Re: DIS: Assets proto-proposal, v2

Nicholas Evans wrote: A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are fungible. Implying instances wth different owners aren't fungible? Therefore, they aren't guaranteed to have the same value?​ Your

Re: DIS: Assets proto-proposal, v2

In the past, "fungible" applied to recordkeeping. It makes it clear that a recordkeepor doesn't have to track the difference between "Muphy's Shiny #1" and "Murphy's Shiny #2" once their in Murphy's pile. But e'd *better* track the difference between Murphy's shinies and nichdel's

Re: DIS: Assets proto-proposal, v2

But it does have the same value to the market, which is where fungibility comes in. If we both put 20 fungible shinies in a pile, mix the pile, and take 20 shinies out, we can be assured we both left with the same value we started. Whether we both pay 20 shinies to G. or I pay 15 and you pay 25,

Re: DIS: Assets proto-proposal, v2

In praactice rules and charters would probably have to be written explicity to take advantage of this inequality, so it's likely not a problem. I just find the wording philosophically interesting. On 05/03/17 13:40, Nic Evans wrote: > But it does have the same value to the market, which is where

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7844-7847

On Wed, 2017-05-03 at 09:20 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > HOWEVER.  Once the language for "re-enact" was added in R105(c), it > implicitly  > created a new category of thing:  the "repealed rule".  This is clearly not a  > Rule, but it is now a tracked thing, in spite of the 'no-tracking' provision

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7844-7847

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > Note that I'm not convinced a "power-3 Instrument" that isn't a rule or > proposal can actually do anything, even if it does indeed have power 3; > the only special properties it would have would be that it would be >

DIS: Re: BUS: I'm a player - now what?

On Wed, 3 May 2017, Quazie wrote: > I, Quazie the person, CFJ on the following statement: > "At least one player regulated action has been performed by Quazie the > player, initiated by a message sent by Quazie the person since e became a > player." > > Evidence: > > In my pre-registeration

Re: DIS: Assets proto-proposal, v2

To be honest, the reason I left it was because I felt that the original author probably knew what they were doing. -Aris On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > In the past, "fungible" applied to recordkeeping. It makes it clear that a > recordkeepor

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7844-7847

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 4:38 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > I take "where permitted by other rules" as meaning that some rule > (other than rule 105) has to do the original permitting. There's no > rule saying "instruments can change rules". (At the moment, I think the > only

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I'm a player - now what?

I don't actually doubt that I've performed actions - but upon reading my message in Aris' judgement, I figured I should verify things before I did too much and someone else CFJed on the validity of every action I've done. As is - I haven't really done that much yet, so I figure why not check now

DIS: Re: BUS: I'm a player - now what?

I want to get this out of the way before I do too many actions, as I am actually uncertain if anything i've done has been done or not. On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 4:13 PM Quazie wrote: > I, Quazie the person, CFJ on the following statement: > > "At least one player regulated

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7844-7847

On Wed, 3 May 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > > Note that I'm not convinced a "power-3 Instrument" that isn't a rule or > > proposal can actually do anything, even if it does indeed have power 3; > > the only special

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I'm a player - now what?

On Wed, 3 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Wed, 3 May 2017, Quazie wrote: > > I, Quazie the person, CFJ on the following statement: > > "At least one player regulated action has been performed by Quazie the > > player, initiated by a message sent by Quazie the person since e became a > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I'm a player - now what?

On Thu, 4 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2017-05-03 at 17:01 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > This is the classic fallacy of I Said I Didn't, Therefore I Didn't > > that has Occasionally Plagued Agora. > > I transfer a shiny to G. > The previous sentence had no effect. AGAINT shows you

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7844-7847

On Thu, 4 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2017-05-03 at 16:29 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > > Pardon me, but doesn't rule 105 delegate that power to all > > instruments? It says "Where permitted by other rules, an instrument > > generally can, as part of its effect,... [make different

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7844-7847

On Wed, 2017-05-03 at 16:40 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > You're missing the "generally", which implies that it is true unless > contradicted elsewhere. You're mis-nesting the quantifiers. The "where permitted by other rules" is outside, so that implies that /if/ some other rule permits it, then

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I'm a player - now what?

On Thu, 4 May 2017, Quazie wrote: > I don't actually doubt that I've performed actions - but upon reading my > message in Aris' judgement, > I figured I should verify things before I did too much and someone else CFJed > on the validity of every > action I've done.  As is - I haven't really

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I'm a player - now what?

On Wed, 3 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Thu, 4 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-05-03 at 17:01 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > This is the classic fallacy of I Said I Didn't, Therefore I Didn't > > > that has Occasionally Plagued Agora. > > > > I transfer a shiny to G. > > The

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I'm a player - now what?

On Wed, 2017-05-03 at 17:33 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Wed, 3 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 4 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > > On Wed, 2017-05-03 at 17:01 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > This is the classic fallacy of I Said I Didn't, Therefore I > Didn't > > > > that has 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I'm a player - now what?

> On May 3, 2017, at 8:46 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-05-03 at 17:33 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Wed, 3 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> On Thu, 4 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote: On Wed, 2017-05-03 at 17:01 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > This is the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I'm a player - now what?

On Thu, 4 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2017-05-03 at 17:33 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Wed, 3 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Thu, 4 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2017-05-03 at 17:01 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > This is the classic fallacy of I Said I

Re: DIS: [Draft] The Treasuror

On May 3, 2017, at 7:17 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 2:41 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: > >> Do you think that this would be mergeable with the Office of Economic >> Policy or

DIS: CFJ 3474

You can expect my decision in CFJ 3474 tomorrow. I've written my it, I just have to proofread it, and it's rather late at night now. Sorry for keeping everyone waiting, especially Quazie. -Aris

Re: DIS: [Draft] The Treasuror

Do you think that this would be mergeable with the Office of Economic Policy or should it be separate? Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:14 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > Treat this as a competing and more comprehensive proposal to The Lazarus >

Re: DIS: [Draft] The Treasuror

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 2:41 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > Do you think that this would be mergeable with the Office of Economic > Policy or should it be separate? > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus I'm not sure about o, but I

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7844-7847

On Wed, 2017-05-03 at 16:29 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > Pardon me, but doesn't rule 105 delegate that power to all > instruments? It says "Where permitted by other rules, an instrument > generally can, as part of its effect,... [make different types of > rule changes]". I take "where permitted

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7844-7847

On Wed, 2017-05-03 at 16:47 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Do you think the Decrees Rule could make Rule Changes, when it was a > Rule? > >     A Decree is a document clearly labeled as such. The Dictator > CAN, With Notice, proclaim a Decree. When a Decree is > proclaimed, then: > > 1)

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The Lazarus State (revision 2)

'Other tham emself'. Also, why not allow heirs to be organizations? Original message From: Owen Jacobson Date: 5/3/17 22:07 (GMT-06:00) To: Agora Nomic - Business Subject: BUS: [Proposal] The Lazarus State (revision 2)

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Distribution of estates

What happened to aranea? Am I missing something? -Aris >> On May 2, 2017, at 7:41 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> >> On May 1, 2017, at 5:51 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >> wrote: >> >>> As per my previously stated intent, I hereby