DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposal 5822
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: This distribution of proposal 5822 initiates the Agoran Decisions on whether to adopt it. The eligible voters for ordinary proposals are the active players, the eligible voters for democratic proposals are the active first-class players, and the vote collector is the Assessor. The valid options on each decision are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT. NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE 5822 D 1 2.0 BobTHJ PBA Busting SELL(2 VP) -- -- 0x44;
DIS: Re: BUS: pba
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 17:47, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The AFO gives me a 0 crop. I PBA-deposit a 0 crop. I PBA-withdraw a > Point Voucher. I give a Point Voucher to the AFO. > The PV withdraw and subsequent transfer fail. All PV were destroyed when ais523 won. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Centralized Offices
On 28/10/2008, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 18:15, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On 28 Oct 2008, at 00:02, Ed Murphy wrote: >> >>> Good luck getting the proposal to pass, then. >> >> >> You may note that this is a response to the proponents of one person >> recordkeeping all >> the currencies. >> > You don't have to agree. I can resign my recordkeeping positions > instead (at this point its seeming like a better and better option). > > BobTHJ > I would be happy to take the VM and discuss a quicker means of collaberation. That seems balanced.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Centralized Offices
ehird wrote: > On 28 Oct 2008, at 00:02, Ed Murphy wrote: > >> Good luck getting the proposal to pass, then. > > > You may note that this is a response to the proponents of one person > recordkeeping all > the currencies. Centralizing currency recordkeeping is an entirely different beast from centralizing all other forms of recordkeeping.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Centralized Offices
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 18:15, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 28 Oct 2008, at 00:02, Ed Murphy wrote: > >> Good luck getting the proposal to pass, then. > > > You may note that this is a response to the proponents of one person > recordkeeping all > the currencies. > You don't have to agree. I can resign my recordkeeping positions instead (at this point its seeming like a better and better option). BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: ehird the willing
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 17:33, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 23:30 +, Elliott Hird wrote: >> On 27 Oct 2008, at 23:27, comex wrote: >> >> > I nominate ehird for Accountor. >> >> I decline. >> > I nominate root for Accountor, on the basis that e's the Conductor and > the only Accountor-tracked assets at the moment are Note > Markers/Credits. > > I also have no objection against BobTHJ staying Accountor if e wants to > do the work, or against a codenomic doing it. I'm fine with it. It makes sense for all note tracking to be done by the Conductor, and note credits are traded infrequently enough that the recordkeepor issue shouldn't be a problem. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Centralized Offices
On 28 Oct 2008, at 00:02, Ed Murphy wrote: Good luck getting the proposal to pass, then. You may note that this is a response to the proponents of one person recordkeeping all the currencies. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Centralized Offices
ehird wrote: > On 27 Oct 2008, at 23:31, comex wrote: > >> Can you implement all the roles of all offices in a completely >> automated system without too much hassle on normal game actions? > > > I will leave the work of thinking about that to the Speaker. Good luck getting the proposal to pass, then.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Centralized Offices
On 27 Oct 2008, at 23:31, comex wrote: Can you implement all the roles of all offices in a completely automated system without too much hassle on normal game actions? I will leave the work of thinking about that to the Speaker. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS Cashout
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ais523 can't return the point, so an equitable resolution would be to > award each other party 1 free point as well. ;-) No. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: Centralized Offices
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Proposal: It's convenient Can you implement all the roles of all offices in a completely automated system without too much hassle on normal game actions?
Re: DIS: State of the Economy
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 17:22 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 17:12, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Elliott Hird > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Also, you have too much power as is. > > > > What about a netural third party of some kind? Recordkeepors could > > become something more like auditors, verifying that entered > > transactions actually match their interpretation of the emails to the > > list? > > > Fine with me. That is more or less what I do anyway. Although I have > participated in the AAA and RBOA in the past it has been some time > since I have made any transactions for my own benefit. Again, I'm > happy to turn this over to someone else for the sake of having > everything under one recordkeepor. > > I just spent an entire 8 hour workday sorting through this mess. If I > were an accountant and Agora were a paying job I'd be fine with that, > but it isn't. Unless a reasonable solution can be devised I'll likely > step down from most of my recordkeeping positions. > ehird: I'd like to suggest that maybe you're being a bit petty here. It's nice for you to do all the PBA-related work, but it causes a huge mess when people transact with multiple banks, or indeed do anything involving the PBA and any other asset. This causes a lot of trouble when more than one recordkeepor is involved, as it takes many iterations to work out the resulting gamestate. Personally I'd like to see the whole lot recordkept by the PNP, or TNP2, or some other codenomic, but someone would have to write the code for that. Possibly I would at some point, but not some time soon. -- ais523
Re: DIS: State of the Economy
