I agree with the general sentiment. If there's ever a time to explicit,
it's now, after our current phrasing debacle. However, in this particular
instance saying without a specified recipient is actually clearer and more
specific than the whole dative indirect object mess.
-Aris
On Thu, Apr 26, 2
I'm trying to replace the current: "CAN do the thing by announcement by
paying 3 Coins to Agora while specifying that e is doing it yadda yadda"
that has to be in every rule right now, with "CAN do the thing for a
fee of 3 coins".
That requires a legalese-rich general rule, that you don't hav
Can't we just use a phrase like "whenever a rule states that somebody
shall pay, but does not specify a recipient of the payment" I would
like our ruleset to be as understandable as possible, please.
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:01 AM, ATMunn wrote:
> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>
>
> On 4/26/2018 8:53 PM, Aris Merc
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
On 4/26/2018 8:53 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Okay, a bunch of sources I read kept disagreeing with me, and some of them
sounded pretty certain about it. So I checked the OED (which is clearly
infallible). There all a whole set of sense under VIII, and the descreption
for that is "Supplyi
Okay, a bunch of sources I read kept disagreeing with me, and some of them
sounded pretty certain about it. So I checked the OED (which is clearly
infallible). There all a whole set of sense under VIII, and the descreption
for that is "Supplying the place of the dative in various other languages
an
I'm 90% sure that it's still also the indirect object. In Latin, it's
marked with the dative case (indicating an indirect object) rather than
with a preposition, but is still translated as to. It also makes
significantly more sense that way, because it receives the action of the
verb indirectly. Wh
At this point in reading through the DIS: Upgrading thread I kinda gave
up trying to understand what's going on. :P
On 4/25/2018 8:38 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Hang on for a second. I don't get what wrong with paying a fee of 0. The
fee for a given action is defined. If I pay a fee of 0, then I
"with no indirect object" by itself would not work in a rule, because "I
pay x things to y" is the same as "I pay y x things," but the former has
no indirect object (y is in a prepositional phrase).
On 4/25/2018 7:21 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Well, I'm just gonna add that to the list of thing
I'm sorry, but to me this really sounds lime you're talking about types of
rule defined currency, not instances. This is especially clear because one
can't have a set of instances that does not describe specific instances,
which this one can't because it's general (you can pay it off with anything
This is getting hilarious...
*Searches ruleset for "pay"* Hm, looks like there are no more such errors.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
Whoops... (emphasis mine)
"
If an entity other than Agora owns any facilities with upkeep
costs, e must pay them befor
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
(Useful for all kinds of upkeep costs)
A switch is a Debt switch have possible values consisting of sets
of Rules-defined currencies (the debt load), with a default of
value of empty (0).
I think something has been deleted in that sentence.
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Something else fun:
If an entity other than Agora owns any facilities with upkeep
costs, e must pay them before the first day of the next
Agoran month.
If I paid once, two months ago, I've still paid them before the first
day of t
(Useful for all kinds of upkeep costs)
A switch is a Debt switch have possible values consisting of sets
of Rules-defined currencies (the debt load), with a default of
value of empty (0). Any non-empty debt load is "unpaid", a
empty debt is "paid" or "paid off".
Something else fun:
> If an entity other than Agora owns any facilities with upkeep
> costs, e must pay them before the first day of the next
> Agoran month.
If I paid once, two months ago, I've still paid them before the first
day of the next month: therefore each facili
Well, that would mean that Trigon would inevitably lose eir farm. (e
couldn't pay upkeep)
According to R2125, you must use methods "explicitly specified" in the
rules (which I did, the rule should be IMO interpreted as simply not caring
about the recipient), I don't see anything about rules needi
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:00 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> By contrast, if
> we both think of the number 1, we're both thinking of the exact same
> number, because it's a singleton.
Thanks - this sentence gave me a lightbulb moment in realizing that
multise
Really the problem is that defining "pay" = "transfer" is a complete
redefinition of "pay" from common usage, and everyone's using common
usage... unfortunately that definition is in a high-powered rule.
