DIS: Re: BUS: AGORA QUEST

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

For anyone just jumping into the story, here's a link to the AQ subsite. It
has all pages published before today.

https://agoranomic.org/AgoraQuest/

--
Trigon

currently on a phone

On Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 09:30 Cuddle Beam via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> > Activate self by announcement
> > (Write in)
>

DIS: Re: BUS: [@Treasuror] 3-way pool

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

Twice, I expunge a blot from myself.

--
Trigon

currently on a phone

On Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 07:44 Jason Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 6/17/21 9:42 AM, Trigon via agora-business wrote:
> > I transfer one legislative card to Jason as well.
> >
> > --
> > Trigón
> > No clue why my signature won't work on my phone
>
>
> I perform the following actions if and only if they all succeed:
>
> {
>
> I pay a set of 4 justice cards to receive 10 blot-be-gones.
>
> I transfer 3 blot-be-gones to ATMunn.
>
> I transfer 3 blot-be-gones to Trigon.
>
> }
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason
>
>

DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 451

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 4/3/21 4:24 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-official wrote:

RECENT HISTORY


*** Thu 1 April 2021
[22:22]   RELEVELING: TB=24954, UF=9.9816
[06:32] ATMunn: +  1lc (Personal grant: Legislation)
[06:15] Jason:  +  1lc (Personal grant: Legislation)


I don't think this is CoE-worthy since it doesn't self-ratify (someone 
can do so anyway just to get under my skin) but this releveling never 
happened. I was just testing values for the prospective TB and UF for 
this month.


--
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: (no subject)

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 4/3/21 5:35 AM, Trigon via agora-discussion wrote:

this is a test message, please ignore.



This was a test of my command-line SMTP client that I set up on my 
raspberry pi as a response to a proto there that would have strongly 
encouraged me to set up an automated mail sender.


Don't rely on anything more coming of this.

--
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: [Treasuror] [@All Players] Auction Regulation Wishlists (was Re: BUS: Timing leniency amendments)

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 3/21/21 2:26 AM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 02:52:37PM -0600, Reuben Staley via agora-business 
wrote:

I intended to publish something like this a few months ago but life
happened. My strict timing really did not help anything.

I intend, with 2 Agoran consent, to apply the following amendment to the
auction regulations:

---
Amend AM0 by replacing the following text in the fourth bullet point under
"4. AWARDING":
   within, four days after the ending of that auction,
with:
   after the ending of that auction

Then, by changing the following text under under CLAIMING:
   For a period of seven days after an auction ends
with:
   During the period from the end of the auction until 7 days after
   the publication of the termination message
---

--
Trigon

> (Does the
SHALL have any effect without a time limit?)


I do not think any obligations have any meaning in the context of the 
auction regulations as written and I do not know if defining punishments 
within the regulations would do anything.



I object. Sorry, I'd like some time limit, even if it's a month.


This is valid. Because of this, I am opening up the floor for comments 
on the state of auction regulations.


To everyone this time: please discuss your wishlist for the auction 
regulations. I think we all have had run-ins with frustrating elements 
of them and I hope to make them more ideal. I would prefer this 
discussion not to devolve into suggestions for more auction types.


--
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: [Treasuror] Monthly reports now available online

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

I have finally taken the initiative to upload the monthly reports to the 
Treasuror subsite. This should make it easier to access boatload 
conversion tables and the rules with boatloads substituted.


Enjoy!



--
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: [thesis] Voting Thesis [attn. Herald]

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 3/20/21 8:27 AM, nix via agora-discussion wrote:

On Saturday, March 20, 2021 9:26:08 AM CDT nix via agora-discussion wrote:

On Friday, March 19, 2021 11:26:16 PM CDT Jason Cobb via agora-business

wrote:

H. Herald, I submit the following document as a thesis in the hopes of
earning a degree.


Here's what the rules have to say about degree requirements:

   Degrees SHOULD be awarded according to the extent to which the
   thesis contributes to Nomic culture or thought: Associate degrees
   for an appreciable contribution, Baccalaureate degrees for a
   substantial contribution, Magisteriate degrees for a remarkable
   contribution, and Doctorate degrees for an exceptional
   contribution. Any degree at the Doctorate level SHOULD take into
   account the awardee's academic history and participation in Agora
   over time.

   Theses for Artistry degrees SHOULD demonstrate substantial
   creativity and need not be in written form. Theses for all other
   degrees SHOULD demonstrate substantial research or analysis. J.N.
   and D.N.Law are appropriate for high-quality legal analysis, of
   the sort typical to CFJs, but exceeding an ordinary CFJ in depth.
   The D.N.Hist. degree is appropriate for historical research,
   especially when it presents a narrative that educates Agorans
   about the events of the past. The D.N.Sci. degree is appropriate
   for theses that demonstrate concrete or scientific thinking,
   whereas the D.N.Phil. is appropriate for theses that demonstrate
   abstract or philosophical thinking.

With that in mind, I'm open to suggestions (from anyone) for what degree to
confer. I'll intend any compelling ones and only resolve the highest
resolvable.

--
nix
Ministor, Herald, Webmastor


Oh, and here's the list of degrees:

   - Associate of Nomic Artistry(A.N.A.)
   - Associate of Nomic (A.N.)
   - Juris Doctorate of Nomic   (J.N.)
   - Baccalaureate of Nomic Artistry(B.N.A.)
   - Baccalaureate of Nomic (B.N.)
   - Magisteriate of Nomic Artistry (M.N.A.)
   - Magisteriate of Nomic  (M.N.)
   - Doctorate of Nomic Artistry(D.N.Art.)
   - Doctorate of Nomic History (D.N.Hist.)
   - Doctorate of Nomic Law (D.N.Law.)
   - Doctorate of Nomic Science (D.N.Sci.)
   - Doctorate of Nomic Philosophy  (D.N.Phil.)



Let us begin with what is clearly not applicable. This thesis, though it 
includes images, is clearly more research-focused and therefore does not 
merit an Artistry degree. Furthermore, Jason already has a Magisteriate 
of Nomic and it would therefore be unfair to em to give the same degree 
twice.


I think that this thesis represents significant effort, at least enough 
for a Baccalaureate of Nomic. I do not know if it represents enough for 
a Doctorate, but if it is decided that that is the correct level, a 
D.N.Sci. seems most appropriate. These are thus my two suggestions.


--
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: OFF: Resolving Prime Minister election

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2/14/21 9:36 AM, Edward Murphy via agora-official wrote:

Votes were as follows:

Aris: [Trigon, Aris, nix]
Jason: [Jason, Trigon, nix]
Falsifian: [Trigon, nix, Aris]
Trigon: [Trigon, nix, Aris]
Gaelan: [Trigon, nix, ATMunn, Aris]
ATMunn: [ATMunn, Trigon, nix, Aris]

To the best of my knowledge, each voter had default strength 3 (no blots
or other modifiers).

First pass: Trigon 4, Jason 1, ATMunn 1.

Trigon is elected Prime Minister. ALL HAIL THE BIG WHEAT CLOUD.


Thank you all for your support! I understand that this is all just a 
silly internet game, but the fact that you all hold me in high enough 
regard to willingly appoint me to the leadership role within this 
context truly means so much to me. I will serve as honourably as I am 
capable.


Also, I'm working on the Treasuror weekly right now. I expect it to be 
out in a few hours.


--
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: [@Coin] Transfer

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2/3/21 8:48 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:

I transfer coin to coin.

Gaelan



Context for non-discord people: I changed my nickname to Coin after a 
discussion about currency names. This most likely doesn't work, but I 
will gladly take a coin if it is ruled that it does.


--
Coin

 ¸¸.•*¨*• 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: (@Ministor) my plan

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 1/31/21 1:24 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:


I plan to flip my focus to Compliance.  -G.



I plan to flip my focus to Legislation.

--
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: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8532-8537

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 1/26/21 3:28 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote:

8532*   G.3.0   Turn Undead v2FOR
8533*   G., Jason, nix3.0   de-dictatorship

FOR

8534*   Aris  3.3   Power Up

FOR

8535*   Aris, nix, G., Gaelan 3.0   We the People

FOR

8536c   Aris, G., Jason   1.7   Justice for All

FOR

8537c   G.1.7   Unofficial injusticePRESENT


--
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: OFF: [ADoP] Floating salaries (attn Treasuror)

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 8:53 PM Edward Murphy via agora-official
 wrote:

>   5 BoC - Mon, Jan 18 2021 (16:15:39) - Ubercrow published the Tailor's
> weekly report

This one fails as Ubercrow did not deputize to publish the report

-- 
Trigon

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Personhood Revisited

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 1/13/21 4:57 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote:

This is going to become a scam shitshow. And it will be glorious.


Only insofar as creating one new unregistered person per number of 
friends you have is a scam. We discussed this on discord and it seems 
that the two areas where this can cause problems are white ribbons and 
welcome packages. The simple solution is to disallow persons and their 
constituents and all persons formed from them from registering for 30 
days (though I remember objections to this option).


Any places I'm missing where this is dangerous?

--
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: [Proto] SLR Ratification

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 1/13/21 10:36 AM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 02:07:50PM +, nix via agora-discussion wrote:


On 1/9/21 2:47 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:

I don't think things like Read the Ruleset Week generally are any better
at catching actual errors than other times.


Here's my thinking: I'm not going to vote for ratifying any version of the 
rules I haven't proofread. And if I need to proofread the rules, I might as 
well be doing that during the designated time to read them.

Sure, historically we've been bad at reading rules during RTRW. But if I knew 
that at the end of that week we were going to ratify those rules, I'd be more 
diligent.
--
nix
Webmastor, Ministor, Herald


I don't know which version to ratify, but if we do choose the RTRW
version, I'd still like to wait a while after it's published.



The fact of the matter is that no matter which version we ratify, the 
fixes we do during RTRW will still affect the ruleset. I would prefer a 
recent ruleset just so that we aren't proofreading something too far out 
of date, but I don't think it really matters one way or another. We'll 
catch some mistakes and not even notice others, no matter which ruleset 
we ratify.


--
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: [Proposal] Personhood Revisited

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 1/12/21 6:18 PM, nix via agora-business wrote:

I submit, but do not pend, the following proposal:

{
Title: Personhood Revisited
Power: 3.0
Author: nix
Co-Authors: Gaelan, Aris

Amend R869 by replacing:

Any entity that is or ever was an organism generally capable of
freely originating and communicating independent thoughts and
ideas is a person. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no other
entities are persons.

with:

Every intelligence is a person. A group of persons can elect to
create a composite person, which is in eirself a person for all
Agoran purposes. A person cannot become a player if e is part of a
composite person that is already a player. A composite person
cannot become a player if any part of em is already a player. A
person does not ever cease to be a person for the purposes of
Agora.

[This reworks and combines versions put forth by both Aris and Gaelan.]
}



For anyone not obsessively watching the Discord and/or IRC, this stems 
from a larger discussion about revamping personhood to be more 
inclusive. If you have thoughts on the matter, simply mention personhood 
on the Discord or the ##nomic channel and be prepared for several very 
opinionated Agorans to be summoned.


--
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: [CoE] Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 467

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 1/6/21 5:00 AM, Lucidiot via agora-business wrote:

On 04/01/2021 00:40, Reuben Staley via agora-official wrote:

+-++++++++++
|   Player| cn | wc | jc | lc | vc | wp | bg | pd | xv |
+=++++++++++



|Lucidiot | 150|   2|   1|   1|   1|   0|   0|   0|   0|

CoE: I own 1 Victory Point (it is in the history, but not in the balances).


Fix incoming.


|omd   |+  70cn|01 Jan 2020 00:00|Payday   |

I know this does not self-ratify, but well, you might want to fix the
year on this payday too.


Noted. Thank you.

--
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: (proto) third level Turn Undead

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 1/6/21 1:22 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:

Would it be good to add

 A player is "active" or "inactive" if eir Activity is set to the
 corresponding value.

or is it obvious?



I know I did this with PAoaM, but I wanted to find a more relevant 
example. Turns out that the phrases "registered person" and 
"unregistered person" are used in Rule 869/47. I'd say that this kind of 
implicit relationship between adjectival switch values and that switch's 
possessor have plenty of precedent.


