Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Webmastor] Agora OnLine

[Rebecca via agora-discussion]

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 1:42 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 6/3/20 1:02 AM, nch via agora-official wrote:
> > Warnings
> > --
> >
> > - Several numbers and dates on the Agora homepage are out of date.
> > - Several links on the Agora homepage are out of date.
> > - The Treasurer page linked on the header is outdated and unmaintained
> > - The wiki linked on the header is outdated and unmaintained
>
>
> With the current concerns about the Internet Archive being sued out
> existence, we may want to start archiving everything nomic-related on
> the Wayback Machine.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
>
We don't use copyrighted material.

-- 
>From R. Lee

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8409-8430

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 8:56 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
> On behalf of twg, I vote Endorse G. on the below decisions.
>
> I vote as follows:
>
> On 6/6/2020 10:01 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote:
> > 8409*  Aris 3.0   College of Letters, Arts, and
> Sciences
> FOR
>
> > 8410e  Aris 2.2   Promise Powers Patch
> AGAINST.  Wait, what?  I would likely have intended no chaining of
> promises when I voted for that text).


I can see where you're coming from on this. This isn't a patch in the sense
of patching a bug, it's just something that works differently from the way
I wanted it to work when I wrote it (and a good example of why we don't
just listen to authorial intent).

The previous rule that I based this on provided a way to make a promise not
get destroyed when it gets cached (or at least I think it did). I thought
that was somewhat confusing way to handle it, and that the promise could
just make a copy of itself. Or another contract.

But then when I was in the final phase of drafting, I realized my previous
text could be used to mousetrap zombies. I didn't want that, so I slapped
an "acting on eir own behalf" restriction on it. I forgot that that would
also prevent promise chaining too.

But even worse, it prevents a contract from creating promises. This is one
of the biggest use-cases for promises. As written, the restriction stops
you from doing all sorts of things that you should be able to do.

So, I sincerely apologize if calling this a "patch" was misbranding. It's
not a certifiable one. I called it that not in an attempt to mislead people
into passing a change, but because it seemed like a patch from my
perspective.

-Aris

>

DIS: Re: OFF: [Webmastor] Agora OnLine

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/3/20 1:02 AM, nch via agora-official wrote:
> Warnings
> --
>
> - Several numbers and dates on the Agora homepage are out of date.
> - Several links on the Agora homepage are out of date.
> - The Treasurer page linked on the header is outdated and unmaintained
> - The wiki linked on the header is outdated and unmaintained


With the current concerns about the Internet Archive being sued out
existence, we may want to start archiving everything nomic-related on
the Wayback Machine.

-- 
Jason Cobb

DIS: officers: please distribute all the damn cards u can

[Rebecca via agora-discussion]

see title

(i dont have an office where i can distribute cards)

-- 
>From R. Lee

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Weekly Metareport

[Rebecca via agora-discussion]

>> which I deputise for ADoP to publish, having intended to do so more than
2 days earlier (and the ADoP having missed a week)

Oops, forgot to remove this part. Means nothing.

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 11:57 AM Rebecca via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> =Metareport=
>
> This is the ADoP’s weekly report, which I deputise for ADoP to publish,
> having intended to do so
>
> more than 2 days earlier (and the ADoP having missed a week)
>
> Date of last report: 2020-06-07
>
> Date of this report: 2020-06-13
>
>
> MISCELLANEOUS INFO
>
> --
>
> Filled offices: 14/15 (93.3%)
>
> Total officers: 9
>
> Consolidation[1]: 1.56
>
> Late reports: 0% (nice!)
>
> --
>
> [1] This is the number of filled offices divided by the number of
>
> officers. Each officer, on average, holds this many offices.
>
> OFFICES
>
> Office Holder Since Last Election
>
> --
>
> ADoP   R. Lee 2020-06-072020-06-13
>
> ArbitorG. 2019-06-112019-11-23
>
> Assessor   Jason  2019-07-092019-11-11
>
> Distributoromd2018-06-15imposed
>
> Herald PSS2020-05-032020-05-16
>
> Notary (vacant)   2020-04-282020-06-06
>
> Prime Minister Aris   2020-03-072020-03-07
>
> Promotor   Aris   2016-10-212017-09-21
>
> RefereePSS2020-03-292020-04-19
>
> Registrar  Falsifian  2019-05-042020-02-26
>
> Rulekeepor Jason  2019-12-062020-03-07
>
> SpeakerTrigon 2020-04-28imposed
>
> Tailor PSS2020-04-192020-04-19
>
> Treasuror  Trigon 2020-05-012020-05-01
>
> Webmastor  nch2020-03-062020-06-13
>
> --
>
> * = Interim office (vacant or holder not elected)
>
>
> WEEKLY REPORTS
>
> Office Report   Last Published Late[1]
>
> --
>
> ADoP   Offices  2020-06-07[2]
>
> ArbitorJudicial matters 2020-06-07
>
> Herald Matters of Honour2020-06-07
>
> Notary Contracts2020-06-03
>
> Promotor   Proposal pool2020-06-10
>
> RefereeRule violations  2020-06-07
>
> Registrar  Players, Fora2020-06-11
>
> Rulekeepor Short Logical Ruleset2020-06-13
>
> Treasuror  Coins, other currencies  2020-06-11
>
> --
>
> [1] ! = 1 period missed, !! = 2, !!! = 3+
>
> [2] Not including this report
>
> MONTHLY REPORTS
>
> Office ReportLast Published Late
>
> --
>
> Herald Patent titles 2020-05-31
>
> Registrar  Player history2020-05-30
>
> Rulekeepor Full Logical Ruleset  2020-05-24
>
> Tailor Ribbons   2020-05-31
>
> Webmastor  Web resources 2020-06-03
>
> --
>
> ELECTIONS
>
> Office Initiated   Phase   Candidates
>
> --
>
> Prime Minister 2020-06-06  Voting  [1]
>
> Notary 2020-05-31  Voting  R. Lee[2], ATMunn
>
> --
>
> [1]R. Lee, ATMunn, nch
>
> [2]R. Lee does not consent to being elected Notary, and will therefore
>
> not take the position if elected.
>
> STARTABLE ELECTIONS[1]
>
> Office   Last Election
>
> --
>
> Promotor 2017-09-21
>
> Assessor 2019-11-11
>
> Arbitor  2019-11-23
>
> Registrar2020-02-26
>
> --
>
> [1] Anyone can start an election (with 2 support and also becoming a
>
> candidate) 90 days after the previous one (or if it's interim and no
>
> election is ongoing). This section lists the offices for which anyone could
>
> start an election this way.
>
>
> INTERESTS
>
> -
>
> Office Interest
>
> --
>
> ADoP   Efficiency
>
> ArbitorJustice
>
> Assessor   Efficiency, Legislation
>
> DistributorParticipation
>
> Herald Participation
>
> Notary  

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Weekly Metareport

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/12/20 9:57 PM, Rebecca via agora-official wrote:
> This is the ADoP’s weekly report, which I deputise for ADoP to publish,
> having intended to do so
>
> more than 2 days earlier (and the ADoP having missed a week)


I have some questions about you deputising to an office you were just
elected to...

-- 
Jason Cobb

DIS: Re: BUS: [NAX] Be Advised

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/12/20 5:37 PM, nch via agora-business wrote:
> NAX has some issues that make it not possible to fulfill orders right
> now. Create orders seems to work as intended, but I would advise not
> using the NAX until it is amended.
>
> --
> nch
> Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager, Pirate
>
>
NAX has been amended and appears to be working as intended.

-- 
nch
Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager, Pirate

Re: DIS: FLR Fresh Version [attn. Rulekeepor]

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/12/20 8:39 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> H. Rulekeepor,
>
> I usually use the fresh version of the FLR [1], which doesn't appear to
> have been updated yet. If this is a normal delay I apologize; I just
> thought I should bring the matter to your attention so you could fix any
> problems.
>
>
> [1] https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr-fresh.txt
>
> -Aris


Fixed, sorry. It was just me forgetting to "git push" the changes :P.

-- 
Jason Cobb

DIS: FLR Fresh Version [attn. Rulekeepor]

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

H. Rulekeepor,

I usually use the fresh version of the FLR [1], which doesn't appear to
have been updated yet. If this is a normal delay I apologize; I just
thought I should bring the matter to your attention so you could fix any
problems.


[1] https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr-fresh.txt

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [NAX] Setting Prices

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/12/20 5:42 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>> {
>>
>> For each pending order, the Exchange Manager SHALL, in a timely fashion
>> and by announcement, declare the attempt to fulfill Successful or
>> Unsuccessful. E SHALL only declare the attempt Successful if e believes
>> the Fullfillment Conditions have been met and SHALL NOT declare the
>> attempt Unsuccessful unless e believes the Fullfillment Conditions have
>> not been met.
>>
>> }
>>
>> There's no CAN here, so I'm not actually able to declare attempts anything 
>> anyway, which is fine because no attempt ever actually happened. That means 
>> I wasn't able to do the transfers. So right now the order is open and NAX 
>> has the victory card. But because it's not part of any order, I don't think 
>> I can transfer it anywhere under any conditions in the current contract 
>> text. This needs some patches both to make this work and to make it work in 
>> a way that makes this less clunky.
>>
> Arguably "declare" is a speech act that doesn't need specific enabling
> since the contract doesn't define a method, and contracts aren't
> governed by R2125 anyway.

That scenario is actually messier, and means I could make declarations 
about nonpending orders (which is what would've happened here if true).

-- 
nch
Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager, Pirate

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [NAX] Setting Prices

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/12/20 5:42 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> Voting Card, not Victory Card.
>
> How did I not pay NAX first?

NAX has an apparently very poorly conveyed fee of 1 coin per order or 
fulfillment. I need to rewrite that whole section to make more sense 
(and work correctly).

