DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment

[Ned Strange]

I really do think that me losing all of my assets over this is inequitable.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Ned Strange  wrote:
> That is, I object for myself and PSS to Aris's intent
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ned Strange  wrote:
>> I object both for myself and PSS.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Aris Merchant
>>  wrote:
>>> Well, I object. There is no reason we should allow you to reclaim your
>>> assets from a badly designed scam contract. I intend, with 2 Agoran
>>> consent, to destroy the contract "Hi".
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:13 PM Ned Strange 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I object and intend to amend "Hi!" without objection to have the new
 text "VJ Rada can transfer all assets in this contract to emself by
 announcement".

 On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Ned Strange 
 wrote:
 > I intend to amend the contract called "Hi", without objection. The new
 > text of that contract would state "VJ Rada can remove all assets from
 > this contract by announcement".
 >
 > --
 > From V.J. Rada



 --
 From V.J. Rada

>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Impeachment

[Ned Strange]

Too late, but this proposal should also have excised the last
paragraph of "Referee Accountability"

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> I pend this proposal by expending a paper.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:44 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>> I submit the following proposal.
>>
>> -Aris
>> ---
>> Title: Impeachment
>> Adoption index: 2.0
>> Author: Aris
>> Co-authors:
>>
>> Enact a new power 2.0 rule, entitled "Impeachment", with the following text:
>>
>>   A player CAN be expelled (impeached) from a specified elected office which
>>   e holds with 2 Agoran Consent. When a person is impeached from an office,
>>   an election is immediately opened for that office. Players SHOULD NOT use
>>   this method of removal unless the officer has abused the powers of eir
>>   office or otherwise shown emself unworthy the trust of Agora.



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment

[Aris Merchant]

Nothing involving giving a-d messages effect is legitimate (TBH, not sure
whether that would work either).

-Aris

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:20 AM Ned Strange 
wrote:

> It wasn't really a scam it was going to be used for a perfectly
> legitimate application of zombiception!
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:13 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> > Sigh. I tend to agree with you, actually. All of your assets is a bit
> much.
> > That might be hard to recover from. However, it isn't terribly equitable
> > for you to get off free after attempting a scam, even one that we've sort
> > of encouraged with the Boo Lien system. Also, giving all of your assets
> to
> > one contract is always a horrible idea. I'm curious what other think.
> Maybe
> > you should get 1/2 or 3/4 or something of them back? Whatever it is, we'd
> > need to come up with something that no one would object to, considering
> > that the contract can only be amended without objection (also always a
> bad
> > idea not to provide a way to amend a contract).
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:09 AM Ned Strange 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I really do think that me losing all of my assets over this is
> inequitable.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Ned Strange 
> >> wrote:
> >> > That is, I object for myself and PSS to Aris's intent
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ned Strange <
> edwardostra...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> I object both for myself and PSS.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Aris Merchant
> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >>> Well, I object. There is no reason we should allow you to reclaim
> your
> >> >>> assets from a badly designed scam contract. I intend, with 2 Agoran
> >> >>> consent, to destroy the contract "Hi".
> >> >>>
> >> >>> -Aris
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:13 PM Ned Strange <
> edwardostra...@gmail.com>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >>  I object and intend to amend "Hi!" without objection to have the
> new
> >>  text "VJ Rada can transfer all assets in this contract to emself by
> >>  announcement".
> >> 
> >>  On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Ned Strange <
> >> edwardostra...@gmail.com>
> >>  wrote:
> >>  > I intend to amend the contract called "Hi", without objection.
> The
> >> new
> >>  > text of that contract would state "VJ Rada can remove all assets
> >> from
> >>  > this contract by announcement".
> >>  >
> >>  > --
> >>  > From V.J. Rada
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>  --
> >>  From V.J. Rada
> >> 
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> From V.J. Rada
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > From V.J. Rada
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> From V.J. Rada
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment

[Ned Strange]

It wasn't really a scam it was going to be used for a perfectly
legitimate application of zombiception!

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:13 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> Sigh. I tend to agree with you, actually. All of your assets is a bit much.
> That might be hard to recover from. However, it isn't terribly equitable
> for you to get off free after attempting a scam, even one that we've sort
> of encouraged with the Boo Lien system. Also, giving all of your assets to
> one contract is always a horrible idea. I'm curious what other think. Maybe
> you should get 1/2 or 3/4 or something of them back? Whatever it is, we'd
> need to come up with something that no one would object to, considering
> that the contract can only be amended without objection (also always a bad
> idea not to provide a way to amend a contract).
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:09 AM Ned Strange 
> wrote:
>
>> I really do think that me losing all of my assets over this is inequitable.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Ned Strange 
>> wrote:
>> > That is, I object for myself and PSS to Aris's intent
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ned Strange 
>> wrote:
>> >> I object both for myself and PSS.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Aris Merchant
>> >>  wrote:
>> >>> Well, I object. There is no reason we should allow you to reclaim your
>> >>> assets from a badly designed scam contract. I intend, with 2 Agoran
>> >>> consent, to destroy the contract "Hi".
>> >>>
>> >>> -Aris
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:13 PM Ned Strange 
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>>  I object and intend to amend "Hi!" without objection to have the new
>>  text "VJ Rada can transfer all assets in this contract to emself by
>>  announcement".
>> 
>>  On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Ned Strange <
>> edwardostra...@gmail.com>
>>  wrote:
>>  > I intend to amend the contract called "Hi", without objection. The
>> new
>>  > text of that contract would state "VJ Rada can remove all assets
>> from
>>  > this contract by announcement".
>>  >
>>  > --
>>  > From V.J. Rada
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  --
>>  From V.J. Rada
>> 
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> From V.J. Rada
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > From V.J. Rada
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment

[Aris Merchant]

Sigh. I tend to agree with you, actually. All of your assets is a bit much.
That might be hard to recover from. However, it isn't terribly equitable
for you to get off free after attempting a scam, even one that we've sort
of encouraged with the Boo Lien system. Also, giving all of your assets to
one contract is always a horrible idea. I'm curious what other think. Maybe
you should get 1/2 or 3/4 or something of them back? Whatever it is, we'd
need to come up with something that no one would object to, considering
that the contract can only be amended without objection (also always a bad
idea not to provide a way to amend a contract).

-Aris

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:09 AM Ned Strange 
wrote:

> I really do think that me losing all of my assets over this is inequitable.
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Ned Strange 
> wrote:
> > That is, I object for myself and PSS to Aris's intent
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ned Strange 
> wrote:
> >> I object both for myself and PSS.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Aris Merchant
> >>  wrote:
> >>> Well, I object. There is no reason we should allow you to reclaim your
> >>> assets from a badly designed scam contract. I intend, with 2 Agoran
> >>> consent, to destroy the contract "Hi".
> >>>
> >>> -Aris
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:13 PM Ned Strange 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  I object and intend to amend "Hi!" without objection to have the new
>  text "VJ Rada can transfer all assets in this contract to emself by
>  announcement".
> 
>  On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Ned Strange <
> edwardostra...@gmail.com>
>  wrote:
>  > I intend to amend the contract called "Hi", without objection. The
> new
>  > text of that contract would state "VJ Rada can remove all assets
> from
>  > this contract by announcement".
>  >
>  > --
>  > From V.J. Rada
> 
> 
> 
>  --
>  From V.J. Rada
> 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> From V.J. Rada
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > From V.J. Rada
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment

[Ned Strange]

It's simple to win using zombiception. Step 1 get a zombie. Step 2
don't post for 60 days. Step 3 on behalf of your zombie, bid high on
yourself, without flipping your own master switch.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> Nothing involving giving a-d messages effect is legitimate (TBH, not sure
> whether that would work either).
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:20 AM Ned Strange 
> wrote:
>
>> It wasn't really a scam it was going to be used for a perfectly
>> legitimate application of zombiception!
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:13 PM, Aris Merchant
>>  wrote:
>> > Sigh. I tend to agree with you, actually. All of your assets is a bit
>> much.
>> > That might be hard to recover from. However, it isn't terribly equitable
>> > for you to get off free after attempting a scam, even one that we've sort
>> > of encouraged with the Boo Lien system. Also, giving all of your assets
>> to
>> > one contract is always a horrible idea. I'm curious what other think.
>> Maybe
>> > you should get 1/2 or 3/4 or something of them back? Whatever it is, we'd
>> > need to come up with something that no one would object to, considering
>> > that the contract can only be amended without objection (also always a
>> bad
>> > idea not to provide a way to amend a contract).
>> >
>> > -Aris
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:09 AM Ned Strange 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> I really do think that me losing all of my assets over this is
>> inequitable.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Ned Strange 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > That is, I object for myself and PSS to Aris's intent
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ned Strange <
>> edwardostra...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> I object both for myself and PSS.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Aris Merchant
>> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >>> Well, I object. There is no reason we should allow you to reclaim
>> your
>> >> >>> assets from a badly designed scam contract. I intend, with 2 Agoran
>> >> >>> consent, to destroy the contract "Hi".
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> -Aris
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:13 PM Ned Strange <
>> edwardostra...@gmail.com>
>> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >>  I object and intend to amend "Hi!" without objection to have the
>> new
>> >>  text "VJ Rada can transfer all assets in this contract to emself by
>> >>  announcement".
>> >> 
>> >>  On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Ned Strange <
>> >> edwardostra...@gmail.com>
>> >>  wrote:
>> >>  > I intend to amend the contract called "Hi", without objection.
>> The
>> >> new
>> >>  > text of that contract would state "VJ Rada can remove all assets
>> >> from
>> >>  > this contract by announcement".
>> >>  >
>> >>  > --
>> >>  > From V.J. Rada
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >>  --
>> >>  From V.J. Rada
>> >> 
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> From V.J. Rada
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > From V.J. Rada
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> From V.J. Rada
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment

[Corona]

What about amending it in such a way that everyone gets a coin and VJ Rada
gets the rest back? I wouldn't object to that.


