Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Technically Notary] Rubberstamp Repeal
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 remember where > I left the last draft. It's up on your protos repo. Sure, I'll take it over, given that I already seem to be embarked on a project of fixing all the parts of Agora that I've messed up. :) It's almost done anyway, I just need to remove the portion of it that addresses removed contract stuff, and have a look over the rest. Thanks for the good work. -Aris > >
DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] @!#?@! -- June week 3
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- Reply-To: reuben.sta...@gmail.com To: reuben.sta...@gmail.com This is an automatic message. This message was generated by reuben.sta...@gmail.com through the "hamete virtual dice server" at https://dicelog.com Message sent to: reuben.sta...@gmail.com Dice Roll Information: -- There are no players on the land unit at (+2, -1), where Q*Bert is. Therefore, Q*Bert will move one space diagonally. For the following random roll, Q*Bert would move: 1: northeast to (+1, 0) + preservation reroll 2: northwest to (+1, -3) 3: southeast to (+3, 0) 4: southwest to (+3, -3) Q*Bert's color is black, so no changes would happen. Dice Results: - Result of the throw of dice "1d4" : 3 If you have any doubt, you can verify the validity of this message, using the Verification Number on https://dicelog.com/verif : 70mt0j4wbf or simply (*) click the URL: https://dicelog.com/verif?vnum=70mt0j4wbf (*): you may have a security warning about invalid SSL certificate, see why: http://dicelog.com/inc/sslwarning_en.html Regards, the dicelog.com team. -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Technically Notary] Rubberstamp Repeal
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.
Re: DIS: Draft: Minimalist Contracts v1
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 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
>> 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, 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
---
Title: Minimalist Contracts v1
Adoption index: 2.5
Author: Aris
Co-authors: G., V.J. Rada
[This proposal saves allowing contracts to control assets until we decide
to allow them to be persons, which is its own can of worms.]
Renact Rule 1742, "Contracts", at power 2.5, with the following text:
Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may
make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be
binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement
is known as a contract. A contract may be modified, including
by changing the set of parties, by agreement between all existing
parties. A contract may also terminate by agreement between all
parties. A contract automatically terminates if the number of
parties to it falls below two. For the purposes of this rule,
agreement includes both consent and agreement specified by
contract.
Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in
accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired
by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or
between the contract and the rules.
A contract may act as a backing document, as permitted by other
rules. A party to a contract may act on behalf of another party
to it as allowed in the contract.
[Comments on whether the backing document bit belongs here would be
appreciated.]
[The portion below may be messy, but that's existing assets rule
messiness, which is also my fault and also needs fixing.]
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
"An asset is an entity defined as such by a (a) rule, (b)
authorized regulation, (c) group of rules and/or authorized
regulations (but if such regulations modify a preexisting asset
class defined by a rule or another title of regulations, they must
be authorized specifically to do so by their parent rule), or (d)
contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely
because its backing document defines its existence."
In Rule 2166, append the paragraph
"An asset or class of assets is private, rather than public, if its
backing document is a contract."
to the end of the rule.
}
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> From V.J. Rada
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Draft: Minimalist Contracts v1
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
> 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, 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
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Title: Minimalist Contracts v1
>>> Adoption index: 2.5
>>> Author: Aris
>>> Co-authors: G., V.J. Rada
>>>
>>> [This proposal saves allowing contracts to control assets until we decide
>>> to allow them to be persons, which is its own can of worms.]
>>>
>>> Renact Rule 1742, "Contracts", at power 2.5, with the following text:
>>>
>>> Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may
>>> make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be
>>> binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement
>>> is known as a contract. A contract may be modified, including
>>> by changing the set of parties, by agreement between all existing
>>> parties. A contract may also terminate by agreement between all
>>> parties. A contract automatically terminates if the number of
>>> parties to it falls below two. For the purposes of this rule,
>>> agreement includes both consent and agreement specified by
>>> contract.
>>>
>>> Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in
>>> accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired
>>> by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or
>>> between the contract and the rules.
>>>
>>> A contract may act as a backing document, as permitted by other
>>> rules. A party to a contract may act on behalf of another party
>>> to it as allowed in the contract.