-- 
nch
Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager, Pirate

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [NAX] Setting Prices

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/12/20 6:35 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/12/20 4:45 PM, nch via agora-business wrote:
>> On 6/12/20 4:43 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>>> On 6/12/20 5:42 PM, nch via agora-business wrote:
 On 6/12/20 4:38 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> On 6/12/20 5:33 PM, nch via agora-business wrote:
>> I transfer 30 coins to the NAX to create an order, specifying the
>> fulfillment condition of "Transfer any card to NAX."
> I become a party to NAX.
>
> I transfer my Voting Card to nch.
>
> I fulfill this order.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
 You need to give the card to NAX to fulfill the order, since that's the
 condition. I transfer a Voting Card to Jason. As Exchange Manager I
 declare this attempt Unsuccessful, meaning the order is open again.

>>> Gah, reading is hard.
>>>
>>> I transfer my Voting Card to NAX. I fulfill the referenced order in the
>>> quoted messages above.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jason Cobb
>>>
>> As Exchange Manager I declare this attempt Successful. I transfer 30
>> coins from the NAX to Jason, and a Victory Card from NAX to nch.
>>
>> --
>> nch
>> Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager, Pirate
>>
>>
> Ugh, I messed up this time. You transferred a Victory Card to NAX. Then 
> you attempted to fulfill an order, but you hadn't paid NAX first, so it 
> was INEFFECTIVE. I should have caught this. From here,I notice another 
> issue.


Voting Card, not Victory Card.

How did I not pay NAX first?



>
> {
>
> For each pending order, the Exchange Manager SHALL, in a timely fashion
> and by announcement, declare the attempt to fulfill Successful or
> Unsuccessful. E SHALL only declare the attempt Successful if e believes
> the Fullfillment Conditions have been met and SHALL NOT declare the
> attempt Unsuccessful unless e believes the Fullfillment Conditions have
> not been met.
>
> }
>
> There's no CAN here, so I'm not actually able to declare attempts anything 
> anyway, which is fine because no attempt ever actually happened. That means I 
> wasn't able to do the transfers. So right now the order is open and NAX has 
> the victory card. But because it's not part of any order, I don't think I can 
> transfer it anywhere under any conditions in the current contract text. This 
> needs some patches both to make this work and to make it work in a way that 
> makes this less clunky.
>

Arguably "declare" is a speech act that doesn't need specific enabling
since the contract doesn't define a method, and contracts aren't
governed by R2125 anyway.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [NAX] Setting Prices

[Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion]

I join NAX

I pay 1 coin to NAX

I transfer 30 coins to the NAX to create an order, specifying the
fulfillment condition of "transfer 1 Victory card to NAX".


On Saturday, June 13, 2020, nch via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 6/12/20 5:20 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > I'd like to put up a trade too of me giving people 30 coins for 1
> > victory card, on NAX. How should I do it?
> > (thats how NAX works, yes?)
> >
> You pay 1 coin to NAX to make an order, then you transfer the 30 coins
> and specify the fulfillment condition as "transfer 1 victory card to NAX".
>
> --
> nch
> Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager, Pirate
>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: [NAX] Setting Prices

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/12/20 4:45 PM, nch via agora-business wrote:
> On 6/12/20 4:43 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> On 6/12/20 5:42 PM, nch via agora-business wrote:
>>> On 6/12/20 4:38 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
 On 6/12/20 5:33 PM, nch via agora-business wrote:
> I transfer 30 coins to the NAX to create an order, specifying the
> fulfillment condition of "Transfer any card to NAX."
 I become a party to NAX.

 I transfer my Voting Card to nch.

 I fulfill this order.

 --
 Jason Cobb

>>> You need to give the card to NAX to fulfill the order, since that's the
>>> condition. I transfer a Voting Card to Jason. As Exchange Manager I
>>> declare this attempt Unsuccessful, meaning the order is open again.
>>>
>> Gah, reading is hard.
>>
>> I transfer my Voting Card to NAX. I fulfill the referenced order in the
>> quoted messages above.
>>
>> --
>> Jason Cobb
>>
> As Exchange Manager I declare this attempt Successful. I transfer 30
> coins from the NAX to Jason, and a Victory Card from NAX to nch.
>
> --
> nch
> Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager, Pirate
>
>
Ugh, I messed up this time. You transferred a Victory Card to NAX. Then 
you attempted to fulfill an order, but you hadn't paid NAX first, so it 
was INEFFECTIVE. I should have caught this. From here,I notice another 
issue.

{

For each pending order, the Exchange Manager SHALL, in a timely fashion
and by announcement, declare the attempt to fulfill Successful or
Unsuccessful. E SHALL only declare the attempt Successful if e believes
the Fullfillment Conditions have been met and SHALL NOT declare the
attempt Unsuccessful unless e believes the Fullfillment Conditions have
not been met.

}

There's no CAN here, so I'm not actually able to declare attempts anything 
anyway, which is fine because no attempt ever actually happened. That means I 
wasn't able to do the transfers. So right now the order is open and NAX has the 
victory card. But because it's not part of any order, I don't think I can 
transfer it anywhere under any conditions in the current contract text. This 
needs some patches both to make this work and to make it work in a way that 
makes this less clunky.

-- 
nch
Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager, Pirate

DIS: Re: BUS: DracoLotto

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:20 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business
 wrote:
>
> Enter into the lottery today! Everybody wins at least one product for
> every card they put in, risk-free*! All you have to do is transfer one
> or more cards to the contract, IN THIS THREAD, before I close the
> pools (which won't be for a minimum of four days). You'll get at least
> one product back*, and may randomly get more.
>
> I create the below contract.
>
> * Except in the exceedingly unlikely case I make a mistake, and I
> intend to publish a draft resolution to make sure there aren't any
> errors that go uncaught.
>
> -Aris
> ---
> DracoLotto
>
>
> This is a contract, which any player CAN join by announcement and any party
> apart from the Administrator CAN leave.

How does one leave? This defines no method.

>
> --SETUP--
> The Administrator is Aris.
>
> Pools are sets of assets. The following are Pools, known as Primary Pools,
> and their associated assets:
>
> - Victory Pool - Victory Cards and Victory Points
> - Justice Pool - Justice Cards and Blot-B-Gones
> - Legislative Pool - Legislative Cards and Pendants
> - Voting Pool - Voting Cards and Extra Votes
>
> In addition, the House Pool is a Pool.
>
> For each Primary Pool, there is an untracked natural player switch called
>  Contribution. A player with a positive contribution to a Pool is a
> Contributor to that pool.

Positive contribution is undefined.

>
> --INITIAL OPERATION--
>
> Before the Pools close:
> When this contract receives an asset associated with a Pool, it goes into
> that Pool. When this contract receives an asset not associated with any
> pool, it goes into the House Pool.
>
> When a player transfers this contract a Card in the same thread

This clause seems a bit vague to me. Maybe replace with: "When a
players transfers a Card to this contract in the same thread".
Although even with that, I'm not sure why it has to occur in the same
thread.

> in which this contract was created, eir Contribution for the associated
> pool increases by 1.
>
> After the Pools close:
> When this contract receives an asset, it goes into the House Pool.
>
> --ALGORYTHM--
> Resolving a Primary Pool means performing the following algorithm:
>
> 1. The Administrator causes this contract to transfer all cards in the pool
>to emself, by announcement.
> 2. The Administrator pays each card as the minimum possible number of sets
>to gain the associated products, which are then placed into the pool.

This doesn't define how they are placed into the pool.

> 3. Let M equal the number of sets from the previous step that were of greater
>than size 1.
> 4. The Administrator transfers all assets into the pool back to the contract.

This seems connected to part 2.

> 5. The Administrator causes this contract to transfer each Contributor
>associated products equal to their Contribution by announcement,
>removing the products from the pool.

I'd prefer if we more carefully distinguished between the direct and
indirect objects.

> 6. M associated products are transferred from the pool to the House Pool,
>removing them from the pool.
> 7. The Administrator causes this contract to transfer each asset remaining in
>the pool to a randomly selected Contributor by announcement, where each
>Contributor's probability of receiving it is proportional to eir
>contribution.
>
> --PROCEDURE--
>
> The Pools are open for four days after this contract comes into existence;
> thereafter, the Administrator CAN close them With 1 Hour Notice, and
> SHALL do so within 48 hours.
>
> When the Pools close, the Administrator CAN and SHALL, in order:
> 1. Resolve each Primary Pool.
> 2. Select one individual asset from the House Pool and transfer it to emself
>by announcement, removing it from the House Pool.
> 3. Transfer each asset remaining in the House Pool to the Dragon Corporation,
>removing it from the House Pool.
>
> After the previous steps have been completed, the Administrator CAN and SHALL,
> with notice, Wind Up this contract, causing it to cease to exist.
>
> The Speaker CANNOT object to any action defined in this section.

Why and how is the Speaker limited here?

>
> --INTERPRETATION--
>
> This contract is to be interpreted equitably, in accordance with the manifest
> intent of its parties. The Administrator shall have the discretion to 
> reasonably
> interpret this contract to ensure its smooth operation. A mistake on the
> part of the Administrator shall not prevent the algorithms specified by
> this contract from proceeding.
>
> This contract CAN be amended by the Administrator without objection from its
> parties.



-- 

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate
Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [NAX] Setting Prices

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/12/20 5:20 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I'd like to put up a trade too of me giving people 30 coins for 1 
> victory card, on NAX. How should I do it?
> (thats how NAX works, yes?)
>
You pay 1 coin to NAX to make an order, then you transfer the 30 coins 
and specify the fulfillment condition as "transfer 1 victory card to NAX".

-- 
nch
Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager, Pirate

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [NAX] Setting Prices

[Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion]

I'd like to put up a trade too of me giving people 30 coins for 1 victory
card, on NAX. How should I do it?
(thats how NAX works, yes?)

