Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Aris Merchant]

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, 2018 at 9:04 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> 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 have to read
> ever, unless you really want to, that says "'for a fee' means it's done
> by announcement and paid to Agora and it works like you'd generally
> expect and here's how it handles the edge cases" and so forth and so on.
>
> But it makes the rest of the rules much easier to read and less buggy
> to write.
>
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> > 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 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 "Supplying the place of the dative in various other
> languages
> > >> and in the earlier stages of English itself." Further, under 32a, it
> goes
> > >> so far as to say "*a.* In the syntactical const. of many transitive
> verbs,
> > >> introducing the indirect or dative object." So I think it's still
> fine,
> > >> but
> > >> it would be more technically the dative. Simple fix: put
> "(technically,
> > >> with no dative)" afterward to clear up any ambiguity. People who don't
> > >> know
> > >> what a dative is can just pay attention to the indirect object bit,
> and
> > >> still be at least sort of correct.
> > >>
> > >> -Aris
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:40 PM Aris Merchant <
> > >> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> 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. When I show something to you, offer it to you, and
> then
> > >>> give it to you, you're receiving some of the action of the verb in
> each
> > >>> case. This differs from me going to you, in which case it can be
> replaced
> > >>> with towards, and merely indicates motion. This [1] also agrees with
> me,
> > >>> see sense English preposition #9. English grammar appears to
> indicate it
> > >>> as
> > >>> if it were an ordinary prepositional phrase, but it's semantically
> still
> > >>> also the indirect object (the two are interchangeable at any rate).
> All
> > >>> the
> > >>> sources I can find are rather informal and pragmatic though, and
> seem to
> > >>> disagree, so it's possible I'm wrong about this.
> > >>>
> > >>> [1] https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/to
> > >>>
> > >>> -Aris
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:13 PM ATMunn 
> wrote:
> > >>>
> >  
> >  "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 things I've broken. I
> > > haven't read through this thread all the way but it looks like
> things
> > > have gotten pretty technical. HOWEVER, I'm glad this is finally
> being
> > > addressed. The quickest solution would be just to add a clause that
> > 
> >  says
> > >
> > > if Agora owns any PAoaM currencies, they are instead destroyed and
> then
> > > alias "pay" with no indirect object to "transfer to Agora"
> > >
> > > Speaking of PAoaM currencies, they should have a collective name,
> no?
> > >
> > > On 04/25/2018 04:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I think you mean a non-empty multiset. Also, I don't see any
> reason to
> > >> require the set to be non-empty. That's sensible for constant
> fees but
> > >> could break some types of variable fee.
> > >>
> > >> Here's a phrasing that includes the default and rounds correctly:
> > >>
> > >> 

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Kerim Aydin]

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 have to read
ever, unless you really want to, that says "'for a fee' means it's done
by announcement and paid to Agora and it works like you'd generally
expect and here's how it handles the edge cases" and so forth and so on.

But it makes the rest of the rules much easier to read and less buggy
to write.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> 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 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 "Supplying the place of the dative in various other languages
> >> and in the earlier stages of English itself." Further, under 32a, it goes
> >> so far as to say "*a.* In the syntactical const. of many transitive verbs,
> >> introducing the indirect or dative object." So I think it's still fine,
> >> but
> >> it would be more technically the dative. Simple fix: put "(technically,
> >> with no dative)" afterward to clear up any ambiguity. People who don't
> >> know
> >> what a dative is can just pay attention to the indirect object bit, and
> >> still be at least sort of correct.
> >>
> >> -Aris
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:40 PM Aris Merchant <
> >> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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. When I show something to you, offer it to you, and then
> >>> give it to you, you're receiving some of the action of the verb in each
> >>> case. This differs from me going to you, in which case it can be replaced
> >>> with towards, and merely indicates motion. This [1] also agrees with me,
> >>> see sense English preposition #9. English grammar appears to indicate it
> >>> as
> >>> if it were an ordinary prepositional phrase, but it's semantically still
> >>> also the indirect object (the two are interchangeable at any rate). All
> >>> the
> >>> sources I can find are rather informal and pragmatic though, and seem to
> >>> disagree, so it's possible I'm wrong about this.
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/to
> >>>
> >>> -Aris
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:13 PM ATMunn  wrote:
> >>>
>  
>  "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 things I've broken. I
> > haven't read through this thread all the way but it looks like things
> > have gotten pretty technical. HOWEVER, I'm glad this is finally being
> > addressed. The quickest solution would be just to add a clause that
> 
>  says
> >
> > if Agora owns any PAoaM currencies, they are instead destroyed and then
> > alias "pay" with no indirect object to "transfer to Agora"
> >
> > Speaking of PAoaM currencies, they should have a collective name, no?
> >
> > On 04/25/2018 04:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >>
> >> I think you mean a non-empty multiset. Also, I don't see any reason to
> >> require the set to be non-empty. That's sensible for constant fees but
> >> could break some types of variable fee.
> >>
> >> Here's a phrasing that includes the default and rounds correctly:
> >>
> >> "If the Rules associate payment of a multiset of assets (hereafter the
> >> fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
> >> action, that action is a fee-based action. If the fee is a specified
> >> in terms of a non-natural number of assets, the fee is rounded up to
> >> the nearest natural number. If the fee is specified in terms of a
> >> number without a specified unit, the unit is the official currency of
> >> Agora."
> >>
> >> This allows complex fees, which is fine, given that a complex (or
> >> otherwise unreal) fee is impossible 

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Ned Strange]

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 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 "Supplying the place of the dative in various other languages
>> and in the earlier stages of English itself." Further, under 32a, it goes
>> so far as to say "*a.* In the syntactical const. of many transitive verbs,
>> introducing the indirect or dative object." So I think it's still fine,
>> but
>> it would be more technically the dative. Simple fix: put "(technically,
>> with no dative)" afterward to clear up any ambiguity. People who don't
>> know
>> what a dative is can just pay attention to the indirect object bit, and
>> still be at least sort of correct.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:40 PM Aris Merchant <
>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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. When I show something to you, offer it to you, and then
>>> give it to you, you're receiving some of the action of the verb in each
>>> case. This differs from me going to you, in which case it can be replaced
>>> with towards, and merely indicates motion. This [1] also agrees with me,
>>> see sense English preposition #9. English grammar appears to indicate it
>>> as
>>> if it were an ordinary prepositional phrase, but it's semantically still
>>> also the indirect object (the two are interchangeable at any rate). All
>>> the
>>> sources I can find are rather informal and pragmatic though, and seem to
>>> disagree, so it's possible I'm wrong about this.
>>>
>>> [1] https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/to
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:13 PM ATMunn  wrote:
>>>
 
 "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 things I've broken. I
> haven't read through this thread all the way but it looks like things
> have gotten pretty technical. HOWEVER, I'm glad this is finally being
> addressed. The quickest solution would be just to add a clause that

 says
>
> if Agora owns any PAoaM currencies, they are instead destroyed and then
> alias "pay" with no indirect object to "transfer to Agora"
>
> Speaking of PAoaM currencies, they should have a collective name, no?
>
> On 04/25/2018 04:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>
>> I think you mean a non-empty multiset. Also, I don't see any reason to
>> require the set to be non-empty. That's sensible for constant fees but
>> could break some types of variable fee.
>>
>> Here's a phrasing that includes the default and rounds correctly:
>>
>> "If the Rules associate payment of a multiset of assets (hereafter the
>> fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
>> action, that action is a fee-based action. If the fee is a specified
>> in terms of a non-natural number of assets, the fee is rounded up to
>> the nearest natural number. If the fee is specified in terms of a
>> number without a specified unit, the unit is the official currency of
>> Agora."
>>
>> This allows complex fees, which is fine, given that a complex (or
>> otherwise unreal) fee is impossible to pay and is simply equivalent to
>> making the action impossible.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Kerim Aydin 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I tried a version with general assets, if this is ugly can restrict
>>> to
>>> currencies...
>>>
>>> Proto v2:  Let's really define payment solidly please, finally.
>>>
>>> Create the following Rule, Fee-based actions:
>>>
>>>   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, that action is a fee-based action.
>>>   If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset,
>>> the actual

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[ATMunn]

¯\_(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 "Supplying the place of the dative in various other languages
and in the earlier stages of English itself." Further, under 32a, it goes
so far as to say "*a.* In the syntactical const. of many transitive verbs,
introducing the indirect or dative object." So I think it's still fine, but
it would be more technically the dative. Simple fix: put "(technically,
with no dative)" afterward to clear up any ambiguity. People who don't know
what a dative is can just pay attention to the indirect object bit, and
still be at least sort of correct.

