Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Aris Merchant]

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, 2018 at 9:04 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> 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 have to read
> ever, unless you really want to, that says "'for a fee' means it's done
> by announcement and paid to Agora and it works like you'd generally
> expect and here's how it handles the edge cases" and so forth and so on.
>
> But it makes the rest of the rules much easier to read and less buggy
> to write.
>
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> > 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 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 "Supplying the place of the dative in various other
> languages
> > >> and in the earlier stages of English itself." Further, under 32a, it
> goes
> > >> so far as to say "*a.* In the syntactical const. of many transitive
> verbs,
> > >> introducing the indirect or dative object." So I think it's still
> fine,
> > >> but
> > >> it would be more technically the dative. Simple fix: put
> "(technically,
> > >> with no dative)" afterward to clear up any ambiguity. People who don't
> > >> know
> > >> what a dative is can just pay attention to the indirect object bit,
> and
> > >> still be at least sort of correct.
> > >>
> > >> -Aris
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:40 PM Aris Merchant <
> > >> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> 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. When I show something to you, offer it to you, and
> then
> > >>> give it to you, you're receiving some of the action of the verb in
> each
> > >>> case. This differs from me going to you, in which case it can be
> replaced
> > >>> with towards, and merely indicates motion. This [1] also agrees with
> me,
> > >>> see sense English preposition #9. English grammar appears to
> indicate it
> > >>> as
> > >>> if it were an ordinary prepositional phrase, but it's semantically
> still
> > >>> also the indirect object (the two are interchangeable at any rate).
> All
> > >>> the
> > >>> sources I can find are rather informal and pragmatic though, and
> seem to
> > >>> disagree, so it's possible I'm wrong about this.
> > >>>
> > >>> [1] https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/to
> > >>>
> > >>> -Aris
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:13 PM ATMunn 
> wrote:
> > >>>
> >  
> >  "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 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 any PAoaM currencies, they are instead destroyed and
> then
> > > alias "pay" with no indirect object to "transfer to Agora"
> > >
> > > Speaking of PAoaM currencies, they should have a collective name,
> no?
> > >
> > > On 04/25/2018 04:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > >>
> > >> 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:
> > >>
> > >> 

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Kerim Aydin]

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 have to read
ever, unless you really want to, that says "'for a fee' means it's done
by announcement and paid to Agora and it works like you'd generally
expect and here's how it handles the edge cases" and so forth and so on.

But it makes the rest of the rules much easier to read and less buggy
to write.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> 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 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 "Supplying the place of the dative in various other languages
> >> and in the earlier stages of English itself." Further, under 32a, it goes
> >> so far as to say "*a.* In the syntactical const. of many transitive verbs,
> >> introducing the indirect or dative object." So I think it's still fine,
> >> but
> >> it would be more technically the dative. Simple fix: put "(technically,
> >> with no dative)" afterward to clear up any ambiguity. People who don't
> >> know
> >> what a dative is can just pay attention to the indirect object bit, and
> >> still be at least sort of correct.
> >>
> >> -Aris
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:40 PM Aris Merchant <
> >> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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. When I show something to you, offer it to you, and then
> >>> give it to you, you're receiving some of the action of the verb in each
> >>> case. This differs from me going to you, in which case it can be replaced
> >>> with towards, and merely indicates motion. This [1] also agrees with me,
> >>> see sense English preposition #9. English grammar appears to indicate it
> >>> as
> >>> if it were an ordinary prepositional phrase, but it's semantically still
> >>> also the indirect object (the two are interchangeable at any rate). All
> >>> the
> >>> sources I can find are rather informal and pragmatic though, and seem to
> >>> disagree, so it's possible I'm wrong about this.
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/to
> >>>
> >>> -Aris
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:13 PM ATMunn  wrote:
> >>>
>  
>  "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 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 any PAoaM currencies, they are instead destroyed and then
> > alias "pay" with no indirect object to "transfer to Agora"
> >
> > Speaking of PAoaM currencies, they should have a collective name, no?
> >
> > On 04/25/2018 04:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >>
> >> 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 assets (hereafter the
> >> fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
> >> action, that action is a fee-based action. If the fee is a specified
> >> in terms of a non-natural number of assets, the fee is rounded up to
> >> the nearest natural number. If the fee is specified in terms of a
> >> number without a specified unit, the unit is the official currency of
> >> Agora."
> >>
> >> This allows complex fees, which is fine, given that a complex (or
> >> otherwise unreal) fee is impossible 

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Ned Strange]

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 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 "Supplying the place of the dative in various other languages
>> and in the earlier stages of English itself." Further, under 32a, it goes
>> so far as to say "*a.* In the syntactical const. of many transitive verbs,
>> introducing the indirect or dative object." So I think it's still fine,
>> but
>> it would be more technically the dative. Simple fix: put "(technically,
>> with no dative)" afterward to clear up any ambiguity. People who don't
>> know
>> what a dative is can just pay attention to the indirect object bit, and
>> still be at least sort of correct.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:40 PM Aris Merchant <
>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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. When I show something to you, offer it to you, and then
>>> give it to you, you're receiving some of the action of the verb in each
>>> case. This differs from me going to you, in which case it can be replaced
>>> with towards, and merely indicates motion. This [1] also agrees with me,
>>> see sense English preposition #9. English grammar appears to indicate it
>>> as
>>> if it were an ordinary prepositional phrase, but it's semantically still
>>> also the indirect object (the two are interchangeable at any rate). All
>>> the
>>> sources I can find are rather informal and pragmatic though, and seem to
>>> disagree, so it's possible I'm wrong about this.
>>>
>>> [1] https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/to
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:13 PM ATMunn  wrote:
>>>
 
 "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 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 any PAoaM currencies, they are instead destroyed and then
> alias "pay" with no indirect object to "transfer to Agora"
>
> Speaking of PAoaM currencies, they should have a collective name, no?
>
> On 04/25/2018 04:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>
>> 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 assets (hereafter the
>> fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
>> action, that action is a fee-based action. If the fee is a specified
>> in terms of a non-natural number of assets, the fee is rounded up to
>> the nearest natural number. If the fee is specified in terms of a
>> number without a specified unit, the unit is the official currency of
>> Agora."
>>
>> This allows complex fees, which is fine, given that a complex (or
>> otherwise unreal) fee is impossible to pay and is simply equivalent to
>> making the action impossible.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Kerim Aydin 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with
>>> performing an
>>>   action, that action is a fee-based action.
>>>   If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset,
>>> the actual

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[ATMunn]

¯\_(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 "Supplying the place of the dative in various other languages
and in the earlier stages of English itself." Further, under 32a, it goes
so far as to say "*a.* In the syntactical const. of many transitive verbs,
introducing the indirect or dative object." So I think it's still fine, but
it would be more technically the dative. Simple fix: put "(technically,
with no dative)" afterward to clear up any ambiguity. People who don't know
what a dative is can just pay attention to the indirect object bit, and
still be at least sort of correct.

