Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Probably the last one for now.
On Thu, 2018-10-18 at 21:35 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > It never has and it never will. Ruleset ratification causes nasty > formatting problems, and leaves the door open for some extremely > dangerous scams. Anyhow, unless someone has gone and ratified it by > proposal without me noticing (hard, given that I’m Promotor, although > I’ve managed to forget things in the past) it hasn’t ratified. We do ratifications of the SLR very occasionally (to clean up any potential long-standing ruleset mistakes), but a) by proposal, b) with a lot of checking of the ruleset to make sure there are no scams or game-breaking mistakes in it. (It strikes me that "the week after Read the Ruleset Week" would be a good time to do it.) We never ratify the FLR, because that would effectively ratify the history of the ruleset, not just the current version. (As it is, if we discover a ruleset mistake after an SLR ratification, we can mark the change into the history in the FLR, with a "by ratification" explaining how it happened.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Probably the last one for now.
It never has and it never will. Ruleset ratification causes nasty formatting problems, and leaves the door open for some extremely dangerous scams. Anyhow, unless someone has gone and ratified it by proposal without me noticing (hard, given that I’m Promotor, although I’ve managed to forget things in the past) it hasn’t ratified. -Aris On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 9:30 PM Reuben Staley wrote: > It doesn't? Well clearly I am not a reliable source for information > about ratification. > > On 10/18/2018 10:28 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > Wait, sorry. What do you mean ruleset ratification? We haven’t ratified > the > > ruleset in almost a year, if my memory is correct. It isn’t > self-ratifying. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 9:14 PM Reuben Staley > > wrote: > > > >> This rule was changed to a strange list formatting method by ruleset > >> ratification thanks to Kenyon. The second lines of the last two items of > >> the list were starred as well as the first. An inconsequential change, > >> but it annoyed me so here we are. > >> > >> I submit and pend the following proposal: > >> > >> - > >> title: This isn't list formatting! > >> ai: 1 > >> author: Trigon > >> coauthors: > >> > >> Amend rule 2492 'Recusal' by replacing the list with: > >> > >> * the CFJ becomes unassigned; > >> > >> * the recused judge becomes ineligible to be assigned as a judge > >> for a week; and > >> > >> * the recused judge SHOULD suggest another judge for the CFJ to > >> make the Arbitor's job easier. > >> > >> -- > >> Trigon > >> > > -- > Trigon >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Probably the last one for now.
It doesn't? Well clearly I am not a reliable source for information about ratification. On 10/18/2018 10:28 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: Wait, sorry. What do you mean ruleset ratification? We haven’t ratified the ruleset in almost a year, if my memory is correct. It isn’t self-ratifying. -Aris On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 9:14 PM Reuben Staley wrote: This rule was changed to a strange list formatting method by ruleset ratification thanks to Kenyon. The second lines of the last two items of the list were starred as well as the first. An inconsequential change, but it annoyed me so here we are. I submit and pend the following proposal: - title: This isn't list formatting! ai: 1 author: Trigon coauthors: Amend rule 2492 'Recusal' by replacing the list with: * the CFJ becomes unassigned; * the recused judge becomes ineligible to be assigned as a judge for a week; and * the recused judge SHOULD suggest another judge for the CFJ to make the Arbitor's job easier. -- Trigon -- Trigon
DIS: Re: BUS: Probably the last one for now.