On Saturday, June 13, 2020, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> thanks btw nch
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 12:00 AM Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>
>> Oh. Yeah, I just saw the card rules. I'm too sleepy to do it right now
>> but I'd be up for a piñata contract where we pool our cards together and
>> cash out the maximum value of Products so that we don't need to trade as
>> much to get the max value out of the cards.
>>
>> Like, if I have 2 Victory Cards and someone else has 2 Victory cards, we
>> put them together, then break them open for 5 Victory Points for me,
>> Victory Point for you.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:51 PM nch via agora-discussion <
>> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/12/20 4:48 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>>> > How many cards do I have?
>>>
>>> You have 1 of each: Victory Card, Legislative Card, Justice Card, and a
>>> Voting Card
>>>
>>> --
>>> nch
>>> Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager, Pirate
>>>
>>>
>>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [NAX] Setting Prices

[Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion]

thanks btw nch

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 12:00 AM Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> Oh. Yeah, I just saw the card rules. I'm too sleepy to do it right now but
> I'd be up for a piñata contract where we pool our cards together and cash
> out the maximum value of Products so that we don't need to trade as much to
> get the max value out of the cards.
>
> Like, if I have 2 Victory Cards and someone else has 2 Victory cards, we
> put them together, then break them open for 5 Victory Points for me,
> Victory Point for you.
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:51 PM nch via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On 6/12/20 4:48 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> > How many cards do I have?
>>
>> You have 1 of each: Victory Card, Legislative Card, Justice Card, and a
>> Voting Card
>>
>> --
>> nch
>> Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager, Pirate
>>
>>
>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [NAX] Setting Prices

[Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion]

Oh. Yeah, I just saw the card rules. I'm too sleepy to do it right now but
I'd be up for a piñata contract where we pool our cards together and cash
out the maximum value of Products so that we don't need to trade as much to
get the max value out of the cards.

Like, if I have 2 Victory Cards and someone else has 2 Victory cards, we
put them together, then break them open for 5 Victory Points for me,
Victory Point for you.

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:51 PM nch via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 6/12/20 4:48 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > How many cards do I have?
>
> You have 1 of each: Victory Card, Legislative Card, Justice Card, and a
> Voting Card
>
> --
> nch
> Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager, Pirate
>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: [NAX] Setting Prices

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/12/20 4:48 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> How many cards do I have?

You have 1 of each: Victory Card, Legislative Card, Justice Card, and a 
Voting Card

-- 
nch
Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager, Pirate

DIS: Re: BUS: [NAX] Setting Prices

[Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion]

How many cards do I have?

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:46 PM nch via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 6/12/20 4:43 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> > On 6/12/20 5:42 PM, nch via agora-business wrote:
> >> On 6/12/20 4:38 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> >>> On 6/12/20 5:33 PM, nch via agora-business wrote:
>  I transfer 30 coins to the NAX to create an order, specifying the
>  fulfillment condition of "Transfer any card to NAX."
> >>> I become a party to NAX.
> >>>
> >>> I transfer my Voting Card to nch.
> >>>
> >>> I fulfill this order.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Jason Cobb
> >>>
> >> You need to give the card to NAX to fulfill the order, since that's the
> >> condition. I transfer a Voting Card to Jason. As Exchange Manager I
> >> declare this attempt Unsuccessful, meaning the order is open again.
> >>
> > Gah, reading is hard.
> >
> > I transfer my Voting Card to NAX. I fulfill the referenced order in the
> > quoted messages above.
> >
> > --
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> As Exchange Manager I declare this attempt Successful. I transfer 30
> coins from the NAX to Jason, and a Victory Card from NAX to nch.
>
> --
> nch
> Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager, Pirate
>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8405-8408

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/12/20 5:20 PM, nch via agora-business wrote:
> Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager, Pirate
>
>

This signature going to keep getting longer and longer, isn't it...

-- 
Jason Cobb

DIS: Re: BUS: [cfj] ribbon win question

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/12/20 1:44 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
>
> I CFJ:  If an impure person Raises a Banner, eir Ribbon Ownership becomes
> the empty set but e does not win the game.
>
>
> Arguments:
>
> There's seemingly nothing stopping an impure person from Raising a Banner
> if eir ribbon ownership allows, even though e's prevented from winning.
> It's unclear whether the ribbon reset is a result of raising the banner on
> its own, or whether failure to win prevents the reset.
>
>
> Evidence:
>
>  From Rule 2438/18 (Power=3) Ribbons:
>>   While a person owns all types of Ribbon, that person can Raise a
>>   Banner by announcement. This causes that person to win the game.
>>   That person's Ribbon Ownership becomes the empty set.
>  From Rule 2556/1 (Power=3) Penalties:
>>   Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an impure person CANNOT win
>>   the game.

Seems pretty solidly true, and possibly a good example of why winning 
should be an action instead of an event.

-- 
nch
Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager, Pirate

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8431-8441

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/12/20 2:20 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> I vote as follows:


NttPF

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer now has a pegleg and an eyepatch

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/12/20 1:18 PM, Stefan Fjellander via agora-discussion wrote:
> can i join?
>
> Bögtil
>
> Den fre 12 juni 2020 kl 20:07 skrev James Cook via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org>:
>
>>> ‍☠️ PARLEY
>>>
>>> Any Pirate can propose a Parley by announcement, which describes
>> amendments
>>> to this contract. If at least 2/3rds (rounded up) of all Pirates consent
>> to
>>> the Parley’s contents, this contract is amended according to the Parley.
>> There should be a minimum notice period. Otherwise if 2/3 of the
>> members are all online at the same time, they can quickly amend the
>> contract to say the other 1/3 agree to transfer their assets to them.
>>
>> The Dragon Corporation kicks out members who don't agree to the change.
>>
>> - Falsifian
>>
Not sure if you're referring to Dragon Corp or the Plunder Partnership 
but they both have mechanisms for joining, you don't need to ask. For 
Plunder Partnership you just say "I become a pirate" on agora-business.

-- 
nch
Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager, Pirate

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8431-8441

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

I vote as follows:

> ID Author(s)AITitle
> ---
> 8431l  Aris, ais523 1.0   Proposal Reward Trimming
endorse Aris

> 8432*  Aris, Alexis, Falsifian  3.0   The Administrative State
PRESENT

> 8433p  Aris, [1]1.5   Simpler Heraldry
conditional: if Proposal 8432 has been adopted, or the outome would be
ADOPTED if resolved now, then FOR, otherwise endorse Aris

> 8434f  Aris 1.0   Majoritarian Confidence
PRESENT

> 8435f  Aris, nch, Trigon1.0   No Confidence Isn't Personal
PRESENT

> 8436f  Aris 2.0   Stately Officiation
FOR

> 8437l  R. Lee, G.   1.0   Guilderoy Lockhart
endorse R. Lee

> 8438e  R. Lee   1.0   Tailor Pay
endorse P.S.S.

> 8439f  P.S.S.   2.0   Termination of Candidacy
endorse P.S.S.

> 8440j  R. Lee, P.S.S.   1.7   0 blots patch
AGAINST

> 8441e  nch, Trigon  1.0   Transmutation
AGAINST

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer now has a pegleg and an eyepatch

[Stefan Fjellander via agora-discussion]

can i join?

Bögtil

Den fre 12 juni 2020 kl 20:07 skrev James Cook via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org>:

> > ‍☠️ PARLEY
> >
> > Any Pirate can propose a Parley by announcement, which describes
> amendments
> > to this contract. If at least 2/3rds (rounded up) of all Pirates consent
> to
> > the Parley’s contents, this contract is amended according to the Parley.
>
> There should be a minimum notice period. Otherwise if 2/3 of the
> members are all online at the same time, they can quickly amend the
> contract to say the other 1/3 agree to transfer their assets to them.
>
> The Dragon Corporation kicks out members who don't agree to the change.
>
> - Falsifian
>

Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets

[Alex Smith via agora-discussion]

 On Friday, 12 June 2020, 08:51:06 GMT+1, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion 
 wrote:
> I am EXTREMELY wary of extra vote mechanisms but I've never seen
> large-scale pooling on Agora like on Blognomic so perhaps it's not a
> problem. Maybe.

Pools of 3 have historically been fairly common, and of 4 have happened on rare 
occasions.

Agoran pooling is nearly always of the "timing scam" variety, though (i.e. you 
hide the fact that the pool exists until the last moment so that the pooling to 
require fewer resources, as the opponents' resources are split); BlogNomic's 
are a split between that and the "we're just richer than you" variety which is 
uncounterable even if you know about it. The basic reason is that Agora's 
economy doesn't reset on a win; this means that unless everyone in the pool 
wins as a result of the scam (e.g. you pool extra votes to force through a 
victory proposal), the pooling needs to be done using only one player's 
economic assets (because the other players will need to be bribed to 
participate if they have no prospect of winning, and the size of the bribe will 
obviously need to exceed those players' expenditures). At BlogNomic players are 
willing to compete for a chance of being randomly selected for a win, because 
their assets are about to reset anyway; at Agora, the stakes are higher.

The reason multiple players are involved in a pool is thus not to pool economic 
assets, but to pool "once per player per proposal", "once per player per week", 
etc., actions (or else actions that can inherently only be performed by one 
particular player); these are things that are gone if you don't use them, so 
they're susceptible to pooling in the same way as BlogNomic's economic assets. 
(For example, one pool that I remember involved three players each setting 
their voting power to 8, to force through a proposal that would give them a 
dictatorship; there was a rule capping each players' votes-per-proposal at 8 
even when extra-vote assets were used, so three players were needed to get 
enough voting power.)

Historically, though, the main barrier to direct pooling scams for 
dictatorships was a rule titled "Support Democracy" (which has since been 
repealed). It allowed any player, with 2 support, to make a particular proposal 
immune from interference such as vote manipulation and vote boosting. Players 
generally didn't do this unless they suspected a scam was brewing, so it added 
a huge amount of skill to pooling-based scams, meaning that you had to write a 
proposal that would slip under the Support Democracy radar in order to be able 
to land a voting-based pooling timing scam (and speaking as a Scamster myself, 
it was fun doing that). IIRC G. got eir patent title of Cassandra from spotting 
one such scam, but being unable to gather the requisite support to trigger 
Support Democracy. If we do want to bring back extra vote mechanisms, we should 
probably bring back Support Democracy at the same time (but possibly with a 
cost additional to the 2 support, e.g. a Pendant, in order to prevent players 
using a contract to just democratise everything).