--
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: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Auction] First Victory Auction of January 2021

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 1/4/21 4:03 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:

On 1/4/21 3:59 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:

On 1/4/21 5:58 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote:

On 1/4/21 3:56 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:

On 1/4/21 5:55 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote:

On 1/4/21 3:54 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:

On 1/4/21 5:53 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote:

On 1/3/21 5:13 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:

On 1/3/21 7:12 PM, nix via agora-business wrote:

On 1/3/21 6:07 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:

On 1/3/21 7:07 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote:

On 1/3/21 5:06 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:

On 1/3/21 6:58 PM, nix via agora-business wrote:

On 1/3/21 5:56 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:

On 1/3/21 6:55 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote:

On 1/3/21 4:55 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:

On 1/3/21 6:53 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-official wrote:
Having been authorized by Rule 2629/0, I, Trigon, 
Treasuror of Agora

Nomic, hereby initiate an auction.

The lots of this auction are as follows: (1) Seven 
Legislative cards,
currently owned by the Lost and Found Department, and 
(2) a new Victory

Card.

This auction will be held in the official currency of 
Agora, coins.

I bid the grand sum of 12 coins.


13.


I bid 20.

--
Jason Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason


I bid 87 coins.


I bid 88 coins.


I bid 100 coins.


I bid 110.

--
Jason Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason


I bid 174 coins.


I bid 199.

I bid 250 coins.


I bid 275 coins.


I bid 333 coins.


I bid 340.


I bid 367.



I bid 380.



I bid 400.



I was hoping Jason would not notice that the above was NTTPF and would 
therefore outbid emself for no good reason.


In any case, I bid 400.

--
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: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Auction] First Victory Auction of January 2021

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 1/4/21 3:59 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:

On 1/4/21 5:58 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote:

On 1/4/21 3:56 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:

On 1/4/21 5:55 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote:

On 1/4/21 3:54 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:

On 1/4/21 5:53 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote:

On 1/3/21 5:13 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:

On 1/3/21 7:12 PM, nix via agora-business wrote:

On 1/3/21 6:07 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:

On 1/3/21 7:07 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote:

On 1/3/21 5:06 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:

On 1/3/21 6:58 PM, nix via agora-business wrote:

On 1/3/21 5:56 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:

On 1/3/21 6:55 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote:

On 1/3/21 4:55 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:

On 1/3/21 6:53 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-official wrote:

Having been authorized by Rule 2629/0, I, Trigon, Treasuror of Agora
Nomic, hereby initiate an auction.

The lots of this auction are as follows: (1) Seven Legislative cards,
currently owned by the Lost and Found Department, and (2) a new Victory
Card.

This auction will be held in the official currency of Agora, coins.

I bid the grand sum of 12 coins.


13.


I bid 20.

--
Jason Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason


I bid 87 coins.


I bid 88 coins.


I bid 100 coins.


I bid 110.

--
Jason Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason


I bid 174 coins.


I bid 199.

I bid 250 coins.


I bid 275 coins.


I bid 333 coins.


I bid 340.


I bid 367.



I bid 380.



I bid 400.

--
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: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Auction] First Victory Auction of January 2021

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

Wow

Jan 3, 2021 17:14:08 Jason Cobb via agora-business 
:

> On 1/3/21 7:12 PM, nix via agora-business wrote:
>> On 1/3/21 6:07 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>>> On 1/3/21 7:07 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote:
>>>> On 1/3/21 5:06 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>>>>> On 1/3/21 6:58 PM, nix via agora-business wrote:
>>>>>> …
>>>>> I bid 88 coins.
>>>>> 
>>>> I bid 100 coins.
>>>> 
>>> I bid 110.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Jason Cobb
>>> 
>>> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>>> 
>> I bid 174 coins.
>> 
> 
> I bid 199.
> 
> -- 
> Jason Cobb
> 
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason

DIS: Re: ALT: Floating salaries (attn Treasuror)

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 1/3/21 12:28 PM, Edward Murphy via groups.io wrote:

I grant boatloads of coins to players as follows:

(weekly)

  5 BoC - Sun, Dec 27 2020 (23:32:21) - Murphy published the ADoP's 
weekly report
  5 BoC - Thu, Dec 31 2020 (01:20:49) - Falsifian published the 
Registrar's weekly report
  5 BoC - Thu, Dec 31 2020 (14:56:01) - PSS published the Tailor's 
weekly report
10 BoC - Thu, Dec 31 2020 (14:56:18) - PSS published the Herald's weekly 
report
10 BoC - Thu, Dec 31 2020 (14:58:34) - PSS published the Referee's 
weekly report
15 BoC - Thu, Dec 31 2020 (23:25:53) - Jason published the Short Logical 
Ruleset
  5 BoC - Sat, Jan 02 2021 (03:09:04) - Jason published the Stonemason's 
weekly report


15 BoC - Thu, Dec 31 2020 (23:01:06) - Jason assessed Proposal 8526

(monthly)

5 BoC - Thu, Dec 31 2020 (14:55:45) - PSS published the Tailor's monthly 
report
10 BoC - Thu, Dec 31 2020 (14:58:10) - PSS published the Herald's 
monthly report
15 BoC - Thu, Dec 31 2020 (23:26:25) - Jason published the Full Logical 
Ruleset
  5 BoC - Sun, Jan 03 2021 (04:59:10) - nix published the Ministor's 
monthly report


I believe that these grants to PSS failed as e was not a player at the 
time this message was sent


--
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: [Webmastor] Homepage Updates

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 12/30/20 11:01 PM, Falsifian wrote:

Going further, would it make sense to include the one or two most recent
summaries at the bottom of the page? I'd be happy to make it a habit to update
it whenever someone publishes one. It could help show that we're active, give
the lazy reader a window into current gameplay, and give the curious something
to come back to check even if they don't feel like diving into the lists.


This one I am tentatively for. I don't think that constantly updating the
page is very nice though. Might you be convinced to add a "fresh" file which
contains the most recent Reportor report in order to avoid this? This is
what I do with the Treasuror subsite.

--
Trigon


I'm happy to add a fresh "latest" file, but I'm not sure we're talking
about the same thing. I was thinking of putting the text directly on > the 
homepage, so you can see the latest without clicking anything.


In that case I would object to this. I would argue that only bits of the 
summary would really make sense to or be relevant for newcomers. They 
also tend to be rather long, so including them would make the page far 
less clean. I have thought about it more and I heavily endorse having a 
prominent link or two on the page, but that's as far as I feel is 
appropriate, though the Webmastor should weigh in on this.


--
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: [Webmastor] Homepage Updates

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 12/30/20 6:14 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:

On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 12:42:35AM +, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:

On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 08:13:55PM +, nix via agora-discussion wrote:

I've been doing some work on the website. First, the header has been
slightly updated and some numbers listed on the homepage have been updated.

More importantly, I've written a script to trivialize header updates, so
they should happen more rapidly when necessary.

I'm also working on a complete re-write of the front page. I'd love any
feedback on it, and don't plan to implement it until people seem
satisfied with it.

Here's the proposed new front page:
https://nixnull.github.io/agoranomic.github.io/

All the historical document links would have a new page, linked to on
the header. It's here:
https://nixnull.github.io/agoranomic.github.io/other_sites

Let me know what you think.

--
nix
Webmastor, Ministor


Thanks, it looks great!

Could "subject to potential change" be shortened to "subject to
change"?

--
Falsifian


WDYT about adding Reportor to the Offices and Reports menu?

https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Reportor/tree/master/weekly_summaries

It's not a real website but hopefully still usable.


In its current state, I would support adding it to the extra sites page. 
I am opposed to including any more websites on the main bar that 
navigate off-site or at the very least don't have the bar (I grudgingly 
accept that the CFJ archive is important enough to be an exception to this).



Going further, would it make sense to include the one or two most recent
summaries at the bottom of the page? I'd be happy to make it a habit to update
it whenever someone publishes one. It could help show that we're active, give
the lazy reader a window into current gameplay, and give the curious something
to come back to check even if they don't feel like diving into the lists.


This one I am tentatively for. I don't think that constantly updating 
the page is very nice though. Might you be convinced to add a "fresh" 
file which contains the most recent Reportor report in order to avoid 
this? This is what I do with the Treasuror subsite.


--
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: [Treasuror] [Proto-Regulation-Amendment] Unlimited claim window

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 12/30/20 9:55 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:

On 12/30/20 11:01 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:

B. The bullet point under "5. CLAIMING":
  * After an auction ends, each awardee of that auction CAN
transfer (or create in eir own possession if the item is new)
the set of assets associated with the lot e won by paying a
fee corresponding to eir winning bid.


Probably need a "once" or something here. Otherwise lgtm.


Noted, though the extra grants or transfers might fail anyway because of 
the auction rules themselves.


--
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: [Treasuror] [Proto-Regulation-Amendment] Unlimited claim window

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

I originally set arbitrary limits on when a termination message for an 
auction could be posted and when lots could be claimed. It has caused 
several victory auctions to not actually award anything because of 
negligence on my part and forgetfulness on the part of the auctions' 
participants. I no longer think this design choice is correct. The 
following is a draft amendment. Look it over and tell me what you think.


---
Amend Auction Regulation AM0 such that the following bullet points read
as stated:

A. The final bullet point under "4. AWARDING":
* The auctioneer of an auction SHALL, as soon as possible after
  the ending of that auction, create a public message
  (henceforth the "termination message") that contains a full
  history of bids on the auction and withdrawals from the
  auction. It should also clearly indicate each awardee and the
  lot e recieves.
B. The bullet point under "5. CLAIMING":
* After an auction ends, each awardee of that auction CAN
  transfer (or create in eir own possession if the item is new)
  the set of assets associated with the lot e won by paying a
  fee corresponding to eir winning bid.

--
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: [Proto-Proposal] planning to flop

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 12/30/20 4:30 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:

On 12/30/2020 3:15 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:

This was indeed the intent. If I can't make the report for a few weeks
in a row it will still be updated. Inflation will lag somewhat,
definitely more than it does now, but I would argue that that is a small
price to pay for much more predicatability within the system. If you
would prefer, G., that I just make this change by itself and leave the
restructuring of the plan language a separate proposal then I may do
that (or I may just drop the centralization of the plan language).



Ok, understanding the concept:  "The Treasuror CAN plan the flip by
announcement, SHOULD do so once per week, and MUST do so least once per
month" makes perfect sense to me, and I think is fine for gameplay.


I like this wording a lot. If there are no major complaints, then 
version two of this proposal will use it.



The first draft doesn't carry across that intent though (to me anyway!), I
think dropping the Weekly Duties part and the whole "can and may more than
once a week... but should not" clause would streamline it without losing
functionality.


Fair enough. I was trying to work the original wording in there, but it 
doesn't actually seem too necessary on closer examination.


--
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: [Proto-Proposal] planning to flop

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 12/30/20 3:12 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:

On 12/30/20 3:00 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:

Create a new power-1 rule "Planning to Flip" with the text:

When a person "plans to" flip a specific switch to a possible
value for that switch, then at the beginning of the next month,
that switch is flipped to that value. In the case that there have
been multiple plans to flip a switch, the final plan to flip is
the only one that has any effect.


Ambiguous scope for "final one" - is is the final plan for any
person/any switch, the final plan for that specific person, the final
plan for that specific switch, or the final plan for that specific
person/switch combination?


Intended to mean the final plan for that switch.


Switches that can be flipped in
this way are called "planned switches". Planning to flip a switch
is secured.


This should be more explicit about what power the flipping occurs at
(right now I think it's the power-1 of this rule).


Again, this language isn't necessarily permanent. I thought that a 
player could just flip any switch if I didn't include it since I didn't 
look at the rules very well.



Amend Rule 2638 "Player Focuses" so that the second paragraph reads:

An active player CAN plan to flip eir own Ministry Focus by
announcement at any time.


"At any time" seems unnecessary.


It was intended to be redundant. I included it to contrast with the 
other instance of planned flipping which is more limited. If it bugs you 
that much I can remove it.


--
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: [Proto-Proposal] planning to flop

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 12/30/20 1:49 PM, nix via agora-discussion wrote:

This one confuses me a little, as it changes the dynamics somewhat (the
Treasuror can set the next month's Buoyancy nearly a month in advance).
But part of that is weirdness with the current rule (the CAN for the first
Eastman Week and a second CAN for the "more than once a month" makes it
seem like if e misses in the first week, e can't do so later - it's
weird).  No reason this can't work for "planning" but maybe the overall
dynamics/purpose of this timing could use a tweak?