Wait, sorry. What do you mean ruleset ratification? We haven’t ratified the ruleset in almost a year, if my memory is correct. It isn’t self-ratifying. -Aris On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 9:14 PM Reuben Staley wrote: > This rule was changed to a strange list formatting method by ruleset > ratification thanks to Kenyon. The second lines of the last two items of > the list were starred as well as the first. An inconsequential change, > but it annoyed me so here we are. > > I submit and pend the following proposal: > > - > title: This isn't list formatting! > ai: 1 > author: Trigon > coauthors: > > Amend rule 2492 'Recusal' by replacing the list with: > >* the CFJ becomes unassigned; > >* the recused judge becomes ineligible to be assigned as a judge > for a week; and > >* the recused judge SHOULD suggest another judge for the CFJ to > make the Arbitor's job easier. > > -- > Trigon >
Re: DIS: Fwd: OFF: [Treasuror] Weekly report: Last ever painstaking addition of 3s to each facility balance
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote: > 2. Enact a new Rule entitled “FBOA Patent Title” (Power=1) that reads: > > “The Herald CAN, and SHALL in a timely manner after this Rule is enacted, > by announcement award to each of D. Margaux and G. the Patent Title of > ‘Bank Robber.’ This Rule will repeal itself automatically immediately > after the Herald awards the said Patent Titles.” Oh, one more comment here. Anything that is Secured can be directly changed by a Proposal of the correct power. Patent Titles are Secured-1, and this proposal would have AI-1, so you don't have to create a Rule, just say: "D. Margaux and G. are hereby awarded the Patent Title Bank Robber" in the proposal.
Re: DIS: Fwd: OFF: [Treasuror] Weekly report: Last ever painstaking addition of 3s to each facility balance
Setting up a new bank sounds like a fun idea! I just wouldn’t want to have the coin imbalance to prevent us from actually turning coins/points/whatever into something useful going forward. On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 6:18 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Thu, 18 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote: > > Now that the bank heist scam has run its course, what would people think > of a > > proposal along the following lines? It would reduce my and G’s coins to > what > > they would be if we hadn’t run the scam, and in return awards a patent > title > > that is perhaps appropriate for the occasion. > > I was actually wondering if we might use the coins to set up a genuine > bank and > issue loans & stuff! > > > > 1. The gamestate is converged to what it would have been if, at the time > of the > > Treasuror’s report of 18 October 2018, the players’ coin holdings were > as follows: > > This is very weird phrasing to me. You can backdate ratification, so > possibly > better phrasing: "The following list is Ratified as being an accurate > list of > coin holdings for 18 Oct 2018". Maybe no big deal tho. > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Auction related proposals
I mean, all someone has to do to run an unofficial auction is say that they'll give a number of assets to someone who gives them the most of some currency and then maybe back it by a pledge. On Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 16:28 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Thu, 18 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > Create a new power-1 rule entitled 'Free Auctions' with the text: > > > > A player who is not the auctioneer of an existing Auction > > specified by this rule CAN, by announcement, initiate an auction > > with emself as the auctioneer The lots, minimum bid, and currency > > of the Auction shall be set by said player. > > This actually is more restrictive than what can be done now with the > following > proto-contract: > > 1. The auction described in this contract is run as if the auction rules > were > generally part of this contract, with [name] as the auctioneer and [lots] > as the > lots. > > 2. Anyone who bids joins the contract. The winner CAN act on behalf of > [name] > to transfer the lots to em. > > (Basically, an auction can be run "wholly unofficially", with the only > legal > construct needed being the act-on-behalf for the winner to make the > transfer > The rule adds the restriction of "not an auctioneer of an existing auction" > so is more restrictive). > > >
Re: DIS: shall we address the elephant in the room?
oh, I guess I never read that through. Cool. On 10/18/2018 6:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: That same proposal that removes Land keeps Coins as a currency, putting in proposal-based methods for earning coins. That's not to say it can't be replaced or reskinned again with something in-theme for either space or politics, but it's not "urgent" in the sense of it being missing. On Thu, 18 Oct 2018, ATMunn wrote: I realized something during the recent discussion regarding my space proposal - since PAoaM is likely going to be repealed soon, Agora will be left without a currency. This isn't the worst thing, but I feel like in order to really make space interesting, there needs to be a currency here. I see three options: 1. create a completely new currency for Agora (this would probably be manifested as the recently-proposed points system) 2. create some sort of "space-bucks," probably earned from winning battles or something 3. use something in the Politics system as currency I'm really not sure which option is the best. Thoughts?