-- 
ais523  

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: indirect wins

[Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion]

lmao my sides

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 7:48 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
> Naw when I wrote that I was picturing this one:
>
> http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/tim-and-eric-mind-blown.gif
>
> On 6/12/2020 10:04 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote:
> > tfw you transcend logic  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwmeH6Rnj2E
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:53 PM James Cook via agora-discussion <
> > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 22:24, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> >>  wrote:
> >>> On 6/11/2020 2:48 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
>  On 6/11/20 3:29 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
> >
> > I submit the following proposal, "win indirection", AI-1:
> >
> >> 
> > Amend Rule 2553 (Win by Paradox) by replacing:
> >
> > that case's initiator CAN, by announcement, win the game.
> >
> > with:
> >
> > that case's initiator, CAN, by announcement, Transcend Logic.
> >> When
> > a person transcends logic, e wins the game.
> >
> >
> > [This should make all wins in the rules indirect:  Ribbons,
> > Tournaments, and Apathy are indirect already]
> >
> >> 
> >
> >
>  Unfortunately I think Sets breaks this style.
> 
> >>>
> >>> Yah I figured a Sets win was at least a month away (I hope!) so there
> >>> would be time - was thinking about the "proposals for a
> not-even-adopted
> >>> yet system" thing. :)
> >>>
> >>> But interestingly, if Falsifian's theory is correct, exactly 1 win
> method
> >>> would be allowed to be "direct", which would stop any other "direct"
> win
> >>> methods but still allow for indirect ones.  So even if it isn't
> changed,
> >>> it's fine for now if the above proposal is adopted.
> >>>
> >>> -G.
> >>
> >> Sets uses "by announcement". As long as winning the game is not
> >> associated with a fee anywhere in the rules, I don't see a problem.
> >> Still, I support extending this proposal to Sets after it passes, in
> >> case there still is a problem, and to keep a consistent style.
> >>
> >> - Falsifian
> >>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer now has a pegleg and an eyepatch

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

> ‍☠️ PARLEY
>
> Any Pirate can propose a Parley by announcement, which describes amendments
> to this contract. If at least 2/3rds (rounded up) of all Pirates consent to
> the Parley’s contents, this contract is amended according to the Parley.

There should be a minimum notice period. Otherwise if 2/3 of the
members are all online at the same time, they can quickly amend the
contract to say the other 1/3 agree to transfer their assets to them.

The Dragon Corporation kicks out members who don't agree to the change.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: indirect wins

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/12/2020 9:53 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 22:24, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On 6/11/2020 2:48 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> On 6/11/20 3:29 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:

 I submit the following proposal, "win indirection", AI-1:
 
 Amend Rule 2553 (Win by Paradox) by replacing:

 that case's initiator CAN, by announcement, win the game.

 with:

 that case's initiator, CAN, by announcement, Transcend Logic.  When
 a person transcends logic, e wins the game.


 [This should make all wins in the rules indirect:  Ribbons,
 Tournaments, and Apathy are indirect already]
 


>>> Unfortunately I think Sets breaks this style.
>>>
>>
>> Yah I figured a Sets win was at least a month away (I hope!) so there
>> would be time - was thinking about the "proposals for a not-even-adopted
>> yet system" thing. :)
>>
>> But interestingly, if Falsifian's theory is correct, exactly 1 win method
>> would be allowed to be "direct", which would stop any other "direct" win
>> methods but still allow for indirect ones.  So even if it isn't changed,
>> it's fine for now if the above proposal is adopted.
>>
>> -G.
> 
> Sets uses "by announcement". As long as winning the game is not
> associated with a fee anywhere in the rules, I don't see a problem.
> Still, I support extending this proposal to Sets after it passes, in
> case there still is a problem, and to keep a consistent style.

The proposal is also based on the realization during the discussion, that
Rule 2449 very much made winning an "event" ("when it happens") rather
than an action that could be performed.  I didn't know if anyone would
quibble that grammatical/causal point in the future but doesn't hurt to
separate the performable action from the event.

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] can you believe nicknames are entirely undefined?

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

Sorry about that. I've seen both, and as Registrar, I should have
asked for clarification.

Updated for the next weekly report.

- Falsifian

On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 13:42, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> Please change mine to Cuddlebeam instead of Cuddle Beam. Cuddlebeam is my
> real Agora name, it's a bit annoying that Cuddle Beam keeps being tossed
> around.
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 2:54 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On 6/12/20 12:57 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote:
> > > On 2020-06-11 22:49, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:
> > >> On 2020-06-11 22:26, Rebecca via agora-business wrote:
> > >>> -- From R. Lee
> > >> Who the heck is "R. Lee"?
> > > While I'm at it, I change my nickname to "The Found and Lost Department"
> > >
> >
> > Both of your ruleset annotations have been updated [0].
> >
> > [0]: https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr-fresh.txt
> >
> > --
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: indirect wins

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

Naw when I wrote that I was picturing this one:
http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/tim-and-eric-mind-blown.gif

On 6/12/2020 10:04 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote:
> tfw you transcend logic  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwmeH6Rnj2E
> 
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:53 PM James Cook via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 22:24, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
>>  wrote:
>>> On 6/11/2020 2:48 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
 On 6/11/20 3:29 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
>
> I submit the following proposal, "win indirection", AI-1:
>
>> 
> Amend Rule 2553 (Win by Paradox) by replacing:
>
> that case's initiator CAN, by announcement, win the game.
>
> with:
>
> that case's initiator, CAN, by announcement, Transcend Logic.
>> When
> a person transcends logic, e wins the game.
>
>
> [This should make all wins in the rules indirect:  Ribbons,
> Tournaments, and Apathy are indirect already]
>
>> 
>
>
 Unfortunately I think Sets breaks this style.

>>>
>>> Yah I figured a Sets win was at least a month away (I hope!) so there
>>> would be time - was thinking about the "proposals for a not-even-adopted
>>> yet system" thing. :)
>>>
>>> But interestingly, if Falsifian's theory is correct, exactly 1 win method
>>> would be allowed to be "direct", which would stop any other "direct" win
>>> methods but still allow for indirect ones.  So even if it isn't changed,
>>> it's fine for now if the above proposal is adopted.
>>>
>>> -G.
>>
>> Sets uses "by announcement". As long as winning the game is not
>> associated with a fee anywhere in the rules, I don't see a problem.
>> Still, I support extending this proposal to Sets after it passes, in
>> case there still is a problem, and to keep a consistent style.
>>
>> - Falsifian
>>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] End of June zombie auction

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 01:06, Rebecca via agora-business
 wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:11 AM James Cook via agora-official <
> agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > The June zombie auction has ended. It began 2020-06-04 at 00:37, and
> > ended 2020-06-11 at 00:37. All times UTC.
> >
> > Agora is the auctioneer. In accordance with Rule 2551, the winner of each
> > lot
> > is required to pay a fee to Agora to satisfy eir auction debt.
> >
> > Here are the lots and winning bids:
> >
> > Lot Winner Bid, in Coins
> > --- -- -
> > twg G. 323
> > Tcbapo  R. Lee 107
> >
> > Here are the bids that were not withdrawn.
> >
> > Amount (Coins)  Bidder   Time (UTC)Notes
> > --  --     -
> > 323 G.   2020-06-06 15:32
> > 107 R. Lee   2020-06-06 00:08
> > 1   Cuddle Beam  2020-06-09 16:51
> >
> > Here are the bids that were withdrawn.
> >
> > Amount (Coins)  Bidder   Time (UTC)Withdrawn
> > --  --     -
> > 99  R. Lee   2020-06-04 00:51  2020-06-06 00:08
> > 202 G.   2020-06-04 02:07  2020-06-06 15:32
> > 203 Jason2020-06-06 14:52  2020-06-06 15:34
> > 106 Falsifian2020-06-05 18:14  2020-06-09 16:24
> >
> > - Falsifian
> >
> I pay Agora 107 coins
>
> I would suggest in the next auction rules or regulations, not to allow
> withdrawing other than withdrawing to replace with a higher bid
>
> --
> From R. Lee

Sounds reasonable. I've been thinking about sealed bids as an
alternative but that might be too complicated.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: indirect wins

[Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion]

tfw you transcend logic  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwmeH6Rnj2E

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:53 PM James Cook via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 22:24, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
> > On 6/11/2020 2:48 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> > > On 6/11/20 3:29 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I submit the following proposal, "win indirection", AI-1:
> > >>
> 
> > >> Amend Rule 2553 (Win by Paradox) by replacing:
> > >>
> > >> that case's initiator CAN, by announcement, win the game.
> > >>
> > >> with:
> > >>
> > >> that case's initiator, CAN, by announcement, Transcend Logic.
> When
> > >> a person transcends logic, e wins the game.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> [This should make all wins in the rules indirect:  Ribbons,
> > >> Tournaments, and Apathy are indirect already]
> > >>
> 
> > >>
> > >>
> > > Unfortunately I think Sets breaks this style.
> > >
> >
> > Yah I figured a Sets win was at least a month away (I hope!) so there
> > would be time - was thinking about the "proposals for a not-even-adopted
> > yet system" thing. :)
> >
> > But interestingly, if Falsifian's theory is correct, exactly 1 win method
> > would be allowed to be "direct", which would stop any other "direct" win
> > methods but still allow for indirect ones.  So even if it isn't changed,
> > it's fine for now if the above proposal is adopted.
> >
> > -G.
>
> Sets uses "by announcement". As long as winning the game is not
> associated with a fee anywhere in the rules, I don't see a problem.
> Still, I support extending this proposal to Sets after it passes, in
> case there still is a problem, and to keep a consistent style.
>
> - Falsifian
>

Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 16:48, nch  wrote:
> On 6/12/20 11:42 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 22:12, nch  wrote:
> >> On 6/11/20 2:28 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> >>> Actually, that could be a use for a limited asset. Call them Fingers,
> >>> you pay one to point a finger, at most N Fingers exist at any given
> >>> time, and they're gradually replenished somehow when there are fewer
> >>> than N (auctions?). Not actually advocating for doing this now, but
> >>> maybe if Referee load actually became an issue...
> >> If anything this discourages pointing fingers, which feels like the
> >> wrong direction. I'd rather punish people for too many shenanigans (like
> >> I suggested in the Competitive Finger Pointing proto) than do this.
> > Did you mean to reply to the list? Feel free to add the list back in
> > if you like.
> >
> > I mostly agree. Just wondering what to do if contracts start to make
> > heavy use of the Referee's time. Then it wouldn't necessarily be
> > Shenanigans. Thinking about it more, that seems unlikely to happen.
> >
> > - Falsifian
>
> Oops, totally did mean to send this to list. Thanks for catching it.

