> > >
>> > > |Trigon |   3|  20|  11|  2|   4|  12|  28|
>>  6|
>> > > 0|   5|
>> > >
>> > > |VJ Rada|  10|  45|   1|  0|  10|   0|  55|
>> 15|
>> > > 0|   5|
>> > >
>> > > |nichdel|   0|   5|   0|  0|   0|   0|  10|
>>  2|
>> > > 0|   0|
>> > >
>> > > |o  |   0|   0|   0|  0|   0|   0|   0|
>>  0|
>> > > 0|   0|
>> > >
>> > > |omd|   0|  10|   0|  0|   0|   0|  20|
>>  4|
>> > > 0|   0|
>> > >
>> > > |Ouri   |   0|   5|   0|  0|   0|   0|  14|
>>  2|
>> > > 0|   5|
>> > >
>> > > |pokes  |   0|   0|   0|  0|   0|   0|   0|
>>  0|
>> > > 0|   0|
>> > >
>> > > |天火狐  |   5|  25|   0|  0|   5|   0|  40|   9|
>> >  0|
>> > > 5|
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > +---++++---++---
>> > -+++++
>> > >
>> > > |farm at 1,-1   |   0|   0|   0|  0|   0|   0|   0|
>>  0|
>> > > 0|   0|
>> > >
>> > > |mine at -1,-1  |   3|   0|   0|  2|   0|   0|   0|
>>  0|
>> 

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Nerf Zombies

[Ned Strange]

I think G and I with our 6 votes between us can block anything, or at
least anything with more than 1 AI. Funny.

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> Alright. You can consider it weakened in the way I suggested. However,
> I need to see which of these changes has has consensus. Anyone else
> have an opinion on the matter? I'll save this for next week's
> distribution, given that your basic nerf is probably sufficient in the
> near term.
>
> -Aris
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Most of them at this point.  There's a few that are worse than others, some
>> especially bad for returning zombies (forcing a returning zombie to
>> deregister?  what's that about?).  But the version I proposed is what
>> I'll personally vote for in this next proposal batch, nothing further.
>>
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>> Which provision most bothers you? I might be willing to drop the one zombie
>>> limit if it strikes you as reasonable, it's probably unneeded with the
>>> dependent actions change. I'd even consider extending the expiration to 90
>>> days, although having one just seems like common sense to me. Those are as
>>> far as I can tell the only actual restrictions I've added?
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>
>>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Setting up money-printing machine

[Ned Strange]

I have all my assets back but I have no idea how many lol. Treasurors
are important.

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 1 May 2018, Corona wrote:
>> Consent - Rule 2519, maybe?
>
> The thing is, I think it requires a contract to pass on act-on-behalf,
> and quazie can't consent or sign a contract?  I really dunno.  Someone
> else have an idea if one-sided consent be given by some mechanism, that
> a zombie can then use?
>
>> Is that so? I can just destroy the assets myself tomorrow, I'm about to
>> hit the hay now.
>
> Thanks for being willing to destroy assets :).  Main concern is if things
> get so unbalanced it makes land for the next weeks/months unplayable, there
> should be a bit of a reset (while still giving you some reasonable amount
> of nifty profits for finding the loophole).  Genuinely, without any
> Treasuror reports I have absolutely no idea where we are, it felt like
> that last set of actions crossed the line to needing some reset but IDK...
>
>
>> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:01 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
>> > > I give consent to Quazie to transfer... assets from any of my facilities
>> > > to emself until the end of this month.
>> >
>> > How do you give consent?
>> >
>> > But more importantly, this has firmly passed my threshold of abuse too.
>> >
>> > Corona, once a bug has been pointed out, it's generally considered to be
>> > poor form to keep exploiting it while fixes are being worked out.
>> >
>> > Similar in principle to fixing V.J. Rada's contract mistake, I would vote
>> > for a range of options that directly strip the gains from Corona due to
>> > continued exploitation of this loophole (allowing keeping of the first
>> > message's gains).  Hard for me to write such a proposal as I haven't been
>> > tracking quantities.
>> >
>> > -G.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

[Ned Strange]

If you voted for G's recent proposal you are eligible

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:45 AM, ATMunn  wrote:
> I know, I was referring to what the proposal/scam was.
>
>
> On 4/29/2018 2:33 PM, Corona wrote:
>>
>> Nothing in particular is specified in the rule, in practice it's for
>> scamming/passing a proposal to that effect.
>>
>> ~Corona
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 8:17 PM, ATMunn  wrote:
>>
>>> Alright. Am I eligible for one of those by the way? I forget what thing
>>> let people get them.
>>>
>>> On 4/29/2018 12:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>>


 I vote ATMunn for Tailor.

 ATMunn - you can deputize for the job.  I'm about 99% sure that the only
 ribbons since the Feb report were this week's black ones.

 On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote:

> I vote for myself, obviously.
>
> [also I guess I better get working on that Python script I talked
> about...]
>
> On 4/29/2018 3:08 AM, Edward Murphy wrote:
>
>> Per Rule 2154, I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of
>> the
>> Tailor election. The vote collector is the ADoP, the valid options are
>> ATMunn and Corona and anyone else who becomes a candidate, and the
>> voting method is instant runoff.
>>
>>
>

>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

[Ned Strange]

Sorry! I'm still traumatized by the brief period where I had to
initiate Agoran Decisions.

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Aris Merchant
<thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Per Rule 879, failing to state quorum is illegal but does not invalidate
> the decision.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 1:15 AM Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Also you forgot to state the quorum, so this is no Agoran Decision at all.
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:15 PM, Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Vote ATMunn
>> >
>> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 5:08 PM, Edward Murphy <emurph...@zoho.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> Per Rule 2154, I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the
>> >> Tailor election. The vote collector is the ADoP, the valid options are
>> >> ATMunn and Corona and anyone else who becomes a candidate, and the
>> >> voting method is instant runoff.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > From V.J. Rada
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Calling a CFJ

[Ned Strange]

If I did use PSS, there would have been 10 voters and the quorum would be 8.

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I call a CFJ with the statement "If an Agoran Decision were now
> initiated, the quorum would be 8".
>
> The official Assessment recently published listed 9 voters on the most
> recent proposal, which would make the quorum 7. However, I contended
> that I used PSS to vote FOR that proposal. The language I used was "I
> also have PSS vote as I do".The question is whether that language runs
> afoul of rule 2466 which institutes a "requirement that the agent
> must, in the message in which the action is performed, uniquely
> identify the principal and that the action is being taken on behalf of
> that person.
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

[Ned Strange]

N I was a second away from using my zombie to appoint myself speaker.

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 12:31 AM Edward Murphy  wrote:
>
>> Aris wrote:
>>
>> > I object strongly, given that e is inactive. I don't think a zombie
>> should
>> > hold an office as ceremonially important as that of Speaker. I intend,
>> with
>> > support, to appoint each of Trigon and ATMunn as Speaker (they're tied
>> for
>> > the highest karma of anyone not excluded).
>>
>> I support both.
>>
>> Because Trigon now has the greater karma, and with no disrespect intended
> towards ATMunn, I cause Trigon to become Speaker with support. Serve
> honorably and well.
>
> -Aris



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8033-8041

[Ned Strange]

it matters because of the quorum for next week. can't have conditional quorum.