DIS: Re: BUS: Auction related proposals
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > Create a new power-1 rule entitled 'Free Auctions' with the text: > > A player who is not the auctioneer of an existing Auction > specified by this rule CAN, by announcement, initiate an auction > with emself as the auctioneer The lots, minimum bid, and currency > of the Auction shall be set by said player. This actually is more restrictive than what can be done now with the following proto-contract: 1. The auction described in this contract is run as if the auction rules were generally part of this contract, with [name] as the auctioneer and [lots] as the lots. 2. Anyone who bids joins the contract. The winner CAN act on behalf of [name] to transfer the lots to em. (Basically, an auction can be run "wholly unofficially", with the only legal construct needed being the act-on-behalf for the winner to make the transfer The rule adds the restriction of "not an auctioneer of an existing auction" so is more restrictive).
Re: DIS: shall we address the elephant in the room?
That same proposal that removes Land keeps Coins as a currency, putting in proposal-based methods for earning coins. That's not to say it can't be replaced or reskinned again with something in-theme for either space or politics, but it's not "urgent" in the sense of it being missing. On Thu, 18 Oct 2018, ATMunn wrote: > I realized something during the recent discussion regarding my space > proposal - since PAoaM is likely going to be repealed soon, Agora will > be left without a currency. > > This isn't the worst thing, but I feel like in order to really make > space interesting, there needs to be a currency here. I see three options: > > > 1. create a completely new currency for Agora (this would probably be > manifested as the recently-proposed points system) > > 2. create some sort of "space-bucks," probably earned from winning > battles or something > > 3. use something in the Politics system as currency > > > I'm really not sure which option is the best. Thoughts? >
Re: DIS: shall we address the elephant in the room?
Right now, we're using coins until we come up with something else. And the Point Installation Act did not pass. On Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 16:17 ATMunn wrote: > I realized something during the recent discussion regarding my space > proposal - since PAoaM is likely going to be repealed soon, Agora will > be left without a currency. > > This isn't the worst thing, but I feel like in order to really make > space interesting, there needs to be a currency here. I see three options: > > > 1. create a completely new currency for Agora (this would probably be > manifested as the recently-proposed points system) > > 2. create some sort of "space-bucks," probably earned from winning > battles or something > > 3. use something in the Politics system as currency > > > I'm really not sure which option is the best. Thoughts? >
Re: DIS: Fwd: OFF: [Treasuror] Weekly report: Last ever painstaking addition of 3s to each facility balance
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote: > Now that the bank heist scam has run its course, what would people think of a > proposal along the following lines? It would reduce my and G’s coins to what > they would be if we hadn’t run the scam, and in return awards a patent title > that is perhaps appropriate for the occasion. I was actually wondering if we might use the coins to set up a genuine bank and issue loans & stuff! > 1. The gamestate is converged to what it would have been if, at the time of > the > Treasuror’s report of 18 October 2018, the players’ coin holdings were as > follows: This is very weird phrasing to me. You can backdate ratification, so possibly better phrasing: "The following list is Ratified as being an accurate list of coin holdings for 18 Oct 2018". Maybe no big deal tho.
DIS: shall we address the elephant in the room?
I realized something during the recent discussion regarding my space proposal - since PAoaM is likely going to be repealed soon, Agora will be left without a currency. This isn't the worst thing, but I feel like in order to really make space interesting, there needs to be a currency here. I see three options: 1. create a completely new currency for Agora (this would probably be manifested as the recently-proposed points system) 2. create some sort of "space-bucks," probably earned from winning battles or something 3. use something in the Politics system as currency I'm really not sure which option is the best. Thoughts?
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] space i guess?
