Re: DIS: Upgrading

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: Something else fun: If an entity other than Agora owns any facilities with upkeep costs, e must pay them before the first day of the next Agoran month. If I paid once, two months ago, I've still paid them before the first day of

DIS: the next financial tool

(Useful for all kinds of upkeep costs) A switch is a Debt switch have possible values consisting of sets of Rules-defined currencies (the debt load), with a default of value of empty (0). Any non-empty debt load is "unpaid", a empty debt is "paid" or "paid off".

Re: DIS: Upgrading

This is getting hilarious... *Searches ruleset for "pay"* Hm, looks like there are no more such errors. Greetings, Ørjan. On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Corona wrote: Whoops... (emphasis mine) " If an entity other than Agora owns any facilities with upkeep costs, e must pay them

Re: DIS: the next financial tool

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: (Useful for all kinds of upkeep costs) A switch is a Debt switch have possible values consisting of sets of Rules-defined currencies (the debt load), with a default of value of empty (0). I think something has been deleted in that sentence.

Re: DIS: Nerf Zombies

Another (probably unpopular) option: Just get rid of zombies altogether. On 4/26/2018 2:29 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: It's clear that zombies are way to powerful and need to be weakened substantially. Proposed restrictions: - 1 zombie per player max - Zombies can be deregistered by announcement

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Setting up money-printing machine

The scam comes from here: A player CAN increase the rank of a facility e owns that is at eir location by exactly 1 by announcement by paying any upgrade costs of the facility for that specific rank. "Pay" doesn't say "pay to Agora". And the Assets rule says "Pay" is a

Re: DIS: Upgrading

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:00 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > By contrast, if > we both think of the number 1, we're both thinking of the exact same > number, because it's a singleton. Thanks - this sentence gave me a lightbulb moment

Re: DIS: Upgrading

Really the problem is that defining "pay" = "transfer" is a complete redefinition of "pay" from common usage, and everyone's using common usage... unfortunately that definition is in a high-powered rule. BUT: Does everyone accept that "pay without destination" automatically mean "paying

Re: DIS: Upgrading

Whoops... (emphasis mine) " If an entity other than Agora owns any facilities with upkeep costs, e must pay them before the first day of the next Agoran month. Failing to do this destroys the facility. In the second to last Eastman week of the Agoran Month, the

Re: DIS: Upgrading

Well, that would mean that Trigon would inevitably lose eir farm. (e couldn't pay upkeep) According to R2125, you must use metho​ds "explicitly specified" in the rules (which I did, the rule should be IMO interpreted as simply not caring about the recipient), I don't see anything about rules

Re: DIS: Upgrading

Something else fun: > If an entity other than Agora owns any facilities with upkeep > costs, e must pay them before the first day of the next > Agoran month. If I paid once, two months ago, I've still paid them before the first day of the next month: therefore each

Re: DIS: Nerf Zombies

I'd like zombies to die of old age. Otherwise, players could stay registered indefinitely, and the number of zombies only increases. It seems somehow... unnatural to me for people to stay registered forever. It's hard to explain, but I kind of feel like they've died, if perhaps reversibly, and we

Re: DIS: Nerf Zombies

Potential hole: players are, for the most part, against deregistering omd. Therefore, you can count on em always being a stable bet, making the owner of omd overpowered. I do agree that the one zombie per player rule makes lots of sense. Additional idea: what if all of the zombies are

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Setting up money-printing machine

Just for people who look in the future but don't read other threads, and as a form of penance: ignore what I said about there not being a scam. I was being tired/stupid and apparently didn't read the text. So ignore the first two sentences of by below message, although the rest is still true.

Re: DIS: Nerf Zombies

This scam was due to the pay bug and could have been done (sorta) with contracts too, right? On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > It's clear that zombies are way to powerful and need to be weakened > substantially. Proposed restrictions: > > - 1 zombie per player max > - Zombies can be

Re: DIS: Nerf Zombies

The zombie thing wasn't an immediate response to that part of the scam. TBH, I'm really really tired (I've got a cold at the moment), and I missed the fact that there was even a scam to start with, thinking instead that it was just that it was just somehow too easy to pay for things. I have no

Re: DIS: Nerf Zombies

What was the scam? On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:08 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > The zombie thing wasn't an immediate response to that part of the scam. > TBH, I'm really really tired (I've got a cold at the moment), and I missed > the fact that there was even a

DIS: Nerf Zombies

It's clear that zombies are way to powerful and need to be weakened substantially. Proposed restrictions: - 1 zombie per player max - Zombies can be deregistered by announcement after a month as zombies -Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: Setting up money-printing machine

I hate... everything about this message. And to think I'm behind all of it, too, at least indirectly. Ah well. It was inevitable. Have fun being the most powerful person in the game. On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 23:24 Corona wrote: > Hopefully this is not going to fail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Setting up money-printing machine

