Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Late monthly Reports: ATMunn, Kenyon

[Aris Merchant]

I have a criminal justice proto that makes it slightly harder to
convict someone, while having the monthly free incense to one and
doubling the standard violation. It's not really a very high priority
at the moment though. If someone wants to adjust the relevant
quantities now, it probably wouldn't cause any problems.

-Aris
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 6:52 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
>
> Watching the balances in the last month I've was thinking that we have an
> oversupply and overproduction of incense will make penance very cheap.
>
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, ATMunn wrote:
> >
> > > Assuming I have incense, I apologize and spend 2 of it to make my blots
> > > disappear into oblivion.
> > >
> > > ...If that wording somehow doesn't work, I apologize and spend 2 incense 
> > > to
> > > expunge my blots.
> >
> > It works, but it may not be what you wanted anyhow. Incense always works, 
> > but
> > since the violation was forgiveable you could have gotten away _free_ by
> > making an apology... not a token one, but a rule 2557 one using at least 200
> > words.  I'd say it'd also need to show remorse etc. but I think there was a
> > CFJ interpreting that part _very_ weakly.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Ørjan.
> >
> > > On 6/13/2018 11:56 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  On Fri, 1 Jun 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > > >  On behalf of ATMunn (via contract) I point the finger at the 
> > > > > following
> > > > >  players for missing a monthly report in May:
> > > > >
> > > > >  ATMunn (For Tailor).
> > > >
> > > >  I levy a fine of 2 Blots (Forgivable, as report has been made).
> > > >
> > > > >  Kenyon (For Rulekeepor FLR).
> > > >
> > > >  I levy a find of 2 Blots (Forgivable, because salary isn't an issue
> > > >  for em anymore).
> > > >
> > > > >  I think appropriate level for missing monthlies is 2 Blots (open for
> > > > >  discussion).
> > > > >
> > > > >  I won't levy for 4 days at least, if a report has been made in that
> > > > >  time this will be forgivable, otherwise unforgivable.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Late monthly Reports: ATMunn, Kenyon

[Kerim Aydin]

Watching the balances in the last month I've was thinking that we have an 
oversupply and overproduction of incense will make penance very cheap.

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, ATMunn wrote:
> 
> > Assuming I have incense, I apologize and spend 2 of it to make my blots
> > disappear into oblivion.
> > 
> > ...If that wording somehow doesn't work, I apologize and spend 2 incense to
> > expunge my blots.
> 
> It works, but it may not be what you wanted anyhow. Incense always works, but
> since the violation was forgiveable you could have gotten away _free_ by
> making an apology... not a token one, but a rule 2557 one using at least 200
> words.  I'd say it'd also need to show remorse etc. but I think there was a
> CFJ interpreting that part _very_ weakly.
> 
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
> 
> > On 6/13/2018 11:56 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  On Fri, 1 Jun 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > >  On behalf of ATMunn (via contract) I point the finger at the following
> > > >  players for missing a monthly report in May:
> > > > 
> > > >  ATMunn (For Tailor).
> > > 
> > >  I levy a fine of 2 Blots (Forgivable, as report has been made).
> > > 
> > > >  Kenyon (For Rulekeepor FLR).
> > > 
> > >  I levy a find of 2 Blots (Forgivable, because salary isn't an issue
> > >  for em anymore).
> > > 
> > > >  I think appropriate level for missing monthlies is 2 Blots (open for
> > > >  discussion).
> > > > 
> > > >  I won't levy for 4 days at least, if a report has been made in that
> > > >  time this will be forgivable, otherwise unforgivable.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Late monthly Reports: ATMunn, Kenyon

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, ATMunn wrote:

Assuming I have incense, I apologize and spend 2 of it to make my blots 
disappear into oblivion.


...If that wording somehow doesn't work, I apologize and spend 2 incense to 
expunge my blots.


It works, but it may not be what you wanted anyhow. Incense always works, 
but since the violation was forgiveable you could have gotten away _free_ 
by making an apology... not a token one, but a rule 2557 one using at 
least 200 words.  I'd say it'd also need to show remorse etc. but I think 
there was a CFJ interpreting that part _very_ weakly.


Greetings,
Ørjan.