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 5:21 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Actually nvm I don't care all that much - I withdraw this CFJ.
>
> Interestingly, this leave the CoE kinda in limbo.  I've done everything
> required of me by initiating an inquiry case, but there's no closure
> (not that it matters as a practical matter because I published a
> conditional revision).
>
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> CFJ, barring VJ Rada:  PSS voted on the decision to adopt Proposal 8033.
>>
>> Arguments:
>>
>> R2466 says:
>>  the agent CAN perform the action in the same
>>   manner in which the principal CAN do so, with the additional
>>   requirement that the agent must, in the message in which the
>>   action is performed, uniquely identify the principal and that the
>>   action is being taken on behalf of that person.
>>
>> The message in which VJ Rada attempted to vote on behalf of PSS read:
>> >
>> > I also have PSS vote as I do.
>>
>> While it communicates a general intent, I think it's pretty important (and
>> in the rules) that "act on behalf" or some strong indication thereof of the
>> act-on-behalf mechanism being used, and I don't think this message rises
>> to that standard.
>>
>> [END OF ARGUMENTS]
>>
>> In response to the VJ Rada's CoEs, I note the existence of the above CFJ.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
>> > and for the other proposals with em as well
>> >
>> > On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com> 
>> > wrote:
>> > > CoE: I also voted against Blot Expansion with my zombie PSS
>> > >
>> > > On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> 
>> > > wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> I resolve the Agoran Decisions to adopt Proposals 8033-8041 as follows.
>> > >>
>> > >> Quorum is 3 for all of these proposals.
>> > >>
>> > >> co-author lists:
>> > >> [1] Aris, Cuddle Beam, Gaelan, Trigon
>> > >> [2] omd, pokes, o
>> > >> [3] Medals of Honour Correction Act
>> > >> [4] V.J. Rada
>> > >> [5] Ørjan
>> > >> [6] Trigon, G.
>> > >>
>> > >>> ID Author(s)AI   Title Pender
>> > >>> ---
>> > >>> 8033   Kenyon, [1]  2.0  Gray Land and the FountainKenyon
>> > >> FOR:  Aris, Corona, Trigon, Quazie, Kenyon
>> > >> AGAINST:
>> > >> PRESENT:  V.J. Rada, ATMunn, 2xG.
>> > >> FOR/AGAINST:  5/0
>> > >> RESULT:   ADOPTED
>> > >>
>> > >>> 8034   G.   2.0  Paydays Fix   Kenyon
>> > >> FOR: Aris, Corona, Trigon, V.J. Rada, Quazie, ATMunn, Kenyon, 
>> > >> 2xG.
>> > >> AGAINST:
>> > >> PRESENT:
>> > >> FOR/AGAINST: 9/0
>> > >> RESULT:  ADOPTED
>> > >>
>> > >>> 8035   G., [2]  1.0  Nothing to worry aboutG.
>> > >> FOR: Corona, V.J. Rada, Quazie, ATMunn, 2xG., omd, o, pokes
>> > >> AGAINST: Aris, Trigon, Kenyon
>> > >> PRESENT:
>> > >> FOR/AGAINST: 9/3
>> > >> RESULT:  ADOPTED
>> > >>
>> > >>> 8036   Aris 2.0  Impeachment   Aris
>> > >> FOR: Aris, Corona, Trigon, V.J. Rada, Quazie, ATMunn, Kenyon
>> > >> AGAINST: 2xG.
>> > >> PRESENT:
>> > >> FOR/AGAINST: 7/2
>> > >> RESULT:  ADOPTED
>> > >>
>> > >>> 8037   ATMunn   1.0  Medals of Honour Correction Act   ATMunn
>> > >> FOR:  Aris, Corona, Trigon, V.J. Rada, Quazie, ATMunn, Kenyon
>> > >> AGAINST:
>> > >> PRESENT:  2xG.
>> > >> FOR/AGAINST:  7/0
>> > >> RESULT:   ADOPTED
>> > >>
>> > >>> 8038   V.J. Rada1.0  V.J. Rada Equitable Remedy.   Corona
>> > >> FOR: 2xG.
>> > >> AGAINST: Aris, Corona, Trigon, V.J. Rada, Quazie, ATMunn, K

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Ned Strange]

Can't we just use a phrase like "whenever a rule states that somebody
shall pay, but does not specify a recipient of the payment" I would
like our ruleset to be as understandable as possible, please.

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:01 AM, ATMunn  wrote:
> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>
>
> On 4/26/2018 8:53 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>
>> Okay, a bunch of sources I read kept disagreeing with me, and some of them
>> sounded pretty certain about it. So I checked the OED (which is clearly
>> infallible). There all a whole set of sense under VIII, and the
>> descreption
>> for that is "Supplying the place of the dative in various other languages
>> and in the earlier stages of English itself." Further, under 32a, it goes
>> so far as to say "*a.* In the syntactical const. of many transitive verbs,
>> introducing the indirect or dative object." So I think it's still fine,
>> but
>> it would be more technically the dative. Simple fix: put "(technically,
>> with no dative)" afterward to clear up any ambiguity. People who don't
>> know
>> what a dative is can just pay attention to the indirect object bit, and
>> still be at least sort of correct.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:40 PM Aris Merchant <
>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm 90% sure that it's still also the indirect object. In Latin, it's
>>> marked with the dative case (indicating an indirect object) rather than
>>> with a preposition, but is still translated as to. It also makes
>>> significantly more sense that way, because it receives the action of the
>>> verb indirectly. When I show something to you, offer it to you, and then
>>> give it to you, you're receiving some of the action of the verb in each
>>> case. This differs from me going to you, in which case it can be replaced
>>> with towards, and merely indicates motion. This [1] also agrees with me,
>>> see sense English preposition #9. English grammar appears to indicate it
>>> as
>>> if it were an ordinary prepositional phrase, but it's semantically still
>>> also the indirect object (the two are interchangeable at any rate). All
>>> the
>>> sources I can find are rather informal and pragmatic though, and seem to
>>> disagree, so it's possible I'm wrong about this.
>>>
>>> [1] https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/to
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:13 PM ATMunn  wrote:
>>>
 
 "with no indirect object" by itself would not work in a rule, because "I
 pay x things to y" is the same as "I pay y x things," but the former has
 no indirect object (y is in a prepositional phrase).
 

 On 4/25/2018 7:21 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> Well, I'm just gonna add that to the list of things I've broken. I
> haven't read through this thread all the way but it looks like things
> have gotten pretty technical. HOWEVER, I'm glad this is finally being
> addressed. The quickest solution would be just to add a clause that

 says
>
> if Agora owns any PAoaM currencies, they are instead destroyed and then
> alias "pay" with no indirect object to "transfer to Agora"
>
> Speaking of PAoaM currencies, they should have a collective name, no?
>
> On 04/25/2018 04:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>
>> I think you mean a non-empty multiset. Also, I don't see any reason to
>> require the set to be non-empty. That's sensible for constant fees but
>> could break some types of variable fee.
>>
>> Here's a phrasing that includes the default and rounds correctly:
>>
>> "If the Rules associate payment of a multiset of assets (hereafter the
>> fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
>> action, that action is a fee-based action. If the fee is a specified
>> in terms of a non-natural number of assets, the fee is rounded up to
>> the nearest natural number. If the fee is specified in terms of a
>> number without a specified unit, the unit is the official currency of
>> Agora."
>>
>> This allows complex fees, which is fine, given that a complex (or
>> otherwise unreal) fee is impossible to pay and is simply equivalent to
>> making the action impossible.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Kerim Aydin 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I tried a version with general assets, if this is ugly can restrict
>>> to
>>> currencies...
>>>
>>> Proto v2:  Let's really define payment solidly please, finally.
>>>
>>> Create the following Rule, Fee-based actions:
>>>
>>>   If the Rules associate payment of a non-empty set of assets
>>> (hereafter
>>>   the fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with
>>> performing an
>>>   action, that action is a fee-based action.
>>>   If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset,
>>> the actual

Re: DIS: Nerf Zombies

[Ned Strange]

What was the scam?

