Re: DIS: Assets proto-proposal, v2

[Owen Jacobson]

On Apr 17, 2017, at 9:28 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>>> Please define 'Lost and found department' - It seems to be a non-player
>>> entity capable of holding assets without restriction, and it seem to be
>>> impossible to fully restrict the lost and found department from holding any
>>> given asset?  Seems like it should be possible for ownerless assets to self
>>> destruct instead of ending up in the lost and found where presumably someone
>>> could end up removing them if they became ownerless (It seems like if a
>>> player stops being a player, the lost and found gets their stuff, and then
>>> anyone can take it no matter what that stuff is)?
>> 
>> I just had an idea. I'm probably insane, but it's an idea. What if
>> Agora could own assets? What if assets could own other assets? What if
>> the Lost and Found Department was an asset owned by Agora? Probably
>> ridiculous, but the possibilities...
> 
> This happened before (what hasn't? :) ) and is the reason the Lost and Found
> Dept exists.
> 
> Some version of the Assets Rule said "by default, any entity can own an 
> asset."
> 
> So Assets were transferred to persons not in the game.  Then to things
> that were not persons (random memory: someone transferred something to
> their potted plant).  Then finally, as you would expect, an Asset was
> transferred to itself.
> 
> So with a bunch of assets stuck with weird owners (and just sitting there),
> a general cleanup proposal created the Lost
> 
> For useful gameplay, we've had Banks and other official entities that
> could own assets, some version of that may have specified that Agora was
> the owner of things in the bank.

This is one of two reasons I’m strongly against trying to create a framework so 
general that all of Agora fits into it. The other is that boundaries between 
subsystems are where the interesting things happen.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: The gig economy

[Owen Jacobson]

I rather like this proposal, and I’m looking forward to the second draft. I do 
have one (sincere, not critical) question:

On Apr 19, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>  If a performer does so, clearly specifying that eir action is
>  intended to fulfill a particular gig,  Agora SHALL pay that
>  player 5 shinies at the beginning of the next Nomic Week.

Is it intended that this payment be made even if Agora’s balance is negative?

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Draft Referee's Report

[Quazie]

And as of this moment I have only willfully consented to being made a
player if Murphy has made me a player - at least I believe that's all i've
consented to.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:28 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 09:44 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > This leaves open the question of what happens if a person does
> > > consent without registering (might be hard to do, as a statement of
> > > consent is generally taken to be a registration attempt).
> >
> > What about consent to a foreign forum? It seems like common sense that
> > you can't change Agora's gamestate like that (otherwise we'd have a ton
> > of inaccurate reports based on behaviour away from the Agoran lists),
> > but also seems plausible that it could at least specify consent
> > (private contracts often used to be agreed over non-nomic-related IRC
> > channels).
>
> Actually, that's probably ok, and probably even our Discussion forum would
> work.  I thought the prohibition against binding said "explicit, wilful
> consent".  But the "explicit" part is gone (I checked - it used to be in
> the
> Rights version of R101, maybe it's been gone a while).  So it's likely that
> a variety of ways could be used to infer wilful consent.
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Draft Referee's Report

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 09:44 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > This leaves open the question of what happens if a person does
> > consent without registering (might be hard to do, as a statement of
> > consent is generally taken to be a registration attempt).
> 
> What about consent to a foreign forum? It seems like common sense that
> you can't change Agora's gamestate like that (otherwise we'd have a ton
> of inaccurate reports based on behaviour away from the Agoran lists),
> but also seems plausible that it could at least specify consent
> (private contracts often used to be agreed over non-nomic-related IRC
> channels).

Actually, that's probably ok, and probably even our Discussion forum would
work.  I thought the prohibition against binding said "explicit, wilful 
consent".  But the "explicit" part is gone (I checked - it used to be in the 
Rights version of R101, maybe it's been gone a while).  So it's likely that 
a variety of ways could be used to infer wilful consent.

Re: DIS: Draft Referee's Report

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 09:44 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> This leaves open the question of what happens if a person does
> consent without registering (might be hard to do, as a statement of
> consent is generally taken to be a registration attempt).

What about consent to a foreign forum? It seems like common sense that
you can't change Agora's gamestate like that (otherwise we'd have a ton
of inaccurate reports based on behaviour away from the Agoran lists),
but also seems plausible that it could at least specify consent
(private contracts often used to be agreed over non-nomic-related IRC
channels).

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Draft Referee's Report

[Kerim Aydin]

  
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> > Interesting. Rule 869 says that “A registered person is a player” and
> > secures registration (with power=3). Rule 1551 (Ratification) has power 3.1,
> > so it’s actually possible that ratification could register someone. I don’t
> > think that’s desireable; if nothing else, someone made a player by
> > ratification hasn’t agreed to follow the rules, and there are some troubling
> > questions of consent.

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> CFJ 1836 states that a self ratifying report does not ratify
> information it incidentally contains, particularly the list of
> players. The logic behind that is rather interesting, but anyways, it
> applies in this case.

CFJ 3455 comes to the same conclusion, a bit more directly and with
recent rules:  https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/3455.