-Aris

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:40 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:


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. When I show something to you, offer it to you, and then
give it to you, you're receiving some of the action of the verb in each
case. This differs from me going to you, in which case it can be replaced
with towards, and merely indicates motion. This [1] also agrees with me,
see sense English preposition #9. English grammar appears to indicate it as
if it were an ordinary prepositional phrase, but it's semantically still
also the indirect object (the two are interchangeable at any rate). All the
sources I can find are rather informal and pragmatic though, and seem to
disagree, so it's possible I'm wrong about this.

[1] https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/to

-Aris

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:13 PM ATMunn  wrote:



"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 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 any PAoaM currencies, they are instead destroyed and then
alias "pay" with no indirect object to "transfer to Agora"

Speaking of PAoaM currencies, they should have a collective name, no?

On 04/25/2018 04:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

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 assets (hereafter the
fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
action, that action is a fee-based action. If the fee is a specified
in terms of a non-natural number of assets, the fee is rounded up to
the nearest natural number. If the fee is specified in terms of a
number without a specified unit, the unit is the official currency of
Agora."

This allows complex fees, which is fine, given that a complex (or
otherwise unreal) fee is impossible to pay and is simply equivalent to
making the action impossible.

-Aris

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Kerim Aydin 
wrote:



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 the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with
performing an
  action, that action is a fee-based action.
  If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset,
the actual
  fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset.

[Takes out default - if you mean Coins in the Rules say Coins, if you
fail to specify a type of asset your rule is broken].

  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 for the fee and indicate intent
  to pay that fee for the sole purpose of performing the

action.


  Upon such an announcement:

  - If the Rules specify a recipient for the fee, and the Actor
CAN transfer that specified fee from emself to the

recipient,

then that fee is transferred from the Actor to the

recipient

and the 

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Aris Merchant]

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
and in the earlier stages of English itself." Further, under 32a, it goes
so far as to say "*a.* In the syntactical const. of many transitive verbs,
introducing the indirect or dative object." So I think it's still fine, but
it would be more technically the dative. Simple fix: put "(technically,
with no dative)" afterward to clear up any ambiguity. People who don't know
what a dative is can just pay attention to the indirect object bit, and
still be at least sort of correct.

-Aris

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:40 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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. When I show something to you, offer it to you, and then
> give it to you, you're receiving some of the action of the verb in each
> case. This differs from me going to you, in which case it can be replaced
> with towards, and merely indicates motion. This [1] also agrees with me,
> see sense English preposition #9. English grammar appears to indicate it as
> if it were an ordinary prepositional phrase, but it's semantically still
> also the indirect object (the two are interchangeable at any rate). All the
> sources I can find are rather informal and pragmatic though, and seem to
> disagree, so it's possible I'm wrong about this.
>
> [1] https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/to
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:13 PM ATMunn  wrote:
>
>> 
>> "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 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 any PAoaM currencies, they are instead destroyed and then
>> > alias "pay" with no indirect object to "transfer to Agora"
>> >
>> > Speaking of PAoaM currencies, they should have a collective name, no?
>> >
>> > On 04/25/2018 04:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> >> 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 assets (hereafter the
>> >> fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
>> >> action, that action is a fee-based action. If the fee is a specified
>> >> in terms of a non-natural number of assets, the fee is rounded up to
>> >> the nearest natural number. If the fee is specified in terms of a
>> >> number without a specified unit, the unit is the official currency of
>> >> Agora."
>> >>
>> >> This allows complex fees, which is fine, given that a complex (or
>> >> otherwise unreal) fee is impossible to pay and is simply equivalent to
>> >> making the action impossible.
>> >>
>> >> -Aris
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Kerim Aydin 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> 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 the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with
>> >>> performing an
>> >>>  action, that action is a fee-based action.
>> >>>  If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset,
>> >>> the actual
>> >>>  fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset.
>> >>>
>> >>> [Takes out default - if you mean Coins in the Rules say Coins, if you
>> >>> fail to specify a type of asset your rule is broken].
>> >>>
>> >>>  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 for the fee and indicate intent
>> >>>  to pay that 

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Aris Merchant]

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. When I show something to you, offer it to you, and then
give it to you, you're receiving some of the action of the verb in each
case. This differs from me going to you, in which case it can be replaced
with towards, and merely indicates motion. This [1] also agrees with me,
see sense English preposition #9. English grammar appears to indicate it as
if it were an ordinary prepositional phrase, but it's semantically still
also the indirect object (the two are interchangeable at any rate). All the
sources I can find are rather informal and pragmatic though, and seem to
disagree, so it's possible I'm wrong about this.

[1] https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/to

-Aris

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:13 PM ATMunn  wrote:

> 
> "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 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 any PAoaM currencies, they are instead destroyed and then
> > alias "pay" with no indirect object to "transfer to Agora"
> >
> > Speaking of PAoaM currencies, they should have a collective name, no?
> >
> > On 04/25/2018 04:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >> 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 assets (hereafter the
> >> fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
> >> action, that action is a fee-based action. If the fee is a specified
> >> in terms of a non-natural number of assets, the fee is rounded up to
> >> the nearest natural number. If the fee is specified in terms of a
> >> number without a specified unit, the unit is the official currency of
> >> Agora."
> >>
> >> This allows complex fees, which is fine, given that a complex (or
> >> otherwise unreal) fee is impossible to pay and is simply equivalent to
> >> making the action impossible.
> >>
> >> -Aris
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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 the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with
> >>> performing an
> >>>  action, that action is a fee-based action.
> >>>  If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset,
> >>> the actual
> >>>  fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset.
> >>>
> >>> [Takes out default - if you mean Coins in the Rules say Coins, if you
> >>> fail to specify a type of asset your rule is broken].
> >>>
> >>>  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 for the fee and indicate intent
> >>>  to pay that fee for the sole purpose of performing the action.
> >>>
> >>>  Upon such an announcement:
> >>>
> >>>  - If the Rules specify a recipient for the fee, and the Actor
> >>>CAN transfer that specified fee from emself to the
> recipient,
> >>>then that fee is transferred from the Actor to the recipient
> >>>and the action is performed simultaneously;
> >>>
> >>>  - If the Rules do not specify a recipient, and the Actor CAN
> >>>destroy the specified fee in eir possession, then that fee
> >>>in eir possession is destroyed and the action is
> >>>performed simultaneously.
> >>>
> >>>  - Otherwise, no changes are made to asset holdings and the
> >>>action is not performed.
> >>>
> >>>  If the Rules define a fee-based action but the specified
> >>>  set of assets is the empty set, then the action is performed
> by
> >>>  announcement, but 

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[ATMunn]

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 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
case we want the action to suceed. What am I misunderstanding?

Also, I like the multiset. The wording seems to me to be a clean, generic
way of defining fees. If a fee for an action is defined as all assets in
the actors possesion, that should be valid. A more realistic example would
be when we had estates, which were defined as assets. You could transfer an
estate to get an extra vote. We should be able to define that as a fee
based action. We should be able to define any payment of any assets as a
fee based action. Keep in mind that upgrading a facility, the thing that
prompted this discussion, requires multiple types of currency, and in the
future might just as well require assets.