Trigon might have more to say, but ultimately the ability to do it
pretty much anytime with that SHOULD for the reports is a balance so the
Treasuror doesn't have a narrow window that they might miss (resulting
in it not being updated at all). The idea is that in practice it'd get
set weekly, with the last one being the only actually effective one, but
if the Treasuror misses the last week or two it still gets updated a bit
instead of staying the same as the previous month.
This was indeed the intent. If I can't make the report for a few weeks 
in a row it will still be updated. Inflation will lag somewhat, 
definitely more than it does now, but I would argue that that is a small 
price to pay for much more predicatability within the system. If you 
would prefer, G., that I just make this change by itself and leave the 
restructuring of the plan language a separate proposal then I may do 
that (or I may just drop the centralization of the plan language).


--
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: [Proto-Proposal] planning to flop

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

Comments inline.

On 12/30/20 3:38 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:

I'm not sure I like this for several reasons. To start off, I don't
think two uses are enough to centralize something.


This is a fair enough complaint. I would tend to disagree, but if we're 
going to have this argument, it would be better in a different thread.



I'd prefer to just
see the language duplicated in each place for now. Then, if we are
going to centralize it, there are problems with this way of
centralizing it, to wit:


I would like to say that, valid though your reasons are, I do not think 
that any of them constitute such a fundamental change to the 
organization of the proposal as you suggest below.



1. The first sentence seems to suggest that someone can plan to flip
*any switch*, without limitation, which is confusing. It doesn't
actually do that, because the rule doesn't say that players CAN do it
or provide a method. Still, on my first read through, I was rather
confused, and I could see it being a point of confusion in future.


Include something about authorization then?

"When a person is authorized to and does plan to flip a switch..."


2. Adding yet another adjective to describe switches seems a bit
messy, although I'm not sure there's a good way around that.


This one is easily remedied by not labeling them with adjectives. I 
included that sentence purely because Agorans like to label things with 
adjectives. It's not a dealbreaker for me if we have to get rid of it.



3. Securing something at power 1.0 doesn't do much? That's not a huge
objection, it just felt weird.


I included this part because I didn't want people to be able to plan to 
flip any switch. I wrote this proposal in the morning and didn't want to 
look up the rules around it so I left it as it was so that someone would 
complain and give suggestions to fix it.



So, in summary, I would prefer to see the current language just copied
if we're only going to use this twice. If we want to centralize it,
I'd prefer it be done differently. I think the current language for
this is very clean and self-explanatory,


In my (biased) opinion, my generalized method is just as clear and 
self-explanatory. It says the same information but is in a dedicated 
rule and allows for more combinations.



and if we want to centralize
it, I'd just copy it. It would look something like this.

"A switch is planned if and only if it is designated as such by the
rules. An active player CAN Plan to Flip eir own instance of a planned
switch, specifying any valid value for that switch, by announcement.
At the beginning of a month, every player's instance of the switch is
set to the value e mostly recently specified by Planning to Flip. If a
player did not Plan to Flip eir switch instance in the last month, it
is not flipped."


I do not like this restriction you have created on only flipping one's 
own instance. In practice, if we were to have more examples of planning 
to flip in the ruleset, it would be a highly used case, but I would say 
that planning to flip singleton switches has just as many applications 
as flipping one's own switch. Saying "their own instance" each time we 
need to use it is a minuscule amount of boilerplate.


Change that one fact about your suggestion and I would argue that our 
two methods of handling it are far more similar than different. You just 
introduce the definition first whereas I introduce the function first.



If we wanted to not have yet another adjective, we could change the
first sentence to be something like "A switch is planned if and only
if the rules state that it can be flipped by planning."

That seems even messier, but hopefully someone can clean it up?


If the Agoran public finds this wording more palatable, then sure. It 
doesn't matter to me.



-Aris


--
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: [Proto-Proposal] planning to flop

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

The following is a Proto-Proposal and therefore I do not submit it and 
especially do not pend it. Even if I could this is the discussion forum 
so it really doesn't matter anyway.


I think this is a good idea, but I am not sure that enough protections 
are placed upon this new system, among other potential issues. I would 
appreciate feedback on how to make the rules more sound, but I guess you 
can also complain about the idea itself if you think it's dumb.


---
Title: planning to flip economy variables
AI: 2.0
Author: Trigon
Coauthors: nix

[ Comment: We had a discussion on the discord a few weeks ago about how
  unpredictable the publication of the Floating Rate Schedule is. I
  remember there being a substantial group of us who thought that it
  should take place at a fixed time. My main problem with this was that
  I know that I will miss its publication if it is required within a
  specific window. The compromise we came up with was to automatically
  flip the switch at the beginning of the month to the most recent coin
  count. This proposal generalizes the "plan to flip" language for use
  with other game systems. ]

Create a new power-1 rule "Planning to Flip" with the text:

  When a person "plans to" flip a specific switch to a possible
  value for that switch, then at the beginning of the next month,
  that switch is flipped to that value. In the case that there have
  been multiple plans to flip a switch, the final plan to flip is
  the only one that has any effect. Switches that can be flipped in
  this way are called "planned switches". Planning to flip a switch
  is secured.

Amend Rule 2638 "Player Focuses" so that the second paragraph reads:

  An active player CAN plan to flip eir own Ministry Focus by
  announcement at any time.

Amend Rule 2634 "Buoyancy Control" so that the second paragraph reads:

  The Treasuror CAN, by announcement, plan to flip the Total
  Buoyancy to a specified value approximately equal to the sum of
  all coin balances at the time that e plans to flip it. Planning to
  flip the Total Buoyancy is part of the Treasuror's weekly duties,
  and the Treasuror SHOULD do so when e publishes eir weekly report.

Amend the same rule so that the final sentence reads:

  The Treasuror CAN and MAY plan to flip the Total Buoyancy more
  than once a week, but SHOULD NOT do so unless there is reason to
  believe eir previous setting of the value failed.

--
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: [@Treasuror] Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] December Stone Auction Resolution

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 12/20/20 1:41 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:

On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 11:32 AM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:


On 12/13/20 11:28 PM, Lucidiot via agora-discussion wrote:

Le 13/12/2020 à 23:28, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion a écrit :


On 12/10/20 8:46 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:

On 12/9/2020 11:12 PM, Lucidiot via agora-discussion wrote:

Le 10/12/2020 à 02:35, ATMunn via agora-business a écrit :


On 12/9/2020 8:30 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote:

On 12/9/2020 7:13 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:

This auction was a selective-bid auction. The awardees are as

follows:

[Protection Stone] -> Murphy for 135 coins.
[Sabotage Stone]   -> Murphy for 130 coins.
[Wealth Stone] -> ATMunn for 169 coins.


I pay a fee of 169 coins to transfer the Wealth Stone from Agora to
myself (for real this time).



I wield my Wealth Stone in order to cause myself to earn 5 boatloads

of

coins (23 coins).



There was a mistake in the rounding method in the Floating Rate
Schedule, it's actually 24 coins.
(ceiling(4.6212*5) = 24, but Trigon used floor)

I don't know if it should be CoE'd



I think it's fine as long as the Treasuror records it correctly. The
important thing is that I wielded the stone and specified myself.



Indeed, Rule 2645 specifies that wielding the stone performs the effect
instantly. The boatloads and its translation into coins were
supplemental effects. Also, for future reference, Claims of Error are
reserved for inaccuracies in reports. In this case the action just
failed and the best you could do would be to inform the player of such
thing.



Sorry, I wasn't clear enough: I meant CoEing the Floating Rate Schedule,
since the conversion table is slightly off.  I just wanted to avoid
extra confusion in the next Forbes, since some can wonder why they got
one extra coin.



The conversion table was a courtesy that I put in the FRS. I don't
believe that claims of error are able to be issued on anything except
for self-ratifying sections of reports.



Precedent seems to disagree. CFJ 1420 said that the list of watchers could
be CoE'd, despite not being defined by the rules.

The current rules are a bit different, and you could make a pretty fair
argument that, under recent precedent, the conversion table is a separate
document that wasn't required to be published. But even then, you SHOULD
issue a revision, you just NEED NOT do so. The relevant current rule is
Rule 2201.

-Aris





Under the current rules, only a document can be CoE'd (see Rule 
2201/10). I forget what exactly that entails, but if you can classify 
the non-self-ratifying and unrequired sections of an official report as 
'documents' or parts thereof then I would agree that it can be CoE'd. I 
forget what exactly is and isn't a document. Someone who is not me can 
look that up.


--
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: [@Treasuror] Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] December Stone Auction Resolution

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 12/13/20 11:28 PM, Lucidiot via agora-discussion wrote:

Le 13/12/2020 à 23:28, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion a écrit :


On 12/10/20 8:46 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:

On 12/9/2020 11:12 PM, Lucidiot via agora-discussion wrote:

Le 10/12/2020 à 02:35, ATMunn via agora-business a écrit :


On 12/9/2020 8:30 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote:

On 12/9/2020 7:13 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:

This auction was a selective-bid auction. The awardees are as follows:
[Protection Stone] -> Murphy for 135 coins.
[Sabotage Stone]   -> Murphy for 130 coins.
[Wealth Stone] -> ATMunn for 169 coins.


I pay a fee of 169 coins to transfer the Wealth Stone from Agora to
myself (for real this time).



I wield my Wealth Stone in order to cause myself to earn 5 boatloads of
coins (23 coins).



There was a mistake in the rounding method in the Floating Rate
Schedule, it's actually 24 coins.
(ceiling(4.6212*5) = 24, but Trigon used floor)

I don't know if it should be CoE'd



I think it's fine as long as the Treasuror records it correctly. The
important thing is that I wielded the stone and specified myself.



Indeed, Rule 2645 specifies that wielding the stone performs the effect
instantly. The boatloads and its translation into coins were
supplemental effects. Also, for future reference, Claims of Error are
reserved for inaccuracies in reports. In this case the action just
failed and the best you could do would be to inform the player of such
thing.



Sorry, I wasn't clear enough: I meant CoEing the Floating Rate Schedule,
since the conversion table is slightly off.  I just wanted to avoid
extra confusion in the next Forbes, since some can wonder why they got
one extra coin.



The conversion table was a courtesy that I put in the FRS. I don't 
believe that claims of error are able to be issued on anything except 
for self-ratifying sections of reports.


--
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: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Renumbering

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

For a long time we've been implicitly assigning rule numbers in reports. I 
wonder if, with the current trend of moving actions into their own reports, we 
should be more explicit about rule number assignments.

--
Trigon
hasn't set my signature on my phone

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Ministor] Monthly Report

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 12/6/20 8:32 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:

Economy Coins
=

Economy focused players evenly split a pot of 50 boatloads of coins. This
currently equals roughly 183 coins*.


There are 3 Economy focused players, each one may grant emself 61 coins.


* Rounded here for readability, but the real rounding only happens after
the split, which is why the numbers may not appear to add up here.


The Total Buoyancy was adjusted after this was sent. I think I'm now
entitled to ceiling(4.6212 * 50 / 3) = 78 Coins.

I grant the Ministry of Economy's Grant to myself.



As do I.

--
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: [@Treasuror] Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] December Stone Auction Resolution

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 12/10/20 8:46 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:

On 12/9/2020 11:12 PM, Lucidiot via agora-discussion wrote:

Le 10/12/2020 à 02:35, ATMunn via agora-business a écrit :


On 12/9/2020 8:30 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote:

On 12/9/2020 7:13 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:

This auction was a selective-bid auction. The awardees are as follows:
[Protection Stone] -> Murphy for 135 coins.
[Sabotage Stone]   -> Murphy for 130 coins.
[Wealth Stone] -> ATMunn for 169 coins.


I pay a fee of 169 coins to transfer the Wealth Stone from Agora to
myself (for real this time).



I wield my Wealth Stone in order to cause myself to earn 5 boatloads of
coins (23 coins).



There was a mistake in the rounding method in the Floating Rate
Schedule, it's actually 24 coins.
(ceiling(4.6212*5) = 24, but Trigon used floor)

I don't know if it should be CoE'd



I think it's fine as long as the Treasuror records it correctly. The
important thing is that I wielded the stone and specified myself.