>>>
>>> [Comments on whether the backing document bit belongs here would be
>>> appreciated.]
>>>
>>> [The portion below may be messy, but that's existing assets rule
>>> messiness, which is also my fault and also needs fixing.]
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> "An asset is an entity defined as such by a (a) rule, (b)
>>> authorized regulation, (c) group of rules and/or authorized
>>> regulations (but if such regulations modify a preexisting asset
>>> class defined by a rule or another title of regulations, they must
>>> be authorized specifically to do so by their parent rule), or (d)
>>> contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely
>>> because its backing document defines its existence."
>>>
>>> In Rule 2166, append the paragraph
>>>
>>> "An asset or class of assets is private, rather than public, if its
>>> backing document is a contract."
>>>
>>> to the end of the rule.
>>> }
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
--
>From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Draft: Minimalist Contracts v1
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, 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
>> ---
>>
>> Title: Minimalist Contracts v1
>> Adoption index: 2.5
>> Author: Aris
>> Co-authors: G., V.J. Rada
>>
>> [This proposal saves allowing contracts to control assets until we decide
>> to allow them to be persons, which is its own can of worms.]
>>
>> Renact Rule 1742, "Contracts", at power 2.5, with the following text:
>>
>> Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may
>> make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be
>> binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement
>> is known as a contract. A contract may be modified, including
>> by changing the set of parties, by agreement between all existing
>> parties. A contract may also terminate by agreement between all
>> parties. A contract automatically terminates if the number of
>> parties to it falls below two. For the purposes of this rule,
>> agreement includes both consent and agreement specified by
>> contract.
>>
>> Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in
>> accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired
>> by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or
>> between the contract and the rules.
>>
>> A contract may act as a backing document, as permitted by other
>> rules. A party to a contract may act on behalf of another party
>> to it as allowed in the contract.
>>
>> [Comments on whether the backing document bit belongs here would be
>> appreciated.]
>>
>> [The portion below may be messy, but that's existing assets rule
>> messiness, which is also my fault and also needs fixing.]
>>
>> 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
>>
>> "An asset is an entity defined as such by a (a) rule, (b)
>> authorized regulation, (c) group of rules and/or authorized
>> regulations (but if such regulations modify a preexisting asset
>> class defined by a rule or another title of regulations, they must
>> be authorized specifically to do so by their parent rule), or (d)
>> contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely
>> because its backing document defines its existence."
>>
>> In Rule 2166, append the paragraph
>>
>> "An asset or class of assets is private, rather than public, if its
>> backing document is a contract."
>>
>> to the end of the rule.
>> }
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3639 judged TRUE
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 uses an unknown > email address and says "I claim I'm an current player and do X" there's > no clear way to resolve the ambiguity or fix things. I argued once that > in Rule 478: > a person performs that action by unambiguously and >clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it. > > that "announcing that e performs it" fails if the "e" is ambiguous. Others > didn't buy that argument (and what if it's unclear retroactively like what > Alexis did last year with Ribbons?) - maybe R478 is a place to put a fix. How about this alternate definition of by announcement: "Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by announcement", a person performs that action by (a) unambiguously and clearly specifying the action; (b) making available any additional information, such as eir identity, which is necessary to understand the effects of the action and not generally available to Agorans; and (c) announcing that e performs it." -Aris
Re: DIS: Draft: Minimalist Contracts v1
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 fairly minimal, with the exception of the
> provisions in the assets rule, which will remain problematic until it
> sees its own reform.
>
> -Aris
> ---
>
> Title: Minimalist Contracts v1
> Adoption index: 2.5
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors: G., V.J. Rada
>
> [This proposal saves allowing contracts to control assets until we decide
> to allow them to be persons, which is its own can of worms.]
>
> Renact Rule 1742, "Contracts", at power 2.5, with the following text:
>
> Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may
> make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be
> binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement
> is known as a contract. A contract may be modified, including
> by changing the set of parties, by agreement between all existing
> parties. A contract may also terminate by agreement between all
> parties. A contract automatically terminates if the number of
> parties to it falls below two. For the purposes of this rule,
> agreement includes both consent and agreement specified by
> contract.