I know I have a tendency to overcomplicate every rule I touch by making it
generic and adding a ton of unnecessary special cases. Here the
disambiguation for non-integers might be unneeded, or best placed somewhere
else. The coin disambiguation already exists in the asset rule itself,
although I can't check at the moment whether it covers this specific case
(I suspect it does, because I wrote the current assets rule and this is the
kind of thing I'd overcomplicate and generify). However, I can't see why
the multiset definition isn't a good description of what we're going for
here. When a rule calls for a fee of 5 coins, it's asking for a multiset of
5 coins. When a rule calls for a fee of 10 rule-defined assets of the
players choice, that's the multiset it wants. I'd appreciate an explanation
of why exactly it's an unneeded complication? All it requires is for the
reader to understand what a multiset is (which I think most of us do), or
google it and learn something and maybe have an aha moment after seeing how
it fits.

-Aris

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 5:12 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:




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 have a precedent that flipping a switch to the same value does
not count as flipping the switch, so I'd imagine paying a 0 fee would
not count as paying the fee if we followed that reasoning... unless empty
sets are explicitly excepted.

I think adding "multiset" is an uneeded complication.  Seeing that version
has made me to think that even using sets is a complication, so I'll
ponder,
but I'm thinking to back off full generalization and restrict this to
Currencies (fungible stuff only) in my next draft (with an exception for
amounts of currency equaling zero).


On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:

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 assets (hereafter the
fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
action, that action is a fee-based action. If the fee is a specified
in terms of a non-natural number of assets, the fee is rounded up to
the nearest natural number. If the fee is specified in terms of a
number without a specified unit, the unit is the official currency of
Agora."

This allows complex fees, which is fine, given that a complex (or
otherwise unreal) fee is impossible to pay and is simply equivalent to
making the action impossible.

-Aris

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Kerim Aydin 

wrote:



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 the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with

performing an

 action, that action is a fee-based action.
 If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset, the

actual

 fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset.

[Takes out default - if you mean Coins in the Rules say Coins, if you
fail to specify a type of asset your rule is broken].

 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 

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[ATMunn]

"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 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 any PAoaM currencies, they are instead destroyed and then 
alias "pay" with no indirect object to "transfer to Agora"


Speaking of PAoaM currencies, they should have a collective name, no?

On 04/25/2018 04:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

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 assets (hereafter the
fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
action, that action is a fee-based action. If the fee is a specified
in terms of a non-natural number of assets, the fee is rounded up to
the nearest natural number. If the fee is specified in terms of a
number without a specified unit, the unit is the official currency of
Agora."

This allows complex fees, which is fine, given that a complex (or
otherwise unreal) fee is impossible to pay and is simply equivalent to
making the action impossible.

-Aris

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Kerim Aydin  
wrote:



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 the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with 
performing an

 action, that action is a fee-based action.
 If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset, 
the actual

 fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset.

[Takes out default - if you mean Coins in the Rules say Coins, if you
fail to specify a type of asset your rule is broken].

 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 for the fee and indicate intent
 to pay that fee for the sole purpose of performing the action.

 Upon such an announcement:

 - If the Rules specify a recipient for the fee, and the Actor
   CAN transfer that specified fee from emself to the recipient,
   then that fee is transferred from the Actor to the recipient
   and the action is performed simultaneously;

 - If the Rules do not specify a recipient, and the Actor CAN
   destroy the specified fee in eir possession, then that fee
   in eir possession is destroyed and the action is
   performed simultaneously.

 - Otherwise, no changes are made to asset holdings and the
   action is not performed.

 If the Rules define a fee-based action but the specified
 set of assets is the empty set, then the action is performed by
 announcement, but the announcement must include that there
 is an (empty or 0) fee for the action.

[Without this 0 edge case: arguments on the nature of the empty set 
galore!]


[Todo:  change rules to use this wording, remove "pay" = "transfer" 
definition

currently in rules]


On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:


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 action is a fee-based action.  If the
   specified cost is not an integer, the actual fee is the next
   highest integer.  The currency of the fee is either the
   currency associated with that action, or Coins if no currency
   is specified.


"next higher".  What if a cost is in a non-currency asset?


I've been trying to figure out wording for non-fungible assets and 
failing.

(or at least failing to do both fungible and non-fungible in the same
paragraph while keeping it concise).


It may be too complicated, but then the first sentence should 
explicitly state
that it only applies to fees in currencies, lest it be triggered 
accidentally
by other "costs", after which the last sentence could absurdly 
change the cost

into Coins.

"and announce that there is a fee for performing that specific 

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Ørjan Johansen]

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 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 Cartographor SHOULD
 issue a humiliating public reminder to all those who have not paid
 upkeep fees on any of eir facilities."

~Corona

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:49 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:


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 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.


I think, legally, there are identity-free assets, unless I misunderstand
what
you mean by that?

Corona gives me a coin.  Aris gives me a coin.  I then give a coin to
Trigon.  There's no way of knowing/tracking/distinguishing whether

Trigon

now has Corona's coin or Aris's coin.



No, Ørjan is probably right. I think the difference is between identity and
interchablity. Currencies are interchangeable (well, fungible, which means
the same thing) so we can't tell the difference between them, but it
doesn't mean that they don't have identity. As a real world example, let's
say you have a penny and I have a penny. Neither of them is marked in any
weird way, and be couldn't tell the difference between them. Then I use my
penny to pay for something. Your penny hasn't been used to pay for
something, only mine has, so they have separate identity. By contrast, if
we both think of the number 1, we're both thinking of the exact same
number, because it's a singleton. Even only currency instances with the
same owner lacked identity, you wouldn't be able to transfer a paper
without transferring all of it. This works fine so long as the set of
assets is clearly described as a set of instances, because asset types are
definitely singletons.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Ørjan Johansen]

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 the next month:  therefore each facility only has to pay once
ever.


Nah obviously "e must pay" cannot refer to actions in the past. In fact, 
the obvious reading of this is that after you've paid, you have to do it 
again, since you still own them. See: Zeno.


(This discussion is giving my brain whiplash between wanting to be literal 
and wanting to use common sense...)


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Kerim Aydin]

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 facility only has to pay once 
ever.

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
> 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 needing to
> "explicitly describe" methods?
> 
> If the CFJ is going to be called, I'd like it to be judged till the end of
> the week if possible. It's frustrating having buildings or other assets in
> an uncertain gamestate.
> 
> ~Corona
> 
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:28 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > 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 anyone" counts?  An alternate interpretation is that,
> > if the destination isn't defined, the rule is ambiguous and you
> > can't actually pay.  This would be supported by R2125:  "paying"
> > without a destination is not an unambiguous way of "explicitly
> > describing" a method for doing things.
> >
> > (I'm not going to call the CFJ unless others think this interpretation
> > might work).
> >
> > 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 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 Cartographor SHOULD
> > >   issue a humiliating public reminder to all those who have not paid
> > >   upkeep fees on any of eir facilities."
> > >
> > > ~Corona
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:49 PM, Aris Merchant <
> > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think, legally, there are identity-free assets, unless I
> > misunderstand
> > > > > what
> > > > > you mean by that?
> > > > >
> > > > > Corona gives me a coin.  Aris gives me a coin.  I then give a coin to
> > > > > Trigon.  There's no way of knowing/tracking/distinguishing whether
> > > > Trigon
> > > > > now has Corona's coin or Aris's coin.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, Ørjan is probably right. I think the difference is between
> > identity and
> > > > interchablity. Currencies are interchangeable (well, fungible, which
> > means
> > > > the same thing) so we can't tell the difference between them, but it
> > > > doesn't mean that they don't have identity. As a real world example,
> > let's
> > > > say you have a penny and I have a penny. Neither of them is marked in
> > any
> > > > weird way, and be couldn't tell the difference between them. Then I
> > use my
> > > > penny to pay for something. Your penny hasn't been used to pay for
> > > > something, only mine has, so they have separate identity. By contrast,
> > if
> > > > we both think of the number 1, we're both thinking of the exact same
> > > > number, because it's a singleton. Even only currency instances with the
> > > > same owner lacked identity, you wouldn't be able to transfer a paper
> > > > without transferring all of it. This works fine so long as the set of
> > > > assets is clearly described as a set of instances, because asset types
> > are
> > > > definitely singletons.
> > > >
> > > > -Aris
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Corona]

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 needing to
"explicitly describe" methods?

