What do you think "with upkeep costs" means in Rule 2560? I'm trying to argue that a facility with an upkeep cost equal to the empty set doesn't have an upkeep cost, and so Rule 2560 doesn't apply a fee. The rule defining the upkeep cost is explicit, the rule defining fees is explicit, but neither of them matter if Rule 2560 doesn't require a null fee to be paid, and that's open to interpretation.
Oh, also, what's the action here that's fee-based? The only action here appears to be paying the fee, which is clearly not a fee-based action. If there's no fee-based action, then the fee-based actions rule is inapplicable. I'm not alleging that that's the case, but it is plausible. -Aris On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 12:08 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > Common-sense has nothing to do with it, this is very explicit rules text. > And your argument seems like a direct contradiction to the actual rule > text. > > A Rank-1 Mine has a specific rules-defined Upkeep Cost: 2n-2 lumber > = the empty set of assets. > > Fee-based actions explicitly says what happens for costs that are an > empty set of assets. > > So why doesn't that "actually impose" a fee of 0, which is directly > addressed? > > > On Fri, 20 Jul 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > Argument for FALSE on CFJ 2: > > The relevant portion of R2560 only applies to facilities "with upkeep > > costs". It is my contention that this implies that the upkeep cost must > be > > non-null, or the fee is inapplicable in the first place. Our common sense > > assumption is that a fee of 0 is no fee. Fee-based Actions changes the > > assumption, but only once a fee is actually imposed. There would be no > need > > for a conditional imposition in R2560 if that rule meant to impose the > null > > fee. > > > > No argument on CFJ 1 yet, although I agree that interpretation 3 seems > > rather unlikely. I favor interpretation 2, but haven't come up with a > > non-trivial argument for it. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 11:47 AM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I call this CFJ: If a person pays the (nonzero) upkeep cost for eir > > > Rank 1 facility and then upgrades it to Rank 2 in the same month, e > must > > > pay the full Rank 2 upkeep cost to prevent its end-of-the-month > > > destruction. > > > > > > > > > I call this CFJ: If a facility has an upkeep cost of 0 (i.e. null), > the > > > owner must announce an attempt to pay 0 in a month (or otherwise > publicly > > > note) the upkeep cost of 0 to prevent its end-of-the-month destruction. > > > > > > (linked, please). > > > > > > > > > Arguments for first CFJ: > > > > > > Rule 2560 (Facilities) reads in part: > > > 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. > > > > > > There's a few ways of interpreting this clause: > > > > > > 1. At the end of the month, the facility is Rank 2 and has a Rank 2 > Upkeep > > > cost. Has the Rank 2 Upkeep cost been paid? If not, the facility is > > > destroyed. (argument for TRUE). > > > > > > 2. At the end of the month, has e paid an appropriate upkeep cost for > > > that > > > facility at any point in the month? If so, e has met the conditions, > even > > > if the upkeep cost later changes, and the facility is not destroyed > > > (argument > > > for FALSE). > > > > > > 3. Upkeep costs are additive - if e payed the Rank 1 fee, e can later > pay > > > the difference after e upgrades (FALSE with different implications - I > > > don't > > > think this one holds up under precedent of single payment for fees, but > > > including for completeness). > > > > > > In interpreting, note the new Rules definition of costs/fees in > EVIDENCE, > > > below. > > > > > > > > > Arguments for second CFJ: > > > > > > > > > Rule 2560 (Facilities) reads in part: > > > 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. > > > > > > Prior to the adoption of Proposal 8055, it was unclear whether a > facility > > > with a defined upkeep cost of 0 (as opposed to no upkeep cost) needed > some > > > kind of announcement to prevent its destruction, but the Cartographer > and > > > the rest of us had assumed it meant "no action necessary" (and all > records > > > have self-ratified with this assumption). > > > > > > Proposal 8055 created the power-3 "Fee-based Actions" Rule, which > includes: > > > If the Rules associate payment of a set of assets (hereafter > > > the fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an > > > action, that action is a fee-based action. > > > > > > and also: > > > If the Rules define a fee-based action but the specified > > > set of assets is the empty set, then the action can be performed by > > > announcement, but the announcement must include that there > > > is an (empty or 0) fee for the action. > > > > > > This implies some kind of announcement is now necessary. However, > it's far > > > from clear. In particular, the "associated action" for Upkeep Costs > is not > > > a direct action, but something like paying the fee itself, or > "preventing > > > end-of-the-month destruction" or something. > > > > > > > > > EVIDENCE (both CFJs) > > > > > > Full text of Fee-based Actions (power-3): > > > > > > If the Rules associate payment of a 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. > > > > > > 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 can be performed by > > > announcement, but the announcement must include that there > > > is an (empty or 0) fee for the action. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