Actually, I confused myself. I think you did reply to the list the first time.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: indirect wins

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 22:24, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On 6/11/2020 2:48 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On 6/11/20 3:29 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
> >>
> >> I submit the following proposal, "win indirection", AI-1:
> >> 
> >> Amend Rule 2553 (Win by Paradox) by replacing:
> >>
> >> that case's initiator CAN, by announcement, win the game.
> >>
> >> with:
> >>
> >> that case's initiator, CAN, by announcement, Transcend Logic.  When
> >> a person transcends logic, e wins the game.
> >>
> >>
> >> [This should make all wins in the rules indirect:  Ribbons,
> >> Tournaments, and Apathy are indirect already]
> >> 
> >>
> >>
> > Unfortunately I think Sets breaks this style.
> >
>
> Yah I figured a Sets win was at least a month away (I hope!) so there
> would be time - was thinking about the "proposals for a not-even-adopted
> yet system" thing. :)
>
> But interestingly, if Falsifian's theory is correct, exactly 1 win method
> would be allowed to be "direct", which would stop any other "direct" win
> methods but still allow for indirect ones.  So even if it isn't changed,
> it's fine for now if the above proposal is adopted.
>
> -G.

Sets uses "by announcement". As long as winning the game is not
associated with a fee anywhere in the rules, I don't see a problem.
Still, I support extending this proposal to Sets after it passes, in
case there still is a problem, and to keep a consistent style.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/12/20 11:42 AM, James Cook wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 22:12, nch  wrote:
>> On 6/11/20 2:28 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> Actually, that could be a use for a limited asset. Call them Fingers,
>>> you pay one to point a finger, at most N Fingers exist at any given
>>> time, and they're gradually replenished somehow when there are fewer
>>> than N (auctions?). Not actually advocating for doing this now, but
>>> maybe if Referee load actually became an issue...
>> If anything this discourages pointing fingers, which feels like the
>> wrong direction. I'd rather punish people for too many shenanigans (like
>> I suggested in the Competitive Finger Pointing proto) than do this.
> Did you mean to reply to the list? Feel free to add the list back in
> if you like.
>
> I mostly agree. Just wondering what to do if contracts start to make
> heavy use of the Referee's time. Then it wouldn't necessarily be
> Shenanigans. Thinking about it more, that seems unlikely to happen.
>
> - Falsifian

Oops, totally did mean to send this to list. Thanks for catching it.

-- 
nch
Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/12/20 11:03 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via 
agora-discussion wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:57 AM ATMunn via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
>> On 6/12/2020 11:51 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
>> agora-discussion wrote:
> That may work. Another thing I should've mentioned here: I'd strongly
> encourage allowing contracts to own these. If players can only own one
> then they'd need an intermediary if they wanted to trade an amulet for
> someone else's, plus it'd allow for the complex trades NAX is designed
> to enable.
>
 Oh yeah, didn't think about that. The next draft will definitely allow
 contracts to own them.
>>> Letting contracts own them will preclude the use of an ownership 
>>> restriction.
>> What do you mean? can't I just say "amulets can be owned by players or
>> contracts"?
> That will work. I just meant that a clause prohibiting anyone from
> owning more than one amulet would no longer have much impact.

Could add a cooldown to equipping amulets instead of trying to limit how 
many they can own.

-- 
nch
Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:57 AM ATMunn via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> On 6/12/2020 11:51 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
> agora-discussion wrote:
> >>> That may work. Another thing I should've mentioned here: I'd strongly
> >>> encourage allowing contracts to own these. If players can only own one
> >>> then they'd need an intermediary if they wanted to trade an amulet for
> >>> someone else's, plus it'd allow for the complex trades NAX is designed
> >>> to enable.
> >>>
> >> Oh yeah, didn't think about that. The next draft will definitely allow
> >> contracts to own them.
> > Letting contracts own them will preclude the use of an ownership 
> > restriction.
>
> What do you mean? can't I just say "amulets can be owned by players or
> contracts"?

That will work. I just meant that a clause prohibiting anyone from
owning more than one amulet would no longer have much impact.

Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets

[ATMunn via agora-discussion]

On 6/12/2020 11:51 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via 
agora-discussion wrote:

That may work. Another thing I should've mentioned here: I'd strongly
encourage allowing contracts to own these. If players can only own one
then they'd need an intermediary if they wanted to trade an amulet for
someone else's, plus it'd allow for the complex trades NAX is designed
to enable.


Oh yeah, didn't think about that. The next draft will definitely allow
contracts to own them.

Letting contracts own them will preclude the use of an ownership restriction.


What do you mean? can't I just say "amulets can be owned by players or 
contracts"?

Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets

[ATMunn via agora-discussion]

On 6/11/2020 9:31 PM, nch wrote:

On 6/11/20 8:20 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:

Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulets" with the following text:
 Amulets are a class of assets, tracked by the Teasuror, which can be
 owned by players. Each amulet has the following attributes: type,
 effect, tier. The effect and tier are tied to the type of the
 amulet, and are all defined elsewhere in the rules.

 Wearer is an amulet switch, with possible values of all active
 players or none (the default). A player CAN wear (syn. put on,
 equip) an amulet e owns by announcement, flipping the amulet's
 wearer to emself. E is then said to be wearing that amulet. A player
 CAN take off (syn. dequip) an amulet e is wearing, flipping the
 amulet's wearer to none. Players CANNOT wear more than one amulet at
 a time. An amulet with its wearer set to a player CANNOT be
 transferred.

Switches need to define which office tracks them (or they'll create a
new one for it). I don't think the fact that the asset is tracked by the
Treasuror makes this switch tracked by em too - although that might be a
good idea. Needs "by announcement" for taking them off.

There's a weird semantic thing happening with the CANNOT statement - you
define wearing as an event (which flips the switch) not a state earlier
in, so this reads like you can't flip two amulets' switches at the same
time, not that you can't have two with their switch set to you. In fact
if you swap it with the synonyms it becomes more obvious: "A player
CANNOT*put on*  more than one amulet at a time." Might want to change it
to "if a player is the wearer of an amulet, e CANNOT wear another
amulet." Though that sounds awkward.

What stops someone from buying multiple active amulets and equipping,
using and dequipping them at will? They don't circumvent the cooldowns,
but they still get a lot of power that way.

Maybe just make it so a player can only own one amulet at a time? That
would get rid of the whole "wearing" thing too.


That may work. Another thing I should've mentioned here: I'd strongly
encourage allowing contracts to own these. If players can only own one
then they'd need an intermediary if they wanted to trade an amulet for
someone else's, plus it'd allow for the complex trades NAX is designed
to enable.



Oh yeah, didn't think about that. The next draft will definitely allow 
contracts to own them.

Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:50 AM ATMunn via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> On 6/11/2020 9:31 PM, nch wrote:
> > On 6/11/20 8:20 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:
>  Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulets" with the following text:
>   Amulets are a class of assets, tracked by the Teasuror, which 
>  can be
>   owned by players. Each amulet has the following attributes: 
>  type,
>   effect, tier. The effect and tier are tied to the type of the
>   amulet, and are all defined elsewhere in the rules.
> 
>   Wearer is an amulet switch, with possible values of all active
>   players or none (the default). A player CAN wear (syn. put on,
>   equip) an amulet e owns by announcement, flipping the amulet's
>   wearer to emself. E is then said to be wearing that amulet. A 
>  player
>   CAN take off (syn. dequip) an amulet e is wearing, flipping the
>   amulet's wearer to none. Players CANNOT wear more than one 
>  amulet at
>   a time. An amulet with its wearer set to a player CANNOT be
>   transferred.
> >>> Switches need to define which office tracks them (or they'll create a
> >>> new one for it). I don't think the fact that the asset is tracked by the
> >>> Treasuror makes this switch tracked by em too - although that might be a
> >>> good idea. Needs "by announcement" for taking them off.
> >>>
> >>> There's a weird semantic thing happening with the CANNOT statement - you
> >>> define wearing as an event (which flips the switch) not a state earlier
> >>> in, so this reads like you can't flip two amulets' switches at the same
> >>> time, not that you can't have two with their switch set to you. In fact
> >>> if you swap it with the synonyms it becomes more obvious: "A player
> >>> CANNOT*put on*  more than one amulet at a time." Might want to change it
> >>> to "if a player is the wearer of an amulet, e CANNOT wear another
> >>> amulet." Though that sounds awkward.
> >>>
> >>> What stops someone from buying multiple active amulets and equipping,
> >>> using and dequipping them at will? They don't circumvent the cooldowns,
> >>> but they still get a lot of power that way.
> >> Maybe just make it so a player can only own one amulet at a time? That
> >> would get rid of the whole "wearing" thing too.
> >>
> > That may work. Another thing I should've mentioned here: I'd strongly
> > encourage allowing contracts to own these. If players can only own one
> > then they'd need an intermediary if they wanted to trade an amulet for
> > someone else's, plus it'd allow for the complex trades NAX is designed
> > to enable.
> >
>
> Oh yeah, didn't think about that. The next draft will definitely allow
> contracts to own them.

Letting contracts own them will preclude the use of an ownership restriction.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer now has a pegleg and an eyepatch

[Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion]

Also, a Pirate who newly joins doesn't get any Doubloons on past
plunderings because they likely just didn't contribute to it by shutting
their yap like the other Pirates had to do. But they will on future
plunders. So if you'd like in on this plundering, come right over and join
a life of piracy!