-Aris

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:40 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:


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. When I show something to you, offer it to you, and then
give it to you, you're receiving some of the action of the verb in each
case. This differs from me going to you, in which case it can be replaced
with towards, and merely indicates motion. This [1] also agrees with me,
see sense English preposition #9. English grammar appears to indicate it as
if it were an ordinary prepositional phrase, but it's semantically still
also the indirect object (the two are interchangeable at any rate). All the
sources I can find are rather informal and pragmatic though, and seem to
disagree, so it's possible I'm wrong about this.

[1] https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/to

-Aris

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:13 PM ATMunn  wrote:



"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 things I've broken. I
haven't read through this thread all the way but it looks like things
have gotten pretty technical. HOWEVER, I'm glad this is finally being
addressed. The quickest solution would be just to add a clause that

says

if Agora owns any PAoaM currencies, they are instead destroyed and then
alias "pay" with no indirect object to "transfer to Agora"

Speaking of PAoaM currencies, they should have a collective name, no?

On 04/25/2018 04:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

I think you mean a non-empty multiset. Also, I don't see any reason to
require the set to be non-empty. That's sensible for constant fees but
could break some types of variable fee.

Here's a phrasing that includes the default and rounds correctly:

"If the Rules associate payment of a multiset of assets (hereafter the
fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
action, that action is a fee-based action. If the fee is a specified
in terms of a non-natural number of assets, the fee is rounded up to
the nearest natural number. If the fee is specified in terms of a
number without a specified unit, the unit is the official currency of
Agora."

This allows complex fees, which is fine, given that a complex (or
otherwise unreal) fee is impossible to pay and is simply equivalent to
making the action impossible.

-Aris

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Kerim Aydin 
wrote:



I tried a version with general assets, if this is ugly can restrict to
currencies...

Proto v2:  Let's really define payment solidly please, finally.

Create the following Rule, Fee-based actions:

  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, that action is a fee-based action.
  If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset,
the actual
  fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset.

[Takes out default - if you mean Coins in the Rules say Coins, if you
fail to specify a type of asset your rule is broken].

  To perform a fee-based action, an entity (the Actor) who is
  otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that

e

  is performing the action; the announcement must specify the
  correct set of assets for the fee and indicate intent
  to pay that fee for the sole purpose of performing the

action.


  Upon such an announcement:

  - If the Rules specify a recipient for the fee, and the Actor
CAN transfer that specified fee from emself to the

recipient,

then that fee is transferred from the Actor to the

recipient

and the 

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Aris Merchant]

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
and in the earlier stages of English itself." Further, under 32a, it goes
so far as to say "*a.* In the syntactical const. of many transitive verbs,
introducing the indirect or dative object." So I think it's still fine, but
it would be more technically the dative. Simple fix: put "(technically,
with no dative)" afterward to clear up any ambiguity. People who don't know
what a dative is can just pay attention to the indirect object bit, and
still be at least sort of correct.

-Aris

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:40 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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. When I show something to you, offer it to you, and then
> give it to you, you're receiving some of the action of the verb in each
> case. This differs from me going to you, in which case it can be replaced
> with towards, and merely indicates motion. This [1] also agrees with me,
> see sense English preposition #9. English grammar appears to indicate it as
> if it were an ordinary prepositional phrase, but it's semantically still
> also the indirect object (the two are interchangeable at any rate). All the
> sources I can find are rather informal and pragmatic though, and seem to
> disagree, so it's possible I'm wrong about this.
>
> [1] https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/to
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:13 PM ATMunn  wrote:
>
>> 
>> "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 things I've broken. I
>> > haven't read through this thread all the way but it looks like things
>> > have gotten pretty technical. HOWEVER, I'm glad this is finally being
>> > addressed. The quickest solution would be just to add a clause that
>> says
>> > if Agora owns any PAoaM currencies, they are instead destroyed and then
>> > alias "pay" with no indirect object to "transfer to Agora"
>> >
>> > Speaking of PAoaM currencies, they should have a collective name, no?
>> >
>> > On 04/25/2018 04:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> >> I think you mean a non-empty multiset. Also, I don't see any reason to
>> >> require the set to be non-empty. That's sensible for constant fees but
>> >> could break some types of variable fee.
>> >>
>> >> Here's a phrasing that includes the default and rounds correctly:
>> >>
>> >> "If the Rules associate payment of a multiset of assets (hereafter the
>> >> fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
>> >> action, that action is a fee-based action. If the fee is a specified
>> >> in terms of a non-natural number of assets, the fee is rounded up to
>> >> the nearest natural number. If the fee is specified in terms of a
>> >> number without a specified unit, the unit is the official currency of
>> >> Agora."
>> >>
>> >> This allows complex fees, which is fine, given that a complex (or
>> >> otherwise unreal) fee is impossible to pay and is simply equivalent to
>> >> making the action impossible.
>> >>
>> >> -Aris
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Kerim Aydin 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I tried a version with general assets, if this is ugly can restrict to
>> >>> currencies...
>> >>>
>> >>> Proto v2:  Let's really define payment solidly please, finally.
>> >>>
>> >>> Create the following Rule, Fee-based actions:
>> >>>
>> >>>  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, that action is a fee-based action.
>> >>>  If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset,
>> >>> the actual
>> >>>  fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset.
>> >>>
>> >>> [Takes out default - if you mean Coins in the Rules say Coins, if you
>> >>> fail to specify a type of asset your rule is broken].
>> >>>
>> >>>  To perform a fee-based action, an entity (the Actor) who is
>> >>>  otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that
>> e
>> >>>  is performing the action; the announcement must specify the
>> >>>  correct set of assets for the fee and indicate intent
>> >>>  to pay that 

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Aris Merchant]

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. When I show something to you, offer it to you, and then
give it to you, you're receiving some of the action of the verb in each
case. This differs from me going to you, in which case it can be replaced
with towards, and merely indicates motion. This [1] also agrees with me,
see sense English preposition #9. English grammar appears to indicate it as
if it were an ordinary prepositional phrase, but it's semantically still
also the indirect object (the two are interchangeable at any rate). All the
sources I can find are rather informal and pragmatic though, and seem to
disagree, so it's possible I'm wrong about this.

[1] https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/to

-Aris

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:13 PM ATMunn  wrote:

> 
> "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 things I've broken. I
> > haven't read through this thread all the way but it looks like things
> > have gotten pretty technical. HOWEVER, I'm glad this is finally being
> > addressed. The quickest solution would be just to add a clause that says
> > if Agora owns any PAoaM currencies, they are instead destroyed and then
> > alias "pay" with no indirect object to "transfer to Agora"
> >
> > Speaking of PAoaM currencies, they should have a collective name, no?
> >
> > On 04/25/2018 04:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >> I think you mean a non-empty multiset. Also, I don't see any reason to
> >> require the set to be non-empty. That's sensible for constant fees but
> >> could break some types of variable fee.
> >>
> >> Here's a phrasing that includes the default and rounds correctly:
> >>
> >> "If the Rules associate payment of a multiset of assets (hereafter the
> >> fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
> >> action, that action is a fee-based action. If the fee is a specified
> >> in terms of a non-natural number of assets, the fee is rounded up to
> >> the nearest natural number. If the fee is specified in terms of a
> >> number without a specified unit, the unit is the official currency of
> >> Agora."
> >>
> >> This allows complex fees, which is fine, given that a complex (or
> >> otherwise unreal) fee is impossible to pay and is simply equivalent to
> >> making the action impossible.
> >>
> >> -Aris
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I tried a version with general assets, if this is ugly can restrict to
> >>> currencies...
> >>>
> >>> Proto v2:  Let's really define payment solidly please, finally.
> >>>
> >>> Create the following Rule, Fee-based actions:
> >>>
> >>>  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, that action is a fee-based action.
> >>>  If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset,
> >>> the actual
> >>>  fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset.
> >>>
> >>> [Takes out default - if you mean Coins in the Rules say Coins, if you
> >>> fail to specify a type of asset your rule is broken].
> >>>
> >>>  To perform a fee-based action, an entity (the Actor) who is
> >>>  otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e
> >>>  is performing the action; the announcement must specify the
> >>>  correct set of assets for the fee and indicate intent
> >>>  to pay that fee for the sole purpose of performing the action.
> >>>
> >>>  Upon such an announcement:
> >>>
> >>>  - If the Rules specify a recipient for the fee, and the Actor
> >>>CAN transfer that specified fee from emself to the
> recipient,
> >>>then that fee is transferred from the Actor to the recipient
> >>>and the action is performed simultaneously;
> >>>
> >>>  - If the Rules do not specify a recipient, and the Actor CAN
> >>>destroy the specified fee in eir possession, then that fee
> >>>in eir possession is destroyed and the action is
> >>>performed simultaneously.
> >>>
> >>>  - Otherwise, no changes are made to asset holdings and the
> >>>action is not performed.
> >>>
> >>>  If the Rules define a fee-based action but the specified
> >>>  set of assets is the empty set, then the action is performed
> by
> >>>  announcement, but 