Indeed, Rule 2645 specifies that wielding the stone performs the effect 
instantly. The boatloads and its translation into coins were 
supplemental effects. Also, for future reference, Claims of Error are 
reserved for inaccuracies in reports. In this case the action just 
failed and the best you could do would be to inform the player of such 
thing.


--
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: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 476

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 11/4/20 11:47 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:


On 11/3/2020 5:02 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-official wrote:


  FORBES FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY-SIX
   or   
 TREASUROR'S WEEKLY REPORT



Additional CoE:  This report is missing the victory card/victory point
lottery.  It was buried in the Ministor's monthly report - H. Ministor, as
a preference can you not intermingle "actions" and "reports"?

-G.



I did indeed miss this as well. In light of this comment, would the 
people of Agora prefer that I send my flipping of the total buoyancy in 
a different report?


--
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: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 476

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 11/4/20 11:36 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:


On 11/3/2020 5:02 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-official wrote:


|G.   |1703|   2|   1|   1|   0|   0|  11|   8|  10|
|Gaelan   | 327|   0|   0|   0|   1|   0|   1|   1|   0|



|Gaelan|+ 200cn|01 Nov 2020 21:54|Transfer G.  |
|G.|- 200cn|01 Nov 2020 21:54|Transfer Gaelan  |


CoE:  If Gaelan didn't have any Victory Cards when I tried to execute the
Splat order, the 200 coin transfer should have failed.
Error admitted. The transfer failed because Gaelan had no win cards at 
that point. This was an error on my part: I destroyed eir win card in 
the report of 20 September 2020 and the mistake has ratified since then.


--
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: OFF: [Treasuror] [Monthly Report] Floating Rate Schedule

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 11/3/20 7:09 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-official wrote:


    THE FLOATING RATE SCHEDULE


Ahoy!

I, having been authorized to do so as Treasuror of Agora Nomic and being
required to do so in the first Eastman week of each Agoran month, hereby
flip the Total Buoyancy to be equal to the following sum, the amount of
coins possessed by all entities at the time of the most recent 
Treasuror's report:


TOTAL BUOYANCY:  9130

The Unit of Flotation is one twenty-five hundredth part of said sum,
unrounded. This is equal to the following quotient:

UNIT OF FLOTATION:  3.652


Oh, and here's a random convenience thing I meant to include. It's the 
values of N boatloads up to 20, the highest number explicitly mentioned 
in the ruleset.


   1: 4
   2: 8
   3: 11
   4: 15
   5: 19
   6: 22
   7: 26
   8: 30
   9: 33
  10: 37
  11: 41
  12: 44
  13: 48
  14: 52
  15: 55
  16: 59
  17: 63
  18: 66
  19: 70
  20: 74

--
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: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 10/31/20 11:45 AM, Edward Murphy via agora-official wrote:

Office Report    Last Published Late

Coopor Barrels, Bargains 2020-10-01
Herald Patent titles 2020-09-30
Ministor   Interests, Foci   (never)
Registrar  Player history    2020-10-18
Rulekeepor Full Logical Ruleset  2020-10-25
Tailor Ribbons   2020-10-01
Webmastor  Web resources 2020-09-30



Treasuror gained a monthly report with the boatload economy. It includes 
the Unit of Flotation as well as some other related statistics.


--
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: @Treasuror Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8507-8515

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 10/31/20 8:58 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via 
agora-discussion wrote:

For everyone's reference: Glitter must be processed by the Tailor before
the Treasuror.


I notice that the Herald is not notified in the subject. Perhaps 
flagging the message as [Glitter] would be the most helpful.


--
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: AGORA QUEST

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 10/18/20 12:23 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:

I transfer 10 Coins to CuddleBeam as payment for my vote:

- Request to learn more about the ancient teachings of CFJs

-Aris



For those who don't know, the most recent installment of Agora Quest was 
published when the lists were offline. Here is a link to it in the archives:


https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-October/045056.html

--
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: [Proto-proposal] End monthly officer stipends

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

Officers are already rewarded plenty in our modern agoran economy and 
yet they get a useless stipend of 5 coins at the beginning of each month 
under conditions that are hard to calculate. I'll be completely honest, 
I'm almost certain that most paydays I've done have been wrong. Feel 
free to check that; I know you won't.


This proposal flattens it to a constant 10 coins per player per month.

---
Title: End monthly officer stipends
Author: Trigon
Co-authors: nix

Amend Rule 2559 "Paydays" so it reads:
  Whenever a Payday occurs, each active player earns 10 coins.

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

--
Trigon

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: Cuddlebeam Degree Intent

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 10/11/20 11:29 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business 
wrote:

Having not received any further feedback, I intend with 2 Agoran Consent
to award Cuddlebeam the degree, Associate of Nomic Artistry, for the
images available at: https://imgur.com/a/VDAQaae


I support

--
--
Trigon

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: [@Notary] Contract: Automatable Exchange Machine

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-08-24 09:26, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:

I perform the following actions if and only if all of them succeed (that
is, all following actions either succeed together or fail together):

{

I perform the automatable exchange with IN = 1 Victory Card and OUT = N
coins (currently, N = 113), by performing the following:

1. I transfer nix 1 victory card.

2. I cause nix to transfer N coins = 113 coins from emself to me.

}


This failed as you have no victory card.

--
Trigon

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: BAK: Apathy Intent

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

We had just barely had a conversation on discord about scams to the tue list, 
so I assumed this was some sort of fabrication.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 486

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

For the record, I am aware that it does not prevent self-ratification. I guess 
I assumed people would CoE upon seeing any assumptions at all. Would people 
prefer it if I doubted all my reports immediately after posting them? If so 
I'll do it; it just seemed unnecessary.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 485

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-08-13 19:49, shelvacu via agora-discussion wrote:

The CFJ already resolved TRUE, right?
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg10490.html


Looks like that one slipped past me.

I will say though that I'm a bit peeved after reading this. I came up 
with this wording to fix this exact problem and everyone agreed that it 
meant what it was supposed to.


I'll fix this problem in the next report. Feel free to CoE though.

--
Trigon

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

The following text comprises a public message:
{{{ DISCLAIMER:  There are no game actions in this message. }}}

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 486

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-08-10 02:10, N. S. via agora-business wrote:

COE: This report lists Fred and Gaelan as separate entities, they are the
same (I don't think Fred has any assets though, e cannot have got a welcome
package as gaelan was already registered)


Denied. I'm pretty sure that Fred is just a player who hasn't interacted 
very much. I think you're thinking of Greg.


--
Trigon

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

The following text comprises a public message:
{{{ DISCLAIMER:  There are no game actions in this message. }}}

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I can give a voting card away as coopor

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

There's no definition of "give" in the rules but I think it's a stretch 
to construe its plain English definition which, at least to me, pretty 
clearly indicates a transfer, with creation in the possession of a person.


Not that it matters. You don't possess any voting cards so the first 
message was ineffective.


On 2020-08-10 01:29, N. S. via agora-business wrote:

Well, as Coopor, I create a voting card in atmunn's possession (this is
what i meant by giving a voting card, please don't interpret the below as
giving my own voting card)

On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 5:28 PM N. S.  wrote:


Well this is the only reply I give a voting card to ATMunn

--
Trigon

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

The following text comprises a public message:
{{{ DISCLAIMER:  There are no game actions in this message. }}}

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Regulations] Intent to promulguate auction regulations

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-08-04 11:24, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:

On 2020-08-04 07:00, Reuben Staley via agora-official wrote:

The following text comprises a public message:
{{{ DISCLAIMER:  There are no game actions in this message. }}}
DISCLAIMER:  There are no game actions in this message.


Why did you list the DISCLAIMER a second time, outside the {{{}}}? Did I 
miss another purchase of signature space?




The other day I made an another attempt to resolve the signature 
suggestion since I was pretty sure my first one wouldn't work due to the 
drama about regulated actions. I also added the line above the quoted 
three which begins "When interpreting this message" in order to provide 
a similar effect to what the braces should have. Turns out that the 
attempt was already resolved, though, according to Publius' judgement, 
therefore I can probably get rid of the second instance now.


--
Trigon

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

When interpreting this message, disregard all text beyond this point.

The following text comprises a public message:
{{{ DISCLAIMER:  There are no game actions in this message. }}}
DISCLAIMER:  There are no game actions in this message.

DIS: Re: BUS: (attn Treasuror, Promotor) Okay let's get this over with

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-07-26 11:45, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:

I perform Collection for the CCCA's sole Legislative Card (i.e. transfer
it to myself, pay it to earn a Pendant, and keep said Pendant).

I pay one Pendant to flip "Simpler ribbon switches" to Pending.


Alright, I messed up on this.

Back in June you transferred all your cards to this contract. 
Unfortunately, I missed this transaction and it has long since 
self-ratified that all your original cards are still in your possession.


As a consequence, I'm not sure if the rest of the actions in this 
message work.


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

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

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-07-23 15:18, Reuben Staley via agora-official wrote:


   FORBES FOUR HUNDRED NINETY
   or   
    TREASUROR'S WEEKLY REPORT



My apologies. This was mislabeled in this header and not included in the 
subject. This report should be Forbes 489.


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

DIS: Re: BUS: A wild Ponzi scheme appears [attn. Notary]

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-07-21 11:03, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:

On 7/17/20 8:45 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:

# SECTION 3: AVOIDING PROSECUTION

The Administrator CAN, with notice, avoid prosecution. When e does so, e
transfers all coins from this contract to emself, and this contract is
destroyed.



I intend, with notice, to avoid prosecution, as this appears to not be
getting any further investment.



I don't think this intent was never resolved.

--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8473-8476

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-07-22 17:15, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via 
agora-discussion wrote:

On 7/22/20 7:01 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:

On 2020-07-22 16:56, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:

On 7/22/20 6:54 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:

Are you certain? The ribbon terminology is a bit weird but I believe
that I do.



Rule 2438 awards you the black ribbon because of this paragraph:


    Black (K): A statute CAN, as part of its effect, cause a
person to
    earn a Black Ribbon. When this occurs, this Rule awards that
    person a Black Ribbon.



The proposal (a statute) caused you to earn a Black Ribbon, so the rule
awarded it to you (fulfilling the security restriction on ribbon
ownership).



I suppose that you're right. Good to know that the ribbon terminology is
inconsistent with not only other usages of the same words in the
ruleset, but also itself based on which ribbon is being awarded.



It's not internally inconsistent; one ribbon is just explicitly treated
differently than the others.



That was not my claim. It's not a case of internal inconsistency, it's a 
case of breaking the natural assumption based on the terms already defined.


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8473-8476

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-07-22 16:56, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:

On 7/22/20 6:54 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:

Are you certain? The ribbon terminology is a bit weird but I believe
that I do.



Rule 2438 awards you the black ribbon because of this paragraph:


   Black (K): A statute CAN, as part of its effect, cause a person to
   earn a Black Ribbon. When this occurs, this Rule awards that
   person a Black Ribbon.



The proposal (a statute) caused you to earn a Black Ribbon, so the rule
awarded it to you (fulfilling the security restriction on ribbon ownership).



I suppose that you're right. Good to know that the ribbon terminology is 
inconsistent with not only other usages of the same words in the 
ruleset, but also itself based on which ribbon is being awarded.


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8473-8476

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-07-22 16:41, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via 
agora-discussion wrote:

On 7/22/20 6:32 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote:

On 2020-07-20 16:12, Reuben Staley wrote:

On 2020-07-19 18:12, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote:

That is to say, I award myself a black glitter, this time on the Public
Forum.


As it turns out I do not have a black ribbon yet so the above claim
failed. I award myself a black ribbon.


As it turns out that was a-d.

I award myself a black ribbon.



You don't have to actively award it, so it doesn't matter.



Are you certain? The ribbon terminology is a bit weird but I believe 
that I do.


From the proposal in question:

ID: 8473
Title: Plain Old Bribery
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Jason
Co-authors: G.


Every player who cast a valid non-withdrawn unconditional ballot FOR
this proposal earns a Black Ribbon.