On 10/17/2018 6:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: [snip] No, you’re really on the right track. You’ve brainstormed correctly. Remember how I said “start with a very simple idea and then add just enough so it's not actively boring”? You’ve done the very simple idea, which is great. Now you need to do the adding. Trigon is right that this is too simple right now. Try to find some way of adding some planning or long term strategy that makes the gameplay more interesting without distracting from the core idea. Something that serves the same purpose as the special abilities of the politicians in the politics system, but obviously, tailored for your game. G. is right that it can’t have too much overhead. See if you can keep it to a single extra rule, maybe a bit more if necessary. Most importantly, it should feel like a clear part of the system, not an extra tacked on thing. That’s what I’d do anyway. I see, I guess I misunderstood you a bit. Good to know. As for a win condition, what if we created a new party policy of Entertainment, and gave out favors in that party as prizes for having high or low fame? Could be an interesting idea. I think I will start with a simple "win with this level of fame" for now, and we can change it to something like that later.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8105-8110
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > As fun as it would be to keep stringing you all along, I feel I should come > clean: > I am not trying to hide any specific announcement of intent to perform a > dependent > action. What really happened is that I mixed up the proposal ID numbers, G. > assumed > something suspicious was going on, and it seemed funnier to play along than > to > clarify what had happened. :P Oooh, the triple-bluff. Not falling for it. (Seriously, I mostly assumed you'd respond to my objection with "oops, voted on wrong proposal", it was only when you trolled with the CFJ that I got truly paranoid - so well done there...).
DIS: Re: BUS: Auction related proposals
Any rule messiness regarding auctions is to be blamed on me. :) On 10/18/2018 5:06 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: I submit the following two proposals: - title: Auction cleanup ai: 1 author: Trigon coauthors: [ Comment: I noticed that there are an entire eight rules defining auctions and I thought that was a bit excessive. Oh, we also missed a few sentences about contracts initiating auctions so this removes them. This contains no functional changes but it makes the rules defining auctions less cumbersome. ] Amend rule 2545 'Auctions' to read: An Auction is a way for entities to give away items in exchange for a currency. Any rule CAN permit or require Auctions to be initiated. Each Auction has one or more lots of items. A lot is a non-empty list of items to be transferred to a single recipient. Each Auction has an Auctioneer. All rules permitting Auctions to be initiated should specify an entity to be Auctioneer. If no Auctioneer is specified, the default Auctioneer is Agora. Each Auction has an Announcer. Only persons can be Announcers. If the Auctioneer of an Auction is a player, then that player is also the Announcer of that Auction. Otherwise, the rule defining an Auction CAN define the Announcer for that Auction. Amend the last paragraph of rule 2549 'Auction Initiation' by replacing 'coins' with 'Agora's official currency'. Amend the last paragraph of rule 2551 'Auction End' by removing the final sentence. Repeal rule 2546 'Lots' Repeal rule 2547 'The Auctioneer' Repeal rule 2548 'The Auction Announcer' - title: Free Auctions ai: 1 author: Trigon coauthors: [ Comment: Not sure how I actually feel about this being enacted but proposals are cheap so I might as well. ] Create a new power-1 rule entitled 'Free Auctions' with the text: A player who is not the auctioneer of an existing Auction specified by this rule CAN, by announcement, initiate an auction with emself as the auctioneer The lots, minimum bid, and currency of the Auction shall be set by said player.