On Thursday, April 12, 2018, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sigh. I tend to agree with you, actually. All of your assets is a bit much.
> That might be hard to recover from. However, it isn't terribly equitable
> for you to get off free after attempting a scam, even one that we've sort
> of encouraged with the Boo Lien system. Also, giving all of your assets to
> one contract is always a horrible idea. I'm curious what other think. Maybe
> you should get 1/2 or 3/4 or something of them back? Whatever it is, we'd
> need to come up with something that no one would object to, considering
> that the contract can only be amended without objection (also always a bad
> idea not to provide a way to amend a contract).
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:09 AM Ned Strange 
> wrote:
>
> > I really do think that me losing all of my assets over this is
> inequitable.
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Ned Strange 
> > wrote:
> > > That is, I object for myself and PSS to Aris's intent
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ned Strange  >
> > wrote:
> > >> I object both for myself and PSS.
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Aris Merchant
> > >>  wrote:
> > >>> Well, I object. There is no reason we should allow you to reclaim
> your
> > >>> assets from a badly designed scam contract. I intend, with 2 Agoran
> > >>> consent, to destroy the contract "Hi".
> > >>>
> > >>> -Aris
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:13 PM Ned Strange <
> edwardostra...@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> >  I object and intend to amend "Hi!" without objection to have the new
> >  text "VJ Rada can transfer all assets in this contract to emself by
> >  announcement".
> > 
> >  On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Ned Strange <
> > edwardostra...@gmail.com>
> >  wrote:
> >  > I intend to amend the contract called "Hi", without objection. The
> > new
> >  > text of that contract would state "VJ Rada can remove all assets
> > from
> >  > this contract by announcement".
> >  >
> >  > --
> >  > From V.J. Rada
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  --
> >  From V.J. Rada
> > 
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> From V.J. Rada
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > From V.J. Rada
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > From V.J. Rada
> >
>


-- 

~Corona

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment

[Kerim Aydin]

I'll pay to pend it if you submit it.

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> I couldn't myself write such a proposal, being without assets.
> 
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:31 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> > I think e should get it all back.  It was harmless.
> >
> > If there isn't enough consensus for a w/o objection modification,
> > maybe a proposal (power 2.1 does it right?).
> >
> > I object to Aris's intent.
> >
> > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
> >> What about amending it in such a way that everyone gets a coin and VJ Rada
> >> gets the rest back? I wouldn't object to that.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thursday, April 12, 2018, Aris Merchant <
> >> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Sigh. I tend to agree with you, actually. All of your assets is a bit 
> >> > much.
> >> > That might be hard to recover from. However, it isn't terribly equitable
> >> > for you to get off free after attempting a scam, even one that we've sort
> >> > of encouraged with the Boo Lien system. Also, giving all of your assets 
> >> > to
> >> > one contract is always a horrible idea. I'm curious what other think. 
> >> > Maybe
> >> > you should get 1/2 or 3/4 or something of them back? Whatever it is, we'd
> >> > need to come up with something that no one would object to, considering
> >> > that the contract can only be amended without objection (also always a 
> >> > bad
> >> > idea not to provide a way to amend a contract).
> >> >
> >> > -Aris
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:09 AM Ned Strange 
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I really do think that me losing all of my assets over this is
> >> > inequitable.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Ned Strange 
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > That is, I object for myself and PSS to Aris's intent
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ned Strange 
> >> > > >  >> > >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >> I object both for myself and PSS.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Aris Merchant
> >> > > >>  wrote:
> >> > > >>> Well, I object. There is no reason we should allow you to reclaim
> >> > your
> >> > > >>> assets from a badly designed scam contract. I intend, with 2 Agoran
> >> > > >>> consent, to destroy the contract "Hi".
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> -Aris
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:13 PM Ned Strange <
> >> > edwardostra...@gmail.com>
> >> > > >>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>
> >> > >  I object and intend to amend "Hi!" without objection to have the 
> >> > >  new
> >> > >  text "VJ Rada can transfer all assets in this contract to emself 
> >> > >  by
> >> > >  announcement".
> >> > > 
> >> > >  On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Ned Strange <
> >> > > edwardostra...@gmail.com>
> >> > >  wrote:
> >> > >  > I intend to amend the contract called "Hi", without objection. 
> >> > >  > The
> >> > > new
> >> > >  > text of that contract would state "VJ Rada can remove all assets
> >> > > from
> >> > >  > this contract by announcement".
> >> > >  >
> >> > >  > --
> >> > >  > From V.J. Rada
> >> > > 
> >> > > 
> >> > > 
> >> > >  --
> >> > >  From V.J. Rada
> >> > > 
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> --
> >> > > >> From V.J. Rada
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > From V.J. Rada
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > From V.J. Rada
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment

[Ned Strange]

I couldn't myself write such a proposal, being without assets.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:31 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> I think e should get it all back.  It was harmless.
>
> If there isn't enough consensus for a w/o objection modification,
> maybe a proposal (power 2.1 does it right?).
>
> I object to Aris's intent.
>
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
>> What about amending it in such a way that everyone gets a coin and VJ Rada
>> gets the rest back? I wouldn't object to that.
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, April 12, 2018, Aris Merchant <
>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Sigh. I tend to agree with you, actually. All of your assets is a bit much.
>> > That might be hard to recover from. However, it isn't terribly equitable
>> > for you to get off free after attempting a scam, even one that we've sort
>> > of encouraged with the Boo Lien system. Also, giving all of your assets to
>> > one contract is always a horrible idea. I'm curious what other think. Maybe
>> > you should get 1/2 or 3/4 or something of them back? Whatever it is, we'd
>> > need to come up with something that no one would object to, considering
>> > that the contract can only be amended without objection (also always a bad
>> > idea not to provide a way to amend a contract).
>> >
>> > -Aris
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:09 AM Ned Strange 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > I really do think that me losing all of my assets over this is
>> > inequitable.
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Ned Strange 
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > That is, I object for myself and PSS to Aris's intent
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ned Strange > > >
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >> I object both for myself and PSS.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Aris Merchant
>> > > >>  wrote:
>> > > >>> Well, I object. There is no reason we should allow you to reclaim
>> > your
>> > > >>> assets from a badly designed scam contract. I intend, with 2 Agoran
>> > > >>> consent, to destroy the contract "Hi".
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> -Aris
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:13 PM Ned Strange <
>> > edwardostra...@gmail.com>
>> > > >>> wrote:
>> > > >>>
>> > >  I object and intend to amend "Hi!" without objection to have the new
>> > >  text "VJ Rada can transfer all assets in this contract to emself by
>> > >  announcement".
>> > > 
>> > >  On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Ned Strange <
>> > > edwardostra...@gmail.com>
>> > >  wrote:
>> > >  > I intend to amend the contract called "Hi", without objection. The
>> > > new
>> > >  > text of that contract would state "VJ Rada can remove all assets
>> > > from
>> > >  > this contract by announcement".
>> > >  >
>> > >  > --
>> > >  > From V.J. Rada
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > >  --
>> > >  From V.J. Rada
>> > > 
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --
>> > > >> From V.J. Rada
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > From V.J. Rada
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > From V.J. Rada
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] The Map of Arcadia -- April 11, 2018

[Kerim Aydin]

On the flip side, we need a currency to remove Blots.  I'm hesitant to
make it fabric because I think it should be a "basic" (unrefined, provided
by payday).  I might be convinced otherwise though.

On your longer post, I agree - I don't think we're too far off balance and
can get there with minor tweaks after we see how this plays out for a month
or two.  I think the first minor tweak I'd try (if the imbalance grows) has
already been suggested - upkeep costs for zombies similar to land upkeep.


On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Currently, fabric is only used in some upper-level rank-up payments. I think
> it is the least useful of the nine economic assets right now. If someone
> wanted to help with that, I would appreciate it lots.
> 
> On 4/11/2018 9:33 PM, Ned Strange wrote:
> > I do have a question. What does fabric do?
> > 
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Reuben Staley 
> > wrote:
> > > After thinking this whole thing through, I'm not sure that it's actually a
> > > problem if people with zombies have tons of money. It's completely
> > > possible
> > > to amass a fortune by living off of public land, so little guys can still
> > > get money that they can spend on zombies and/or land eventually. The
> > > monthly
> > > salary ensures that less affluent players have a constant source of income
> > > that they can use to survive.
> > > 
> > > Included in the salary is 10 coins, 5 apples, and 2 papers. I will now
> > > explain how this allows one to sustainably live.
> > > 
> > > Having some coins ensures that a player can, with enough time, gain wealth
> > > by using careful spending. If you don't purchase anything for two months
> > > and
> > > are just living off of the base salary, you have 20 coins. That's more
> > > than
> > > enough to buy land unit, as demonstrated by the previous land unit
> > > auction,
> > > where the highest selling unit was worth 16 coins. And as long as you take
> > > some public action during that time, you are safe from the legal theft of
> > > zombiehood. Additionally, with time, some land units will become more
> > > valuable to control, leaving others neglected. Going for neglected land
> > > units will make it so that you won't have to pay nearly as much to get
> > > yourself started.
> > > 
> > > Having some apples ensures that you can move around the map. Assuming you
> > > stay around the origin, you can do a few rounds of nabbing stuffs to get
> > > even more resources. Inconveniently, more coins are out of your reach, but
> > > that's intentional since I wanted you to have to work for a little while
> > > before you can basically print money. But, as demonstrated in the past few
> > > weeks, you can get more apples and more corn from the preserved farm and
> > > orchard, making it completely possible to stay living in the center of the
> > > map for a while.
> > > 
> > > Proposals are the most powerful thing in the game, and under the current
> > > rules, you're guaranteed to be able to submit some every month because you
> > > get two papers every month. Perhaps there can be a coin reward for a
> > > proposal passing. I think we had that under the proportional economy
> > > rules.
> > > If we institute this change, then it provides incentive to create good
> > > proposals. I think it would give these less affluent players more
> > > opportunity as well, which is a good thing.
> > > 
> > > But that's not even all of it. As we all know, officers are given 5 coins
> > > and 1 corn at the beginning of the month for faithful service. Less
> > > affluent
> > > players can get a low-effort office that no one is currently occupying,
> > > which allows them to receive extra income. But, as I've made clear before,
> > > I'm dissatisfied with the way officers are paid, since some offices
> > > clearly
> > > require more recordkeeping than others. See this message[1] for my
> > > previously published ideas on how to fix it.
> > > 
> > > In conclusion, I think it's clear now that less affluent people actually
> > > have way more opportunities than lots of people here estimate. Even still,
> > > I
> > > think some reforms are in order to improve the state of the economy,
> > > namely
> > > the officer fix and reinstitution of proposal rewards.
> > > 
> > > It is because of all this that I don't think redistribution to poor
> > > players
> > > is the reform we need.
> > > 
> > > [1]
> > > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg42699.html
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 4/11/2018 5:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think Corona was talking about the thing where Agora would get all
> > > > > the
> > > > > money that people spent and distribute it tbuno the poorest players.
> > > > > That
> > > > > was
> > > > > under the proportional economy where only 1000 shinies could exist.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think if we were to 