On 6/13/2018 11:56 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:




 On Fri, 1 Jun 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:

 On behalf of ATMunn (via contract) I point the finger at the following
 players for missing a monthly report in May:

 ATMunn (For Tailor).


 I levy a fine of 2 Blots (Forgivable, as report has been made).


 Kenyon (For Rulekeepor FLR).


 I levy a find of 2 Blots (Forgivable, because salary isn't an issue
 for em anymore).


 I think appropriate level for missing monthlies is 2 Blots (open for
 discussion).

 I won't levy for 4 days at least, if a report has been made in that
 time this will be forgivable, otherwise unforgivable.

Re: BAK: DIS: Re: [Assessor] Humiliations Galore

[Ørjan Johansen]

I sent omd an email. I don't think e's paying close attention as e's been 
extremely idle on IRC.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:

Did this copy bounce? That would be concerning. I appreciate the severe
humiliation that you have brought upon me.


So the second copy (sent to both BAK and BUS) came to both BAK and BUS,
I got both copies.  Then your reply to DIS came through.  I replied to you
in DIS, and my reply seems to have been eaten too.  Also, the mailman web
archives aren't responding.

It is concerning.  If it helps, I got the below hard-bounce message with
my first copy (I've never gotten this hard-bounce message before):


Hi. This is the qmail-send program at vps.qoid.us.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.

:

--- Below this line is a copy of the message.




___
Agora mailing list
ag...@listserver.tue.nl
https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora

Re: BAK: DIS: Re: [Assessor] Humiliations Galore

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

That email server is much more entertaining than mine! :)

On 06/13/2018 03:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> Did this copy bounce? That would be concerning. I appreciate the severe
>> humiliation that you have brought upon me.
> So the second copy (sent to both BAK and BUS) came to both BAK and BUS,
> I got both copies.  Then your reply to DIS came through.  I replied to you
> in DIS, and my reply seems to have been eaten too.  Also, the mailman web
> archives aren't responding.
>
> It is concerning.  If it helps, I got the below hard-bounce message with
> my first copy (I've never gotten this hard-bounce message before):
>
>> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at vps.qoid.us.
>> I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
>> This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
>>
>> :
>>
>> --- Below this line is a copy of the message.
>
>
> ___
> Agora mailing list
> ag...@listserver.tue.nl
> https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora

-- 

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

Re: DIS: Draft: Minimalist Contracts v1

[Aris Merchant]

The most important element of a contract is the voluntary exchange of
promises, which is what actually makes it binding. Defying expectations is
always potentially interesting, but usually only makes sense if it can be
executed in way which makes logical sense. I really don't see how we would
do that here. In addition, it would be mechanically difficult, because
post-Mousetrap Agora has safeguards that would have to be carefully
overridden for the specific case we would be excepting. In this case, we
would have to override both the general prohibition on involuntary
agreements and the definition of contracts. That's not impossible, but it
would get a bit messy, and I'm not sure I see the point.

-Aris

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 1:55 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think that it would be interesting to try to model zombies as a
> contract that was mandatory and would be automatically agreed to be the
> zombie party at the completion of the auction, in a similar way to the
> way that covering songs works in the United States. What do others think
> about trying this?
>
> On 06/12/2018 10:48 AM, ATMunn wrote:
> > I do quite like the simplicity of this. I especially like that
> > contracts now must include at least 2 people, so there's no
> > quick-contract-to-get-around-something allowed. This also makes
> > contracts seem more like real contracts.
> >
> > On 6/11/2018 10:42 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.
> >> }
> >>
>
> --
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Draft: Minimalist Contracts v1

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I think that it would be interesting to try to model zombies as a
contract that was mandatory and would be automatically agreed to be the
zombie party at the completion of the auction, in a similar way to the
way that covering songs works in the United States. What do others think
about trying this?

On 06/12/2018 10:48 AM, ATMunn wrote:
> I do quite like the simplicity of this. I especially like that
> contracts now must include at least 2 people, so there's no
> quick-contract-to-get-around-something allowed. This also makes
> contracts seem more like real contracts.
>
> On 6/11/2018 10:42 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.
>> }
>>

-- 

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

Re: DIS: Re: BAK: [Assessor] Humiliations Galore

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

On June 13, 2018 7:50 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> So the second copy (sent to both BAK and BUS) came to both BAK and BUS,
> 
> I got both copies. Then your reply to DIS came through. I replied to you
> 
> in DIS, and my reply seems to have been eaten too. Also, the mailman web
> 
> archives aren't responding.