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[ATMunn]

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 haven't paid
the specified fee for the action, so I can't do anything. The only case
where it comes up is when the fee for an action is defined as 0, in which
case we want the action to suceed. What am I misunderstanding?

Also, I like the multiset. The wording seems to me to be a clean, generic
way of defining fees. If a fee for an action is defined as all assets in
the actors possesion, that should be valid. A more realistic example would
be when we had estates, which were defined as assets. You could transfer an
estate to get an extra vote. We should be able to define that as a fee
based action. We should be able to define any payment of any assets as a
fee based action. Keep in mind that upgrading a facility, the thing that
prompted this discussion, requires multiple types of currency, and in the
future might just as well require assets.

I know I have a tendency to overcomplicate every rule I touch by making it
generic and adding a ton of unnecessary special cases. Here the
disambiguation for non-integers might be unneeded, or best placed somewhere
else. The coin disambiguation already exists in the asset rule itself,
although I can't check at the moment whether it covers this specific case
(I suspect it does, because I wrote the current assets rule and this is the
kind of thing I'd overcomplicate and generify). However, I can't see why
the multiset definition isn't a good description of what we're going for
here. When a rule calls for a fee of 5 coins, it's asking for a multiset of
5 coins. When a rule calls for a fee of 10 rule-defined assets of the
players choice, that's the multiset it wants. I'd appreciate an explanation
of why exactly it's an unneeded complication? All it requires is for the
reader to understand what a multiset is (which I think most of us do), or
google it and learn something and maybe have an aha moment after seeing how
it fits.

-Aris

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 5:12 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:




We need an exception for the empty set.  A long time ago, there was an
argument about whether "I pay a fee of 0" was paying a fee (allowing the
action) or not paying a fee (no transfer occurring).  [The CFJ answer then
depending on exact wording so is not applicable to present-day].

Now we have a precedent that flipping a switch to the same value does
not count as flipping the switch, so I'd imagine paying a 0 fee would
not count as paying the fee if we followed that reasoning... unless empty
sets are explicitly excepted.

I think adding "multiset" is an uneeded complication.  Seeing that version
has made me to think that even using sets is a complication, so I'll
ponder,
but I'm thinking to back off full generalization and restrict this to
Currencies (fungible stuff only) in my next draft (with an exception for
amounts of currency equaling zero).


On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:

I think you mean a non-empty multiset. Also, I don't see any reason to
require the set to be non-empty. That's sensible for constant fees but
could break some types of variable fee.

Here's a phrasing that includes the default and rounds correctly:

"If the Rules associate payment of a multiset of assets (hereafter the
fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
action, that action is a fee-based action. If the fee is a specified
in terms of a non-natural number of assets, the fee is rounded up to
the nearest natural number. If the fee is specified in terms of a
number without a specified unit, the unit is the official currency of
Agora."

This allows complex fees, which is fine, given that a complex (or
otherwise unreal) fee is impossible to pay and is simply equivalent to
making the action impossible.

-Aris

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Kerim Aydin 

wrote:



I tried a version with general assets, if this is ugly can restrict to
currencies...

Proto v2:  Let's really define payment solidly please, finally.

Create the following Rule, Fee-based actions:

 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, that action is a fee-based action.
 If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset, the

actual

 fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset.

[Takes out default - if you mean Coins in the Rules say Coins, if you
fail to specify a type of asset your rule is broken].

 To perform a fee-based action, an entity (the Actor) who is
 otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e
 is performing the action; the announcement must specify 

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[ATMunn]

"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 things I've broken. I 
haven't read through this thread all the way but it looks like things 
have gotten pretty technical. HOWEVER, I'm glad this is finally being 
addressed. The quickest solution would be just to add a clause that says 
if Agora owns any PAoaM currencies, they are instead destroyed and then 
alias "pay" with no indirect object to "transfer to Agora"


Speaking of PAoaM currencies, they should have a collective name, no?

On 04/25/2018 04:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

I think you mean a non-empty multiset. Also, I don't see any reason to
require the set to be non-empty. That's sensible for constant fees but
could break some types of variable fee.

Here's a phrasing that includes the default and rounds correctly:

"If the Rules associate payment of a multiset of assets (hereafter the
fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
action, that action is a fee-based action. If the fee is a specified
in terms of a non-natural number of assets, the fee is rounded up to
the nearest natural number. If the fee is specified in terms of a
number without a specified unit, the unit is the official currency of
Agora."

This allows complex fees, which is fine, given that a complex (or
otherwise unreal) fee is impossible to pay and is simply equivalent to
making the action impossible.

-Aris

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Kerim Aydin  
wrote:



I tried a version with general assets, if this is ugly can restrict to
currencies...

Proto v2:  Let's really define payment solidly please, finally.

Create the following Rule, Fee-based actions:

 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, that action is a fee-based action.
 If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset, 
the actual

 fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset.

[Takes out default - if you mean Coins in the Rules say Coins, if you
fail to specify a type of asset your rule is broken].

 To perform a fee-based action, an entity (the Actor) who is
 otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e
 is performing the action; the announcement must specify the
 correct set of assets for the fee and indicate intent
 to pay that fee for the sole purpose of performing the action.

 Upon such an announcement:

 - If the Rules specify a recipient for the fee, and the Actor
   CAN transfer that specified fee from emself to the recipient,
   then that fee is transferred from the Actor to the recipient
   and the action is performed simultaneously;

 - If the Rules do not specify a recipient, and the Actor CAN
   destroy the specified fee in eir possession, then that fee
   in eir possession is destroyed and the action is
   performed simultaneously.

 - Otherwise, no changes are made to asset holdings and the
   action is not performed.

 If the Rules define a fee-based action but the specified
 set of assets is the empty set, then the action is performed by
 announcement, but the announcement must include that there
 is an (empty or 0) fee for the action.

[Without this 0 edge case: arguments on the nature of the empty set 
galore!]


[Todo:  change rules to use this wording, remove "pay" = "transfer" 
definition

currently in rules]


On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:


On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:



   If the Rules associate a non-negative fee (syn: cost, price,
   charge), with an action, or state that an action CAN be 
performed

   by paying a fee, that action is a fee-based action.  If the
   specified cost is not an integer, the actual fee is the next
   highest integer.  The currency of the fee is either the
   currency associated with that action, or Coins if no currency
   is specified.


"next higher".  What if a cost is in a non-currency asset?


I've been trying to figure out wording for non-fungible assets and 
failing.

(or at least failing to do both fungible and non-fungible in the same
paragraph while keeping it concise).


It may be too complicated, but then the first sentence should 
explicitly state
that it only applies to fees in currencies, lest it be triggered 
accidentally
by other "costs", after which the last sentence could absurdly 
change the cost

into Coins.