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2

[Reuben Staley]

I'd say that these data are less relevant than the coordinates of the land
units, so it would not invalidate it. But that may just be me but wanting
to do work to fix it.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:24 Corona  wrote:

> ​Wait, I just looked it up (in your own report) and:​
>
> AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) <-- actually black
> AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3)
> AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2,  0) <-- actually black
> AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) <-- actually white
> AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2)​
>
> ​Gasp! It cannot be! Is it a... SCAM?!?!​
>
> More seriously, does it make the auction initiation invalid?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Reuben Staley 
> wrote:
>
> > This is the second real land auction.
> >
> > There are currently 5 public, unpreserved, non-aether land units in
> > existence. All 5 are put up for auction.
> >
> > For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the
> auctioneer,
> > and the minimum bid is 1 coin:
> >
> > AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2)
> > AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3)
> > AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2,  0)
> > AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1)
> > AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2)
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> ~Corona
>

DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2

[Corona]

​Wait, I just looked it up (in your own report) and:​

AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) <-- actually black
AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3)
AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2,  0) <-- actually black
AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) <-- actually white
AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2)​

​Gasp! It cannot be! Is it a... SCAM?!?!​

More seriously, does it make the auction initiation invalid?



On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Reuben Staley 
wrote:

> This is the second real land auction.
>
> There are currently 5 public, unpreserved, non-aether land units in
> existence. All 5 are put up for auction.
>
> For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the auctioneer,
> and the minimum bid is 1 coin:
>
> AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2)
> AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3)
> AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2,  0)
> AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1)
> AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2)
>



-- 

~Corona

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment

[Kerim Aydin]

Compromise:  proposal offers a minor bribe of N of the contract's assets to 
the first N voters FOR the proposal - ends up being a partway penalty.

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
> Well, you're right, the contract was harmless, and losing all the assets
> would be crippling, but on the other hand it was by VJ Rada's own mistake
> that e lost the assets, and loss of assets through own oversight is
> typically not undone by proposal... I'm on the fence about it.
> 
> I withdraw my and Quazie's (acting on eir behalf) support for the
> destruction of "Hi" - let's just have the vote on that proposal, and
> possibly destroy the contract later, if the proposal fails.
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > I think e should get it all back.  It was harmless.
> >
> > If there isn't enough consensus for a w/o objection modification,
> > maybe a proposal (power 2.1 does it right?).
> >
> > I object to Aris's intent.
> >
> > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
> > > What about amending it in such a way that everyone gets a coin and VJ
> > Rada
> > > gets the rest back? I wouldn't object to that.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thursday, April 12, 2018, Aris Merchant <
> > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sigh. I tend to agree with you, actually. All of your assets is a bit
> > much.
> > > > That might be hard to recover from. However, it isn't terribly
> > equitable
> > > > for you to get off free after attempting a scam, even one that we've
> > sort
> > > > of encouraged with the Boo Lien system. Also, giving all of your
> > assets to
> > > > one contract is always a horrible idea. I'm curious what other think.
> > Maybe
> > > > you should get 1/2 or 3/4 or something of them back? Whatever it is,
> > we'd
> > > > need to come up with something that no one would object to, considering
> > > > that the contract can only be amended without objection (also always a
> > bad
> > > > idea not to provide a way to amend a contract).
> > > >
> > > > -Aris
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:09 AM Ned Strange  > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I really do think that me losing all of my assets over this is
> > > > inequitable.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Ned Strange <
> > edwardostra...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > That is, I object for myself and PSS to Aris's intent
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ned Strange <
> > edwardostra...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> I object both for myself and PSS.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Aris Merchant
> > > > > >>  wrote:
> > > > > >>> Well, I object. There is no reason we should allow you to reclaim
> > > > your
> > > > > >>> assets from a badly designed scam contract. I intend, with 2
> > Agoran
> > > > > >>> consent, to destroy the contract "Hi".
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> -Aris
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:13 PM Ned Strange <
> > > > edwardostra...@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >  I object and intend to amend "Hi!" without objection to have
> > the new
> > > > >  text "VJ Rada can transfer all assets in this contract to
> > emself by
> > > > >  announcement".
> > > > > 
> > > > >  On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Ned Strange <
> > > > > edwardostra...@gmail.com>
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > >  > I intend to amend the contract called "Hi", without
> > objection. The
> > > > > new
> > > > >  > text of that contract would state "VJ Rada can remove all
> > assets
> > > > > from
> > > > >  > this contract by announcement".
> > > > >  >
> > > > >  > --
> > > > >  > From V.J. Rada
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >  --
> > > > >  From V.J. Rada
> > > > > 
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> From V.J. Rada
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > From V.J. Rada
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > From V.J. Rada
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> ~Corona
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2

[Kerim Aydin]

My interpretation:

You describe a particular lot as a "white land unit at ".  You do not have
a "white land unit at " to transfer, so anyone can terminate the auction.
If no one terminates it, I'm not sure whether you can satisfy your obligation
to transfer by transferring a black land unit at , or not.

(oh, just out of curiosity where does it say you CAN transfer particular
land units?  That wording of that would play into what you can or cannot
satisfy).

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> I'd say that these data are less relevant than the coordinates of the land
> units, so it would not invalidate it. But that may just be me but wanting
> to do work to fix it.
> 
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:24 Corona  wrote:
> 
> > ​Wait, I just looked it up (in your own report) and:​
> >
> > AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) <-- actually black
> > AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3)
> > AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2,  0) <-- actually black
> > AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) <-- actually white
> > AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2)​
> >
> > ​Gasp! It cannot be! Is it a... SCAM?!?!​
> >
> > More seriously, does it make the auction initiation invalid?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Reuben Staley 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > This is the second real land auction.
> > >
> > > There are currently 5 public, unpreserved, non-aether land units in
> > > existence. All 5 are put up for auction.
> > >
> > > For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the
> > auctioneer,
> > > and the minimum bid is 1 coin:
> > >
> > > AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2)
> > > AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3)
> > > AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2,  0)
> > > AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1)
> > > AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > ~Corona
> >
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > I terminate the ongoing land auction
> 
> I think this intent FAILS as there are in fact 5 going on right now.

By R2004 you only CAN initiate 1 each week.  At least that's my reading of
"each Agoran week... the Cartographer CAN and SHALL initiate an auction.
For this auction ... the lots are [multiple land units]"

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2

[Reuben Staley]

I was to choose 5 land units and set them as separate lots in the same 
auction. Even if two of the auctions had valid lots, both of them fail 
to have the necessary amount of lots for the situation. Therefore, by my 
interpretation, both auctions are invalid.


On 4/12/2018 3:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:



Do you suppose you started one (the first accurate one?) or do you think the 
whole
thing failed?  Not sure myself...

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:

Because it's clear that I have not used the correct Agoran Term, I amend my
statement:

This is simply a case of Trigon writing down a thing that e didn't actually
mean and everyone else not realizing until after the passing of the proposal.
I wanted there to be five auctions, but clearly the passed text does not
reflect my intent. I, working under the assumption that the rules called for
five separate auctions, *attempted to initiate* five separate auctions.

On 4/12/2018 3:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:



You CANNOT do that.  The rule doesn't allow you to.  So you failed to
initiate five.  You said you did in the announcement, but you didn't.
Maybe you initiated one (the first accurate one, AUCTION 2), or maybe
the collection was so ambiguous it all failed.

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:

This is simply a case of Trigon writing down a thing that e didn't
actually
mean and everyone else not realizing until after the passing of the
proposal.
I wanted there to be five auctions, but clearly the passed text does not
reflect my intent. I, working under the assumption that the rules called
for
five separate auctions, initiated five separate auctions.

On 4/12/2018 2:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:



Reading R2004, it looks like it was *supposed* to be a single auction?
That's definitely not how the announcement below reads, and not how
people have been bidding, so I don't know what actually happened.
(R2004 only allows 1 auction to be started each week).

I'm also looking for anything that says the Cartographer CAN transfer
land in any circumstances, and all I'm finding is SHALLs.  (is there
a "SHALL implies CAN" somewhere?)


On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:

Oops, you're right. You know, it seems pretty likely that those ones
just never began in the first place.

-Aris

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin 
wrote:



These are independent auctions so only the incorrect ones were just
terminated I think?  (Auctions 1,3,4).

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:

I agree with G.'s interpretation. I believe that Rule 2549's
statement
that "An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is
able to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots" is
applicable, given that the announced items do not in fact exist.
Just
in case, I terminate the ongoing land auction, because some of the
lots are nonexistent and therefore "the Auctioneer of that Auction
cannot transfer any item included in a lot in that Auction" (Rule
2552).

-Aris

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Kerim Aydin

wrote:



My interpretation:

You describe a particular lot as a "white land unit at ".
You
do not have
a "white land unit at " to transfer, so anyone can terminate
the
auction.
If no one terminates it, I'm not sure whether you can satisfy
your
obligation
to transfer by transferring a black land unit at , or not.