I *earned* a Black Ribbon on at 19 Jun 2020 23:45. According to 
Paragraph 3 of Rule 2438,



  A person qualifies for a type of Ribbon if e has earned that type
  of Ribbon within the preceding 7 days (including earlier in the
  same message).
Therefore I *qualify* for a Black Ribbon until 26 Jun 2020 23:45. 
According to the end of that rule,



  While a person qualifies for a type of Ribbon:
  
- If e has not owned that type of Ribbon within the preceding 7

  days, any player CAN, by announcement, award em that type of
  Ribbon.


So until 23:45 on 26 Jun 2020 anyone can *award* me a Black Ribbon. 
According to Paragraph 2 of that rule,



  To "award a person a " is to add that type of Ribbon
  to that person's Ribbon Ownership. A person "owns a "
  if that type of Ribbon is an element of eir Ribbon Ownership.


I fail to see how any of this constitutes an immediate addition of black 
to my ribbon ownership upon this proposal passing unless someone judged 
a CFJ that said this and therefore overturned the literal text of the rules.


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8473-8476

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-07-19 18:12, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote:

That is to say, I award myself a black glitter, this time on the Public
Forum.


As it turns out I do not have a black ribbon yet so the above claim 
failed. I award myself a black ribbon.


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8473-8476

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

I award myself a black ribbon

--
Trigon

currently on a phone

On Sun, Jul 19, 2020, 17:45 Jason Cobb via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8473-8476
> =
>
> IDTitle Result
> ---
> 8473  Plain Old Bribery ADOPTED
> 8474  Agora the karma bank  ADOPTED
> 8475  Saving SponsorshipADOPTED
> 8476  Contract charitiesADOPTED
>
> I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals.
>
> The quorum for all below decisions was 9.
>
> VOTING STRENGTHS
> 
> Strength is 3 unless otherwise noted.
> ~: player has voting strength 0
> %: player has voting strength 5
> ^: player has voting strength 6
> &: player has voting strength 7
>
> PROPOSALS
> =
>
> PROPOSAL 8473 (Plain Old Bribery)
> AUTHOR: Jason
> CLASS: ORDINARY
> CHAMBER: PARTICIPATION
> SPONSORED: NO
> FOR (10): ATMunn, Aris, Falsifian, G.^, Jason%, Murphy, Publius Scribonius
> Scholasticus&, Trigon, nix&, twg
> AGAINST (2): R. Lee~, omd%
> PRESENT (0):
> BALLOTS: 12
> AI (F/A): 43/5 (AI=1.0)
> POPULARITY: 0.667
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
>
> PROPOSAL 8474 (Agora the karma bank)
> AUTHOR: G.
> CLASS: ORDINARY
> CHAMBER: PARTICIPATION
> SPONSORED: NO
> FOR (9): ATMunn, Aris, Falsifian, G.^, Jason%, Murphy, Trigon, omd%, twg
> AGAINST (3): Publius Scribonius Scholasticus&, R. Lee~, nix&
> PRESENT (0):
> BALLOTS: 12
> AI (F/A): 34/14 (AI=1.0)
> POPULARITY: 0.500
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
>
> PROPOSAL 8475 (Saving Sponsorship)
> AUTHOR: Aris
> CLASS: ORDINARY
> CHAMBER: PARTICIPATION
> SPONSORED: NO
> FOR (10): ATMunn, Aris, Falsifian, G.^, Jason%, Publius Scribonius
> Scholasticus&, R. Lee~, Trigon, nix&, twg
> AGAINST (0):
> PRESENT (2): Murphy, omd%
> BALLOTS: 12
> AI (F/A): 40/0 (AI=1.0)
> POPULARITY: 0.833
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
>
> PROPOSAL 8476 (Contract charities)
> AUTHOR: ATMunn
> CLASS: ORDINARY
> CHAMBER: ECONOMY
> SPONSORED: YES
> FOR (10): ATMunn%, Aris, Falsifian, G.^, Jason, Murphy, Publius Scribonius
> Scholasticus, R. Lee~, Trigon&, twg
> AGAINST (0):
> PRESENT (2): nix%, omd
> BALLOTS: 12
> AI (F/A): 36/0 (AI=1.0)
> POPULARITY: 0.833
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
>
> The full text of each ADOPTED proposal is included below:
>
> //
> ID: 8473
> Title: Plain Old Bribery
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: Jason
> Co-authors: G.
>
>
> Every player who cast a valid non-withdrawn unconditional ballot FOR
> this proposal earns a Black Ribbon.
>
> [Note to the Tailor: the definition of Black Ribbons in R2438 means
> that, immediately after this proposal is adopted, people will have the
> Black Ribbons without needing to separately claim them.]
>
> //
> ID: 8474
> Title: Agora the karma bank
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: G.
> Co-authors: omd
>
>
> [First, a partial reset.  People with negative karma are mostly zombies
> or people with fairly old sins; worth a full forgiveness/reset. People
> with positive karma have generally done good things more recently - a
> partial reset for them, akin to the just-passed July releveling.  Agora
> is balanced one last time so we can start counting total positivity or
> negativity from here on out.]
>
> Each person with positive karma has eir karma set to half its current
> value, rounded up.
>
> Each person with negative karma has eir karma set to 0.
>
> Agora's karma is then set such that the sum of all Karma values in the
> game equals 0.
>
>
> Amend Rule 2510 (Such is Karma) by deleting:
>
>   4. Not result in Agora's karma moving farther away from 0.
>
> and by replacing its last paragraph with:
>
>   At the beginning of each quarter, the Karma of every person is
>   halved (rounding towards 0).
>
> [It's still an exchange of karma, but you can take freely from Agora.
> Everybody's karma decays every quarter, but Agora's karma isn't reset
> to zero-sum, therefore Agoran's karma is an inverse measure of our
> overall positivity/negativity over time.]
>
> //
> ID: 8475
> Title: Saving Sponsorship
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Each of the following proposals is hereby rendered sponsored:
> - "Plain Old Bribery", by Jason
> - "Agora the karma bank", by G.
>
> //
> ID: 8476
> Title: Contract charities
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-authors: G., Falsifian, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
>
> [Comment: The original version was by G., then resubmitted by Falsifian,
> then again by me. :) P.S.S. also suggested a minor change, so I included
> em as a coauthor as well.]
>
> Enact the following rule, Charities:
>
>   Donation Level is a natural switch for contracts, tracked by the
>   Notary, with a default of 0 and a maximum of 25.  A contract with
>   

Re: DIS: [Treasuror] Auction regulations again

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-07-17 23:25, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:

You know the drill.


Oh, and by the way I'm going to start another card auction in about a 
day from now so just prepare yourselves.


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

DIS: [Treasuror] Auction regulations again

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

You know the drill.

---
METHOD 0: Generalized Auction

Generalized auctions exist to give context to the form of other types of
auctions. They cannot be held directly. Other auction methods that use
this type of auction as a starting point can override attributes of
generalized auctions except when it is explicitly stated that that
attribute is not able to be overridden.

1. INITIATION:
   * The auctioneer CAN begin an auction that e is authorized to by
 creating a public message (henceforth the "initiation message"),
 specifying the type of auction method that will be held, a list of
 lots that will be auctioned off, and the currency that the auction
 uses. Bidding is initally open.
   * Derivative auction methods cannot specify the exclusion of any
 information listed above from the initiation message of auctions
 using that method.
2. BIDDING:
   * Players CAN place a bid on an open auction by creating a public
 message (henceforth a "bid message") specifying a number of the
 auction's currency as eir bid not equal to the bid of another
 player.
   * Players CAN withdraw from an open auction by announcement.
3. TERMINATION:
   * Bidding is closed four days after either the beginning of the
 auction or after the most recent bid was placed, whichever is
 later. The auction ends at this time as well.
4. AWARDING:
   * For each auction, there are a number of awardees equal to the
 number of lots. The Nth lot of an auction goes to the Nth awardee
 of that auction. If the identity of an awardee is undecidable, then
 that lot cannot be given away.
   * Auction methods specify how awardees are picked for auctions using
 that method.
   * Derivative auction methods should ensure that only players who have
 at least as much of that auction's currency as eir highest bid on
 that auction (hereafter "funded players") can be selected as
 awardees for auctions using that auction method.
   * The auctioneer of an auction SHALL within, four days after the
 ending of that auction, create a public message (henceforth the
 "termination message") that contains a full history of bids on the
 auction and withdrawals from the auction. It should also clearly
 indicate each awardee and the lot e recieves.
5. CLAIMING:
   * For a period of seven days after an auction ends, each awardee of
 that auction CAN transfer (or create in eir own possession if the
 item is new) the set of assets associated with the lot e won by
 paying a fee corresponding to eir winning bid.

METHOD 1: Forward Auctions

Forward auctions function like generalized auctions except:

* The Nth awardee for a forward auction is the player who submitted the
  Nth-highest bid in the set of all funded, non-withdrawn players'
  highest bids on that auction.

METHOD 2: Sealed-bid Auctions

Sealed-bid auctions function like generalized auctions except:

* Players can only submit bids on a sealed-bid auction if they do not
  have a bid in that auction.
* Bids must be initially hidden so that it is impossible to tell its
  value but that it is verifiable that the amount bid was decided before
  the bid was placed. Anything that claims to be a bid and fits these
  conditions is considered a bid.
* Sealed-bid auctions do not end when bidding is closed. Instead, they
  end four days afterward.
* Each player SHOULD reveal eir bid amount on a sealed-bid auction while
  the auction is closed but has not ended. If e does not do so then eir
  bid is nulled.
* The termination message also includes whether or not each bid is null.
* The Nth awardee of a sealed-bid auction is the non-withdrawn funded
  player whose bid is not nulled and is the Nth highest of all bids
  placed.

METHOD 3: Second-price Auctions

Second-price auctions function like forward auctions except:

* When claiming lots in a second-price auction, awardees instead pay a
  fee corresponding to the next-highest bid in the set of all funded,
  non-withdrawn players' highest bids in that auction.

METHOD 4: Nonwinning-price Auctions

Nonwinning-price auctions function like forward auctions except:

* When claiming lots in a nonwinning-price auction, awardees instead pay
  a fee corresponding to the highest bid on that auction from a funded,
  non-withdrawn player who is not an awardee.

METHOD 5: Selective-bid Auctions

Selective-bit auctions function like generalized auctions except:

* Bidding messages on a selective-bid auction must also specify a lot
  that is preferred.
* The Nth awardee of a selective-bid auction is the highest bid from a
  funded, non-withdrawn player whose preferred bid is that lot.

--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

DIS: [Protos] Let's kick the ideas some more

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

Here are some revised protos based on suggestions I got last week:

---
Title: If it's not pending we don't care v2
AI: 3
Co-authors: Aris

Amend Rule 1607 "Distribution" by deleting the paragraph:

  The Promotor's report includes a list of all proposals in the
  Proposal Pool, along with their text and attributes. This portion
  of a public document purporting to be a Promotor's report is
  self-ratifying.

then by replacing:

  If a proposal has been in the proposal pool for more than 7 days
  and is not pending, the Promotor CAN and SHOULD remove it from the
  Pool by announcement.

with:

  The Promotor CAN Drain the Pool by announcement. When e does so,
  each proposal in the Proposal Pool that was there for the entirety
  of the previous Agoran month is destroyed. E SHOULD do so once
  each month.

Amend Rule 2496 "Rewards" by adding a bullet point to the list, before
the one beginning "Publishing an office's weekly or monthly report" that
reads:

  * Initiating a referendum, provided that no other referendum had
been initiated earlier in that Agoran week: 5 coins (ADoP)

---
Title: Offices are complex v2
AI: 1
Co-authors: ATMunn

Enact a new power-1 rule entitled "Complexity" with the text:

  Complexity is an office switch reflecting how complex it is to
  fulfill the duties of its office. Its possible values are all
  integers from 0 to 3 inclusive, where 1 is the default. It is
  tracked in the ADoP's weekly report. The ADoP CAN, with 2 Agoran
  consent, flip the complexity of an office.