"and announce that there is a fee for performing that specific 

Re: DIS: the next financial tool

[Aris Merchant]

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
meeting the description). We really need to create a clear semantic
separation between classes and objects. An instance of an asset could be
called an item, but what would we call an instance of a currency (a money
sounds wrong). Or should we being going the other way, using the current
terms for instances and creating new ones to describe classes?

-Aris

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:12 AM 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).  Any non-empty debt load is "unpaid", a
>  empty debt is "paid" or "paid off".
>
>  A player CAN flip a specified debt switch by paying Agora a
>  subset of that switch's debt load for this specified purpose,
>  thus
>  removing that subset from that switch's debt load.  Attempts
>  to flip a debt switch by paying a set of currencies that is
>  not completely in that switch's debt load entirely fail.
>
> [Elsewhere]
>
>  Upkeep is a debt switch for each facility tracked by the
>  Cartographer. At the start of each month, that facility's
>  Upkeep is set to the facility's upkeep cost defined in the
>  Rules.
>
>  At the end of each month, any facility that is not owned
>  by Agora and has an unpaid Upkeep is destroyed.
>
>  [optionally:  reset the debt: when the facility is created?
>  when the facility changes hands?]
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Ørjan Johansen]

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 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 Cartographor SHOULD
 issue a humiliating public reminder to all those who have not paid
 upkeep fees on any of eir facilities."

~Corona

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:49 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:


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 sets, because

there are

no *truly* identity-free assets. But it might be better for other

people's

intuition I guess.


I think, legally, there are identity-free assets, unless I misunderstand
what
you mean by that?

Corona gives me a coin.  Aris gives me a coin.  I then give a coin to
Trigon.  There's no way of knowing/tracking/distinguishing whether

Trigon

now has Corona's coin or Aris's coin.



No, Ørjan is probably right. I think the difference is between identity and
interchablity. Currencies are interchangeable (well, fungible, which means
the same thing) so we can't tell the difference between them, but it
doesn't mean that they don't have identity. As a real world example, let's
say you have a penny and I have a penny. Neither of them is marked in any
weird way, and be couldn't tell the difference between them. Then I use my
penny to pay for something. Your penny hasn't been used to pay for
something, only mine has, so they have separate identity. By contrast, if
we both think of the number 1, we're both thinking of the exact same
number, because it's a singleton. Even only currency instances with the
same owner lacked identity, you wouldn't be able to transfer a paper
without transferring all of it. This works fine so long as the set of
assets is clearly described as a set of instances, because asset types are
definitely singletons.

-Aris

Re: DIS: the next financial tool

[Ørjan Johansen]

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.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Ørjan Johansen]

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 the next month:  therefore each facility only has to pay once
ever.


Nah obviously "e must pay" cannot refer to actions in the past. In fact, 
the obvious reading of this is that after you've paid, you have to do it 
again, since you still own them. See: Zeno.


(This discussion is giving my brain whiplash between wanting to be literal 
and wanting to use common sense...)


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: the next financial tool

[Kerim Aydin]

(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".
 
 A player CAN flip a specified debt switch by paying Agora a 
 subset of that switch's debt load for this specified purpose,
 thus
 removing that subset from that switch's debt load.  Attempts 
 to flip a debt switch by paying a set of currencies that is
 not completely in that switch's debt load entirely fail.

[Elsewhere]

 Upkeep is a debt switch for each facility tracked by the
 Cartographer. At the start of each month, that facility's 
 Upkeep is set to the facility's upkeep cost defined in the
 Rules.  

 At the end of each month, any facility that is not owned
 by Agora and has an unpaid Upkeep is destroyed.

 [optionally:  reset the debt: when the facility is created?  
 when the facility changes hands?]

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Kerim Aydin]

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 facility only has to pay once 
ever.

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
> Well, that would mean that Trigon would inevitably lose eir farm. (e
> couldn't pay upkeep)
> 
> According to R2125, you must use metho​ds "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 needing to
> "explicitly describe" methods?
> 
> If the CFJ is going to be called, I'd like it to be judged till the end of
> the week if possible. It's frustrating having buildings or other assets in
> an uncertain gamestate.
> 
> ~Corona
> 
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:28 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > 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" counts?  An alternate interpretation is that,
> > if the destination isn't defined, the rule is ambiguous and you
> > can't actually pay.  This would be supported by R2125:  "paying"
> > without a destination is not an unambiguous way of "explicitly
> > describing" a method for doing things.
> >
> > (I'm not going to call the CFJ unless others think this interpretation
> > might work).
> >
> > 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 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 Cartographor SHOULD
> > >   issue a humiliating public reminder to all those who have not paid
> > >   upkeep fees on any of eir facilities."
> > >
> > > ~Corona
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:49 PM, Aris Merchant <
> > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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 sets,
> > because
> > > > > there are
> > > > > > no *truly* identity-free assets. But it might be better for other
> > > > > people's
> > > > > > intuition I guess.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think, legally, there are identity-free assets, unless I
> > misunderstand
> > > > > what
> > > > > you mean by that?
> > > > >
> > > > > Corona gives me a coin.  Aris gives me a coin.  I then give a coin to
> > > > > Trigon.  There's no way of knowing/tracking/distinguishing whether
> > > > Trigon
> > > > > now has Corona's coin or Aris's coin.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, Ørjan is probably right. I think the difference is between
> > identity and
> > > > interchablity. Currencies are interchangeable (well, fungible, which
> > means
> > > > the same thing) so we can't tell the difference between them, but it
> > > > doesn't mean that they don't have identity. As a real world example,
> > let's
> > > > say you have a penny and I have a penny. Neither of them is marked in
> > any
> > > > weird way, and be couldn't tell the difference between them. Then I
> > use my
> > > > penny to pay for something. Your penny hasn't been used to pay for
> > > > something, only mine has, so they have separate identity. By contrast,
> > if
> > > > we both think of the number 1, we're both thinking of the exact same
> > > > number, because it's a singleton. Even only currency instances with the
> > > > same owner lacked identity, you wouldn't be able to transfer a paper
> > > > without transferring all of it. This works fine so long as the set of
> > > > assets is clearly described as a set of instances, because asset types
> > are
> > > > definitely singletons.
> > > >
> > > > -Aris
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Corona]

Well, that would mean that Trigon would inevitably lose eir farm. (e
couldn't pay upkeep)

According to R2125, you must use metho​ds "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 needing to
"explicitly describe" methods?

If the CFJ is going to be called, I'd like it to be judged till the end of
the week if possible. It's frustrating having buildings or other assets in
an uncertain gamestate.

~Corona

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:28 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> 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" counts?  An alternate interpretation is that,
> if the destination isn't defined, the rule is ambiguous and you
> can't actually pay.  This would be supported by R2125:  "paying"
> without a destination is not an unambiguous way of "explicitly
> describing" a method for doing things.
>
> (I'm not going to call the CFJ unless others think this interpretation
> might work).
>
> 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 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 Cartographor SHOULD
> >   issue a humiliating public reminder to all those who have not paid
> >   upkeep fees on any of eir facilities."
> >
> > ~Corona
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:49 PM, Aris Merchant <
> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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 sets,
> because
> > > > there are
> > > > > no *truly* identity-free assets. But it might be better for other
> > > > people's
> > > > > intuition I guess.
> > > >
> > > > I think, legally, there are identity-free assets, unless I
> misunderstand
> > > > what
> > > > you mean by that?
> > > >
> > > > Corona gives me a coin.  Aris gives me a coin.  I then give a coin to
> > > > Trigon.  There's no way of knowing/tracking/distinguishing whether
> > > Trigon
> > > > now has Corona's coin or Aris's coin.
> > >
> > >
> > > No, Ørjan is probably right. I think the difference is between
> identity and
> > > interchablity. Currencies are interchangeable (well, fungible, which
> means
> > > the same thing) so we can't tell the difference between them, but it
> > > doesn't mean that they don't have identity. As a real world example,
> let's
> > > say you have a penny and I have a penny. Neither of them is marked in
> any
> > > weird way, and be couldn't tell the difference between them. Then I
> use my
> > > penny to pay for something. Your penny hasn't been used to pay for
> > > something, only mine has, so they have separate identity. By contrast,
> if
> > > we both think of the number 1, we're both thinking of the exact same
> > > number, because it's a singleton. Even only currency instances with the
> > > same owner lacked identity, you wouldn't be able to transfer a paper
> > > without transferring all of it. This works fine so long as the set of
> > > assets is clearly described as a set of instances, because asset types
> are
> > > definitely singletons.
> > >
> > > -Aris
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Kerim Aydin]

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
multiset speaks of multiple inclusion of "platonic 1's" which doesn't
apply to actual instances of "1 item".  (always love it when mathematical
and legal contexts collide - dealing with that a lot in RL).