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 5:20 PM Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> It could happen, it could not happen. We can always Parley that situation
> when it arises. Good thing nch reminded me of that necessity.
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 5:19 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
> agora-discussion  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:05 AM Cuddle Beam via agora-business
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > Thanks for pointing that out! I amend "The Plunder Partnership" to read
>> in
>> > full:
>> >
>> > -
>> >
>> > The Plunder Partnership
>> >
>> > ‍☠️ WHO WE BE
>> >
>> > The Plunder Partnership is also known as the Plundership. A party to
>> this
>> > contract is known as a Pirate. Any person who is not in Davy Jones’
>> Locker
>> > can become a Pirate. Any Pirate can make themselves cease to be one by
>> > announcement.
>> >
>> > ‍☠️ NO TATTLE-TALES
>> >
>> > Any person who has objected to a transferral of coins from the Lost and
>> > Found Department to the Plundership are in Davy Jones’ Locker. A person
>> in
>> > Davy Jones’ Locker cannot become a Pirate, and they immediately cease
>> to be
>> > a Pirate if they already were one.
>> >
>> > ‍☠️ DOUBLOONS
>> >
>> > Doubloons are a destructible asset that can only belong to Pirates.
>> When an
>> > amount of coins is transferred to the Plundership, each Pirate gains an
>> > amount of Doubloons equal to the amount transferred divided by the
>> amount
>> > of Pirates, rounded down. A Pirate with at least 1 Doubloon can
>> transfer 1
>> > coin to themselves from the Plundership. Doing so destroys 1 Doubloon in
>> > their possession.
>>
>>
>> What happens to pirates who newly join? This also allows plunder to be
>> stuck in the contract when someone ceases to be a pirate while holding
>> doubloons and when one transfers an amount not divisible by the number
>> of Pirates.
>>
>> >
>> > ‍☠️ PARLEY
>> >
>> > Any Pirate can propose a Parley by announcement, which describes
>> amendments
>> > to this contract. If at least 2/3rds (rounded up) of all Pirates
>> consent to
>> > the Parley’s contents, this contract is amended according to the Parley.
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer now has a pegleg and an eyepatch

[Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion]

It could happen, it could not happen. We can always Parley that situation
when it arises. Good thing nch reminded me of that necessity.

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 5:19 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion  wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:05 AM Cuddle Beam via agora-business
>  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for pointing that out! I amend "The Plunder Partnership" to read
> in
> > full:
> >
> > -
> >
> > The Plunder Partnership
> >
> > ‍☠️ WHO WE BE
> >
> > The Plunder Partnership is also known as the Plundership. A party to this
> > contract is known as a Pirate. Any person who is not in Davy Jones’
> Locker
> > can become a Pirate. Any Pirate can make themselves cease to be one by
> > announcement.
> >
> > ‍☠️ NO TATTLE-TALES
> >
> > Any person who has objected to a transferral of coins from the Lost and
> > Found Department to the Plundership are in Davy Jones’ Locker. A person
> in
> > Davy Jones’ Locker cannot become a Pirate, and they immediately cease to
> be
> > a Pirate if they already were one.
> >
> > ‍☠️ DOUBLOONS
> >
> > Doubloons are a destructible asset that can only belong to Pirates. When
> an
> > amount of coins is transferred to the Plundership, each Pirate gains an
> > amount of Doubloons equal to the amount transferred divided by the amount
> > of Pirates, rounded down. A Pirate with at least 1 Doubloon can transfer
> 1
> > coin to themselves from the Plundership. Doing so destroys 1 Doubloon in
> > their possession.
>
>
> What happens to pirates who newly join? This also allows plunder to be
> stuck in the contract when someone ceases to be a pirate while holding
> doubloons and when one transfers an amount not divisible by the number
> of Pirates.
>
> >
> > ‍☠️ PARLEY
> >
> > Any Pirate can propose a Parley by announcement, which describes
> amendments
> > to this contract. If at least 2/3rds (rounded up) of all Pirates consent
> to
> > the Parley’s contents, this contract is amended according to the Parley.
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer now has a pegleg and an eyepatch

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:05 AM Cuddle Beam via agora-business
 wrote:
>
> Thanks for pointing that out! I amend "The Plunder Partnership" to read in
> full:
>
> -
>
> The Plunder Partnership
>
> ‍☠️ WHO WE BE
>
> The Plunder Partnership is also known as the Plundership. A party to this
> contract is known as a Pirate. Any person who is not in Davy Jones’ Locker
> can become a Pirate. Any Pirate can make themselves cease to be one by
> announcement.
>
> ‍☠️ NO TATTLE-TALES
>
> Any person who has objected to a transferral of coins from the Lost and
> Found Department to the Plundership are in Davy Jones’ Locker. A person in
> Davy Jones’ Locker cannot become a Pirate, and they immediately cease to be
> a Pirate if they already were one.
>
> ‍☠️ DOUBLOONS
>
> Doubloons are a destructible asset that can only belong to Pirates. When an
> amount of coins is transferred to the Plundership, each Pirate gains an
> amount of Doubloons equal to the amount transferred divided by the amount
> of Pirates, rounded down. A Pirate with at least 1 Doubloon can transfer 1
> coin to themselves from the Plundership. Doing so destroys 1 Doubloon in
> their possession.


What happens to pirates who newly join? This also allows plunder to be
stuck in the contract when someone ceases to be a pirate while holding
doubloons and when one transfers an amount not divisible by the number
of Pirates.

>
> ‍☠️ PARLEY
>
> Any Pirate can propose a Parley by announcement, which describes amendments
> to this contract. If at least 2/3rds (rounded up) of all Pirates consent to
> the Parley’s contents, this contract is amended according to the Parley.

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer now has a pegleg and an eyepatch

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/12/20 9:22 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> I create the contract described below with the name “The Plunder
> Partnership”
>
> I intend, without objection, to transfer all coins belonging to the Lost
> and Found Department to The Plunder Partnership.
>
> -
>
> The Plunder Partnership
>
> ‍☠️ WHO WE BE
>
> The Plunder Partnership is also known as the Plundership. A party to this
> contract is known as a Pirate. Any person who is not in Davy Jones’ Locker
> can become a Pirate. Any Pirate can cease to be one by announcement.
>
> ‍☠️ NO TATTLE-TALES
>
> Any person who has objected to a transferral of coins from the Lost and
> Found Department to the Plundership are in Davy Jones’ Locker. A person in
> Davy Jones’ Locker cannot become a Pirate, and they immediately cease to be
> a Pirate if they already were one.
>
> ‍☠️ THE BOOTY
>
> Coins transferred to the Plundership from the Lost and Found Department and
> in current ownership of the Plundership is the Booty. A Coffer is an amount
> equal to the current Booty, divided by the amount of Pirates, rounded down.
>
> ‍☠️ SHARING THE BOOTY
>
> A party to this Contract can Yohoho by announcement. Doing so transfers one
> Coffer of coins to each Pirate from the Plundership. This is the only way
> that coins can transfer from the Plundership to a Pirate.
>
> -

One more note: there's no amendment procedure, so it'll require 
unanimous consent of party members if anything gets changed after people 
join.

-- 
nch
Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer now has a pegleg and an eyepatch

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/12/20 9:38 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> That's just my paranoia because I'm not particularly well-versed in 
> Agora's Ruleset or CfJ precedents.
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 4:36 PM nch via agora-discussion 
>  > wrote:
>
> On 6/12/20 9:34 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On 6/12/20 9:22 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> >> ‍☠️ THE BOOTY
> >>
> >> Coins transferred to the Plundership from the Lost and Found
> Department and
> >> in current ownership of the Plundership is the Booty. A Coffer
> is an amount
> >> equal to the current Booty, divided by the amount of Pirates,
> rounded down.
> >>
> >> ‍☠️ SHARING THE BOOTY
> >>
> >> A party to this Contract can Yohoho by announcement. Doing so
> transfers one
> >> Coffer of coins to each Pirate from the Plundership. This is
> the only way
> >> that coins can transfer from the Plundership to a Pirate.
> > Is it intentional that the amount a Coffer is worth goes down when
> > someone Yohoho's? And what stops you from doing it repeatedly?
> >
> > --
> > nch
> > Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
> >
> >
> Oops, I misread what Yohohoing does, nevermind, those questions are
> irrelevant. A separate question: Why define the Booty as only the
> money
> from L? The way this is defined if the contract got coins some
> other
> way they wouldn't be part of the booty.
>
> -- 
> nch
> Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
>
>
It should work fine if it just says "The Booty is the amount of coins 
currently owned by the Plundership." As is, if someone for some reason 
donated coins to the Plundership those coins would just stay 'stuck' 
there because they're not part of the Booty. Not sure why that would 
happen, but we shouldn't limit our chances at plunder.

-- 
nch
Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer now has a pegleg and an eyepatch

[Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion]

That's just my paranoia because I'm not particularly well-versed in Agora's
Ruleset or CfJ precedents.

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 4:36 PM nch via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 6/12/20 9:34 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On 6/12/20 9:22 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> >> ‍☠️ THE BOOTY
> >>
> >> Coins transferred to the Plundership from the Lost and Found Department
> and
> >> in current ownership of the Plundership is the Booty. A Coffer is an
> amount
> >> equal to the current Booty, divided by the amount of Pirates, rounded
> down.
> >>
> >> ‍☠️ SHARING THE BOOTY
> >>
> >> A party to this Contract can Yohoho by announcement. Doing so transfers
> one
> >> Coffer of coins to each Pirate from the Plundership. This is the only
> way
> >> that coins can transfer from the Plundership to a Pirate.
> > Is it intentional that the amount a Coffer is worth goes down when
> > someone Yohoho's? And what stops you from doing it repeatedly?
> >
> > --
> > nch
> > Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
> >
> >
> Oops, I misread what Yohohoing does, nevermind, those questions are
> irrelevant. A separate question: Why define the Booty as only the money
> from L? The way this is defined if the contract got coins some other
> way they wouldn't be part of the booty.
>
> --
> nch
> Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer now has a pegleg and an eyepatch

[Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion]

The intent is that the Booty is evenly split amount all Pirates when
someone Yohohos. If there is 100 Booty, a Coffer is 50. So 50 to each
Pirate.

