On Sat, 2019-02-09 at 11:09 -0500, D. Margaux wrote:
> In my view, rule 1742 doesn’t pose a problem. A person by registering
> gives willful consent to be bound by the rules, and the rules say
> that parties to a contract can modify it by adding additional players
> as parties. So by virtue of
On Saturday, February 9, 2019 1:30 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> I act on behalf of Corona to support my intent to award myself the degree
> Associate of Nomic;
My apologies, I believe upon rereading that this one fails because Corona is my
zombie. But I believe all the others still work; the
It relies on “including by changing the set of parties”, yes? It’s not “
including changing the set of parties”, and I don’t know what the ‘by’
would do there, but that it’s there makes all of this a lot less clear to
me.
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 14:43, D. Margaux wrote:
> Crud. This is the same
> On Feb 9, 2019, at 11:09 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> In my view, rule 1742 doesn’t pose a problem. A person by registering gives
> willful consent to be bound by the rules, and the rules say that parties to a
> contract can modify it by adding additional players as parties. So by virtue
>
Actually, the CFJ I submitted was not to the public forum, so it doesn't
count. But you seem to have covered it up pretty well, so I won't resubmit.
On 2/9/19 11:36 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
I submit the following CFJ, and I suggest the same Judge to be assigned to
both (it's trivially False if
In my view, rule 1742 doesn’t pose a problem. A person by registering gives
willful consent to be bound by the rules, and the rules say that parties to a
contract can modify it by adding additional players as parties. So by virtue of
willfully consenting to be bound by the rules, a player also
> On Feb 9, 2019, at 9:13 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> Oh dear, I'm sorry. I did think your setup looked similar to mine but I
> couldn't see why, if you were planning the same thing but your end goal
> didn't rely on a dependent action, you wouldn't just activate it immediately.
> I
Upon my first reading, this didn't surprise me that much. It makes sense
that these systems would look similar because AFAIK Contracts were
actually modeled after the rules. However, then I realized that CFJ 3664
where G. and D. Margaux informally agreed to do something but because it
Oh dear, I'm sorry. I did think your setup looked similar to mine but I
couldn't see why, if you were planning the same thing but your end goal didn't
rely on a dependent action, you wouldn't just activate it immediately. I guess
if you were hoping to succeed via timing then that explains that.
On Sat, 2019-02-09 at 13:30 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> I then, as permitted by Rule 1742/20, modify the contract by changing
> the set of parties to it to the set of all players.
I suspect this fails. Rule 1742 (power 2.5) is outpowered by rule 869
(power 3):
> The Rules CANNOT otherwise
Y'all, y'all. *Shakes head.* Has anyone given Rule 869 a read lately?
It is read the ruleset week, so you might want to. Specifically, the
portion stating that "A person, by registering, agrees to abide by the
Rules. The Rules CANNOT otherwise bind a person to abide by any
agreement without that
CoE: D. Margaux withdrew the Duumvirate proposal in this thread:
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33451.html
On 2/9/19 5:04 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it
Ahh. I somehow missed the prior discussion. Sorry about that.
-Aris
On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 3:10 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> Y'all, y'all. *Shakes head.* Has anyone given Rule 869 a read lately?
> It is read the ruleset week, so you might want to. Specifically, the
> portion stating that "A
The proposal that put our current contact system into place said “destroy all
contracts.” Luckily, it was before the rule defined “contract” was created, so
it’s probably fine. (Also, our safeguards probably would have cleaned things up)
Gaelan
> On Feb 9, 2019, at 10:36 AM, Cuddle Beam
Yeah, it’s hard to argue that they aren’t a contract. There have been times
in the past when that’s been explicitly specified (well, at least that
they’re construed as if they’re a contract between the players).
-Aris
On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 9:44 AM Reuben Staley
wrote:
> Upon my first reading,
This interpretation is correct. That provision would be rather
meaningless if it didn't stop mousetraps, given that it is rather
specifically designed to stop mousetraps. I will also cite CFJs 3587 &
3588, which mentioned that the provision has such an effect
("Additionally, Agora has codified
I’ve always thought of Agora as more of a non-profit corporation, although
I guess it’s currently an unincorporated association. Walruses were an
asset once, weren’t they... I seem to recall reading an old CFJ that
mentioned them once.
-Aris
On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 4:32 PM David Nicol wrote:
>
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019, Cuddle Beam wrote:
- You can change the rules if everyone agrees to it, without needing a
proposal for it. R1742: "A contract may be modified, including by changing
the set of parties, by agreement between all existing parties."
That rule has too low power to trump the
This fails because no intent was posted in a public forum. :)
On 2019-02-10 00:30, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
I act on behalf of Telnaior to retract eir objection to my intent to Declare
Apathy;
and I Declare Apathy, specifying the following set of players: {twg}.
This fails due to insufficient AI and power.
-Aris
On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 11:30 AM Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> Thanks for the corrections, Ørjan. I submit the following proposal:
>
> -
> Title: Extend "amend" and "reenact"
> Author: Trigon
> Co-authors: Ørjan
>
> [ Comment: I stole Ørjan's
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019, Cuddle Beam wrote:
I editted it to point out the specific rule but is it really necessary? I
thought it would be unambiguous where the edit was supposed to be. Just
curious about if there's a formal reason for it.
Hm, I think you're technically correct, although it's still
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote:
I think I have found a bug in twg’s execution of the scheme!
I also see some bugs, although the rule 869 issue makes them pretty moot.
For one thing, it was argued in previous discussion that supporting cannot
be done on behalf as an accidental side
First off, NttPF.
On 2/9/19 10:09 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
8161 Trigon, Ørjan 3.0 Extend "amend" and “reenact”
AGAINST, because “A repealed rule not in the ruleset identified by its most
recent rule number MUST be specified for reenactment” could be interpreted as
imposing an
I've always thought that Agora -- should it wish to grow a commercial
pseudopod -- would make sense as an independent dispute resolution venue,
for real world contracts. This would amount to essentially hanging out a
shingle as an arbitration service. Prerequisite of course would be allowing
for
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:
//
ID: 8162
Title: No Contract Reporting Rewards
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Telnaior
Co-authors: G.
Amend the phrase "Publishing a duty-fulfilling report" in Rule 2496
("Rewards") to
Votes (and no intents to win by apathy this time) inline.
Gaelan
> On Feb 9, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> pool. For this decision, the vote
I editted it to point out the specific rule but is it really necessary? I
thought it would be unambiguous where the edit was supposed to be. Just
curious about if there's a formal reason for it.
On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 5:26 AM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is
That draft is missing my proposal, quoted below:
On 2019-02-04 13:58, Telnaior wrote:
Title: No Contract Reporting Rewards
Author: Telnaior
Co-Author: G.
Adoption Index: 2
{
Add the following line to Rule 1006 ("Offices") after "If the holder
of an office is ever not a player, it becomes
28 matches
Mail list logo