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Kerim Aydin]

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" counts?  An alternate interpretation is that,
if the destination isn't defined, the rule is ambiguous and you
can't actually pay.  This would be supported by R2125:  "paying"
without a destination is not an unambiguous way of "explicitly
describing" a method for doing things.

(I'm not going to call the CFJ unless others think this interpretation
might work).

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 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 Cartographor SHOULD
>   issue a humiliating public reminder to all those who have not paid
>   upkeep fees on any of eir facilities."
> 
> ~Corona
> 
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:49 PM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > 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 sets, because
> > > there are
> > > > no *truly* identity-free assets. But it might be better for other
> > > people's
> > > > intuition I guess.
> > >
> > > I think, legally, there are identity-free assets, unless I misunderstand
> > > what
> > > you mean by that?
> > >
> > > Corona gives me a coin.  Aris gives me a coin.  I then give a coin to
> > > Trigon.  There's no way of knowing/tracking/distinguishing whether
> > Trigon
> > > now has Corona's coin or Aris's coin.
> >
> >
> > No, Ørjan is probably right. I think the difference is between identity and
> > interchablity. Currencies are interchangeable (well, fungible, which means
> > the same thing) so we can't tell the difference between them, but it
> > doesn't mean that they don't have identity. As a real world example, let's
> > say you have a penny and I have a penny. Neither of them is marked in any
> > weird way, and be couldn't tell the difference between them. Then I use my
> > penny to pay for something. Your penny hasn't been used to pay for
> > something, only mine has, so they have separate identity. By contrast, if
> > we both think of the number 1, we're both thinking of the exact same
> > number, because it's a singleton. Even only currency instances with the
> > same owner lacked identity, you wouldn't be able to transfer a paper
> > without transferring all of it. This works fine so long as the set of
> > assets is clearly described as a set of instances, because asset types are
> > definitely singletons.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Corona]

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 Cartographor SHOULD
  issue a humiliating public reminder to all those who have not paid
  upkeep fees on any of eir facilities."

~Corona

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:49 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 sets, because
> > there are
> > > no *truly* identity-free assets. But it might be better for other
> > people's
> > > intuition I guess.
> >
> > I think, legally, there are identity-free assets, unless I misunderstand
> > what
> > you mean by that?
> >
> > Corona gives me a coin.  Aris gives me a coin.  I then give a coin to
> > Trigon.  There's no way of knowing/tracking/distinguishing whether
> Trigon
> > now has Corona's coin or Aris's coin.
>
>
> No, Ørjan is probably right. I think the difference is between identity and
> interchablity. Currencies are interchangeable (well, fungible, which means
> the same thing) so we can't tell the difference between them, but it
> doesn't mean that they don't have identity. As a real world example, let's
> say you have a penny and I have a penny. Neither of them is marked in any
> weird way, and be couldn't tell the difference between them. Then I use my
> penny to pay for something. Your penny hasn't been used to pay for
> something, only mine has, so they have separate identity. By contrast, if
> we both think of the number 1, we're both thinking of the exact same
> number, because it's a singleton. Even only currency instances with the
> same owner lacked identity, you wouldn't be able to transfer a paper
> without transferring all of it. This works fine so long as the set of
> assets is clearly described as a set of instances, because asset types are
> definitely singletons.
>
> -Aris
>
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Aris Merchant]

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 sets, because
> there are
> > no *truly* identity-free assets. But it might be better for other
> people's
> > intuition I guess.
>
> I think, legally, there are identity-free assets, unless I misunderstand
> what
> you mean by that?
>
> Corona gives me a coin.  Aris gives me a coin.  I then give a coin to
> Trigon.  There's no way of knowing/tracking/distinguishing whether Trigon
> now has Corona's coin or Aris's coin.


No, Ørjan is probably right. I think the difference is between identity and
interchablity. Currencies are interchangeable (well, fungible, which means
the same thing) so we can't tell the difference between them, but it
doesn't mean that they don't have identity. As a real world example, let's
say you have a penny and I have a penny. Neither of them is marked in any
weird way, and be couldn't tell the difference between them. Then I use my
penny to pay for something. Your penny hasn't been used to pay for
something, only mine has, so they have separate identity. By contrast, if
we both think of the number 1, we're both thinking of the exact same
number, because it's a singleton. Even only currency instances with the
same owner lacked identity, you wouldn't be able to transfer a paper
without transferring all of it. This works fine so long as the set of
assets is clearly described as a set of instances, because asset types are
definitely singletons.

-Aris

>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Setting up money-printing machine

[Kerim Aydin]

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 
synonym for "transfer".  So Corona "paid" for the land upgrades by
transferring the upgrade costs to Quazie (instead of paying Agora).  
Then Quazie "paid" for upgrade costs by transferring the upgrade costs
to Corona.

This didn't need zombies to work - any two players could have set this
up for mutual profit (or a contract could have been used).  Zombies made
it extra-plus convenient though.

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote:
> 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 the first
> > two sentences of by below message, although the rest is still true.
> > 
> > -Aris
> > 
> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:26 PM Aris Merchant <
> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Okay, it's way too easy to reach high ranks with facilities. This isn't a
> > > scam, or even clearly abusive, but I think we probably need to fix it with
> > > a proposal of some sort. There are other ways of fixing it though,
> > > including perhaps forming a collective to defeat the capitalists and take
> > > back the means of production for the proletariat. The thing I'm most
> > > concerned about is zombie auctions, because that's the only was I can see
> > > of levering this into a dictatorship. Thoughts on appropriate remedies for
> > > this situation?
> > > 
> > > -Aris
> > > 
> > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:12 PM Reuben Staley 
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I hate... everything about this message. And to think I'm behind all of
> > > > it,
> > > > too, at least indirectly.
> > > > 
> > > > Ah well. It was inevitable. Have fun being the most powerful person in
> > > > the
> > > > game.
> > > > 
> > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 23:24 Corona  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Hopefully this is not going to fail horribly in some unforeseen way.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I destroy an apple to move to (0,1). I destroy an apple to move to
> > > > (0,2).
> > > > > 
> > > > > I destroy 5 lumber to build a mine at (0,2). I pay 3 coins and 2
> > > > > lumber
> > > > to
> > > > > Quazie to increase the rank of that mine to 2. I pay 4 coins and 4
> > > > lumber
> > > > > to Quazie to increase the rank of that mine to 3. I pay 5 coins, 4
> > > > lumber
> > > > > and 3 stones to Quazie to increase the rank of that mine to 4.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I transfer 3 apples and 12 stones to Quazie.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I act on behalf of Quazie to do all actions enclosed within the
> > > > following
> > > > > curly braces: {
> > > > > 
> > > > > Destroy one of Quazie’s apples to move Quazie to (0,-1). Destroy one
> > > > > of
> > > > > Quazie’s apples to move Quazie to (1,-1). Destroy one of Quazie’s
> > > > apples to
> > > > > move Quazie to (1,-2).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Destroy 4 of Quazie’s lumber and 8 of Quazie’s stones to build a
> > > > refinery
> > > > > at (1,-2). Pay 5 of Quazie’s coins, 2 of Quazie’s lumber and 3 of
> > > > Quazie’s
> > > > > stones to Corona to increase the rank of that refinery to 2.  Pay 6 of
> > > > > Quazie’s coins, 4 of Quazie’s lumber and 4 of Quazie’s stones to
> > > > > Corona
> > > > to
> > > > > increase the rank of that refinery to 3.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Transfer all of Quazie's assets to Corona.
> > > > > 
> > > > > }
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > ~Corona
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
>

Re: DIS: Nerf Zombies

[ATMunn]

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 after a month as zombies

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] The Map of Arcadia -- April 24, 2018

[ATMunn]

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 was in the single auction, so there's nothing really 
that I

could do about that. But it still sucks.