If the CFJ is going to be called, I'd like it to be judged till the end of
the week if possible. It's frustrating having buildings or other assets in
an uncertain gamestate.

~Corona

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:28 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> 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 anyone" counts?  An alternate interpretation is that,
> if the destination isn't defined, the rule is ambiguous and you
> can't actually pay.  This would be supported by R2125:  "paying"
> without a destination is not an unambiguous way of "explicitly
> describing" a method for doing things.
>
> (I'm not going to call the CFJ unless others think this interpretation
> might work).
>
> 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 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 Cartographor SHOULD
> >   issue a humiliating public reminder to all those who have not paid
> >   upkeep fees on any of eir facilities."
> >
> > ~Corona
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:49 PM, Aris Merchant <
> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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 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.
> > > >
> > > > I think, legally, there are identity-free assets, unless I
> misunderstand
> > > > what
> > > > you mean by that?
> > > >
> > > > Corona gives me a coin.  Aris gives me a coin.  I then give a coin to
> > > > Trigon.  There's no way of knowing/tracking/distinguishing whether
> > > Trigon
> > > > now has Corona's coin or Aris's coin.
> > >
> > >
> > > No, Ørjan is probably right. I think the difference is between
> identity and
> > > interchablity. Currencies are interchangeable (well, fungible, which
> means
> > > the same thing) so we can't tell the difference between them, but it
> > > doesn't mean that they don't have identity. As a real world example,
> let's
> > > say you have a penny and I have a penny. Neither of them is marked in
> any
> > > weird way, and be couldn't tell the difference between them. Then I
> use my
> > > penny to pay for something. Your penny hasn't been used to pay for
> > > something, only mine has, so they have separate identity. By contrast,
> if
> > > we both think of the number 1, we're both thinking of the exact same
> > > number, because it's a singleton. Even only currency instances with the
> > > same owner lacked identity, you wouldn't be able to transfer a paper
> > > without transferring all of it. This works fine so long as the set of
> > > assets is clearly described as a set of instances, because asset types
> are
> > > definitely singletons.
> > >
> > > -Aris
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Kerim Aydin]

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 in realizing that
multiset speaks of multiple inclusion of "platonic 1's" which doesn't
apply to actual instances of "1 item".  (always love it when mathematical
and legal contexts collide - dealing with that a lot in RL).

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Kerim Aydin]

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 anyone" counts?  An alternate interpretation is that,
if the destination isn't defined, the rule is ambiguous and you
can't actually pay.  This would be supported by R2125:  "paying"
without a destination is not an unambiguous way of "explicitly
describing" a method for doing things.

(I'm not going to call the CFJ unless others think this interpretation
might work).

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 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 Cartographor SHOULD
>   issue a humiliating public reminder to all those who have not paid
>   upkeep fees on any of eir facilities."
> 
> ~Corona
> 
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:49 PM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > 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 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.
> > >
> > > I think, legally, there are identity-free assets, unless I misunderstand
> > > what
> > > you mean by that?
> > >
> > > Corona gives me a coin.  Aris gives me a coin.  I then give a coin to
> > > Trigon.  There's no way of knowing/tracking/distinguishing whether
> > Trigon
> > > now has Corona's coin or Aris's coin.
> >
> >
> > No, Ørjan is probably right. I think the difference is between identity and
> > interchablity. Currencies are interchangeable (well, fungible, which means
> > the same thing) so we can't tell the difference between them, but it
> > doesn't mean that they don't have identity. As a real world example, let's
> > say you have a penny and I have a penny. Neither of them is marked in any
> > weird way, and be couldn't tell the difference between them. Then I use my
> > penny to pay for something. Your penny hasn't been used to pay for
> > something, only mine has, so they have separate identity. By contrast, if
> > we both think of the number 1, we're both thinking of the exact same
> > number, because it's a singleton. Even only currency instances with the
> > same owner lacked identity, you wouldn't be able to transfer a paper
> > without transferring all of it. This works fine so long as the set of
> > assets is clearly described as a set of instances, because asset types are
> > definitely singletons.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Corona]

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 Cartographor SHOULD
  issue a humiliating public reminder to all those who have not paid
  upkeep fees on any of eir facilities."

~Corona

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:49 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 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.
> >
> > I think, legally, there are identity-free assets, unless I misunderstand
> > what
> > you mean by that?
> >
> > Corona gives me a coin.  Aris gives me a coin.  I then give a coin to
> > Trigon.  There's no way of knowing/tracking/distinguishing whether
> Trigon
> > now has Corona's coin or Aris's coin.
>
>
> No, Ørjan is probably right. I think the difference is between identity and
> interchablity. Currencies are interchangeable (well, fungible, which means
> the same thing) so we can't tell the difference between them, but it
> doesn't mean that they don't have identity. As a real world example, let's
> say you have a penny and I have a penny. Neither of them is marked in any
> weird way, and be couldn't tell the difference between them. Then I use my
> penny to pay for something. Your penny hasn't been used to pay for
> something, only mine has, so they have separate identity. By contrast, if
> we both think of the number 1, we're both thinking of the exact same
> number, because it's a singleton. Even only currency instances with the
> same owner lacked identity, you wouldn't be able to transfer a paper
> without transferring all of it. This works fine so long as the set of
> assets is clearly described as a set of instances, because asset types are
> definitely singletons.
>
> -Aris
>
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Aris Merchant]

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 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.
>
> I think, legally, there are identity-free assets, unless I misunderstand
> what
> you mean by that?
>
> Corona gives me a coin.  Aris gives me a coin.  I then give a coin to
> Trigon.  There's no way of knowing/tracking/distinguishing whether Trigon
> now has Corona's coin or Aris's coin.


No, Ørjan is probably right. I think the difference is between identity and
interchablity. Currencies are interchangeable (well, fungible, which means
the same thing) so we can't tell the difference between them, but it
doesn't mean that they don't have identity. As a real world example, let's
say you have a penny and I have a penny. Neither of them is marked in any
weird way, and be couldn't tell the difference between them. Then I use my
penny to pay for something. Your penny hasn't been used to pay for
something, only mine has, so they have separate identity. By contrast, if
we both think of the number 1, we're both thinking of the exact same
number, because it's a singleton. Even only currency instances with the
same owner lacked identity, you wouldn't be able to transfer a paper
without transferring all of it. This works fine so long as the set of
assets is clearly described as a set of instances, because asset types are
definitely singletons.