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 17:12, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Also, you have too much power as is. > > What about a netural third party of some kind? Recordkeepors could > become something more like auditors, verifying that entered > transactions actually match their interpretation of the emails to the > list? > Fine with me. That is more or less what I do anyway. Although I have participated in the AAA and RBOA in the past it has been some time since I have made any transactions for my own benefit. Again, I'm happy to turn this over to someone else for the sake of having everything under one recordkeepor. I just spent an entire 8 hour workday sorting through this mess. If I were an accountant and Agora were a paying job I'd be fine with that, but it isn't. Unless a reasonable solution can be devised I'll likely step down from most of my recordkeeping positions. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote: > Gratuitous arguments: I identified the contract as the one named UNDEAD. > If that contract doesn't exist, clearly the intent fails. If there's one that has that name, but don't know it exists, have you "clearly" identified it? If there's more than one that have similar names (perhaps none exact) have you specified any of them? If there's one with that exact name with entirely different members that does something entirely different than the one you "meant", have you specified that one? The fact that absolutely no "reasonable" outside observer can answer these questions from your CFJ plus anything on the public forum/reports/references etc. means you haven't "clearly" identified anything, regardless of what sort of contract actually may exist. As I said, "clearly" is strong enough to prevent hidden but directly-written notices of intent, it should be strong enough to prevent fishing expeditions against weakly-specified or conjectural information. -Goethe
Re: DIS: State of the Economy
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 17:07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> ehird, in preparation for an automated system that handles all >>> economic currencies, would you be willing to transfer recordkeeping >>> for the PBA to me? >> I'm going to have to decline. I am quite happy with recordkeeping the PBA, >> however, I >> would be willing to consider a system where you can directly send RBoA/AAA >> results to my >> program. Also, you have too much power as is. > > Oh, my. The main benefits of an automated system are only apparent > when there's one recordkeepor of everything... why don't you cooperate > on such a system? I think BobTHJ might agree to a bayes type setup > with git. > Agreed, multiple recordkeepors is what has made this such a mess in the first place. I'm not trying to accumulate power here...as a recordkeepor I'm required to be fair. It's not exactly a position with benefits. Anyway, if someone else would rather do it I'm fine with that as well, but the entire economy needs to be tracked in ONE place if we are to have any stability, and due to the current scale of things it probably needs to be automated to some extent. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: State of the Economy
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Also, you have too much power as is. What about a netural third party of some kind? Recordkeepors could become something more like auditors, verifying that entered transactions actually match their interpretation of the emails to the list? -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
Re: DIS: State of the Economy
On 27 Oct 2008, at 23:07, comex wrote: Oh, my. The main benefits of an automated system are only apparent when there's one recordkeepor of everything... I am a fan of decentralization. Besides, I don't see how a batch mail- submission imported directly into my program would affect things much. Plus BobTHJ doesn't like the PBA, anyway. It's too communist. -- ehird
Re: DIS: State of the Economy
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The PBA, RBoA, AAA, VM, Scorekeepors, and Accountors reports are now > all in agreement. I just sent the latest AAA report to a-b, though it > is being held for moderator approval due to size (I once more request > Taral to bump the size limit from 40kb to something a little larger, > say 400kb?). We've been here before. I've increased the limit on a-o to 100kb. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
Re: DIS: State of the Economy
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> ehird, in preparation for an automated system that handles all >> economic currencies, would you be willing to transfer recordkeeping >> for the PBA to me? > I'm going to have to decline. I am quite happy with recordkeeping the PBA, > however, I > would be willing to consider a system where you can directly send RBoA/AAA > results to my > program. Also, you have too much power as is. Oh, my. The main benefits of an automated system are only apparent when there's one recordkeepor of everything... why don't you cooperate on such a system? I think BobTHJ might agree to a bayes type setup with git.
Re: DIS: State of the Economy
On 27 Oct 2008, at 22:57, Roger Hicks wrote: ehird, in preparation for an automated system that handles all economic currencies, would you be willing to transfer recordkeeping for the PBA to me? I'm going to have to decline. I am quite happy with recordkeeping the PBA, however, I would be willing to consider a system where you can directly send RBoA/AAA results to my program. Also, you have too much power as is. -- ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: Artistry (5 VP!)
Ping. I can still take one more Artist, or two if ehird leaves, to
influence some future distribution.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 5:44 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I join the following contract:
> [Basically, vote FOR*1 on AI=1 proposals in a distribution, and get 5 VP.]
> {
> 1. Before the Painting Period, anyone can join this contract by
> announcement, unless it would come to have more than five Artists, or
> leave it by announcement with seven days' prior notice.
> 2. comex is the Patron; the other parties to this contract are Artists.
> 3. During the voting period of a distribution of proposals, the Patron
> CAN announce the distribution to be the Masterpiece. The announcement
> is INVALID if the Patron does not give 5 VP to each Artist in the same
> message. The voting period of the proposals in the Masterpiece is the
> Painting Period.
> 4. In the first three days of the Painting Period, all Artists SHALL
> cast at least one valid vote FOR every AI=1 proposal in the
> distribution, and SHALL NOT retract that vote.
> 5. During the Painting Period, the Patron CAN on behalf of any Artist
> to cast a vote FOR an AI=1 proposal in the distribution if e does not
> have any valid FOR votes on it, and to retract a random one of eir
> votes if e has already voted up to eir voting limit on it. The Artist
> SHALL NOT retract a vote cast in this manner.