(oh, just out of curiosity where does it say you CAN transfer
particular
land units?  That wording of that would play into what you can
or
cannot
satisfy).

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:

I'd say that these data are less relevant than the coordinates
of
the land
units, so it would not invalidate it. But that may just be me
but
wanting
to do work to fix it.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:24 Corona

wrote:


Wait, I just looked it up (in your own report) and:

AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) <--
actually black
AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3)
AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2,  0) <--
actually black
AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) <--
actually white
AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2)

Gasp! It cannot be! Is it a... SCAM?!?!

More seriously, does it make the auction initiation invalid?



On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Reuben Staley

wrote:


This is the second real land auction.

There are currently 5 public, unpreserved, non-aether land
units in
existence. All 5 are put up for auction.

For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is
the

auctioneer,

and the minimum bid is 1 coin:

AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2)
AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3)
AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2,  0)
AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1)
AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2)





--

~Corona












---
This email has been checked 

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2

[Reuben Staley]

> I terminate the ongoing land auction

I think this intent FAILS as there are in fact 5 going on right now.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 14:33 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with G.'s interpretation. I believe that Rule 2549's statement
> that "An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is
> able to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots" is
> applicable, given that the announced items do not in fact exist. Just
> in case, I terminate the ongoing land auction, because some of the
> lots are nonexistent and therefore "the Auctioneer of that Auction
> cannot transfer any item included in a lot in that Auction" (Rule
> 2552).
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > My interpretation:
> >
> > You describe a particular lot as a "white land unit at ".  You do
> not have
> > a "white land unit at " to transfer, so anyone can terminate the
> auction.
> > If no one terminates it, I'm not sure whether you can satisfy your
> obligation
> > to transfer by transferring a black land unit at , or not.
> >
> > (oh, just out of curiosity where does it say you CAN transfer particular
> > land units?  That wording of that would play into what you can or cannot
> > satisfy).
> >
> > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> >> I'd say that these data are less relevant than the coordinates of the
> land
> >> units, so it would not invalidate it. But that may just be me but
> wanting
> >> to do work to fix it.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:24 Corona  wrote:
> >>
> >> > Wait, I just looked it up (in your own report) and:
> >> >
> >> > AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) <-- actually
> black
> >> > AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3)
> >> > AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2,  0) <-- actually
> black
> >> > AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) <-- actually
> white
> >> > AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2)
> >> >
> >> > Gasp! It cannot be! Is it a... SCAM?!?!
> >> >
> >> > More seriously, does it make the auction initiation invalid?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Reuben Staley <
> reuben.sta...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > This is the second real land auction.
> >> > >
> >> > > There are currently 5 public, unpreserved, non-aether land units in
> >> > > existence. All 5 are put up for auction.
> >> > >
> >> > > For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the
> >> > auctioneer,
> >> > > and the minimum bid is 1 coin:
> >> > >
> >> > > AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2)
> >> > > AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3)
> >> > > AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2,  0)
> >> > > AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1)
> >> > > AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2)
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > ~Corona
> >> >
> >>
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2

[Reuben Staley]

Because it's clear that I have not used the correct Agoran Term, I amend 
my statement:


This is simply a case of Trigon writing down a thing that e didn't 
actually mean and everyone else not realizing until after the passing of 
the proposal. I wanted there to be five auctions, but clearly the passed 
text does not reflect my intent. I, working under the assumption that 
the rules called for five separate auctions, *attempted to initiate* 
five separate auctions.


On 4/12/2018 3:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:



You CANNOT do that.  The rule doesn't allow you to.  So you failed to
initiate five.  You said you did in the announcement, but you didn't.
Maybe you initiated one (the first accurate one, AUCTION 2), or maybe
the collection was so ambiguous it all failed.

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:

This is simply a case of Trigon writing down a thing that e didn't actually
mean and everyone else not realizing until after the passing of the proposal.
I wanted there to be five auctions, but clearly the passed text does not
reflect my intent. I, working under the assumption that the rules called for
five separate auctions, initiated five separate auctions.

On 4/12/2018 2:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:



Reading R2004, it looks like it was *supposed* to be a single auction?
That's definitely not how the announcement below reads, and not how
people have been bidding, so I don't know what actually happened.
(R2004 only allows 1 auction to be started each week).

I'm also looking for anything that says the Cartographer CAN transfer
land in any circumstances, and all I'm finding is SHALLs.  (is there
a "SHALL implies CAN" somewhere?)


On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:

Oops, you're right. You know, it seems pretty likely that those ones
just never began in the first place.

-Aris

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin 
wrote:



These are independent auctions so only the incorrect ones were just
terminated I think?  (Auctions 1,3,4).

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:

I agree with G.'s interpretation. I believe that Rule 2549's statement
that "An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is
able to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots" is
applicable, given that the announced items do not in fact exist. Just
in case, I terminate the ongoing land auction, because some of the
lots are nonexistent and therefore "the Auctioneer of that Auction
cannot transfer any item included in a lot in that Auction" (Rule
2552).

-Aris

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Kerim Aydin 
wrote:



My interpretation:

You describe a particular lot as a "white land unit at ".  You
do not have
a "white land unit at " to transfer, so anyone can terminate the
auction.
If no one terminates it, I'm not sure whether you can satisfy your
obligation
to transfer by transferring a black land unit at , or not.

(oh, just out of curiosity where does it say you CAN transfer
particular
land units?  That wording of that would play into what you can or
cannot
satisfy).

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:

I'd say that these data are less relevant than the coordinates of
the land
units, so it would not invalidate it. But that may just be me but
wanting
to do work to fix it.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:24 Corona 
wrote:


Wait, I just looked it up (in your own report) and:

AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) <--
actually black
AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3)
AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2,  0) <--
actually black
AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) <--
actually white
AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2)

Gasp! It cannot be! Is it a... SCAM?!?!

More seriously, does it make the auction initiation invalid?



On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Reuben Staley

wrote:


This is the second real land auction.

There are currently 5 public, unpreserved, non-aether land
units in
existence. All 5 are put up for auction.

For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the

auctioneer,

and the minimum bid is 1 coin:

AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2)
AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3)
AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2,  0)
AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1)
AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2)





--

~Corona












---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com



--
Trigon





--
Trigon

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2

[Aris Merchant]

Oops, you're right. You know, it seems pretty likely that those ones
just never began in the first place.

-Aris

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> These are independent auctions so only the incorrect ones were just
> terminated I think?  (Auctions 1,3,4).
>
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> I agree with G.'s interpretation. I believe that Rule 2549's statement
>> that "An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is
>> able to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots" is
>> applicable, given that the announced items do not in fact exist. Just
>> in case, I terminate the ongoing land auction, because some of the
>> lots are nonexistent and therefore "the Auctioneer of that Auction
>> cannot transfer any item included in a lot in that Auction" (Rule
>> 2552).
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > My interpretation:
>> >
>> > You describe a particular lot as a "white land unit at ".  You do not 
>> > have
>> > a "white land unit at " to transfer, so anyone can terminate the 
>> > auction.
>> > If no one terminates it, I'm not sure whether you can satisfy your 
>> > obligation
>> > to transfer by transferring a black land unit at , or not.
>> >
>> > (oh, just out of curiosity where does it say you CAN transfer particular
>> > land units?  That wording of that would play into what you can or cannot
>> > satisfy).
>> >
>> > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
>> >> I'd say that these data are less relevant than the coordinates of the land
>> >> units, so it would not invalidate it. But that may just be me but wanting
>> >> to do work to fix it.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:24 Corona  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Wait, I just looked it up (in your own report) and:
>> >> >
>> >> > AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) <-- actually black
>> >> > AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3)
>> >> > AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2,  0) <-- actually black
>> >> > AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) <-- actually white
>> >> > AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2)
>> >> >
>> >> > Gasp! It cannot be! Is it a... SCAM?!?!
>> >> >
>> >> > More seriously, does it make the auction initiation invalid?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Reuben Staley 
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > This is the second real land auction.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > There are currently 5 public, unpreserved, non-aether land units in
>> >> > > existence. All 5 are put up for auction.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the
>> >> > auctioneer,
>> >> > > and the minimum bid is 1 coin:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2)
>> >> > > AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3)
>> >> > > AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2,  0)
>> >> > > AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1)
>> >> > > AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2)
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> >
>> >> > ~Corona
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2

[Kerim Aydin]

Reading R2004, it looks like it was *supposed* to be a single auction?
That's definitely not how the announcement below reads, and not how
people have been bidding, so I don't know what actually happened. 
(R2004 only allows 1 auction to be started each week).

I'm also looking for anything that says the Cartographer CAN transfer
land in any circumstances, and all I'm finding is SHALLs.  (is there
a "SHALL implies CAN" somewhere?)