Okay, it's way too easy to reach high ranks with facilities. This isn't a scam, or even clearly abusive, but I think we probably need to fix it with a proposal of some sort. There are other ways of fixing it though, including perhaps forming a collective to defeat the capitalists and take back the

Re: DIS: the next financial tool

I'm sorry, but to me this really sounds lime you're talking about types of rule defined currency, not instances. This is especially clear because one can't have a set of instances that does not describe specific instances, which this one can't because it's general (you can pay it off with anything

Re: DIS: Upgrading

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: I tried a version with general assets, if this is ugly can restrict to currencies... If the Rules associate payment of a non-empty set of assets (hereafter the fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an

DIS: Nerf Zombies

I hope you don't hold it against me. My original plan was to build a mine, orchard & refinery, all at level 2, which I could comfortably buy (so I would probably become the richest player regardless of the scam, with 28 coins/week & negligible upkeep). When I was going over the rules to make sure

Re: DIS: Nerf Zombies

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote: What was the scam? "paying" is currently a synonym for "transferring". The rule about upgrading facilities doesn't say that the payments have to be to Agora, so Corona just transferred back and forth with eir Zombie Quazie. Greetings, Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Upgrading

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: Also, I like the multiset. The wording seems to me to be a clean, generic In my intuition, all multisets of assets are currently sets, because there are no *truly* identity-free assets. But it might be better for other people's intuition I guess.

Re: DIS: Upgrading

I agree with the general sentiment. If there's ever a time to explicit, it's now, after our current phrasing debacle. However, in this particular instance saying without a specified recipient is actually clearer and more specific than the whole dative indirect object mess. -Aris On Thu, Apr 26,

Re: DIS: Upgrading

Can't we just use a phrase like "whenever a rule states that somebody shall pay, but does not specify a recipient of the payment" I would like our ruleset to be as understandable as possible, please. On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:01 AM, ATMunn wrote: > ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > > > On

Re: DIS: Upgrading

I'm trying to replace the current: "CAN do the thing by announcement by paying 3 Coins to Agora while specifying that e is doing it yadda yadda" that has to be in every rule right now, with "CAN do the thing for a fee of 3 coins". That requires a legalese-rich general rule, that you don't

Re: DIS: Upgrading

At this point in reading through the DIS: Upgrading thread I kinda gave up trying to understand what's going on. :P On 4/25/2018 8:38 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: Hang on for a second. I don't get what wrong with paying a fee of 0. The fee for a given action is defined. If I pay a fee of 0, then I

Re: DIS: Upgrading

"with no indirect object" by itself would not work in a rule, because "I pay x things to y" is the same as "I pay y x things," but the former has no indirect object (y is in a prepositional phrase). On 4/25/2018 7:21 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: Well, I'm just gonna add that to the list of

Re: DIS: Upgrading

Okay, a bunch of sources I read kept disagreeing with me, and some of them sounded pretty certain about it. So I checked the OED (which is clearly infallible). There all a whole set of sense under VIII, and the descreption for that is "Supplying the place of the dative in various other languages

Re: DIS: Upgrading

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ On 4/26/2018 8:53 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: Okay, a bunch of sources I read kept disagreeing with me, and some of them sounded pretty certain about it. So I checked the OED (which is clearly infallible). There all a whole set of sense under VIII, and the descreption for that is

Re: DIS: Upgrading

I'm 90% sure that it's still also the indirect object. In Latin, it's marked with the dative case (indicating an indirect object) rather than with a preposition, but is still translated as to. It also makes significantly more sense that way, because it receives the action of the verb indirectly.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] The Map of Arcadia -- April 24, 2018

After reading some of the other messages, I change my mind, I'll keep my land. On 4/26/2018 9:37 AM, ATMunn wrote: Honestly, I have no idea what I'm doing so sure. On 4/25/2018 10:09 AM, Corona wrote: Wanna sell? I offer 15 coins. On Wednesday, April 25, 2018, ATMunn

Re: DIS: Upgrading

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > Also, I like the multiset. The wording seems to me to be a clean, generic > > In my intuition, all multisets of assets are currently sets, because there are > no *truly* identity-free assets. But it

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Setting up money-printing machine

I don't see how it is a scam though. On 4/26/2018 3:14 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: Just for people who look in the future but don't read other threads, and as a form of penance: ignore what I said about there not being a scam. I was being tired/stupid and apparently didn't read the text. So ignore

Re: DIS: Upgrading

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:00 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > > > Also, I like the multiset. The wording seems to me to be a clean, > generic > > > > In my intuition, all multisets

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] The Map of Arcadia -- April 24, 2018

Honestly, I have no idea what I'm doing so sure. On 4/25/2018 10:09 AM, Corona wrote: Wanna sell? I offer 15 coins. On Wednesday, April 25, 2018, ATMunn wrote: Actually, that was in the single auction, so there's nothing really that I could do about that. But it