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:08 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> The zombie thing wasn't an immediate response to that part of the scam.
> TBH, I'm really really tired (I've got a cold at the moment), and I missed
> the fact that there was even a scam to start with, thinking instead that it
> was just that it was just somehow too easy to pay for things. I have no
> clue how I did that, I must have just glanced over the text without
> actually reading it. However, the zombie problem still exists, because
> right now e could monopolize all zombie auctions and eventually get a
> dictatorship. It should be near impossible to get a full dictatorship even
> with an infinite wealth scam (a win would be fair, however). I was worrying
> about zombies already too, and these were my thoughts after the scam you
> pulled off a few days ago. The thing about things being to cheap was
> definitely a misapprehension on my part in this case, though I there's
> still some general truth to it. Sorry everyone for the mess up though.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:52 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> This scam was due to the pay bug and could have been done (sorta)
>> with contracts too, right?
>>
>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> > It's clear that zombies are way to powerful and need to be weakened
>> > substantially. Proposed restrictions:
>> >
>> > - 1 zombie per player max
>> > - Zombies can be deregistered by announcement after a month as zombies
>> >
>> > -Aris
>> >
>>
>>
>>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie CFJs and Finger pointing

[Ned Strange]

Excuse me, these are 2 CFJs. Would Agora see fit to interpret my
actions as assigning both CFJs to myself?

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I assign this CFJ to myself, being without objections.
>
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think you intended to assign a CFJ to yourself about 8 days ago, G.
>> Should probably do so.
>>
>> I intend to assign this CFJ to myself without 3 objections.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I find Shenanigans.  Since the zombie act-on-behalf rule means
>>> Corona CANNOT cause Quazie to perform illegal actions:
>>>   -If the bid was illegal, it failed and no crime was commited;
>>>   -If the bid was legal, no crime was committed.
>>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>>> I point my finger at Corona for violations of Rule 2532, "Zombies",
>>>> and/or Rule 2466, "Acting on Behalf", committed by causing Quazie to
>>>> violate Rule 2550, "Bidding". I CFJ, barring G., on the statement
>>>> 'Rule 2532, "Zombies", enables zombie owners to act on behalf of their
>>>> zombies.'  I CFJ, barring Corona, on the statement 'Corona has
>>>> violated of Rule 2532, "Zombies", and/or Rule 2466, "Acting on
>>>> Behalf", by causing Quazie to violate Rule 2550 "Bidding".'
>>>>
>>>> [For reference, I don't really see how a violation could have been
>>>> committed, but this is all rather unclear and I'd like to see what
>>>> people think."
>>>>
>>>> Arguments:
>>>>
>>>> If Quazie bid in the auction, e committed a violation of Rule 2550,
>>>> "Bidding", and in particular the provision that "A person SHALL NOT
>>>> bid on an Auction if it would be impossible for em to pay that amount
>>>> at the conclusion of the Auction." Quazie did not have any money at
>>>> the time of the bid, and did not get any by the end of the auction. We
>>>> clearly do not hold em culpable for this violation, given that we do
>>>> not in general hold people responsible for violations they could not
>>>> reasonably have avoided, but the violation remains nevertheless.
>>>>
>>>> If Corona successfully caused Quazie to bid, e violated Rule 2466,
>>>> "Acting on Behalf", and specifically the provision that "A person
>>>> SHALL NOT act on behalf of another person if doing so causes the
>>>> second person to violate the rules." What remains in question is
>>>> whether or not Corona's action succeeded. There are three
>>>> possibilities: it succeeded, it failed in this specific case, or it
>>>> never works at all. I believe that it is one of the later two.
>>>>
>>>> The crucial question is one of interpreting Rule 2532, "Zombies".
>>>> which states that "A zombie's master, if another player, is allowed to
>>>> act on behalf of the zombie (i.e. as the zombie's agent) to perform
>>>> LEGAL actions." The phrase "allowed to" is ambiguous, it could mean
>>>> CAN or MAY, although I find it somewhat unlikely that it means both of
>>>> them at once. If it means CAN, then the action failed because the
>>>> action was ILLEGAL, and the affixed conditional resolves to false.
>>>>
>>>> I believe that the phrase probably means MAY. Granted, the Rule 217
>>>> factors suggest that the phrase means CAN, but I don't think that they
>>>> can overturn the presumption to the contrary in this case. I'm not
>>>> saying that "allow' can never mean "enable', but reading "allowed to"
>>>> to mean "able to" doesn't really sound right. For instance, seems
>>>> reasonable for someone to say "I will allow you to open your mind",
>>>> but (to my ears) it sounds ridiculous to say that "you are allowed to
>>>> open your mind". I think the only reason there even appears to be
>>>> ambiguity is because of preconceived notions of what the zombie rule
>>>> means. Reading the text without judgement, the MAY reading is the
>>>> obvious one. Under this reading, there is no provision anywhere that
>>>> says that an owner CAN act on behalf of a zombie, so e can't.
>>>>
>>>> -Aris
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Finger Pointing

[Ned Strange]

oh, sorry.

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:21 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Shennanigans.  Due to the Treasuror not being a defined office (a bugfix for
> that is in last week's proposal distribution).  It would have been nice
> for Gaelan to report informally but oh well.
>
> The Assessor doesn't have a report does e, just vote reporting right?  What
> info are you thinking about?
>
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
>> I point my finger at the Treasuror for failing to publish eir weekly
>> report since Apr 2
>>
>> Also I think the Assessor missed eirs? I would like my assets back etc.
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

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

[Ned Strange]

Yes, I know.

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 7:07 PM, Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
>
>> I repeal Regulation 1.1
>
>
> I think those were all default values anyway.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>
>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Aris Merchant
>> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The ACORN (Agora Nomic Code of Regulations)
>>>
>>> ==
>>> TITLE 0
>>> Contains no regulations, and is reserved for the use of the Regkeepor.
>>> --
>>>
>>> (empty)
>>>
>>>
>>> ==
>>> TITLE 1
>>> Used by the Notary to set limits on contract creation and amendment, and
>>> to exempt contracts from sustenance payments.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regulation 1.1
>>> Contract Limits
>>> Parent rule(s): 2522 ("Contract Lifecycle", Power 2.5)
>>>
>>>
>>> The Contract Limit is 3.
>>>
>>> The Amendment Limit is ∞.
>>>
>>> History:
>>> Promulgated upon recommendation by o, 31 October 2017
>>>
>>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>>
>>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: OFF: [Regkeepor] ACORN

[Ned Strange]

#repealallregulations.com

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 6:55 PM, Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I repeal Regulation 1.1
>
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Aris Merchant
> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The ACORN (Agora Nomic Code of Regulations)
>>
>> ==
>> TITLE 0
>> Contains no regulations, and is reserved for the use of the Regkeepor.
>> --
>>
>> (empty)
>>
>>
>> ==
>> TITLE 1
>> Used by the Notary to set limits on contract creation and amendment, and
>> to exempt contracts from sustenance payments.
>>
>> --
>> Regulation 1.1
>> Contract Limits
>> Parent rule(s): 2522 ("Contract Lifecycle", Power 2.5)
>>
>>
>> The Contract Limit is 3.
>>
>> The Amendment Limit is ∞.
>>
>> History:
>> Promulgated upon recommendation by o, 31 October 2017
>>
>> --
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald][Karma]

[Ned Strange]

Relatively few people exist for me to give karma to at the moment.
Wish we had more active players!