On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Oops, you're right. You know, it seems pretty likely that those ones
> just never began in the first place.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> > These are independent auctions so only the incorrect ones were just
> > terminated I think?  (Auctions 1,3,4).
> >
> > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >> I agree with G.'s interpretation. I believe that Rule 2549's statement
> >> that "An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is
> >> able to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots" is
> >> applicable, given that the announced items do not in fact exist. Just
> >> in case, I terminate the ongoing land auction, because some of the
> >> lots are nonexistent and therefore "the Auctioneer of that Auction
> >> cannot transfer any item included in a lot in that Auction" (Rule
> >> 2552).
> >>
> >> -Aris
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Kerim Aydin  
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > My interpretation:
> >> >
> >> > You describe a particular lot as a "white land unit at ".  You do 
> >> > not have
> >> > a "white land unit at " to transfer, so anyone can terminate the 
> >> > auction.
> >> > If no one terminates it, I'm not sure whether you can satisfy your 
> >> > obligation
> >> > to transfer by transferring a black land unit at , or not.
> >> >
> >> > (oh, just out of curiosity where does it say you CAN transfer particular
> >> > land units?  That wording of that would play into what you can or cannot
> >> > satisfy).
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> >> >> I'd say that these data are less relevant than the coordinates of the 
> >> >> land
> >> >> units, so it would not invalidate it. But that may just be me but 
> >> >> wanting
> >> >> to do work to fix it.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:24 Corona  wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Wait, I just looked it up (in your own report) and:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) <-- actually 
> >> >> > black
> >> >> > AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3)
> >> >> > AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2,  0) <-- actually 
> >> >> > black
> >> >> > AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) <-- actually 
> >> >> > white
> >> >> > AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Gasp! It cannot be! Is it a... SCAM?!?!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > More seriously, does it make the auction initiation invalid?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Reuben Staley 
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > This is the second real land auction.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > There are currently 5 public, unpreserved, non-aether land units in
> >> >> > > existence. All 5 are put up for auction.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the
> >> >> > auctioneer,
> >> >> > > and the minimum bid is 1 coin:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2)
> >> >> > > AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3)
> >> >> > > AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2,  0)
> >> >> > > AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1)
> >> >> > > AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2)
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ~Corona
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> >
>

DIS: No Treasuror

[Aris Merchant]

As far as I can tell, the office of Treasuror is currently undefined.
It was formerly defined by Rule 2483, but that was amended by PAoaM to
mention the office without defining it.

-Aris

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2

[Kerim Aydin]

You CANNOT do that.  The rule doesn't allow you to.  So you failed to
initiate five.  You said you did in the announcement, but you didn't. 
Maybe you initiated one (the first accurate one, AUCTION 2), or maybe
the collection was so ambiguous it all failed.

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> This is simply a case of Trigon writing down a thing that e didn't actually
> mean and everyone else not realizing until after the passing of the proposal.
> I wanted there to be five auctions, but clearly the passed text does not
> reflect my intent. I, working under the assumption that the rules called for
> five separate auctions, initiated five separate auctions.
> 
> On 4/12/2018 2:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Reading R2004, it looks like it was *supposed* to be a single auction?
> > That's definitely not how the announcement below reads, and not how
> > people have been bidding, so I don't know what actually happened.
> > (R2004 only allows 1 auction to be started each week).
> > 
> > I'm also looking for anything that says the Cartographer CAN transfer
> > land in any circumstances, and all I'm finding is SHALLs.  (is there
> > a "SHALL implies CAN" somewhere?)
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > Oops, you're right. You know, it seems pretty likely that those ones
> > > just never began in the first place.
> > > 
> > > -Aris
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > These are independent auctions so only the incorrect ones were just
> > > > terminated I think?  (Auctions 1,3,4).
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > > > I agree with G.'s interpretation. I believe that Rule 2549's statement
> > > > > that "An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is
> > > > > able to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots" is
> > > > > applicable, given that the announced items do not in fact exist. Just
> > > > > in case, I terminate the ongoing land auction, because some of the
> > > > > lots are nonexistent and therefore "the Auctioneer of that Auction
> > > > > cannot transfer any item included in a lot in that Auction" (Rule
> > > > > 2552).
> > > > > 
> > > > > -Aris
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > My interpretation:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You describe a particular lot as a "white land unit at ".  You
> > > > > > do not have
> > > > > > a "white land unit at " to transfer, so anyone can terminate the
> > > > > > auction.
> > > > > > If no one terminates it, I'm not sure whether you can satisfy your
> > > > > > obligation
> > > > > > to transfer by transferring a black land unit at , or not.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > (oh, just out of curiosity where does it say you CAN transfer
> > > > > > particular
> > > > > > land units?  That wording of that would play into what you can or
> > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > satisfy).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > > > > > > I'd say that these data are less relevant than the coordinates of
> > > > > > > the land
> > > > > > > units, so it would not invalidate it. But that may just be me but
> > > > > > > wanting
> > > > > > > to do work to fix it.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:24 Corona 
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Wait, I just looked it up (in your own report) and:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) <--
> > > > > > > > actually black
> > > > > > > > AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3)
> > > > > > > > AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2,  0) <--
> > > > > > > > actually black
> > > > > > > > AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) <--
> > > > > > > > actually white
> > > > > > > > AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2)
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Gasp! It cannot be! Is it a... SCAM?!?!
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > More seriously, does it make the auction initiation invalid?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Reuben Staley
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > This is the second real land auction.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > There are currently 5 public, unpreserved, non-aether land
> > > > > > > > > units in
> > > > > > > > > existence. All 5 are put up for auction.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the
> > > > > > > > auctioneer,
> > > > > > > > > and the minimum bid is 1 coin:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2)
> > > > > > > > > AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3)
> > > > > > > > > 

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2

[Kerim Aydin]

Do you suppose you started one (the first accurate one?) or do you think the 
whole
thing failed?  Not sure myself...

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Because it's clear that I have not used the correct Agoran Term, I amend my
> statement:
> 
> This is simply a case of Trigon writing down a thing that e didn't actually
> mean and everyone else not realizing until after the passing of the proposal.
> I wanted there to be five auctions, but clearly the passed text does not
> reflect my intent. I, working under the assumption that the rules called for
> five separate auctions, *attempted to initiate* five separate auctions.
> 
> On 4/12/2018 3:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > You CANNOT do that.  The rule doesn't allow you to.  So you failed to
> > initiate five.  You said you did in the announcement, but you didn't.
> > Maybe you initiated one (the first accurate one, AUCTION 2), or maybe
> > the collection was so ambiguous it all failed.
> > 
> > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > > This is simply a case of Trigon writing down a thing that e didn't
> > > actually
> > > mean and everyone else not realizing until after the passing of the
> > > proposal.
> > > I wanted there to be five auctions, but clearly the passed text does not
> > > reflect my intent. I, working under the assumption that the rules called
> > > for
> > > five separate auctions, initiated five separate auctions.
> > > 
> > > On 4/12/2018 2:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Reading R2004, it looks like it was *supposed* to be a single auction?
> > > > That's definitely not how the announcement below reads, and not how
> > > > people have been bidding, so I don't know what actually happened.
> > > > (R2004 only allows 1 auction to be started each week).
> > > > 
> > > > I'm also looking for anything that says the Cartographer CAN transfer
> > > > land in any circumstances, and all I'm finding is SHALLs.  (is there
> > > > a "SHALL implies CAN" somewhere?)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > > > Oops, you're right. You know, it seems pretty likely that those ones
> > > > > just never began in the first place.
> > > > > 
> > > > > -Aris
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > These are independent auctions so only the incorrect ones were just
> > > > > > terminated I think?  (Auctions 1,3,4).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > > > > > I agree with G.'s interpretation. I believe that Rule 2549's
> > > > > > > statement
> > > > > > > that "An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is
> > > > > > > able to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots" is
> > > > > > > applicable, given that the announced items do not in fact exist.
> > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > in case, I terminate the ongoing land auction, because some of the
> > > > > > > lots are nonexistent and therefore "the Auctioneer of that Auction
> > > > > > > cannot transfer any item included in a lot in that Auction" (Rule
> > > > > > > 2552).
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > -Aris
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Kerim Aydin
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > My interpretation:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > You describe a particular lot as a "white land unit at ".
> > > > > > > > You
> > > > > > > > do not have
> > > > > > > > a "white land unit at " to transfer, so anyone can terminate
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > auction.
> > > > > > > > If no one terminates it, I'm not sure whether you can satisfy
> > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > obligation
> > > > > > > > to transfer by transferring a black land unit at , or not.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > (oh, just out of curiosity where does it say you CAN transfer
> > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > land units?  That wording of that would play into what you can
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > > satisfy).
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I'd say that these data are less relevant than the coordinates
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the land
> > > > > > > > > units, so it would not invalidate it. But that may just be me
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > wanting
> > > > > > > > > to do work to fix it.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:24 Corona
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Wait, I just looked it up (in your own report) and:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) <--
> > > > > > > > > > actually black
> > > > > > > > > > AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3)
> > > > > > > > > > AUCTION 

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2

[Kerim Aydin]

These are independent auctions so only the incorrect ones were just
terminated I think?  (Auctions 1,3,4).

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I agree with G.'s interpretation. I believe that Rule 2549's statement
> that "An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is
> able to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots" is
> applicable, given that the announced items do not in fact exist. Just
> in case, I terminate the ongoing land auction, because some of the
> lots are nonexistent and therefore "the Auctioneer of that Auction
> cannot transfer any item included in a lot in that Auction" (Rule
> 2552).
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> > My interpretation:
> >
> > You describe a particular lot as a "white land unit at ".  You do not 
> > have
> > a "white land unit at " to transfer, so anyone can terminate the 
> > auction.
> > If no one terminates it, I'm not sure whether you can satisfy your 
> > obligation
> > to transfer by transferring a black land unit at , or not.
> >
> > (oh, just out of curiosity where does it say you CAN transfer particular
> > land units?  That wording of that would play into what you can or cannot
> > satisfy).
> >
> > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> >> I'd say that these data are less relevant than the coordinates of the land
> >> units, so it would not invalidate it. But that may just be me but wanting
> >> to do work to fix it.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:24 Corona  wrote:
> >>
> >> > Wait, I just looked it up (in your own report) and:
> >> >
> >> > AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) <-- actually black
> >> > AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3)
> >> > AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2,  0) <-- actually black
> >> > AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) <-- actually white
> >> > AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2)
> >> >
> >> > Gasp! It cannot be! Is it a... SCAM?!?!
> >> >
> >> > More seriously, does it make the auction initiation invalid?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Reuben Staley 
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > This is the second real land auction.
> >> > >
> >> > > There are currently 5 public, unpreserved, non-aether land units in
> >> > > existence. All 5 are put up for auction.
> >> > >
> >> > > For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the
> >> > auctioneer,
> >> > > and the minimum bid is 1 coin:
> >> > >
> >> > > AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2)
> >> > > AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3)
> >> > > AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2,  0)
> >> > > AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1)
> >> > > AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2)
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > ~Corona
> >> >
> >>
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2

[Reuben Staley]

This is simply a case of Trigon writing down a thing that e didn't 
actually mean and everyone else not realizing until after the passing of 
the proposal. I wanted there to be five auctions, but clearly the passed 
text does not reflect my intent. I, working under the assumption that 
the rules called for five separate auctions, initiated five separate 
auctions.


