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

I don't think we want to waive platonism to that degree. However, it would seem reasonable for you to issue a ruling on both now, and then only formalize it once it actually gets assigned to you, given that you've already gone through the waiting period once. Does anyone else object to that

DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie CFJs and Finger pointing

I'm glad to hear no one has objected to you personally, I like to think we're better than that. ;) -Aris On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 6:20 PM, Ned Strange wrote: > I assign this CFJ to myself, being without objections. > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Ned Strange

DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie CFJs and Finger pointing

Excuse me, these are 2 CFJs. Would Agora see fit to interpret my actions as assigning both CFJs to myself? On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Ned Strange wrote: > I assign this CFJ to myself, being without objections. > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Ned Strange

Re: DIS: Upgrading

I see your point on multiset - on reflection not as bad as my first reaction. I think overall we're looking at some clarifications in both a new fee rule and current assets rule so will aim for an organized whole on the next draft... On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > Thank you for the

Re: DIS: Upgrading

Thank you for the explanatio. If you're CFJ point is correct, it would be equivalent to "I do X 0 times", which is effective at doing nothing. I believe the actor would be required to do nothing, which anyone CAN do by definition. As your rule is currently written, I believe that it would work,

Re: DIS: Upgrading

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > Hang on for a second. I don't get what wrong with paying a fee of 0. The > fee for a given action is defined. If I pay a fee of 0, then I haven't paid > the specified fee for the action, so I can't do anything. The only case > where it comes up is when

Re: DIS: Upgrading

Hang on for a second. I don't get what wrong with paying a fee of 0. The fee for a given action is defined. If I pay a fee of 0, then I haven't paid the specified fee for the action, so I can't do anything. The only case where it comes up is when the fee for an action is defined as 0, in which

Re: DIS: Upgrading

We need an exception for the empty set. A long time ago, there was an argument about whether "I pay a fee of 0" was paying a fee (allowing the action) or not paying a fee (no transfer occurring). [The CFJ answer then depending on exact wording so is not applicable to present-day]. Now we

DIS: Re: BUS: Finger Pointing

oh, sorry. On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:21 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Shennanigans. Due to the Treasuror not being a defined office (a bugfix for > that is in last week's proposal distribution). It would have been nice > for Gaelan to report informally but oh well. > >

Re: DIS: Upgrading

No point in doing a quick and dirty solution when we could have a full fix before the next distribution. My crystals proposal would define them as the economic currencies. I'll have a new version of it this week, aiming to get it into the next distribution. -Aris On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 4:19 PM

Re: DIS: Upgrading

Well, I'm just gonna add that to the list of things I've broken. I haven't read through this thread all the way but it looks like things have gotten pretty technical. HOWEVER, I'm glad this is finally being addressed. The quickest solution would be just to add a clause that says if Agora owns

Re: DIS: Upgrading

I think you mean a non-empty multiset. Also, I don't see any reason to require the set to be non-empty. That's sensible for constant fees but could break some types of variable fee. Here's a phrasing that includes the default and rounds correctly: "If the Rules associate payment of a multiset of

Re: DIS: Upgrading

How about using some variant of "in exchange for the performance of the action"? You can't exchange Z for both X and Y unless they count as a single action, under the common definitions of the relevant terms. -Aris On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8042-8045

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 2:26 PM Gaelan Steele wrote: > > ID Author(s)AI Title Pender > > > --- > > 8042* G. 1.0 Agorans are Vulcans Aris FOR

Re: DIS: Upgrading

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 13:30 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > To perform a fee-based action, an entity (the Actor) who is > > otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e > > is performing the action; the announcement

Re: DIS: Upgrading

On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 13:30 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > To perform a fee-based action, an entity (the Actor) who is > otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e > is performing the action; the announcement must specify the > correct set of assets

Re: DIS: Upgrading

I tried a version with general assets, if this is ugly can restrict to currencies... Proto v2: Let's really define payment solidly please, finally. Create the following Rule, Fee-based actions: If the Rules associate payment of a non-empty set of assets (hereafter the fee for

Re: DIS: Upgrading

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: If the Rules associate a non-negative fee (syn: cost, price, charge), with an action, or state that an action CAN be performed by paying a fee, that

Re: DIS: Upgrading

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Proto : Let's really define payment solidly please, finally. > > > > > > Create the following Rule, Fee-based actions: > > > > If the Rules associate a non-negative fee (syn: cost, price, > >

Re: DIS: Upgrading

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: Proto : Let's really define payment solidly please, finally. Create the following Rule, Fee-based actions: If the Rules associate a non-negative fee (syn: cost, price, charge), with an action, or state that an action CAN be performed

Re: DIS: Upgrading

A contract still can! It doesn't need permission from the rules. It can write: "If this contract defines a fee action, it works as if the fee were defined in the rules." Then for all contract purposes it should work. On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Kenyon Prater wrote: > It might be interesting to

Re: DIS: Upgrading

It might be interesting to allow contracts to define fee based actions in the same way that contracts can define assets. Other than that, which I'm not sure is worth the headache, I like this proto. On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 11:56 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Proto : Let's

Re: DIS: Upgrading

Proto : Let's really define payment solidly please, finally. Create the following Rule, Fee-based actions: If the Rules associate a non-negative fee (syn: cost, price, charge), with an action, or state that an action CAN be performed by paying a fee, that action is a

Re: DIS: Upgrading

So I can pay the assets to Quazie (or myself, though that would be more legally contestable)? Awesome! ~Corona On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Corona wrote: > > I was about to build something, but then I noticed: >> >>A

Re: DIS: Upgrading

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Corona wrote: I was about to build something, but then I noticed: A player CAN increase the rank of a facility e owns that is at eir location by exactly 1 by announcement by paying any upgrade costs of the facility for that specific rank. What does "paying"

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8042-8045

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Corona wrote: > 8042* G. 1.0 Agorans are Vulcans Aris > PRESENT, I like the idea of silliness and never got to be Silly, so I'd at > least like something similar to replace it. I also like the idea of silliness. The problem with current version is

DIS: Upgrading

I was about to build something, but then I noticed: A player CAN increase the rank of a facility e owns that is at eir location by exactly 1 by announcement by paying any upgrade costs of the facility for that specific rank. What does "paying" mean here, if anything? Is it

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] The Map of Arcadia -- April 24, 2018

Wanna sell? I offer 15 coins. On Wednesday, April 25, 2018, ATMunn wrote: > Actually, that was in the single auction, so there's nothing really that I > could do about that. But it still sucks. > > On 4/25/2018 9:18 AM, ATMunn wrote: > >> I just realized I've been a

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] The Map of Arcadia -- April 24, 2018

Actually, that was in the single auction, so there's nothing really that I could do about that. But it still sucks. On 4/25/2018 9:18 AM, ATMunn wrote: I just realized I've been a total idiot. My one land unit is on the complete other side of the map from me. On 4/25/2018 1:05 AM, Reuben

DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] The Map of Arcadia -- April 24, 2018

I just realized I've been a total idiot. My one land unit is on the complete other side of the map from me. On 4/25/2018 1:05 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: THE MAP OF ARCADIA -- APRIL 16, 2018 View an interactive version of this report here:

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

I've seriously considered proposing the repeal of the regulations system, now that we've given them a chance. However, there are several tasks, such as tournaments, for which they seem the appropriate device. I'd favor simplifying them down and merging them into your responsibilities as Notary,