-Aris

>
>

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Kerim Aydin]

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 might be better for other people's
> intuition I guess.

I think, legally, there are identity-free assets, unless I misunderstand what
you mean by that?

Corona gives me a coin.  Aris gives me a coin.  I then give a coin to
Trigon.  There's no way of knowing/tracking/distinguishing whether Trigon
now has Corona's coin or Aris's coin.

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Ørjan Johansen]

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.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Ørjan Johansen]

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
   action, that action is a fee-based action.
   If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset, the actual
   fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset.


"next higher", i said!


   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 for the fee and indicate intent
   to pay that fee for the sole purpose of performing the action.


I think it should be "_a_ correct set of assets", because there may be 
more than option if assets are distinguishible somehow.



   Upon such an announcement:

   - If the Rules specify a recipient for the fee, and the Actor
 CAN transfer that specified fee from emself to the recipient,
 then that fee is transferred from the Actor to the recipient
 and the action is performed simultaneously;

   - If the Rules do not specify a recipient, and the Actor CAN
 destroy the specified fee in eir possession, then that fee
 in eir possession is destroyed and the action is
 performed simultaneously.


Now I'm vaguely wondering, what if a fee includes *some* assets that 
cannot be transferred, and some that can...


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Kerim Aydin]

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 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, but I can see why you might want to be extra careful with the edge
> case. Any thoughts on my other points?
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 5:48 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > 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 the fee for an action is defined as 0, in which
> > > case we want the action to suceed. What am I misunderstanding?
> >
> > If the wording is such that I must "transfer the fee to perform the
> > action",
> > have I paid a fee of 0 if I transfer you nothing?  I can say I did, but did
> > I actually "transfer the fee"?
> >
> > The Assets rule reads:
> >An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. paid, given) by
> >announcement
> >
> > it *doesn't* say that "no assets" CAN be transferred.  So you CANNOT
> > transfer no assets while still having the legal effect of calling it
> > a "transfer".
> >
> > This is exactly the principle as "if I flip a switch to its same value,
> > have I flipped a switch"?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Aris Merchant]

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, but I can see why you might want to be extra careful with the edge
case. Any thoughts on my other points?

-Aris

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 5:48 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> 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 the fee for an action is defined as 0, in which
> > case we want the action to suceed. What am I misunderstanding?
>
> If the wording is such that I must "transfer the fee to perform the
> action",
> have I paid a fee of 0 if I transfer you nothing?  I can say I did, but did
> I actually "transfer the fee"?
>
> The Assets rule reads:
>An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. paid, given) by
>announcement
>
> it *doesn't* say that "no assets" CAN be transferred.  So you CANNOT
> transfer no assets while still having the legal effect of calling it
> a "transfer".
>
> This is exactly the principle as "if I flip a switch to its same value,
> have I flipped a switch"?
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Kerim Aydin]

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 the fee for an action is defined as 0, in which
> case we want the action to suceed. What am I misunderstanding?

If the wording is such that I must "transfer the fee to perform the action",
have I paid a fee of 0 if I transfer you nothing?  I can say I did, but did
I actually "transfer the fee"?

The Assets rule reads:
   An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. paid, given) by
   announcement

it *doesn't* say that "no assets" CAN be transferred.  So you CANNOT 
transfer no assets while still having the legal effect of calling it
a "transfer".

This is exactly the principle as "if I flip a switch to its same value, 
have I flipped a switch"?

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Aris Merchant]

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
case we want the action to suceed. What am I misunderstanding?

Also, I like the multiset. The wording seems to me to be a clean, generic
way of defining fees. If a fee for an action is defined as all assets in
the actors possesion, that should be valid. A more realistic example would
be when we had estates, which were defined as assets. You could transfer an
estate to get an extra vote. We should be able to define that as a fee
based action. We should be able to define any payment of any assets as a
fee based action. Keep in mind that upgrading a facility, the thing that
prompted this discussion, requires multiple types of currency, and in the
future might just as well require assets.

I know I have a tendency to overcomplicate every rule I touch by making it
generic and adding a ton of unnecessary special cases. Here the
disambiguation for non-integers might be unneeded, or best placed somewhere
else. The coin disambiguation already exists in the asset rule itself,
although I can't check at the moment whether it covers this specific case
(I suspect it does, because I wrote the current assets rule and this is the
kind of thing I'd overcomplicate and generify). However, I can't see why
the multiset definition isn't a good description of what we're going for
here. When a rule calls for a fee of 5 coins, it's asking for a multiset of
5 coins. When a rule calls for a fee of 10 rule-defined assets of the
players choice, that's the multiset it wants. I'd appreciate an explanation
of why exactly it's an unneeded complication? All it requires is for the
reader to understand what a multiset is (which I think most of us do), or
google it and learn something and maybe have an aha moment after seeing how
it fits.

-Aris

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 5:12 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> 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 have a precedent that flipping a switch to the same value does
> not count as flipping the switch, so I'd imagine paying a 0 fee would
> not count as paying the fee if we followed that reasoning... unless empty
> sets are explicitly excepted.
>
> I think adding "multiset" is an uneeded complication.  Seeing that version
> has made me to think that even using sets is a complication, so I'll
> ponder,
> but I'm thinking to back off full generalization and restrict this to
> Currencies (fungible stuff only) in my next draft (with an exception for
> amounts of currency equaling zero).
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > 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 assets (hereafter the
> > fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
> > action, that action is a fee-based action. If the fee is a specified
> > in terms of a non-natural number of assets, the fee is rounded up to
> > the nearest natural number. If the fee is specified in terms of a
> > number without a specified unit, the unit is the official currency of
> > Agora."
> >
> > This allows complex fees, which is fine, given that a complex (or
> > otherwise unreal) fee is impossible to pay and is simply equivalent to
> > making the action impossible.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > 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 the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with
> performing an
> > > action, that action is a fee-based action.
> > > If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset, the
> actual
> > > fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset.
> > >
> > > [Takes out default - if you mean Coins in the Rules say Coins, if you
> > > fail to specify a type of asset your rule is broken].
> > >
> > > To perform a fee-based action, an entity (the Actor) who is
> > > otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e
> > > 

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Kerim Aydin]

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 have a precedent that flipping a switch to the same value does
not count as flipping the switch, so I'd imagine paying a 0 fee would
not count as paying the fee if we followed that reasoning... unless empty
sets are explicitly excepted.

I think adding "multiset" is an uneeded complication.  Seeing that version
has made me to think that even using sets is a complication, so I'll ponder,
but I'm thinking to back off full generalization and restrict this to
Currencies (fungible stuff only) in my next draft (with an exception for
amounts of currency equaling zero).


