Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

On Sat, 2017-10-14 at 18:17 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > > An important question here is whether to include privity of > > contract (the > > principle that only parties to a contract may have an interest in > > the > > obligations it creates). In the name of simplicity as we introduce > > a very

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

Oh that's just a typo. On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 21:55 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > After rereading it, I don't understand the need for both a "to" and a > "for". I think either would work on its own. > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

I don’t see pledges being something we’ll keep around long-term. I think eventually contracts will supersede them (I, for one, will probably start using contracts as pledges/promises as soon as this passes). Gaelan > On Oct 14, 2017, at 6:17 PM, Aris Merchant >

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

On Sat, 2017-10-14 at 23:54 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: > No, no, no, no, no. A player can use this to avoid an obligation by > failing to pay for the contract. I disagree that that's a bad thing (on the assumption that we allow other players to pay for the contract if the person they bind doesn't

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation

I haven't seen any sign of it making interesting gameplay thusfar: I would vote to repeal (unless a use is found for them, such as in the new contract proposal). Having said that: I agree with Aris. There has been no sign of them being especially dangerous, or any more dangerous than real legal

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7908-7921

The Promotor notes your reminder, and apologizes for eir tardiness. It will be fixed in the next day or so. -Aris On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 5:03 PM Alexis Hunt wrote: > Heads up to the Promotor: this CoE is unresolved. > > > On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 at 07:21 Alexis Hunt

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > Decided to put my money where my mouth is. > > Proposal: Deregulation (AI=3) > {{{ > Repeal Rule 2493 (Regulations). > Repeal Rule 2494 (The Regkeepor). > Amend Rule 2464 (Tournaments) to read as follows: > A

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation

Why not keep the birthday tournament. It existed before regulations. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Oct 14, 2017, at 8:08 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > Decided to put my money where my mouth is. > > Proposal: Deregulation (AI=3)

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] A Reward for Obedience

Okay, the second draft is finished. I've changed a bunch of stuff, it's almost a completely different proposal now. I've taken into consideration almost everything Aris and Alexis mentioned, so I've given them co-authorship as well. I'm sure it's still got plenty of flaws. But it should be better.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

After rereading it, I don't understand the need for both a "to" and a "for". I think either would work on its own. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Oct 14, 2017, at 7:16 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > On Sat,

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Organization Repeal

I withdraw the proposal “Organization Repeal” and submit the following proposal in its place. I pend it by paying Agora 1 sh.. Changelog: some minor phraseology fixes in The Treasuror. -o Title: Organization Repeal Author: o AI: 3.0 {{{ If a proposal titled "Contracts", followed by a

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] A Reward for Obedience

I don't really know what you mean by that, I don't think so? Anyone can win via a Victory Election; this is much harder to achieve as you have to not do anything wrong in order to be eligible. On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:33 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > Isn't that just 1/6 of a Victory

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] A Reward for Obedience

Isn't that just 1/6 of a Victory Election? On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:18 PM, ATMunn . wrote: > Thanks, both of you, for your suggestions. I'm working on a revised version > at the moment. One idea I had, regarding what Alexis said about the idea of > players declaring

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 03:30 Aris Merchant > wrote >> >> # 1 Cleanup & Miscellaneous >> # 1.1 Gamestate Cleanup >> >> Destroy each organization. > > > We used to have a rule that made

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 03:30 Aris Merchant > wrote > # 1 Cleanup & Miscellaneous > # 1.1 Gamestate Cleanup > > Destroy each organization. > > > We used to have a rule that made this sort of thing

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7908-7921

Heads up to the Promotor: this CoE is unresolved. On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 at 07:21 Alexis Hunt wrote: > CoE: my proposal "Clarity Act" is not listed as being in the Proposal > Pool, which it is because you did not distribute it. > > On Sun, Oct 8, 2017, 23:50 Aris Merchant, < >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 19:02 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Amend Rule 105, bullet 3 by appending "Unless specified otherwise by the > > re-enacting instrument, a re-enacted rule has power equal to the power it > > had at the time of its repeal (or power 1, if

