DIS: Re: BUS: Humble Agoran farmer offers wood for sheep
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 11:40 AM Edward Murphy via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I consent to the following contract and transfer all my Cards to it.
>
> Administrivia:
>
>1) The name of this contract is Card Collective Contract, Agoran
> (abbr. CCCA).
>
>2) Any player CAN join or leave CCCA by announcement. Members of CCCA
> are known as Collectors.
>
>3) Any Collector CAN amend CCCA with Agoran consent of Collectors.
>
>4) The Secretary General is Murphy.
>
>5) A Person of Interest is a player or former player.
>
> Balances:
>
>1) Each type of Card has a corresponding List, which is an ordered
> sequence of Persons of Interest (who may appear multiple times),
> initially empty.
>
>2) When a player transfers N instances of one type of Card to this
> contract, e is added N times to the end of that type's List.
>
>3) To perform Collection for N instances of one type of Card is to do
> the following:
>
> a) Transfer that many instances from CCCA to oneself.
>
> b) Pay that many instances as a single set to earn Products.
>
> c) The Comrades are the first entries (up to N) in that type's
>List who are players. Transfer one Product earned in the
>previous step to the first Comrade (or keep it if that Comrade
>is the performer), then one to the second, etc., returning to
>the last Comrade after the first, until all those Products are
>transferred. Then remove those entries from that List.
>
> Other clauses notwithstanding, Collection may only be performed if
> it fully succeeds in one message and has at least one Comrade.
>
>4) Any Collector CAN perform Collection for N instances of one type of
> Card with Agoran consent of Collectors.
>
>5) If CCCA has at least as many instances of one type of Card as the
> largest single set that can be paid to earn Products, then the
> Secretary General CAN and SHALL perform Collection for such a
> maximal set of that type.
>
> Non-binding notes
>
>The Collectors SHOULD update these as needed for accuracy.
>
>Example:
>
>* Legislative Cards are deposited by (in order) A, B, C, A, D, E
>* LC List is now {A, B, A, C, D, E}
>* A performs Collection (4 LCs for 10 Pendants)
>* Comrades are A, B, A, C
>* A transfers those 10 Pendants as follows: keep, B, C, keep,
>(back to start) keep, B, C, keep, (back to start) keep, B
>* LC List is now {D, E}
>
>If B deregistered prior to this Collection, then instead:
>
>* Comrades are A, C, A, D
>* A transfers (total of) 3 to C, 2 to D, keeps other 5
>* LC List is now {B, E}
>
>Non-players can't own assets, but remain on Lists in case they
>re-register. Non-Collector players can deposit and benefit, but
>can't influence the timing of voluntary payouts.
>
>
--
>From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fine, I destroy "Combinotron"
R. Lee wrote: Just join the plunder partnership, anyone can and it'll give you a cut On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:14 AM Edward Murphy via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: R. Lee wrote: Once again, I intend to transfer a victory card and a legislative card from the L department to me, without objection. Right, IIRC this is just recovery from Combinotron. I intend to transfer 500 coins from the L department to the plunder partnership, without objection This one, though, is it just 'because we can, if no one stops us'? Which of course is what you'd expect the Plunder Partnership to do, but you'd also expect others to want to be cut in on the take. (I really should go through these contracts and see about joining one or two.) Except I can't, because I'm in Davy Jones' Locker. Now if it was amended to "has not objected to such a transfer within the last N days" then that would be different. Then there's the question of "should I keep objecting until/unless they pledge to basically chip in and give me a x1.1 share". (Reasons for answering no: they might wait it out in case you miss dealing with mail for a bit; they might do it and then break the pledge; others might pile on until no one gets anything.)
DIS: Re: BUS: Humble Agoran farmer offers wood for sheep
I like this take on this process, but it doesn’t seem to have anything stopping
the third person in line from withdrawing two cards and processing them
inefficiently in order to bump me up the order. This also doesn’t seem to
account for resets.
> On Jun 16, 2020, at 21:40, Edward Murphy via agora-business
> wrote:
>
> I consent to the following contract and transfer all my Cards to it.
>
> Administrivia:
>
> 1) The name of this contract is Card Collective Contract, Agoran
> (abbr. CCCA).
>
> 2) Any player CAN join or leave CCCA by announcement. Members of CCCA
> are known as Collectors.
>
> 3) Any Collector CAN amend CCCA with Agoran consent of Collectors.
>
> 4) The Secretary General is Murphy.
>
> 5) A Person of Interest is a player or former player.
>
> Balances:
>
> 1) Each type of Card has a corresponding List, which is an ordered
> sequence of Persons of Interest (who may appear multiple times),
> initially empty.
>
> 2) When a player transfers N instances of one type of Card to this
> contract, e is added N times to the end of that type's List.
>
> 3) To perform Collection for N instances of one type of Card is to do
> the following:
>
> a) Transfer that many instances from CCCA to oneself.
>
> b) Pay that many instances as a single set to earn Products.
>
> c) The Comrades are the first entries (up to N) in that type's
> List who are players. Transfer one Product earned in the
> previous step to the first Comrade (or keep it if that Comrade
> is the performer), then one to the second, etc., returning to
> the last Comrade after the first, until all those Products are
> transferred. Then remove those entries from that List.
>
> Other clauses notwithstanding, Collection may only be performed if
> it fully succeeds in one message and has at least one Comrade.
>
> 4) Any Collector CAN perform Collection for N instances of one type of
> Card with Agoran consent of Collectors.
>
> 5) If CCCA has at least as many instances of one type of Card as the
> largest single set that can be paid to earn Products, then the
> Secretary General CAN and SHALL perform Collection for such a
> maximal set of that type.
>
> Non-binding notes
>
> The Collectors SHOULD update these as needed for accuracy.
>
> Example:
>
> * Legislative Cards are deposited by (in order) A, B, C, A, D, E
> * LC List is now {A, B, A, C, D, E}
> * A performs Collection (4 LCs for 10 Pendants)
> * Comrades are A, B, A, C
> * A transfers those 10 Pendants as follows: keep, B, C, keep,
> (back to start) keep, B, C, keep, (back to start) keep, B
> * LC List is now {D, E}
>
> If B deregistered prior to this Collection, then instead:
>
> * Comrades are A, C, A, D
> * A transfers (total of) 3 to C, 2 to D, keeps other 5
> * LC List is now {B, E}
>
> Non-players can't own assets, but remain on Lists in case they
> re-register. Non-Collector players can deposit and benefit, but
> can't influence the timing of voluntary payouts.
