Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8077B-8081B, 8082A-8085A, 8087A-8089A and 8096-8103
On Tue, 2018-10-02 at 19:58 -0400, D Margaux wrote: > LOL. The Bank of Agora has caused quite a mess. The first Agoran > financial crisis, perhaps? "First Bank of Agora" is a pretty misleading name. There have been many Banks of Agora in the past. Many of these have been scammed, too. I once became rich when there were two competing banks (each a contract), and they set differing exchange rates. (Both banks ended up better off from the point of view of the exchange rates they were offering, but I ended up with strictly more assets than I'd started with, and quite a lot more at that. So what actually happened is that the banks ended up stuck with assets that they incorrectly believed were valuable.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8077B-8081B, 8082A-8085A, 8087A-8089A and 8096-8103
Haha, amazing. What a ridiculous game. :-) On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:01 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh no. Maybe the 30th or something. We usually have have a few each year. > > -Aris > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 4:58 PM D Margaux wrote: > > > LOL. The Bank of Agora has caused quite a mess. The first Agoran > financial > > crisis, perhaps? > > > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:52 PM Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > OK, please nobody do anything major with coins until these CFJs > > > > are judged, otherwise we may end up with a horrible divergence. > > > > > > Well, I'm required to start a zombie auction this week, and it's not > > > a divergence yet (if it turns out the votes were wrong, we're still > > > in coin-world until you re-resolve). > > > > > > So a big request for you: if I start an auction are you willing/able > > > to hold of re-resolving Points, if the CFJ comes out that way? > > > > > > -G. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8077B-8081B, 8082A-8085A, 8087A-8089A and 8096-8103
Oh no. Maybe the 30th or something. We usually have have a few each year. -Aris On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 4:58 PM D Margaux wrote: > LOL. The Bank of Agora has caused quite a mess. The first Agoran financial > crisis, perhaps? > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:52 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > OK, please nobody do anything major with coins until these CFJs > > > are judged, otherwise we may end up with a horrible divergence. > > > > Well, I'm required to start a zombie auction this week, and it's not > > a divergence yet (if it turns out the votes were wrong, we're still > > in coin-world until you re-resolve). > > > > So a big request for you: if I start an auction are you willing/able > > to hold of re-resolving Points, if the CFJ comes out that way? > > > > -G. > > > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8077B-8081B, 8082A-8085A, 8087A-8089A and 8096-8103
LOL. The Bank of Agora has caused quite a mess. The first Agoran financial crisis, perhaps? On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:52 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > OK, please nobody do anything major with coins until these CFJs > > are judged, otherwise we may end up with a horrible divergence. > > Well, I'm required to start a zombie auction this week, and it's not > a divergence yet (if it turns out the votes were wrong, we're still > in coin-world until you re-resolve). > > So a big request for you: if I start an auction are you willing/able > to hold of re-resolving Points, if the CFJ comes out that way? > > -G. > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8077B-8081B, 8082A-8085A, 8087A-8089A and 8096-8103
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > OK, please nobody do anything major with coins until these CFJs > are judged, otherwise we may end up with a horrible divergence. Well, I'm required to start a zombie auction this week, and it's not a divergence yet (if it turns out the votes were wrong, we're still in coin-world until you re-resolve). So a big request for you: if I start an auction are you willing/able to hold of re-resolving Points, if the CFJ comes out that way? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8077B-8081B, 8082A-8085A, 8087A-8089A and 8096-8103
Oh crap. Yes, you're right, I think - hadn't realised it before. That's incredibly confusing (though still, I think, unlikely to happen). OK, please nobody do anything major with coins until these CFJs are judged, otherwise we may end up with a horrible divergence. On the plus side, both the most recent Treasuror report and the Assessor resolution we're all talking about are blocked from self-ratification, so we don't have a time limit for working it out. (Except Trigon being obliged to destroy all player-owned land next week, but that shouldn't affect coin/point ownership directly.) -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 9:20 PM, D Margaux wrote: > But just to clarify—if the CFJs find that G and i couldn’t transfer to the > contract, then I think both of our votes (and our zombies’ votes) flip, > causing the Point Installation Act to pass. Or is there some reason that > wouldn’t occur in that situation? > > > On Oct 2, 2018, at 2:33 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > That reply was in response to D. Margaux's similar CoE, not yours. I > > properly responded to your CoE by citing the appropriate CFJ. > > -twg > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > > On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 6:29 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > It's not a conditional vote, it's a conditional action to change > > > > the vote. You still submitted an unconditional vote; it's just thatthe > > > > content of your vote is, er, conditional on something else. > > > > > > How on earth do you come up with that reading? My message was: > > > > > > > I vote as follows [snip] > > > > [...] > > > > Conditional: If G. successfully transferred at least 1 coin to a > > > > contract in this message, AGAINST, otherwise FOR. > > > > > > How is the "conditional" not clearly and obviously part of the vote > > > (i.e. a conditional ballot)?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8077B-8081B, 8082A-8085A, 8087A-8089A and 8096-8103