On 4/25/2018 9:18 AM, ATMunn wrote:


I just realized I've been a total idiot. My one land unit is on the
complete other side of the map from me.

On 4/25/2018 1:05 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:



THE MAP OF ARCADIA -- APRIL 16, 2018
View an interactive version of this report here:
https://agoranomic.org/Cartographor/maps/map-2018-04-24.html



LAND TYPE MAP
 



  LONGITUDE

  - 6543210123456 +
 - -
 6  *  6
 5  *  5    aether (*)
 4  *  4    (b)lack
L  3  *  3    (w)hite
A  2  *  2
T  1  wwwbb  1
I  0  wwbbb  0
T  1  wwbbbw***  1
U  2  **bwb  2
D  3  *  3
E  4  *  4
 5  *  5
 6  *  6
 + +
  - 6543210123456 +



OWNERSHIP MAP
 



  LONGITUDE

  - 6543210123456 +
 - -
 6  *  6
 5  *  5    Agora, Aether (*)
 4  *  4    Agora, Non-Aether (.)
L  3  *  3    (G)aelan
A  2  *  2    (K)enyon
T  1  G...K  1    (T)rigon
I  0  T...C  0    (C)orona
T  1  C...AM***  1    (A)ris
U  2  **GCQ  2    AT(M)unn
D  3  *  3    (G).
E  4  *  4    (Q)uazie
 5  *  5
 6  *  6
 + +
  - 6543210123456 +



PRESERVATION MAP
 



  LONGITUDE

  - 6543210123456 +
 - -
 6  f  6
 5  f  5    (t)rue
 4  f  4    (f)alse
L  3  f  3
A  2  f  2
T  1  ftttf  1
I  0  ftttf  0
T  1  ftttf  1
U  2  f  2
D  3  f  3
E  4  f  4
 5  f  5
 6  f  6
 + +
  - 6543210123456 +



FACILITIES
 



(-1, -1): Preserved Rank 1 Mine, owned by Agora
(-1, +1): Preserved Rank 1 Orchard, owned by Agora
(+1, -1): Preserved Rank 1 Farm, owned by Agora
(+1, +1): Preserved Rank 1 Mine, owned by Agora
( 0, -2): Rank 2 Farm, owned by Trigon



LOCATIONS OF ENTITIES
 



Player    Last report   This Report

omd   ( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)
o ( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)
Aris  (-1, -1)  (-1, -1)
DFF[1]    ( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)
Quazie    (-1, -1)  (-1, -1)
P.S.S.[2] ( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)
Gaelan    (-1, -1)  (-1, -1)
G.    ( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)
Cuddle Beam   (-1, -1)  (-1, -1)
Trigon    ( 0, -2)  ( 0, -2)
Telnaior  ( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)
Corona    (-1, +1)  (-1, +1)
pokes ( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)
Murphy    ( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)
VJ Rada   ( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)
Kenyon    (-1, +1)  (-1, +1)
ATMunn    (-1, +1)  (-1, -1)
Ouri  ( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)

[1]: In Full, 天火狐
[2]: In Full, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus



ALTERNATING LAND TYPE
 



The alternating land type has been switched 4 times.
The current value is Black.



CHANGES IN LAND TYPE AND OWNERSHIP
 



Date Unit   From    To
---
2018-04-17   (+1, +2)   Agora   Aris
2018-04-17   (+1, +3)   Agora   ATMunn
2018-04-17   (+2,  0)   Agora   G.
2018-04-17   (+2, +1)   Agora   Corona
2018-04-17   (+2, +2)   Agora   Quazie

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Setting up money-printing machine

[ATMunn]

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 the first
two sentences of by below message, although the rest is still true.

-Aris

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:26 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:


Okay, it's way too easy to reach high ranks with facilities. This isn't a
scam, or even clearly abusive, but I think we probably need to fix it with
a proposal of some sort. There are other ways of fixing it though,
including perhaps forming a collective to defeat the capitalists and take
back the means of production for the proletariat. The thing I'm most
concerned about is zombie auctions, because that's the only was I can see
of levering this into a dictatorship. Thoughts on appropriate remedies for
this situation?

-Aris

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:12 PM Reuben Staley 
wrote:


I hate... everything about this message. And to think I'm behind all of
it,
too, at least indirectly.

Ah well. It was inevitable. Have fun being the most powerful person in the
game.

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 23:24 Corona  wrote:


Hopefully this is not going to fail horribly in some unforeseen way.

I destroy an apple to move to (0,1). I destroy an apple to move to

(0,2).


I destroy 5 lumber to build a mine at (0,2). I pay 3 coins and 2 lumber

to

Quazie to increase the rank of that mine to 2. I pay 4 coins and 4

lumber

to Quazie to increase the rank of that mine to 3. I pay 5 coins, 4

lumber

and 3 stones to Quazie to increase the rank of that mine to 4.

I transfer 3 apples and 12 stones to Quazie.

I act on behalf of Quazie to do all actions enclosed within the

following

curly braces: {

Destroy one of Quazie’s apples to move Quazie to (0,-1). Destroy one of
Quazie’s apples to move Quazie to (1,-1). Destroy one of Quazie’s

apples to

move Quazie to (1,-2).

Destroy 4 of Quazie’s lumber and 8 of Quazie’s stones to build a

refinery

at (1,-2). Pay 5 of Quazie’s coins, 2 of Quazie’s lumber and 3 of

Quazie’s

stones to Corona to increase the rank of that refinery to 2.  Pay 6 of
Quazie’s coins, 4 of Quazie’s lumber and 4 of Quazie’s stones to Corona

to

increase the rank of that refinery to 3.

Transfer all of Quazie's assets to Corona.

}


~Corona

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] The Map of Arcadia -- April 24, 2018

[ATMunn]

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 9:18 AM, ATMunn wrote:


I just realized I've been a total idiot. My one land unit is on the
complete other side of the map from me.

On 4/25/2018 1:05 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:



THE MAP OF ARCADIA -- APRIL 16, 2018
View an interactive version of this report here:
https://agoranomic.org/Cartographor/maps/map-2018-04-24.html



LAND TYPE MAP


  LONGITUDE

  - 6543210123456 +
 - -
 6  *  6
 5  *  5aether (*)
 4  *  4(b)lack
L  3  *  3(w)hite
A  2  *  2
T  1  wwwbb  1
I  0  wwbbb  0
T  1  wwbbbw***  1
U  2  **bwb  2
D  3  *  3
E  4  *  4
 5  *  5
 6  *  6
 + +
  - 6543210123456 +



OWNERSHIP MAP


  LONGITUDE

  - 6543210123456 +
 - -
 6  *  6
 5  *  5Agora, Aether (*)
 4  *  4Agora, Non-Aether (.)
L  3  *  3(G)aelan
A  2  *  2(K)enyon
T  1  G...K  1(T)rigon
I  0  T...C  0(C)orona
T  1  C...AM***  1(A)ris
U  2  **GCQ  2AT(M)unn
D  3  *  3(G).
E  4  *  4(Q)uazie
 5  *  5
 6  *  6
 + +
  - 6543210123456 +



PRESERVATION MAP


  LONGITUDE

  - 6543210123456 +
 - -
 6  f  6
 5  f  5(t)rue
 4  f  4(f)alse
L  3  f  3
A  2  f  2
T  1  ftttf  1
I  0  ftttf  0
T  1  ftttf  1
U  2  f  2
D  3  f  3
E  4  f  4
 5  f  5
 6  f  6
 + +
  - 6543210123456 +



FACILITIES


(-1, -1): Preserved Rank 1 Mine, owned by Agora
(-1, +1): Preserved Rank 1 Orchard, owned by Agora
(+1, -1): Preserved Rank 1 Farm, owned by Agora
(+1, +1): Preserved Rank 1 Mine, owned by Agora
( 0, -2): Rank 2 Farm, owned by Trigon



LOCATIONS OF ENTITIES


PlayerLast report   This Report

omd   ( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)
o ( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)
Aris  (-1, -1)  (-1, -1)
DFF[1]( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)
Quazie(-1, -1)  (-1, -1)
P.S.S.[2] ( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)
Gaelan(-1, -1)  (-1, -1)
G.( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)
Cuddle Beam   (-1, -1)  (-1, -1)
Trigon( 0, -2)  ( 0, -2)
Telnaior  ( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)
Corona(-1, +1)  (-1, +1)
pokes ( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)
Murphy( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)
VJ Rada   ( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)
Kenyon(-1, +1)  (-1, +1)
ATMunn(-1, +1)  (-1, -1)
Ouri  ( 0,  0)  ( 0,  0)

[1]: In Full, 天火狐
[2]: In Full, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus



ALTERNATING LAND TYPE


The alternating land type has been switched 4 times.
The current value is Black.



