Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[Alex Smith]

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
> > complicated mechanism, it may be better to at least assume privity
> > where it
> > is convenient, and go with:
> > - A contract may be destroyed by unanimous consent of its parties
> > - A contract may be destroyed by its terms
> > - A contract may be destroyed without objection (possibly only by
> > the
> > Notary).
> 
> I don't think that's a good idea. The reason is that it's possible to
> have a public service contract, which may have few members, but
> serves
> the general interest. Any real-world discussion of privity includes
> such principles as "beneficiaries", which would make this initial
> proposal more complicated.

As a historical note, this used to be a contract switch (i.e. whether
it was for the benefit of its members only and amendable by their
agreement, or whether it was for the benefit of everyone and required
without-objection to amend). There were a few other differences based
on the state of the switch too, but this was the main one.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

[Alexis Hunt]

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
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Oct 14, 2017, at 7:16 PM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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 equal to 2." as a new paragraph in the fourth
> bullet in the first list.
> >>
> >> This line doesn't make much sense.
> >
> > Why not?
> >
> > -Aris
>
>

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[Gaelan Steele]

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 
>  wrote:
> 
> E can. If eir obligation is only intended to apply to emself, it
> should be in a pledge. Also, any interested player can pay for it.
> This hopefully means that disused contracts will be destroyed when no
> one cares enough to pay for them.

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[Alex Smith]

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
want to).

Having contracts lapse if nobody cares about them is a good way to
clean up old obligations. And my experience from the last time we had
contracts is that an upkeep fee is probably required (and will also
help inject some life into the economy).

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation

[VJ Rada]

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 systems.

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> 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 Tournament is a sub-game of Agora specifically sanctioned
>>   to be initiated as a tournament by the Rules.  If a winner of a
>>   tournament is determined within 4 weeks of its initiation, that
>>   person or persons win the game, otherwise the tournament
>>   concludes with no winner.
>>
>>   In a timely fashion after the start of June 1 of each year,
>>   the Herald SHALL propose a set of Regulations governing a
>>   Birthday Tournament for that year; the Herald CAN also
>>   delegate the responsibility for creating or running the
>>   tournament to another player, with that player's consent.
>>
>>   The Birthday Tournament's regulations SHOULD be such that all
>>   persons who choose to participate have a fair chance of winning
>>   the tournament (according to its regulations), and a winner
>>   SHOULD be expected within 2-3 weeks following the tournament's
>>   initiation.
>>
>>   After adequate time for discussion of the Birthday Tournament's
>>   regulations, the Herald (or delegate) CAN initiate a sanctioned
>>   tournament with a specified, finalized set of regulations,
>>   Without 3 Objections.  The initiation SHOULD be timed to
>>   coincide with Agora's Birthday.
>> Repeal Rule 2495 (The Birthday Tournament).
>> }}}
>>
>> This effectively just repeals regulations, which I think are very dangerous
>> and should not be used in place of things like contracts. Tournaments are
>> reverted to the pre-Regulations rules. I spend an AP to pend this proposal.
>
> Regulations are not dangerous, certainly not "very dangerous".
> Regulations only work at the power of their parent rule, and can only
> do what their parent rule says they can do. This is the first of
> several safeguards against their misuse. Admittedly, an over broad
> parent rule could do a lot of harm. However, we see no signs that they
> are likely to be used dangerously. Currently, all they do is to run
> the tournament, which isn't particularly dangerous. My contracts
> proposal would let them be used to throttle some contract actions
> within eminently reasonable bounds, and to exempt contracts from
> paying taxes, which isn't particularly dangerous either. The most
> dangerous thing they've been seriously suggested for is banking, such
> that they could used, within bounds, to control Agora's treasury. That
> needs more caution, but the proposal would have limits and would be
> promulgated by a three member commission, hopefully ensuring broad
> support. There was that it was suggested that they be used for chevron
> deference, but that proposal was quickly shouted down as overly broad
> and was never a serious proposal anyway, as confessed by the author.
> Second, regulations require agoran consent to adopt by default,
> ensuring that they can't be passed without public agreement. Third,
> proposals can always change regulations anyway, so people can get rid
> of them if they don't like them. I think there are sufficient
> safeguards in place to ensure that regulations are used safely. If you
> wish to suggest additional safeguards, I'm fairly likely to support
> them. However, I see no need to repeal an interesting system that will
> make for interesting gameplay.
>
> -Aris



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

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

[Aris Merchant]

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  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, <
>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> 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 collector is the Assessor, the
>>> quorum is 5.0 and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is
>>> also a valid vote).
>>>
>>>
>>> ID Author(s) AI   TitlePender  Pend
>>> fee
>>>
>>> ---
>>> 7908*  G.1.0  Silly season G.  OP [1]
>>> 7909*  G.1.2  No Lockout   G.  OP [1]
>>> 7910*  G.1.0  What is a rulekeepor G.  OP [1]
>>> 7911*  V.J. Rada 1.0  Infinite Money Fix   V.J. Rada   1 sh.
>>> 7912*  Alexis3.0  Election Campaigns   Alexis  1 AP
>>> [2]
>>> 7913*  ATMunn1.0  Cheer Up v7? ATMunn  1 AP
>>> 7914*  o 1.0  SFDVP [3]o   1 AP
>>> 7915*  CuddleBeam1.0  Terrifying Proposals Reward  CuddleBeam  1 AP
>>> 7916*  Aris, o, G.   1.0  Pro Pace v2  Aris1 AP
>>> 7917*  P.S.S. [4], o 3.0  Banking  P.S.S. [4]  1 sh.
>>> 7918*  P.S.S. [4]3.0  Vacant Deputisation Fix  P.S.S. [4]  1 AP
>>> 7919*  P.S.S. [4]2.0  YSUIII. [5]  P.S.S. [4]  1 AP
>>> 7920*  Gaelan, Aris  1.0  The Lint Screen v2   Gaelan  1 sh.
>>> 7921*  o, G. 2.0  Passive Income   o   1 AP
>>>
>>> The proposal pool currently contains the following proposals:
>>>
>>> IDAuthor(s) AI   Title
>>>
>>> ---
>>> pp1  nichdel3.0  Slower Promotion
>>> pp2  nichdel1.0  Guaranteed Stampage
>>>
>>> Legend: * : Proposal is pending.
>>>
>>> [1] Official Proposal, inherently pending
>>> [2] There is some debate over whether this was actually pended twice,
>>> each
>>> attempt consuming 1 AP. This value is therefore provisional.
>>> [3] Stamp Floating Derived Value Patch
>>> [4] Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>> [5] You SHALL, unless it is ILLEGAL.
>>>
>>> In order to reduce confusion, the shiny pend price is being removed from
>>> this
>>> report. A proposal may be pended for 1 AP, or for 1/20th the Floating
>>> Value
>>> in shines (see the Secretary's report).
>>>
>>> The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below.
>>>
>>> //
>>> ID: 7908
>>> Title: Silly season
>>> Adoption index: 1.0
>>> Author: G.
>>> Co-authors:
>>> Official Proposal
>>>
>>>
>>> Re-enact Rule 1650 (Silliness) with the following text:
>>>
>>>   Each Nomic Week a Player is designated the Silly Person.  The Silly
>>> Person
>>>   SHALL in that week, by announcement (1) designate another player, who
>>> has not
>>>   been the Silly Person in the past two weeks, to be the next week's
>>> Silly
>>>   Person; (2) submit a Silly Proposal.  If there is ever no Silly Person
>>> or the
>>>   Silly Person is not a player, then the next week's Silly Person is the
>>> first
>>>   player that any player publicly designates to be the next week's Silly
>>> Person.
>>>
>>>   A Silly Proposal is a Proposal whose sole contents are one of
>>>   the following:
>>> i) A limerick.
>>>ii) A rhymed poem no longer than fourteen lines. (No free
>>>verse!)
>>>   iii) A joke of no more than a hundred words.
>>>iv) A truly hideous pun.
>>>
>>>   The first Silly Proposal submitted by the week's Silly Person is an
>>> Official
>>>   Proposal.
>>>
>>>
>>> [I want to reward the Silly Person a shiny, but we have that dumb limit
>>> that
>>> rewards can only be defined in R2445, and the Fearmongor rule may not
>>> allow me
>>> to include other rules in the proposal].
>>>
>>> [For Rulekeepor, given history of Rule 1650:
>>> History: Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1650 by Proposal 2673, 26 September 1996
>>> History: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1650 by Proposal 3688
>>> (Repeal-O-Matic), 21 February 1998
>>> ]
>>>
>>> //
>>> ID: 7909
>>> Title: No Lockout
>>> Adoption index: 1.2
>>> Author: G.
>>> Co-authors:
>>> Official Proposal
>>>
>>>
>>> Repeal Rule 2458 (Invoking Lockout).
>>>
>>> //

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation

[Aris Merchant]

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 Tournament is a sub-game of Agora specifically sanctioned
>   to be initiated as a tournament by the Rules.  If a winner of a
>   tournament is determined within 4 weeks of its initiation, that
>   person or persons win the game, otherwise the tournament
>   concludes with no winner.
>
>   In a timely fashion after the start of June 1 of each year,
>   the Herald SHALL propose a set of Regulations governing a
>   Birthday Tournament for that year; the Herald CAN also
>   delegate the responsibility for creating or running the
>   tournament to another player, with that player's consent.
>
>   The Birthday Tournament's regulations SHOULD be such that all
>   persons who choose to participate have a fair chance of winning
>   the tournament (according to its regulations), and a winner
>   SHOULD be expected within 2-3 weeks following the tournament's
>   initiation.
>
>   After adequate time for discussion of the Birthday Tournament's
>   regulations, the Herald (or delegate) CAN initiate a sanctioned
>   tournament with a specified, finalized set of regulations,
>   Without 3 Objections.  The initiation SHOULD be timed to
>   coincide with Agora's Birthday.
> Repeal Rule 2495 (The Birthday Tournament).
> }}}
>
> This effectively just repeals regulations, which I think are very dangerous
> and should not be used in place of things like contracts. Tournaments are
> reverted to the pre-Regulations rules. I spend an AP to pend this proposal.

Regulations are not dangerous, certainly not "very dangerous".
Regulations only work at the power of their parent rule, and can only
do what their parent rule says they can do. This is the first of
several safeguards against their misuse. Admittedly, an over broad
parent rule could do a lot of harm. However, we see no signs that they
are likely to be used dangerously. Currently, all they do is to run
the tournament, which isn't particularly dangerous. My contracts
proposal would let them be used to throttle some contract actions
within eminently reasonable bounds, and to exempt contracts from
paying taxes, which isn't particularly dangerous either. The most
dangerous thing they've been seriously suggested for is banking, such
that they could used, within bounds, to control Agora's treasury. That
needs more caution, but the proposal would have limits and would be
promulgated by a three member commission, hopefully ensuring broad
support. There was that it was suggested that they be used for chevron
deference, but that proposal was quickly shouted down as overly broad
and was never a serious proposal anyway, as confessed by the author.
Second, regulations require agoran consent to adopt by default,
ensuring that they can't be passed without public agreement. Third,
proposals can always change regulations anyway, so people can get rid
of them if they don't like them. I think there are sufficient
safeguards in place to ensure that regulations are used safely. If you
wish to suggest additional safeguards, I'm fairly likely to support
them. However, I see no need to repeal an interesting system that will
make for interesting gameplay.

-Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

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)
> {{{
> Repeal Rule 2493 (Regulations).
> Repeal Rule 2494 (The Regkeepor).
> Amend Rule 2464 (Tournaments) to read as follows:
>   A Tournament is a sub-game of Agora specifically sanctioned
>   to be initiated as a tournament by the Rules.  If a winner of a
>   tournament is determined within 4 weeks of its initiation, that
>   person or persons win the game, otherwise the tournament
>   concludes with no winner.
> 
>   In a timely fashion after the start of June 1 of each year,
>   the Herald SHALL propose a set of Regulations governing a
>   Birthday Tournament for that year; the Herald CAN also
>   delegate the responsibility for creating or running the
>   tournament to another player, with that player's consent.
> 
>   The Birthday Tournament's regulations SHOULD be such that all
>   persons who choose to participate have a fair chance of winning
>   the tournament (according to its regulations), and a winner
>   SHOULD be expected within 2-3 weeks following the tournament's
>   initiation.
> 
>   After adequate time for discussion of the Birthday Tournament's
>   regulations, the Herald (or delegate) CAN initiate a sanctioned
>   tournament with a specified, finalized set of regulations,
>   Without 3 Objections.  The initiation SHOULD be timed to
>   coincide with Agora's Birthday.
> Repeal Rule 2495 (The Birthday Tournament).
> }}}
> 
> This effectively just repeals regulations, which I think are very dangerous 
> and should not be used in place of things like contracts. Tournaments are 
> reverted to the pre-Regulations rules. I spend an AP to pend this proposal.
> 
> -Alexis



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

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

[ATMunn .]

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. I'm just
going to post this and go to bed now. I'll see what people think in the
morning.

Title: "A Reward for Obedience v2"
Author: ATMunn
Co-Author(s): Aris, Alexis
AI: 1

Create a new power-1 rule titled "Medals of Honour"
{
Medals of Honour are a destructible fixed currency tracked by the
Herald.

[One note on this section here: I don't know whether or not it's
implied that players should be able to, by some means or another, challenge
whether or not a player is eligible if e believes it is invalid.]
In the first week of an Agoran Month, any player CAN declare emself to
be eligible for a Medal of Honour by announcement if all of the following
are true:
* E has made at least 1 message to a public forum in the last Agoran
month.
[I really don't like having to include this, but if I don't then
players that literally do nothing can be eligible for Medals of Honour.]
* E does not have negative Karma.
* In the last Agoran month, e has not had a Card issued to em.
[I'm not exactly sure how to word the broken pledge thing, so I've left
it out for now.]

[I've never written a rule containing an Agoran Decision before, so I'm
sure there's lots of flaws in this. I mainly copied stuff from various
places in the rules.]
In the second week of an Agoran Month, if there are any players who are
eligible for a Medal of Honour, the Herald CAN, by announcement, and SHALL
in a timely fashion, initiate an Agoran Decision on who is to be awarded a
Medal of Honour.
For this decision, the valid votes are all players who are eligible for
a Medal of Honour, the vote collector is the Herald, and the voting method
is instant-runoff.
Upon the resolution of this decision, its outcome is awarded a Medal of
Honour.

If, at any time, any player has 6 or more Medals of Honour, and e has
not won via this rule previously, e can win the game by announcement,
destroying all of eir Medals of Honour.
}

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:18 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 themselves eligible for a Badge of Honor, (now
> Medal of Honour) is the idea of the recordkeepor initiating an Agoran
> Decision on who will get the medal. All players who declared themselves
> eligible for a medal at the time of the initiation of the Agoran Decision
> would be the possible votes. This would ease the load on the recordkeepor
> even more, as e would only have to worry about initiating and resolving the
> election.
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 recordkeepor for Badges of Honor.
>>
>> I'd go with "Badges of Honor are a destructible fixed currency tracked
>> by the Referee" (which would make the holder restriction unnecessary),
>> or, if you want them to be transferable "Badges of Honor are a liquid
>> currency tracked by the Referee. Ownership of Badges of Honor is
>> restricted to players".
>>
>> I have three further comments.  First, this might be something best
>> tracked by the Herald (maybe even the Tailor, as ribbons work on a
>> similar basis), who deals with matters of honor. E would have to check
>> the Referee's report, but right now the Referee has to check the
>> Herald's report, so there's really no change. Second, you should
>> probably change it not to have "badge" in the name, as badges are
>> already defined by Rule 2415. Third, you could consider having persons
>> be able to own them. If that was true, but gaining one was restricted
>> to players, the effect would be that a person who deregisters and
>> reregisters would get to keep eir badge count, the same way it is for
>> ribbons.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

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, 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 equal to 2." as a new paragraph in the fourth bullet 
>>> in the first list.
>> 
>> This line doesn't make much sense.
> 
> Why not?
> 
> -Aris



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Organization Repeal

[Owen Jacobson]

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 version number, authored by
Aris and including o in the list of co-authors, has passed, remove every
paragraph from this proposal other than this one before proceeding.

Destroy each Organization.

Repeal the following rules, in order:

* Rule 2459 ("Organizations").
* Rule 2461 ("Death and Birth of Organizations").
* Rule 2460 ("Organizational Restructuring").
* Rule 2457 ("Lockout").
* Rule 2458 ("Invoking Lockout").
* Rule 2462 ("Bankruptcy").

Amend rule 2456 ("The Secretary") by changing its title to "The Treasuror",
then by replacing its text, entirely, with:

{{{
The Treasuror is an office.

The Treasuror's weekly report includes:

1. the current Floating Value, and
2. all Floating Derived Values defined by the Rules.

The Treasuror CAN flip the floating value once a week by announcement.
As part of eir weekly duties, e SHALL flip the Floating Value to the
number of Shinies owned by Agora; e SHALL NOT ever set it to a
different value. E SHOULD do this while publishing eir weekly report.
If the Secretary discovers that e last flipped the floating value to an
incorrect value and e would not otherwise be able to set it again yet,
e CAN and SHALL set the value to what it should have been set to in the
first place by announcement.
}}}

Make o the Treasuror.

Amend rule 2166 ("Assets") by replacing the paragraph:

{{{
Unless modified by an asset's backing document, ownership of an asset
is restricted to Agora, persons, and organizations.
}}}

with:

{{{
Unless modified by an asset's backing document, ownership of an asset
is restricted to Agora and persons.
}}}

then by removing the paragraph beginning with "An organization's charter".

Amend rule 2489 ("Estates") by replacing the first sentence with:

{{{
An Estate is a type of indestructible liquid asset. Ownership of
Estates is restricted to Agora and to players.
}}}

Amend rule 2491 ("Estate Auctions") by replacing its text, entirely, with:

{{{
At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one Estate, the
Surveyor CAN, and SHALL in a timely fashion, put one Estate which is
owned by Agora up for auction by announcement. Each auction ends seven
days after it begins.

During an auction, any player CAN bid a number of Shinies by
announcement, provided the bid is higher than any previously-placed bid
in the same auction.

If, at the end of the auction, there is a single highest bid, then the
player who placed that bid wins the auction. The player who placed the
winning bid CAN, and SHALL in a timely fashion, cause Agora to transfer
the auctioned Estate to the winner by announcement by paying Agora the
amount of the bid.
}}}

Amend rule 2483 ("Economics") by replacing its text, entirely, with:

{{{
Shinies (singular "shiny", abbreviated "sh.") are an indestructible
liquid currency, and the official currency of Agora. Shiny ownership is
restricted to Agora, any player, or any entity explicitly defined by
the Rules to be an Agoran Institution. The Secretary is the
recordkeepor for Shinies.

The Secretary CAN cause Agora to pay any player or organization by
announcement if doing so is specified by a rule.
}}}

Amend the following rules, in order, by replacing the word
"Secretary" with the word "Treasuror" wherever it appears:

* Rule 2487 ("Shiny Supply Level")
* Rule 2498 ("Economic Wins")
* Rule 2497 ("Floating Value")
}}}



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

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

[ATMunn .]

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 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 themselves eligible for a Badge of Honor, (now Medal of
> > Honour) is the idea of the recordkeepor initiating an Agoran Decision on
> who
> > will get the medal. All players who declared themselves eligible for a
> medal
> > at the time of the initiation of the Agoran Decision would be the
> possible
> > votes. This would ease the load on the recordkeepor even more, as e would
> > only have to worry about initiating and resolving the election.
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Aris Merchant
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> 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 recordkeepor for Badges of Honor.
> >>
> >> I'd go with "Badges of Honor are a destructible fixed currency tracked
> >> by the Referee" (which would make the holder restriction unnecessary),
> >> or, if you want them to be transferable "Badges of Honor are a liquid
> >> currency tracked by the Referee. Ownership of Badges of Honor is
> >> restricted to players".
> >>
> >> I have three further comments.  First, this might be something best
> >> tracked by the Herald (maybe even the Tailor, as ribbons work on a
> >> similar basis), who deals with matters of honor. E would have to check
> >> the Referee's report, but right now the Referee has to check the
> >> Herald's report, so there's really no change. Second, you should
> >> probably change it not to have "badge" in the name, as badges are
> >> already defined by Rule 2415. Third, you could consider having persons
> >> be able to own them. If that was true, but gaining one was restricted
> >> to players, the effect would be that a person who deregisters and
> >> reregisters would get to keep eir badge count, the same way it is for
> >> ribbons.
> >>
> >> -Aris
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

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

[VJ Rada]

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 themselves eligible for a Badge of Honor, (now Medal of
> Honour) is the idea of the recordkeepor initiating an Agoran Decision on who
> will get the medal. All players who declared themselves eligible for a medal
> at the time of the initiation of the Agoran Decision would be the possible
> votes. This would ease the load on the recordkeepor even more, as e would
> only have to worry about initiating and resolving the election.
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>>
>> 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 recordkeepor for Badges of Honor.
>>
>> I'd go with "Badges of Honor are a destructible fixed currency tracked
>> by the Referee" (which would make the holder restriction unnecessary),
>> or, if you want them to be transferable "Badges of Honor are a liquid
>> currency tracked by the Referee. Ownership of Badges of Honor is
>> restricted to players".
>>
>> I have three further comments.  First, this might be something best
>> tracked by the Herald (maybe even the Tailor, as ribbons work on a
>> similar basis), who deals with matters of honor. E would have to check
>> the Referee's report, but right now the Referee has to check the
>> Herald's report, so there's really no change. Second, you should
>> probably change it not to have "badge" in the name, as badges are
>> already defined by Rule 2415. Third, you could consider having persons
>> be able to own them. If that was true, but gaining one was restricted
>> to players, the effect would be that a person who deregisters and
>> reregisters would get to keep eir badge count, the same way it is for
>> ribbons.
>>
>> -Aris
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[Aris Merchant]

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 this sort of thing not necessary
> (Definition and Continuity of Entities). Reenacting that as the first step
> of this proposal may be a cleaner way to solve this. It was repealed by G.
> on the basis that it was all common-sense legal precedent; recent
> jurisprudence indicates it may not have been after all.
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2014-January/010594.html
> contains a copy of the rule shortly before its repeal.
>
> Allowing contracts to back assets would also generally run into the problems
> this rule was intended to prevent, so I would recommend it.

I'll look at it, it does seem like a simplification.