But just to clarify—if the CFJs find that G and i couldn’t transfer to the contract, then I think both of our votes (and our zombies’ votes) flip, causing the Point Installation Act to pass. Or is there some reason that wouldn’t occur in that situation? > On Oct 2, 2018, at 2:33 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > That reply was in response to D. Margaux's similar CoE, not yours. I properly > responded to your CoE by citing the appropriate CFJ. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 6:29 PM, Kerim Aydin >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >>> >>> It's not a conditional vote, it's a conditional action to change >>> the vote. You still submitted an unconditional vote; it's just thatthe >>> content of your vote is, er, conditional on something else. >> >> How on earth do you come up with that reading? My message was: >> >>> I vote as follows [snip] >>> [...] >>> Conditional: If G. successfully transferred at least 1 coin to a >>> contract in this message, AGAINST, otherwise FOR. >> >> How is the "conditional" not clearly and obviously part of the vote >> (i.e. a conditional ballot)? > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8077B-8081B, 8082A-8085A, 8087A-8089A and 8096-8103
Thanks both! Sorry, lots of messages crossing in the ether with the parts being replied to hidden. (D. Margaux, if we have any more CoEing or CFJing let's coordinate privately first :) ) On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote: > G.— Twg was referring to my conditional, not yours. > > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 2:31 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > It's not a conditional _vote_, it's a conditional _action to change > > > the vote_. You still submitted an unconditional vote; it's just that > > > the content of your vote is, er, conditional on something else. > > > > How on earth do you come up with that reading? My message was: > > > > > I vote as follows [snip] > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > Conditional: If G. successfully transferred at least 1 coin to a > > > contract in this message, AGAINST, otherwise FOR. > > > > How is the "conditional" not clearly and obviously part of the vote > > (i.e. a conditional ballot)? > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8077B-8081B, 8082A-8085A, 8087A-8089A and 8096-8103
G.— Twg was referring to my conditional, not yours. On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 2:31 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > It's not a conditional _vote_, it's a conditional _action to change > > the vote_. You still submitted an unconditional vote; it's just that > > the content of your vote is, er, conditional on something else. > > How on earth do you come up with that reading? My message was: > > > I vote as follows [snip] > > > > [...] > > > > Conditional: If G. successfully transferred at least 1 coin to a > > contract in this message, AGAINST, otherwise FOR. > > How is the "conditional" not clearly and obviously part of the vote > (i.e. a conditional ballot)? > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8077B-8081B, 8082A-8085A, 8087A-8089A and 8096-8103
That reply was in response to D. Margaux's similar CoE, not yours. I properly responded to your CoE by citing the appropriate CFJ. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 6:29 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > It's not a conditional vote, it's a conditional action to change > > the vote. You still submitted an unconditional vote; it's just thatthe > > content of your vote is, er, conditional on something else. > > How on earth do you come up with that reading? My message was: > > > I vote as follows [snip] > > [...] > > Conditional: If G. successfully transferred at least 1 coin to a > > contract in this message, AGAINST, otherwise FOR. > > How is the "conditional" not clearly and obviously part of the vote > (i.e. a conditional ballot)?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8077B-8081B, 8082A-8085A, 8087A-8089A and 8096-8103
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > It's not a conditional _vote_, it's a conditional _action to change > the vote_. You still submitted an unconditional vote; it's just that > the content of your vote is, er, conditional on something else. How on earth do you come up with that reading? My message was: > I vote as follows [snip] > > [...] > > Conditional: If G. successfully transferred at least 1 coin to a > contract in this message, AGAINST, otherwise FOR. How is the "conditional" not clearly and obviously part of the vote (i.e. a conditional ballot)?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8077B-8081B, 8082A-8085A, 8087A-8089A and 8096-8103
It's not a conditional _vote_, it's a conditional _action to change the vote_. You still submitted an unconditional vote; it's just that the content of your vote is, er, conditional on something else. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 6:01 PM, D Margaux wrote: > I think my vote on 8081 was also conditional, unless I did it wrong. I > wrote in the Bank of Agora email: > > > If my attempt to transfer coins to the contract > > between me and G. was INEFFECTIVE, then I > > change my vote and cause nichdel to > > change eir vote on 8081B* to FOR. > > But maybe I messed up the conditional somehow. > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 1:56 PM Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: > > > I CoE on my votes and Gaelan's votes on 8081. I believe it is > > uncertain whether my conditional resolved to F or A, as it us uncertain > > whether my transfers of coins to the contract succeeded. > > This won't change the fact that 8081 was rejected, so there's no > > game uncertainty that will propagate from this CoE outside the coin > > holdings of myself and D. Margaux. > > [This is true for 8080 as well, but I don't want to CoE that one - > > it will be Adopted either way, and the uncertainty would propagate > > to everyone's coin holdings in the mean time]. > > On Mon, 1 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > TALLY OF VOTES > > > > > > === > > > > > > Brackets indicate a conditional vote. > > > > > >+++++++++++++ > > >|8077|8078|8079|8080|8081|8082|8083|8084|8085|8087|8088|8089| > > > > > > > > > +--+++++++++++++ > > > |Aris | AA | AA | P | FF | FF | FF | FF | FF | AA | FF | FF | FF | > > > |D. Margaux| F | F | F | F | A | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | > > > |G. | F | A | A |(A )|(A )| F | F | A | F | A | P | P | > > > |twg | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | > > > +--+++++++++++++ > > > |Gaelan | F | A | A |(A )|(A )| F | F | A | F | A | P | P | > > > |Kenyon | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | > > > |nichdel | F | F | F | F | A | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | > > > |Telnaior | A | A | P | F | F | F | F | F | A | F | F | F | > > > +--+++++++++++++ > > > |FOR | 5 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | > > > |AGAINST | 3 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | > > > |AI | 3.0| 2.0| 2.0| 2.0| 3.0| 1.0| 3.0| 1.0| 1.0| 1.0| 1.0| 1.0| > > > |Ballots | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | > > > |Quorum | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | > > > |Resolved |REJ.|REJ.|REJ.|ADO.|REJ.|ADO.|ADO.|ADO.|ADO.|ADO.|ADO.|ADO.| > > > +--+++++++++++++
