On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 10:40 PM James Cook wrote:
> Ha, maybe. Here's another argument, though: Master is secured at a
> power threshold of 2. Rule 2551 ("Auction End") only has power 1. I
> doubt Rule 2551 can get around that by saying it's Agora doing it
> rather than R2551, but if it can, I
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 03:26, omd wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:44 PM James Cook wrote:
> > Could you elabourate? Even if we should pretend zombies are assets, it's
> > not always true that an asset's owner CAN transfer it. E.g. if I had blots
> > and auctioned them off, I don't think
Oops. Yes, I did indeed. Sorry about that, and thanks for catching the
error.
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:27 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> > Telling someone that they aren’t allowed to do something does limit
> there ability to do it
>
> Did you mean that it _doesn't_ limit their ability to do
> Telling someone that they aren’t allowed to do something does limit
there ability to do it
Did you mean that it _doesn't_ limit their ability to do it?
Jason Cobb
On 6/15/19 12:25 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I think you’re misunderstanding what the word “limit” means (or at least
what it’s
I think you’re misunderstanding what the word “limit” means (or at least
what it’s intended to mean, which may be different from what we’ll
interpret it to mean). Telling someone that they aren’t allowed to do
something does limit there ability to do it, it only limits the
permissibility of doing
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:44 PM James Cook wrote:
> Could you elabourate? Even if we should pretend zombies are assets, it's
> not always true that an asset's owner CAN transfer it. E.g. if I had blots
> and auctioned them off, I don't think anything would allow me to transfer
> them to the
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:56 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Would such a section become precedent just as the normal part of a
> judgment would, or would it be purely informational?
I'd say it shouldn't need to be a separate section at all. If the
comment is unavailing, then sure, tack on an sentence
Yes, I am convinced that you are absolutely right. I guess nobody has any
zombies then.
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 12:51 PM Rebecca wrote:
> Oh sorry, I missed the key "if" in there
>
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2019, 12:44 PM James Cook wrote:
>
>> Could you elabourate? Even if we should pretend zombies
Oh sorry, I missed the key "if" in there
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019, 12:44 PM James Cook wrote:
> Could you elabourate? Even if we should pretend zombies are assets, it's
> not always true that an asset's owner CAN transfer it. E.g. if I had blots
> and auctioned them off, I don't think anything would
Could you elabourate? Even if we should pretend zombies are assets, it's
not always true that an asset's owner CAN transfer it. E.g. if I had blots
and auctioned them off, I don't think anything would allow me to transfer
them to the winner of the auction.
On Fri., Jun. 14, 2019, 22:17 Rebecca,
Your message to the discussion list said 8, but on agora-business I see
"Anyway I bid 7 coins on the ongoing zombie auction".
On Fri., Jun. 14, 2019, 22:13 Rebecca, wrote:
> Coe I bid eight coins so I should win the third zombie
>
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2019, 12:09 PM James Cook wrote:
>
> > The
[As with most things, I have no idea if this has been tried or suggested
before.]
Seeing the recent issue with the Ritual and how no individual person
could be assigned blame for the failure got me wondering if it would be
a viable to instead assign Blots to Agora as a whole for violations
Unlike the argument about blogs, this argument stretches annoying textual
ism beyond its breaking point. To transfer in this context means to change
from the ownership of one entity to anothwr. So the auctioneer CAN transfer
the switch: from agora to the auction winners.
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019,
Coe I bid eight coins so I should win the third zombie
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019, 12:09 PM James Cook wrote:
> The zombie auction I initiated 2019-06-06 has ended.
>
> Lots:
> 1. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> 2. Corona
> 3. Hālian
> 4. Tarhalindur
>
> Bids (all times UTC):
> 2019-06-07 17:01:
Warning: I don't think paying Agora for one's prize will cause that
zombie's Master switch to be flipped to the payer, and I plan to call a
CFJ about it once someone tries to claim their zombie (easier to phrase
the CFJ after that's happened).
(I think the winners are still obligated to pay for
Would such a section become precedent just as the normal part of a
judgment would, or would it be purely informational?
Jason Cobb
On 6/14/19 9:54 PM, James Cook wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 01:13, omd wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:58 PM James Cook wrote:
Requiring notice and comment
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 01:13, omd wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:58 PM James Cook wrote:
> > Requiring notice and comment would make it a bit more complicated and
> > time-consuming to judge a CFJ, which might not make sense for simple
> > ones.
>
> Well, most simple cases shouldn't have any
Proto-judgement:
This message contains my judgement of CFJ 3735, called by Baron von
Vaderham, with the stament: "There was only one valid bid, namely for 1
coin by CuddleBeam."
Caller's arguments
==
> Trigon bid 2 Mexican pesos.
> Mexican pesos are coins.
> Valid currency for
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:58 PM James Cook wrote:
> Requiring notice and comment would make it a bit more complicated and
> time-consuming to judge a CFJ, which might not make sense for simple
> ones.
Well, most simple cases shouldn't have any comments submitted, and in
that case my design would
Requiring notice and comment would make it a bit more complicated and
time-consuming to judge a CFJ, which might not make sense for simple
ones. How about this:
* The judge assigned to a CFJ CAN publish a draft judgement, and is
ENCOURAGED to do so for difficult cases.
* Publishing a draft
Good find! Yes, it is. That proposal would have accidentally required that
the report only be counted if it fulfilled all of the weekly or monthly
duties of an office; this phrasing avoids that problem.
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 3:51 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Is this substantially different
Is this substantially different in any way from Proposal 8162 [0], which
failed by a large margin [1]? (Found it while I was looking through past
proposals, as one does). The circumstances probably are different now,
though.
[0]:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:42 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing:
> Publishing a duty-fulfilling report:
> with:
> Publishing a duty-fulfilling official report:
So this would now read
* Publishing a duty-fulfilling official report: 5 coins. For
I think this covers stuff w.r.t the report Rewards issue - comments?
Proto-proposal "Report Rewards", AI-2:
[First prevent Contracts from defining offices, then limit rewards to
official reports (which are pretty well-defined)].
Amend Rule 1006 (Offices) by prepending the following text to the
ANOTHER UNOFFICIAL JUDICIAL CUSTOM (boy we've got a lot of these -
good to note these if we make judicial changes it might be nice to
simply define the ideas in the rules).
When you have a single issue that has several separate sub-questions,
you can call multiple CFJs in one message and request
Words take their ordinary meaning when not defined by the rules. Coins are
defined by the rules as "the official currency of Agora tracked by the
Treasuror" under rule 2483 "Coins". A currency is "a class of asset defined
as such by its backing document". A backing document is a rule or Contract.
It isn’t conditioned on anything, so it should be fine.
BTW, you’re sending email to two lists. You should probably try to send it
to the one list that’s most appropriate for the contents of the email.
-Aris
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:44 PM David Seeber
wrote:
> Ah, I see, my mistake.
>
>
Ah, I see, my mistake.
Well I guess I'll just wait then :) I assume the first CFJ was still valid?
From: agora-business on behalf of Aris
Merchant
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 7:32:43 AM
To: Agora Business
Subject: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Dollar Auction
You can’t
I cfj the following :
"There was only
one valid bid, namely for 1 coin by CuddleBeam."
Argument against :
Trigon bid 2 Mexican pesos.
Mexican pesos are coins.
Valid currency for this auctions is coins
Since Trigon bid two coins, and nowhere was it stated that the only legal
tender was an
29 matches
Mail list logo