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3831 and 3838 judged TRUE
On 6/16/20 9:38 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: >> I'll be honest; this was not the outcome I was expecting out of that >> silly CFJ... >> > At this rate I may end up needing to split it off into a thesis or > something. It's turning into a bit of a tangent. Basically, your second > argument in the second CFJ is false, but once I figured out why it's false > I realised that it doesn't just explain this. Aww... Full disclosure: if it was found true, I was planning to start calling cases on " is " in the hopes of creating even more confusion. > It also explains how to tell > what an arbitrary piece of Agoran text means. And that seems like something > worth writing down somewhere. > I... feel like I may be overhyping this. It's all obvious stuff. When you > read it it may be disappointing that it's stuff you already knew. It's just > that a bunch of previous judges have said "this shall be the standard" > without explaining why adequately, and I'm hoping I might be able to fix it. > > -Aris That still sounds really interesting, and my hype remains. Good luck! -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3831 and 3838 judged TRUE
On 6/16/2020 9:07 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 5:44 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: On 6/16/2020 5:01 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:41 PM Aris Merchant wrote: On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 10:20 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: On 6/13/2020 10:07 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 1:04 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: On 6/13/2020 9:52 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: In CFJ 1500, the Court found that words should be interpreted by their common language definition after a definition in the rules has been overturned. The Court presently believes that this is somewhat misguided: while the common language definition should be used in any interpretation, the past definition in the rules and its historical usage within Agora should also be looked at, where reasonable, as part of the game custom criterion. I'm very concerned about this bit and considering a motion. This greatly expands the scope of what we have to remember about past rules, greatly reduces clarity to new players, and considering there's many common terms that we drag into rules-definitions (e.g. "refer" or whatever) they should revert really quickly to common definitions when removed from the rules. Shiny was removed from the ruleset in early 2018. That's two years. What's the limit? -G. I thought that might be controversial. I think that the limit is the point at which almost no one remembers the definition. Here, the context and the recency both implied the definition. In the instance of "refer", as long as we don't leave the mechanic after returning the definition, it will almost immediately return to solely its common language definition. I may end up overturning this to some extent in CFJ 3846. I think there's a better way of handling language interpetation than a case by case full four factors analysis. I'm not sure whether we want to move to reconsider. Aris: *plans to fundamentally rethink the way Agorans look at language* Aris: "Gee, I wonder if this is going to be controversial?" Controversial or not, if you're doing a "major review of past cases" I don't think we need to file a motion on this one, I think treating your case as a sort of appeals court and say "here's a handful of conflicting CFJs, the current standard is leading to disparate results so let's try a new standard" and not worry about re-hashing the past even if it's very recent. Thanks for this. You're describing exactly what I have in mind, and I'll take you advice. The problem I've identified is that we have a quadrillion different standards for how we understand language. There's one set of rules that get applied for cases involving non-English languages, one set for new jargon, one set for interpreting rules, and so on. But all of these things are communications involving language. The problem isn't the standards. Most of them are pretty good standards. It's that there's no unifying logic behind all of them, even though they're all addressing the same general area. I'm going to try to come up with unifying logic. Then I'm going to use my unifying logic to produce a standard algorithm for interpreting language in Agora. Afterwards, most of those standards will be special cases of the standard algorithm, although some of them may turn out to be inconsistent with it and get overturned. If I do it correctly, I can also explain why my unifying logic and standard algorithm have to be correct, rather than just saying "this seems reasonable, so let's go with it". I pretty much have to, if I want to convince everyone to switch over. This entire business reminds me vaguely of this [1]. Hopefully, I can avoid that. We'll see how things work out. [1] https://xkcd.com/927/ -Aris Major props on even considering coming up with something like that. My brain melts just thinking about it. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3831 and 3838 judged TRUE
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020, 6:11 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/16/20 9:07 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > > Thanks for this. You're describing exactly what I have in mind, and I'll > > take you advice. > > > > The problem I've identified is that we have a quadrillion different > > standards for how we understand language. There's one set of rules that > get > > applied for cases involving non-English languages, one set for new > jargon, > > one set for interpreting rules, and so on. > > > > But all of these things are communications involving language. The > problem > > isn't the standards. Most of them are pretty good standards. It's that > > there's no unifying logic behind all of them, even though they're all > > addressing the same general area. I'm going to try to come up with > unifying > > logic. > > > > Then I'm going to use my unifying logic to produce a standard algorithm > for > > interpreting language in Agora. Afterwards, most of those standards will > be > > special cases of the standard algorithm, although some of them may turn > out > > to be inconsistent with it and get overturned. If I do it correctly, I > can > > also explain why my unifying logic and standard algorithm have to be > > correct, rather than just saying "this seems reasonable, so let's go with > > it". I pretty much have to, if I want to convince everyone to switch > over. > > > > This entire business reminds me vaguely of this [1]. Hopefully, I can > avoid > > that. We'll see how things work out. > > > > [1] https://xkcd.com/927/ > > > > -Aris > > > I'll be honest; this was not the outcome I was expecting out of that > silly CFJ... > At this rate I may end up needing to split it off into a thesis or something. It's turning into a bit of a tangent. Basically, your second argument in the second CFJ is false, but once I figured out why it's false I realised that it doesn't just explain this. It also explains how to tell what an arbitrary piece of Agoran text means. And that seems like something worth writing down somewhere. I... feel like I may be overhyping this. It's all obvious stuff. When you read it it may be disappointing that it's stuff you already knew. It's just that a bunch of previous judges have said "this shall be the standard" without explaining why adequately, and I'm hoping I might be able to fix it. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fine, I destroy "Combinotron"
On 6/16/20 7:24 PM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > Just join the plunder partnership, anyone can and it'll give you a cut > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:14 AM Edward Murphy via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> R. Lee wrote: >> >>> Once again, I intend to transfer a victory card and a legislative card >> from >>> the L department to me, without objection. >> Right, IIRC this is just recovery from Combinotron. >> >>> I intend to transfer 500 coins from the L department to the plunder >>> partnership, without objection >> This one, though, is it just 'because we can, if no one stops us'? Which >> of course is what you'd expect the Plunder Partnership to do, but you'd >> also expect others to want to be cut in on the take. (I really should >> go through these contracts and see about joining one or two.) >> > > -- > From R. Lee E can't, e already objected to an intent to transfer coins to the Plundership, so e is now prohibited. -- nch Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager, Pirate
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3831 and 3838 judged TRUE
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 6:07 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 5:44 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On 6/16/2020 5:01 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:41 PM Aris Merchant wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 10:20 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >>> On 6/13/2020 10:07 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 1:04 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > On 6/13/2020 9:52 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> >> In CFJ 1500, the Court found that words should be >> >> interpreted by their common language definition after a definition >> in >> >> the rules has been overturned. The Court presently believes that >> this >> >> is somewhat misguided: while the common language definition should >> be >> >> used in any interpretation, the past definition in the rules and >> its >> >> historical usage within Agora should also be looked at, where >> >> reasonable, as part of the game custom criterion. >> > >> > I'm very concerned about this bit and considering a motion. This >> >> greatly >> > expands the scope of what we have to remember about past rules, >> >> greatly >> > reduces clarity to new players, and considering there's many common >> >> terms >> > that we drag into rules-definitions (e.g. "refer" or whatever) they >> >> should >> > revert really quickly to common definitions when removed from the >> >> rules. >> > >> > Shiny was removed from the ruleset in early 2018. That's two years. >> > What's the limit? >> > >> > -G. >> > >> >> I thought that might be controversial. I think that the limit is the >> point at which almost no one remembers the definition. Here, the >> context and the recency both implied the definition. In the instance >> of "refer", as long as we don't leave the mechanic after returning >> the >> definition, it will almost immediately return to solely its common >> language definition. >> >> >> >> I may end up overturning this to some extent in CFJ 3846. I think >> >> there's a better way of handling language interpetation than a case by >> >> case full four factors analysis. I'm not sure whether we want to move >> >> to reconsider. >> > >> > Aris: *plans to fundamentally rethink the way Agorans look at language* >> > Aris: "Gee, I wonder if this is going to be controversial?" >> >> Controversial or not, if you're doing a "major review of past cases" I >> don't think we need to file a motion on this one, I think treating your >> case as a sort of appeals court and say "here's a handful of conflicting >> CFJs, the current standard is leading to disparate results so let's try a >> new standard" and not worry about re-hashing the past even if it's very >> recent. > > > Thanks for this. You're describing exactly what I have in mind, and I'll > take you advice. > > The problem I've identified is that we have a quadrillion different > standards for how we understand language. There's one set of rules that get > applied for cases involving non-English languages, one set for new jargon, > one set for interpreting rules, and so on. > > But all of these things are communications involving language. The problem > isn't the standards. Most of them are pretty good standards. It's that > there's no unifying logic behind all of them, even though they're all > addressing the same general area. I'm going to try to come up with unifying > logic. > > Then I'm going to use my unifying logic to produce a standard algorithm > for interpreting language in Agora. Afterwards, most of those standards > will be special cases of the standard algorithm, although some of them may > turn out to be inconsistent with it and get overturned. If I do it > correctly, I can also explain why my unifying logic and standard algorithm > have to be correct, rather than just saying "this seems reasonable, so > let's go with it". I pretty much have to, if I want to convince everyone to > switch over. > > This entire business reminds me vaguely of this [1]. Hopefully, I can > avoid that. We'll see how things work out. > > [1] https://xkcd.com/927/ > Just to add, there's still some chance I won't manage all of this. I'm going to try, and I have no clue whether I can get it done in time or not. We'll just have to see. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3831 and 3838 judged TRUE
