This could easily be done under the less formal contracts of the new
system. You could just make the information public, and then the contract
would follow fairly naturally and be implied. To be honest, I'm pretty
excited about these new contracts. They may have problems (lack of
recordkeeping come
Proto: Trades.
[this might be a type of contract or something but it seems nice like
a standalone too]
A player (the seller) CAN create a Trade Offer by announcement,
specifying a set of assets e owns (the tender) and an action
(the exchange) that e wants in trade (e.g
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 8:21 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > By the way, you broke assets by dropping a conjunction. Assets are in
> > badly in need of reform too. G., how's that going?
>
> Totally dropped it, sorry. feel free to pick it up can't remem
I cannot prove this in any way, but this was the first roll I asked for.
Q*Bert is now at (+3, 0).
On 06/11/2018 09:41 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Forwarded Message
Subject: [dicelog] @!#?@! -- June week 3
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 05:39:20 +0200 (CEST)
From: Dice Server -56ggdzz-
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> By the way, you broke assets by dropping a conjunction. Assets are in
> badly in need of reform too. G., how's that going?
Totally dropped it, sorry. feel free to pick it up can't remember where
I left the last draft.
Yeah, no that's correct. It groups that and the next rule change.
There's a condition (the if bit) and then a two command substrate
enclosed in curly brackets.
-Aris
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 7:53 PM, Ned Strange wrote:
> If Rule 2166, "Assets", does not include the word "contract": {
> In Rule
If Rule 2166, "Assets", does not include the word "contract": {
In Rule 2166, change the sentence containing the text "(hereafter
its backing document)" to read
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Thanks for the spelling correction. I don't see a misplaced opening curly
Thanks for the spelling correction. I don't see a misplaced opening curly brace?
-Aris
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 7:48 PM, Ned Strange wrote:
> Reenact not renact. there's a misplaced { in the middle of the
> second-last change.
>
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 12:42 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>> Okay,
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:49 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> The ambiguity as to the caller is far more disturbing. However, I see nothing
>> in the rules that requires this information to be clear.
>
> This has caused big problems in the past. If someone
Reenact not renact. there's a misplaced { in the middle of the
second-last change.
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 12:42 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Okay, here's a contracts system based on the model proposed by G. I
> welcome any clean-up suggestions or other improvements, although I
> think I've kept it
Okay, here's a contracts system based on the model proposed by G. I
welcome any clean-up suggestions or other improvements, although I
think I've kept it fairly minimal, with the exception of the
provisions in the assets rule, which will remain problematic until it
sees its own reform.
-Aris
---
Did we ever bring the Treasuror back into existence?
-Aris
By the way, you broke assets by dropping a conjunction. Assets are in
badly in need of reform too. G., how's that going?
-Aris
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Ned Strange wrote:
> Will this work? No. But I hate complicated systems that nobody uses.
> And this one is incomprehensible and not wha
Allow them to be backing documents too and you've got a heavily simplified
version of the current contracts system. I think a heavily simplified
version is what we need right now. I'll have a go at it, and then someone
can edit me to make it less ridiculous.
-Aris
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:19 PM
I'm really uncomfortable both citing CFJ#s in the Rules, and saying in
the Rules that agreements are interpreted "in the same fashion" as rules
because that implies all kinds of things (like they're part of the
rules, they can redefine things, how power/precedence works, etc).
Here's some simpl
Those only work when there's no definitions whatsoever, or a simple
definition of agreements. Right now R2466 (Acting on Behalf) states
that a Rule must allow it so that beats the common law (I think).
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> We have a CFJ claiming that Powers of Attorney agr
The contracts infrastructure does not forclose such an arraignment. I made
a ruling when the Agencies infrastructure was in place to the effect that
having an explicit way to do something didn't stop people from doing things
an earlier implicit way.
-Aris
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:45 PM Ned Stran
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> First off, I judge this CFJ TRUE. Iff the CFJ exists, it must be true, so
> that seems like a pretty safe action. Now for the interesting bit.
This has come up from time-to-time and the logic has always been
overturned (if it's the sole logic used fo
We have a CFJ claiming that Powers of Attorney agreements are valid as
a matter of common law. Obviously all the Contracts infrastructure
forecloses such an agreement because of all the specifications in it.
But they would presumably work afterwards. See CFJs 3474 and 2397
(judged by you) and 1719
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> Will this work? No. But I hate complicated systems that nobody uses.
> And this one is incomprehensible and not what the game is really about
> anymore. So I'm making the following point.
I wholly agree with you. But can we add in a very simple stub th
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> Could this be placed on the website?
Once I get my FLR2SLR converter working again (later this week I hope!)
I'll put em both up.
On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 08:22 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Which means, YIKES - a person who wins an election, but was the
> interim officeholder before the election, STAYS INTERIM, because e
> didn't "become its holder by winning an election". Even if e
> nominated emself/consented/etc.
You could w
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 08:22 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Which means, YIKES - a person who wins an election, but was the
> > interim officeholder before the election, STAYS INTERIM, because e
> > didn't "become its holder by winning an election". Even i
Hmm... maybe. So I can stop myself from being installed into office by
removing consent, in R1006:
A person CANNOT be made the
holder of an elected office without eir explicit or reasonably
implied consent.
This depends on consent at the mom
Can you actually do that? I can't find anything that would allow
withdrawing nominations.
~Corona
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> > I become a candidate for Referee
>
> I withdraw my nomination for Referee. -G.
>
>
>
>
FUN CONTINUATION:
The rule also reads:
After a player is awarded a Medal of Honour, all
players who were previously eligible for a Medal of Honour become
no longer eligible.
Since a "player" was not awarded the Medal, the previously-eligible
players are STILL e
This what happens when you let new players (i.e. me) make proposals
without checking them that much. lol.
On 6/11/2018 1:19 AM, Corona wrote:
Sure.
I award FAILED QUORUM a Medal of Honour for May 2018. Wear it proudly,
FAILED QUORUM!
~Corona
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 11:10 PM, Kerim Aydin
wro
I suppose there's rule 2143/27, which says:
A person SHALL NOT publish information that is inaccurate or
misleading while performing an official duty, or within a document
purporting to be part of any person or office's weekly or monthly
report.
But the statement "Corona intends to win by Apathy
CFJs can only interpret rules, and I don't know any rules that could be
reasonably construed to mean that what I did was illegal.
-- Forwarded message --
From: *Ned Strange*
Date: Monday, June 11, 2018
Subject: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Agora and G. accumulate more
wealth
It's a really badly written paragraph (I wrote it) and unreadable, so my
apologies for that. I couldn't be bothered to make a numbered list that
made sense
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 8:19 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Ah, I misread a conjunction in that rule. apologies.
>
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Ari
Don't we have a CFJ ruling that trying to insert apathy wins in a report
was an abuse? Or it might have been the opposite. But I vividly remember
such a CFJ.
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 7:52 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> y'know, that was a silly reaction. I give 2 incense to Corona.
>
> On Sun, 10 J
Classic
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:26 AM, Corona wrote:
> I initiate an Agoran Decision on who is to be awarded a Medal of
> Honour for June 2018. For this decision, the valid options are {}. The
> vote collector is the Herald, and the voting method is instant-runoff.
> Quorum is 6.
>
> ~Corona
>
holy shit i have 19 paper and 80 coins i'm a rich boi maybe i should
actually pay attention to this land system
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:12 AM, Corona wrote:
> (This report is also a revision of the last report)
>
>
> +-++++---+++
> +++---
33 matches
Mail list logo
