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

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

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

¯\_(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

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

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: 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

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: 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

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: 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

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

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: 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: 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

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

Re: DIS: Upgrading

I see your point on multiset - on reflection not as bad as my first reaction. I think overall we're looking at some clarifications in both a new fee rule and current assets rule so will aim for an organized whole on the next draft... On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > Thank you for the

Re: DIS: Upgrading

Thank you for the explanatio. If you're CFJ point is correct, it would be equivalent to "I do X 0 times", which is effective at doing nothing. I believe the actor would be required to do nothing, which anyone CAN do by definition. As your rule is currently written, I believe that it would work,

Re: DIS: Upgrading

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, 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 haven't paid > the specified fee for the action, so I can't do anything. The only case > where it comes up is when

Re: DIS: Upgrading

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 haven't paid the specified fee for the action, so I can't do anything. The only case where it comes up is when the fee for an action is defined as 0, in which

Re: DIS: Upgrading

We need an exception for the empty set. A long time ago, there was an argument about whether "I pay a fee of 0" was paying a fee (allowing the action) or not paying a fee (no transfer occurring). [The CFJ answer then depending on exact wording so is not applicable to present-day]. Now we

Re: DIS: Upgrading

No point in doing a quick and dirty solution when we could have a full fix before the next distribution. My crystals proposal would define them as the economic currencies. I'll have a new version of it this week, aiming to get it into the next distribution. -Aris On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 4:19 PM

Re: DIS: Upgrading

Well, I'm just gonna add that to the list of things I've broken. I haven't read through this thread all the way but it looks like things have gotten pretty technical. HOWEVER, I'm glad this is finally being addressed. The quickest solution would be just to add a clause that says if Agora owns

Re: DIS: Upgrading

I think you mean a non-empty multiset. Also, I don't see any reason to require the set to be non-empty. That's sensible for constant fees but could break some types of variable fee. Here's a phrasing that includes the default and rounds correctly: "If the Rules associate payment of a multiset of

Re: DIS: Upgrading

How about using some variant of "in exchange for the performance of the action"? You can't exchange Z for both X and Y unless they count as a single action, under the common definitions of the relevant terms. -Aris On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >

Re: DIS: Upgrading

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 13:30 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > To perform a fee-based action, an entity (the Actor) who is > > otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e > > is performing the action; the announcement

Re: DIS: Upgrading

On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 13:30 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > To perform a fee-based action, an entity (the Actor) who is > otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e > is performing the action; the announcement must specify the > correct set of assets

Re: DIS: Upgrading

I tried a version with general assets, if this is ugly can restrict to currencies... Proto v2: Let's really define payment solidly please, finally. Create the following Rule, Fee-based actions: If the Rules associate payment of a non-empty set of assets (hereafter the fee for

Re: DIS: Upgrading

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: If the Rules associate a non-negative fee (syn: cost, price, charge), with an action, or state that an action CAN be performed by paying a fee, that

Re: DIS: Upgrading

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Proto : Let's really define payment solidly please, finally. > > > > > > Create the following Rule, Fee-based actions: > > > > If the Rules associate a non-negative fee (syn: cost, price, > >

Re: DIS: Upgrading

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: Proto : Let's really define payment solidly please, finally. Create the following Rule, Fee-based actions: If the Rules associate a non-negative fee (syn: cost, price, charge), with an action, or state that an action CAN be performed

Re: DIS: Upgrading

A contract still can! It doesn't need permission from the rules. It can write: "If this contract defines a fee action, it works as if the fee were defined in the rules." Then for all contract purposes it should work. On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Kenyon Prater wrote: > It might be interesting to

Re: DIS: Upgrading

It might be interesting to allow contracts to define fee based actions in the same way that contracts can define assets. Other than that, which I'm not sure is worth the headache, I like this proto. On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 11:56 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Proto : Let's

Re: DIS: Upgrading

Proto : Let's really define payment solidly please, finally. Create the following Rule, Fee-based actions: If the Rules associate a non-negative fee (syn: cost, price, charge), with an action, or state that an action CAN be performed by paying a fee, that action is a

Re: DIS: Upgrading

So I can pay the assets to Quazie (or myself, though that would be more legally contestable)? Awesome! ~Corona On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Corona wrote: > > I was about to build something, but then I noticed: >> >>A

Re: DIS: Upgrading

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Corona wrote: I was about to build something, but then I noticed: 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. What does "paying"