On 4/12/2018 2:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:



Reading R2004, it looks like it was *supposed* to be a single auction?
That's definitely not how the announcement below reads, and not how
people have been bidding, so I don't know what actually happened.
(R2004 only allows 1 auction to be started each week).

I'm also looking for anything that says the Cartographer CAN transfer
land in any circumstances, and all I'm finding is SHALLs.  (is there
a "SHALL implies CAN" somewhere?)


On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:

Oops, you're right. You know, it seems pretty likely that those ones
just never began in the first place.

-Aris

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:



These are independent auctions so only the incorrect ones were just
terminated I think?  (Auctions 1,3,4).

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:

I agree with G.'s interpretation. I believe that Rule 2549's statement
that "An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is
able to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots" is
applicable, given that the announced items do not in fact exist. Just
in case, I terminate the ongoing land auction, because some of the
lots are nonexistent and therefore "the Auctioneer of that Auction
cannot transfer any item included in a lot in that Auction" (Rule
2552).

-Aris

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:



My interpretation:

You describe a particular lot as a "white land unit at ".  You do not have
a "white land unit at " to transfer, so anyone can terminate the auction.
If no one terminates it, I'm not sure whether you can satisfy your obligation
to transfer by transferring a black land unit at , or not.

(oh, just out of curiosity where does it say you CAN transfer particular
land units?  That wording of that would play into what you can or cannot
satisfy).

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:

I'd say that these data are less relevant than the coordinates of the land
units, so it would not invalidate it. But that may just be me but wanting
to do work to fix it.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:24 Corona  wrote:


Wait, I just looked it up (in your own report) and:

AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) <-- actually black
AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3)
AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2,  0) <-- actually black
AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) <-- actually white
AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2)

Gasp! It cannot be! Is it a... SCAM?!?!

More seriously, does it make the auction initiation invalid?



On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Reuben Staley 
wrote:


This is the second real land auction.

There are currently 5 public, unpreserved, non-aether land units in
existence. All 5 are put up for auction.

For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the

auctioneer,

and the minimum bid is 1 coin:

AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2)
AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3)
AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2,  0)
AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1)
AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2)





--

~Corona












---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com



--
Trigon

Re: DIS: Proto: Crystals

[Aris Merchant]

That wasn't really what I meant. Winning is it's own incentive, along with
Champion and maybe the chance of getting Speaker. This is more like an
extra reward. It's just a small bonus that acknowledges the victory.

The basic idea for the new system is driven by things I've noticed in video
games. Crystals are essentially a premium currency. They provide a path
through the annoyance and limitations ordinarily associated with gameplay.
My next version will allow a player to expend one to teleport, for
instance. Unlike land and the economic currencies, which are essential,
these are optional and correspondingly more limited. My hope is that the
limited supply will drive prices to ridiculous levels, which should
hopefully provide an outlet for wealth. The award for new players is
designed to give them some starting capital, which they can either save or
trade away.

-Aris



On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:13 PM, ATMunn  wrote:
> So winning the game is not as valuable as winning an auction?
>
>
> On 4/12/2018 8:46 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>
>> Title: Crystals
>> Adoption index: 2.0
>> Author: Aris
>> Co-author(s):
>>
>>
>> [I'm changing it so that players CAN upgrade facilities they don't own,
>> let me know if that's a problem.]
>>
>> Amend Rule 2562, Facility Ranks, to read as follows:
>>
>>Rank is a secured facility switch tracked by the Cartographor
>> defaulting
>>to 1, with possible values of all positive integers.
>>
>>A player CAN increase the rank of a facility that is at eir location
by
>>exactly 1 by announcement by paying any upgrade costs of the facility
>> for
>>that specific rank, provided that e has not already done so twice for
>> that
>>facility in the same Agoran week. A player CAN increase the rank of a
>>facility by N by announcement by destroying N crystals in eir
>> possession.
>>
>> Enact a new rule, entitled "Crystals" (Power = 2.0), with the following
>> text
>>
>>Crystals, are a currency, with the Treasuror as their recordkeepor.
>>They may be owned by Agora, persons, and contracts. The following
units
>>are defined:
>>
>>- Bronze Crystal, 1 crystal
>>- Silver Crystal, 2 crystals
>>- Gold Crystal, 4 crystals
>>- Platinum Crystal, 8 crystals
>>
>> Amend the rule defining welcome packages by adding as a new item,
>> appropriately
>> numbered, at the end of the list "1 Bronze Crystal".
>>
>> Amend Rule 2483, Economics, by changing the text "The following
currencies
>> are
>> defined, and are tracked by the Treasuror." to read "The following
>> currencies,
>> known collectively as economic currencies, are defined, and are tracked
by
>> the
>> Treasuror."
>> Enact a new rule, "Crystal Rewards" (Power = 2.0), with the following
>> text:
>>
>>When a person wins the game, if e has not won in the preceding month,
1
>> Bronze
>>Crystal is created in eir possession.
>>
>>A player CAN, by announcement, destroy a crystal in eir possession
>>to create 5 economic currencies of specified, possibly varying type.
>>
>> [I expect the above to be expanded in future.]
>>
>> Enact a new rule, entitled "Crystal Auctions" (Power = 2.0), with the
>> following
>> text:
>>
>>At the beginning of each month, the Treasuror CAN and SHALL initiate
an
>>auction. For this auction, the announcer is the Treasuror, the
>> auctioneer is
>>Agora, the minimum bid is 1, and there is one lot, chosen as follows:
>>
>>  - January: Gold Crystal
>>  - February: Silver Crystal
>>  - March: Silver Crystal
>>  - April: Gold Crystal
>>  - May: Silver Crystal
>>  - June: Silver Crystal
>>  - July: Platinum Crystal
>>  - August: Silver Crystal
>>  - September: Silver Crystal
>>  - October: Gold Crystal
>>  - November: Silver Crystal
>>  - December: Silver Crystal
>>
>>When the winner of the auction pays eir bid, the auctioned crystal is
>>immediately created in eir possession.
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:


I withdraw my and Quazie's (acting on eir behalf) support for the
destruction of "Hi" - let's just have the vote on that proposal, and
possibly destroy the contract later, if the proposal fails.


It seems possible to read the combination of rule 2519 and rule 2124 to 
imply you cannot support on someone's behalf.


Rule 2519/0 (Power=3.0)
Consent

  A person gives consent (syn. consents) to an action when e, acting
  as emself, publicly states that e agrees to the action. This
  agreement may be implied, but only if it is reasonably clear from
  context that the person wanted the agreement to take place.

Rule 2124/22 (Power=2.0)
Agoran Satisfaction

  A Supporter of a dependent action is an eligible entity who has
  publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for
  an announcement of intent to perform the action. An Objector to a
  dependent action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted
  (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent to
  perform the action.

  [...]

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Blot warning - Corona and CuddleBeam

[Edward Murphy]

ATMunn wrote:

Oh man, it's been so long since I've been ADoP so I forget if I can do 
this but if I can:


I initiate an election for Referee, and become a candidate in that 
election.


I'm catching up on e-mail, should be done within the hour.

As I understand it, this is ineffective, as you do need to be the ADoP
even though the office was vacant and thus interim. Rule 2154, excerpt:

  A player CAN initiate an election for a specified office:

  a) With 2 Support, if either the office is interim or the most
  recent election for that office was resolved more than 90 days
  prior, and provided that the initiator becomes a candidate in the
  same message.

  b) By announcement, if e is the ADoP and if the office is interim,
  or if e is the holder of that office.

Also, has anyone noticed the extra 'not' in Gaelan's signature? I
suspect it's intentional sneakiness.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> This gag is already old, but the point is that I could go on. Separate
> auctions encourage more competitive play. Imagine if these were all lots in
> the same auction. Every bid would be a shot in the dark. You couldn't
> strategize and attempt to get one specific unit. Well, I mean, you could
> *try*, but in the end, you actually have very little control over what you
> get.
> 
> Single auctions work for lots that are similar to one another. Zombies, for
> instance. You most likely won't care which one you get, because the
> differences between zombies are slight. Land units have complex data
> surrounding them, and it is therefore crucial that players are able to
> strategize in auctions for them.

I was very specifically aiming to get o (second in order), who had notably
more currency that anyone one - I didn't notice that when I initiated the
auction.  There is quite usable strategy, although it's quite a different
sort of set of moves, as you're trading off position in a ranking versus
price - try it a few times it's quite interesting to game.

(While I prefer multi-lot auctions personally, I don't mind a diversity of
gameplay either so don't have a strong opinion for land auctions.  I
particularly like multi-lot auctions where the final price is the lowest
winning price - quite an interesting game to get the lowest price while
staying in the top N bidders.  Though that requires lots to be 100%
identical to be fair).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Referee] Weekly Report

[Edward Murphy]

G. wrote:


Sigh.  I deputize for the REFEREE to resolve the finger-pointing as indicated
below.


Leaving this out of the ADoP history, as you already were Referee
(unless I missed something else).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Blot warning - Corona and CuddleBeam

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:


On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Edward Murphy wrote:


 Also, has anyone noticed the extra 'not' in Gaelan's signature? I
 suspect it's intentional sneakiness.


I'd use Hanlon's razor here, it's the kind of logic many people mess up and 
it seems a bit too indiscriminately destructive to be sneakiness.


No wait, it *is* correct. Yep people mess this up all right. We're talking 
about this text right?