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 6:29 AM, Corona  wrote:
>
>
> Court:
>
> KarmaEntity
> -
> SAMURAI
> -
> +4   Aris <-- SHOGUN
> +3   G.
> +2   Trigon
> +2   ATMunn
> +1   Telnaior
> +1   Alexis
> +1   o
> +1   Kenyon
> +1   Corona
> -1   Gaelan
> -1   Quazie
> -1   omd
> -2   Murphy
> -5   VJ Rada
> -6   CuddleBeam <-- HONOURLESS WORM
> -
> GAMMAS
> -
> KarmaEntity
>
>All other entities have 0 Karma.
>
> ---
> Notices of Honour:
>
> [New Week]
>
> Trigon (13 Apr 2018)
> +1 Aris (eir patching work)
> -1 Telnaior (inactive)
>
> Corona (12 Apr 2018)
> -1 天火狐 (being inactive)
> +1 Agora (rebalancing)
>
> April Karmic Balance
> -1 Alexis
> +1 ProofTechnique
> +1 Ienpw III
> -1 Agora
>
> VJ Rada (11 Apr 2018)
> -1 o (not existing, karma high)
> +1 Kenyon (rulekeeping)
>
> ATMunn (8 Apr 2018)
> +1 CuddleBeam (rebalancing)
> -1 Aris (rebalancing)
>
> [New Week]
>
> G. (2 Apr 2018)
> +1 Gaelan (an excellent April Fools)
> -1 G. (falling for it)
>
> [New Week]
>
> ATMunn (20 Mar 2018)
> -1 ATMunn (positive karma inertia, and deregistering)
> +1 CuddleBeam (being a good, contributing player recently)
>
> [New Week]
>
> Murphy (19 Mar 2018)
> -1 Murphy (needing to be
> reminded about election resolution)
> +1 G. (reminding Murphy)
>
> G. (19 Mar 2018)
> -1 G. (making Aris hunt for a pend message)
> +1 Aris (leading the land fix proposal)
>
> [New Week]
>
> G. (7 Mar 2018)
> -1 Gaelan (pinning complaints about eir job on someone else)
> +1 CuddleBeam (not being shy about showing how legal moves work in the
> subgame)
>
> Gaelan (7 Mar 2018)
> -1 CuddleBeam (creating a large pile of transfers, inspiring others to do
> so)
> +1 Murphy (making Gaelan's job easier)
>
> Trigon (7 Mar 2018)
> -1 Cuddle Beam (being the first to be that guy)
> +1 Gaelan (his joke is hilarious)
>
> [New Week]
>
> Corona (28 Feb 2018)
> -1 o (not a Player)
> +1 Ienpw III (not a Player)
>
> VJ Rada (26 Feb 2018)
> -1 o. (has positive karma despite not existing)
> +1 Murphy (has negative karma despite existing)
>
> [New Week]
>
> V.J. Rada (25 Feb 2018)
> +1 Aris (feels that he's underappreciated)
> -1 CuddleBeam (there's a time and a place for KKK jokes which is not here)
>
> Aris (25 Feb 2018)
> +1 V.J. Rada (having too low an honor for too long)
> -1 CuddleBeam (per Gaelan's notice)
>
> Gaelan (24 Feb 2018)
> +1 Trigon (a well-written proposal, despite the bugs)
> -1 CuddleBeam (a joke in extremely bad taste)
>
> [New Week]
>
> Telnaior (12 Feb 2018)
> -1 Telnaior (abusing Tailor powers)
> +1 Corona (letting Agorans know of her inactivity)
>
> [New Week]
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report

[Ned Strange]

I'm sure some of these pledges have been destroyed, including most of mine.

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 4:13 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
> 
> The Police Blotter (Referee's Weekly Report)
> 
>
> Date of last report: 13 Mar 2018
> Date of this report: 22 Apr 2018
> (all times UTC)
>
>
> BLOT HOLDINGS (asset record - self-ratifying)
>
> PersonBlots
>   -
> V.J. Rada1
>
>
> BLOT HISTORY (f=forgivable by R2557)
>
> PersonChange  Date  Reason
>   --    ---
> V.J. Rada  +1(f)  11 Apr 2018 12:01:44  Late Notary Report
>
>
> FROM THE POLICE SCANNER (details of justice)
>
> From Aris (19 Apr 2018 07:04:56)
>  I point my finger at Corona for violations of Rule 2532, "Zombies",
>  and/or Rule 2466, "Acting on Behalf", committed by causing Quazie to
>  violate Rule 2550, "Bidding".
> Referee Response (20 Apr 2018 05:38:13)
>  I find Shenanigans.  Since the zombie act-on-behalf rule means
>  Corona CANNOT cause Quazie to perform illegal actions:
>-If the bid was illegal, it failed and no crime was commited;
>-If the bid was legal, no crime was committed.
>
> From V.J. Rada (11 Apr 2018 06:08:15)
>  I point my finger at G. for failing to attempt to deregister each
>  inactive player. I suppose that because this isn't officially related
>  to the duties of the Referee, G must judge himself.
> Referee Response (11 Apr 2018 12:00:51)
>  Given that there has been no time in the recent past that I had 
> sufficient
>  support to do the job in question within the time limit, my initial
>  attempt that failed was as good as any other attempt would have been.
>
>  I find Shenanigans.
>
> From Aris (10 Apr 2018 06:51:12)
> I point my finger at V.J. Rada for failing to publish the Notary's weekly
> report. In general I agreee with G.'s two week rule, but in this case the
> person responsible failed to publish the report after being elected to the
> office.
> Referee Response (11 Apr 2018 12:01:44)
> The facts are correct.  Cold Hand of Justice Imposed:
>
> 2 Blots is the base penalty.  I think a first offense of a missed report
> should start with the lowest penalty (lowest common infraction as a
> baseline).  So I levy a fine of 1 blot on VJ Rada.
>
> This is forgivable, so does not take away salary for this month (no words
> specified for the apology).
>
> I'm not sure for future if the 2nd or 3rd missed report (14 or 21 days
> of "no work") would be the threshold for unforgivable for the purposes of
> losing a month's salary.
>
>
> RECENT PLEDGES
>
> G. (Made: 02-Apr-18 01:11:21.  Fulfilled:  10-Apr-2018 18:00:04)
> As Registrar, I pledge to publish a tally of supporters/objectors for each
> below intent, at some time between 6 and 10 days after the below intents
> were made.  I pledge, that if the published ratios indicate sufficient
> support to perform the actions and it is still otherwise POSSIBLE for me to
> do so, I will perform the actions in the same document.
>
>
> PLEDGES BEFORE March 15, 2018
>
> Quazie -
> I pledge to give 1 Shiny to the first person who can,
> correctly, with e-mail citations, explain what I did wrong on
> Jan 20th 2009 that has since led to me being a fugitive. For
> the explanation to be valid for this pledge, it should be fully
> self contained, I should not have to go look up past rules in
> order to understand the explanation (So please, include all
> source info in the explanation).
>
> V.J Rada -
> I pledge not to make any thread titles completely unrelated to
> the email's content, nor use any agency or other mechanism to
> attempt to gain control of any player at the exclusion of all
> other players.
>
> Gaelan (14 Sep 2017) -
> I pledge to, for at least the next month, vote AGAINST any
> proposal that amends rules by providing new text in full unless
> the text of the rule is nearly entirely changed.
>
> nichdel -
> I pledge to vote AGAINST on all proposals created or pended by
> Cuddle Beam.
>
> nichdel -
> I pledge to Object to all intentions by Cuddle Beam that I can
> object to.
>
> nichdel -
> I pledge to give a trust token and 5 shinies (as soon as
> possible) to any other player who also performs the above three
> pledges, except Cuddle Beam.
>
> nichdel -
> I pledge to not refer to 天火狐 as Josh or Josh T.
>
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus -
> I too pledge to not refer to 天火狐 as Josh or Josh T.
>
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus -
> I...pledge to fix the margins, if the issue is explained to me.
>
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus -
> I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017, if it is
> still possible.
>
> G. (referring to CFJ 3575)-
> I pledge that, if 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

[Ned Strange]

Yeah that's right, I've certainly come across that distinction playing
games like magic: the gathering. But there is still a difference which
there isn't here. In that game, if you play a card that you can't, it
goes back to your hand. If you cheat, you get kicked out of the store.
The cards themselves have both can and may and cannot and may not on
them, all of which mean intra-game consequences. Here, even breaking a
rule will only have consequences in the game. So that's why we need
the terms of art MAY and CAN. And we should use them wherever
possible. But that's also why allow (which is defined in dictionaries
as "permit, let happen"), is very hard to define by its ordinary
meaning.