On 6/16/20 9:07 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > Thanks for this. You're describing exactly what I have in mind, and I'll > take you advice. > > The problem I've identified is that we have a quadrillion different > standards for how we understand language. There's one set of rules that get > applied for cases involving non-English languages, one set for new jargon, > one set for interpreting rules, and so on. > > But all of these things are communications involving language. The problem > isn't the standards. Most of them are pretty good standards. It's that > there's no unifying logic behind all of them, even though they're all > addressing the same general area. I'm going to try to come up with unifying > logic. > > Then I'm going to use my unifying logic to produce a standard algorithm for > interpreting language in Agora. Afterwards, most of those standards will be > special cases of the standard algorithm, although some of them may turn out > to be inconsistent with it and get overturned. If I do it correctly, I can > also explain why my unifying logic and standard algorithm have to be > correct, rather than just saying "this seems reasonable, so let's go with > it". I pretty much have to, if I want to convince everyone to switch over. > > This entire business reminds me vaguely of this [1]. Hopefully, I can avoid > that. We'll see how things work out. > > [1] https://xkcd.com/927/ > > -Aris I'll be honest; this was not the outcome I was expecting out of that silly CFJ... -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3831 and 3838 judged TRUE
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 5:44 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/16/2020 5:01 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:41 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 10:20 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >>> On 6/13/2020 10:07 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 1:04 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 6/13/2020 9:52 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > >> In CFJ 1500, the Court found that words should be > >> interpreted by their common language definition after a definition > in > >> the rules has been overturned. The Court presently believes that > this > >> is somewhat misguided: while the common language definition should > be > >> used in any interpretation, the past definition in the rules and its > >> historical usage within Agora should also be looked at, where > >> reasonable, as part of the game custom criterion. > > > > I'm very concerned about this bit and considering a motion. This > >> greatly > > expands the scope of what we have to remember about past rules, > >> greatly > > reduces clarity to new players, and considering there's many common > >> terms > > that we drag into rules-definitions (e.g. "refer" or whatever) they > >> should > > revert really quickly to common definitions when removed from the > >> rules. > > > > Shiny was removed from the ruleset in early 2018. That's two years. > > What's the limit? > > > > -G. > > > > I thought that might be controversial. I think that the limit is the > point at which almost no one remembers the definition. Here, the > context and the recency both implied the definition. In the instance > of "refer", as long as we don't leave the mechanic after returning the > definition, it will almost immediately return to solely its common > language definition. > >> > >> I may end up overturning this to some extent in CFJ 3846. I think > >> there's a better way of handling language interpetation than a case by > >> case full four factors analysis. I'm not sure whether we want to move > >> to reconsider. > > > > Aris: *plans to fundamentally rethink the way Agorans look at language* > > Aris: "Gee, I wonder if this is going to be controversial?" > > Controversial or not, if you're doing a "major review of past cases" I > don't think we need to file a motion on this one, I think treating your > case as a sort of appeals court and say "here's a handful of conflicting > CFJs, the current standard is leading to disparate results so let's try a > new standard" and not worry about re-hashing the past even if it's very > recent. Thanks for this. You're describing exactly what I have in mind, and I'll take you advice. The problem I've identified is that we have a quadrillion different standards for how we understand language. There's one set of rules that get applied for cases involving non-English languages, one set for new jargon, one set for interpreting rules, and so on. But all of these things are communications involving language. The problem isn't the standards. Most of them are pretty good standards. It's that there's no unifying logic behind all of them, even though they're all addressing the same general area. I'm going to try to come up with unifying logic. Then I'm going to use my unifying logic to produce a standard algorithm for interpreting language in Agora. Afterwards, most of those standards will be special cases of the standard algorithm, although some of them may turn out to be inconsistent with it and get overturned. If I do it correctly, I can also explain why my unifying logic and standard algorithm have to be correct, rather than just saying "this seems reasonable, so let's go with it". I pretty much have to, if I want to convince everyone to switch over. This entire business reminds me vaguely of this [1]. Hopefully, I can avoid that. We'll see how things work out. [1] https://xkcd.com/927/ -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3831 and 3838 judged TRUE
At least for me personally, I've never (earnestly) used the four factors in my life. For us the text is the law, and there is 99% of the time a common sense way to grapple with the text. On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:02 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:41 PM Aris Merchant < > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 10:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 6/13/2020 10:07 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 1:04 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > >> On 6/13/2020 9:52 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > > >>> In CFJ 1500, the Court found that words should be > > > >>> interpreted by their common language definition after a definition > in > > > >>> the rules has been overturned. The Court presently believes that > this > > > >>> is somewhat misguided: while the common language definition should > be > > > >>> used in any interpretation, the past definition in the rules and > its > > > >>> historical usage within Agora should also be looked at, where > > > >>> reasonable, as part of the game custom criterion. > > > >> > > > >> I'm very concerned about this bit and considering a motion. This > > greatly > > > >> expands the scope of what we have to remember about past rules, > > greatly > > > >> reduces clarity to new players, and considering there's many common > > terms > > > >> that we drag into rules-definitions (e.g. "refer" or whatever) they > > should > > > >> revert really quickly to common definitions when removed from the > > rules. > > > >> > > > >> Shiny was removed from the ruleset in early 2018. That's two years. > > > >> What's the limit? > > > >> > > > >> -G. > > > >> > > > > > > > > I thought that might be controversial. I think that the limit is the > > > > point at which almost no one remembers the definition. Here, the > > > > context and the recency both implied the definition. In the instance > > > > of "refer", as long as we don't leave the mechanic after returning > the > > > > definition, it will almost immediately return to solely its common > > > > language definition. > > > > I may end up overturning this to some extent in CFJ 3846. I think > > there's a better way of handling language interpetation than a case by > > case full four factors analysis. I'm not sure whether we want to move > > to reconsider. > > > Aris: *plans to fundamentally rethink the way Agorans look at language* > Aris: "Gee, I wonder if this is going to be controversial?" > > -Aris > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3831 and 3838 judged TRUE
On 6/16/2020 5:01 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:41 PM Aris Merchant wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 10:20 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> On 6/13/2020 10:07 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 1:04 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 6/13/2020 9:52 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> In CFJ 1500, the Court found that words should be >> interpreted by their common language definition after a definition in >> the rules has been overturned. The Court presently believes that this >> is somewhat misguided: while the common language definition should be >> used in any interpretation, the past definition in the rules and its >> historical usage within Agora should also be looked at, where >> reasonable, as part of the game custom criterion. > > I'm very concerned about this bit and considering a motion. This >> greatly > expands the scope of what we have to remember about past rules, >> greatly > reduces clarity to new players, and considering there's many common >> terms > that we drag into rules-definitions (e.g. "refer" or whatever) they >> should > revert really quickly to common definitions when removed from the >> rules. > > Shiny was removed from the ruleset in early 2018. That's two years. > What's the limit? > > -G. > I thought that might be controversial. I think that the limit is the point at which almost no one remembers the definition. Here, the context and the recency both implied the definition. In the instance of "refer", as long as we don't leave the mechanic after returning the definition, it will almost immediately return to solely its common language definition. >> >> I may end up overturning this to some extent in CFJ 3846. I think >> there's a better way of handling language interpetation than a case by >> case full four factors analysis. I'm not sure whether we want to move >> to reconsider. > > Aris: *plans to fundamentally rethink the way Agorans look at language* > Aris: "Gee, I wonder if this is going to be controversial?" Controversial or not, if you're doing a "major review of past cases" I don't think we need to file a motion on this one, I think treating your case as a sort of appeals court and say "here's a handful of conflicting CFJs, the current standard is leading to disparate results so let's try a new standard" and not worry about re-hashing the past even if it's very recent. -G.
