On Wed, 8 Jan 2020, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
By including "purposeful", it covers scams; e.g. with Jason Cobb's 18,000
coins - the scammer would have at least the 4 day objection period to enjoy
eir earnings or convert it to a win[*] or whatever.
[*]since winning and patent
Like the idea. Few thoughts:
If I create the contact {Gaelan SHALL publish a Tailor’s report weekly}, does
this let me issue memoranda about ribbons?
Also, this may be a minority view, but I believe scams are part of the game,
and we shouldn’t make a habit of reverting them by default. Of
Proto: the Reset Button
#include memorandum
Create the following Rule entitled "the Reset Button":
If the rules define a public document as self-ratifying, then a
person REQUIRED to publish that document CAN ratify that document
without 3 objections, provided e includes, as
On 1/8/2020 8:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
which shall consist in a public document and shall, once issued,
resolve bindingly, by interpretation of law and fact, such matters within
Mulling it over more, what exactly do you mean by "interpreting facts"?
In the current context of the
On 1/8/2020 6:40 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
Each officer has the power to, with notice, issue a memorandum,
Do you think "has the power to" is a reasonable synonym for CAN - it's
kind of an overloaded word that we don't use that way currently (and "CAN"
is simplier than
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 6:28 PM Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2020, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
>
> >>> 1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated, and not subsequently
> >>> publicly withdrawn eir statement, that e agrees to the action;
> >>
I made several changes, including clarifying that the judiciary has
judicial review over memoranda. I also decided to go in the direction
of making memoranda purely interpretative, because I have other plans
for gamestate changes that have more safeguards. I've allowed them to
be like CFJs or
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated, and not subsequently
publicly withdrawn eir statement, that e agrees to the action;
That last comma looks out of place.
Looks right to me, based on my intuitive comma placement
Gaelan's comments made me think of a way to tear out pacts completely.
It's a bit less backwards compatible, but also vastly simplified.
-Aris
---
Title: Contract Patency v3
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors: Gaelan, Jason Cobb, Falsifian
Amend Rule 2519, "Consent", to read in full:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 4:16 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> First of all, I haven’t looked through all of the original thread, so let me
> know if something’s already been discussed to death. I’m aware that I’m
> suggesting some big changes late in the game, and I’m not *that*
First of all, I haven’t looked through all of the original thread, so let me
know if something’s already been discussed to death. I’m aware that I’m
suggesting some big changes late in the game, and I’m not *that* unhappy with
the proposal as it stands, so I would probably vote FOR even as it
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 2:42 PM AIS523--- via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2020-01-08 at 14:31 -0800, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > I think this addresses everyone's concerns. Comments are welcome.
> [snip]
> > Amend Rule 2519, "Consent", to read in full:
> > A person is
On 1/8/20 5:42 PM, AIS523--- via agora-discussion wrote:
> I have an automatic uneasy reaction to anything that inherently needs
> to be able to platonically evaluate arbitrary conditions that can be
> specified without going through a proposal process or the like,
> especially if there are no
On Wed, 2020-01-08 at 14:31 -0800, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
> I think this addresses everyone's concerns. Comments are welcome.
[snip]
> Amend Rule 2519, "Consent", to read in full:
> A person is deemed to have consented to an action if and only if:
>
> 1. e, acting as
I think this addresses everyone's concerns. Comments are welcome.
-Aris
---
Title: Contract Patency v2
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors: Jason Cobb, Falsifian
Amend Rule 2519, "Consent", to read in full:
A person is deemed to have consented to an action if and only if:
1. e,
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 6:35 PM James Cook wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 06:11, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > Here's a draft that separates out contracts from pacts, and creates an
> > office of Notary to track contracts and pledges. NOTE: Volunteers are
> > needed for Notary! Apply now!
>
> I
Well, the current contracts rules are very broken. But that's ok! :P
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 16:21, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> TBH, there's no real reason to disallow 1-member contracts. It doesn't
> make sense under real world contract law, but
The MUD is now open. The server is at agora.ddns.net
Port 4000 is telnet.
Port 4001 is HTTP.
Port 4004 is SSH.
Port 4005 is webclient-websocket.
-Aris
TBH, there's no real reason to disallow 1-member contracts. It doesn't
make sense under real world contract law, but Agoran contracts can
also function like corporations.
-Aris
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 1:10 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> Yeah, the rules need to handle open-ended
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 16:07, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> Neither your votes, nor the promotor report, were to the public forum.
>
> Additionally, I ask that you reconsider your vote on 8281. I don’t have a
> force-through scam up my sleeve, and I
Yeah, the rules need to handle open-ended contracts better IMO. Contracts are
written as entities that can gain and lose members at will, but there’s no
clear way to bootstrap a contract.
Gaelan
> On Jan 8, 2020, at 12:34 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2020
Neither your votes, nor the promotor report, were to the public forum.
Additionally, I ask that you reconsider your vote on 8281. I don’t have a
force-through scam up my sleeve, and I would like to find out if my scam works.
As far as I know, the rule should be fairly harmless.
Gaelan
> On
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 10:07 AM Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> Aris wrote:
> > A minimalist proto along the lines of #1 follows. This could be a
> > complex interconnected set of 15 rules, but I think it would be more
> > fun to leave it as minimal as possible at let the
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 14:51, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 9:59 AM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> >
> > I’m intrigued by the idea. I’m a little concerned that it’s TOO
> vague—are these rulings CFJ-like (a
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 11:51 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
> > The idea doesn’t seem immediately bad (although I’m not sure I prefer it
> > either) but I think such an important area is not suitable for the “write
> > something simple and let CFJs figure it out” strategy.
>
>
Oops, this somehow ended up being a reply to just Aris. In the future, please
avoid cc’ing me if possible—I have rules configured to dump all Agora messages
in a folder, and ccing directly to me breaks that.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Gaelan Steele
> Date: January 8, 2020 at 11:56:43
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 9:59 AM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> I’m intrigued by the idea. I’m a little concerned that it’s TOO vague—are
> these rulings CFJ-like (a means of agreeing on what happened platonically,
> but with no actual platonic effect) or ratification-like? How is
On Tue., Jan. 7, 2020, 23:34 Aris Merchant via agora-discussion, <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> 8280 Murphy, Jason Cobb 3.0 Resolve the troubles v1.1
>
AGAINST
> 8281 Gaelan 1.0 Nothing to see here, Rule 1030 v2
>
AGAINST
> 8282 Falsifian
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 10:34 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On 1/8/20 12:08 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> >> Each officer has the power to, with notice, issue a memorandum,
> >> which shall consist in a public document and shall, once issued,
> >> have the
On 1/8/20 12:08 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
>> Each officer has the power to, with notice, issue a memorandum,
>> which shall consist in a public document and shall, once issued,
>> have the power to resolve bindingly any matter within eir official area of
>> concern,
Aris wrote:
> A minimalist proto along the lines of #1 follows. This could be a
> complex interconnected set of 15 rules, but I think it would be more
> fun to leave it as minimal as possible at let the judiciary sort out
> the details.
>
> -Aris
> --
> Title: Administrative Adjudication
>
Seems reasonable to me.
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020, 12:09 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 8:24 PM Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:12 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan
I’m intrigued by the idea. I’m a little concerned that it’s TOO vague—are these
rulings CFJ-like (a means of agreeing on what happened platonically, but with
no actual platonic effect) or ratification-like? How is arbitrariness and
capriciousness defined/judged? What about “official area of
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 8:24 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:12 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:00 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
> > wrote:
> > > This gets me thinking of a potential big and maybe-interesting-maybe-not
> >
34 matches
Mail list logo