CHANGES IN LAND TYPE AND OWNERSHIP


Date Unit   FromTo
---
2018-04-17   (+1, +2)   Agora   Aris
2018-04-17   (+1, +3)   Agora   ATMunn
2018-04-17   (+2,  0)   Agora   G.
2018-04-17   (+2, +1)   Agora   Corona
2018-04-17   (+2, +2)   Agora   Quazie

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Kerim Aydin]

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 might be better for other people's
> intuition I guess.

I think, legally, there are identity-free assets, unless I misunderstand what
you mean by that?

Corona gives me a coin.  Aris gives me a coin.  I then give a coin to
Trigon.  There's no way of knowing/tracking/distinguishing whether Trigon
now has Corona's coin or Aris's coin.

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Ørjan Johansen]

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.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Ørjan Johansen]

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, that action is a fee-based action.
   If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset, the actual
   fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset.


"next higher", i said!


   To perform a fee-based action, an entity (the Actor) who is
   otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e
   is performing the action; the announcement must specify the
   correct set of assets for the fee and indicate intent
   to pay that fee for the sole purpose of performing the action.


I think it should be "_a_ correct set of assets", because there may be 
more than option if assets are distinguishible somehow.



   Upon such an announcement:

   - If the Rules specify a recipient for the fee, and the Actor
 CAN transfer that specified fee from emself to the recipient,
 then that fee is transferred from the Actor to the recipient
 and the action is performed simultaneously;

   - If the Rules do not specify a recipient, and the Actor CAN
 destroy the specified fee in eir possession, then that fee
 in eir possession is destroyed and the action is
 performed simultaneously.


Now I'm vaguely wondering, what if a fee includes *some* assets that 
cannot be transferred, and some that can...


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Nerf Zombies

[Corona]

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 I don't mess up the actions, I
discovered that error, which doesn't even allow me to upgrade the buildings
"normally", otherwise I'd consider doing that. It also affects all players
in the same way, the only difference is that I had lots of assets and land
units before, which is hardly my fault.


@VJ Rada: There is a mistake in a rule that allows you to upgrade
facilities essentially for free, and I did that.


Ad overpowered zombies: The first issue that should be tackled is that
zombies actually don't cost anything, as you receive their money (usually a
welcome package) when you buy them. Like G., I was surprised that the bids
were so low in the zombie auction, considering all the zombies had at least
30 Coins. Quazie would not be nearly so useful to me if I didn't have the
assets to buy all the land units and buildings.

Suggested fix: a player loses all assets when their Master switch is
flipped to Agora. They become eligible to receive a Welcome Package (for
when they start playing again). A player can only receive WPs when eir
Master switch is set to emself.


The second issue raised, zombie master dictatorship, could be fixed by
capping the total zombie vote power at some number, for example:

Suppose that zombie vote power cap = 5, but there are 7 zombies, each with
vote power 1. Each zombie's vote power will then be multiplied by 5/7.

The cap could perhaps be the current Quorum?


On Thursday, April 26, 2018, 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 that it
> was just that it was just somehow too easy to pay for things. I have no
> clue how I did that, I must have just glanced over the text without
> actually reading it. However, the zombie problem still exists, because
> right now e could monopolize all zombie auctions and eventually get a
> dictatorship. It should be near impossible to get a full dictatorship even
> with an infinite wealth scam (a win would be fair, however). I was worrying
> about zombies already too, and these were my thoughts after the scam you
> pulled off a few days ago. The thing about things being to cheap was
> definitely a misapprehension on my part in this case, though I there's
> still some general truth to it. Sorry everyone for the mess up though.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:52 PM Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > This scam was due to the pay bug and could have been done (sorta)
> > with contracts too, right?
> >
> > On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, 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 after a month as zombies
> > >
> > > -Aris
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>


-- 
~Corona

Re: DIS: Nerf Zombies

[Ørjan Johansen]

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.

Re: DIS: Nerf Zombies

[Ned Strange]

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 that it
> was just that it was just somehow too easy to pay for things. I have no
> clue how I did that, I must have just glanced over the text without
> actually reading it. However, the zombie problem still exists, because
> right now e could monopolize all zombie auctions and eventually get a
> dictatorship. It should be near impossible to get a full dictatorship even
> with an infinite wealth scam (a win would be fair, however). I was worrying
> about zombies already too, and these were my thoughts after the scam you
> pulled off a few days ago. The thing about things being to cheap was
> definitely a misapprehension on my part in this case, though I there's
> still some general truth to it. Sorry everyone for the mess up though.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:52 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> This scam was due to the pay bug and could have been done (sorta)
>> with contracts too, right?
>>
>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, 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 after a month as zombies
>> >
>> > -Aris
>> >
>>
>>
>>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Setting up money-printing machine

[Aris Merchant]

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.

-Aris

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:26 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Okay, it's way too easy to reach high ranks with facilities. This isn't a
> scam, or even clearly abusive, but I think we probably need to fix it with
> a proposal of some sort. There are other ways of fixing it though,
> including perhaps forming a collective to defeat the capitalists and take
> back the means of production for the proletariat. The thing I'm most
> concerned about is zombie auctions, because that's the only was I can see
> of levering this into a dictatorship. Thoughts on appropriate remedies for
> this situation?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:12 PM Reuben Staley 
> wrote:
>
>> I hate... everything about this message. And to think I'm behind all of
>> it,
>> too, at least indirectly.
>>
>> Ah well. It was inevitable. Have fun being the most powerful person in the
>> game.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 23:24 Corona  wrote:
>>
>> > Hopefully this is not going to fail horribly in some unforeseen way.
>> >
>> > I destroy an apple to move to (0,1). I destroy an apple to move to
>> (0,2).
>> >
>> > I destroy 5 lumber to build a mine at (0,2). I pay 3 coins and 2 lumber
>> to
>> > Quazie to increase the rank of that mine to 2. I pay 4 coins and 4
>> lumber
>> > to Quazie to increase the rank of that mine to 3. I pay 5 coins, 4
>> lumber
>> > and 3 stones to Quazie to increase the rank of that mine to 4.
>> >
>> > I transfer 3 apples and 12 stones to Quazie.
>> >
>> > I act on behalf of Quazie to do all actions enclosed within the
>> following
>> > curly braces: {
>> >
>> > Destroy one of Quazie’s apples to move Quazie to (0,-1). Destroy one of
>> > Quazie’s apples to move Quazie to (1,-1). Destroy one of Quazie’s
>> apples to
>> > move Quazie to (1,-2).
>> >
>> > Destroy 4 of Quazie’s lumber and 8 of Quazie’s stones to build a
>> refinery
>> > at (1,-2). Pay 5 of Quazie’s coins, 2 of Quazie’s lumber and 3 of
>> Quazie’s
>> > stones to Corona to increase the rank of that refinery to 2.  Pay 6 of
>> > Quazie’s coins, 4 of Quazie’s lumber and 4 of Quazie’s stones to Corona
>> to
>> > increase the rank of that refinery to 3.
>> >
>> > Transfer all of Quazie's assets to Corona.
>> >
>> > }
>> >
>> >
>> > ~Corona
>> >
>>
>

Re: DIS: Nerf Zombies

[Aris Merchant]

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 how I did that, I must have just glanced over the text without
actually reading it. However, the zombie problem still exists, because
right now e could monopolize all zombie auctions and eventually get a
dictatorship. It should be near impossible to get a full dictatorship even
with an infinite wealth scam (a win would be fair, however). I was worrying
about zombies already too, and these were my thoughts after the scam you
pulled off a few days ago. The thing about things being to cheap was
definitely a misapprehension on my part in this case, though I there's
still some general truth to it. Sorry everyone for the mess up though.