DIS: Fwd: OFF: [Treasuror] Weekly report: Last ever painstaking addition of 3s to each facility balance
Now that the bank heist scam has run its course, what would people think of a proposal along the following lines? It would reduce my and G’s coins to what they would be if we hadn’t run the scam, and in return awards a patent title that is perhaps appropriate for the occasion. 1. The gamestate is converged to what it would have been if, at the time of the Treasuror’s report of 18 October 2018, the players’ coin holdings were as follows: > > ||Coins || > +--++--+ > |ATMunn|| 12 || > |Aris || 18 || > |Corona||1 || > |CuddleBeam||9 || > |D. Margaux|| 62 || > |G.|| 42 || > |L.||0 || > |Murphy|| 14 || > |omd ||6 || > |PSS ||8 || > |Trigon|| 10 || > |twg || 44 || > +--++--+ > |Gaelan||0 || > |nichdel ||0 || > |pokes ||4 || > |Telnaior ||0 || > |V.J. Rada || 14 || > |天火狐 ||3 || > +--++--+ > ||Coins || > ++--+ 2. Enact a new Rule entitled “FBOA Patent Title” (Power=1) that reads: “The Herald CAN, and SHALL in a timely manner after this Rule is enacted, by announcement award to each of D. Margaux and G. the Patent Title of ‘Bank Robber.’ This Rule will repeal itself automatically immediately after the Herald awards the said Patent Titles.” /
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Auction related proposals
All of these are valid except the last. If a player is the auctioneer, e
becomes the announcer as well.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 16:00 Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Good idea! Minor comments on the second one:
>
> > A player who is not the auctioneer of an existing Auction
> > specified by this rule CAN, by announcement, initiate an auction
> > with emself as the auctioneer The lots, minimum bid, and currency
> > of the Auction shall be set by said player.
>
> - This says "auctioneer" instead of "Auctioneer" like the first one does -
> I would make them consistent to prevent potential confusion (for example,
> see R2549 where "announcer" and "Announcer" mean different things).
> - Missing a full stop before "The lots".
> - I don't think the last sentence ("The lots" onwards) is actually
> necessary. R2549 already requires the announcer to specify the lots,
> minimum bid and (optionally) currency of the Auction, and there are no
> other rules that would prevent em from specifying anything e liked.
> - Relatedly, unless you replace "emself as the auctioneer" with "emself as
> the Auctioneer and Announcer", it's possible to make _any other player_ the
> Announcer without eir consent.
>
> -twg
>
Re: DIS: Joining
Welcome, Hālian! As G. already pointed out, you need to send this to the agora-business mailing list in order for it to take effect. Either way, welcome to Agora Nomic. On 10/18/2018 7:15 AM, hal...@safiria.net wrote: In accordance with Rule 869/33, I, Hālian, hereby publish a message of intent to become a player of Agora Nomic. (Also, where relevant, I am a he.)
DIS: Re: BUS: Auction related proposals
Good idea! Minor comments on the second one:
> A player who is not the auctioneer of an existing Auction
> specified by this rule CAN, by announcement, initiate an auction
> with emself as the auctioneer The lots, minimum bid, and currency
> of the Auction shall be set by said player.
- This says "auctioneer" instead of "Auctioneer" like the first one does - I
would make them consistent to prevent potential confusion (for example, see
R2549 where "announcer" and "Announcer" mean different things).
- Missing a full stop before "The lots".
- I don't think the last sentence ("The lots" onwards) is actually necessary.
R2549 already requires the announcer to specify the lots, minimum bid and
(optionally) currency of the Auction, and there are no other rules that would
prevent em from specifying anything e liked.
- Relatedly, unless you replace "emself as the auctioneer" with "emself as the
Auctioneer and Announcer", it's possible to make _any other player_ the
Announcer without eir consent.
-twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3644 judged TRUE
This format of report used to be used officially by the Arbitor, when that was going on, it was typically done with a comment field something like this: > Judged TRUE by twg: [as of this message] (on a side note, should I start publishing these again after cases are complete? I'm entering them into the database once a month or so). On the content itself: nice judgement! On Thu, 18 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Bugger, got my time zones mixed up. This was, of course, judged at 10:24, not > 11:24. > > This is my first ever CFJ judgement - please do not hesitate to say if I got > something wrong. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Thursday, October 18, 2018 10:24 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey > wrote: > > > == CFJ 3644 == > > > > Corona and D. Margaux made a Contract in the last 24 hours. > > > > > > > > Caller: G. > > Barred: D. Margaux > > > > Judge: twg > > Judgement: TRUE > > > > > > > > History: > > > > Called by G.: 29 Sep 2018 02:19 UTC > > Assigned to twg: 01 Oct 2018 03:01 UTC > > Judged TRUE by twg: 18 Oct 2018 11:24 UTC > > > > = > > > > Caller's Arguments: > > > > 1. Can we infer natural exchanges like this are Agoran contracts? > > It would be cool if we could - that would make flexible "handshake > > deals" be backed up by Agoran courts. > > > > 2. I think a contract is the only means of act-on-behalf that works - > > by R2466 (Acting on Behalf), allowing it must be Rules-allowed and > > is secured-2, and Rule 1742 (Contracts) is the only thing that allows > > it. So it would be doubly-cool if things like this weren't blocked. > > > > > > > > Judge twg's Arguments: > > > > The caller refers to the following thread of messages: > > > > On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote: > > > > > > > I act on Coronas behalf to transfer all of Coronas liquid assets to me > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 5:52 PM Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > As I think I don't have the steel or whatever to pay upkeep for my > > > > refinery, and am too busy/bored with Agora to micromanage my other > > > > properties, I give permission to any player to act on my behalf to > > > > transfer > > > > all of my liquid assets to emself, until the end of this September. > > > > I know, I could just let myself get zombified, but the buildings > > > > wouldn't > > > > survive and that would be a shame. > > > > This is not binding, but if I were to return in the future, and the > > > > economy > > > > didn't go through some sort of reset, I would like the player who > > > > claimed > > > > the assets offered in this message to give me at least a part of them > > > > back > > > > so I don't have to start from scratch. > > > > ~Corona > > > > > > -- > > > D. Margaux > > > > This case presents a question of law: did Corona's and D. Margaux's > > messages meet the requirements outlined by Rule 1742/19, "Contracts", > > for this exchange to be considered a contract? If not, then the > > caller's second argument is sound: D. Margaux's action would have been > > INEFFECTIVE, as the only mechanisms provided by the rules for acting on > > behalf are contracts and zombiehood. > > > > Rule 1742/19 states, in part: > > > > 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. > > > > We can summarise the definition of "contract" to produce a list of > > requirements that must be satisfied for this exchange to be considered a > > contract: > > > > 1. Is it an "agreement"? > > 2. Did Corona and D. Margaux consent to it? > > 3. Did Corona and D. Margaux have the intention that it would be > > binding upon them and governed by the rules? > > > > I will investigate each of these requirements in turn. > > > > First, do these message constitute an "agreement" between Corona and > > D. Margaux? Rule 1742 says that "agreement includes both consent and > > agreement specified by contract". However, to apply this as a definit
Re: DIS: Joining
Hi Hālian, you need to send this message to the business email list , which is defined as a "public" forum. agora-discussion is defined as a "discussion" forum where messages have no effect. On Thu, 18 Oct 2018, hal...@safiria.net wrote: > In accordance with Rule 869/33, I, Hālian, hereby publish a message of intent > to become a player of Agora Nomic. > > (Also, where relevant, I am a he.) >
Re: DIS: Joining
Hello and Welcome to Agora! On Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 05:15 wrote: > In accordance with Rule 869/33, I, Hālian, hereby publish a message of > intent to become a player of Agora Nomic. > > (Also, where relevant, I am a he.) >
DIS: Joining
In accordance with Rule 869/33, I, Hālian, hereby publish a message of intent to become a player of Agora Nomic. (Also, where relevant, I am a he.)