If you mean your reply at 7:14 PM UTC, I received it successfully.

I also can't access the mailman archives, although the ones on mail-archive.com 
are working fine for me: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/

Has anything like this happened before? If so, does omd tend to notice and 
respond, or should we get in touch with em directly?

-twg

Re: DIS: Re: BAK: [Assessor] Humiliations Galore

[Aris Merchant]

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 1:03 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > Did this copy bounce? That would be concerning. I appreciate the severe
> > humiliation that you have brought upon me.
>
> No, this copy came through on both BUS and BAK.  I was a bit concerned,
> because the previous one came back pretty quickly with a hard bounce with
> this message (that I'd never seen before):
>
> > Hi. This is the qmail-send program at vps.qoid.us.
> > I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following
> addresses.
> > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
> >
> > :
> >
> > --- Below this line is a copy of the message.
>
>
>
I still can't seem to assess the archives though. I'm getting 504 error.
Are other people seeing the same thing, and does anyone have any clue what
could be causing this?

-Aris

>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BAK: [Assessor] Humiliations Galore

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> Did this copy bounce? That would be concerning. I appreciate the severe
> humiliation that you have brought upon me.

No, this copy came through on both BUS and BAK.  I was a bit concerned, 
because the previous one came back pretty quickly with a hard bounce with 
this message (that I'd never seen before):

> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at vps.qoid.us.
> I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
> This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
> 
> :
> 
> --- Below this line is a copy of the message.

Re: DIS: Re: BAK: [Assessor] Humiliations Galore

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> Did this copy bounce? That would be concerning. I appreciate the severe
> humiliation that you have brought upon me.

So the second copy (sent to both BAK and BUS) came to both BAK and BUS,
I got both copies.  Then your reply to DIS came through.  I replied to you
in DIS, and my reply seems to have been eaten too.  Also, the mailman web
archives aren't responding.

It is concerning.  If it helps, I got the below hard-bounce message with
my first copy (I've never gotten this hard-bounce message before):

> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at vps.qoid.us.
> I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
> This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
>
> :
> 
> --- Below this line is a copy of the message.

DIS: Re: BAK: [Assessor] Humiliations Galore

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Did this copy bounce? That would be concerning. I appreciate the severe
humiliation that you have brought upon me.

On 06/13/2018 03:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> [note: an earlier version of this email to agora-business bounced].
>
>
> FACT:  Seven Days have passed since Proposal 8052 was distributed.
> FACT:  Exactly three players (Murphy, Aris, and twg) have voted on it.
> FACT:  Quorum for the decision to adopt Proposal 8052 is 6.
>
> THEREFORE, as per Rule 2168:
>
> I vote FOR 8052.
> On behalf of o, o votes PRESENT.
> On behalf of Telnaior, Telnaior votes PRESENT.
>
> I end the Voting Period for the decision to adopt 8052, as the result
> would no longer be FAILED QUORUM.
>
>
> And NOW - you named slackers on the below list - you should feel
> HUMILIATED for your failure to vote.  And even more humiliating, you
> CANNOT vote.  For I have ended the voting period, you must carry the
> burden of your failure with you forevermore.
>
> The slackers are: 
>   Gaelan, CuddleBeam, Trigon, Corona, V.J. Rada, Kenyon, ATMunn, Ouri,
>   PSS, omd, Quazie, nichdel, pokes, and that Japanese character person
>   whom I name Fox-something-or-other.
>
>
> ___
> Agora mailing list
> ag...@listserver.tue.nl
> https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora

-- 

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Re: [Cartographor] The Map of Arcadia -- June 11, 2018

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> I'm not entirely clear whether revised reports are supposed to reflect 
> the game state at the time of the original report, or at the time of 
> the revision.
>
> Just in case, I submit a CoE: I built an orchard at (+5, 0) in this 
> message: 
> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg32016.html 
> (which was after your original report, but before this revision).