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Sure that works too.  I just think CAN is way overloaded so I prefer
> very distinct redirections with distinct names, but that's a style
> thing.  Regardless, main point is that you need to amend R2466.
>
> Impossible versus Illegal is a distinction common to boardgames, though
> it's not often recognized linguistically - it's the difference between
> "you can't play that card so just put it back in your hand" and "you
> can't peek at my cards but oops you did it anyway - penalty."
>
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
>> Can't we just amend rule 2466 "If the rules mean that someone CAN act
>> on behalf". Obviously this allow/permit language is troubling because
>> the illegality/impossibility distinction we have is really just not
>> used in the English language in general. You could say "parking here
>> is not permitted" but you could physically move your car into that
>> space. The double meaning only arises in our ruleset.
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 4:07 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I wanted to emphasize the CAN issue here because it actually leads to
>> > the opposite result of what you want!
>> >
>> > R2466 says if a rules 'allows' someone to act on behalf... that they
>> > CAN by announcement [with these results].  The current R2532 directly
>> > references this text by using 'is allowed' to act on behalf. Not
>> > completely clear given that 'allow' can have many meanings, but it's a
>> > direct mirror of the language used to invoke the full R2466 process.
>> >
>> > Now let's say you replace that with a CAN.  But then you add some version
>> > of "a player SHALL NOT make a zombie do ILLEGAL actions" as we've been
>> > discussing.  So the result is a player "CAN but SHALL NOT" have a zombie
>> > do ILLEGAL actions.
>> >
>> > Which means (by Aris's original arguments) that a player is not
>> > "allowed" to perform ILLEGAL act-on-behalf actions, because 'not allowed'
>> > implies "MAY NOT/SHALL NOT" if interpreted by natural language.  So the
>> > R2466 methods of doing it by announcing doesn't work, because the player
>> > "isn't allowed" to perform them.  Which means e CANNOT perform illegal
>> > actions and illegal action attempts automatically fail.
>> >
>> > And so we're right back where we started.
>> >
>> >
>> > My suggestion is a whole new and clear and unique term of art.  In the
>> > past we've used "Power of Attorney" but others are possible.  So
>> > something like:
>> >
>> > In R2466:  "If a Rule grants Power of Attorney ... then the player CAN
>> > act on behalf by announcement with these results"
>> >
>> > And R2532:  "A zombie's master is granted Power of Attorney over the
>> > zombie".
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> >> The thing about using the "is allowed to" language instead of CAN is
>> >> that it triggers the whole method in R2466, that includes a CAN,
>> >> specifies how to do it, and includes legal consequences.
>> >> Putting a CAN here without all that language doesn't have a method
>> >> (by announcement or what?) or explain the complicated legal
>> >> consequences.  Either stick with "is allowed to" here, or clarify
>> >> R2466.
>> >>
>> >> This also fails to make a consequence to Masters for illegal behavior,
>> >> so I would vote against it on those grounds.
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
>> >> > I create the following proposal.
>> >> >
>> >> > Title: Clearer & Better Zombies
>> >> > AI: 2.0
>> >> > Text: In rule 2532, Zombies, replace the text "A zombie's master, if
>> >> > another player, is allowed to act on behalf of the zombie (i.e. as the
>> >> > zombie's agent) to perform LEGAL actions." with "A zombie's master, if
>> >> > another player, CAN act on behalf of the zombie to perform actions"
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > From V.J. Rada
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

[Ned Strange]

Can't we just amend rule 2466 "If the rules mean that someone CAN act
on behalf". Obviously this allow/permit language is troubling because
the illegality/impossibility distinction we have is really just not
used in the English language in general. You could say "parking here
is not permitted" but you could physically move your car into that
space. The double meaning only arises in our ruleset.

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 4:07 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> I wanted to emphasize the CAN issue here because it actually leads to
> the opposite result of what you want!
>
> R2466 says if a rules 'allows' someone to act on behalf... that they
> CAN by announcement [with these results].  The current R2532 directly
> references this text by using 'is allowed' to act on behalf. Not
> completely clear given that 'allow' can have many meanings, but it's a
> direct mirror of the language used to invoke the full R2466 process.
>
> Now let's say you replace that with a CAN.  But then you add some version
> of "a player SHALL NOT make a zombie do ILLEGAL actions" as we've been
> discussing.  So the result is a player "CAN but SHALL NOT" have a zombie
> do ILLEGAL actions.
>
> Which means (by Aris's original arguments) that a player is not
> "allowed" to perform ILLEGAL act-on-behalf actions, because 'not allowed'
> implies "MAY NOT/SHALL NOT" if interpreted by natural language.  So the
> R2466 methods of doing it by announcing doesn't work, because the player
> "isn't allowed" to perform them.  Which means e CANNOT perform illegal
> actions and illegal action attempts automatically fail.
>
> And so we're right back where we started.
>
>
> My suggestion is a whole new and clear and unique term of art.  In the
> past we've used "Power of Attorney" but others are possible.  So
> something like:
>
> In R2466:  "If a Rule grants Power of Attorney ... then the player CAN
> act on behalf by announcement with these results"
>
> And R2532:  "A zombie's master is granted Power of Attorney over the
> zombie".
>
>
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> The thing about using the "is allowed to" language instead of CAN is
>> that it triggers the whole method in R2466, that includes a CAN,
>> specifies how to do it, and includes legal consequences.
>> Putting a CAN here without all that language doesn't have a method
>> (by announcement or what?) or explain the complicated legal
>> consequences.  Either stick with "is allowed to" here, or clarify
>> R2466.
>>
>> This also fails to make a consequence to Masters for illegal behavior,
>> so I would vote against it on those grounds.
>>
>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
>> > I create the following proposal.
>> >
>> > Title: Clearer & Better Zombies
>> > AI: 2.0
>> > Text: In rule 2532, Zombies, replace the text "A zombie's master, if
>> > another player, is allowed to act on behalf of the zombie (i.e. as the
>> > zombie's agent) to perform LEGAL actions." with "A zombie's master, if
>> > another player, CAN act on behalf of the zombie to perform actions"
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > From V.J. Rada
>> >
>>
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie CFJs and Finger pointing

[Ned Strange]

Exactly, nothing should automatically prohibit illegal actions.

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>> At least that was the direct and specific intent when I wrote it - I
>> intended
>> illegal actions on behalf of zombies to fail because they weren't
>> "allowed",
>> therefore blocking the CAN in R2466.  Intent doesn't always mean much, and
>> I can see that the link to R2466 isn't abundantly clear, but that "allows"
>> in
>> R2466 should definitely be considered in this context.
>
>
> Such an automatic platonic failure means that recordkeepers need to do
> complicated assessments of the illegality of actions, and I thought avoiding
> that was a major reason for making illegal actions SHALL NOT instead of
> CANNOT in the first place.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: The open CFJs

[Ned Strange]

I think there are two CFJs which players intended to assign
themselves: they should now do so.

-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8033-8041

[Ned Strange]

I reposted it to business

On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 11:13 PM, Kenyon Prater <kprater3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This was Nttpf I think.
>
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2018, 12:55 AM Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I vote as follows:
>> 8033: PRESENT
>> 8034: FOR
>> 8035: FOR
>> 8036: FOR
>> 8037: FOR
>> 8038: AGAINST, foiled by power
>> 8039: Regrettably, FOR
>> 8040: AGAINST. I think 5 blots+3 a month will be more than enough for
>> everybody to be blot-free, which means that there is no incentive to
>> buy temples (paper is the only resource, along with apples, that
>> really is useful but anyway). Also, as a nefarious criminal who was
>> once prohibited from all game actions against his consent, all
>> w/o-consent deregistrations are bad juju.
>> 8041: FOR
>>
>> I also have PSS vote as I do.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Aris Merchant
>> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 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
>> > 8038*  V.J. Rada1.0  V.J. Rada Equitable Remedy.   Corona
>> > 8039*  Aris, [4]2.1  V.J. Rada Equitable Remedy v2 Aris
>> > 8040*  Aris, [5]3.0  Blot Expansion v3 Aris
>> > 8041*  Aris, [6]2.0  Consolidated PatchAris
>> >
>> > The proposal pool is currently empty.
>> >
>> > [1] Aris, Cuddle Beam, Gaelan, Trigon
>> > [2] omd, pokes, o
>> > [3] Medals of Honour Correction Act
>> > [4] V.J. Rada
>> > [5] Ørjan
>> > [6] Trigon, G.
>> >
>> > 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 poss

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Emotions

[Ned Strange]

Every registrar report has been auto-sent to spam for as long as I
remember, whitelisting notwithstanding. I guess it's because all the
emails appear as links.