>>
>> Destroy each agency.
>>
>> Destroy each contract. [Just in case.]
>>
>> # 1.2 Organization, Secretary, and Economic Cleanup
>> # 1.2.1 Repeal Organizations
>>
>> Repeal rule 2459 ("Organizations").
>>
>> Repeal rule 2461 ("Death and Birth of Organizations").
>>
>> Repeal rule 2460 ("Organizational Restructuring").
>>
>> Repeal rule 2457 ("Lockout").
>>
>> Repeal rule 2458 ("Invoking Lockout").
>>
>> Repeal rule 2462 ("Bankruptcy").
>>
>> # 1.2.2 Change Secretary to Treasuror
>>
>> Amend rule 2456 ("The Secretary") by
>>
>>   * Changing its title to "The Treasuror", then by
>>   * Replacing its text, entirely, with:
>>
>> {{{
>> The Treasuror is an office, and the recordkeepor of Shinies.
>>
>> The Treasuror's weekly report also includes:
>>
>> 1. the current Floating Value, and all derived values
>>defined by the Rules.
>> 2. the list of all public classes of assets.
>>
>> }}}
>>
>> Make o the Treasuror.
>>
>>
>> Amend the following rules, in order, by replacing the word
>> "Secretary" with the word "Treasuror" wherever it appears:
>>
>>   * Rule 2487 ("Shiny Supply Level")
>>   * Rule 2498 ("Economic Wins")
>>   * Rule 2497 ("Floating Value")
>>
>> # 1.2.3 General Economy Fixes/Cleanup
>>
>> Amend rule 2489 ("Estates") by replacing the first sentence with:
>>
>>   {{{
>>   An Estate is a type of indestructible liquid asset.
>>   }}}
>>
>> Amend rule 2491 ("Estate Auctions") by replacing its text,
>> entirely, with:
>>
>>   {{{
>>   At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one
>>   Estate, the Surveyor CAN and SHALL put one Estate which is owned by
>>   Agora up for auction by announcement. Each auction ends
>>   seven days after it begins.
>>
>>   During an auction, any player or contract may bid a number of
>> Shinies
>>   by announcement, provided that the bid is higher than all
>>   previously-placed bids in the same auction.
>>
>>   If, at the end of the auction, there is a single highest bid,
>>   then the player or contract who placed that bid wins the auction.
>>   The winner CAN cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to
>> emself
>>   by announcement, if e pays Agora the amount of the bid. The person
>> who
>>   placed the bid SHALL see to it that this is done in a timely
>> fashion.
>>   }}}
>>
>>
>> Amend rule 2483 ("Economics") by replacing its text, entirely, with:
>>
>>   {{{
>>   Shinies (singular "shiny", abbreviated "sh.") are an
>>   indestructible liquid currency, and the official currency
>>   of Agora. The Treasuror is the recordkeepor for shinies.
>>
>>   The Treasuror CAN cause Agora to pay any player or
>>   contract by announcement if doing so is specified by a
>>   another rule.
>>   }}}
>
>
> The second paragraph seems quite unnecessary.

I don't even remember why that was needed. Removed.

>>
>> Repeal Rule 2485 ("You can't take it with you").
>
>
> Wasn't this already repealed?

Good point. It wasn't when I wrote the first draft. Removed.

>> # 1.3 Agency Cleanup
>>
>> Repeal Rule 2467 ("Agencies")
>>
>> Repeal Rule 2468 ("Superintendent")
>>
>> # 1.4 Define Extricability
>>
>> [Note that I do not believe this section makes any substantive changes on
>> its
>> own. Because of the volume of concerns raised about restricting by
>> announcement
>> conditionals, this section only contains definitions.]
>>
>> Create a new power 3.0 rule entitled "Conditionals and Extricability",
>> with the
>> following text:
>>
>>   A conditional is any textual structure that attempts to make a statement
>>   affecting any part or aspect of the gamestate (the substrate), or the
>>   permissibility or possibility of any action affecting such a part or
>> aspect,
>>   dependent on the truth value or other state of a textual structure
>>   (the condition). The condition is said to be "affixed" to the substrate
>>   (inverse "to be conditional upon").
>
>
> The term "affixed" isn't used anywhere. Remove it.

I 

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[Kerim Aydin]

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 not necessary (Definition 
> and 
> Continuity of Entities). Reenacting that as the first step of this proposal 
> may be 
> a cleaner way to solve this.  It was repealed by G. on the basis that it was 
> all 
> common-sense legal precedent; recent jurisprudence indicates it may not have 
> been 
> after all.

Yup - to be clear it wasn't all "common-sense" repeals, there was a purposeful
"let's see where the precedents wander to if we take out some of the 
hard-coding"
experiment going on with those repeals too.  This is one that's come up enough
that it's definitely worth restoring IMO (it may have even preserved my recent
birthday tournament "win" for example...)

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

[Alexis Hunt]

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, <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> 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 collector is the Assessor, the
>> quorum is 5.0 and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is
>> also a valid vote).
>>
>>
>> ID Author(s) AI   TitlePender  Pend
>> fee
>>
>> ---
>> 7908*  G.1.0  Silly season G.  OP [1]
>> 7909*  G.1.2  No Lockout   G.  OP [1]
>> 7910*  G.1.0  What is a rulekeepor G.  OP [1]
>> 7911*  V.J. Rada 1.0  Infinite Money Fix   V.J. Rada   1 sh.
>> 7912*  Alexis3.0  Election Campaigns   Alexis  1 AP
>> [2]
>> 7913*  ATMunn1.0  Cheer Up v7? ATMunn  1 AP
>> 7914*  o 1.0  SFDVP [3]o   1 AP
>> 7915*  CuddleBeam1.0  Terrifying Proposals Reward  CuddleBeam  1 AP
>> 7916*  Aris, o, G.   1.0  Pro Pace v2  Aris1 AP
>> 7917*  P.S.S. [4], o 3.0  Banking  P.S.S. [4]  1 sh.
>> 7918*  P.S.S. [4]3.0  Vacant Deputisation Fix  P.S.S. [4]  1 AP
>> 7919*  P.S.S. [4]2.0  YSUIII. [5]  P.S.S. [4]  1 AP
>> 7920*  Gaelan, Aris  1.0  The Lint Screen v2   Gaelan  1 sh.
>> 7921*  o, G. 2.0  Passive Income   o   1 AP
>>
>> The proposal pool currently contains the following proposals:
>>
>> IDAuthor(s) AI   Title
>>
>> ---
>> pp1  nichdel3.0  Slower Promotion
>> pp2  nichdel1.0  Guaranteed Stampage
>>
>> Legend: * : Proposal is pending.
>>
>> [1] Official Proposal, inherently pending
>> [2] There is some debate over whether this was actually pended twice, each
>> attempt consuming 1 AP. This value is therefore provisional.
>> [3] Stamp Floating Derived Value Patch
>> [4] Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> [5] You SHALL, unless it is ILLEGAL.
>>
>> In order to reduce confusion, the shiny pend price is being removed from
>> this
>> report. A proposal may be pended for 1 AP, or for 1/20th the Floating
>> Value
>> in shines (see the Secretary's report).
>>
>> The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below.
>>
>> //
>> ID: 7908
>> Title: Silly season
>> Adoption index: 1.0
>> Author: G.
>> Co-authors:
>> Official Proposal
>>
>>
>> Re-enact Rule 1650 (Silliness) with the following text:
>>
>>   Each Nomic Week a Player is designated the Silly Person.  The Silly
>> Person
>>   SHALL in that week, by announcement (1) designate another player, who
>> has not
>>   been the Silly Person in the past two weeks, to be the next week's Silly
>>   Person; (2) submit a Silly Proposal.  If there is ever no Silly Person
>> or the
>>   Silly Person is not a player, then the next week's Silly Person is the
>> first
>>   player that any player publicly designates to be the next week's Silly
>> Person.
>>
>>   A Silly Proposal is a Proposal whose sole contents are one of
>>   the following:
>> i) A limerick.
>>ii) A rhymed poem no longer than fourteen lines. (No free
>>verse!)
>>   iii) A joke of no more than a hundred words.
>>iv) A truly hideous pun.
>>
>>   The first Silly Proposal submitted by the week's Silly Person is an
>> Official
>>   Proposal.
>>
>>
>> [I want to reward the Silly Person a shiny, but we have that dumb limit
>> that
>> rewards can only be defined in R2445, and the Fearmongor rule may not
>> allow me
>> to include other rules in the proposal].
>>
>> [For Rulekeepor, given history of Rule 1650:
>> History: Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1650 by Proposal 2673, 26 September 1996
>> History: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1650 by Proposal 3688
>> (Repeal-O-Matic), 21 February 1998
>> ]
>>
>> //
>> ID: 7909
>> Title: No Lockout
>> Adoption index: 1.2
>> Author: G.
>> Co-authors:
>> Official Proposal
>>
>>
>> Repeal Rule 2458 (Invoking Lockout).
>>
>> //
>> ID: 7910
>> Title: What is a rulekeepor
>> Adoption index: 1.0
>> Author: G.
>> Co-authors:
>> Official Proposal
>>
>> Amend Rule 1051 (The Rulekeepor) to read:
>>
>>   The Rulekeepor isn't an office; its holder is responsible for
>> maintaining the
>>   text of the rules of Agora.
>>
>>   The Rulekeepor's Weekly 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

[Alexis Hunt]

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 power was not deifned at
> the
> > time of that rule's repeal). If the re-enacting instrument is incapable
> of
> > setting the re-enacted rule's power to that value, then the re-enactment
> is
> > null and void."
>
> Why shouldn't it set it to the highest power it's capable of in that case?
>

I'd argue that bulelt (a) should actually change to not create underpowered
rules and just fail to create them, actually. I'll bet you that's been
mixed up more than once, and I wouldn't be suprised if we actually had a
phantom rule lurking in the ruleset right now as a result of it.

> [Re-enactment currently doesn't have a specified power; this causes it to
> > work roughly the way you would expect it to.]
> >
> > 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 equal to 2." as a new paragraph in the fourth
> bullet
> > in the first list.
>
> It would be nice if you could add days and weeks, while you're at it.
>
> -Aris
>

Because while the definition of a month is just obnoxious, I'm excited for
the CFJ about leap seconds.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

[Alexis Hunt]

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 believe
> > that this actuall depowers old proposals, but that's probably a good
> thing to be quite
> > honest.]
>
> This is one of those hidden things that we'll never remember if past
> proposal power
> comes up a year from now or something... so +1 for Invisibilitating.
> Maybe you should
> change the R106 proposal process too to set Proposal power to 0, so that
> we don't have a
> weird case of every proposal after this one retaining power and having to
> remember the
> breakpoint if it ever comes up?
>

Agreed. Will revise with this.

DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

[Kerim Aydin]

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 thing to 
> be quite
> honest.]

This is one of those hidden things that we'll never remember if past proposal 
power
comes up a year from now or something... so +1 for Invisibilitating.Maybe 
you should 
change the R106 proposal process too to set Proposal power to 0, so that we 
don't have a 
weird case of every proposal after this one retaining power and having to 
remember the
breakpoint if it ever comes up?

> [Re-enactment currently doesn't have a specified power; this causes it to 
> work roughly 
> the way you would expect it to.]

FWIW, this was settled the same way by CFJ 3484 (it took such a lengthy opinion
it's certainly a good idea to codify it).

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[Alexis Hunt]

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 that as the first step
of this proposal may be a cleaner way to solve this. It was repealed by G.
on the basis that it was all common-sense legal precedent; recent
jurisprudence indicates it may not have been after all.
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2014-January/010594.html
contains
a copy of the rule shortly before its repeal.

Allowing contracts to back assets would also generally run into the
problems this rule was intended to prevent, so I would recommend it.

>
> Destroy each agency.
>
> Destroy each contract. [Just in case.]
>
> # 1.2 Organization, Secretary, and Economic Cleanup
> # 1.2.1 Repeal Organizations
>
> Repeal rule 2459 ("Organizations").
>
> Repeal rule 2461 ("Death and Birth of Organizations").
>
> Repeal rule 2460 ("Organizational Restructuring").
>
> Repeal rule 2457 ("Lockout").
>
> Repeal rule 2458 ("Invoking Lockout").
>
> Repeal rule 2462 ("Bankruptcy").
>
> # 1.2.2 Change Secretary to Treasuror
>
> Amend rule 2456 ("The Secretary") by
>
>   * Changing its title to "The Treasuror", then by
>   * Replacing its text, entirely, with:
>
> {{{
> The Treasuror is an office, and the recordkeepor of Shinies.
>
> The Treasuror's weekly report also includes:
>
> 1. the current Floating Value, and all derived values
>defined by the Rules.
> 2. the list of all public classes of assets.
>
> }}}
>
> Make o the Treasuror.