Re: DIS: CoE question
either choice is perfectly valid and fine, but given that stuff is always changing, you may make a mistake with the new stuff and get caught in an infinite chain at that point lol On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:28 AM ATMunn via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > so I, as I imagine others do, keep an always-current version of my > report, in addition to the actual published reports. However, my > question is this: If I publish a report, then more stuff happens (e.g. a > new contract is created), and then someone makes a CoE, is it *wrong* to > include that new stuff? i.e., does the revision have to be accurate to > the original time of publishing and nothing after, or can it (or should > it) be accurate to the time of publishing of the revision? > > -- > ATMunn > friendly neighborhood notary here :) > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fine, I destroy "Combinotron"
On 6/16/2020 5:13 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: > R. Lee wrote: > >> Once again, I intend to transfer a victory card and a legislative card from >> the L department to me, without objection. > > Right, IIRC this is just recovery from Combinotron. > >> I intend to transfer 500 coins from the L department to the plunder >> partnership, without objection > > This one, though, is it just 'because we can, if no one stops us'? Which > of course is what you'd expect the Plunder Partnership to do, but you'd > also expect others to want to be cut in on the take. (I really should > go through these contracts and see about joining one or two.) > The plundership partnership is pretty easy. You mutually agree not to object to LF intents to transfer coins to the PP (contract only covers coins not other currencies), and the members split the take as equally as possible (using the internal currency of doubloons to track everyone's share). No restrictions to join or leave except you need to cash out before you go to keep it. So it's literally cutting yourself in on the take.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fine, I destroy "Combinotron"
Just join the plunder partnership, anyone can and it'll give you a cut On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:14 AM Edward Murphy via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > R. Lee wrote: > > > Once again, I intend to transfer a victory card and a legislative card > from > > the L department to me, without objection. > > Right, IIRC this is just recovery from Combinotron. > > > I intend to transfer 500 coins from the L department to the plunder > > partnership, without objection > > This one, though, is it just 'because we can, if no one stops us'? Which > of course is what you'd expect the Plunder Partnership to do, but you'd > also expect others to want to be cut in on the take. (I really should > go through these contracts and see about joining one or two.) > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fine, I destroy "Combinotron"
R. Lee wrote: Once again, I intend to transfer a victory card and a legislative card from the L department to me, without objection. Right, IIRC this is just recovery from Combinotron. I intend to transfer 500 coins from the L department to the plunder partnership, without objection This one, though, is it just 'because we can, if no one stops us'? Which of course is what you'd expect the Plunder Partnership to do, but you'd also expect others to want to be cut in on the take. (I really should go through these contracts and see about joining one or two.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3831 and 3838 judged TRUE
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:41 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 10:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: > > > > > > On 6/13/2020 10:07 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 1:04 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > >> On 6/13/2020 9:52 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > >>> In CFJ 1500, the Court found that words should be > > >>> interpreted by their common language definition after a definition in > > >>> the rules has been overturned. The Court presently believes that this > > >>> is somewhat misguided: while the common language definition should be > > >>> used in any interpretation, the past definition in the rules and its > > >>> historical usage within Agora should also be looked at, where > > >>> reasonable, as part of the game custom criterion. > > >> > > >> I'm very concerned about this bit and considering a motion. This > greatly > > >> expands the scope of what we have to remember about past rules, > greatly > > >> reduces clarity to new players, and considering there's many common > terms > > >> that we drag into rules-definitions (e.g. "refer" or whatever) they > should > > >> revert really quickly to common definitions when removed from the > rules. > > >> > > >> Shiny was removed from the ruleset in early 2018. That's two years. > > >> What's the limit? > > >> > > >> -G. > > >> > > > > > > I thought that might be controversial. I think that the limit is the > > > point at which almost no one remembers the definition. Here, the > > > context and the recency both implied the definition. In the instance > > > of "refer", as long as we don't leave the mechanic after returning the > > > definition, it will almost immediately return to solely its common > > > language definition. > > I may end up overturning this to some extent in CFJ 3846. I think > there's a better way of handling language interpetation than a case by > case full four factors analysis. I'm not sure whether we want to move > to reconsider. Aris: *plans to fundamentally rethink the way Agorans look at language* Aris: "Gee, I wonder if this is going to be controversial?" -Aris
DIS: CoE question
so I, as I imagine others do, keep an always-current version of my report, in addition to the actual published reports. However, my question is this: If I publish a report, then more stuff happens (e.g. a new contract is created), and then someone makes a CoE, is it *wrong* to include that new stuff? i.e., does the revision have to be accurate to the original time of publishing and nothing after, or can it (or should it) be accurate to the time of publishing of the revision? -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Talismans
On 6/16/2020 4:11 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/16/20 6:59 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >>> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a player CAN, by announcement, >>> transfer the talisman for em to emself. >> Could we make this "acting as emself"? Without that, people could >> transfer eir zombies back to themselves in order to reset resale value. > > > There's a goal here (as requested by G.) not to make any changes that > impact gameplay. I don't want to re-litigate anything about zombies. > You've found something interesting, but I won't fix it here. This trick was used at least once (in 2018 sometime) and I thought about using it once or twice since then, but sorta privately decided it was unethical. No real bias on if this is bug/feature (other than my request to pull out functional changes for separate voting). >> Could we let zombies be transferred from person to person? > > Theoretically, yes. Again, however, I'm trying not to make any semantic > changes to zombies. This has been discussed before, and I might end up > writing a proposal for it, but it won't be done here. Last time this was seriously discussed (again ~2018 I think) it was controversial. Can't remember if it was voted down or never proposed. Not sure my own opinion this time but again deserves discussion on its own. -G.