{{{
I object to all intentions that do not satisfy all of these criteria:
- The intention was sent to agora-business, or agora-official if it is
related to an office held by the player making the intention.
- The intention was not sent in a way designed to prevent people from
noticing its existence.
}}}

I'm actually a bit worried about the office part though - it's not too 
implausible for a player to innocently include an intent that's not 
strictly related to an office.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
> 
> > I withdraw my and Quazie's (acting on eir behalf) support for the
> > destruction of "Hi" - let's just have the vote on that proposal, and
> > possibly destroy the contract later, if the proposal fails.
> 
> It seems possible to read the combination of rule 2519 and rule 2124 to imply
> you cannot support on someone's behalf.

I agree on that reading - fascinating - and it even makes reasonable sense
to allow objections but not support (because objections aim to keep the
status quo that the zombie has already "consented" to).

> Rule 2519/0 (Power=3.0)
> Consent
> 
>   A person gives consent (syn. consents) to an action when e, acting
>   as emself, publicly states that e agrees to the action. This
>   agreement may be implied, but only if it is reasonably clear from
>   context that the person wanted the agreement to take place.
> 
> Rule 2124/22 (Power=2.0)
> Agoran Satisfaction
> 
>   A Supporter of a dependent action is an eligible entity who has
>   publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for
>   an announcement of intent to perform the action. An Objector to a
>   dependent action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted
>   (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent to
>   perform the action.
> 
>   [...]
> 
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>

DIS: Proto: Crystals

[Aris Merchant]

Title: Crystals
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Aris
Co-author(s):


[I'm changing it so that players CAN upgrade facilities they don't own,
let me know if that's a problem.]

Amend Rule 2562, Facility Ranks, to read as follows:

  Rank is a secured facility switch tracked by the Cartographor defaulting
  to 1, with possible values of all positive integers.

  A player CAN increase the rank of a facility that is at eir location by
  exactly 1 by announcement by paying any upgrade costs of the facility for
  that specific rank, provided that e has not already done so twice for that
  facility in the same Agoran week. A player CAN increase the rank of a
  facility by N by announcement by destroying N crystals in eir possession.

Enact a new rule, entitled "Crystals" (Power = 2.0), with the following text

  Crystals, are a currency, with the Treasuror as their recordkeepor.
  They may be owned by Agora, persons, and contracts. The following units
  are defined:

  - Bronze Crystal, 1 crystal
  - Silver Crystal, 2 crystals
  - Gold Crystal, 4 crystals
  - Platinum Crystal, 8 crystals

Amend the rule defining welcome packages by adding as a new item, appropriately
numbered, at the end of the list "1 Bronze Crystal".

Amend Rule 2483, Economics, by changing the text "The following currencies are
defined, and are tracked by the Treasuror." to read "The following currencies,
known collectively as economic currencies, are defined, and are tracked by the
Treasuror."
Enact a new rule, "Crystal Rewards" (Power = 2.0), with the following text:

  When a person wins the game, if e has not won in the preceding month, 1 Bronze
  Crystal is created in eir possession.

  A player CAN, by announcement, destroy a crystal in eir possession
  to create 5 economic currencies of specified, possibly varying type.

[I expect the above to be expanded in future.]

Enact a new rule, entitled "Crystal Auctions" (Power = 2.0), with the following
text:

  At the beginning of each month, the Treasuror CAN and SHALL initiate an
  auction. For this auction, the announcer is the Treasuror, the auctioneer is
  Agora, the minimum bid is 1, and there is one lot, chosen as follows:

- January: Gold Crystal
- February: Silver Crystal
- March: Silver Crystal
- April: Gold Crystal
- May: Silver Crystal
- June: Silver Crystal
- July: Platinum Crystal
- August: Silver Crystal
- September: Silver Crystal
- October: Gold Crystal
- November: Silver Crystal
- December: Silver Crystal

  When the winner of the auction pays eir bid, the auctioned crystal is
  immediately created in eir possession.

DIS: Proto: Blot Expansion

[Aris Merchant]

Title: Blot Expansion
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-author(s):

Amend Rule 2483, "Economics", by: {
  Appending "10. incense", as a new list item after "9. fabric"; and

  Changing "Stones, apples, and corn are considered unrefinable currencies;"
  to read "Stones, apples, corn, and incense are considered unrefinable
  currencies;"
}

Amend Rule 2563, "Production Facilities", by appending

  "4. Trading Posts
 -  Build Cost: 2 lumber, and 3 fabric
 -  Upkeep Cost: n-1 fabric
 -  Production Details: 3n incense
 -  Upgrade Costs:
-  Rank 2: 4 coins, 1 lumber, 1 fabric
-  Rank 3: 6 coins, 2 lumber, 3 fabric
-  Rank 4: 8 coins, 4 lumber, 2 stones, 5 fabric
-  Rank 5: 10 coins, 6 lumber, 4 stones, 7 fabric"

Amend Rule 2559, "Paydays", by appending "D. 3 incense", as a new list item
after "C. 2 papers".

Amend the rule defining welcome packages by adding as a new item, appropriately
numbered, at the end of the list "5 incense".

Amend Rule 2557, "Removing Blots", by changing the first paragraph to read
  "A player CAN, by announcement, destroy N incense in eir possession to
  expunge N of eir blots. When e does so, e is ENCOURAGED to publicly
  and grandiloquently apologize to the Sprit of the Game for eir sin
  in breaking the rules, to verbosely praise the same spirit, and to fervently
  request forgiveness."

Amend Rule 2556, "Penalties", by appending the text

  "A player CAN, with 7 days notice, deregister (exile) a specified player
  (the outlaw) who has more than 40 blots."

as a new paragraph at the end of the rule.

Re: DIS: Proto: Blot Expansion

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:


Amend Rule 2557, "Removing Blots", by changing the first paragraph to read
 "A player CAN, by announcement, destroy N incense in eir possession to
 expunge N of eir blots. When e does so, e is ENCOURAGED to publicly
 and grandiloquently apologize to the Sprit of the Game for eir sin
 in breaking the rules, to verbosely praise the same spirit, and to fervently
 request forgiveness."


"Sprit" seems mispled.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] The Map of Arcadia -- April 11, 2018

[ATMunn]

Maybe some large amount of fabric could be turned into a ribbon? 
Probably a bad idea, but it's an idea.


On 4/11/2018 11:41 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Currently, fabric is only used in some upper-level rank-up payments. I 
think it is the least useful of the nine economic assets right now. If 
someone wanted to help with that, I would appreciate it lots.


On 4/11/2018 9:33 PM, Ned Strange wrote:

I do have a question. What does fabric do?

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Reuben Staley 
 wrote:
After thinking this whole thing through, I'm not sure that it's 
actually a
problem if people with zombies have tons of money. It's completely 
possible
to amass a fortune by living off of public land, so little guys can 
still
get money that they can spend on zombies and/or land eventually. The 
monthly
salary ensures that less affluent players have a constant source of 
income

that they can use to survive.

Included in the salary is 10 coins, 5 apples, and 2 papers. I will now
explain how this allows one to sustainably live.

Having some coins ensures that a player can, with enough time, gain 
wealth
by using careful spending. If you don't purchase anything for two 
months and
are just living off of the base salary, you have 20 coins. That's 
more than
enough to buy land unit, as demonstrated by the previous land unit 
auction,
where the highest selling unit was worth 16 coins. And as long as you 
take
some public action during that time, you are safe from the legal 
theft of

zombiehood. Additionally, with time, some land units will become more
valuable to control, leaving others neglected. Going for neglected land
units will make it so that you won't have to pay nearly as much to get
yourself started.

Having some apples ensures that you can move around the map. Assuming 
you

stay around the origin, you can do a few rounds of nabbing stuffs to get
even more resources. Inconveniently, more coins are out of your 
reach, but

that's intentional since I wanted you to have to work for a little while
before you can basically print money. But, as demonstrated in the 
past few

weeks, you can get more apples and more corn from the preserved farm and
orchard, making it completely possible to stay living in the center 
of the

map for a while.

Proposals are the most powerful thing in the game, and under the current
rules, you're guaranteed to be able to submit some every month 
because you

get two papers every month. Perhaps there can be a coin reward for a
proposal passing. I think we had that under the proportional economy 
rules.

If we institute this change, then it provides incentive to create good
proposals. I think it would give these less affluent players more
opportunity as well, which is a good thing.

But that's not even all of it. As we all know, officers are given 5 
coins
and 1 corn at the beginning of the month for faithful service. Less 
affluent

players can get a low-effort office that no one is currently occupying,
which allows them to receive extra income. But, as I've made clear 
before,
I'm dissatisfied with the way officers are paid, since some offices 
clearly

require more recordkeeping than others. See this message[1] for my
previously published ideas on how to fix it.

In conclusion, I think it's clear now that less affluent people actually
have way more opportunities than lots of people here estimate. Even 
still, I
think some reforms are in order to improve the state of the economy, 
namely

the officer fix and reinstitution of proposal rewards.

It is because of all this that I don't think redistribution to poor 
players

is the reform we need.

[1]
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg42699.html 




On 4/11/2018 5:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:




On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:


I think Corona was talking about the thing where Agora would get 
all the
money that people spent and distribute it tbuno the poorest 
players. That

was
under the proportional economy where only 1000 shinies could exist.

I think if we were to reimplement that system, it would be too easy to
scam, with zombies and contracts and whatnot, so I'm not sold just 
yet.

If
another proposal comes forth proposing a different way of filtering
assets
back into the economy, I might be willing to support it.



The issue I had with that system is you couldn't distinguish "poor 
because
I don't have an income source/others are always ahead" from "poor 
because

I
had a bunch of money and just now spent it."  If you award the 
latter it

leads to weird incentive systems to either hold everything or spend
everything but not to stay in between.

In "game-balancing" here, there's two separate issues to think about:

1.  Can someone get enough possessions to participate on a basic 
level on

a
regular basis?  (e.g. by pending proposals, walking around the map, and
other fixed-cost things to buy).  For this, monthly salary takes 
care of

it
(more or less), secondarily 

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2

[Reuben Staley]

Here's my argument on why separate land auctions are better:

Imagine that land unit 1 has a Rank 4 facility on it, but land unit 2 
has nothing. More people will bid on land unit 1. This is completely 
justified since land unit 1 is definitely more valuable than land unit 
2. So someone might get land unit 2 for really cheaply, but that's 
because it's a worse land unit.