> Amend the following rules, in order, by replacing the word
> "Secretary" with the word "Treasuror" wherever it appears:
>
>   * Rule 2487 ("Shiny Supply Level")
>   * Rule 2498 ("Economic Wins")
>   * Rule 2497 ("Floating Value")
>
> # 1.2.3 General Economy Fixes/Cleanup
>
> Amend rule 2489 ("Estates") by replacing the first sentence with:
>
>   {{{
>   An Estate is a type of indestructible liquid asset.
>   }}}
>
> Amend rule 2491 ("Estate Auctions") by replacing its text,
> entirely, with:
>
>   {{{
>   At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one
>   Estate, the Surveyor CAN and SHALL put one Estate which is owned by
>   Agora up for auction by announcement. Each auction ends
>   seven days after it begins.
>
>   During an auction, any player or contract may bid a number of Shinies
>   by announcement, provided that the bid is higher than all
>   previously-placed bids in the same auction.
>
>   If, at the end of the auction, there is a single highest bid,
>   then the player or contract who placed that bid wins the auction.
>   The winner CAN cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to emself
>   by announcement, if e pays Agora the amount of the bid. The person
> who
>   placed the bid SHALL see to it that this is done in a timely fashion.
>   }}}


> Amend rule 2483 ("Economics") by replacing its text, entirely, with:
>
>   {{{
>   Shinies (singular "shiny", abbreviated "sh.") are an
>   indestructible liquid currency, and the official currency
>   of Agora. The Treasuror is the recordkeepor for shinies.
>
>   The Treasuror CAN cause Agora to pay any player or
>   contract by announcement if doing so is specified by a
>   another rule.
>   }}}
>

The second paragraph seems quite unnecessary.

>
> Repeal Rule 2485 ("You can't take it with you").
>

Wasn't this already repealed?

> # 1.3 Agency Cleanup
>
> Repeal Rule 2467 ("Agencies")
>
> Repeal Rule 2468 ("Superintendent")
>
> # 1.4 Define Extricability
>
> [Note that I do not believe this section makes any substantive changes on
> its
> own. Because of the volume of concerns raised about restricting by
> announcement
> conditionals, this section only contains definitions.]
>
> Create a new power 3.0 rule entitled "Conditionals and Extricability",
> with the
> following text:
>
>   A conditional is any textual structure that attempts to make a statement
>   affecting any part or aspect of the gamestate (the substrate), or the
>   permissibility or possibility of any action affecting such a part or
> aspect,
>   dependent on the truth value or other state of a textual structure
>   (the condition). The condition is said to be "affixed" to the substrate
>   (inverse "to be conditional upon").
>

The term "affixed" isn't used anywhere. Remove it.

>
>   A condition is inextricable if it is unclear, ambiguous, circular,
>   inconsistent, paradoxical, depends on information that is impossible or
>   unreasonably difficult to determine, or otherwise requires an
> unreasonable
>   effort resolve; otherwise it is extricable. A conditional is
> inextricable if
>   its condition is inextricable; otherwise it is extricable. A player
> SHOULD NOT
>   use an 

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[Kerim Aydin]

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 destroy
> real-life contracts (thus creating a legal fiction that they don't
> exist). Given that Agora used to be capable of recognising those, this
> may be a useful precaution to take anyway; I just find the implications
> interesting.

Until we've defined "contract" (later in the proposal), is a pledge a type
of contract that would be destroyed by this clause?  We've said several
times that a pledge is a "contract with Agora" and it meets the definition
of an Agreement, anyway.






 

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

[Kerim Aydin]

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 
> votes as non-OPTION A votes. Also, this doesn't take into account 
> PRESENT; is that intentional?

The point is that if we're fairly closely split, we won't get an
AI-3 majority for *either* option, then we'd be stuck in the unclear 
situation we are now.  (which, no matter how sophisticated the CFJ
logic is, with opinion fairly split we're not going to have enough
consensus for a CFJ to settle it).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

[Aris Merchant]

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 equal to 2." as a new paragraph in the fourth bullet 
>> in the first list.
>
> This line doesn't make much sense.

Why not?

-Aris

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

[Aris Merchant]

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 recordkeepor for Badges of Honor.

I'd go with "Badges of Honor are a destructible fixed currency tracked
by the Referee" (which would make the holder restriction unnecessary),
or, if you want them to be transferable "Badges of Honor are a liquid
currency tracked by the Referee. Ownership of Badges of Honor is
restricted to players".

I have three further comments.  First, this might be something best
tracked by the Herald (maybe even the Tailor, as ribbons work on a
similar basis), who deals with matters of honor. E would have to check
the Referee's report, but right now the Referee has to check the
Herald's report, so there's really no change. Second, you should
probably change it not to have "badge" in the name, as badges are
already defined by Rule 2415. Third, you could consider having persons
be able to own them. If that was true, but gaining one was restricted
to players, the effect would be that a person who deregisters and
reregisters would get to keep eir badge count, the same way it is for
ribbons.

-Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

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 substantive part of this proposal and is 
> ignored when it takes effect.
> 
> Amend Rule 105, bullet 2 to read "When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a 
> rule, its power is set to 0, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a 
> record of it."
> 
> [There is a ruling that repealed rules have their power set to 0, but I'm not 
> sure I fully agree with that conclusion; this makes it explicit which can't 
> hurt anyway.]
> 
> 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 
> thing to be quite honest.]
> 
> 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 power was not deifned at the time 
> of that rule's repeal). If the re-enacting instrument

"defined" should be "defined".

> is incapable of setting the re-enacted rule's power to that value, then the 
> re-enactment is null and void."
> 
> [Re-enactment currently doesn't have a specified power; this causes it to 
> work roughly the way you would expect it to.]
> 
> 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 equal to 2." as a new paragraph in the fourth bullet in the 
> first list.

This line doesn't make much sense.

> 
> [This makes the logical extension to "within 6 months", which is used, 
> explicit.]
> }}}
> 
> -Alexis



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

[Aris Merchant]

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 2 to read "When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a
> rule, its power is set to 0, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a
> record of it."
>
> [There is a ruling that repealed rules have their power set to 0, but I'm
> not sure I fully agree with that conclusion; this makes it explicit which
> can't hurt anyway.]
>
> 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
> thing to be quite honest.]

Agreed. At some point we should probably require proposals to be
instantaneous, but I'm not sure that's within the scope of a fixes
proposal.

> 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 power was not deifned at the
> time of that rule's repeal). If the re-enacting instrument is incapable of
> setting the re-enacted rule's power to that value, then the re-enactment is
> null and void."

Why shouldn't it set it to the highest power it's capable of in that case?

>
> [Re-enactment currently doesn't have a specified power; this causes it to
> work roughly the way you would expect it to.]
>
> 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 equal to 2." as a new paragraph in the fourth bullet
> in the first list.

It would be nice if you could add days and weeks, while you're at it.

-Aris

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

[Alexis Hunt]

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. The Referee
> is the recordkeepor for Badges of Honor.
>
> At the beginning of every Agoran month, the Referee CAN and SHALL
> award a Badge of Honor to any one player who is eligible for a Badge of
> Honor, if there are any.
>

This should specify the method of awarding a Badge of Honor (e.g. by
announcement). Additionally, it should specify a time limit; "in a timely
fashion" should be fine.

The restriction that e CAN only award a Badge of Honor to someone eligible.


> It is IMPOSSIBLE for the Referee to award more than one Badge of Honor
> in an Agoran month.
>
> A player is eligible for a Badge of Honor if all of the following
> statements are true:
> * E has made at least 1 action in the last Agoran month.
>
A message to a public forum should be sufficient for this.

> * E does not have negative Karma.
> * In the last Agoran month, e has not had a Card issued to em.
> * In the last Agoran month, e has not had eir Finger Pointing found
> Shenanigans.
>
I dislike this condition; it discourages people using our fragile justice
system even further. Making a false accusation should be fine, because
often it's not clear whether a violation was actually a violation in
advance.

> * In the last Agoran month, e has not broken any of eir pledges.
>
The pledge rule requires pragmatically declaring that the pledge is broken,
by calling it in. It would significantly ease the burden on the
recordkeeper to switch to this, since they would only have to read through
for called-in pledges, rather than for all violations of pledges.

>
> If, at any time, any player has 6 or more Badges of Honor, and e has
> not won via this rule previously, e can win the game by announcement.
>
This should destroy all eir Badges of Honor. I'd actually prefer it reset
all of them, but because they're awarded subjectively, that may not be a
great way to do it.

> }
>
> I thought this would be a nice, simple way to reward players who are
> "obedient" without being too overpowered. I'm sure it has flaws though, so
> that's why I'm posting it as a prototype first.
>
I like the concept in general, but have a few concerns. Another option
would be, rather than making this a separate system, tying it into Ribbons
and making it a Ribbon award. This has significant benefits and drawbacks.
One of the bigger reservations here is that this encourages a player to do
very little. For instance, a player who does nothing but vote will be
eligible every month, since they don't set themselves up for breaking one
of the rules. An officer in a complex office is likely to make mistakes,
and it's easy to issue em green cards as a result.

> Also, there's a few things I'm not really sure I'm completely happy with.
> First thing: I'm not exactly sure how to word what a Badge of Honor *is*.
> I think I did it right, but I'm not sure.
>
I'm not either, at this point...

> Second thing: I don't really know what office should keep track of and
> award these. My initial thought was the Referee, since e already keeps
> track of cards and such.
>
This is actually a fiarly intensive duty, since it requires looking through
an entire month's worth of mail to find actions (recordkeeping decisions is
bad enough, since you have to trawl through votes and people aren't always
kind enough to vote in reply to the original message starting the decision.
And that's only one week long). A better way, perhaps, would be to require
to explicitly declare themselves eligible within the first week of the
month, subject this to some form of challenge, and then have the award be
made in the second or third week. This would also get around the platonism
problem: if someone declares themselves eligible and nobody else
double-checks them, then they get their badge, oops.

> Third thing: I don't really know how the whole Karma system works, since
> it's quite new. Should I even bother including it?
>
Karma is fairly subjective. I think there's pros to including it
(encourages "good behaviour" without necessarily aligning that to the
rules) and cons (players can gang up to deny another player access to Honor
Badges by ensuring eir Karma is negative).

> Last thing: Is it necessary to include "In the last Agoran month, e has
> not broken any of eir pledges"? I think you can be issued a card for
> breaking a pledge, right?
>
Responded to this above.

-Alexis

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[Aris Merchant]

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

---
Title: Contracts v4
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-author(s): o, G., ais523, Gaelan, 天火狐, CuddleBeam, V.J Rada, Trigon


Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets ("[]")
have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any rules
created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
have been removed before its resolution.

# 1 Cleanup & Miscellaneous
# 1.1 Gamestate Cleanup

Destroy each organization.

Destroy each agency.

Destroy each contract. [Just in case.]

# 1.2 Organization, Secretary, and Economic Cleanup
# 1.2.1 Repeal Organizations

Repeal rule 2459 ("Organizations").

Repeal rule 2461 ("Death and Birth of Organizations").

Repeal rule 2460 ("Organizational Restructuring").

Repeal rule 2457 ("Lockout").

Repeal rule 2458 ("Invoking Lockout").

Repeal rule 2462 ("Bankruptcy").

# 1.2.2 Change Secretary to Treasuror

Amend rule 2456 ("The Secretary") by

  * Changing its title to "The Treasuror", then by
  * Replacing its text, entirely, with:

{{{
The Treasuror is an office, and the recordkeepor of Shinies.

The Treasuror's weekly report also includes:

1. the current Floating Value, and all derived values
   defined by the Rules.
2. the list of all public classes of assets.

}}}

Make o the Treasuror.

Amend the following rules, in order, by replacing the word
"Secretary" with the word "Treasuror" wherever it appears:

  * Rule 2487 ("Shiny Supply Level")
  * Rule 2498 ("Economic Wins")
  * Rule 2497 ("Floating Value")

# 1.2.3 General Economy Fixes/Cleanup

Amend rule 2489 ("Estates") by replacing the first sentence with:

  {{{
  An Estate is a type of indestructible liquid asset.
  }}}

Amend rule 2491 ("Estate Auctions") by replacing its text,
entirely, with:

  {{{
  At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one
  Estate, the Surveyor CAN and SHALL put one Estate which is owned by
  Agora up for auction by announcement. Each auction ends
  seven days after it begins.

  During an auction, any player or contract may bid a number of Shinies
  by announcement, provided that the bid is higher than all
  previously-placed bids in the same auction.