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 3:42 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> You could actually look at the report to get your answer if you liked. :P
>
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
>> The registrar does have to track these btw. I don't know if e is doing
>> so, but any Registrar report with no emotions is not a report.
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Kenyon Prater <kprater3...@gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>> > I flip my emotions switch to Meloncholy at the thought of losing the
>> > Emotions rule
>> >
>> > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 5:26 PM Aris Merchant <
>> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Should we repeal the emotions rule? No one seems to be using it.
>> >>
>> >> -Aris
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8033-8041

[Ned Strange]

I vote as follows:
8033: PRESENT
8034: FOR
8035: FOR
8036: FOR
8037: FOR
8038: AGAINST, foiled by power
8039: Regrettably, FOR
8040: AGAINST. I think 5 blots+3 a month will be more than enough for
everybody to be blot-free, which means that there is no incentive to
buy temples (paper is the only resource, along with apples, that
really is useful but anyway). Also, as a nefarious criminal who was
once prohibited from all game actions against his consent, all
w/o-consent deregistrations are bad juju.
8041: FOR

I also have PSS vote as I do.



On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> 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
> 8038*  V.J. Rada1.0  V.J. Rada Equitable Remedy.   Corona
> 8039*  Aris, [4]2.1  V.J. Rada Equitable Remedy v2 Aris
> 8040*  Aris, [5]3.0  Blot Expansion v3 Aris
> 8041*  Aris, [6]2.0  Consolidated PatchAris
>
> The proposal pool is currently empty.
>
> [1] Aris, Cuddle Beam, Gaelan, Trigon
> [2] omd, pokes, o
> [3] Medals of Honour Correction Act
> [4] V.J. Rada
> [5] Ørjan
> [6] Trigon, G.
>
> 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 

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Emotions

[Ned Strange]

The registrar does have to track these btw. I don't know if e is doing
so, but any Registrar report with no emotions is not a report.

On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Kenyon Prater  wrote:
> I flip my emotions switch to Meloncholy at the thought of losing the
> Emotions rule
>
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 5:26 PM Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Should we repeal the emotions rule? No one seems to be using it.
>>
>> -Aris
>>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Emotions

[Ned Strange]

Yes.

On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> Should we repeal the emotions rule? No one seems to be using it.
>
> -Aris



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

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

[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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment

[Ned Strange]

I couldn't myself write such a proposal, being without assets.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:31 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> I think e should get it all back.  It was harmless.
>
> If there isn't enough consensus for a w/o objection modification,
> maybe a proposal (power 2.1 does it right?).
>
> I object to Aris's intent.
>
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
>> What about amending it in such a way that everyone gets a coin and VJ Rada
>> gets the rest back? I wouldn't object to that.
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, April 12, 2018, Aris Merchant <
>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> 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 <edwardostra...@gmail.com>
>> > 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 <edwardostra...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > That is, I object for myself and PSS to Aris's intent
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >> I object both for myself and PSS.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Aris Merchant
>> > > >> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> 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 <
>> > edwardostra...@gmail.com>
>> > > >>> 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
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment

[Ned Strange]

It's simple to win using zombiception. Step 1 get a zombie. Step 2
don't post for 60 days. Step 3 on behalf of your zombie, bid high on
yourself, without flipping your own master switch.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Aris Merchant
<thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nothing involving giving a-d messages effect is legitimate (TBH, not sure
> whether that would work either).
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:20 AM Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It wasn't really a scam it was going to be used for a perfectly
>> legitimate application of zombiception!
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:13 PM, Aris Merchant
>> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> 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 <edwardostra...@gmail.com>
>> > 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 <edwardostra...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > That is, I object for myself and PSS to Aris's intent
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ned Strange <
>> edwardostra...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> I object both for myself and PSS.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Aris Merchant
>> >> >> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> 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 <
>> edwardostra...@gmail.com>
>> >> >>> 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
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment

[Ned Strange]

It wasn't really a scam it was going to be used for a perfectly
legitimate application of zombiception!

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:13 PM, Aris Merchant
<thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> 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 <edwardostra...@gmail.com>
> 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 <edwardostra...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > That is, I object for myself and PSS to Aris's intent
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> I object both for myself and PSS.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Aris Merchant
>> >> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> 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 <edwardostra...@gmail.com>
>> >>> 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
>>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment

[Ned Strange]

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 <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That is, I object for myself and PSS to Aris's intent
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I object both for myself and PSS.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Aris Merchant
>> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> 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 <edwardostra...@gmail.com>
>>> 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

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Impeachment

[Ned Strange]

Too late, but this proposal should also have excised the last
paragraph of "Referee Accountability"

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> I pend this proposal by expending a paper.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:44 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>> I submit the following proposal.
>>
>> -Aris
>> ---
>> Title: Impeachment
>> Adoption index: 2.0
>> Author: Aris
>> Co-authors:
>>
>> Enact a new power 2.0 rule, entitled "Impeachment", with the following text:
>>
>>   A player CAN be expelled (impeached) from a specified elected office which
>>   e holds with 2 Agoran Consent. When a person is impeached from an office,
>>   an election is immediately opened for that office. Players SHOULD NOT use
>>   this method of removal unless the officer has abused the powers of eir
>>   office or otherwise shown emself unworthy the trust of Agora.



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

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

[Ned Strange]

I do have a question. What does fabric do?

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

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

[Ned Strange]

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


On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 9:58 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
>> I think Corona was talking about the thing where Agora would get all the
>> money that people spent and distribute it tbuno the poorest players. That was
>> under the proportional economy where only 1000 shinies could exist.
>>
>> I think if we were to reimplement that system, it would be too easy to
>> scam, with zombies and contracts and whatnot, so I'm not sold just yet. If
>> another proposal comes forth proposing a different way of filtering assets
>> back into the economy, I might be willing to support it.
>
> The issue I had with that system is you couldn't distinguish "poor because
> I don't have an income source/others are always ahead" from "poor because I
> had a bunch of money and just now spent it."  If you award the latter it
> leads to weird incentive systems to either hold everything or spend
> everything but not to stay in between.
>
> In "game-balancing" here, there's two separate issues to think about:
>
> 1.  Can someone get enough possessions to participate on a basic level on a
> regular basis?  (e.g. by pending proposals, walking around the map, and
> other fixed-cost things to buy).  For this, monthly salary takes care of it
> (more or less), secondarily land production.  This was what redistribution
> was supposed to accomplish when salaries and land production didn't exist,
> but now that we have salaries that's fine (if it's not enough, just increase
> salary rather than adding a separate mechanism).
>
> 2.  Is someone so far behind they can never be competitive in auctions?
> This is the bigger issue, if zombie-owners always earn at 2x the rate they
> will always outbid and raise prices.  This is multiplicative - the more
> auctions they win, the more they get and so on so early leads build into big
> ones.  Redistribution won't help that unless you redistribute so much that
> it wipes out all leads (if it does that, why would anyone bother to play the
> subgame?)
>
> There are ways to address both, but I don't think redistributing to poorest
> players addresses either?
>
>
>
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:04 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > That's what monthly salary is right?
>> >
>> > Problem of course is that applies to zombies too - excluding zombies from
>> > salary would balance though of course would devalue zombies.
>> >
>> > I was really surprised that the zombie auction prices were so low.  In the
>> > current system, the ability to occupy multiple land units/move in multiple
>> > directions and place multiple bids in auctions is huge (that wasn't planned
>> > on my part when I made zombies - I was pretty much thinking of them as a
>> > way to get an extra vote or two).
>> >
>> > On the flip side, zombies are a precarious investment because you can lose
>> > them at any time.
>> >
>> > On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
>> > > Well, it would be good IMO if something like the now repealed
>> > > redistribution of Agora's money to the poor was enacted.
>> > >
>> > > On Wednesday, April 11, 2018, Reuben Staley 
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I'm starting to think I've opened a proverbial Pandora's Box of sorts
>> > and
>> > > > that the map and zombie mechanics are going to spiral out of control to
>> > > > create some ultra-capitalist society in the future. Oh well.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 07:33 ATMunn  wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Actually I believe this failed, as I tried to move from black to
>> > white
>> > > > > by spending only one apple.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > If I am still currently standing at (-1, +1) then I spend 2 apples to
>> > > > > move to (-1, 0) and another to move to (-1, -1).
>> > > > > I then transfer all of the assets from the facility where I am
>> > standing
>> > > > > to me.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On 4/11/2018 9:27 AM, ATMunn wrote:
>> > > > > > I transfer all of the assets where I am standing to me.
>> > > > > > I spend 1 apple to move to (-1, 0) and then another to move to (-1,
>> > > > -1).
>> > > > > > I then transfer all of the assets where I am standing to me.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I also act on Nichdel's behalf to transfer all of eir assets to me.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On 4/11/2018 2:22 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>> > > > > >> THE MAP OF ARCADIA -- APRIL 2, 2018
>> > > > > >> View an interactive version of this report here:
>> > > > > >> https://agoranomic.org/Cartographor/maps/map-2018-04-11.html
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> LAND TYPE MAP
>> > > > > >> 
>> > > > 
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>  LONGITUDE
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>  - 6543210123456 +
>> > > > > >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Creation