Re: [Pledge Fulfillment] Re: [Cards] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Promise] Legislative for Justice
ohk On 6/16/2020 6:58 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: On 6/16/20 6:57 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: Promise, not pledge. I made a separate pledge at [0] to fill a missing part of the promise. [0]: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-June/043319.html -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Talismans
On 6/16/20 6:59 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 6/16/20 6:45 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> Alright, final chance for comments. I plan to pend this in about a day.
>>
>> I submit (but do not pend) the following proposal:
>>
>> Title: Talismans
>> Adoption index: 3.0
>> Coauthors: nch, Falsifian, G.
>>
>> {
>>
>> For the purposes of this proposal, a player's prior master is eir master
>> before this proposal applies any effects.
>>
>> Amend Rule 2532 to read, in whole:
>> {
>>
>> A talisman is an indestructible asset, tracked by the Registrar, and
>> with ownership wholly restricted to players and Agora. There exists
>> exactly one talisman for each player, and no other talismans; if one
>> does not exist for a certain player, it is created in eir posession.
>> Talismans CAN only be transferred as explicitly specified by the rules.
>> The creation, destruction, and transfer of talismans is secured.
> Secured at what power?
Rule 1688: the power of the rule itself.
>> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a player CAN, by announcement,
>> transfer the talisman for em to emself.
> Could we make this "acting as emself"? Without that, people could
> transfer eir zombies back to themselves in order to reset resale value.
There's a goal here (as requested by G.) not to make any changes that
impact gameplay. I don't want to re-litigate anything about zombies.
You've found something interesting, but I won't fix it here.
>
>> The master of a player is the
>> entity that possesses the talisman for em. A player who is eir own
>> master is active; any other player is a zombie (syn. inactive).
>>
>> The master of a zombie CAN act on behalf of em, except a master CANNOT
>> act on behalf of a zombie to:
>> - initiate, support, object to, or perform a dependent action;
>> - act on behalf of that zombie's zombies;
>> - bid in a zombie auction;
>> - enter a contract, pledge, or other type of agreement;
>> - initiate a Call for Judgement;
>> - create blots;
>> - deregister.
>>
>> If a master causes a zombie to perform an ILLEGAL action, the master
>> commits the Class 4+N Crime of Masterminding (where N is the class of
>> the illegal action).
> Let's add N=2 when the class isn't specified, just to be extra safe.
This is consistent with the existing wording, and I'm inclined not to
change it, seeing as it very probably works.
>
>> If an active player who was a zombie has not received a Welcome Package
>> since e most recently ceased being a zombie, and if eir resale value was
>> less than 2 at any point during eir most recent time as a zombie, then
>> any player CAN cause em to receive a Welcome Package by announcement.
>>
>> }
>>
>> Amend Rule 2574 to read, in whole:
>> {
>>
>> Any player CAN, with notice, transfer the talisman for an active player
>> who has not made a public announcement in the past 60 days to Agora.
>>
>> Resale value is a secured natural switch for zombies, tracked by the
>> Registrar, with a default value of 2. Whenever the talisman for a zombie
>> is transferred to a player, that zombie's resale value is decreased by
> Should we specify "a player other than emself"?
Once it's transferred to emself, e ceases to be a zombie and thus has
loses eir resale value switch, so it's pointless to specify.
>> Amend Rule 2575 by replacing the final sentence with
>> "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the talisman for the Distributor
>> is possessed by emself (and is transferred to em if it ever is not), and
>> e CANNOT deregister or be deregistered."
>>
>> For each player who is not eir own prior master, transfer the talisman
>> for em to eir prior master.
> This should probably specify "master prior to this proposal".
"Prior master" is defined at the top of the proposal.
>> }
>>
> Could we let zombies be transferred from person to person?
Theoretically, yes. Again, however, I'm trying not to make any semantic
changes to zombies. This has been discussed before, and I might end up
writing a proposal for it, but it won't be done here.
--
Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Talismans
On 6/16/20 6:45 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> Alright, final chance for comments. I plan to pend this in about a day.
>
> I submit (but do not pend) the following proposal:
>
> Title: Talismans
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Coauthors: nch, Falsifian, G.
>
> {
>
> For the purposes of this proposal, a player's prior master is eir master
> before this proposal applies any effects.
>
> Amend Rule 2532 to read, in whole:
> {
>
> A talisman is an indestructible asset, tracked by the Registrar, and
> with ownership wholly restricted to players and Agora. There exists
> exactly one talisman for each player, and no other talismans; if one
> does not exist for a certain player, it is created in eir posession.
> Talismans CAN only be transferred as explicitly specified by the rules.
> The creation, destruction, and transfer of talismans is secured.
Secured at what power?
>
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a player CAN, by announcement,
> transfer the talisman for em to emself.
Could we make this "acting as emself"? Without that, people could
transfer eir zombies back to themselves in order to reset resale value.
> The master of a player is the
> entity that possesses the talisman for em. A player who is eir own
> master is active; any other player is a zombie (syn. inactive).
>
> The master of a zombie CAN act on behalf of em, except a master CANNOT
> act on behalf of a zombie to:
> - initiate, support, object to, or perform a dependent action;
> - act on behalf of that zombie's zombies;
> - bid in a zombie auction;
> - enter a contract, pledge, or other type of agreement;
> - initiate a Call for Judgement;
> - create blots;
> - deregister.
>
> If a master causes a zombie to perform an ILLEGAL action, the master
> commits the Class 4+N Crime of Masterminding (where N is the class of
> the illegal action).
Let's add N=2 when the class isn't specified, just to be extra safe.
>
> If an active player who was a zombie has not received a Welcome Package
> since e most recently ceased being a zombie, and if eir resale value was
> less than 2 at any point during eir most recent time as a zombie, then
> any player CAN cause em to receive a Welcome Package by announcement.
>
> }
>
> Amend Rule 2574 to read, in whole:
> {
>
> Any player CAN, with notice, transfer the talisman for an active player
> who has not made a public announcement in the past 60 days to Agora.
>
> Resale value is a secured natural switch for zombies, tracked by the
> Registrar, with a default value of 2. Whenever the talisman for a zombie
> is transferred to a player, that zombie's resale value is decreased by
Should we specify "a player other than emself"?
> 1. At the end of a zombie auction, the resale value of every zombie that
> is an excess lot in that auction decreases by 1.
>
> The talisman for a zombie with zero resale value CANNOT be transferred
> to any player other than that zombie.
>
> Any player CAN, with notice:
> - If a zombie has been a zombie for the past 90 days and not had
> Agora for a master during any of that time, transfer the talisman for em
> to Agora;
> - If a player possesses more than one talisman, specify and transfer
> one of those talismans to Agora;
> - Deregister a zombie whose resale value is zero and whose master is
> Agora.
>
> The Registrar SHALL track the date for each zombie on which Agora was
> most recently eir master. The Registrar SHALL perform all POSSIBLE
> actions in the preceding paragraph in a timely fashion after first
> reporting their possibility via the facts in eir weekly report.