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 4:34 PM nch via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 6/12/20 9:22 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> > ‍☠️ THE BOOTY
> >
> > Coins transferred to the Plundership from the Lost and Found Department
> and
> > in current ownership of the Plundership is the Booty. A Coffer is an
> amount
> > equal to the current Booty, divided by the amount of Pirates, rounded
> down.
> >
> > ‍☠️ SHARING THE BOOTY
> >
> > A party to this Contract can Yohoho by announcement. Doing so transfers
> one
> > Coffer of coins to each Pirate from the Plundership. This is the only way
> > that coins can transfer from the Plundership to a Pirate.
>
> Is it intentional that the amount a Coffer is worth goes down when
> someone Yohoho's? And what stops you from doing it repeatedly?
>
> --
> nch
> Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer now has a pegleg and an eyepatch

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/12/20 9:34 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/12/20 9:22 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
>> ‍☠️ THE BOOTY
>>
>> Coins transferred to the Plundership from the Lost and Found Department and
>> in current ownership of the Plundership is the Booty. A Coffer is an amount
>> equal to the current Booty, divided by the amount of Pirates, rounded down.
>>
>> ‍☠️ SHARING THE BOOTY
>>
>> A party to this Contract can Yohoho by announcement. Doing so transfers one
>> Coffer of coins to each Pirate from the Plundership. This is the only way
>> that coins can transfer from the Plundership to a Pirate.
> Is it intentional that the amount a Coffer is worth goes down when
> someone Yohoho's? And what stops you from doing it repeatedly?
>
> --
> nch
> Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
>
>
Oops, I misread what Yohohoing does, nevermind, those questions are 
irrelevant. A separate question: Why define the Booty as only the money 
from L? The way this is defined if the contract got coins some other 
way they wouldn't be part of the booty.

-- 
nch
Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer now has a pegleg and an eyepatch

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/12/20 10:28 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> A party to this Contract can Yohoho by announcement. Doing so transfers
> from the Plundership to each Pirate one Coffer of coins. This is the only
> way that coins can transfer from the Plundership to a Pirate.


The contract can't transfer coins to people, it can only authorize
people to transfer coins from it.

-- 
Jason Cobb

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer now has a pegleg and an eyepatch

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/12/20 9:22 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> ‍☠️ THE BOOTY
>
> Coins transferred to the Plundership from the Lost and Found Department and
> in current ownership of the Plundership is the Booty. A Coffer is an amount
> equal to the current Booty, divided by the amount of Pirates, rounded down.
>
> ‍☠️ SHARING THE BOOTY
>
> A party to this Contract can Yohoho by announcement. Doing so transfers one
> Coffer of coins to each Pirate from the Plundership. This is the only way
> that coins can transfer from the Plundership to a Pirate.

Is it intentional that the amount a Coffer is worth goes down when 
someone Yohoho's? And what stops you from doing it repeatedly?

-- 
nch
Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer now has a pegleg and an eyepatch

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 10:22 AM Cuddle Beam via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> I create the contract described below with the name “The Plunder
> Partnership”
>
> I intend, without objection, to transfer all coins belonging to the Lost
> and Found Department to The Plunder Partnership.
>
> -
>
> The Plunder Partnership
>
> ‍☠️ WHO WE BE
>
> The Plunder Partnership is also known as the Plundership. A party to this
> contract is known as a Pirate. Any person who is not in Davy Jones’ Locker
> can become a Pirate. Any Pirate can cease to be one by announcement.
>
> ‍☠️ NO TATTLE-TALES
>
> Any person who has objected to a transferral of coins from the Lost and
> Found Department to the Plundership are in Davy Jones’ Locker. A person in
> Davy Jones’ Locker cannot become a Pirate, and they immediately cease to
be
> a Pirate if they already were one.
>
> ‍☠️ THE BOOTY
>
> Coins transferred to the Plundership from the Lost and Found Department
and
> in current ownership of the Plundership is the Booty. A Coffer is an
amount
> equal to the current Booty, divided by the amount of Pirates, rounded
down.
>
> ‍☠️ SHARING THE BOOTY
>
> A party to this Contract can Yohoho by announcement. Doing so transfers
one
> Coffer of coins to each Pirate from the Plundership. This is the only way
> that coins can transfer from the Plundership to a Pirate.
>
> -

This doesn't give a method for joining the contract.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] can you believe nicknames are entirely undefined?

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/12/20 8:41 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote:
> Please change mine to Cuddlebeam instead of Cuddle Beam. Cuddlebeam is my
> real Agora name, it's a bit annoying that Cuddle Beam keeps being tossed
> around.

Your email headers have it as "Cuddle Beam", which is probably where the 
confusion comes in.

-- 
nch
Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] can you believe nicknames are entirely undefined?

[Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion]

Please change mine to Cuddlebeam instead of Cuddle Beam. Cuddlebeam is my
real Agora name, it's a bit annoying that Cuddle Beam keeps being tossed
around.

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 2:54 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 6/12/20 12:57 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote:
> > On 2020-06-11 22:49, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:
> >> On 2020-06-11 22:26, Rebecca via agora-business wrote:
> >>> -- From R. Lee
> >> Who the heck is "R. Lee"?
> > While I'm at it, I change my nickname to "The Found and Lost Department"
> >
>
> Both of your ruleset annotations have been updated [0].
>
> [0]: https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr-fresh.txt
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer sets up tripwire

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/12/20 2:38 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> The agglomerate formed by Cuddlebeam's Master Switch and Agora’s Ruleset,
> with the name of 'Bazinga', is defined to be the Bazinga entity. And, of
> course, there is only one Bazinga.
>
> The Bazinga is a destructible asset that can only be owned by Cuddlebeam
> and is owned by Cuddlebeam.
>
> The Bazinga is destroyed whenever any event described in the Big Evil List
> happens.

I would argue that, even though the contract says "there is only one 
Bazinga" there's two things defined here called Bazinga: the 
agglomerate, and the asset. Also, I don't think there's any way you can 
word this that gets around the original "the set is not the thing" 
problem because you're only able to make signifiers that you're 
attaching to a signified. This is a ceci n'est pas une pipe situation.

-- 
nch
Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Excess Proposals

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 7:05 AM Rebecca via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 8:07 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
> agora-discussion  wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:44 AM Rebecca via agora-business
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry I retract that proposal and create the following
> > >
> > > Title: Chill 2.0 (ironic edition)
> > > AI: 2
> > > Text: Create a power 2 rule called "Excess Proposals" with the text "A
> > > proposal submitted by someone who has already submitted 6 proposals
> > > currently in the proposal pool is an Excess Proposal. The Promotor CAN,
> > by
> > > announcement,
> > > designate an Excess Proposal as Spam, removing it from the proposal
> > pool."
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 2:41 PM Rebecca via agora-business <
> > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I create the following proposal
> > > > Title: Chill
> > > > AI: 2
> > > > Text: Create a power 2 rule called "Excess Proposals" with the text "A
> > > > proposal submitted by someone who has already submitted 6 prior
> > proposals
> > > > that week is an Excess Proposal. The Promotor may, by announcement,
> > > > designate an Excess Proposal as Spam, removing it from the proposal
> > pool."
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > From R. Lee
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > From R. Lee
> >
> > Given that this is at the discretion of the Promotor, they should
> > probably be refunded any pend fee.
> >
> Well we can add that to the rule after there is a pend fee
>
> --
> From R. Lee

Given that there will be a pend fee by the time this passes, I think
we should include it now.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Excess Proposals

[Rebecca via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 8:07 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion  wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:44 AM Rebecca via agora-business
>  wrote:
> >
> > Sorry I retract that proposal and create the following
> >
> > Title: Chill 2.0 (ironic edition)
> > AI: 2
> > Text: Create a power 2 rule called "Excess Proposals" with the text "A
> > proposal submitted by someone who has already submitted 6 proposals
> > currently in the proposal pool is an Excess Proposal. The Promotor CAN,
> by
> > announcement,
> > designate an Excess Proposal as Spam, removing it from the proposal
> pool."
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 2:41 PM Rebecca via agora-business <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I create the following proposal
> > > Title: Chill
> > > AI: 2
> > > Text: Create a power 2 rule called "Excess Proposals" with the text "A
> > > proposal submitted by someone who has already submitted 6 prior
> proposals
> > > that week is an Excess Proposal. The Promotor may, by announcement,
> > > designate an Excess Proposal as Spam, removing it from the proposal
> pool."
> > >
> > > --
> > > From R. Lee
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > From R. Lee
>
> Given that this is at the discretion of the Promotor, they should
> probably be refunded any pend fee.
>
Well we can add that to the rule after there is a pend fee

-- 
>From R. Lee

DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJs] on weird switch phrasing

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 10:09 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business
 wrote:
>
> While I'm busy harassing the Arbitor...
>
> I CFJ: "On or about 16 May 2020, CFJ 3835 became G."
>
>
> I CFJ: "CFJ 3835 is G."
>
> Arguments:
>

I just want to present a few precedents for consideration here:

CFJ 2840
{
Names for rule-defined entities are generally unique (meaning that
each entity has at most one name, not that two entities can't have the
same name, by the way: I don't see any restriction on a Team changing
its name to be the same as another's), but game custom and common
sense support non-uniqueness for other entities' names.

Otherwise, suppose a player "Foo" announces that e is changing eir
name to "Bar".  "Bar" immediately becomes a valid referent for em, if
nobody else has been called that recently, but initially eir name
remains "Foo", because the relevant recordkeepors haven't updated
their records yet, and other players who haven't noticed the name
change will still refer to em as "Foo".  "Bar" is just a nickname.  At
some later time, eir name will become "Bar", and "Foo" will become
just a nickname.  This will probably happen soon, as Agorans are quick
to recognize name changes, but the exact time of the change is
indeterminate!  If a rule (legitimately) referring to Foo is enacted
in the meantime, even if the intent is completely clear, whether the
reference succeeds depends on this indeterminate time.
}

This shows that selecting a non-unique name would be permissible, but
also that we can continue to refer to the CFJ3835 as G.


