It was decided the current system was too complicated for how many use
cases it was applicable in do Aris made proposals to simplify it and get
rid of the Notary. They are now meant to be more short-term and to serve a
single purpose.
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018, 21:18 Gaelan Steele wrote:
> (Recent)
(Recent) history question: why did contracts stop being entities that show up
in a report?
Gaelan
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 5:15 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> ...here's another idea I've been toying with for a while:
>
>
> This document is a contract between twg (the "Game Master" or "GM")
I'd probably participate in this. One thing worth noting is that, don't
quote me on this, but I don't think parties are a rule-defined term anymore.
On 10/27/2018 8:15 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
...here's another idea I've been toying with for a while:
This document is a contract between
Comments on comments below, but in a nutshell: Stuff will get fixed next
draft.
On 10/27/2018 7:27 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Feedback inline. I wrote most of the proposal feedback before reading other
comments, so some of this may be duplicated.
On Oct 15, 2018, at 6:13 PM, ATMunn wrote:
Thank you for the helpful comments. I clarify below.
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 8:34 PM Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Feedback inline
>
> Gaelan
>
>
> > 103. Joining the Party. Any active player CAN become a Member:
> >
> > (a) by announcement consenting to be bound by this Charter, if the
> Party
No—I would have barred him.
Gaelan
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 5:28 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> I am tempted to assign this to G., so that e is required to give a verdict
> that compiles with No Faking. Any reason why I shouldn’t do that?
>
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 8:22 PM Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
Feedback inline
Gaelan
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 5:10 PM, D Margaux wrote:
>
> I had an idea for a perhaps fun game-within-a-game. Was curious what everyone
> thinks.
>
> The idea is to have a contractual voting bloc or political party (different
> from the political parties pun subgame of
E could recuse, find it INSUFFICENT, publish a disclaimer with the ruling,
or probably get out of it in several other ways that I haven’t thought of.
-Aris
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 5:29 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> I am tempted to assign this to G., so that e is required to give a verdict
> that
I am tempted to assign this to G., so that e is required to give a verdict
that compiles with No Faking. Any reason why I shouldn’t do that?
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 8:22 PM Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I CFJ “By sending a message at 3:35 PM Pacific on October 27, G. performed
> one or more regulated
...here's another idea I've been toying with for a while:
This document is a contract between twg (the "Game Master" or "GM") and one or
more other parties (the "Competitors"). Any player can become a Competitor and
any Competitor can cease to be a party to this contract. The GM cannot cease
I had an idea for a perhaps fun game-within-a-game. Was curious what everyone
thinks.
The idea is to have a contractual voting bloc or political party (different
from the political parties pun subgame of course).
Under the contract, people could join the party by announcement and leave with,
Yep, G. pointed this out too. Sorry for the misclassification - I've fixed it
for the next report (which will be in less than a week so no need to bother
posting a revision now).
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 6:58 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> CoE: I’m not
On Sat, 2018-10-27 at 19:35 -0400, D. Margaux wrote:
> UNDEAD seems super interesting. I just looked at a bunch of emails
> from the archive, but how did that end up? Was the contract ever
> revealed?
It fizzled due to being excessively cautious. Given how it was
determined to not reveal any
Huh. Nothing of interest in headers that I could see, and no unicode anywhere
in the message. If this is hiding something, it’s doing a damn good job. Maybe
it’s a test for a timing scam?
I’m intrigued, yet worried.
Gaelan
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 3:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
UNDEAD seems super interesting. I just looked at a bunch of emails from the
archive, but how did that end up? Was the contract ever revealed?
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 6:54 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2018-10-27 at 15:30 -0700,
> On Oct 16, 2018, at 5:36 PM, ATMunn wrote:
>
> Thank you for the feedback! Comments on comments below.
>
> On 10/16/2018 2:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Some hopefully-helpful comments...
>>> Spaceships are indestructible fixed assets. Ownership of Spaceships
>>> is restricted to
Feedback inline. I wrote most of the proposal feedback before reading other
comments, so some of this may be duplicated.
> On Oct 15, 2018, at 6:13 PM, ATMunn wrote:
>
> so basically this is super clunky and probably not going to work, but if
> you think there's any hope for it then please say
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> On Sat, 2018-10-27 at 15:30 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > On another subject, since ATMunn's judgement brought it up, I've been
> > > thinking since our previous contract about what would
On Sat, 2018-10-27 at 15:30 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On another subject, since ATMunn's judgement brought it up, I've been
> > thinking since our previous contract about what would happen if we put
> > out a hashed contract, with one of the clauses
(oops, replied to the wrong thread obviously... changing the subject
line here to avoid confusion in case there's more discussion)
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On another subject, since ATMunn's judgement brought it up, I've been
> thinking since our previous contract about what
Apologies Aris - I too was focused on the coins, and agree with you on the
"binding" part. -G.