To summarize, R1551 specifically states that it can't ratify a direct 
contradiction with the rules into the gamestate, and ratifying a player into 
the gamestate who has not explicitly consented to being a player is a 
contradiction, so the ratification attempt fails.

This leaves open the question of what happens if a person does consent 
without registering (might be hard to do, as a statement of consent is 
generally taken to be a registration attempt).

Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal: A To-Do List for Agora

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> My idea here is separate from the gig economy because it is for one-time or 
> irregular actions:
> 
> Any player MAY with 2 support add an item to the to-do list with a specified 
> number of Shinies 
> associated with it. The to-do list shall be maintained by the Lister. Any 
> person MAY complete 
> an item on the to-do list and claim the specified number of Shinies 
> associated with it by 
> notifying the Lister of their completion of the task. With two support, any 
> player may 
> challenge the completion of the task, putting it to a vote of the game 
> requiring at least a 
> majority to support the challenge, for the Shinies to not be awarded. After 
> an item has been 
> completed, the Lister shall remove it from the to-do list

Nice idea.  I think having 3 people able to make to-do items, then requiring a 
majority
to knock them down, may be open to scams.  As a first line of defense, I'd 
suggest that
the Lister make the awards (and possibly contest awards), and put a standard 
for 
completion in there that could be CFJ'd.

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

[Benjamin Schultz]

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> My Copy of RONR11 would also suggest that it is a point of order, given
> that it is a custom of the Assembly.
>
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> RONR is up to edition 11?  I may need to get a copy for my birthday!

OscarMeyr

DIS: The New Agora Guidebook

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Would the authors of The Agora Guidebook mind if I wrote and published the
third edition? I am sending it to the list in case their old email no
longer works.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

DIS: Proto-Proposal: A To-Do List for Agora

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

My idea here is separate from the gig economy because it is for one-time or
irregular actions:

Any player MAY with 2 support add an item to the to-do list with a
specified number of Shinies associated with it. The to-do list shall be
maintained by the Lister. Any person MAY complete an item on the to-do list
and claim the specified number of Shinies associated with it by notifying
the Lister of their completion of the task. With two support, any player
may challenge the completion of the task, putting it to a vote of the game
requiring at least a majority to support the challenge, for the Shinies to
not be awarded. After an item has been completed, the Lister shall remove
it from the to-do list

In the final version, I will formally expand out the office of Lister.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

DIS: Re: BUS: A minor identity crisis

[Aris Merchant]

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> I CFJ on the statement “The Warrigal and Zachary Watterson are the same 
> person.”
>
> Until this CFJ is resolved, I intend to track eir respective budgets 
> separately. This will cause em to receive more Shinies than e otherwise 
> should for April. Should I hold off on updating the Secretary’s actual 
> reports, to avoid ratifying this possibly-incorrect state? I don’t think ten 
> Shinies is a huge issue, but I’m open to feedback.
>
> -o
>

The easiest thing to do, in my opinion, would be to release the report
with a note marking that value as provisional. If it is later
determined that they are the same person, you can release an updated
report, which will then self ratify.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bankruptcy

[Aris Merchant]

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:00 PM Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> On Apr 19, 2017, at 11:55 PM, Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 8:29 PM Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>
> Leaving aside that one budget is not fully determinate, it is definitely
>> the case that, if Quazie is a player, then this action would make Quazie’s
>> Expenditure is no less than 225, and may be greater. The current Income Cap
>> is 100.
>>
>> Assuming that Quazie is a player, as Secretary, I declare em Bankrupt, as
>> per Rule 2462.
>>
>
> I CFJ (barring Quazie) on the statement "Assuming that Quazie is a player,
> e has, within the past week, exceeded the Budget Cap." Arguments:
> "Allowable" could mean either "possible" or "permissible". If it's the
> later, e has not exceeded the Cap, as the highest permissible value is the
> highest value e could not be punished for. Additionally, if the action is
> ambiguous between the two (or otherwise
>
>
> Income Cap.
>
> -o
>

Oops. Does that invalidate the CFJ? I can't seem to find any way to
> withdraw it, so I guess I'll just hope the Judge judges it on the merits.
>

-Aris

Re: DIS: Draft Referee's Report

[Aris Merchant]

CFJ 1836 states that a self ratifying report does not ratify
information it incidentally contains, particularly the list of
players. The logic behind that is rather interesting, but anyways, it
applies in this case.

-Aris

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> Interesting. Rule 869 says that “A registered person is a player” and
> secures registration (with power=3). Rule 1551 (Ratification) has power 3.1,
> so it’s actually possible that ratification could register someone. I don’t
> think that’s desireable; if nothing else, someone made a player by
> ratification hasn’t agreed to follow the rules, and there are some troubling
> questions of consent.
>
> Any idea how to represent your indeterminate state in the reports?
>
> -o
>
> On Apr 20, 2017, at 2:13 AM, Quazie  wrote:
>
> I think it needs to note that I supposedly became a player or once it self
> ratifies it will make me a player regardless?  (I might CFJ on that concept
> of playership by ratification just to find out)
>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 21:12 Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>
>> The following is a DRAFT of the upcoming Referee’s report. The content
>> makes some assumptions about Quazie’s ultimate fate.
>>
>> Suggestions encouraged!
>>
>> -o
>
>