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 19:54 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Sat, 14 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > Set the power of all entities other than Rules, Regulations, and this > Proposal to 0. > > > > [This is a general cleanup that catches repealed rules and other > entities. I

DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > Set the power of all entities other than Rules, Regulations, and this > Proposal to 0. > > [This is a general cleanup that catches repealed rules and other entities. I > believe > that this actuall depowers old proposals, but that's probably a good

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 03:30 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote > # 1 Cleanup & Miscellaneous > # 1.1 Gamestate Cleanup > > Destroy each organization. > We used to have a rule that made this sort of thing not necessary (Definition and Continuity of Entities). Reenacting

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Sat, 2017-10-14 at 00:29 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > > A lot of feedback here. Much of it is typo corrections, but not all of > it. > > > Destroy each contract. [Just in case.] > "Contract" is not currently rules-defined, so this attempts to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: can we can't we can we can't we

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > I dislike this extra option, and in particular that it only > requires a majority to apply. I'd really prefer splitting > this out to separate proposals so that AI=3 applies to both of > them separately, or at lesat requiring 3 times as many OPTION A

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> Amend Rule 1023 by appending "The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to for >> determining whether two points in time are within N months of each other, >> for N greater than or

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] A Reward for Obedience

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:50 AM, ATMunn . wrote: > Title: A Reward for Obedience > Author: ATMunn > Co-Author(s): > AI: 1 > > Create a new power-1 rule titled "Badges of Honor" > { > Badges of Honor are an indestructible, player-owned asset. The Referee > is the

DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

Typo, see below. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Oct 14, 2017, at 6:55 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > This is just a miscellaneous fix proposal: > > Proposal: High Power Cleanup (AI=3) > {{{ > Text in square brackets is not a

DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > This is just a miscellaneous fix proposal: > > Proposal: High Power Cleanup (AI=3) > {{{ > Text in square brackets is not a substantive part of this proposal and is > ignored when it takes effect. > > Amend Rule 105, bullet

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] A Reward for Obedience

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 11:50 ATMunn . wrote: > Title: A Reward for Obedience > Author: ATMunn > Co-Author(s): > AI: 1 > > Create a new power-1 rule titled "Badges of Honor" > Nit: I prefer Honour :P > { > Badges of Honor are an indestructible, player-owned asset.

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > I'd be happy to review the latest version, but I don't want to use the last > version because I won't know what has changed. Could you share your current > copy? Sure. -Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: can we can't we can we can't we

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 15:48 Kerim Aydin wrote: > I submit this Proposal, AI-3, "Can or can't we?" (pending to wait for > comments): > > -- > [The rules are unclear/silent on whether "CAN, SHALL, MAY"

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

I'd be happy to review the latest version, but I don't want to use the last version because I won't know what has changed. Could you share your current copy? Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Oct 14, 2017, at 5:46 PM, Aris Merchant >

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Sat, 2017-10-14 at 00:29 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > > A lot of feedback here. Much of it is typo corrections, but not all of > it. > >> Destroy each contract. [Just in case.] > "Contract" is not currently

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 1:18 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > " An asset or class of assets is private, rather than public, if it's > backing document is a contract." > > There should be no apostrophe in "it's". Sorry for spamming six > messages in a row, I should have put these all in

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 12:52 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: > I like this. Slight spelling fix, though: in the paragraph after the list of > protected actions, "ILLEGAL" is wrongly spelled "ILEGAL" Done. -Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: can we can't we can we can't we

I don't think it should apply to MAY, only CAN or SHALL. MAY should imply permissibility without possibility. CAN makes sense in general and SHALL makes sense because obligations should be possible. -Aris On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

On Sat, 2017-10-14 at 00:29 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: A lot of feedback here. Much of it is typo corrections, but not all of it. > Destroy each contract. [Just in case.] "Contract" is not currently rules-defined, so this attempts to destroy real-life contracts (thus creating a legal fiction