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> Aris, sorry, I should have been clearer in my email.
>
> I do agree with you about the contract existence and effect part. I think a
> contract with
On another subject, since ATMunn's judgement brought it up, I've been
thinking since our previous contract about what would happen if we put
out a hashed contract, with one of the clauses being "the parties won't
reveal the text of this contract", then claiming in public that it
gives various
Yup - if you've been sold at least once you're eligible (because the buyer
probably looted you). Last paragraph of R2532.
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, ATMunn wrote:
> I think a player who de-zombified emself is eligible for a welcome package
> again.
>
> On 10/27/2018 3:02 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
On 10/27/2018 4:07 PM, Edward Murphy wrote:
ATMunn wrote:
Enact a new rule entitled "Fame", with the following text:
{
Every player has a Fame switch, with possible values being all
integers between -10 and 10. Players with positive Fame are Famous,
and those with negative Fame
ATMunn wrote:
Enact a new rule entitled "Fame", with the following text:
{
Every player has a Fame switch, with possible values being all
integers between -10 and 10. Players with positive Fame are Famous,
and those with negative Fame are Infamous.
If a player is the Winner
Yeah, that bit was a bit iffy. But again, it seemed to kinda make sense
and I just wanted the CFJ to get judged, so that was what went in.
On 10/27/2018 3:06 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
Aris, sorry, I should have been clearer in my email.
I do agree with you about the contract existence and effect
I think a player who de-zombified emself is eligible for a welcome
package again.
On 10/27/2018 3:02 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Can you? I’ve been a player for a while.
Gaelan
On Oct 27, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Oh! And I award Gaelan a welcome package.
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018,
Aris, sorry, I should have been clearer in my email.
I do agree with you about the contract existence and effect part. I think a
contract with secret text can be binding, have mint authority, and do anything
a contract can do. It would be hard to enforce any contract obligations until
the
Can you? I’ve been a player for a while.
Gaelan
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh! And I award Gaelan a welcome package.
>
>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think it self-ratifies due to your report, but in case it
>> does: CoE:
You know, I’m prepared to believe ATMunn's interpretation on the ownership
thing, but I’d like to hear why my arguments are wrong or inapplicable
here. On the first thing though, the “contracts are binding” one, I don’t
see how the proposed interpretation could possibly be correct.
Straightforward
G. wrote:
I intend to deputise for the ADoP to publish the ADoP's weekly Report.
I'll be caught up with this one within a few minutes.
Did you mean to put this as a reply to your last report?
On 10/27/2018 2:35 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
The Police Blotter (Referee's Weekly Report)
On the contrary, if I become elected, I will do everything within my
power to prevent any form of dictatorship, benevolent or not.
So, pro-dictatorships can vote D. Margaux; anti-dictatorships can vote
me. Neutrals can vote G., I guess.
On 10/27/2018 12:52 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
I suppose I’ll
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> Basically, the lack of the phrase “by announcement” removes a limitation
> on the method of achieving the action; it doesn’t prevent the action from
> being successful if attempted by announcement. I think.
This used to be true, and was found in
Well, none of the report actually self-ratifies at the moment because of the
bug I pointed out last week, but zombie status wouldn't do anyway, no.
I'll fix this for next week's report and publish it as a revision to this one.
Sorry Gaelan.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday,
Really good point! I hadn't thought of that in specific context of
language usage versus diversity of thought.
More generally: because "reasonable people may differ" and also
because we want to encourage everyone to judge and to become more
comfortable judging (and judging is hard work),
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 9:31 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> You might
> decide to change it, but it's a well-argued judgement and an
> interpretation that's reasonable, despite not containing any fancy Latin.
Incidentally, this touches on one reason why I personally wouldn’t want to
privilege
Actually, the coin-into-fountain rule (R2572) is missing a
By Announcement. So that rule doesn't enable it.
The only thing that enables asset destruction is in R2577, which
specifies "by its owner".
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Oh well we can't have that. I destroy all coins
Just to say that this was discussed at the time, and at least two others
(other than myself) agreed with the judgement you actually gave (I was
initially in Aris's camp personally but now I see it both ways). I'm
particularly interested in twg's opinion, which was pretty firmly in
line with
Honestly, I really wasn't that interested in these CFJs, but they were
assigned to me so I had to judge them. I've only judged one or two CFJs
before, so I'm not the best at rules interpretation. I wanted to get the
CFJ off my back in time (but still put in effort, I wasn't about to go
"I
40 matches
Mail list logo