  If, at the end of the auction, there is a single highest bid,
  then the player or contract who placed that bid wins the auction.
  The winner CAN cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to emself
  by announcement, if e pays Agora the amount of the bid. The person who
  placed the bid SHALL see to it that this is done in a timely fashion.
  }}}

Amend rule 2483 ("Economics") by replacing its text, entirely, with:

  {{{
  Shinies (singular "shiny", abbreviated "sh.") are an
  indestructible liquid currency, and the official currency
  of Agora. The Treasuror is the recordkeepor for shinies.

  The Treasuror CAN cause Agora to pay any player or
  contract by announcement if doing so is specified by a
  another rule.
  }}}

Repeal Rule 2485 ("You can't take it with you").


# 1.3 Agency Cleanup

Repeal Rule 2467 ("Agencies")

Repeal Rule 2468 ("Superintendent")

# 1.4 Define Extricability

[Note that I do not believe this section makes any substantive changes on its
own. Because of the volume of concerns raised about restricting by announcement
conditionals, this section only contains definitions.]

Create a new power 3.0 rule entitled "Conditionals and Extricability", with the
following text:

  A conditional is any textual structure that attempts to make a statement (the
  substrate) affecting any part or aspect of the gamestate, or the
  permissibility, possibility, or effect of any action affecting such a part or
  aspect, dependent on the truth value or other state of a textual structure
  (the condition). The condition is said to be "affixed" to the substrate
  (inverse "to be conditional upon").

  A condition is inextricable if it is unclear, ambiguous, circular,
  inconsistent, paradoxical, depends on information that is impossible or
  unreasonably difficult to determine, or otherwise requires an unreasonable
  effort to resolve; otherwise it is extricable. A conditional is inextricable
  if its condition is inextricable; otherwise it is extricable. A player SHOULD
  NOT use an inextricable conditional for any purpose.

  An action is said to be "subject to" a conditional if its possibility,
  permissibility, or effect (depending on context) is determined by the
  conditional. A value is said to be subject to a conditional of the state
  of the value is determined by the conditional.

Create a new power 3.0 rule entitled "Determinacy", 

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

[Alexis Hunt]

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" imply
> "by announcement" and game opinion is somewhat split.  We should make
> it clear, but I'm not sure there's an AI-3 majority favoring either
> option.  Rather than leave it unclear, this uses an AI-3 majority
> to approve that we want it clarified, but leaves it up to majority
> vote whether "by announcement" is implied.  (even people voting
> AGAINST can have their preference counted on that part).
>
>
> Amend Rule 2125 (Regulated Actions) by replacing:
>   Restricted Actions CAN only be performed as described by the
>   Rules.
> with:
>   A Restricted Action CAN only be performed as described by the
>   Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the
>   Rules for performing the given action.
>
> [this over-arching protection means in general, "by announcement"
> is NOT implied].
>
>
> If the majority of valid ballots (valid at the end of the voting
> period) cast in the decision to adopt this proposal specify "OPTION A"
> along with their vote, then amend Rule 2152 (Mother, May I?) by
> appending the following paragraph:
>
>   If a Rule states that an entity CAN, MAY, or SHALL perform an
>   action, but does not explicitly specify a method for performing
>   it, then "CAN by announcement" is specified by that Rule as a
>   method for performing that action (subject to any conditions
>   included with the CAN, MAY, or SHALL).
>

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 votes as non-OPTION A votes. Also, this
doesn't take into account PRESENT; is that intentional?

-Alexis

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

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 
>  wrote:
> 
> 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 rules-defined, so this attempts to destroy
>> real-life contracts (thus creating a legal fiction that they don't
>> exist). Given that Agora used to be capable of recognising those, this
>> may be a useful precaution to take anyway; I just find the implications
>> interesting.
> 
> I know. I just want to make absolutely sure no one claims that
> existing contracts kept existing even in the absence of an authorizing
> rule (like patent title do) and are now binding again.
> 
>>>  A condition is inextricable if it is unclear, ambiguous, circular,
>>>  inconsistent, paradoxical, depends on information that is impossible or
>>>  unreasonably difficult to determine, or otherwise requires an unreasonable
>>>  effort resolve; otherwise it is extricable. A conditional is inextricable 
>>> if
>> "unreasonable effort to resolve"
>>>  its condition is inextricable; otherwise it is extricable. A player SHOULD 
>>> NOT
>>>  use an inextricable conditional for any purpose.
>>> 
>>>  An action said to be "subject to" a conditional if the possibility,
>> "An action is said to be "subject to" a conditional if its
>> possibility,"; you have two separate typos here
> 
> Fixed.
> 
>>>  permissibility, or effect (depending on context) is determined by the
>>>  conditional. A value is said to be subject to a conditional of the the 
>>> state
>> "conditional if the state"
> 
> Fixed.
> 
>>>  of the value is determined by the conditional.
>> 
>> 
>>>  A person SHALL not act on behalf of another person if doing so causes the
>> "SHALL NOT"
> 
> Done.
> 
>>>  second person to violate the rules. A person CANNOT act on behalf of 
>>> another
>>>  person to do anything except perform a game action; in particular, a person
>>>  CANNOT act on behalf of another person to send a message, only to perform
>>>  specific actions that might be taken within a message.
>> This seems to preclude publishing a report on behalf of another player,
>> unless you treat the report as a body of text that's nonetheless
>> distinct from the message containing it.
> 
> It does. That is also precluded by protected action 6. I'm not opposed
> to making an exception in the long run, but I'd like to wait until
> we've worked out the bugs and scams.
> 
>>>  A regulation's promulgator SHALL generally obey eir own regulations as long
>>>  as they are acting reasonably within their rule defined scope. E NEED NOT
>>>  follow any regulation constraining em to take or not to take some action 
>>> with
>>>  to eir regulations, or any regulation constraining em to violate a rule.
>> "with to" doesn't make sense. Do you mean "with respect to"? (It's
>> possible that the correct correction is something else, but it needs
>> correcting somehow.)
> 
> Changed to "with regard to".
> 
>>>  A contract is a textual entity, and the ruleset described entity embodied
>>>  therein. A document can only become a contract through the appropriate 
>>> ruleset
>>>  defined procedures. Changes to the contracts text by rule defined 
>>> mechanisms
>> "contract's text"
>>>  (including those delegated to the contract itself) do not change the 
>>> identity
>>>  of the contract.
>>> 
>>>  The following changes are secured at power 2.1: creating or modifying a
>>>  contract or causing an entity to become a contract. [Note that,
>>>  as a precaution, causing an entity to cease being a contract is not 
>>> secured.]
>> The square-bracketed section will end up in the ruleset the way your
>> proposal is currently worded. I recommend either removing it or
>> removing the brackets (it wouldn't be terrible to have an explanatory
>> note in the rules).
> 
> Note the top paragraph "Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and
> comments in square brackets ("[]")
> have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any 
> rules
> created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
> have been removed before its resolution."
> 
>> 
>>>  Contracts have parties, who are persons. The person(s) who create(s) a
>>>  contract is/are automatically a party/parties. Other persons CAN become
>>>  parties by announcement if the contract permits them do so. Parties can 
>>> leave
>> "Other persons CAN become parties to a contract by announcement if the
>> contract permits them to do so"; this is a combination of a typo fix
>> and a rewording to make it 

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[Aris Merchant]

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 rules-defined, so this attempts to destroy
> real-life contracts (thus creating a legal fiction that they don't
> exist). Given that Agora used to be capable of recognising those, this
> may be a useful precaution to take anyway; I just find the implications
> interesting.

I know. I just want to make absolutely sure no one claims that
existing contracts kept existing even in the absence of an authorizing
rule (like patent title do) and are now binding again.

>>   A condition is inextricable if it is unclear, ambiguous, circular,
>>   inconsistent, paradoxical, depends on information that is impossible or
>>   unreasonably difficult to determine, or otherwise requires an unreasonable
>>   effort resolve; otherwise it is extricable. A conditional is inextricable 
>> if
> "unreasonable effort to resolve"
>>   its condition is inextricable; otherwise it is extricable. A player SHOULD 
>> NOT
>>   use an inextricable conditional for any purpose.
>>
>>   An action said to be "subject to" a conditional if the possibility,
> "An action is said to be "subject to" a conditional if its
> possibility,"; you have two separate typos here

Fixed.

>>   permissibility, or effect (depending on context) is determined by the
>>   conditional. A value is said to be subject to a conditional of the the 
>> state
> "conditional if the state"

Fixed.

>>   of the value is determined by the conditional.
>
>
>>   A person SHALL not act on behalf of another person if doing so causes the
> "SHALL NOT"

Done.

>>   second person to violate the rules. A person CANNOT act on behalf of 
>> another
>>   person to do anything except perform a game action; in particular, a person
>>   CANNOT act on behalf of another person to send a message, only to perform
>>   specific actions that might be taken within a message.
> This seems to preclude publishing a report on behalf of another player,
> unless you treat the report as a body of text that's nonetheless
> distinct from the message containing it.

It does. That is also precluded by protected action 6. I'm not opposed
to making an exception in the long run, but I'd like to wait until
we've worked out the bugs and scams.

>>   A regulation's promulgator SHALL generally obey eir own regulations as long
>>   as they are acting reasonably within their rule defined scope. E NEED NOT
>>   follow any regulation constraining em to take or not to take some action 
>> with
>>   to eir regulations, or any regulation constraining em to violate a rule.
> "with to" doesn't make sense. Do you mean "with respect to"? (It's
> possible that the correct correction is something else, but it needs
> correcting somehow.)

Changed to "with regard to".

>>   A contract is a textual entity, and the ruleset described entity embodied
>>   therein. A document can only become a contract through the appropriate 
>> ruleset
>>   defined procedures. Changes to the contracts text by rule defined 
>> mechanisms
> "contract's text"
>>   (including those delegated to the contract itself) do not change the 
>> identity
>>   of the contract.
>>
>>   The following changes are secured at power 2.1: creating or modifying a
>>   contract or causing an entity to become a contract. [Note that,
>>   as a precaution, causing an entity to cease being a contract is not 
>> secured.]
> The square-bracketed section will end up in the ruleset the way your
> proposal is currently worded. I recommend either removing it or
> removing the brackets (it wouldn't be terrible to have an explanatory
> note in the rules).

Note the top paragraph "Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and
comments in square brackets ("[]")
have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any rules
created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
have been removed before its resolution."

>
>>   Contracts have parties, who are persons. The person(s) who create(s) a
>>   contract is/are automatically a party/parties. Other persons CAN become
>>   parties by announcement if the contract permits them do so. Parties can 
>> leave
> "Other persons CAN become parties to a contract by announcement if the
> contract permits them to do so"; this is a combination of a typo fix
> and a rewording to make it clearer.

Done.

>>   a contract by announcement, ceasing being parties, if the contract permits
>>   the to do so. A contract CAN expel a party or group of parties by
> "if the contract permits them to do so"
>>   announcement, causing them to cease being parties.

Done.

>>   formation. The Notary CAN by regulation increase this limit up to a maximum
>>   of 7; e CANNOT decrease it.
> I'd be happier without the regulation clause here, given 

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[Aris Merchant]

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 one message.

Probably, yeah. It's okay though. All fixed, except for the "ruleset"
thing. That is solved by item (c) of the list.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[Aris Merchant]

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

[Aris Merchant]

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 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" imply
> "by announcement" and game opinion is somewhat split.  We should make
> it clear, but I'm not sure there's an AI-3 majority favoring either
> option.  Rather than leave it unclear, this uses an AI-3 majority
> to approve that we want it clarified, but leaves it up to majority
> vote whether "by announcement" is implied.  (even people voting
> AGAINST can have their preference counted on that part).
>
>
> Amend Rule 2125 (Regulated Actions) by replacing:
>   Restricted Actions CAN only be performed as described by the
>   Rules.
> with:
>   A Restricted Action CAN only be performed as described by the
>   Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the
>   Rules for performing the given action.
>
> [this over-arching protection means in general, "by announcement"
> is NOT implied].
>
>
> If the majority of valid ballots (valid at the end of the voting
> period) cast in the decision to adopt this proposal specify "OPTION A"
> along with their vote, then amend Rule 2152 (Mother, May I?) by
> appending the following paragraph:
>
>   If a Rule states that an entity CAN, MAY, or SHALL perform an
>   action, but does not explicitly specify a method for performing
>   it, then "CAN by announcement" is specified by that Rule as a
>   method for performing that action (subject to any conditions
>   included with the CAN, MAY, or SHALL).
>
> --
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[Alex Smith]

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 that they don't
exist). Given that Agora used to be capable of recognising those, this
may be a useful precaution to take anyway; I just find the implications
interesting.