>
> Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in
> accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired
> by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or
> between the contract and the rules.
>
> A contract may act as a backing document, as permitted by other
> rules. A party to a contract may act on behalf of another party
> to it as allowed in the contract.
>
> [Comments on whether the backing document bit belongs here would be
> appreciated.]
>
> [The portion below may be messy, but that's existing assets rule
> messiness, which is also my fault and also needs fixing.]
>
> 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
>
> "An asset is an entity defined as such by a (a) rule, (b)
> authorized regulation, (c) group of rules and/or authorized
> regulations (but if such regulations modify a preexisting asset
> class defined by a rule or another title of regulations, they must
> be authorized specifically to do so by their parent rule), or (d)
> contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely
> because its backing document defines its existence."
>
> In Rule 2166, append the paragraph
>
> "An asset or class of assets is private, rather than public, if its
> backing document is a contract."
>
> to the end of the rule.
> }
--
>From V.J. Rada
DIS: Draft: Minimalist Contracts v1
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
---
Title: Minimalist Contracts v1
Adoption index: 2.5
Author: Aris
Co-authors: G., V.J. Rada
[This proposal saves allowing contracts to control assets until we decide
to allow them to be persons, which is its own can of worms.]
Renact Rule 1742, "Contracts", at power 2.5, with the following text:
Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may
make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be
binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement
is known as a contract. A contract may be modified, including
by changing the set of parties, by agreement between all existing
parties. A contract may also terminate by agreement between all
parties. A contract automatically terminates if the number of
parties to it falls below two. For the purposes of this rule,
agreement includes both consent and agreement specified by
contract.
Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in
accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired
by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or
between the contract and the rules.
A contract may act as a backing document, as permitted by other
rules. A party to a contract may act on behalf of another party
to it as allowed in the contract.
[Comments on whether the backing document bit belongs here would be
appreciated.]
[The portion below may be messy, but that's existing assets rule
messiness, which is also my fault and also needs fixing.]
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
"An asset is an entity defined as such by a (a) rule, (b)
authorized regulation, (c) group of rules and/or authorized
regulations (but if such regulations modify a preexisting asset
class defined by a rule or another title of regulations, they must
be authorized specifically to do so by their parent rule), or (d)
contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely
because its backing document defines its existence."
In Rule 2166, append the paragraph
"An asset or class of assets is private, rather than public, if its
backing document is a contract."
to the end of the rule.
}
DIS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset
Did we ever bring the Treasuror back into existence? -Aris
DIS: Re: OFF: [Technically Notary] Rubberstamp Repeal
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 what the game is really about > anymore. So I'm making the following point. > > I create and intend to Rubberstamp in my capcity as Notary without 3 > objections the following proposal. > > Title: Getting rid of my own job > AI: 3 > Text: Repeal rules 2524, 2526, 2520, 2525, 2522, 2523, 2521 and 2527. > From rule 2166 "Assets", delete the following text > "An asset or class of assets is private, rather than public, if its > backing document is a contract." > and delete the following text > "or (d) contract" > and delete the following text > " A contract's text can specify whether or not that contract is > > willing to receive assets or a class of assets. Generally, a > contract CANNOT be given assets it is unwilling to receive. If the > contract is silent on the matter, or if its willingness is > indeterminate or the subject of a inextricable conditional, the > procedure to determine its willingness is as follows: > > 1. If the contract appears to anticipate being given assets, >other than for sustenance (e.g. by authorizing parties to >spend the contract's assets), then the contract is willing to >receive all assets. > > 2. Otherwise, it is unwilling to receive all assets. > > The previous paragraph (including the list) notwithstanding, a > contract CAN be given 1 unit of Agora’s official currency a month > for its sustenance payment, so long as it never has more than 1 > unit of Agora’s official currency at a time." > > and delete the text > " Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a contract > CANNOT oblige a person who isn't a member to record its internal > state, nor is the default recordkeepor responsible for tracking a > contract's internal state." > > In rule 2425 "Auctions", delete the text "or contract" > > In rule 2547 "The Auctioneer", delete the text "or contracts" and > delete the last sentence of the first paragraph and delete the last > paragraph. > > In rule 2548 "The Auction Announcer" delete the text "or contract" and > the last sentence. > > In rule 2549 "Auction Initiation", delete all instances of the text > "or contract" > > In rule 2550 "Bidding", replace the last comma with a full stop and > delete all text after it. Also, delete all instances of the text "or > contract" > > In rule 2483 "Economics", delete the text "contracts," > > In rule 1994 "Ownership of Land", delete the text "Land belonging to a > contract is called Communal Land." and delete the text "Together, > Communal Land and Private Land are called Proprietary Land." and > replace the text "Land belonging to any other entity is called Private > Land." with "Land belonging to any other entity is called Private Land > (syn. Proprietary Land) > > In rule 2561 "Asset Generation with Facilities", delete the text "3. > if the facility is built on Communal Land, e must be a party to that > contract and the text of the contract must permit em to do so." and > renumber the fourth bullet point 3. > > > -- > From V.J. Rada