>
> }
>
>
> Amend Rule 1885 to read, in whole:
> {
>
> Whenever a zombie has Agora for a master and has a resale value greater
> than 0, and when eir talisman is not currently a lot in an auction and
> has not been won as an auction lot in the past 14 days, then the
> Registrar CAN put that zombie's talisman (along with any other talismans
> that fulfill the same conditions) up for auction.
>
> In a timely fashion after the beginning of each month, the Registrar
> SHALL either initiate such an auction or, if no talismans meeting these
> conditions existed at the beginning of the month, announce that no such
> auction is necessary.
>
> For such an auction, each lot consists of the talisman for one zombie,
> ordered at the discretion of the Registrar. The Registrar is the
> auctioneer, and the minimum bid is 1. The method to be used for this
> auction is the zombie auction method if such a method exists, or
> otherwise the default auction method.
>
> }
>
> Amend Rule 2575 by replacing the final sentence with
> "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the talisman for the Distributor
> is possessed by emself (and is transferred to em if it ever is not), and
> e CANNOT deregister or be deregistered."
>
> For each player who is not eir own prior master, transfer the talisman
> for em to eir prior master.
This should probably specify "master
Re: [Pledge Fulfillment] Re: [Cards] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Promise] Legislative for Justice
On 6/16/20 6:57 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > Promise, not pledge. I made a separate pledge at [0] to fill a missing part of the promise. [0]: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-June/043319.html -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: [Notary] The Notes (revision 2) [was: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Notary] The Notes (weekly report)]
On 6/16/2020 6:55 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business wrote: On 6/16/20 6:53 PM, ATMunn via agora-official wrote: On 6/16/2020 4:12 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: COE: Nobody joined the Plundership because there is no join mechanism (I'm working on a fix right now) Accepted. I publish the following revision: CoE: There are other members of the Plundership. I think the solution now would be to call a CFJ to resolve it. Contracts aren't inherently restricted by the same standards as rules, so greater inferences may be interpreted. yeah, i'm confused now, i will wait for a CFJ -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: [Pledge Fulfillment] Re: [Cards] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Promise] Legislative for Justice
Promise, not pledge. On 6/16/2020 5:16 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: On 6/16/20 5:10 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business wrote: Okay, here's another try: If all of the following actions succeed, I grant Jason a Justice Card and transfer a Legislative Card to em, I transfer eir promise from the Library to myself and cash it. I believe that works. I transfer a Justice Card to PSS, thus fulfilling my pledge to do so. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
DIS: Re: BUS: sanity clause
On 6/16/20 6:51 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
> [I can't remember if this has been done before, sorry if it's a repeat]
>
>
> I consent to the following contract, the Groucho Marx Club:
> {G. CANNOT become a party to the Groucho Marx Club}.
Brief gratuitous:
Because this contract cannot have any parties, it cannot be a contract.
--
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate
Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Honor among Pirates [Attn. All "Pirates"]
On 6/16/2020 1:31 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 20:17, Cuddle Beam wrote: >> I could have just let this pass and banked some MAJOR coinage but the >> long-term consequences of having people be paranoid about my contracts >> isn't worth it imo, I much prefer to have people's trust that I won't >> betray them on contracts. So, the thing is that there is a bug in the >> Plunder contract - nobody could join because there was no join mechanism. > > It's not obvious to me that it doesn't work without a mechanism. > > R2125 is what prevents actions without mechanisms from working, but it > only applies to bodies of law. Is a contract a body of law? > > - Falsifian > The mechanism is R1742's "publicly make an agreement among themselves" which is a natural thing that one can do, supported by the R2519 definition of "consent" that refines what constitutes making an agreement. The question comes down to what the default assumption is in R1742 in terms of who "themselves" are. When a person proffers a contract with no explicit join mechanism, is e "agreeing" that other people can "agree" with em via consent? My assumption would be that a public-posted contract posted with a clear intent that people join would allow joining. Interesting test cases (if a contract text has nothing explicit): if the author introduces it with "here's a contract that I agree that any player can join" versus "here's a contract that I only agree to joining with Player X or Y" versus not saying anything. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Promise] Legislative for Justice
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020, 1:56 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-business wrote:
> On 6/16/20 4:48 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> > On 6/13/20 12:58 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> >> I create the following promise:
> >>
> >> Title: Legislative for Justice
> >>
> >> Text:
> >>
> >> {
> >>
> >> Cashing conditions: {Jason CAN, under Rule 2624, by announcement grant
> >> the bearer a Legislative Card; the bearer has, in the same message as
> >> which e cashes this promise, granted Jason a Justice Card via Rule 2624;
> >> the bearer, in the same message as which e cashes this promise,
> >> transfers Jason at least one Legislative Card.}
> >>
> >> Using the mechanism specified in Rule 2624, I grant the bearer a
> >> Legislative Card.
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >> I transfer the above-created promise to the Library.
> >>
> >
> > I intend, without objection, to revoke the above promise from the
> > Library (since nobody's taken me up on it).
> >
>
> Actually, I'll take you up on this. All actions taken in this message
> are dependent on the success of the others. If any of these actions
> fail, I have taken none of them.
>
> I grant Jason a Justice Card and transfer a Legislative Card to em.
> Acting on eir behalf, I grant myself a Legislative Card.
>
Promises work a tad differently from other types of acting on behalf. What
you want to say is 'I grant Jason a Justice Card and transfer a Legislative
Card to em. I take the promise entitled "Legislative for Justice" from the
Library and cash it.'
-Aris
>
Re: [Cards] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Promise] Legislative for Justice
On 6/16/20 5:00 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business wrote: > If all of the following actions succeed, I transfer Jason's promise from > the Library to myself, I grant Jason a Justice Card and transfer a > Legislative Card to em, I cash this promise, and, acting on eir behalf, > I grant myself a Legislative Card. *sigh*, I'm sorry about this. Cashing the promise was the acting on my behalf, so you couldn't act on my behalf again, which means that none of the actions succeeded. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Promise] Legislative for Justice
On 6/16/20 4:57 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > I believe you need to explicitly say that you cash the promise. Oh, and you need to transfer the promise from the Library to yourself: > The Library is an entity and CAN own promises. Any player CAN take > a specified promise from the Library by announcement, provided e > cashes the promise in the same message. Any player CAN revoke a > specified promise from the Library without objection. > -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: [Promise] Legislative for Justice
On 6/16/20 4:56 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business wrote: > I grant Jason a Justice Card and transfer a Legislative Card to em. > Acting on eir behalf, I grant myself a Legislative Card. I believe you need to explicitly say that you cash the promise. Rule 2618: > A promise's bearer CAN, by announcement, cash the promise, > provided that any conditions for cashing it specified by its text > are unambiguously met. By doing so, e acts on the creator of the > promise's behalf, causing the creator to act as if e published the > promise's text, and destroys the promise. The bearer SHOULD recite > the promise's essential attributes in the same message e cashes > it. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Promise] Legislative for Justice
On 6/16/20 4:49 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote: > What's the difference between Promises and NAX? Promises are acting-on-behalf and are in the rules, while NAX is simply transferring assets around. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: [Promise] Legislative for Justice
What's the difference between Promises and NAX?