The key, important point for CoEs/future ratification is the date that 
the report claims to represent. Since this report has this date on it:
> Revision 1: Jun 13, 2018 
it is a report for the state of things on Jun 13.  (if no date is
included, the email datestamp is assumed).

The rules are unclear on whether, strictly speaking, a "revision" has to
be a backdated report as things stood then, versus a current Report that
also includes the revisions. It hasn't been tested by CFJ (I've wondered
too), but in practice we've never required officers to produce back-dated 
reports, provided the current report includes the revisions.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

[Kerim Aydin]

It's for consistency (Sanskrit works too).

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, ATMunn wrote:
> Ah, ok.
> 
> On 6/12/2018 7:46 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Ancient Greek, not modern Greek. It's from the start of the Iliad. [1] In
> > fact, it's the first words, or incipit, of the text.
> > 
> > [1]  http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0133
> > 
> > -Aris
> > 
> > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 4:41 PM ATMunn  wrote:
> > 
> > > I tried translating the text at the top of this report. Turns out,
> > > unless google translate is broken, it wasn't meant to be translated,
> > > it's gibberish. (unless the language isn't supposed to be Greek?)
> > > 
> > > On 6/12/2018 5:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > Registrar's Weekly Report
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > >   Date of last report: 03 Jun 2018 Date of this report: 12 Jun 2018
> > > > (all times UTC)
> > > > 
> > > > (μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ)
> > > > 
> > > > Recent Events (recent events section not ratifying)
> > > > 
> > > > 08-May-18 12:50:50   Registrar initiates zombie auction for Telnaior,
> > > > 天火狐 20-May-18 19:49:44   G. flips Telnaior's master switch to G.
> > > > (auction). 21-May-18 05:37:32   Corona flips 天火狐's master switch to
> > > > Corona (auction). 24-May-18 21:46:42   twg registers.  Welcome, twg!
> > > > 25-May-18 23:31:10   Publius Scribonius Scholasticus sets eir master
> > > > switch to emself.
> > > > 
> > > > (time of last report)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Players (20) (by Rule 869, Persons with 'Registered' Citizenship,
> > > > z=zombie)
> > > > 
> > > > Player   Contact
> > > > Registered --   ---
> > > > -- Aris thoughtsoflifeandlight17 at gmail.com
> > > > 13 Sep 16 Gaelan   gbs at canishe.com
> > > > 15 May 17 G.   kerim at u.washington.edu
> > > > 25 Aug 17 Cuddle Beam  cuddlebeam at gmail.com
> > > > 25 Aug 17 Trigon   reuben.staley at gmail.com
> > > > 24 Sep 17 Corona   liliumalbum.agora at gmail.com
> > > > 17 Nov 17 Murphy   emurphy42 at zoho.com
> > > > 17 Dec 17 VJ Rada  edwardostrange at gmail.com
> > > > 29 Dec 17 Kenyon   kprater3.14 at gmail.com
> > > > 27 Feb 18 ATMunn   iamingodsarmy at gmail.com
> > > > 11 Mar 18 Ouri ouri.poupko at gmail.com
> > > > 03 Apr 18 twg  me at timon.red
> > > > 24 May 18 P. Scholasticus [1]  pscriboniusscholasticus at
> > > > gmail.com[2] 16 Apr 17 z  omd  comexk at gmail.com
> > > > [3] 03 Feb 11 z  oowen at
> > > > grimoire.ca 12 Jul 16 z  Quazie
> > > > quazienomic at gmail.com15 Apr 17 z  nichdel
> > > > nichdel at gmail.com29 Jun 17 z  pokes
> > > > pokes at botnoise.org   11 Dec 17 z  天火狐
> > > > draconicdarkness at gmail.com   06 Nov 16 z  Telnaior
> > > > jdga at iinet.net.au20 Oct 17
> > > > 
> > > > [1] In full, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus [2] officially, but
> > > > technically equivalent p.scribonius.scholasticus at googlemail.com
> > > > [3] officially, but technically equivalent c.ome.xk at gmail.com
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Non-default Master Switches (Player:value, self-ratifying)
> > > > 
> > > > omd  : G. Quazie   : Corona nichdel  : ATMunn o: G. pokes
> > > > : omd Telnaior : G. 天火狐: Corona
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Fora (Rule 478, self-ratifying)
> > > > 
> > > > Type Location  Typical use 
> > > >   --- Public
> > > > agora-official at agoranomic.org  official reports Public
> > > > agora-business at agoranomic.org  other business Discussion
> > > > agora-discussion at agoranomic.orgdiscussion Discussion
> > > > irc://irc.freenode.net:6667/##nomic
> > >    discussion Public   agora
> > > > at listserver.tue.nlbackup
> > > > 
> > > > Subscribe or unsubscribe from main lists:
> > > > http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
> > > > 
> > > > Subscribe or unsubscribe from tue.nl backup list:
> > > > http://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora
> > > > 
> > > > The IRC channel does not require subscription; set your IRC client
> > > > to server irc.freenode.net, port 6667, channel ##nomic, and whatever
> > > > nickname you like.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Writs of FAGE (Rule 1789) PlayerDate --
> > > >  Kelly 17 Sep 95 Andre 13 Feb 99 BobTHJ
> > > > 16 Jan 08 P1 5 Nov 08 P2 5 Nov 08 P3
> > > > 6 Nov 08 G.29 Jun 17
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Watch