On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> 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 assets (hereafter the
> fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
> action, that action is a fee-based action. If the fee is a specified
> in terms of a non-natural number of assets, the fee is rounded up to
> the nearest natural number. If the fee is specified in terms of a
> number without a specified unit, the unit is the official currency of
> Agora."
> 
> This allows complex fees, which is fine, given that a complex (or
> otherwise unreal) fee is impossible to pay and is simply equivalent to
> making the action impossible.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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 the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing 
> > an
> > action, that action is a fee-based action.
> > If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset, the actual
> > fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset.
> >
> > [Takes out default - if you mean Coins in the Rules say Coins, if you
> > fail to specify a type of asset your rule is broken].
> >
> > 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 for the fee and indicate intent
> > to pay that fee for the sole purpose of performing the action.
> >
> > Upon such an announcement:
> >
> > - If the Rules specify a recipient for the fee, and the Actor
> >   CAN transfer that specified fee from emself to the recipient,
> >   then that fee is transferred from the Actor to the recipient
> >   and the action is performed simultaneously;
> >
> > - If the Rules do not specify a recipient, and the Actor CAN
> >   destroy the specified fee in eir possession, then that fee
> >   in eir possession is destroyed and the action is
> >   performed simultaneously.
> >
> > - Otherwise, no changes are made to asset holdings and the
> >   action is not performed.
> >
> > If the Rules define a fee-based action but the specified
> > set of assets is the empty set, then the action is performed by
> > announcement, but the announcement must include that there
> > is an (empty or 0) fee for the action.
> >
> > [Without this 0 edge case: arguments on the nature of the empty set galore!]
> >
> > [Todo:  change rules to use this wording, remove "pay" = "transfer" 
> > definition
> > currently in rules]
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> >
> >> 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 action is a fee-based action.  If the
> >> > > >   specified cost is not an integer, the actual fee is the next
> >> > > >   highest integer.  The currency of the fee is either the
> >> > > >   currency associated with that action, or Coins if no currency
> >> > > >   is specified.
> >> > >
> >> > > "next higher".  What if a cost is in a non-currency asset?
> >> >
> >> > I've been trying to figure out 

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Aris Merchant]

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 Reuben Staley 
wrote:

> 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 any PAoaM currencies, they are instead destroyed and then
> alias "pay" with no indirect object to "transfer to Agora"
>
> Speaking of PAoaM currencies, they should have a collective name, no?
>
> On 04/25/2018 04:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > 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 assets (hereafter the
> > fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
> > action, that action is a fee-based action. If the fee is a specified
> > in terms of a non-natural number of assets, the fee is rounded up to
> > the nearest natural number. If the fee is specified in terms of a
> > number without a specified unit, the unit is the official currency of
> > Agora."
> >
> > This allows complex fees, which is fine, given that a complex (or
> > otherwise unreal) fee is impossible to pay and is simply equivalent to
> > making the action impossible.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> 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 the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with
> performing an
> >>  action, that action is a fee-based action.
> >>  If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset, the
> actual
> >>  fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset.
> >>
> >> [Takes out default - if you mean Coins in the Rules say Coins, if you
> >> fail to specify a type of asset your rule is broken].
> >>
> >>  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 for the fee and indicate intent
> >>  to pay that fee for the sole purpose of performing the action.
> >>
> >>  Upon such an announcement:
> >>
> >>  - If the Rules specify a recipient for the fee, and the Actor
> >>CAN transfer that specified fee from emself to the recipient,
> >>then that fee is transferred from the Actor to the recipient
> >>and the action is performed simultaneously;
> >>
> >>  - If the Rules do not specify a recipient, and the Actor CAN
> >>destroy the specified fee in eir possession, then that fee
> >>in eir possession is destroyed and the action is
> >>performed simultaneously.
> >>
> >>  - Otherwise, no changes are made to asset holdings and the
> >>action is not performed.
> >>
> >>  If the Rules define a fee-based action but the specified
> >>  set of assets is the empty set, then the action is performed by
> >>  announcement, but the announcement must include that there
> >>  is an (empty or 0) fee for the action.
> >>
> >> [Without this 0 edge case: arguments on the nature of the empty set
> galore!]
> >>
> >> [Todo:  change rules to use this wording, remove "pay" = "transfer"
> definition
> >> currently in rules]
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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 action is a fee-based action.  If the
> >>specified cost is not an integer, the actual fee is the next
> >>highest integer.  The currency of the fee is either the
> >>currency associated with that action, or Coins if no currency
> >>is specified.
> >
> > "next higher".  What if a 

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Reuben Staley]

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 any PAoaM currencies, they are instead destroyed and then 
alias "pay" with no indirect object to "transfer to Agora"


Speaking of PAoaM currencies, they should have a collective name, no?

On 04/25/2018 04:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

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 assets (hereafter the
fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
action, that action is a fee-based action. If the fee is a specified
in terms of a non-natural number of assets, the fee is rounded up to
the nearest natural number. If the fee is specified in terms of a
number without a specified unit, the unit is the official currency of
Agora."

This allows complex fees, which is fine, given that a complex (or
otherwise unreal) fee is impossible to pay and is simply equivalent to
making the action impossible.

-Aris

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:



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 the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
 action, that action is a fee-based action.
 If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset, the actual
 fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset.

[Takes out default - if you mean Coins in the Rules say Coins, if you
fail to specify a type of asset your rule is broken].

 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 for the fee and indicate intent
 to pay that fee for the sole purpose of performing the action.

 Upon such an announcement:

 - If the Rules specify a recipient for the fee, and the Actor
   CAN transfer that specified fee from emself to the recipient,
   then that fee is transferred from the Actor to the recipient
   and the action is performed simultaneously;

 - If the Rules do not specify a recipient, and the Actor CAN
   destroy the specified fee in eir possession, then that fee
   in eir possession is destroyed and the action is
   performed simultaneously.

 - Otherwise, no changes are made to asset holdings and the
   action is not performed.

 If the Rules define a fee-based action but the specified
 set of assets is the empty set, then the action is performed by
 announcement, but the announcement must include that there
 is an (empty or 0) fee for the action.

[Without this 0 edge case: arguments on the nature of the empty set galore!]

[Todo:  change rules to use this wording, remove "pay" = "transfer" definition
currently in rules]


On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:


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 action is a fee-based action.  If the
   specified cost is not an integer, the actual fee is the next
   highest integer.  The currency of the fee is either the
   currency associated with that action, or Coins if no currency
   is specified.


"next higher".  What if a cost is in a non-currency asset?


I've been trying to figure out wording for non-fungible assets and failing.
(or at least failing to do both fungible and non-fungible in the same
paragraph while keeping it concise).


It may be too complicated, but then the first sentence should explicitly state
that it only applies to fees in currencies, lest it be triggered accidentally
by other "costs", after which the last sentence could absurdly change the cost
into Coins.


"and announce that there is a fee for performing that specific action"
seems a
bit redundant, and doesn't seem quite like the thing people do when
phrasing
payments naturally.


How about:
   To perform a fee-based action, an entity (the Actor) who is
   otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce 

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Aris Merchant]

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 assets (hereafter the
fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
action, that action is a fee-based action. If the fee is a specified
in terms of a non-natural number of assets, the fee is rounded up to
the nearest natural number. If the fee is specified in terms of a
number without a specified unit, the unit is the official currency of
Agora."

This allows complex fees, which is fine, given that a complex (or
otherwise unreal) fee is impossible to pay and is simply equivalent to
making the action impossible.