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Technically Notary] Rubberstamp Repeal
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 simple text I grabbed from the old days, just need to up the Power and add that players can use it for act-on-behalf: Rule 1742/9 (Power=1.5) Contracts Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a contract. A contract may be modified, including changing the set of parties, by agreement between all parties. A contract may also terminate by agreement between all parties. A contract automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls below two. Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or between the contract and the rules. [Add something about requiring explicit consent, and something about explicit act-on-behalfs]. On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Ned Strange wrote: > I retract the below proposal and create _the following_ proposal > > I create the following proposal > Title: Open Season II > AI: 2 > Text: Create a new power 2.0 rule named "Common-Law Agreements" with the text > "Persons may act on behalf of other persons who are players in any way > the player unambiguously agrees to. cf CFJs 3474, 2397 and 1719. These > agreements should be interpreted in the same fashion as Rules are > under Rule 217." >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Technically Notary] Rubberstamp Repeal
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 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, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > 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 that > > says something like "players can make agreements, and the agreements > > can include act-on-behalf" or something equally simple to empower > > that? > > > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Technically Notary] Rubberstamp Repeal
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 Strange wrote: > 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, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > > > > > 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 that > > says something like "players can make agreements, and the agreements > > can include act-on-behalf" or something equally simple to empower > > that? > > > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3639 judged TRUE
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 for existence - you used other, complete logic so that's fine). Basically, if a CFJ finds itself not-to-exist (its own existence judged FALSE), it's fine. It still keeps its number (numbers aren't strictly regulated) and people still refer to it in future precedents, so despite it "not existing" it's part of the overall stare decisis (with future judges realizing that it's imperfect because it couldn't be challenged/mooted etc.) If it's found not to exist before it's assigned, for a trivial reason (e.g. it wasn't paid for) that's a bit different. > 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 uses an unknown email address and says "I claim I'm an current player and do X" there's no clear way to resolve the ambiguity or fix things. I argued once that in Rule 478: a person performs that action by unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it. that "announcing that e performs it" fails if the "e" is ambiguous. Others didn't buy that argument (and what if it's unclear retroactively like what Alexis did last year with Ribbons?) - maybe R478 is a place to put a fix.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Technically Notary] Rubberstamp Repeal
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, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > 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 that > says something like "players can make agreements, and the agreements > can include act-on-behalf" or something equally simple to empower > that? > -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: OFF: [Technically Notary] Rubberstamp Repeal
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 that says something like "players can make agreements, and the agreements can include act-on-behalf" or something equally simple to empower that?
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset
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.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport
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 work around this by resigning just before the election is resolved (whilst making it clear that you consented to be reinstalled). -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport
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 if e > > nominated emself/consented/etc. > > You could work around this by resigning just before the election is > resolved (whilst making it clear that you consented to be reinstalled). Oh sure I noticed that workaround - but right now I was thinking that my holding of the Registrar and Assessor is still Interim because I think I deputized then later won elections - and that's not an uncommon thing for people to do. (and "interim" isn't a self-ratifying switch).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport
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 moment the Election is resolved. Since R1006 has precedence over R2152, and this block would happen at the end of the election if I withheld consent: When a player wins an election, e is installed into the associated office and the election ends. So it looks like "nominate but withdraw consent" may mean a candidate stays in the election, but doesn't become the holder? And if, like me, e is the referee already, e would remain in office but as an interim holder (as e didn't "become its holder by winning an election." 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. On Mon, 11 Jun 2018, Corona wrote: > 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. > > > > > > > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport
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. > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald][Medal of Honour]
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 eligible.