DIS: Re: BUS: Pay Agora for your land units! (attn: Murphy, twg)

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

I was under the impression that, per rule 2551/1, paying for an auction lot is 
done by transferring the amount of the bid to the auctioneer (in this case, 
Agora), not by destroying the coins.

I already did the former, here: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg32012.html

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 13, 2018 2:26 AM, Reuben Staley  wrote:

> ​​
> 
> In order for the transfer of lots at the end of an auction to take
> 
> place, the highest bidder must send a message to the public forum
> 
> stating that they destroy some amount of coins in exchange for the lot.
> 
> Murphy, you need to destroy 14 coins. twg, you need to destroy 6 coins.
> 
> Failing to do so means you don't get the land units. So... get on that.
> 
> Please and thank you,
> 
> your humble mapmaker,
> 
> Trigon

Re: DIS: trades

[Aris Merchant]

No, I agree that they shouldn't be merged right now, I'm just pointing out
that this can be done as soon as we have new-model-contracts. These are
standard terms, available to everyone. So someone could make an offer,
exactly as if this were a rule, and then as soon as another person fufuiled
it, there would be a contract between them. At the time of the contracts
system you brought up, I believe pledges _were_ defined as a kind of
contract. I'm quite sure that I remember seeing a ruleset where they were
at any rate. Still, it seems quite reasonable to keep everything separate
for now and then merge things (or more accurately, make things special
cases of other things) if we see a reason to at later point, after we know
how the releavant systems are working out.

-Aris

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 5:54 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> The whole point of Trades is that, like pledges, there should be
> some defined, automatic, working, and easy-to-make thing rather than just
> saying "sure this can all be done with contracts but nobody bothers
> because that takes effort."
>
> As an example, Pledges could be incorporated into contracts too.  But
> people actually use pledges (and the tracking is fairly incidental and
> not-value added) and bringing them into contracts would kill them.
>
> I think it would come up as frequently as pledges.
>
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > 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 comes to mind), but those can be fixed as they arise.
> >
> > I'm not sure if this needs to be a standalone rule. How often do you
> think
> > it would come up?
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:44 PM Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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. a transfer of assets
> > >to emself).  E may optionally specify a set of players other
> > >than the seller eligible to make the exchange (buyers).  If e
> > >does not specify the default buyers are all players other than
> > >the seller.
> > >
> > >A Trade Offer is valid until:
> > >  (a) a buyer makes the exchange for that Trade Offer;
> > >  (b) the seller withdraws the offer; or
> > >  (c) one week has passed.
> > >
> > >A buyer makes the exchange on a valid Trade Offer by
> > >announcement, citing the specific offer as the reason for
> > >performing the exchange action, provided that (1) the buyer
> > >CAN otherwise perform the exchange action by announcement;
> > >   (2) the seller CAN transfer the tender to the buyer by
> announcement.
> > >
> > >When the exchange is made, that buyer performs the exchange
> action,
> > >and immediately afterwards the tender is transferred from the
> > >seller to the buyer.  If either portion of the trade fails,
> > >both fail (no exchange action is performed and no tender is
> > >transferred).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>