Set the complexity switch of the following offices as such:

ADoP:   1
Arbitor:2 [comment: if we split CotC this should go down]
Assessor:   3
Coopor: 1
Distributor:0
Herald: 2
Notary: 2
Prime Minister: 0
Promotor:   3
Referee:2
Registrar:  1
Rulekeepor: 3
Speaker:0
Tailor: 1
Treasuror:  3
Webmastor:  1

Amend Rule 2496 "Rewards" by replacing the text "5 coins" in the
following bullet points as such:

- the bullet point beginning "Publishing an office's weekly or monthly
  report": 5 coins times the complexity of the office
- the bullet point beginning "Resolving a referendum": 5 coins times
  the Assessor's complexity.
- the bullet point beginning "Initiating a referendum", if it exists: 5
  coins times the Promotor's complexity.

--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

DIS: Re: BUS: [NAX] Exchange Manager's Report

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-06-22 08:10, nch via agora-business wrote:

The Purse of NAX is 5. I transfer 5 coins from NAX to myself, making
the Purse 0.


I missed this action a couple weeks ago and it self-ratified that NAX 
has owned these 5 coins all along and they now exist in the possession 
of the Lost and Found Department.


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer creates life [Attn. Notary]

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-07-08 00:39, N. S. via agora-discussion wrote:

yep, i'm also quite sure that this works, a person can consent entirely by
contract and consenting is sufficient to create a contract. this could be
called, quite circular.


Well, dang. Sorry, ATMunn. I tried.

--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer creates life [Attn. Notary]

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-07-07 23:59, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:

I have no idea if this works, but it might be useful for certain
applications. Experimentation!!!

I create the following contract called "Contracoli":


Cuddlebeam is the sole member to this contract. After 24 hours have
passed since this instance of this contract has been created, a copy of
this contact (a new instance of it) is made. Cuddlebeam consents and agrees
with themselves that these new contracts are made in this specific way.


I hereby publicly consent to and agree with myself to have Contracoli
contracts be generated in the way described above.


As fun as this is, contracts cannot perform actions automatically. I 
guess you could amend it so that you CAN do so, but at that point, 
there's no real reason for the contracts to fork like this since you can 
just create a large number of dummy contracts and that would be probably 
just as effective at annoying the heck out of the Notary.


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

[@R. Lee] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Secret Contracts

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-07-07 17:54, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:

The contract says "No party can leave this contract until the Secret
Action has been performed."


Seriously, I put that in there? Weird.

If I am the only party to Secret Contract No. 6, I amend the contract by 
removing the sentence beginning "No party can leave this contract". If I 
am not, then I simply propose to amend the contract as such.


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

DIS: Re: BUS: Secret Contracts

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-07-07 17:03, N. S. via agora-business wrote:

I become  a party to each of Trigon's secret contracts.


I feel obligated to bring this up.

Contract 3 states:

Parties to this contract SHOULD have at least one card when the Secret
Action is performed.

and Contract 6 states:

Parties to this contract SHOULD have at least three cards when the
Secret Action is performed. 


These two contracts are the ones whose party limits you have triggered. 
I won't say much about it other than that you might want to take this 
advice and acquire some cards from somewhere.


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

DIS: Re: BUS: [Pledge] Contract Summaries

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-07-04 11:08, ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
I pledge to transfer 3 coins to every person who submits a 1-2 sentence 
summary of a contract e is party to. If a person submits summaries for 
multiple contracts, I will transfer 3 coins for every contract e 
submitted a summary for. Multiple summaries for the same contract do not 
count.


The time window for this pledge shall be 14 days. The title of this 
pledge shall be "Contract Summaries".


Summaries for Secret Contracts 1-6: "It's a secret to everybody"

18 coins please!

--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

Re: DIS: [Protos] Some ideas I've been kicking around

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-07-07 13:59, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:

On 7/7/2020 3:54 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:


On 7/7/2020 12:28 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:


ADoP: 2
Arbitor: 1


If we got this route I might see about formalizing the CotC?  The strict
Arbitor's duties (which can just be assignment on the fly and few records
kept) is probably a 1, but keeping it organized/archived is where all the
work is?  [and the periods of time when an Arbitor was assigning by
replying to CFJs is the hardest to go back and reconstruct, so it's
definitely value-added I think!].



I'm not opposed to CotC being formalized. It's a lot of work for
currently no game reward. Plus, it would make it a bit clearer for new
players to understand what it actually is.


If I'm being completely honest, I thought the CotC tags were just 
autogenerated and was just an old name for Arbitor.


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

Re: DIS: [Protos] Some ideas I've been kicking around

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-07-07 13:28, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:

On 7/7/2020 2:24 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:

Title: Offices are complex
AI: 1

Enact a new power-1 rule entitled "Complexity" with the text:

   Complexity is an office switch with the possible values of all
   integers from 0 to 3 inclusive, where 1 is the default. It is
   tracked in the ADoP's weekly report. The ADoP CAN, with 2 Agoran
   consent, flip the complexity of an office.

Amend Rule 2496 "Rewards" by amending the text "5 coins" in the bullet
point beginning "Publishing an office's weekly or monthly report" to
read "5 coins times the complexity of the office" and in the bullet
point beginning "Resolving a referendum" to read "5 coins times the
complexity of the Assessor".


I like this idea a lot. As pointed out on Discord, there should be some
initial complexity values. I thought I would suggest some:


Right. The intention was that I would receive suggestions for these. 
Guess I didn't communicate that very well. Or at all. Here are my 
thoughts on your suggestions.



ADoP: 2


Usually I'd agree with this, but at this point in time ADoP is dead-simple.


Arbitor: 1


I would bump this one up just because this position is messy at times.


Assessor: 3
Coopor: 1
Distributor: N/A?


At this point, Distributor doesn't have any report or anything so I 
guess that it doesn't really matter. However, I could see at some point 
a kind of list report, so I'd probably set this to 1 for that just in 
that eventuality.



Herald: 1
Notary: 2
Prime Minister: 0
Promotor: 3
Referee: 2
Registrar: 1
Rulekeepor: 3
Speaker: 0
Tailor: 1
Treasuror: 2


Definitely biased here but my office is absolutely a 3.


Webmastor: 1

Again, just suggestions; I didn't put a ton of thought into these, and
I'm sure some will disagree. But I think something like this would work
for the initial values.


Overall, I agree for the most part. Thank you for your additions.

--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

DIS: [Protos] Some ideas I've been kicking around

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

I have a couple protos I'd like some feedback on. I think these would 
both be good additions but they're just drafts at this point.


---
Title: If it's not pending we don't care
AI: 3

Amend Rule 1607 "Distribution" by removing the following paragraphs:

- The paragraph beginning "If a proposal has been in the proposal pool
  for more than 7 days"; and
- The paragraph beginning "The Promotor's report includes a list"

then, by appending to the paragraph beginning "In a given Agoran week"
the following:

  When e does this, all Proposals that were in the Proposal Pool and
  not pending at the beginning of that week are destroyed.

---
Title: Offices are complex
AI: 1

Enact a new power-1 rule entitled "Complexity" with the text:

  Complexity is an office switch with the possible values of all
  integers from 0 to 3 inclusive, where 1 is the default. It is
  tracked in the ADoP's weekly report. The ADoP CAN, with 2 Agoran
  consent, flip the complexity of an office.

Amend Rule 2496 "Rewards" by amending the text "5 coins" in the bullet
point beginning "Publishing an office's weekly or monthly report" to
read "5 coins times the complexity of the office" and in the bullet
point beginning "Resolving a referendum" to read "5 coins times the
complexity of the Assessor".

--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Victory Auction: July 2020

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-07-07 10:23, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:


On 7/7/2020 9:12 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:

On 2020-07-07 10:08, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:

On 7/7/20 12:06 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:

On 2020-07-07 10:01, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:

I bid 35.0001 coins

This is funny and all, but I should probably mention that fractional and
decimal bids are likely unpayable since the auction logic I'm using
require fee-based actions to claim prizes, and assets can only be paid
in whole number increments. Don't think it's illegal to place these
bids, though, so there's nothing stopping you, I guess.



Rule 2579:


If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset, the
actual fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset.


Ah, never mind then. Still, this is just a very roundabout way of saying
36 coins.


Not exactly.

For the final fee, sure it will be 36.

But since your bidding reg includes "as eir bid not equal to any bid on
that auction." this is a way to place multiple unequal bids that all come
out to paying 36.


Yeah, I realized that as well. For some reason, the possibility of 
fractional bids didn't even come to my mind.


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Victory Auction: July 2020

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-07-07 10:08, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:

On 7/7/20 12:06 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:

On 2020-07-07 10:01, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:

I bid 35.0001 coins

This is funny and all, but I should probably mention that fractional and
decimal bids are likely unpayable since the auction logic I'm using
require fee-based actions to claim prizes, and assets can only be paid
in whole number increments. Don't think it's illegal to place these
bids, though, so there's nothing stopping you, I guess.



Rule 2579:


   If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset, the
   actual fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset.


Ah, never mind then. Still, this is just a very roundabout way of saying 
36 coins.


(Also, the fact that you were able to find that clause and cite it in 
ninety seconds is absolutely hilarious for some reason. Rulekeepors, man.)


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Victory Auction: July 2020

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-07-07 10:01, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:

I bid 35.0001 coins


This is funny and all, but I should probably mention that fractional and 
decimal bids are likely unpayable since the auction logic I'm using 
require fee-based actions to claim prizes, and assets can only be paid 
in whole number increments. Don't think it's illegal to place these 
bids, though, so there's nothing stopping you, I guess.


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport (attempted, also attn Treasuror)

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-07-06 18:34, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:

On 7/2/2020 8:38 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-official wrote:

INTERESTS
-

Office Interest


[snip]

Treasuror  Economy, Economy


I get that the Treasuror is *really* involved with the economy, but I 
don't think the interest is supposed to be listed twice.


I personally am quite interested in economy.

--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

Re: DIS: [Treasuror] Second draft of auction regulations

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

I'm going to start the card auctions in a bit but I wanted to reply to 
this feedback first.


On 2020-07-03 20:14, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:

Looks mostly good.

We should probably require lot winners to pay their bid. I don't know if 
SHALLs in these regulations are enforceable, but might as well try. (If 
we're going to do that, I guess that would entail REQUIRE-ing bidders in 
sealed bid auctions to reveal their bids?)


The only reason they aren't SHALLed is because I was unsure if they 
would be enforceable. What are everyone's thoughts on this?



On 2020-06-24 10:09 p.m., Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:

    * Auction methods cannot specify the exclusion of any information
  listed above from the initiation message of auctions using that
  method.


I don't know if this is enforceable. R2545 says these regulations 
"define specific auction methods" but I could just run an auction that 
doesn't refer to any of your definitions.


Maybe change "cannot" to "should not"?


Right, I guess this is a good point. "Auction methods" in these 
regulations were taken to mean the methods defined in my regulations.



    * For each auction, there are a number of awardees equal to the
  number of lots. The Nth lot of an auction goes to the Nth awardee
  of that auction. If the identity of an awardee is undecidable, then
  that lot cannot be given away.


This doesn't allow for auctions where bidders can give preferences for 
specific lots.


That wasn't even something I had considered, and I'm not sure I like the 
idea of bidding on specific lots. Then it becomes a scenario more like 
multiple auctions. Multi-lot auctions, on the other hand, are meant to 
give players who might not have as much money the opportunity to receive 
something from the auction. They're separate in any case.


I don't have any immediate plans to run any like that, and I think I can 
override these if I want to anyway, so it's not a big deal.


Yes, you can override these. I'm just supposed to promulgate these for 
the good of Agora and to make auctioneers' lives easier.



    * Auction methods specify how awardees are picked for auctions using
  that method.
    * The auctioneer of an auction SHALL within, four days after the
  ending of that auction, create a public message (henceforth the
  "termination message") that contains a full history of bids on the
  auction and withdrawals from the auction. It should also clearly
  indicate each awardee and the lot e recieves.
5. CLAIMING:
    * For a period of seven days after an auction ends, each awardee of
  that auction CAN transfer (or create in eir own possession if the
  item is new) the set of assets associated with the lot e won by
  paying a fee corresponding to eir winning bid.


This doesn't allow auctions where the fee gets paid too some specific 
entity. E.g. if we wanted to add free auctions again we'd want the owner 
of the lots to get paid.


But the rules don't allow that yet so maybe that's not an issue.


I did consider that fact. But my thought process was the same as yours. 
Probably would just be simpler to have players do auctions through 
contracts if they want to give something away.