>   A condition is inextricable if it is unclear, ambiguous, circular,
>   inconsistent, paradoxical, depends on information that is impossible or
>   unreasonably difficult to determine, or otherwise requires an unreasonable
>   effort resolve; otherwise it is extricable. A conditional is inextricable if
"unreasonable effort to resolve"
>   its condition is inextricable; otherwise it is extricable. A player SHOULD 
> NOT
>   use an inextricable conditional for any purpose.
> 
>   An action said to be "subject to" a conditional if the possibility,
"An action is said to be "subject to" a conditional if its
possibility,"; you have two separate typos here
>   permissibility, or effect (depending on context) is determined by the
>   conditional. A value is said to be subject to a conditional of the the state
"conditional if the state"
>   of the value is determined by the conditional.


>   A person SHALL not act on behalf of another person if doing so causes the
"SHALL NOT"
>   second person to violate the rules. A person CANNOT act on behalf of another
>   person to do anything except perform a game action; in particular, a person
>   CANNOT act on behalf of another person to send a message, only to perform
>   specific actions that might be taken within a message.
This seems to preclude publishing a report on behalf of another player,
unless you treat the report as a body of text that's nonetheless
distinct from the message containing it.

>   A regulation's promulgator SHALL generally obey eir own regulations as long
>   as they are acting reasonably within their rule defined scope. E NEED NOT
>   follow any regulation constraining em to take or not to take some action 
> with
>   to eir regulations, or any regulation constraining em to violate a rule.
"with to" doesn't make sense. Do you mean "with respect to"? (It's
possible that the correct correction is something else, but it needs
correcting somehow.)

>   A contract is a textual entity, and the ruleset described entity embodied
>   therein. A document can only become a contract through the appropriate 
> ruleset
>   defined procedures. Changes to the contracts text by rule defined mechanisms
"contract's text"
>   (including those delegated to the contract itself) do not change the 
> identity
>   of the contract.
>
>   The following changes are secured at power 2.1: creating or modifying a
>   contract or causing an entity to become a contract. [Note that,
>   as a precaution, causing an entity to cease being a contract is not 
> secured.]
The square-bracketed section will end up in the ruleset the way your
proposal is currently worded. I recommend either removing it or
removing the brackets (it wouldn't be terrible to have an explanatory
note in the rules).

>   Contracts have parties, who are persons. The person(s) who create(s) a
>   contract is/are automatically a party/parties. Other persons CAN become
>   parties by announcement if the contract permits them do so. Parties can 
> leave
"Other persons CAN become parties to a contract by announcement if the
contract permits them to do so"; this is a combination of a typo fix
and a rewording to make it clearer.
>   a contract by announcement, ceasing being parties, if the contract permits
>   the to do so. A contract CAN expel a party or group of parties by
"if the contract permits them to do so"
>   announcement, causing them to cease being parties.

>   formation. The Notary CAN by regulation increase this limit up to a maximum
>   of 7; e CANNOT decrease it.
I'd be happier without the regulation clause here, given that it looks
a bit like the regulation works by amending a rule. If you think that
the ability to change the limit is necessary, I'd recommend stating
something like "the limit is by default 3, but can be set to a higher
value as specified by regulation by the Notary". Or just making it a
switch, that works too.

>   If a contract has fulfilled its purpose, does not specify any gamestate
>   affecting statements, or otherwise seems unlikely to be used, the Notary
>   CAN and SHOULD destroy it Without 2 Objections or with Agoran Consent. Any
>   player may destroy a contract with 2 Agoran Consent. Players SHOULD NOT use
"may"? You probably mean "CAN" here.
>   the methods in this paragraph to further their private interests.

>   The text of a contract CAN specify obligations upon its parties. Parties to
Given that this is a state of existence rather than an explicit action,
I'd prefer "can" to "CAN" here.
>   a contract 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Stamps are cool

[Kerim Aydin]

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 by transferring 1 shiny to Agora.
> 
> 
> Stamps cost 2 at the moment. 

Aside to Aris:

This is the sort of thing we should think about cleaning up.

ATMunn's purpose is clear.  How to minimize errors and make it easy 
for everyone?

1.  Should it fail because e expressed the wrong number of shinies?
(probably yes, e may not want to buy it if the cost is different then
e expects).

2.  Should it fail if e doesn't express how many shinies, just says
"I do this by spending/paying for it".  (probably no?)

3.  Should it fail if e says "transfer" when e means "destroy" (if e
were using AP), and vice versa? (no I think).

Etc

DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] A Reward for Obedience

[ATMunn .]

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 and SHALL award
a Badge of Honor to any one player who is eligible for a Badge of Honor, if
there are any.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for the Referee to award more than one Badge of Honor
in an Agoran month.

A player is eligible for a Badge of Honor if all of the following
statements are true:
* E has made at least 1 action in the last Agoran month.
* E does not have negative Karma.
* In the last Agoran month, e has not had a Card issued to em.
* In the last Agoran month, e has not had eir Finger Pointing found
Shenanigans.
* In the last Agoran month, e has not broken any of eir pledges.

If, at any time, any player has 6 or more Badges of Honor, and e has
not won via this rule previously, e can win the game by announcement.
}

I thought this would be a nice, simple way to reward players who are
"obedient" without being too overpowered. I'm sure it has flaws though, so
that's why I'm posting it as a prototype first.

Also, there's a few things I'm not really sure I'm completely happy with.
First thing: I'm not exactly sure how to word what a Badge of Honor *is*. I
think I did it right, but I'm not sure.
Second thing: I don't really know what office should keep track of and
award these. My initial thought was the Referee, since e already keeps
track of cards and such.
Third thing: I don't really know how the whole Karma system works, since
it's quite new. Should I even bother including it?
Last thing: Is it necessary to include "In the last Agoran month, e has not
broken any of eir pledges"? I think you can be issued a card for breaking a
pledge, right?

DIS: Re: BUS: Stamps are cool

[Alexis Hunt]

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 at the moment.

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

[Alexis Hunt]

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 discussion thread: What
> exactly does it mean when people vote like "I vote for [person1, person2,
> person3, etc.]"?)
>

 It's an instant-runoff vote. See rule 955.

Re: DIS: Draft: Spending Fix

[Kerim Aydin]

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 transferred.
This is messy and confusing - we know what is meant, but this could lead
to people calling this out and lots of errors, and inconsistencies (i.e.
most times we let it go, but if someone has a game reason for invalidating
someone else's action, they might call it out).

I think a solution is to include with this proposal going through the whole
ruleset and harmonizing "pay" versus "spend" language in all the rules.
I'm willing to take a pass at this but will probably be tomorrow.

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> 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 that rules will almost have the intended
> >> effect. However, I agree that my current implementation is messy, and
> >> worse, overly magical. I want to keep the destroy or transfer bit, but
> >> I think its reasonable to expect rule/contract authors to be a little
> >> more careful. I'm going to remove the "if its indestructible" bit, and
> >> have it just always default to transferring. Are you okay with that?
> >
> > No worries - if you have reasons for keeping it destroy/transfer other
> > than as just an AP kludge, cool - I'll help you wordsmith the next draft.
> 
> Below is an updated draft.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> ---
> Title: Spending Fix v2
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors: G.
> 
> Amend Rule 2166, "Assets", by inserting the paragraph
> 
>   "To spend an asset is to pay or destroy it for the purpose of doing some 
> other
>   action or fulfilling an obligation by announcement; if the action would not
>   be completed, the obligation would not be at least partially fulfilled, or
>   more of the asset would be spent than is needed to perform the 
> action/fulfill
>   the obligation, then the attempt to spend fails. Whether the asset must be
>   payed or destroyed is determined by what is needed to perform the action or
>   satisfy the obligation. If the entity defining or enabling the action or
>   creating the obligation does not specify which is necessary, but merely that
>   the asset must be spent, and if no other rule intervenes, then it is
>   transferred to Agora."
> 
> after the paragraph beginning "An asset generally CAN be transferred..."
> 
> Amend Rule 2500, "Action Points", by changing it to read in full:
> 
>   Action Points (AP) are a fixed destructible untracked currency. At the
>   beginning of each Agoran Week, all Action Points are destroyed and 2 Action
>   Points are created in the possession of each player. It is IMPOSSIBLE
>   for Action Points to be gained in any other way. Action Points are spent by
>   being destroyed.
>

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

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

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
>  wrote:
>> 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 PM, Aris Merchant
>>>  wrote:
 On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Kerim Aydin  
 wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> In the decision to elect an associate director of personnel, I vote for 
>> V.J Rada.
>> 
>> In the decision to elect a prime minister, I vote for Alexis, then G., 
>> then nichdel.
> 
> I retract any previous votes in both elections, and vote as o does.
> 
> (er, unconditionally).
> 
> 
 I vote (retracting my previous votes if there are any) ENDORSE o on
 the prime minister election, and [ATMunn, V.J. Rada] for ADoP.
 
 -Aris
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> From V.J. Rada
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> From V.J. Rada



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

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

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

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 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
 In the decision to elect an associate director of personnel, I vote for 
 V.J Rada.
 
 In the decision to elect a prime minister, I vote for Alexis, then G., 
 then nichdel.
>>> 
>>> I retract any previous votes in both elections, and vote as o does.
>>> 
>>> (er, unconditionally).
>>> 
>>> 
>> I vote (retracting my previous votes if there are any) ENDORSE o on
>> the prime minister election, and [ATMunn, V.J. Rada] for ADoP.
>> 
>> -Aris
> 
> 
> 
> --
> From V.J. Rada



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

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

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

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. But if you want to try for
> it, go for it.
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:41 AM, ATMunn . 
> wrote:
> > I was starting to think about maybe getting myself an office, to get some
> > income and feel like I'm actually doing something. I looked over some of
> the
> > comments in my "Various questions" thread, and I think I know what I
> want.
> >
> > My first choice is Registrar. It seems like a fairly easy position, and
> if
> > my proposal passes, it'll have some involvement in that. The problem is
> that
> > it is currently held by PSS, who at the time of the last ADoP report,
> only
> > had one office, that being the Registrar. I would feel bad trying to take
> > away eir only office. However, as far as I know, e should now also have
> the
> > Assessor, so if I took the Registrar, e wouldn't be completely
> "unemployed."
> > I still don't know if I really want to do it though.
> >
> > My second choice is the Tailor. I had originally thought that I wanted
> the
> > Tailor, but then changed my mind. Now that I have more of a grasping of
> the
> > game, I think i could handle it. The only problem is, there was an
> election
> > for the Tailor that was literally resolved yesterday. So again, it feels
> a
> > bit mean to try to get an office before the current holder was even able
> to
> > publish a single report.
> >
> > My third choice, ADoP, has a similar problem. I believe there is
> currently
> > an ongoing election for it, but I already voted for Alexis. I could
> change
> > my vote, but I think the election will probably be resolved soon, so I
> don't
> > think I'd be able to get enough votes in time, let alone at all.
> >
> > So, I'm really not sure what to think. I would like an office, but it
> > doesn't really seem possible to get any of the ones I'm interested in
> > without being kind of "unethical," one could say. Is there another
> office I
> > should go for? Should I just continue being unemployed for now? There is
> a
> > proposal currently being voted on that if it passes, will give some
> income
> > even without having an office, if I understand correctly. And besides, at
> > the moment I really don't have much to spend shinies on anyways.
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[VJ Rada]