-Aris

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:52 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> This scam was due to the pay bug and could have been done (sorta)
> with contracts too, right?
>
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, 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 after a month as zombies
> >
> > -Aris
> >
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Nerf Zombies

[Aris Merchant]

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 should give them their rest. I agree on crystals though. Still, it
doesn't work great if one player can monopolize it indefinitely.

-Aris

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:54 PM Reuben Staley 
wrote:

> Potential hole: players are, for the most part, against deregistering
> omd. Therefore, you can count on em always being a stable bet, making
> the owner of omd overpowered. I do agree that the one zombie per player
> rule makes lots of sense.
>
> Additional idea: what if all of the zombies are returned to Agora every
> quarter. In the following zombie auction, anyone who owned a zombie
> empire would only be able to get one lot in the auction, balancing it
> out a bit. Then the lower-ranking players are able to maybe get some of
> their own. The issue with this is that there will be an instant where
> zombie ownership becomes pointless. Maybe a better way would be a
> gradual shift where after 60 days of a player owning a zombie, that
> zombie can have its master switch set to Agora, meaning that zombies are
> a continual moneysink, therefore draining the wallet of zombie owners.
>
> Final idea: automatic deregistration of zombies that no one recieves in
> an auction. This ensures that there will always be more players
> interested in owning zombies than there are actual zombies, creating a
> real power struggle. Which is good.
>
> But this is ignoring the best solution of all: we need more things to
> spend money on. If we add incentives for the richest people in the game
> to buy luxuries, that means that everyone else has more money in
> comparison to purchase zombies and land units and stuff that they need
> to get going. Crystals are a good first step, but even more should be
> done to encourage this. Maybe money can be spent to influence Q*Bert. Or
> maybe we have a similar entity (i.e. Pac-Man) that creates land like
> Q*Bert, but whose express purpose is to be influenced by players.
>
> But at this point, it's very late and I'm just desparately trying to
> sound like I'm in control of a mechanic that is very deeply broken in
> its current state.
>
> On 04/26/2018 12:29 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 after a month as zombies
> >
> > -Aris
> >
>
> --
> Trigon
>

Re: DIS: Nerf Zombies

[Reuben Staley]

Potential hole: players are, for the most part, against deregistering 
omd. Therefore, you can count on em always being a stable bet, making 
the owner of omd overpowered. I do agree that the one zombie per player 
rule makes lots of sense.


Additional idea: what if all of the zombies are returned to Agora every 
quarter. In the following zombie auction, anyone who owned a zombie 
empire would only be able to get one lot in the auction, balancing it 
out a bit. Then the lower-ranking players are able to maybe get some of 
their own. The issue with this is that there will be an instant where 
zombie ownership becomes pointless. Maybe a better way would be a 
gradual shift where after 60 days of a player owning a zombie, that 
zombie can have its master switch set to Agora, meaning that zombies are 
a continual moneysink, therefore draining the wallet of zombie owners.


Final idea: automatic deregistration of zombies that no one recieves in 
an auction. This ensures that there will always be more players 
interested in owning zombies than there are actual zombies, creating a 
real power struggle. Which is good.


But this is ignoring the best solution of all: we need more things to 
spend money on. If we add incentives for the richest people in the game 
to buy luxuries, that means that everyone else has more money in 
comparison to purchase zombies and land units and stuff that they need 
to get going. Crystals are a good first step, but even more should be 
done to encourage this. Maybe money can be spent to influence Q*Bert. Or 
maybe we have a similar entity (i.e. Pac-Man) that creates land like 
Q*Bert, but whose express purpose is to be influenced by players.


But at this point, it's very late and I'm just desparately trying to 
sound like I'm in control of a mechanic that is very deeply broken in 
its current state.


On 04/26/2018 12:29 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 after a month as zombies

-Aris



--
Trigon

Re: DIS: Nerf Zombies

[Kerim Aydin]

This scam was due to the pay bug and could have been done (sorta)
with contracts too, right?

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, 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 after a month as zombies
> 
> -Aris
> 

DIS: Nerf Zombies

[Aris Merchant]

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 after a month as zombies

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Setting up money-printing machine

[Aris Merchant]

Okay, it's way too easy to reach high ranks with facilities. This isn't a
scam, or even clearly abusive, but I think we probably need to fix it with
a proposal of some sort. There are other ways of fixing it though,
including perhaps forming a collective to defeat the capitalists and take
back the means of production for the proletariat. The thing I'm most
concerned about is zombie auctions, because that's the only was I can see
of levering this into a dictatorship. Thoughts on appropriate remedies for
this situation?

-Aris

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:12 PM Reuben Staley 
wrote:

> I hate... everything about this message. And to think I'm behind all of it,
> too, at least indirectly.
>
> Ah well. It was inevitable. Have fun being the most powerful person in the
> game.
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 23:24 Corona  wrote:
>
> > Hopefully this is not going to fail horribly in some unforeseen way.
> >
> > I destroy an apple to move to (0,1). I destroy an apple to move to (0,2).
> >
> > I destroy 5 lumber to build a mine at (0,2). I pay 3 coins and 2 lumber
> to
> > Quazie to increase the rank of that mine to 2. I pay 4 coins and 4 lumber
> > to Quazie to increase the rank of that mine to 3. I pay 5 coins, 4 lumber
> > and 3 stones to Quazie to increase the rank of that mine to 4.
> >
> > I transfer 3 apples and 12 stones to Quazie.
> >
> > I act on behalf of Quazie to do all actions enclosed within the following
> > curly braces: {
> >
> > Destroy one of Quazie’s apples to move Quazie to (0,-1). Destroy one of
> > Quazie’s apples to move Quazie to (1,-1). Destroy one of Quazie’s apples
> to
> > move Quazie to (1,-2).
> >
> > Destroy 4 of Quazie’s lumber and 8 of Quazie’s stones to build a refinery
> > at (1,-2). Pay 5 of Quazie’s coins, 2 of Quazie’s lumber and 3 of
> Quazie’s
> > stones to Corona to increase the rank of that refinery to 2.  Pay 6 of
> > Quazie’s coins, 4 of Quazie’s lumber and 4 of Quazie’s stones to Corona
> to
> > increase the rank of that refinery to 3.
> >
> > Transfer all of Quazie's assets to Corona.
> >
> > }
> >
> >
> > ~Corona
> >
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Setting up money-printing machine

[Reuben Staley]

I hate... everything about this message. And to think I'm behind all of it,
too, at least indirectly.

Ah well. It was inevitable. Have fun being the most powerful person in the
game.

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 23:24 Corona  wrote:

> Hopefully this is not going to fail horribly in some unforeseen way.
>
> I destroy an apple to move to (0,1). I destroy an apple to move to (0,2).
>
> I destroy 5 lumber to build a mine at (0,2). I pay 3 coins and 2 lumber to
> Quazie to increase the rank of that mine to 2. I pay 4 coins and 4 lumber
> to Quazie to increase the rank of that mine to 3. I pay 5 coins, 4 lumber
> and 3 stones to Quazie to increase the rank of that mine to 4.
>
> I transfer 3 apples and 12 stones to Quazie.
>
> I act on behalf of Quazie to do all actions enclosed within the following
> curly braces: {
>
> Destroy one of Quazie’s apples to move Quazie to (0,-1). Destroy one of
> Quazie’s apples to move Quazie to (1,-1). Destroy one of Quazie’s apples to
> move Quazie to (1,-2).
>
> Destroy 4 of Quazie’s lumber and 8 of Quazie’s stones to build a refinery
> at (1,-2). Pay 5 of Quazie’s coins, 2 of Quazie’s lumber and 3 of Quazie’s
> stones to Corona to increase the rank of that refinery to 2.  Pay 6 of
> Quazie’s coins, 4 of Quazie’s lumber and 4 of Quazie’s stones to Corona to
> increase the rank of that refinery to 3.
>
> Transfer all of Quazie's assets to Corona.
>
> }
>
>
> ~Corona
>