* The Nth awardee for a forward auction is the non-withdrawn player who
   submitted the Nth-highest bid in the set of all players' highest bids
   (i.e. if Alice bids 10, Bob bids 20, and Alice bids 30, then the set
   of highest bids is {Alice with 30, Bob with 20} so Alice is the first
   awardee with her bid of 30 and Bob is the second awardee with is bid
   of 20).


What about ties?


That should be covered by the first point under "2. BIDDING", which reads:


   * Players CAN place a bid on an open auction by specifying an amount
 of the auction's currency as eir bid /not equal to the bid of
 another player./

--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

DIS: [LoAFER] [Poll] Thread of Grievances @Officers

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

Officers of Agora, have ye any grievances?

Now that we are a bit more settled in with the new economy, I have 
decided to create this thread in order that the officers of Agora have a 
place where they can discuss any problems they may have with how their 
official duties are handled by the Agoran Community. My hope is that 
this thread will lead to legislation and new traditions that will 
improve quality-of-life for Agoran Officers.


TL;DR: What can the Agoran Community do better to help you as an officer?

--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

DIS: Re: BUS: @Referee Giving a Blot B Gone to G

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-06-30 09:01, Becca Lee via agora-business wrote:

I give a blot b gone to G
This also failed as you had transferred your only Blot-B-Gone to Publius 
the day before.


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

DIS: Re: BUS: [Falsifian, Treasuror, Notary] Quickexchange use

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-06-29 11:31, Becca Lee via agora-business wrote:

I become a party to Dragon Quickexchange, transferring 1 victory card for
100 credits (idk why theres an incentive to transfer products into this
contract but i might as well try it with a card)

Again, apologies for the lateness, but I believe that at this point you 
had given all your cards and products (except for legislative cards and 
pendants) to PSS. I believe that none of your transfers to the Dragon 
QuickExchange were effective.


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

DIS: [Treasuror] Tardiness

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

I hate to say this but I'm late for this week's report. I've tried to be 
consistent, but this week it's been really hard to keep myself motivated 
and to top it all off there's more Plundership stuff. I'll have the 
report out in a few hours and I will publish an extra report closer to 
the end of the week to make up for this.


I understand that my job is important and acknowledge that this 
inconsistency will likely create setbacks for others. I am truly sorry 
for this.


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

DIS: Re: BUS: [attn Treasuror] arrrr

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-06-29 12:00, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:

So I transfer 1 Doubloon to me mate, R. Lee, and as e has accepted me
silver now, it is a bond and position not to be betrayed.


This fails if the number of doubloons possessed by each person is 
greater than 71.


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

DIS: Re: [Treasuror] Re: BUS: [ATTENTION PIRATES: IMPORTANT]: Recordkeeping Parley

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-06-29 11:57, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business 
wrote:

For each doubloon I currently possess (I think: 71), I transfer it to
the Plunder Partnership, causing the Plunder Partnership to transfer one
coin to me.


I think this fails due to the following text:


A Pirate with at least 1 Doubloon can transfer 1
coin to themselves from the Plundership. Doing so destroys 1 Doubloon in
their possession. 


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

Re: DIS: [Notary] Web Report Survey

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-06-28 14:51, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:

Or both, if possible with reasonable effort, akin to MediaWiki
transclusion. (I used Wikidot when I held Notary several years back, but
if it supports transclusion then I was unaware of it; I just had one
page per contract, then a link index.)


+1 to a wiki sort of thing. Fantastic version control that makes a lot 
of sense for contracts. But it's not like I'll be mad if the H. Notary 
doesn't feel like setting something like that up.


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Decriminalization

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-06-28 13:54, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:

Proposal: Decriminalization
(AI = 1.7)


Unless I'm missing something, this is purely a ruleset-wide change in 
semantics from 'crime' to 'infraction', correct? Not an expansion to a 
system where crimes and infractions are different things.


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Interested Proposals

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-06-28 17:07, nch via agora-discussion wrote:

On 6/23/20 7:33 PM, nch via agora-business wrote:

On 6/23/20 7:32 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:

On 6/23/20 7:29 PM, nch via agora-business wrote:

I ditched the idea of Ready Proposals for something more similar to the
old disinterested proposals system. The way this works is by calling
proposals pended with pendants "sponsored" proposals, and making that a
condition of getting the LC and coin rewards. I left a support mechanism
for the Promotor because this scam convinced me that it's a good
mechanism (if there was no support mechanism, the opposition wouldn't
have been able to get their proposal in in time, which wouldn't have
been nearly as fun). We can tweak it as we see what happens with it.

Also, while I was at it, I rewrote the second paragraph of Popular
Proposal Proposer Privilege. It should be functionally identical but
less verbose.

So I forgot to rename this after changing the name of the system... I
withdraw Interested Proposals and submit but do not pend the following
proposal:

{

Title: Sponsored Proposals
AI: 1.0
Author: nch
Coauthors: G., Trigon

Amend R2622, "Pending Proposals", to read in full:

  Pended is an untracked negative boolean proposal switch.

  Any player CAN pay 1 Pendant to flip the Pended switch of a
  specified proposal to True. If the player did not create the
  proposal and is not listed in the list of co-authors of the
  proposal, e is added to the list of co-authors. When e does so,
  the proposal becomes sponsored.

  The Promotor CAN, with 2+X support, flip the Pended switch of a
  proposal in the Proposal Pool to true. For this, X is equal to the
  number of times e has done so in the past 7 days.

  Any player CAN, without objection, flip the Pended switch of a
  proposal in the Proposal Pool to true.

  A proposal with a Pended switch set to True is 'pending'.

Repeal R2626 "Certifiable Patches".

Amend R2623, "Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege", by replacing:

  The player who proposed the adopted proposal whose referendum had
  the greatest popularity among all referenda assessed in the last 7
  days CAN once earn one Legislative Card by announcement, provided
  that no referendum initiated in the same message as it remains
  unresolved. If there is a tie, all authors of the tied proposals
  can do so once each.

with:

  The author of the most popular sponsored proposal adopted in the
  last 7 days CAN once earn one Legislative Card by announcement,
  provided that no referenda initiated in the same message as it
  remain unresolved. If there is a tie, all authors of the tied
  proposals can do so once each.

Amend R2496, "Rewards", by replacing "an adopted proposal" with "an
adopted sponsored proposal".

}

--
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager



TTttPF

--
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager



Does anyone have any thoughts or feedback on this? Don't want to pend it
with no idea what anyone thinks about it.


I personally really like this proposal. It's really compact and I think 
a lot more functional than anything else we have come up with before.


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

Re: DIS: [Treasuror] Second draft of auction regulations

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-06-24 16:23, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:

On 6/24/20 6:09 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:

* Sealed-bid auctions do not end when bidding is closed. Instead, they
end four days afterward.


If you want to override when the auction ends in a specific method, you
might want to put an "unless otherwise specified" on the generic
method's ending clause.


To avoid verbosity and allow for more flexibility in future auction 
types, I actually decided not to put an "unless otherwise specified" 
there. If I added one here, it might imply that this type of clause is 
required anywhere if the generalized auction is overriden. Is that 
irrational?


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Congratulations !! You Just WON !!!

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-06-23 18:08, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:
Worth a shot. I thought maybe sending it to all players (because that 
can count as a public action) would work a bit better, since that would 
subvert people's filters to not send Agoran messages to spam.


But alas, P.S.S. is smarter than that.


I doubt it would have worked anyway. There was no "clear designation of 
intent to be public" (R478), which is required for public messages sent 
to all players.


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Talismans Auction Patch

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-06-25 10:41, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:

On 6/25/20 12:39 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion wrote:

On 6/25/20 12:37 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:

This also means the Registrar rather than the Treasuror is in charge
of figuring out how zombie auctions work, which I'm happy with given
the Treasuror is defining a good default for when I'm feeling lazy.

- Falsifian


For simplicity, would it be possible for the Registrar to adopt
regulations defering to the Treasuror's regulations?



The Registrar wouldn't need to write any regulations, e would just need
to pick a method that the Treasuror has defined in the auction regulations.


For the record, I've been interpreting the auctions rule as saying 
something like "If the rules say you can run an auction, you can do so 
by any method (even one you specify on the spot) if it's identifiable as 
an auction. But also the Treasuror can make regulations that help 
players set up auctions."


If this is not how this rule is to be interpreted, please correct me.

--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

DIS: [Treasuror] Second draft of auction regulations

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

This version should respond to all the feedback that I've received and 
more. I made a boilerplate auction so that we could make more unique 
auction methods without redefining everything. Think of the rest like 
variations on a recipe or subtypes of an object. I wrote a rough 
description of another type of auction (sealed-bid) to showcase the 
benefits of the boilerplate that I made.


I tried to cut down on everything unnecessary because I don't want 
another eight-rule-long definition for something that should just make 
sense.


METHOD 0: Generalized Auction

Generalized auctions exist to give context to the form of other types of
auctions. They cannot be held directly. Other auction methods can
generally override attributes of generalized auctions, except when it is
explicitly stated that that attribute is not able to be overridden.

1. INITIATION:
   * The auctioneer CAN begin an auction that e is authorized to by
 creating a public message (henceforth the "initiation message"),
 specifying the type of auction method that will be held, a list of
 lots that will be auctioned off, and the currency that the auction
 uses. Bidding is initally open.
   * Auction methods cannot specify the exclusion of any information
 listed above from the initiation message of auctions using that
 method.
2. BIDDING:
   * Players CAN place a bid on an open auction by specifying an amount
 of the auction's currency as eir bid not equal to the bid of
 another player.
   * Players CAN withdraw from an open auction by announcement.
3. TERMINATION:
   * Bidding is closed four days after either the beginning of the
 auction or after the most recent bid was placed, whichever is
 later. The auction ends at this time as well.
4. AWARDING:
   * For each auction, there are a number of awardees equal to the
 number of lots. The Nth lot of an auction goes to the Nth awardee
 of that auction. If the identity of an awardee is undecidable, then
 that lot cannot be given away.
   * Auction methods specify how awardees are picked for auctions using
 that method.
   * The auctioneer of an auction SHALL within, four days after the
 ending of that auction, create a public message (henceforth the
 "termination message") that contains a full history of bids on the
 auction and withdrawals from the auction. It should also clearly
 indicate each awardee and the lot e recieves.
5. CLAIMING:
   * For a period of seven days after an auction ends, each awardee of
 that auction CAN transfer (or create in eir own possession if the
 item is new) the set of assets associated with the lot e won by
 paying a fee corresponding to eir winning bid.

METHOD 1: Forward Auctions

Forward auctions function like Generalized Auctions except:

* The Nth awardee for a forward auction is the non-withdrawn player who
  submitted the Nth-highest bid in the set of all players' highest bids
  (i.e. if Alice bids 10, Bob bids 20, and Alice bids 30, then the set
  of highest bids is {Alice with 30, Bob with 20} so Alice is the first
  awardee with her bid of 30 and Bob is the second awardee with is bid
  of 20).

METHOD 2: Sealed-bid Auctions

Sealed-bid auctions function like Generalized Auctions except:

* Players can only submit bids on a sealed-bid auction if they do not
  have a bid in that auction.
* Bids must be initially hidden so that it is impossible to tell its
  value but that it is verifiable that the amount bid was decided before
  the bid was placed. Anything that claims to be a bid and fits these
  conditions is considered a bid.
* Sealed-bid auctions do not end when bidding is closed. Instead, they
  end four days afterward.
* Each player SHOULD reveal eir bid amount on a sealed-bid auction while
  the auction is closed but has not ended. If e does not do so then eir
  bid is null.
* The termination message also includes whether or not each bid is null.
* The Nth awardee of a sealed-bid auction is the non-withdrawn player
  whose bid is not null and is the Nth highest of all bids placed.

--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

Re: DIS: Why did PAoaM fail?

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-06-23 01:41, Reuben Staley wrote:
That was the second problem: like with all Agoran economies, the 
resources tied into the main game. But they had no alternate purposes.


Addendum 3: I brought up alternate purposes for assets but did not 
expound at all. I think alternate purposes for the currencies would have 
made the currencies (and the pipelines to invest in their creation (and 
trading)) more valuable. For example, take the following rough proto:


"Players can pay 25 paper, 25 metal, and 25 cloth to Erect a Monument. 
When a player does so, e wins the game."