"  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  wrote:
> "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  wrote:
>> " 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 useful use of agencies I can ever recall.
>> However these rules prohibit "modifying the performance of"
>> "performing any official duty", which would stop that use.
>>
>> Has o. agreed to be the notary? I presume so.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:03 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>> ". 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 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 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 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 and why, I'd appreciate it.
>>
>> For those who weren't around or want to see it again, here is my
>> statement from the first draft:
>>
>> {{
>>
>> I'm going to preface this by saying that my contracts proposal is kind
>> of long. It may take a few days for everyone to read through it and
>> stuff. It's long for several reasons. For one thing, it repeals about
>> as many rules as it creates. As I suggested, this is a consolidation
>> of the existing Agency and Organization mechanics, which means it
>> should be a net simplification, even though it doesn't feel like it.
>> It also adds in the whole new element that the thing is binding. At
>> some point we may be able to repeal pledges too, once everyone's used
>> to the new mechanics. Another reason is that I've littered the thing
>> with safety features. They're probably unnecessary, but better safe
>> than sorry.
>>
>> A few design principles:
>>
>> 1. Contracts should be easy to use. The primary cause for the failure
>> of organizations was their complexity. You had to come up with a name.
>> You had to deal with member's budgets. You had to specify whether
>> things were "appropriate", without the ease of CANs and CANNOTs. You
>> couldn't specify SHALLs and SHALL NOTs.
>>
>> 2. Contracts should be powerful, but not too powerful. The primary
>> cause for the limited adoption of agencies was that you couldn't do
>> much with them. Yeah, sure, you can do CANs and CANNOTs now. That's
>> great, but the agency can't own assets, or create obligations, or even
>> have more than one "Director". There was only one agency (the PDA,
>> which I created to let someone else run Promotor temporarily) before
>> Free Agency passed, greatly expanding what you could do with agencies.
>> Now there are many of them, but they're still not as versatile as they
>> could be. It goes without saying that we would like to avoid
>> mousetraps or other scams too, so some limitations are necessary.
>>
>> 3. Reuse what worked. A lot of my new contract rules is drawn from the
>> successful parts of the existing organization system.
>>
>> My proposal has three parts. Part 1 cleans up (tweaks and repeals)
>> existing rules. A lot of it is drawn from o's organization repeal
>> proposal, which I borrowed and then edited. Thank you, o. The second
>> part consists of new rules to create contracts. The third part

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[VJ Rada]

"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  wrote:
> " 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 useful use of agencies I can ever recall.
> However these rules prohibit "modifying the performance of"
> "performing any official duty", which would stop that use.
>
> Has o. agreed to be the notary? I presume so.
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:03 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> ". 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 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 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 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 and why, I'd appreciate it.
>
> For those who weren't around or want to see it again, here is my
> statement from the first draft:
>
> {{
>
> I'm going to preface this by saying that my contracts proposal is kind
> of long. It may take a few days for everyone to read through it and
> stuff. It's long for several reasons. For one thing, it repeals about
> as many rules as it creates. As I suggested, this is a consolidation
> of the existing Agency and Organization mechanics, which means it
> should be a net simplification, even though it doesn't feel like it.
> It also adds in the whole new element that the thing is binding. At
> some point we may be able to repeal pledges too, once everyone's used
> to the new mechanics. Another reason is that I've littered the thing
> with safety features. They're probably unnecessary, but better safe
> than sorry.
>
> A few design principles:
>
> 1. Contracts should be easy to use. The primary cause for the failure
> of organizations was their complexity. You had to come up with a name.
> You had to deal with member's budgets. You had to specify whether
> things were "appropriate", without the ease of CANs and CANNOTs. You
> couldn't specify SHALLs and SHALL NOTs.
>
> 2. Contracts should be powerful, but not too powerful. The primary
> cause for the limited adoption of agencies was that you couldn't do
> much with them. Yeah, sure, you can do CANs and CANNOTs now. That's
> great, but the agency can't own assets, or create obligations, or even
> have more than one "Director". There was only one agency (the PDA,
> which I created to let someone else run Promotor temporarily) before
> Free Agency passed, greatly expanding what you could do with agencies.
> Now there are many of them, but they're still not as versatile as they
> could be. It goes without saying that we would like to avoid
> mousetraps or other scams too, so some limitations are necessary.
>
> 3. Reuse what worked. A lot of my new contract rules is drawn from the
> successful parts of the existing organization system.
>
> My proposal has three parts. Part 1 cleans up (tweaks and repeals)
> existing rules. A lot of it is drawn from o's organization repeal
> proposal, which I borrowed and then edited. Thank you, o. The second
> part consists of new rules to create contracts. The third part
> modifies the assets rule, both to conform with contracts and for some
> general minor fixes of ambiguities that have been pointed out. Each
> part has subheadings, which should hopefully make it easier to
> read/not get lost in.
>
> Without further ado, here is my draft proposal. Comments and concerns
> appreciated, though please try not to complain about the length :).
> }}
>

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[VJ Rada]

" 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 useful use of agencies I can ever recall.
However these rules prohibit "modifying the performance of"
"performing any official duty", which would stop that use.

Has o. agreed to be the notary? I presume so.


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:03 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> ". 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 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 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 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 and why, I'd appreciate it.

 For those who weren't around or want to see it again, here is my
 statement from the first draft:

 {{

 I'm going to preface this by saying that my contracts proposal is kind
 of long. It may take a few days for everyone to read through it and
 stuff. It's long for several reasons. For one thing, it repeals about
 as many rules as it creates. As I suggested, this is a consolidation
 of the existing Agency and Organization mechanics, which means it
 should be a net simplification, even though it doesn't feel like it.
 It also adds in the whole new element that the thing is binding. At
 some point we may be able to repeal pledges too, once everyone's used
 to the new mechanics. Another reason is that I've littered the thing
 with safety features. They're probably unnecessary, but better safe
 than sorry.

 A few design principles:

 1. Contracts should be easy to use. The primary cause for the failure
 of organizations was their complexity. You had to come up with a name.
 You had to deal with member's budgets. You had to specify whether
 things were "appropriate", without the ease of CANs and CANNOTs. You
 couldn't specify SHALLs and SHALL NOTs.

 2. Contracts should be powerful, but not too powerful. The primary
 cause for the limited adoption of agencies was that you couldn't do
 much with them. Yeah, sure, you can do CANs and CANNOTs now. That's
 great, but the agency can't own assets, or create obligations, or even
 have more than one "Director". There was only one agency (the PDA,
 which I created to let someone else run Promotor temporarily) before
 Free Agency passed, greatly expanding what you could do with agencies.
 Now there are many of them, but they're still not as versatile as they
 could be. It goes without saying that we would like to avoid
 mousetraps or other scams too, so some limitations are necessary.

 3. Reuse what worked. A lot of my new contract rules is drawn from the
 successful parts of the existing organization system.

 My proposal has three parts. Part 1 cleans up (tweaks and repeals)
 existing rules. A lot of it is drawn from o's organization repeal
 proposal, which I borrowed and then edited. Thank you, o. The second
 part consists of new rules to create contracts. The third part
 modifies the assets rule, both to conform with contracts and for some
 general minor fixes of ambiguities that have been pointed out. Each
 part has subheadings, which should hopefully make it easier to
 read/not get lost in.

 Without further ado, here is my draft proposal. Comments and concerns
 appreciated, though please try not to complain about the length :).
 }}

 Here's a change-log, which may be somewhat incomplete:

 - Extricability is defined in this proposal, but is only a definition with
 no
   intrinsic effect.
   - Various contract operations are constrained by sanity checks.
   - Regulations are made binding on their promulgators so that they work
   with the assets "bound by" restriction for recordkeeping, and because it
 seems

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[VJ Rada]

". 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 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 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 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 and why, I'd appreciate it.
>>>
>>> For those who weren't around or want to see it again, here is my
>>> statement from the first draft:
>>>
>>> {{
>>>
>>> I'm going to preface this by saying that my contracts proposal is kind
>>> of long. It may take a few days for everyone to read through it and
>>> stuff. It's long for several reasons. For one thing, it repeals about
>>> as many rules as it creates. As I suggested, this is a consolidation
>>> of the existing Agency and Organization mechanics, which means it
>>> should be a net simplification, even though it doesn't feel like it.
>>> It also adds in the whole new element that the thing is binding. At
>>> some point we may be able to repeal pledges too, once everyone's used
>>> to the new mechanics. Another reason is that I've littered the thing
>>> with safety features. They're probably unnecessary, but better safe
>>> than sorry.
>>>
>>> A few design principles:
>>>
>>> 1. Contracts should be easy to use. The primary cause for the failure
>>> of organizations was their complexity. You had to come up with a name.
>>> You had to deal with member's budgets. You had to specify whether
>>> things were "appropriate", without the ease of CANs and CANNOTs. You
>>> couldn't specify SHALLs and SHALL NOTs.
>>>
>>> 2. Contracts should be powerful, but not too powerful. The primary
>>> cause for the limited adoption of agencies was that you couldn't do
>>> much with them. Yeah, sure, you can do CANs and CANNOTs now. That's
>>> great, but the agency can't own assets, or create obligations, or even
>>> have more than one "Director". There was only one agency (the PDA,
>>> which I created to let someone else run Promotor temporarily) before
>>> Free Agency passed, greatly expanding what you could do with agencies.
>>> Now there are many of them, but they're still not as versatile as they
>>> could be. It goes without saying that we would like to avoid
>>> mousetraps or other scams too, so some limitations are necessary.
>>>
>>> 3. Reuse what worked. A lot of my new contract rules is drawn from the
>>> successful parts of the existing organization system.
>>>
>>> My proposal has three parts. Part 1 cleans up (tweaks and repeals)
>>> existing rules. A lot of it is drawn from o's organization repeal
>>> proposal, which I borrowed and then edited. Thank you, o. The second
>>> part consists of new rules to create contracts. The third part
>>> modifies the assets rule, both to conform with contracts and for some
>>> general minor fixes of ambiguities that have been pointed out. Each
>>> part has subheadings, which should hopefully make it easier to
>>> read/not get lost in.
>>>
>>> Without further ado, here is my draft proposal. Comments and concerns
>>> appreciated, though please try not to complain about the length :).
>>> }}
>>>
>>> Here's a change-log, which may be somewhat incomplete:
>>>
>>> - Extricability is defined in this proposal, but is only a definition with
>>> no
>>>   intrinsic effect.
>>>   - Various contract operations are constrained by sanity checks.
>>>   - Regulations are made binding on their promulgators so that they work
>>>   with the assets "bound by" restriction for recordkeeping, and because it
>>> seems
>>>   like a good idea.
>>>   - The Notary is given various throttling powers, to stop players from
>>> making
>>>   eir life hell. These have been chosen such that they shouldn't interfere
>>>   with the activities of the average player.
>>>   - Clearer guidelines are laid down for contract interpretation.
>>>   - Creating a contract is made restricted to stop the "agencies that
>>> create
>>>   agencies" thing. I'm getting bored of that pseudo-scam.
>>>   - The Notary is required to post eir full report weekly, as e probably
>>>   produces it from same source and differential reports aren't very
>>> useful.
>>>   - Changes are made to the spending definition, see 

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[VJ Rada]