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3644 judged TRUE
Bugger, got my time zones mixed up. This was, of course, judged at 10:24, not 11:24. This is my first ever CFJ judgement - please do not hesitate to say if I got something wrong. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, October 18, 2018 10:24 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > == CFJ 3644 == > > Corona and D. Margaux made a Contract in the last 24 hours. > > > > Caller: G. > Barred: D. Margaux > > Judge: twg > Judgement: TRUE > > > > History: > > Called by G.: 29 Sep 2018 02:19 UTC > Assigned to twg: 01 Oct 2018 03:01 UTC > Judged TRUE by twg: 18 Oct 2018 11:24 UTC > > = > > Caller's Arguments: > > 1. Can we infer natural exchanges like this are Agoran contracts? > It would be cool if we could - that would make flexible "handshake > deals" be backed up by Agoran courts. > > 2. I think a contract is the only means of act-on-behalf that works - > by R2466 (Acting on Behalf), allowing it must be Rules-allowed and > is secured-2, and Rule 1742 (Contracts) is the only thing that allows > it. So it would be doubly-cool if things like this weren't blocked. > > > > Judge twg's Arguments: > > The caller refers to the following thread of messages: > > On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote: > > > > I act on Coronas behalf to transfer all of Coronas liquid assets to me > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 5:52 PM Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > As I think I don't have the steel or whatever to pay upkeep for my > > > refinery, and am too busy/bored with Agora to micromanage my other > > > properties, I give permission to any player to act on my behalf to > > > transfer > > > all of my liquid assets to emself, until the end of this September. > > > I know, I could just let myself get zombified, but the buildings wouldn't > > > survive and that would be a shame. > > > This is not binding, but if I were to return in the future, and the > > > economy > > > didn't go through some sort of reset, I would like the player who claimed > > > the assets offered in this message to give me at least a part of them back > > > so I don't have to start from scratch. > > > ~Corona > > > > -- > > D. Margaux > > This case presents a question of law: did Corona's and D. Margaux's > messages meet the requirements outlined by Rule 1742/19, "Contracts", > for this exchange to be considered a contract? If not, then the > caller's second argument is sound: D. Margaux's action would have been > INEFFECTIVE, as the only mechanisms provided by the rules for acting on > behalf are contracts and zombiehood. > > Rule 1742/19 states, in part: > > 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. > > We can summarise the definition of "contract" to produce a list of > requirements that must be satisfied for this exchange to be considered a > contract: > > 1. Is it an "agreement"? > 2. Did Corona and D. Margaux consent to it? > 3. Did Corona and D. Margaux have the intention that it would be > binding upon them and governed by the rules? > > I will investigate each of these requirements in turn. > > First, do these message constitute an "agreement" between Corona and > D. Margaux? Rule 1742 says that "agreement includes both consent and > agreement specified by contract". However, to apply this as a definition > of a countable noun would suggest that "an agreement" can mean either > "a consent" or "an agreement specified by contract" - the first being > nonsensical and the second a circular definition. This court therefore > believes that the intent of this sentence is to define the action of > agreement, viz. the method by which a contract may be modified or > terminated, and recommends that Rule 1742 be amended to reduce the > confusion caused by this terminology. > > Lacking a rule-bast definition for an "agreement", we thus turn to past > judicial precedent. In CFJ 3315, faced also with the problem of the lack > of definition for this word, th
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ assignments
I'm sorry, I hadn't realised CFJ 3664 had already been assigned (I remembered favouring it but thought the assignment was one of the things we were waiting on Murphy for). I'll aim to publish the judgement later today. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, October 18, 2018 1:22 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > In an effort to clear up some of the CFJ backlog, I cause nichdel to point > eir finger at: > > Murphy for late decision on CFJ 3645; > > CuddleBeam for late decision on CFJ 3652; > > L for late decision on CFJ 3665 and 3666; > > twg for late decision on CFJ 3664; and > > Murphy for being late to reassign those CFJs. > > Blots will be higher for any late CFJs that remain unjudged when I get > around to writing the referee weekly report later this week. > > On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 11:01 PM Edward Murphy emurph...@zoho.com wrote: > > > 3645: I remove V.J. Rada and assign myself. > > 3648: I remove V.J. Rada and assign D. Margaux. > > 3652: I remove Corona and assign Cuddle Beam. > > 3661: I remove Corona and assign Aris. > > 3664: I assign twg. > > 3665 and 3666: I assign L.