If we had an expensive way to spend our refined assets, I think it would 
have made things better. This could even turn into another Reset Economy 
in the vein of Sets, where the board is cleared and everyone starts 
anew. I have begun to really appreciate the merits of Reset Economies.


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

Re: DIS: Why did PAoaM fail?

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-06-23 01:41, Reuben Staley wrote:
Even if Contracts had been more highly utilized back when Arcadia 
happened, I don't think it would have fixed the towering walls to 
progress for the uninitiated Arcadian. If you are just beginning, you 
own no pipeline. If you want to get more paper to help you legislate 
more, you have to ask someone with a paper pipeline to help you out when 
you have basically nothing to give in return.


Imagine joining a game of Monopoly with the starting amount of resources 
and being expected to keep up with all the players. Also, the only 
properties that are open are a couple light blue ones and a brown since 
the ones that people actually land are already bought and have hotels. 
In this situation, you will be screwed over by everyone and you can't do 
anything.


Sorry, but I've got another quick thing to add. It's worth noting that 
Arcadia 2018 didn't even reach a point where this was a real issue for 
new players, not really. These paragraphs are just my conjecture of a 
likely reality based on patterns apparent in the Arcadia rules. That 
being said, though, I do think this is the most probable reality if 
Arcadia had survived through the bugs and initial balancing issues.


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

Re: DIS: Why did PAoaM fail?

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-06-23 01:41, Reuben Staley wrote:
I have no idea how well I articulated my thoughts. I was basically 
writing my long-suppressed thoughts about Arcadia down as I remembered 
them. If I think of anything else I'll continue this thread tomorrow.


Quick addendum: the second part all about balance is why I think some 
kind of iterative design in a limited scope like a contract or on a 
different platform would be valuable for an Arcadia-like minigame. with 
lots of short rounds. After each we review the round and how balanced it 
was, adjusting the rules as necessary, then start another round. After 
this testing we would be able to write some real rules for longer rounds 
that could be realistically implemented in the main game with slower 
pace to match Agora's temperament. I made a proto-Contract that would 
allow us to test such a design a long time ago, but it never got much 
traction.


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

Re: DIS: Why did PAoaM fail?

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-06-22 18:14, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:

It's generally agreed that the PAoaM economic model didn't work out.


I take slight issue with the way this is phrased. I would say that the 
model itself is not flawed, but the implementation. I can easily see an 
economy based on going places and building things on a limited map 
working out.


Short history lesson since not everyone remembers PAoaM: the 2018 
version of the Arcadia minigame was copied and modified from a version 
from 2002 which seems to have lasted about a year. I cannot say how 
active it was or whether it flopped at the end as much as PAoaM did (it 
seems like at the end interest just fizzled out), but it seems to have 
worked for longer than PAoaM with much less bickering over how broken it 
was.



What was the problem? Why did PAoaM fail?


PAoaM was first protoed in November 2017. It spent about 5 months in 
proto Hell before finally being passed in March 2018.


Hooray! Let's play! But whoops, lots of the rules did not get reenacted. 
Let's take a month to fix that.


Okay, it's now April. Can we play now? Kinda. It looks like auctions 
aren't working like we thought. Okay, let's just patch that up.


As far as I remember, there were always little issues that we had to 
patch up. People somehow were still excited in March. But in May? Well, 
not as much.


We always assumed we could just keep patching until everything worked. 
But there were always little things that never got brought up because we 
weren't playing with them. That was one problem.


Anyway, let's continue with the narrative.

Alright, it's a little later in April; let's play! But wait, these 
resources that I'm gaining don't do much. They're tied into the other 
main systems of the game, but I can just wait until I gain more free 
resources at the beginning of some cycle. So there's no real need to 
interact with the map. Guess I'll just make a coin factory so that I can 
get a win in a couple of years!


That was the second problem: like with all Agoran economies, the 
resources tied into the main game. But they had no alternate purposes. 
In Arcadia, players had to get land and build facilities on it, then get 
more land and build second-level facilities to process the resources 
produced by the first-level facilities. Then they had to manually 
collect from them each week. All for what? A couple more proposals or 
CFJ calls per week? That's not worth it to any reasonable person. As I 
have already stated, coins were the only thing one could really count on 
to be potentially worth it in the long run.


Sets works better here. The different types of cards and products 
obviously tie into the main game as did the resources in PAoaM. But it's 
much less intensive a process. For one, players already get a few cards 
each reset. More cards are created by sane processes and distributed at 
regular intervals. If you want to do more legislative stuff than one 
pend, you only need to find someone else who's willing to help. You 
don't have to create a pipeline yourself or find someone who's heavily 
invested in that pipeline. Just someone who happens to be aiming for a 
different type of card or a mutually-beneficial contract.


Even if Contracts had been more highly utilized back when Arcadia 
happened, I don't think it would have fixed the towering walls to 
progress for the uninitiated Arcadian. If you are just beginning, you 
own no pipeline. If you want to get more paper to help you legislate 
more, you have to ask someone with a paper pipeline to help you out when 
you have basically nothing to give in return.


Imagine joining a game of Monopoly with the starting amount of resources 
and being expected to keep up with all the players. Also, the only 
properties that are open are a couple light blue ones and a brown since 
the ones that people actually land are already bought and have hotels. 
In this situation, you will be screwed over by everyone and you can't do 
anything.


Sets again functions better here because each individual card has real 
value. Everyone gets cards so everyone has a fair shot. And eventually 
everything will be reset anyway, so you are on even better footing when 
that happens.


I have no idea how well I articulated my thoughts. I was basically 
writing my long-suppressed thoughts about Arcadia down as I remembered 
them. If I think of anything else I'll continue this thread tomorrow.


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

DIS: [Treasuror] Draft Forward Auction Regulation(s)

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

As Treasuror it is my job to promulguate regulations for different kinds 
of auctions. Here is my implementation of a Forward Auction. Tell me 
what you think.


1. INITIATION:
   * The auctioneer CAN begin a forward auction by creating a public
 message specifying a list of lots to be auctioned off and one
 currency, and the fact that this auction will be a Forward
 Auction. The Forward Auction is initially open.
2. BIDDING:
   * Players CAN place a bid on an open Forward Auction by specifying an
 amount of the auction's currency as eir bid not equal to the bid of
 another player.
   * Players CAN withdraw from an auction by announcement.
3. TERMINATION:
   * If there have been no bids placed on a Forward Auction for four
 days, then that Forward Auction ends and becomes closed.
   * There are a number of awardees equal to the number of lots. The
 first lot of an auction goes to the first awardee, the second lot
 to the second awardee, etc.
   * The Nth awardee is the non-withdrawn player whose most recent bid
 is the Nth greatest.
   * The auctioneer of a Forward Auction CAN and SHALL in a timely
 fashion after the ending of that Forward Auction create a public
 message that contains a full history of bids on the auction and
 withdrawals from the auction. In the same message, e CAN and SHALL
 transfer each awardee eir lots/create the lots in their possession.

--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

DIS: Re: BUS: TRIGON

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-06-21 20:55, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:

Construe this message as extending Trigon's latest public message.

I, Trigon, transfer 20 coins to Jason.


I note that the Subject of this message is "BUS: TRIGON" and not "TRIGON"

--
Trigon

transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Contract] Agoran officer monetizes signature

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-06-21 20:04, nch via agora-discussion wrote:

I transfer 3 coins to SEAMSTRESS and specify the text "don't... trust...
the dragon..."


I approve this signature suggestion, transferring 3 coins to myself.

--
Trigon

transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...

Re: DIS: [Proto] Powerful Contracts

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-06-21 19:45, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:

On 6/21/20 9:42 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:

And that's a problem because...? If players consent to such a contract,
they obviously must be getting something out of it. That shouldn't even
prevent other contracts/players from being empowered.


Why wouldn't it prevent other contracts?


If their is a single contract that is the value of at least 5 Power
Target switches and is the target of the most Power Target switches, it
is Empowered.


[also, typo "their" should be "there"]

There can only be one that is Empowered.


Ah, I guess you're right. Still, if someone can monetize Empowerment in 
a way that players feel like they gain something from Empowerment, I 
think that contract deserves to be Empowered.


--
Trigon

nch was here

Re: DIS: [Proto] Powerful Contracts

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-06-21 19:40, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:

On 6/21/20 9:38 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:

Powerful Contracts

Power Target is a player switch tracked by the Notary with the potential
values None (the default), and any Contract. A player CAN flip eir Power
Target (empower) by announcement once a week.

If their is a single contract that is the value of at least 5 Power
Target switches and is the target of the most Power Target switches, it
is Empowered.

Any player CAN create a Victory Card in the possession of the Empowered
contract by announcement. This CANNOT be done if it has already been
done this week.



I feel like this will inevitably lead to a single contract that requires
all of its members to empower it.


And that's a problem because...? If players consent to such a contract, 
they obviously must be getting something out of it. That shouldn't even 
prevent other contracts/players from being empowered.


--
Trigon

nch was here

Re: [Poll] A chat client for Agora (was Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Leaving or something like that)

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

For someone whose daily driver is a 2008 laptop from a now-defunct company,
bridges are great for me since IRC clients are generally lower-power than
Discord's web interface.

--
Trigon

currently on a phone

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020, 14:16 nch via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 6/21/20 3:00 PM, omd via agora-discussion wrote:
> > So we could set up a Discord community and then bridge it with IRC.
> > This can sometimes have awkward results [1], but from what I've heard
> > it basically works.
>
> I've been on discords that have IRC/Discord bridges, and they seem
> perfectly serviceable. I don't see any downside either.
>
> --
> nch
> Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
>
>
>

Reports as snapshots of fixed time (was: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] let's just match the promotor's reality shall we)

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

Treasuror checking in. I feel like I should comment early on this thread as
this change would affect my office a lot.

--
Trigon

currently on a phone

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020, 12:16 Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> > Should we do it with other reports too? This would help us get
> > complete snapshots. If we really wanted to, we could even split asset
> > tracking between Dealor/Treasuror as mentioned in the other thread and
> > still have snapshots.
> >
> > Dunno how much complete snapshots matter outside of asset tracking.
>

At first I was a bit apprehensive about this idea, but I have found myself
thinking about this more and more. I think actually that having weekly
snapshots of Asset holdings could be incredibly valuable for historical
purposes. Especially if asset tracking is split among several officers.

For things like CFJs and ADoP, things move slowly enough, or the timing of
> most changes is under the control of the officer (cfj assignments,
> election resolutions) it's easy or easier (IMO) to do up-to-the-minute.
> E.g. I always do the gazette right after case assignments and I rarely
> have to worry about a new cfj being called or judgement delivered in the
> mean time, it would be harder for me to go back and say "what was the
> snapshot 5 days ago" and it seems silly/uniformative to report CFJs as
> "open" (or an office as vacant) when it was resolved 4 days ago.
>

This is a very valid point. I would say the same goes for Rulekeepor;
versions of the ruleset are generally based on the Assessor's resolutions.
Especially relevant at this point since the two officers are currently the
same person.

So my first reaction was that things like Treasuror should also be "up to
> the minute" by default - if the report is filling in lots of little
> transactions it's relatively easy to be "up-to-the minute" and there's
> nothing in currency rules keyed to the start of a week.  But now I'm
> wondering: maybe for gameplay, it *would* be more interesting (and a
> change) to be more turn-based as in "here's the state at the beginning of
> the turn (i.e. the start of the week)."  And if Cards/products get spread
> across multiple offices (as is being discussed) it's probably good to have
> a sync point to track transmutations etc.
>

I know I'm not going to be 100% reliable as a Treasuror. If I had an
obligation to post asset balances as of a specific point in time each week,
the Agoran public could likely count on more consistent snapshots as
opposed to my current philosophy of "let's put one out mid-to-end-of-week"
which allows for a gap of 5-9 days between reports.

In short, I am supportive of this idea in general.

>

DIS: Re: BUS: Registration

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

Welcome to Agora! Always great to see new players. Our ruleset is a bit
hard to get a handle on, so please don't be afraid to ask questions. We
even (as of today) have a Discord server where you can ask questions in a
more casual environment if that's your style. I hope you enjoy your time
here!

https://discord.gg/UGxm3v

--
Trigon

currently on a phone

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020, 00:14 Zyborg Mao via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I, Zyborg, an Unregistered Person, wish to Register as a Player.
>