"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 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 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 and why, I'd appreciate it.
>>
>> For those who weren't around or want to see it again, here is my
>> statement from the first draft:
>>
>> {{
>>
>> I'm going to preface this by saying that my contracts proposal is kind
>> of long. It may take a few days for everyone to read through it and
>> stuff. It's long for several reasons. For one thing, it repeals about
>> as many rules as it creates. As I suggested, this is a consolidation
>> of the existing Agency and Organization mechanics, which means it
>> should be a net simplification, even though it doesn't feel like it.
>> It also adds in the whole new element that the thing is binding. At
>> some point we may be able to repeal pledges too, once everyone's used
>> to the new mechanics. Another reason is that I've littered the thing
>> with safety features. They're probably unnecessary, but better safe
>> than sorry.
>>
>> A few design principles:
>>
>> 1. Contracts should be easy to use. The primary cause for the failure
>> of organizations was their complexity. You had to come up with a name.
>> You had to deal with member's budgets. You had to specify whether
>> things were "appropriate", without the ease of CANs and CANNOTs. You
>> couldn't specify SHALLs and SHALL NOTs.
>>
>> 2. Contracts should be powerful, but not too powerful. The primary
>> cause for the limited adoption of agencies was that you couldn't do
>> much with them. Yeah, sure, you can do CANs and CANNOTs now. That's
>> great, but the agency can't own assets, or create obligations, or even
>> have more than one "Director". There was only one agency (the PDA,
>> which I created to let someone else run Promotor temporarily) before
>> Free Agency passed, greatly expanding what you could do with agencies.
>> Now there are many of them, but they're still not as versatile as they
>> could be. It goes without saying that we would like to avoid
>> mousetraps or other scams too, so some limitations are necessary.
>>
>> 3. Reuse what worked. A lot of my new contract rules is drawn from the
>> successful parts of the existing organization system.
>>
>> My proposal has three parts. Part 1 cleans up (tweaks and repeals)
>> existing rules. A lot of it is drawn from o's organization repeal
>> proposal, which I borrowed and then edited. Thank you, o. The second
>> part consists of new rules to create contracts. The third part
>> modifies the assets rule, both to conform with contracts and for some
>> general minor fixes of ambiguities that have been pointed out. Each
>> part has subheadings, which should hopefully make it easier to
>> read/not get lost in.
>>
>> Without further ado, here is my draft proposal. Comments and concerns
>> appreciated, though please try not to complain about the length :).
>> }}
>>
>> Here's a change-log, which may be somewhat incomplete:
>>
>> - Extricability is defined in this proposal, but is only a definition with
>> no
>>   intrinsic effect.
>>   - Various contract operations are constrained by sanity checks.
>>   - Regulations are made binding on their promulgators so that they work
>>   with the assets "bound by" restriction for recordkeeping, and because it
>> seems
>>   like a good idea.
>>   - The Notary is given various throttling powers, to stop players from
>> making
>>   eir life hell. These have been chosen such that they shouldn't interfere
>>   with the activities of the average player.
>>   - Clearer guidelines are laid down for contract interpretation.
>>   - Creating a contract is made restricted to stop the "agencies that
>> create
>>   agencies" thing. I'm getting bored of that pseudo-scam.
>>   - The Notary is required to post eir full report weekly, as e probably
>>   produces it from same source and differential reports aren't very
>> useful.
>>   - Changes are made to the spending definition, see the a-d thread
>>
>> Affixed is the actual proposal text.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> ---
>> Title: Contracts v3
>> Adoption index: 3.0
>> Author: Aris
>> Co-author(s): o, G., ais523, Gaelan, 天火狐, CuddleBeam
>>
>>
>> Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets
>> ("[]")
>> have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any
>> 

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[Reuben Staley]

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 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 and why, I'd appreciate it.
>
> For those who weren't around or want to see it again, here is my
> statement from the first draft:
>
> {{
>
> I'm going to preface this by saying that my contracts proposal is kind
> of long. It may take a few days for everyone to read through it and
> stuff. It's long for several reasons. For one thing, it repeals about
> as many rules as it creates. As I suggested, this is a consolidation
> of the existing Agency and Organization mechanics, which means it
> should be a net simplification, even though it doesn't feel like it.
> It also adds in the whole new element that the thing is binding. At
> some point we may be able to repeal pledges too, once everyone's used
> to the new mechanics. Another reason is that I've littered the thing
> with safety features. They're probably unnecessary, but better safe
> than sorry.
>
> A few design principles:
>
> 1. Contracts should be easy to use. The primary cause for the failure
> of organizations was their complexity. You had to come up with a name.
> You had to deal with member's budgets. You had to specify whether
> things were "appropriate", without the ease of CANs and CANNOTs. You
> couldn't specify SHALLs and SHALL NOTs.
>
> 2. Contracts should be powerful, but not too powerful. The primary
> cause for the limited adoption of agencies was that you couldn't do
> much with them. Yeah, sure, you can do CANs and CANNOTs now. That's
> great, but the agency can't own assets, or create obligations, or even
> have more than one "Director". There was only one agency (the PDA,
> which I created to let someone else run Promotor temporarily) before
> Free Agency passed, greatly expanding what you could do with agencies.
> Now there are many of them, but they're still not as versatile as they
> could be. It goes without saying that we would like to avoid
> mousetraps or other scams too, so some limitations are necessary.
>
> 3. Reuse what worked. A lot of my new contract rules is drawn from the
> successful parts of the existing organization system.
>
> My proposal has three parts. Part 1 cleans up (tweaks and repeals)
> existing rules. A lot of it is drawn from o's organization repeal
> proposal, which I borrowed and then edited. Thank you, o. The second
> part consists of new rules to create contracts. The third part
> modifies the assets rule, both to conform with contracts and for some
> general minor fixes of ambiguities that have been pointed out. Each
> part has subheadings, which should hopefully make it easier to
> read/not get lost in.
>
> Without further ado, here is my draft proposal. Comments and concerns
> appreciated, though please try not to complain about the length :).
> }}
>
> Here's a change-log, which may be somewhat incomplete:
>
> - Extricability is defined in this proposal, but is only a definition with
> no
>   intrinsic effect.
>   - Various contract operations are constrained by sanity checks.
>   - Regulations are made binding on their promulgators so that they work
>   with the assets "bound by" restriction for recordkeeping, and because it
> seems
>   like a good idea.
>   - The Notary is given various throttling powers, to stop players from
> making
>   eir life hell. These have been chosen such that they shouldn't interfere
>   with the activities of the average player.
>   - Clearer guidelines are laid down for contract interpretation.
>   - Creating a contract is made restricted to stop the "agencies that
> create
>   agencies" thing. I'm getting bored of that pseudo-scam.
>   - The Notary is required to post eir full report weekly, as e probably
>   produces it from same source and differential reports aren't very useful.
>   - Changes are made to the spending definition, see the a-d thread
>
> Affixed is the actual proposal text.
>
> -Aris
>
> ---
> Title: Contracts v3
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-author(s): o, G., ais523, Gaelan, 天火狐, CuddleBeam
>
>
> Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets ("[]")
> have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any
> rules
> created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
> have been removed before its resolution.
>
> # 1 Cleanup & Miscellaneous
> # 1.1 Gamestate Cleanup
>
> Destroy each organization.
>
> Destroy each agency.
>
> Destroy each contract. [Just in case.]
>
> # 1.2 Organization, Secretary, and Economic Cleanup
> # 1.2.1 Repeal 

DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[Aris Merchant]

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 and why, I'd appreciate it.

For those who weren't around or want to see it again, here is my
statement from the first draft:

{{

I'm going to preface this by saying that my contracts proposal is kind
of long. It may take a few days for everyone to read through it and
stuff. It's long for several reasons. For one thing, it repeals about
as many rules as it creates. As I suggested, this is a consolidation
of the existing Agency and Organization mechanics, which means it
should be a net simplification, even though it doesn't feel like it.
It also adds in the whole new element that the thing is binding. At
some point we may be able to repeal pledges too, once everyone's used
to the new mechanics. Another reason is that I've littered the thing
with safety features. They're probably unnecessary, but better safe
than sorry.

A few design principles:

1. Contracts should be easy to use. The primary cause for the failure
of organizations was their complexity. You had to come up with a name.
You had to deal with member's budgets. You had to specify whether
things were "appropriate", without the ease of CANs and CANNOTs. You
couldn't specify SHALLs and SHALL NOTs.

2. Contracts should be powerful, but not too powerful. The primary
cause for the limited adoption of agencies was that you couldn't do
much with them. Yeah, sure, you can do CANs and CANNOTs now. That's
great, but the agency can't own assets, or create obligations, or even
have more than one "Director". There was only one agency (the PDA,
which I created to let someone else run Promotor temporarily) before
Free Agency passed, greatly expanding what you could do with agencies.
Now there are many of them, but they're still not as versatile as they
could be. It goes without saying that we would like to avoid
mousetraps or other scams too, so some limitations are necessary.

3. Reuse what worked. A lot of my new contract rules is drawn from the
successful parts of the existing organization system.

My proposal has three parts. Part 1 cleans up (tweaks and repeals)
existing rules. A lot of it is drawn from o's organization repeal
proposal, which I borrowed and then edited. Thank you, o. The second
part consists of new rules to create contracts. The third part
modifies the assets rule, both to conform with contracts and for some
general minor fixes of ambiguities that have been pointed out. Each
part has subheadings, which should hopefully make it easier to
read/not get lost in.

Without further ado, here is my draft proposal. Comments and concerns
appreciated, though please try not to complain about the length :).
}}

Here's a change-log, which may be somewhat incomplete:

- Extricability is defined in this proposal, but is only a definition with no
  intrinsic effect.
  - Various contract operations are constrained by sanity checks.
  - Regulations are made binding on their promulgators so that they work
  with the assets "bound by" restriction for recordkeeping, and because it seems
  like a good idea.
  - The Notary is given various throttling powers, to stop players from making
  eir life hell. These have been chosen such that they shouldn't interfere
  with the activities of the average player.
  - Clearer guidelines are laid down for contract interpretation.
  - Creating a contract is made restricted to stop the "agencies that create
  agencies" thing. I'm getting bored of that pseudo-scam.
  - The Notary is required to post eir full report weekly, as e probably
  produces it from same source and differential reports aren't very useful.
  - Changes are made to the spending definition, see the a-d thread

Affixed is the actual proposal text.

-Aris

---
Title: Contracts v3
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-author(s): o, G., ais523, Gaelan, 天火狐, CuddleBeam


Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets ("[]")
have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any rules
created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
have been removed before its resolution.

# 1 Cleanup & Miscellaneous
# 1.1 Gamestate Cleanup

Destroy each organization.

Destroy each agency.

Destroy each contract. [Just in case.]

# 1.2 Organization, Secretary, and Economic Cleanup
# 1.2.1 Repeal Organizations

Repeal rule 2459 ("Organizations").

Repeal rule 2461 ("Death and Birth of Organizations").

Repeal rule 2460 ("Organizational Restructuring").

Repeal rule 2457 ("Lockout").

Repeal rule 2458 ("Invoking Lockout").

Repeal rule 2462 ("Bankruptcy").

# 1.2.2 Change Secretary to Treasuror

Amend rule 2456 ("The Secretary") by

  * Changing its title to "The Treasuror", then by
  * Replacing its text, entirely, with:

Re: DIS: Draft: Spending Fix

[Aris Merchant]

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 that rules will almost have the intended
>> effect. However, I agree that my current implementation is messy, and
>> worse, overly magical. I want to keep the destroy or transfer bit, but
>> I think its reasonable to expect rule/contract authors to be a little
>> more careful. I'm going to remove the "if its indestructible" bit, and
>> have it just always default to transferring. Are you okay with that?
>
> No worries - if you have reasons for keeping it destroy/transfer other
> than as just an AP kludge, cool - I'll help you wordsmith the next draft.

Below is an updated draft.

-Aris

---
Title: Spending Fix v2
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors: G.

Amend Rule 2166, "Assets", by inserting the paragraph

  "To spend an asset is to pay or destroy it for the purpose of doing some other
  action or fulfilling an obligation by announcement; if the action would not
  be completed, the obligation would not be at least partially fulfilled, or
  more of the asset would be spent than is needed to perform the action/fulfill
  the obligation, then the attempt to spend fails. Whether the asset must be
  payed or destroyed is determined by what is needed to perform the action or
  satisfy the obligation. If the entity defining or enabling the action or
  creating the obligation does not specify which is necessary, but merely that
  the asset must be spent, and if no other rule intervenes, then it is
  transferred to Agora."

after the paragraph beginning "An asset generally CAN be transferred..."

Amend Rule 2500, "Action Points", by changing it to read in full:

  Action Points (AP) are a fixed destructible untracked currency. At the
  beginning of each Agoran Week, all Action Points are destroyed and 2 Action
  Points are created in the possession of each player. It is IMPOSSIBLE
  for Action Points to be gained in any other way. Action Points are spent by
  being destroyed.