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:48 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 6/13/20 12:58 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> > I create the following promise:
> >
> > Title: Legislative for Justice
> >
> > Text:
> >
> > {
> >
> > Cashing conditions: {Jason CAN, under Rule 2624, by announcement grant
> > the bearer a Legislative Card; the bearer has, in the same message as
> > which e cashes this promise, granted Jason a Justice Card via Rule 2624;
> > the bearer, in the same message as which e cashes this promise,
> > transfers Jason at least one Legislative Card.}
> >
> > Using the mechanism specified in Rule 2624, I grant the bearer a
> > Legislative Card.
> >
> > }
> >
> >
> > I transfer the above-created promise to the Library.
> >
>
> I intend, without objection, to revoke the above promise from the
> Library (since nobody's taken me up on it).
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
>
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer’s locker
Yeah, the intent was to use the same wording as the deregistration protection in R869 "A player, acting as emself, CAN deregister (cease being a player) by announcement.", unless this style of wording to protect against acting-on-behalf deregs actually doesn't work. On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:03 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/16/20 3:01 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > I'm not sure the "acting as Cuddlebeam" language does what it's meant > > to. Someone acting on your behalf via a contract scam is already > > "acting as Cuddlebeam". > > > I read it as a more roundabout method of saying "acting as emself". > > -- > Jason Cobb > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Honor among Pirates [Attn. All "Pirates"]
On 6/16/20 4:31 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > R2125 is what prevents actions without mechanisms from working, but it > only applies to bodies of law. Is a contract a body of law? Not yet, but I've been meaning to write that up after we try regulations. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: Honor among Pirates [Attn. All "Pirates"]
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 20:17, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > I could have just let this pass and banked some MAJOR coinage but the > long-term consequences of having people be paranoid about my contracts > isn't worth it imo, I much prefer to have people's trust that I won't > betray them on contracts. So, the thing is that there is a bug in the > Plunder contract - nobody could join because there was no join mechanism. It's not obvious to me that it doesn't work without a mechanism. R2125 is what prevents actions without mechanisms from working, but it only applies to bodies of law. Is a contract a body of law? - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3831 and 3838 judged TRUE
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 10:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > > On 6/13/2020 10:07 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 1:04 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> On 6/13/2020 9:52 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > >>> In CFJ 1500, the Court found that words should be > >>> interpreted by their common language definition after a definition in > >>> the rules has been overturned. The Court presently believes that this > >>> is somewhat misguided: while the common language definition should be > >>> used in any interpretation, the past definition in the rules and its > >>> historical usage within Agora should also be looked at, where > >>> reasonable, as part of the game custom criterion. > >> > >> I'm very concerned about this bit and considering a motion. This greatly > >> expands the scope of what we have to remember about past rules, greatly > >> reduces clarity to new players, and considering there's many common terms > >> that we drag into rules-definitions (e.g. "refer" or whatever) they should > >> revert really quickly to common definitions when removed from the rules. > >> > >> Shiny was removed from the ruleset in early 2018. That's two years. > >> What's the limit? > >> > >> -G. > >> > > > > I thought that might be controversial. I think that the limit is the > > point at which almost no one remembers the definition. Here, the > > context and the recency both implied the definition. In the instance > > of "refer", as long as we don't leave the mechanic after returning the > > definition, it will almost immediately return to solely its common > > language definition. I may end up overturning this to some extent in CFJ 3846. I think there's a better way of handling language interpetation than a case by case full four factors analysis. I'm not sure whether we want to move to reconsider. -Aris
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3843 Assigned to Murphy
> The set {Cuddlebeam's Master Switch, Agora's Ruleset} fails to satisfy
> the second part.
Jason argued the set is distinct from its elements. I don't think it
would change the judgement, but it might change the arguments. Not
sure if it's worth re-opening.
(Jason argued that the contract could indeed destroy the set, but that
wouldn't do anything because it's just the set that's destroyed. A
possible counter to that could be that the set exists independent of
whether anything happens to refer to it, since we seem to have a
Platonic attitude here, which would mean Murphy's argument that it
fails the second condition still works.)
- Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer’s locker
On 6/16/20 3:01 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > I'm not sure the "acting as Cuddlebeam" language does what it's meant > to. Someone acting on your behalf via a contract scam is already > "acting as Cuddlebeam". I read it as a more roundabout method of saying "acting as emself". -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer’s locker
> Cuddlebeam is the only party to this contract. Cuddlebeam, while acting as > Cuddlebeam and with Cuddlebeam’s consent, CAN amend this contract by > announcement. > > Cuddlebeam, while acting as Cuddlebeam and with Cuddlebeam’s consent, CAN > transfer Assets from this Contract to Cuddlebeam. I'm not sure the "acting as Cuddlebeam" language does what it's meant to. Someone acting on your behalf via a contract scam is already "acting as Cuddlebeam". - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Who is aiming for Victory Cards/Points?
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 19:36, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/14/2020 12:15 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote: > > Small survey for who is aiming for Victory Cards/Points because barring a > > scam surprising us, it’s going to be way harder to win if someone has to > > compete with someone else to get that 20 VP margin. > > > > I personally would like to aim for VPs, but if anyone else is, I don’t mind > > making a deal with them or just conceding the race in exchange for coins or > > other stuff. > > > > The fact that a VP win resets the whole economy means there may be > significant pressure to stop it even from those who aren't trying to win. > "Winning" by VPs is effectively economic revolution (destroys any existing > oligarchy and makes everyone equal again). > > (I'm not committing to any strategy personally right now, just pointing > that out - far to early to commit to a particular strategy). > > -G. It seems to me winning is the point of a game, so I would probably try to prevent people other than myself from winning just on that principle (unless we're winning together). - Falsifian
Re: DIS: [Webmastor] Informal Polling
> * What should be on the main page? [it's pretty outdated now, and I feel > like it could use a facelift and some new copy] Information for people who want to know what Agora is. I think the current content is pretty good for that. I think having recent events and up-to-date information about the game state is useful, since it serves as an example for someone learning about Agora, but isn't more important than other general information about the game. So, I'm not keen on reformatting the whole thing as a blog, but adding a "recent events" section could be good. Maybe just links to the last few weekly summaries? I could make updating those part of my routine. The styling seems fine to me. > * What kinds of tips should go on a New Player page? Not directly answering this... Right now the home page says "there ... 130 rules, but you are not expected to know all of them when you start" but also says "Before joining, you should probably read the rules". These seem mildly contradictory, and personally, I lean toward the second statement: it's good to know the rules. (This is one argument for trying to keep the ruleset simple.) > * What online resources do you use the most? I keep https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr-fresh.txt open in a tab most of the time. Other than that: G.'s CFJ archive, and the list archives (for sending links to messages, and for looking up things from before I subscribed). > * What resources do you wish were online? Old theses! > * How do you access Agora? [your email's web client, a desktop client, > phone client] GMail. (I'm in the process of moving away from GMail but haven't figured out which client I'll use.) > * Any tips or tricks that you use on the devices/software that you > access Agora through that you find indispensable? I've got my own quirky way of handling GMail. I disable conversation view so that I can archive individual emails as I deal with them, and so that an entire thread doesn't leap back out of the archive just because of one reply to it. To cope with the lack of threading I use a lot of searches like [in:inbox subject:informal]. Er, you probably shouldn't give this advice to anyone, but there you are. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Attempt To Amend Codependancy Contract
People could make safebox contracts that only they can access (like my Locker contract), to avoid getting robbed like that, although it's more work on the officers to constantly withdraw and deposit from one... On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 3:12 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/16/20 9:08 AM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > > while you're at it, can you have arbitrators order other things too, like > > transferring assets? > > > The entire goal was to avoid having to deal with this and its > consequences. Right now, arbitrators are strongly limited (they can only > grant blots, and only up to a certain number) and people know what they > are signing up for. If these powers were expanded, arbitrators could > become a lot more exploitative, like transferring all of a perp's assets > to emself, and there would be no easy way to reverse it. > > -- > Jason Cobb > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Tarot