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Stamps are cool

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 11:30 ATMunn . wrote: > I just figured out what the purpose of stamps is. I hadn't realized > it before; I must have just not looked very closely at that section of the > rules. > > I buy a stamp

DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] A Reward for Obedience

Title: A Reward for Obedience Author: ATMunn Co-Author(s): AI: 1 Create a new power-1 rule titled "Badges of Honor" { Badges of Honor are an indestructible, player-owned asset. The Referee is the recordkeepor for Badges of Honor. At the beginning of every Agoran month, the Referee CAN

DIS: Re: BUS: Stamps are cool

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 11:30 ATMunn . wrote: > I just figured out what the purpose of stamps is. I hadn't realized it > before; I must have just not looked very closely at that section of the > rules. > > I buy a stamp by transferring 1 shiny to Agora. > Stamps cost 2

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] ADoP and Prime Minister Elections

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 09:49 ATMunn . wrote: > Oh, wow, thanks guys. I should have guessed that Agorans were friendly > enough towards new players to do something like that. > I retract my vote for ADoP and vote for myself. > (Quick question that should be answered in a

Re: DIS: Draft: Spending Fix

So overall, I'm a bit concerned with the separate uses of "pay" and "spend" given that they now function differently and spend includes destruction. For example, if someone says "I pay 1 AP to " then it would technically fail, because "pay" is defined as a transfer and AP can't be

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] ADoP and Prime Minister Elections

I'm not sure what happened. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Oct 14, 2017, at 6:42 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > Replied to the wrong email? > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] ADoP and Prime Minister Elections

I got ENDORSE G. for Tailor. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Oct 13, 2017, at 11:19 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > > I change my vote for ADoP to {ATMunn, V.J. Rada} > > My PM vote remains for myself. > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:00

Re: DIS: Looking to pick up an office, maybe

I would be happy to let you take over Registrar. On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 21:27 VJ Rada wrote: > If you want Registrar, you can initiate an election for the position > right now and stand for it. I don't know wheter PSS approves, e > certainly wants to retain that position.

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

" An asset or class of assets is private, rather than public, if it's backing document is a contract." There should be no apostrophe in "it's". Sorry for spamming six messages in a row, I should have put these all in one message. On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:12 PM, VJ Rada

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

"An asset is an entity defined as such by a (a) rule," The current rules use the term "the ruleset" here for good reason. This amendment would bring back the debates as to whether Shinies are an asset etc. It should say "the ruleset" On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:11 PM, VJ Rada

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

" Other persons CAN become parties by announcement if the contract permits them do so." This should be "them to do so", of course. I think the Protected Actions bit might go a bit far. We've used agencies to allow people to file reports on behalf of others before: in fact that's the only

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

". E NEED NOT follow any regulation constraining em to take or not to take some action with to eir regulations," Not sure what "with to eir regulations means", is it missing a "regards"? On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:02 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > "Parties can leave > a contract

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

"Parties can leave a contract by announcement, ceasing being parties, if the contract permits the to do so." This should be "if the contract permits them to do so" On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > I like this. Slight spelling fix, though: in

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

I like this. Slight spelling fix, though: in the paragraph after the list of protected actions, "ILLEGAL" is wrongly spelled "ILEGAL" -- Trigon On Oct 14, 2017 1:30 AM, "Aris Merchant" wrote: > Hello everyone! Here is the latest draft of my contracts

DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

Hello everyone! Here is the latest draft of my contracts proposal. I plan to submit it this weekend, so I would appreciate it if people would try to stick to small fixes. If anyone wants to help look it over, prevent exploitable bugs, list problems, or tell me that they're planing to vote AGAINST

Re: DIS: Draft: Spending Fix

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: >> I considered that. There is a significant advantage to this though, in >> that 1. people are likely to try to spend things that have to be >> destroyed and 2. this means