-Aris

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> 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 the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
> action, that action is a fee-based action.
> If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset, the actual
> fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset.
>
> [Takes out default - if you mean Coins in the Rules say Coins, if you
> fail to specify a type of asset your rule is broken].
>
> 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 for the fee and indicate intent
> to pay that fee for the sole purpose of performing the action.
>
> Upon such an announcement:
>
> - If the Rules specify a recipient for the fee, and the Actor
>   CAN transfer that specified fee from emself to the recipient,
>   then that fee is transferred from the Actor to the recipient
>   and the action is performed simultaneously;
>
> - If the Rules do not specify a recipient, and the Actor CAN
>   destroy the specified fee in eir possession, then that fee
>   in eir possession is destroyed and the action is
>   performed simultaneously.
>
> - Otherwise, no changes are made to asset holdings and the
>   action is not performed.
>
> If the Rules define a fee-based action but the specified
> set of assets is the empty set, then the action is performed by
> announcement, but the announcement must include that there
> is an (empty or 0) fee for the action.
>
> [Without this 0 edge case: arguments on the nature of the empty set galore!]
>
> [Todo:  change rules to use this wording, remove "pay" = "transfer" definition
> currently in rules]
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>
>> 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 action is a fee-based action.  If the
>> > > >   specified cost is not an integer, the actual fee is the next
>> > > >   highest integer.  The currency of the fee is either the
>> > > >   currency associated with that action, or Coins if no currency
>> > > >   is specified.
>> > >
>> > > "next higher".  What if a cost is in a non-currency asset?
>> >
>> > I've been trying to figure out wording for non-fungible assets and failing.
>> > (or at least failing to do both fungible and non-fungible in the same
>> > paragraph while keeping it concise).
>>
>> It may be too complicated, but then the first sentence should explicitly 
>> state
>> that it only applies to fees in currencies, lest it be triggered accidentally
>> by other "costs", after which the last sentence could absurdly change the 
>> cost
>> into Coins.
>>
>> > > "and announce that there is a fee for performing that specific action"
>> > > seems a
>> > > bit redundant, and doesn't seem quite like the thing people do when
>> > > phrasing
>> > > payments naturally.
>> >
>> > How about:
>> >   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 amount and currency of the fee and indicate intent
>> >   to pay that fee for the sole purpose of performing the action.
>> >
>> > I think "I pay 5 coins to do X" indicates intent to pay 

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Aris Merchant]

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:
>
>
> 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 must specify the
>> > correct set of assets for the fee and indicate intent
>> > to pay that fee for the sole purpose of performing the action.
>>
>> I disagree with the "indicate intent" here. It adds an extra step
>> that's easy to forget and will just likely lead to CFJs about what
>> sorts of indication are strong enough. Arguably the intent is always
>> going to be implicit in the action announcement, but in that case, why
>> not just take it out to make the rule shorter?
>>
>> An announcement like "I pay 2 Coins to …" or "I … with a fee of 2
>> Coins" should be all that's required. (Then the payment should happen
>> automatically, or the action should fail if the payment cannot
>> automatically occur, which is how your draft has things at the moment.)
>
> That's exactly what I meant by "indicate intent" some version of
> "I pay X to do Y" the intent is simply the "to" (or "with a" in your
> other example).  Nothing more complicated.   Better way to word it?
>
> I'm mainly trying to avoid:
> I do X.  I do Y.  I pay Z.
> then arguing that the Z is payment for both X and Y without expressing
> "with a" or "in order to do" or similar.
>
>

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Kerim Aydin]

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 must specify the
> > correct set of assets for the fee and indicate intent
> > to pay that fee for the sole purpose of performing the action.
> 
> I disagree with the "indicate intent" here. It adds an extra step
> that's easy to forget and will just likely lead to CFJs about what
> sorts of indication are strong enough. Arguably the intent is always
> going to be implicit in the action announcement, but in that case, why
> not just take it out to make the rule shorter?
> 
> An announcement like "I pay 2 Coins to …" or "I … with a fee of 2
> Coins" should be all that's required. (Then the payment should happen
> automatically, or the action should fail if the payment cannot
> automatically occur, which is how your draft has things at the moment.)

That's exactly what I meant by "indicate intent" some version of 
"I pay X to do Y" the intent is simply the "to" (or "with a" in your
other example).  Nothing more complicated.   Better way to word it?

I'm mainly trying to avoid:
I do X.  I do Y.  I pay Z.
then arguing that the Z is payment for both X and Y without expressing
"with a" or "in order to do" or similar.

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Alex Smith]

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 for the fee and indicate intent
> to pay that fee for the sole purpose of performing the action.

I disagree with the "indicate intent" here. It adds an extra step
that's easy to forget and will just likely lead to CFJs about what
sorts of indication are strong enough. Arguably the intent is always
going to be implicit in the action announcement, but in that case, why
not just take it out to make the rule shorter?

An announcement like "I pay 2 Coins to …" or "I … with a fee of 2
Coins" should be all that's required. (Then the payment should happen
automatically, or the action should fail if the payment cannot
automatically occur, which is how your draft has things at the moment.)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Kerim Aydin]

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 the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
action, that action is a fee-based action.
If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset, the actual
fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset.

[Takes out default - if you mean Coins in the Rules say Coins, if you
fail to specify a type of asset your rule is broken].

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 for the fee and indicate intent
to pay that fee for the sole purpose of performing the action.

Upon such an announcement:

- If the Rules specify a recipient for the fee, and the Actor
  CAN transfer that specified fee from emself to the recipient,
  then that fee is transferred from the Actor to the recipient
  and the action is performed simultaneously;

- If the Rules do not specify a recipient, and the Actor CAN
  destroy the specified fee in eir possession, then that fee
  in eir possession is destroyed and the action is
  performed simultaneously.

- Otherwise, no changes are made to asset holdings and the
  action is not performed.

If the Rules define a fee-based action but the specified
set of assets is the empty set, then the action is performed by
announcement, but the announcement must include that there
is an (empty or 0) fee for the action.

[Without this 0 edge case: arguments on the nature of the empty set galore!]

[Todo:  change rules to use this wording, remove "pay" = "transfer" definition 
currently in rules]


On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

> 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 action is a fee-based action.  If the
> > > >   specified cost is not an integer, the actual fee is the next
> > > >   highest integer.  The currency of the fee is either the
> > > >   currency associated with that action, or Coins if no currency
> > > >   is specified.
> > > 
> > > "next higher".  What if a cost is in a non-currency asset?
> > 
> > I've been trying to figure out wording for non-fungible assets and failing.
> > (or at least failing to do both fungible and non-fungible in the same
> > paragraph while keeping it concise).
> 
> It may be too complicated, but then the first sentence should explicitly state
> that it only applies to fees in currencies, lest it be triggered accidentally
> by other "costs", after which the last sentence could absurdly change the cost
> into Coins.
> 
> > > "and announce that there is a fee for performing that specific action"
> > > seems a
> > > bit redundant, and doesn't seem quite like the thing people do when
> > > phrasing
> > > payments naturally.
> > 
> > How about:
> >   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 amount and currency of the fee and indicate intent
> >   to pay that fee for the sole purpose of performing the action.
> > 
> > I think "I pay 5 coins to do X" indicates intent to pay the fee as per that
> > wording?
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Ørjan Johansen]

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 action is a fee-based action.  If the
  specified cost is not an integer, the actual fee is the next
  highest integer.  The currency of the fee is either the
  currency associated with that action, or Coins if no currency
  is specified.