Which means that ATMunn and Aris were in fact eligible when Corona
tried to start the Decision with the null set. (if you think about
it, it's a feature - if a winner isn't awarded, your eligibility
rolls over to the next decision).
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018, ATMunn wrote:
> 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
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > However, by ais523's logic, from the previous Decision you're supposed
> > > to award a Medal to FAILED QUORUM...?
> > >
> > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Corona wrote:
> > > > Ah, nevermind then.
> > > >
> > > > ~Corona
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Kerim Aydin
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No, the whole thing just fails I'm afraid (Rule 2529/3):
> > > > > In the second Eastman week of an Agoran month, if there are
> > > > > any
> > > > > players who are eligible for a Medal of Honour, the Herald
> > > > > CAN,
> > > by
> > > > > announcement, initiate an Agoran Decision on who is to be
> > > awarded
> > > > > a Medal of Honour.
> > > > > If there's no eligible players, there's no CAN for initiation.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, 2018-06-10 at 22:26 +0200, 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Huh, some fun rulesey stuff going on here. As far as I can tell,
> > > > > > it's
> > > > > > impossible to meaningfully vote on this, but it cannot fail quorum;
> > > > > > rather, at the end of the voting period (which the Herald SHALL end
> > > > > > early, and CAN do so by resolving it in the same message) it ends
> > > with
> > > > > > a null outcome. The outcome of the vote is then awarded a Medal of
> > > > > > Honour. Again as far as I can tell, there's nothing restricting what
> > > > > > sort of entity can own a Medal of Honour, so it looks like the Medal
> > > > > > owned by the null outcome is going to become a tracked part of the
> > > > > > Herald report.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unfortunately, the rules don't allow for the null outcome to get a
> > > win
> > > > > > if this happens six times, but I think we should give it an honorary
> > > > > > win by proposal if the situation ever comes up.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > ais523
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald][Medal of Honour]
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
wrote:
However, by ais523's logic, from the previous Decision you're supposed
to award a Medal to FAILED QUORUM...?
On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Corona wrote:
Ah, nevermind then.
~Corona
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Kerim Aydin
wrote:
No, the whole thing just fails I'm afraid (Rule 2529/3):
In the second Eastman week of an Agoran month, if there are any
players who are eligible for a Medal of Honour, the Herald CAN,
by
announcement, initiate an Agoran Decision on who is to be
awarded
a Medal of Honour.
If there's no eligible players, there's no CAN for initiation.
On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
On Sun, 2018-06-10 at 22:26 +0200, 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.
Huh, some fun rulesey stuff going on here. As far as I can tell, it's
impossible to meaningfully vote on this, but it cannot fail quorum;
rather, at the end of the voting period (which the Herald SHALL end
early, and CAN do so by resolving it in the same message) it ends
with
a null outcome. The outcome of the vote is then awarded a Medal of
Honour. Again as far as I can tell, there's nothing restricting what
sort of entity can own a Medal of Honour, so it looks like the Medal
owned by the null outcome is going to become a tracked part of the
Herald report.
Unfortunately, the rules don't allow for the null outcome to get a
win
if this happens six times, but I think we should give it an honorary
win by proposal if the situation ever comes up.