I was going to buy all of them, but I dont have enough coins On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:10 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Maybe one of the others has what you're looking for... > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 3:07 PM Rebecca via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > damn i was sure these would actually be important in some way but they're > > even lamer than the other ones. this is a sad day. > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:20 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-business < > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > I transfer 50 coins to my locker. > > > > > > I then Fortunetell each of these cards! Here is your fortune, R.Lee! > (The > > > hashes are SHA-256, done with this: > > > https://emn178.github.io/online-tools/sha256.html) > > > > > > > > > I - THE PLAYER: you will have good luck with proposals > > > > > > II - THE ANNOUNCEMENT: if you are smart about it you will earn a lot of > > > money > > > > > > III - THE JUDGE: a scam is looming close to you so be careful or take > > > the opportunity > > > > > > IV - THE SCAM: fortune will smile upon you if you do what needs to be > > done > > > > > > V - THE RIBBON: you are forgetting something important > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 1:53 PM Rebecca via agora-business < > > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > I transfer 50 coins to cuddlebeam in order to do so. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:26 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < > > > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think you need to make an explicit transfer > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:25 PM Rebecca via agora-business < > > > > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I buy each of the first five listed tarot cards in Cuddlebeam's > > > > > > mystical contract > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > From R. Lee > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > From R. Lee > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 1:53 PM Rebecca via agora-business < > > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > I transfer 50 coins to cuddlebeam in order to do so. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:26 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < > > > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think you need to make an explicit transfer > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:25 PM Rebecca via agora-business < > > > > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I buy each of the first five listed tarot cards in Cuddlebeam's > > > > > > mystical contract > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > From R. Lee > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > From R. Lee > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > From R. Lee > > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Attempt To Amend Codependancy Contract
On 6/16/20 9:08 AM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > while you're at it, can you have arbitrators order other things too, like > transferring assets? The entire goal was to avoid having to deal with this and its consequences. Right now, arbitrators are strongly limited (they can only grant blots, and only up to a certain number) and people know what they are signing up for. If these powers were expanded, arbitrators could become a lot more exploitative, like transferring all of a perp's assets to emself, and there would be no easy way to reverse it. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Tarot
Maybe one of the others has what you're looking for... On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 3:07 PM Rebecca via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > damn i was sure these would actually be important in some way but they're > even lamer than the other ones. this is a sad day. > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:20 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I transfer 50 coins to my locker. > > > > I then Fortunetell each of these cards! Here is your fortune, R.Lee! (The > > hashes are SHA-256, done with this: > > https://emn178.github.io/online-tools/sha256.html) > > > > > > I - THE PLAYER: you will have good luck with proposals > > > > II - THE ANNOUNCEMENT: if you are smart about it you will earn a lot of > > money > > > > III - THE JUDGE: a scam is looming close to you so be careful or take > > the opportunity > > > > IV - THE SCAM: fortune will smile upon you if you do what needs to be > done > > > > V - THE RIBBON: you are forgetting something important > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 1:53 PM Rebecca via agora-business < > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > I transfer 50 coins to cuddlebeam in order to do so. > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:26 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < > > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > I think you need to make an explicit transfer > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:25 PM Rebecca via agora-business < > > > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I buy each of the first five listed tarot cards in Cuddlebeam's > > > > > mystical contract > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > From R. Lee > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > From R. Lee > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 1:53 PM Rebecca via agora-business < > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > I transfer 50 coins to cuddlebeam in order to do so. > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:26 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < > > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > I think you need to make an explicit transfer > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:25 PM Rebecca via agora-business < > > > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I buy each of the first five listed tarot cards in Cuddlebeam's > > > > > mystical contract > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > From R. Lee > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > From R. Lee > > > > > > > > -- > From R. Lee >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Attempt To Amend Codependancy Contract
while you're at it, can you have arbitrators order other things too, like transferring assets? On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:52 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/16/20 6:25 AM, nch via agora-business wrote: > > On 6/15/20 10:59 PM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > >> I want to amend (if nch agrees) the contract Co Dependants by adding on > the > >> end > >> > >> "All members to this contract shall be members of and be bound by the > >> Agoran Arbitration Association contract" > >> > >> I consent to this amendment and become a party to the AAA > >> > >> -- > >> From R. Lee > > I consent to this change and become a party to the AAA. > > > > Thanks for joining, but AAA won't work on your current setup because a > SHALL violation causes the responsible party to cease being a party. Let > me do some drafting and see if I can amend AAA to make it work... > > -- > Jason Cobb > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Tarot
damn i was sure these would actually be important in some way but they're even lamer than the other ones. this is a sad day. On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:20 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I transfer 50 coins to my locker. > > I then Fortunetell each of these cards! Here is your fortune, R.Lee! (The > hashes are SHA-256, done with this: > https://emn178.github.io/online-tools/sha256.html) > > > I - THE PLAYER: you will have good luck with proposals > > II - THE ANNOUNCEMENT: if you are smart about it you will earn a lot of > money > > III - THE JUDGE: a scam is looming close to you so be careful or take > the opportunity > > IV - THE SCAM: fortune will smile upon you if you do what needs to be done > > V - THE RIBBON: you are forgetting something important > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 1:53 PM Rebecca via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I transfer 50 coins to cuddlebeam in order to do so. > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:26 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > I think you need to make an explicit transfer > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:25 PM Rebecca via agora-business < > > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > I buy each of the first five listed tarot cards in Cuddlebeam's > > > > mystical contract > > > > > > > > -- > > > > From R. Lee > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > From R. Lee > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 1:53 PM Rebecca via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I transfer 50 coins to cuddlebeam in order to do so. > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:26 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > I think you need to make an explicit transfer > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:25 PM Rebecca via agora-business < > > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > I buy each of the first five listed tarot cards in Cuddlebeam's > > > > mystical contract > > > > > > > > -- > > > > From R. Lee > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > From R. Lee > > > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: Attempt To Amend Codependancy Contract
On 6/16/20 6:25 AM, nch via agora-business wrote: > On 6/15/20 10:59 PM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: >> I want to amend (if nch agrees) the contract Co Dependants by adding on the >> end >> >> "All members to this contract shall be members of and be bound by the >> Agoran Arbitration Association contract" >> >> I consent to this amendment and become a party to the AAA >> >> -- >> From R. Lee > I consent to this change and become a party to the AAA. > Thanks for joining, but AAA won't work on your current setup because a SHALL violation causes the responsible party to cease being a party. Let me do some drafting and see if I can amend AAA to make it work... -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: Tarot
I think you need to make an explicit transfer On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:25 PM Rebecca via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I buy each of the first five listed tarot cards in Cuddlebeam's > mystical contract > > -- > From R. Lee >