CFJ 2460
{

It is POSSIBLE for a player to register with a nickname that was
used by a now-deregistered former player.
}
{
TRUE; it is merely probably illegal due to the high possibility of
confusion. This gets less and less likely as the old player's time
gets older.
}

This implies that it would have been illegal to select a nickname that
caused confusion, such as using the name of another entity or
characteristic of the form of another entity. In this way, I would
argue that G. referring to emself as CFJ 4 would also be ILLEGAL
in that context. While the repeal of R2170 means that this would no
longer be ILLEGAL, I think these tests may still be applicable as part
of the game custom when interpreting how names function.

CFJ 1361

{

It is my view that, for the purposes of R559, a nickname is a name that
a Player chooses for emself, that can be reliably used to pick em out in
the full range of Agoran contexts. On this view, arbitrary designations
by other Players, while they make succeed in referring to another
Player, do not consitute nicknames of those Players.
}

By this standard, CFJ 2825 would be an invalid nickname because it can
not be reliably used to pick em out in the full range of Agoran
contexts.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Excess Proposals

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:44 AM Rebecca via agora-business
 wrote:
>
> Sorry I retract that proposal and create the following
>
> Title: Chill 2.0 (ironic edition)
> AI: 2
> Text: Create a power 2 rule called "Excess Proposals" with the text "A
> proposal submitted by someone who has already submitted 6 proposals
> currently in the proposal pool is an Excess Proposal. The Promotor CAN, by
> announcement,
> designate an Excess Proposal as Spam, removing it from the proposal pool."
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 2:41 PM Rebecca via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I create the following proposal
> > Title: Chill
> > AI: 2
> > Text: Create a power 2 rule called "Excess Proposals" with the text "A
> > proposal submitted by someone who has already submitted 6 prior proposals
> > that week is an Excess Proposal. The Promotor may, by announcement,
> > designate an Excess Proposal as Spam, removing it from the proposal pool."
> >
> > --
> > From R. Lee
> >
>
>
> --
> From R. Lee

Given that this is at the discretion of the Promotor, they should
probably be refunded any pend fee.

DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] can you believe nicknames are entirely undefined?

[Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion]

Beverly Hills, Mountains, Islands, Forests, Swamps, Plains, Wastes...

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:33 AM Rebecca via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> serious comments, you need to distinguish the beverlys, perhaps beverly 1,
> 2, 3 etc by order of registration. also the "they"s should be "e"s (the
> proposal refers to a player in the singular)
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 2:26 PM Rebecca  wrote:
>
> > That's it, I change my nickname to "Proposal 8440"
> > see how you like the full logical ruleset NOW
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 2:20 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I submit the following proposal, "namings", AI=1, co-author R. Lee:
> {enact
> >> a rule named "names" with the following text:  "A player's legal
> nickname
> >> is 'CFJ X' where X is the number of the last CFJ they judged.  Failure
> to
> >> refer to someone by their legal nickname in public is the class-1 crime
> of
> >> 'oh I'm sorry, I thought you were 3805'.  If they have never judged a
> CFJ,
> >> their nickname is 'Beverly'."}
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > From R. Lee
> >
>
>
> --
> From R. Lee
>

Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets

[Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion]

I am EXTREMELY wary of extra vote mechanisms but I've never seen
large-scale pooling on Agora like on Blognomic so perhap it's not a
problem. Maybe.

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 3:32 AM nch via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 6/11/20 8:20 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:
> >>> Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulets" with the following text:
> >>> Amulets are a class of assets, tracked by the Teasuror, which
> can be
> >>> owned by players. Each amulet has the following attributes:
> type,
> >>> effect, tier. The effect and tier are tied to the type of the
> >>> amulet, and are all defined elsewhere in the rules.
> >>>
> >>> Wearer is an amulet switch, with possible values of all active
> >>> players or none (the default). A player CAN wear (syn. put on,
> >>> equip) an amulet e owns by announcement, flipping the amulet's
> >>> wearer to emself. E is then said to be wearing that amulet. A
> player
> >>> CAN take off (syn. dequip) an amulet e is wearing, flipping the
> >>> amulet's wearer to none. Players CANNOT wear more than one
> amulet at
> >>> a time. An amulet with its wearer set to a player CANNOT be
> >>> transferred.
> >> Switches need to define which office tracks them (or they'll create a
> >> new one for it). I don't think the fact that the asset is tracked by the
> >> Treasuror makes this switch tracked by em too - although that might be a
> >> good idea. Needs "by announcement" for taking them off.
> >>
> >> There's a weird semantic thing happening with the CANNOT statement - you
> >> define wearing as an event (which flips the switch) not a state earlier
> >> in, so this reads like you can't flip two amulets' switches at the same
> >> time, not that you can't have two with their switch set to you. In fact
> >> if you swap it with the synonyms it becomes more obvious: "A player
> >> CANNOT*put on*  more than one amulet at a time." Might want to change it
> >> to "if a player is the wearer of an amulet, e CANNOT wear another
> >> amulet." Though that sounds awkward.
> >>
> >> What stops someone from buying multiple active amulets and equipping,
> >> using and dequipping them at will? They don't circumvent the cooldowns,
> >> but they still get a lot of power that way.
> > Maybe just make it so a player can only own one amulet at a time? That
> > would get rid of the whole "wearing" thing too.
> >
> That may work. Another thing I should've mentioned here: I'd strongly
> encourage allowing contracts to own these. If players can only own one
> then they'd need an intermediary if they wanted to trade an amulet for
> someone else's, plus it'd allow for the complex trades NAX is designed
> to enable.
>
> --
> nch
> Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] can you believe nicknames are entirely undefined?

[Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xvsMFiq-NE

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:59 AM Rebecca via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> agora hasnt had one of these in a LONG time
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 2:57 PM Reuben Staley via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On 2020-06-11 22:49, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:
> > > On 2020-06-11 22:26, Rebecca via agora-business wrote:
> > >> -- From R. Lee
> > >
> > > Who the heck is "R. Lee"?
> >
> > While I'm at it, I change my nickname to "The Found and Lost Department"
> >
> > --
> > The Found and Lost Department
> >
>
>
> --
> From proposal 8440
>

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer sets up tripwire

[Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion]

Ah, I might have failed because the set isn't the same as its elements.
Although my intent overall was to create a new entity which isn't just the
rulelset itself, but the ruleset and something more. Like, a potato and
that same potato with a moustache and named 'Mr. Potato' are two
different things. Same way that the Ruleset and the sum of all of its
letters are two different things.

Part of why it works is because while G didn't ossify Agora, just *trying*
it was enough to be punished, because if it *would* have been successful,
he would have ossified Agora. It doesn't matter how effective it is. That's
part of the magic.

I might need to reword things a bit but I'm on a good track I believe.

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 9:52 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 11:58 AM Cuddle Beam via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I’m unsure how much power we have in “defining an entity” for the
> purposes
> > of contract-defined Assets, but eh life is short, I’ll give it a shot.
> > Also, this doesn’t violate DADA, rather, it aims to exploit it seeing how
> > G. was punished for Dark Arts recently. It maybe even has support from
> AIAN
> > but I have no idea. Anyways baby, let’s go.
> >
> >
> > (About the Bazinga: it didn't exist as gamestate before this contract
> > existed, right? With that specific name and all, which is a lot different
> > from just the set alone, namelessly. So it exists by virtue of the
> > contract. That's important for R2166.)
> >
> > I create the following contract called “Humble Agoran Moral Tripwire”:
> >
> > 
> >
> > The set consisting of Cuddlebeam’s Master Switch and Agora’s Ruleset is
> > defined to be the Bazinga entity. And, of course, there is only one
> > Bazinga.
> >
> > The Bazinga is a destructible asset that can only be owned by Cuddlebeam
> > and is owned by Cuddlebeam.
> >
> > The Bazinga is destroyed whenever any event described in the Big Evil
> List
> > happens.
> >
> > The Big Evil List is:
> >
> >
> >-
> >
> >Cuddlebeam’s Karma lowers
> >-
> >
> >Cuddlebeam gains a Blot
> >-
> >
> >Someone casts a vote of anything other than FOR, on any of
> Cuddlebeam’s
> >Proposals that have their title in all capital letters.
> >-
> >
> >Someone other than Cuddlebeam performs a scam
> >-
> >
> >Someone other than Cuddlebeam uses the trick involving Rule 2617
> and/or
> >Rule 1698 that this contract employs.
> >-
> >
> >This Contract ceases to exist by means other than Cuddlebeam’s own
> >Proposals.
> >-
> >
> >This Contract is amended by means other than Cuddlebeam’s own actions.
> >-
> >
> >Cuddlebeam ceases to be a Player.
> >
> > 
> >
> > I submit the following Proposal, AI-1 with the title “HUMBLE AGORAN
> FARMER
> > WINS THE GAME”:
> >
> > Upon enactment of this Proposal, Cuddlebeam wins the game, and “Humble
> > Agoran Moral Tripwire” is destroyed.
>
>
> I CFJ "The Bazinga is a destructible private asset." I CFJ "The destruction
> of the Bazinga asset would lead to the destruction of one or more rules,
> but for the Rule 'Agora is a Nomic'". I bar CuddleBeam from both CFJs.
>
> (Somewhat Messy) Caller's Arguments:
> CuddleBeam might have succeeded in making the Bazinga a private asset.
> However, I find no authority in the rules that would allow em to make a
> private asset that was also another entity (and if e failed to make it an
> asset at all, that would be why; it depends on whether that failing is
> separate from the asset creation failing). I find even less authority for
> making it so that the destruction of an asset could repeal a rule, although
> even if it could this attempt would likely fail because rule changes need
> to happen in a defined order. Finally, Agora is a Nomic clearly intervenes
> to stop the ruleset from being destroyed.
>
> Short version: this clearly doesn't work, but the judge gets to explain
> exactly why it doesn't work. Have fun, your honor.
>
> -Aris
>