--
ais523
Re: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Agora and G. accumulate more wealth; zombies & public facilities bankrupt, as always
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 without objection" was perfectly accurate, so I don't think it applies here. Maybe one could argue that its position within the document was misleading, but does the location of a piece of information count as information itself? -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On June 11, 2018 11:49 AM, Corona wrote: > > > 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 edwardostra...@gmail.com > > Date: Monday, June 11, 2018 > > Subject: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Agora and G. accumulate more > > wealth; zombies & public facilities bankrupt, as always > > To: "Agora Nomic discussions (DF)" agora-discussion@agoranomic.org > > 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 ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: > > > y'know, that was a silly reaction. I give 2 incense to Corona. > > > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > I Object to the intent. > > > > > > I Levy a fine of 2 Blots on Corona (Summary Judgement) for this > > > > > > abuse of office. > > > > > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > > > I object to Corona's intent to win by Apathy. > > > > > > > > I nominate myself for Treasuror. > > > > > > > > -twg > > > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > > > > > On June 10, 2018 8:12 PM, Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > [Sun Jun 10 22:12] This line is not a part of the report. Corona > > > > > > > > > > intends to > > > > > > > win by Apathy without objection. > > -- > > From V.J. Rada > > > -- > > ~Corona
Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Agora and G. accumulate more wealth; zombies & public facilities bankrupt, as always
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; zombies & public facilities bankrupt, as always To: "Agora Nomic discussions (DF)" 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 Jun 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I Object to the intent. > > > > I Levy a fine of 2 Blots on Corona (Summary Judgement) for this > > abuse of office. > > > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > I object to Corona's intent to win by Apathy. > > > > > > I nominate myself for Treasuror. > > > > > > -twg > > > > > > > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > > > On June 10, 2018 8:12 PM, Corona wrote: > > > > > > > [Sun Jun 10 22:12] This line is not a part of the report. Corona > intends to > > > win by Apathy without objection. > > > > > > -- >From V.J. Rada -- ~Corona
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Agora and G. accumulate more wealth; zombies & public facilities bankrupt, as always
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, Aris Merchant wrote: > > See Rule 2531, which requires, among other things, that the > > perpetrator did some action prohibited by law. You haven't named a > > rule that Corona violated. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 3:02 PM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > > > > > > > > This one I think? Did I use it wrong? > > > > > > Rule 2479/5 (Power=1.7) > > > Official Justice > > > > > >The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose > > >Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a > fine > > >of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the > > >Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official > > >proceeding. > > > > > >The Referee CANNOT impose Summary Judgement more than three > times > > >a week. > > > > > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > >> Excuse me, but under which provision of which rule? > > >> > > >> -Aris > > >> > > >> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > I Object to the intent. > > >> > > > >> > I Levy a fine of 2 Blots on Corona (Summary Judgement) for this > > >> > abuse of office. > > >> > > > >> > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > >> >> I object to Corona's intent to win by Apathy. > > >> >> > > >> >> I nominate myself for Treasuror. > > >> >> > > >> >> -twg > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > >> >> > > >> >> On June 10, 2018 8:12 PM, Corona > wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> > [Sun Jun 10 22:12] This line is not a part of the report. Corona > intends to > > >> >> win by Apathy without objection. > > >> >> > > >> > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Agora and G. accumulate more wealth; zombies & public facilities bankrupt, as always