BUT:
Does everyone accept that "pay without destination" automatically
mean "paying anyone"
Whoops... (emphasis mine)
"
If an entity other than Agora owns any facilities with upkeep
costs, e must pay them before the first day of the next Agoran
month. Failing to do this destroys the facility. In the second to
last Eastman week of the Agoran Month, the Carto
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:00 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >
> > > Also, I like the multiset. The wording seems to me to be a clean,
> generic
> >
> > In my intuition, all multisets of assets are currently se
The scam comes from here:
A player CAN increase the rank of a facility e owns that is at eir
location by exactly 1 by announcement by paying any upgrade costs
of the facility for that specific rank.
"Pay" doesn't say "pay to Agora". And the Assets rule says "Pay" is a
syno
Another (probably unpopular) option: Just get rid of zombies altogether.
On 4/26/2018 2:29 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
It's clear that zombies are way to powerful and need to be weakened
substantially. Proposed restrictions:
- 1 zombie per player max
- Zombies can be deregistered by announcement a
After reading some of the other messages, I change my mind, I'll keep my
land.
On 4/26/2018 9:37 AM, ATMunn wrote:
Honestly, I have no idea what I'm doing so sure.
On 4/25/2018 10:09 AM, Corona wrote:
Wanna sell? I offer 15 coins.
On Wednesday, April 25, 2018, ATMunn wrote:
Actually, that
I don't see how it is a scam though.
On 4/26/2018 3:14 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Just for people who look in the future but don't read other threads, and as
a form of penance: ignore what I said about there not being a scam. I was
being tired/stupid and apparently didn't read the text. So ignore
Honestly, I have no idea what I'm doing so sure.
On 4/25/2018 10:09 AM, Corona wrote:
Wanna sell? I offer 15 coins.
On Wednesday, April 25, 2018, ATMunn wrote:
Actually, that was in the single auction, so there's nothing really that I
could do about that. But it still sucks.
On 4/25/2018 9:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
> > Also, I like the multiset. The wording seems to me to be a clean, generic
>
> In my intuition, all multisets of assets are currently sets, because there are
> no *truly* identity-free assets. But it mig
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
Also, I like the multiset. The wording seems to me to be a clean, generic
In my intuition, all multisets of assets are currently sets, because there
are no *truly* identity-free assets. But it might be better for other
people's intuition I guess.
G
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I tried a version with general assets, if this is ugly can restrict to
currencies...
If the Rules associate payment of a non-empty set of assets (hereafter
the fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
action
I hope you don't hold it against me. My original plan was to build a mine,
orchard & refinery, all at level 2, which I could comfortably buy (so I
would probably become the richest player regardless of the scam, with 28
coins/week & negligible upkeep).
When I was going over the rules to make sure
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
What was the scam?
"paying" is currently a synonym for "transferring". The rule about
upgrading facilities doesn't say that the payments have to be to Agora, so
Corona just transferred back and forth with eir Zombie Quazie.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
What was the scam?
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:08 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> The zombie thing wasn't an immediate response to that part of the scam.
> TBH, I'm really really tired (I've got a cold at the moment), and I missed
> the fact that there was even a scam to start with, thinking instead tha
Just for people who look in the future but don't read other threads, and as
a form of penance: ignore what I said about there not being a scam. I was
being tired/stupid and apparently didn't read the text. So ignore the first
two sentences of by below message, although the rest is still true.
-Ari
The zombie thing wasn't an immediate response to that part of the scam.
TBH, I'm really really tired (I've got a cold at the moment), and I missed
the fact that there was even a scam to start with, thinking instead that it
was just that it was just somehow too easy to pay for things. I have no
clue
I'd like zombies to die of old age. Otherwise, players could stay
registered indefinitely, and the number of zombies only increases. It seems
somehow... unnatural to me for people to stay registered forever. It's hard
to explain, but I kind of feel like they've died, if perhaps reversibly,
and we s
33 matches
Mail list logo