Now imagine land unit 3 is exactly the same as land unit 2 but is on the 
complete other side of the map. Hypothetical player A already owns two 
adjacent land units to land unit 3, but has nothing near land unit 2. 
Logically, land unit 3 is less valuable than land unit 2 to hypothetical 
player A.


Now, imagine hypothetical player B just barely joined, so any land is 
good by em. E'll notice that hypothetical player A will probably want to 
take land unit 3. E'll also notice that A is a lot richer than em and it 
wouldn't be productive for em to try and bid up A because e would lose. 
So B decides to focus on bidding up land unit 2.


Hypothetical player C comes along. C is very wealthy, and is not looking 
to get any more land this time. But, being the trickster that e is, e 
decides to bid up land unit 2 because e knows A wants it really badly.


This gag is already old, but the point is that I could go on. Separate 
auctions encourage more competitive play. Imagine if these were all lots 
in the same auction. Every bid would be a shot in the dark. You couldn't 
strategize and attempt to get one specific unit. Well, I mean, you could 
*try*, but in the end, you actually have very little control over what 
you get.


Single auctions work for lots that are similar to one another. Zombies, 
for instance. You most likely won't care which one you get, because the 
differences between zombies are slight. Land units have complex data 
surrounding them, and it is therefore crucial that players are able to 
strategize in auctions for them.


Or I could be wrong. As always, I'm open to argument, so if someone has 
a reason why single land auctions are better, please explain them to me.


On 4/12/2018 7:09 PM, ATMunn wrote:
Haven't read any of the other posts yet, but I would say that I would 
probably prefer it to be a single auction.


On 4/12/2018 4:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:



Reading R2004, it looks like it was *supposed* to be a single auction?
That's definitely not how the announcement below reads, and not how
people have been bidding, so I don't know what actually happened.
(R2004 only allows 1 auction to be started each week).

I'm also looking for anything that says the Cartographer CAN transfer
land in any circumstances, and all I'm finding is SHALLs.  (is there
a "SHALL implies CAN" somewhere?)


On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:

Oops, you're right. You know, it seems pretty likely that those ones
just never began in the first place.

-Aris

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin  
wrote:



These are independent auctions so only the incorrect ones were just
terminated I think?  (Auctions 1,3,4).

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:

I agree with G.'s interpretation. I believe that Rule 2549's statement
that "An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is
able to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots" is
applicable, given that the announced items do not in fact exist. Just
in case, I terminate the ongoing land auction, because some of the
lots are nonexistent and therefore "the Auctioneer of that Auction
cannot transfer any item included in a lot in that Auction" (Rule
2552).

-Aris

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Kerim Aydin 
 wrote:



My interpretation:

You describe a particular lot as a "white land unit at ".  You 
do not have
a "white land unit at " to transfer, so anyone can terminate 
the auction.
If no one terminates it, I'm not sure whether you can satisfy your 
obligation

to transfer by transferring a black land unit at , or not.

(oh, just out of curiosity where does it say you CAN transfer 
particular
land units?  That wording of that would play into what you can or 
cannot

satisfy).

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
I'd say that these data are less relevant than the coordinates of 
the land
units, so it would not invalidate it. But that may just be me but 
wanting

to do work to fix it.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:24 Corona  
wrote:



Wait, I just looked it up (in your own report) and:

AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) <-- 
actually black

AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3)
AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2,  0) <-- 
actually black
AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) <-- 
actually white

AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2)

Gasp! It cannot be! Is it a... SCAM?!?!

More seriously, does it make the auction initiation invalid?



On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Reuben Staley 

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Referee] Weekly Report

[Edward Murphy]

G. wrote:


GUESS WHAT:  It's worse than that.  There *is* no Referee's weekly report!
There's no place I can find that puts together "referee" and "Report".


How long has that been the case, so I can remove relevant bits from the
ADoP database?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Referee] Weekly Report

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Edward Murphy wrote:
> G. wrote:
> 
> > Sigh.  I deputize for the REFEREE to resolve the finger-pointing as
> > indicated
> > below.
> 
> Leaving this out of the ADoP history, as you already were Referee
> (unless I missed something else).

The subsequent conversation was that I was mistaken, there *is* a referre's
report because the generic asset rule says that the recordkeepor of an
asset has the asset as part of eir report.  My deputy-report didn't have
pledges (pledges are assets) so wasn't a report so original deputization failed.

Re: DIS: Proto: Crystals

[ATMunn]

So winning the game is not as valuable as winning an auction?

On 4/12/2018 8:46 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

Title: Crystals
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Aris
Co-author(s):


[I'm changing it so that players CAN upgrade facilities they don't own,
let me know if that's a problem.]

Amend Rule 2562, Facility Ranks, to read as follows:

   Rank is a secured facility switch tracked by the Cartographor defaulting
   to 1, with possible values of all positive integers.

   A player CAN increase the rank of a facility that is at eir location by
   exactly 1 by announcement by paying any upgrade costs of the facility for
   that specific rank, provided that e has not already done so twice for that
   facility in the same Agoran week. A player CAN increase the rank of a
   facility by N by announcement by destroying N crystals in eir possession.

Enact a new rule, entitled "Crystals" (Power = 2.0), with the following text

   Crystals, are a currency, with the Treasuror as their recordkeepor.
   They may be owned by Agora, persons, and contracts. The following units
   are defined:

   - Bronze Crystal, 1 crystal
   - Silver Crystal, 2 crystals
   - Gold Crystal, 4 crystals
   - Platinum Crystal, 8 crystals

Amend the rule defining welcome packages by adding as a new item, appropriately
numbered, at the end of the list "1 Bronze Crystal".

Amend Rule 2483, Economics, by changing the text "The following currencies are
defined, and are tracked by the Treasuror." to read "The following currencies,
known collectively as economic currencies, are defined, and are tracked by the
Treasuror."
Enact a new rule, "Crystal Rewards" (Power = 2.0), with the following text:

   When a person wins the game, if e has not won in the preceding month, 1 
Bronze
   Crystal is created in eir possession.

   A player CAN, by announcement, destroy a crystal in eir possession
   to create 5 economic currencies of specified, possibly varying type.

[I expect the above to be expanded in future.]

Enact a new rule, entitled "Crystal Auctions" (Power = 2.0), with the following
text:

   At the beginning of each month, the Treasuror CAN and SHALL initiate an
   auction. For this auction, the announcer is the Treasuror, the auctioneer is
   Agora, the minimum bid is 1, and there is one lot, chosen as follows:

 - January: Gold Crystal
 - February: Silver Crystal
 - March: Silver Crystal
 - April: Gold Crystal
 - May: Silver Crystal
 - June: Silver Crystal
 - July: Platinum Crystal
 - August: Silver Crystal
 - September: Silver Crystal
 - October: Gold Crystal
 - November: Silver Crystal
 - December: Silver Crystal

   When the winner of the auction pays eir bid, the auctioned crystal is
   immediately created in eir possession.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Blot warning - Corona and CuddleBeam

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Edward Murphy wrote:


Also, has anyone noticed the extra 'not' in Gaelan's signature? I
suspect it's intentional sneakiness.


I'd use Hanlon's razor here, it's the kind of logic many people mess up 
and it seems a bit too indiscriminately destructive to be sneakiness.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Proto: Crystals

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2018-04-12 at 21:13 -0400, ATMunn wrote:
> So winning the game is not as valuable as winning an auction?

There are two types of Agorans: those who aim to gain
economic/political power so that it lets them eventually win the game,
and those who aim to win so as to gain economic/political power. The
former group would be happy even if wins /cost/ assets; the latter
would prefer a bonus. So having something that's present but small
makes sense.

-- 
ais523

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2

[ATMunn]

Haven't read any of the other posts yet, but I would say that I would 
probably prefer it to be a single auction.


On 4/12/2018 4:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:



Reading R2004, it looks like it was *supposed* to be a single auction?
That's definitely not how the announcement below reads, and not how
people have been bidding, so I don't know what actually happened.
(R2004 only allows 1 auction to be started each week).

I'm also looking for anything that says the Cartographer CAN transfer
land in any circumstances, and all I'm finding is SHALLs.  (is there
a "SHALL implies CAN" somewhere?)


On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:

Oops, you're right. You know, it seems pretty likely that those ones
just never began in the first place.

-Aris

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:



These are independent auctions so only the incorrect ones were just
terminated I think?  (Auctions 1,3,4).

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:

I agree with G.'s interpretation. I believe that Rule 2549's statement
that "An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is
able to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots" is
applicable, given that the announced items do not in fact exist. Just
in case, I terminate the ongoing land auction, because some of the
lots are nonexistent and therefore "the Auctioneer of that Auction
cannot transfer any item included in a lot in that Auction" (Rule
2552).

-Aris

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:



My interpretation:

You describe a particular lot as a "white land unit at ".  You do not have
a "white land unit at " to transfer, so anyone can terminate the auction.
If no one terminates it, I'm not sure whether you can satisfy your obligation
to transfer by transferring a black land unit at , or not.

(oh, just out of curiosity where does it say you CAN transfer particular
land units?  That wording of that would play into what you can or cannot
satisfy).

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:

I'd say that these data are less relevant than the coordinates of the land
units, so it would not invalidate it. But that may just be me but wanting
to do work to fix it.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:24 Corona  wrote:


Wait, I just looked it up (in your own report) and:

AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) <-- actually black
AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3)
AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2,  0) <-- actually black
AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) <-- actually white
AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2)

Gasp! It cannot be! Is it a... SCAM?!?!

More seriously, does it make the auction initiation invalid?



On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Reuben Staley 
wrote:


This is the second real land auction.

There are currently 5 public, unpreserved, non-aether land units in
existence. All 5 are put up for auction.

For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the

auctioneer,

and the minimum bid is 1 coin:

AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2)
AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3)
AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2,  0)
AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1)
AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2)





--

~Corona