[Ned Strange]

I found the answer, contracts can only amend themselves by
announcement (meaning my original contract there made does not work).

I think contracts can only act by announcement, which seriously makes
me wonder how I'm going to get all my assets back.

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:33 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> A couple things:
>
> 1.  Can a zombie "willfully" consent to joining a contract (R869
> requirement)?  I don't think so - see R2519.  Nonetheless this may
> count as a "scare" since on reading that first message, people
> might not have known that.
>
> 2.  I thought there was an "all parties have to have had an
> opportunity to review an agreement change or it doesn't work" clause
> in the rules - that was there for a long time was it taken out
> when the current contract rules were written?  (that would govern
> your question - the standard would be that evidence would have to
> exist eg in an email that all parties agreed to a particular thing).
>
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
>> Hey absolute hypothetical fellas: what would happen if I made a
>> contract that said "this contract automatically amends itself to
>> whatever text V.J. Rada speaks in front of his computer after saying
>> zibbledy zobbldy zam" or something like that. would that work? and
>> could I make the position of assets unknowable to that technology?
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:04 PM, Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>> > I create the following contract and transfer to it all of my assets. I
>> > also have PSS join this contract, acting on eir behalf. This contract
>> > appears to be a scam, having PSS join it is therefore scary to the
>> > game, therefore I switch PSS's Owes a Scare Switch to FALSE.
>> >
>> > Is anyone keeping track of Owes a Scare Switches?
>> >
>> > Title: Hi!
>> > Text: Nobody can join this contract except V.J. Rada and Publius
>> > Scribonius Scholasticus. Whenever V.J. Rada provides an action for
>> > this contract to take via agora-discussion, this contract takes that
>> > action. Whenever V.J. Rada provides a dispersal of assets from this
>> > contract via agora-discussion, this contract disperses those assets in
>> > the specified way. Whenever V.J. Rada provides a new text for this
>> > contract via agora-discussion, this contract amends itself to have the
>> > specified text.
>> >
>> > This contract can own any and all assets.
>> > --
>> > From V.J. Rada
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Creation

[Ned Strange]

Hey absolute hypothetical fellas: what would happen if I made a
contract that said "this contract automatically amends itself to
whatever text V.J. Rada speaks in front of his computer after saying
zibbledy zobbldy zam" or something like that. would that work? and
could I make the position of assets unknowable to that technology?

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:04 PM, Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I create the following contract and transfer to it all of my assets. I
> also have PSS join this contract, acting on eir behalf. This contract
> appears to be a scam, having PSS join it is therefore scary to the
> game, therefore I switch PSS's Owes a Scare Switch to FALSE.
>
> Is anyone keeping track of Owes a Scare Switches?
>
> Title: Hi!
> Text: Nobody can join this contract except V.J. Rada and Publius
> Scribonius Scholasticus. Whenever V.J. Rada provides an action for
> this contract to take via agora-discussion, this contract takes that
> action. Whenever V.J. Rada provides a dispersal of assets from this
> contract via agora-discussion, this contract disperses those assets in
> the specified way. Whenever V.J. Rada provides a new text for this
> contract via agora-discussion, this contract amends itself to have the
> specified text.
>
> This contract can own any and all assets.
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

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

[Ned Strange]

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

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

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

[Ned Strange]

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

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

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

[Ned Strange]

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

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

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



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

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

[Ned Strange]

>I deputize for the Registrar

You'll have to do this again.

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



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

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

[Ned Strange]

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

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



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

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

[Ned Strange]

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

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



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: what happened to the silver quill this year

[Ned Strange]

see title

-- 
>From V.J. Rada

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

[Ned Strange]

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


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

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

[Ned Strange]

Do other people believe my interpretation is correct?

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Regulations rule states that "Regulations may be repealed by their
> promulgator". o. was the promulgator of the regulation you refer to, so I
> believe I cannot repeal or amend that Regulation.
>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Aris Merchant
> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 11:53 PM, Aris Merchant
>> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > --
>> > Regulation 1.2
>> > Contract Sustenance Exemptions
>> > Parent rule(s): 2526 ("Sustenance Payments", Power 2.4)
>> >
>> >
>> > The following contracts are exempt from paying sustenance payments,
>> > until the date specified:
>> >
>> > * Order of the Occult Hand, until January 31st, 2018.
>> >
>> > History:
>> > Promulgated upon recommendation by o, 16 November 2017
>> >
>> > --
>>
>> Our honorable new Notary is reminded that e may want to repeal this,
>> and also to start publishing eir report soon.
>>
>> -Aris
>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

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

[Ned Strange]

The Regulations rule states that "Regulations may be repealed by their
promulgator". o. was the promulgator of the regulation you refer to, so I
believe I cannot repeal or amend that Regulation.

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 11:53 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> > --
> > Regulation 1.2
> > Contract Sustenance Exemptions
> > Parent rule(s): 2526 ("Sustenance Payments", Power 2.4)
> >
> >
> > The following contracts are exempt from paying sustenance payments,
> > until the date specified:
> >
> > * Order of the Occult Hand, until January 31st, 2018.
> >
> > History:
> > Promulgated upon recommendation by o, 16 November 2017
> >
> > --
>
> Our honorable new Notary is reminded that e may want to repeal this,
> and also to start publishing eir report soon.
>
> -Aris
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Finger pointing

[Ned Strange]

Also point your finger for my failure to cause sustenance payments in the
first Eastman Week if you like

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I point my finger at V.J. Rada for failing to publish the Notary's weekly
> report. In general I agreee with G.'s two week rule, but in this case the
> person responsible failed to publish the report after being elected to the
> office.
>
> -Aris
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: looting the bodies

[Ned Strange]

actually this is probably doable by contract. would anyone be interested in
a contract that accomplished this?