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 Jun 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I Object to the intent. > > > > I Levy a fine of 2 Blots on Corona (Summary Judgement) for this > > abuse of office. > > > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > I object to Corona's intent to win by Apathy. > > > > > > I nominate myself for Treasuror. > > > > > > -twg > > > > > > > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > > > On June 10, 2018 8:12 PM, Corona wrote: > > > > > > > [Sun Jun 10 22:12] This line is not a part of the report. Corona > intends to > > > win by Apathy without objection. > > > > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Agora and G. accumulate more wealth; zombies & public facilities bankrupt, as always
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) > > > +-++++---+++ > ++++ > |Entity |Ston|Appl|Corn|Ore|Lmbr|Cotn| > Coin|Papr|Fabr|Incs| > +-++++---+++ > ++++ > |ATMunn | 6| 32| 1| 0| 7| 0| 64| 14| 0| > 14| > |Aris | 5| 30| 9| 0| 5| 0| 97| 7| 0| > 11| > |Corona | 34| 72| 25| 0| 10| 27| 90| 29| 0| > 20| > |CuddleBeam | 11| 18| 9| 4| 8| 9| 50| 10| 0| > 11| > |G. | 25| 99| 15| 0| 18| 0| 221| 52| 0| > 33| > |Gaelan | 14| 28| 2| 6| 2| 0| 47| 10| 0| > 11| > |Kenyon | 14| 37| 4| 6| 20| 3| 45| 9| 0| > 11| > |Murphy | 5| 30| 4| 0| 8| 0| 70| 11| 0| > 11| > |PSS | 0| 5| 0| 0| 0| 0| 10| 2| 0| > 3| > |Quazie | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| > 0| > |Telnaior | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| > 0| > |Trigon | 3| 25| 12| 2| 4| 12| 32| 7| 0| > 11| > > |twg | 5| 15| 0| 0| 5| 0| 20| 5| 0| > 3| > |VJ Rada | 10| 55| 2| 0| 10| 0| 80| 19| 0| > 11| > |nichdel | 0| 5| 0| 0| 0| 0| 10| 2| 0| > 3| > |o| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| > 0| > |omd | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| > 0| > |Ouri | 0| 10| 0| 0| 0| 0| 24| 4| 0| > 11| > |pokes| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| > 0| > |天火狐| 0| 5| 0| 0| 0| 0| 10| 2| 0| 3| > +-++++---+++ > ++++ > |farm at 1,-1 | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| > 0| > |mine at -1,-1| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| > 0| > |mine at 1,1 | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| > 0| > |orchard at -1,1 | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| > 0| > |Corona’s refinery at -1,1| 0| 0| 0| 33| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| > 0| > |Corona’s mine at -1,1| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| > 0| > |Corona’s orchard at -1,1 | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| > 0| > |ATMunn’s farm at 1,3 | 0| 0| 9| 0| 0| 9| 0| 0| 0| > 0| > |FPW | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| > 0| > |Agora| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 349| 0| 0| > 0| > +-++++---+++ > ++++ > > The following abbreviations are used in the table above: > > Ston = stone > > Appl = apples > > Lmbr = lumber > > Cotn = cotton > > Coin = coins > > Papr = papers > > Fabr = fabric > > Incs = incense > > > > PSS = Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > FPW = Finger Pointing Workaround > > > > Recent changes (most recent first, times in UTC, non-self-ratifying): > > [Sun Jun 10 19:44:17] Corona built & upgraded facilities, spending 3 > apples, 11 coins, 13 lumber and 19 stones; Corona also put all eir ore in a > refinery > > [Sun Jun 10 19:32:46] Corona, via Quazie, looted all public facilities, > spending 8 apples to move around > > [Sun Jun 3 18:46:43] G. expunged a blot with 1 incense > > [Fri Jun 1 18:17:07] Telnaior (acted on behalf of by G.) moved around using > a bug, destroying 6 apples, 10 coins total > > [Fri Jun 1 17:29:46] Trigon attempted to loot the public orchard (-1,1). E > is standing elsewhere though. > > [Fri Jun 1 17:07:37] G. moved around, destroying 6 coins, 1 apple total > > [Fri Jun 1 16:55:04] G. robbed the graves of o, omd, Telnaior, pokes > > [Fri Jun 1 16:42:03] o (acted on behalf of by G.) moved around using a bug, > destroying 5 apples, 10 coins total > > [Fri Jun 01 00:00] new month began (payday). Some facilities were destroyed > > [Thu May 24 21:46:42] twg registered and got a welcome package > > [Mon May 21 05:39:56 UTC 2018] Corona & Quazie each paid 12 coins to Agora > for land units (+2,-2),(+2,-1) > > [Mon May 21 05:37:32 UTC 2018] Corona paid Agora 25 coins for zombie 天火狐, > looted eir body > > [Mon May 21 00:00] new week begins (assets are produced in facilities) > > [Sun May 20 21:41:41] Trigon paid Agora 11 coins for land unit (+4,0) > > [Sun May 20 19:52:54] G. & o each paid 15 coins to Agora for land units > (+2,-1), (+3,0) > > [Sun May 20 19:49:44] G. paid Agora 30 coins for zombie Telnaior, looted > eir body > > [Mon May 14 04:03:54] VJ Rada looted PSS’s corpse > > [Mon May 14 00:00] new