"next higher".  What if a cost is in a non-currency asset?


I've been trying to figure out wording for non-fungible assets and failing.
(or at least failing to do both fungible and non-fungible in the same
paragraph while keeping it concise).


It may be too complicated, but then the first sentence should explicitly 
state that it only applies to fees in currencies, lest it be triggered 
accidentally by other "costs", after which the last sentence could 
absurdly change the cost into Coins.



"and announce that there is a fee for performing that specific action" seems a
bit redundant, and doesn't seem quite like the thing people do when phrasing
payments naturally.


How about:
  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 amount and currency of the fee and indicate intent
  to pay that fee for the sole purpose of performing the action.

I think "I pay 5 coins to do X" indicates intent to pay the fee as per that
wording?


Yeah.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Kerim Aydin]

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,
> >   charge), with an action, or state that an action CAN be performed
> >   by paying a fee, that action is a fee-based action.  If the
> >   specified cost is not an integer, the actual fee is the next
> >   highest integer.  The currency of the fee is either the
> >   currency associated with that action, or Coins if no currency
> >   is specified.
> 
> "next higher".  What if a cost is in a non-currency asset?

I've been trying to figure out wording for non-fungible assets and failing.
(or at least failing to do both fungible and non-fungible in the same
paragraph while keeping it concise).

> >   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 and announce that there is a fee for
> >   performing that specific action, specifying the correct amount
> >   and currency of the fee.
> 
> "and announce that there is a fee for performing that specific action" seems a
> bit redundant, and doesn't seem quite like the thing people do when phrasing
> payments naturally.

How about:
   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 amount and currency of the fee and indicate intent
   to pay that fee for the sole purpose of performing the action.

I think "I pay 5 coins to do X" indicates intent to pay the fee as per that 
wording?

Also, I'm going to remove "paid" as a synonym for "transfer".  It really
isn't a synonym, and that's been hanging us up a bit.  (all the primary and
secondary definitions of "pay" that I can find say that "pay" means to
give something in return for something).

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Ørjan Johansen]

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
  by paying a fee, that action is a fee-based action.  If the
  specified cost is not an integer, the actual fee is the next
  highest integer.  The currency of the fee is either the
  currency associated with that action, or Coins if no currency
  is specified.


"next higher".  What if a cost is in a non-currency asset?


  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 and announce that there is a fee for
  performing that specific action, specifying the correct amount
  and currency of the fee.


"and announce that there is a fee for performing that specific action" 
seems a bit redundant, and doesn't seem quite like the thing people do 
when phrasing payments naturally.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Kerim Aydin]

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 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 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 fee-based action.  If the
> >specified cost is not an integer, the actual fee is the next
> >highest integer.  The currency of the fee is either the
> >currency associated with that action, or Coins if no currency
> >is specified.
> >
> >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 and announce that there is a fee for
> >performing that specific action, specifying the correct amount
> >and currency of the fee.
> >
> >Upon such an announcement:
> >
> >- If the Rules specify a recipient for the fee, and the Actor
> >CAN transfer that specified fee from emself to the recipient,
> >then that fee is transferred from the Actor to the recipient
> >and the action is performed simultaneously;
> >
> >- If the Rules do not specify a recipient, and the Actor CAN
> >destroy the amount of the fee in eir possession, then that
> >amount in eir possession is destroyed and the action is
> >performed simultaneously.
> >
> >- Otherwise, no changes are made to asset holdings and the
> >action is not performed.
> >
> > [Todo:  change rules to use this wording]
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> > > 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" mean here, if anything? Is it actually possible to
> > > > upgrade facilities, or is it ill defined and thus broken?
> > >
> > > "paid" is a synonym for transferred, defined in rule 2166.
> > >
> > > What's broken here is that it doesn't restrict *who* the payment is to...
> > > which presumably means you can pay to any entity that can accept the
> > assets.
> > >
> > > Greetings,
> > > Ørjan.
> > >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Kenyon Prater]

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 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 fee-based action.  If the
>specified cost is not an integer, the actual fee is the next
>highest integer.  The currency of the fee is either the
>currency associated with that action, or Coins if no currency
>is specified.
>
>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 and announce that there is a fee for
>performing that specific action, specifying the correct amount
>and currency of the fee.
>
>Upon such an announcement:
>
>- If the Rules specify a recipient for the fee, and the Actor
>CAN transfer that specified fee from emself to the recipient,
>then that fee is transferred from the Actor to the recipient
>and the action is performed simultaneously;
>
>- If the Rules do not specify a recipient, and the Actor CAN
>destroy the amount of the fee in eir possession, then that
>amount in eir possession is destroyed and the action is
>performed simultaneously.
>
>- Otherwise, no changes are made to asset holdings and the
>action is not performed.
>
> [Todo:  change rules to use this wording]
>
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> > 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" mean here, if anything? Is it actually possible to
> > > upgrade facilities, or is it ill defined and thus broken?
> >
> > "paid" is a synonym for transferred, defined in rule 2166.
> >
> > What's broken here is that it doesn't restrict *who* the payment is to...
> > which presumably means you can pay to any entity that can accept the
> assets.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Ørjan.
> >
>

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Kerim Aydin]

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 fee-based action.  If the
   specified cost is not an integer, the actual fee is the next
   highest integer.  The currency of the fee is either the
   currency associated with that action, or Coins if no currency
   is specified.

   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 and announce that there is a fee for
   performing that specific action, specifying the correct amount
   and currency of the fee.

   Upon such an announcement:

   - If the Rules specify a recipient for the fee, and the Actor
   CAN transfer that specified fee from emself to the recipient,
   then that fee is transferred from the Actor to the recipient
   and the action is performed simultaneously;

   - If the Rules do not specify a recipient, and the Actor CAN
   destroy the amount of the fee in eir possession, then that
   amount in eir possession is destroyed and the action is
   performed simultaneously.

   - Otherwise, no changes are made to asset holdings and the
   action is not performed.

[Todo:  change rules to use this wording]



On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> 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" mean here, if anything? Is it actually possible to
> > upgrade facilities, or is it ill defined and thus broken?
> 
> "paid" is a synonym for transferred, defined in rule 2166.
> 
> What's broken here is that it doesn't restrict *who* the payment is to...
> which presumably means you can pay to any entity that can accept the assets.
> 
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Corona]

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 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" mean here, if anything? Is it actually possible to
>> upgrade facilities, or is it ill defined and thus broken?
>>
>
> "paid" is a synonym for transferred, defined in rule 2166.
>
> What's broken here is that it doesn't restrict *who* the payment is to...
> which presumably means you can pay to any entity that can accept the assets.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>

Re: DIS: Upgrading

[Ørjan Johansen]

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" mean here, if anything? Is it actually possible to
upgrade facilities, or is it ill defined and thus broken?


"paid" is a synonym for transferred, defined in rule 2166.

What's broken here is that it doesn't restrict *who* the payment is to... 
which presumably means you can pay to any entity that can accept the 
assets.


Greetings,
Ørjan.