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Auctions should just be auto-transfer of funds tbh. Like to make a bid you
> have to put the money in escrow and when the auction is resolved, the
> person in charge of administering the auctions should be able to deal with
> the money and flip the ownership switches as part of that.
>
> Anyway on PSS's behalf I transfer eir assets to me god.
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:31 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> One more step first!
>>
>> I set PSS's master switch to VJ Rada.  (Registrar duty).
>>
>> *now* you can act on behalf of em.
>>
>> We really should fix that, no reason it shouldn't be self-service when you
>> pay (for any auction not just zombies).
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
>> > Oh, I have to pay. I transfer 12 coins to Agora in the zombie auction
>> for
>> > the purpose of paying for PSS, then have PSS transfer eir assets to me.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > On behalf of PSS, I have em transfer all of eir assets to me.
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:02 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On behalf of o, I object to all intents to deregister players.
>> > >>
>> > >> On behalf of omd, omd acts on behalf of pokes to object to all
>> > >> intents to deregister players.
>> > >>
>> > >> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > >> > on behalf of omd, I have omd act on behalf of pokes, to transfer
>> > >> > all of pokes' liquid assets to G.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > on behalf of o, I transfer all of o's liquid assets to G.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > From V.J. Rada
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > From V.J. Rada
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: don't worry about this one

[Ned Strange]

if it wasn't for the title i would be worried jeez

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Kerim Aydin 
wrote:

>
>
> I submit the following proposal, "Nothing to worry about", AI-1.
> Co-authors:  omd, pokes, o.
>
> I spend 1 paper to pend it.
>
> 
>
> When this proposal takes effect:
>
>IF a body of text labelled TALES OF THE ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE has been
>published since April 1, 2018,
>
>AND that body of text has the following SHA-512 Hash:
>  40ae885e13bb285c25cc19aba4d5d73bf98908781a800a2a389925aa7eb3ad49
>  17aee5e4cfa14fd615193fa1fe2ba3d15fc246c98fb13f159034ae135beafbdf
>
>THEN:
>
>- First, the power of that body of text is set to the adoption
>  index of this proposal;
>- Second the provisions contained in that body of text take effect;
>- Finally, the power of that body of text is set to 0.
>
> 
>
>
>
>


-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report

[Ned Strange]

If he actually rewards cards, he'll still be the best referee since o.

Yeah nobody ran against him.

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Kerim Aydin 
wrote:

>
>
> It was a unanimous decision.
>
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, Madeline wrote:
> > Wait how did you of all people end up as Referee
> > Geeze this game
> >
> > On 2018-03-14 08:13, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > > Hello. I submit the following Referee report. Nothing has happened
> > > since the last one. Cheers.
> > >
> > >
> > > ---* ---
> > >
> > >
> > > Recent events:
> > >
> > > 4 Feb 2017 Cuddlebeam Pointed a Finger at themselves for existing.
> Found
> > > SHENANIGANS. 8 Feb 2017 Cuddlebeam is issued a Red Card by Summary
> > > Judgement for not Treating Agora Right. 9 Feb 2017 Cuddlebeam Pointed a
> > > Finger at G for impersonating good faith for the purpose of a personal
> > > agenda. Red Card issued. 12 Feb 2017 Telnaoir Pointed a Finger at
> > > themselves for abuse of power. Blue Card issued. 1 March 2017 G. Pink
> Slips
> > > themselves from Referee via Summary Judgement.
> > >
> > > Previous Report
> > >
> > > (Nothing of note has happened)
> > >
> > >
> > > Time of Last Report
> > >
> > > (Nothing of note has happened)
> > >
> > > Green Cards: Player On Reason
> > > --- P.S.S.[1] May 16, 2017
> > > Tardiness P.S.S.[1] May 20, 2017 Ambiguity Murphy Jun 22, 2017 Faking
> > > Gaelan Jun 23, 2017 Tardiness Gaelan Jun 23, 2017 Tardiness o Jul 11,
> 2017
> > > Tardiness V.J Rada Jul 14, 2017 Making My Eyes Bleed o Jul 18, 2017
> > > Tardiness o Jul 29, 2017 Tardiness Gaelan Jul 29, 2017 Late Judgement
> o Sep
> > > 4, 2017 Rule 2498 Quazie Sep 7, 2017 Rule 2201 天火狐 Sep 12, 2017 No
> reason
> > > o
> > > Sep 12, 2017 Rule 2426 o Sep 12, 2017 Rule 2478 V.J Rada Sep 15, 2017
> Rule
> > > 2496 nichdel Sep 20, 2017 Rule 2450 o Sep 20, 2017 Rule 2478 o Sep 22,
> 2017
> > > Rule 2426 V.J Rada Sep 24, 2017 Rule 2143 CuddleBeam Sep 26, 2017 No
> reason
> > > CuddleBeam Sep 26, 2017 No reason o Sep 26, 2017 Rule 2426 P.S.S.[1]
> Sep
> > > 27, 2017 Rule 2143 V.J Rada Oct 3, 2017 Rule 2471 o Oct 4, 2017 Rule
> 2479
> > > Aris Oct 11, 2017 Rule 2143 o Oct 11, 2017 Rule 2456 o Oct 11, 2017
> Rule
> > > 2456 o Oct 24, 2017 Tardiness V.J. Rada Oct 24, 2017 No Finger Response
> > > V.J. Rada Oct 24, 2017 No Finger Response o Oct 31, 2017 R2156 Lateness
> > > 天火狐
> > > Nov 21, 2017: Tardiness [1] Named, in full, Publius Scribonius
> > > Scholasticus. Blue Cards Player On Reason Fine
> > > --- ATMunn Nov 6,
> 2017
> > > Quorum Not Stated {2sh} Alexis Nov 6, 2017 Quorum Not Stated {2sh}
> Fines in
> > > {} indicate no Fine Levied. Fines in [] indicate Fine Levied, but not
> paid
> > > Yellow Cards: Player Until Reason Apology Words
> > > --- Quazie (Apr
> 26,
> > > 2017) Bankruptcy o (Apr 22, 2017) Tardiness o (Jul 15, 2017) Tardiness
> o
> > > (Jul 15, 2017) Tardiness CuddleBeam Jul 16, 2017 Tardiness P.S.S.[1]
> Sep
> > > 15, 2017 Rule 2143 o (Aug 23, 2017) Rule 2491 Quazie (Sep 13, 2017)
> Rule
> > > 2450 V.J Rada (Sep 15, 2017) Being bad Gaelan Nov 24, 2017 Tardiness
> > > Nichdel Dec 6, 2017 PCI[2] [3] [1] Named, in full, Publius Scribonius
> > > Scholasticus. [2] Pledge Called In [3] nichdel's apology words are: "I,
> > > will, not, break, any, pledges, or, be, untimely, sorry." Dates in ()
> > > indicate completed apology. Red Cards: Player On Reason
> > > -- Cuddlebeam Jul 21, 2017 Faking
> V.J. Rada
> > > Nov 20, 2017 R2491 Cuddlebeam Feb 8, 2017 Not Treating Agora Right G.
> Feb
> > > 9, 2017 Impersonating good faith Pink Slips: Player On Office Reason
> > >  Gaelan May 22, 2017
> Rulekeepor
> > > Forgery G. March 1, 2017 Referee Negligence Pledges: Quazie - I pledge
> to
> > > give 1 Shiny to the first person who can, correctly, with e-mail
> citations,
> > > explain what I did wrong on Jan 20th 2009 that has since led to me
> being a
> > > fugitive. For the explanation to be valid for this pledge, it should be
> > > fully self contained, I should not have to go look up past rules in
> order
> > > to understand the explanation (So please, include all source info in
> the
> > > explanation). V.J Rada - I pledge not to make any thread titles
> completely
> > > unrelated to the email's content, nor use any agency or other
> mechanism to
> > > attempt to gain control of any player at the exclusion of all other
> > > players. Gaelan (14 Sep 2017) - I pledge to, for at least the next
> month,
> > > vote AGAINST any proposal that amends rules by providing new text in
> full
> > > unless the text of the rule is nearly entirely changed. nichdel - I
> pledge
> > > to vote AGAINST on all proposals created or pended by Cuddle Beam.
> nichdel
> > > - I pledge to Object to all intentions by