> 6. When the Painting Period is finished, this contract terminates itself.
> }
DIS: State of the Economy
The PBA, RBoA, AAA, VM, Scorekeepors, and Accountors reports are now all in agreement. I just sent the latest AAA report to a-b, though it is being held for moderator approval due to size (I once more request Taral to bump the size limit from 40kb to something a little larger, say 400kb?). ehird, in preparation for an automated system that handles all economic currencies, would you be willing to transfer recordkeeping for the PBA to me? BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 18:15 -0400, comex wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You may need it, but it doesn't mean that you can compel it or that you're > > going to get it. -Goethe. > > Then the CotC is just going to have to assign CFJ 2223. But to who? -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You may need it, but it doesn't mean that you can compel it or that you're > going to get it. -Goethe. Then the CotC is just going to have to assign CFJ 2223.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, comex wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:57 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Errata >> -- >> CFJ 2223 was not initiated because the UNDEAD contract either doesn't >> exist, or ais523 is not a party to it and it is not a pledge. (TODO: >> if no evidence of pledgehood by 10/28, then remove from database) > > The UNDEAD contract is a pledge, and Goethe is not a party to it. > > The above statement stands to violate Truthfulness if proven false. > However, even if Goethe claims that e is aware of the UNDEAD and it is > not a pledge, or e is a party (a stronger statement than e's made in > the past), it's then just me versus em, hardly conclusive evidence > that I was lying. To prove that UNDEAD is not a pledge or Goethe is a > party to it, we will need the testimony of another party. You may need it, but it doesn't mean that you can compel it or that you're going to get it. -Goethe.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PBA, milling
On 27 Oct 2008, at 22:03, Roger Hicks wrote: Prior to this the PNP only owned 3 crops, so it appears as if the entire transaction fails. OK. -- ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On 27 Oct 2008, at 21:58, comex wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:57 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Errata -- CFJ 2223 was not initiated because the UNDEAD contract either doesn't exist, or ais523 is not a party to it and it is not a pledge. (TODO: if no evidence of pledgehood by 10/28, then remove from database) The UNDEAD contract is a pledge, and Goethe is not a party to it. Yes, but you are. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PBA, milling
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 15:01, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 27 Oct 2008, at 20:58, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: > >> The PNP withdraws one 1 crop from the PBA for ^9. >> The PNP withdraws one 1 crop from the PBA for ^10. >> Using the Mill with the first name in alphabetical order out of eir >> non-In Production Addition Mills, the PNP mills 1 + 1 = 2. >> The PNP deposits one 2 crop into the PBA to gain ^37. >> The PNP withdraws one 4 crop from the PBA for ^5. >> The PNP withdraws one 7 crop from the PBA for ^11. >> Using the Mill with the first name in alphabetical order out of eir >> non-In Production Division Mills, the PNP mills 4 / 7 = X. >> The PNP deposits one X crop into the PBA to gain ^29. >> The PNP withdraws one 5 crop from the PBA for ^17. >> The PNP withdraws one 7 crop from the PBA for ^12. >> Using the Mill with the first name in alphabetical order out of eir >> non-In Production Multiplication Mills, the PNP mills 5 * 7 = 2. >> The PNP deposits one 2 crop into the PBA to gain ^36. >> The PNP withdraws one 1 crop from the PBA for ^11. >> The PNP withdraws one 1 crop from the PBA for ^12. >> Using the Mill with the first name in alphabetical order out of eir >> non-In Production Addition Mills, the PNP mills 1 + 1 = 2. >> The PNP deposits one 2 crop into the PBA to gain ^35. > > > Before all this the PNP only had 1 coin. So obviously some stuff fails, but > as I don't > know the RBoA, I'm waiting to hear from BobTHJ. > Prior to this the PNP only owned 3 crops, so it appears as if the entire transaction fails. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: banking
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 14:49, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 5 6 crops [^80] > > I deposit 9 1 crops in the PBA. This should net me 126 coins. > I withdraw 5 6 crops for 105 coins. > As previously stated you are only able to withdraw four 6 crops. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: hi ehird
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 14:07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BobTHJ wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 08:04, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I note that if BobTHJ had fulfilled eir contract-defined duties on >>> time, ehird would have been able to easily figure this out. >>> >> I note that if I didn't have to spend several hours each day sorting >> out crazy transactions like this I would have plenty of time to >> publish reports for the contracts that I manage. > > How extensively have you automated your recordkeeping? CotC has been > automated for years; Assessor has been considerably easier since it > became automated (I still have to hand-evaluate conditional votes, > but most of those are SELL(X - Y) for which I just enter Y up front > and change it if/when the ticket is filled). > > I haven't, didn't really see the need until this last week. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bank Motion
On 27 Oct 2008, at 21:36, Roger Hicks wrote: I missed this deposit the first time around (sorry ehird!). Murphy only had seven 7 crops to deposit, not 8. This effects the following subsequent PBA withdraw by comex: 2008-10-27 20:49 -- comex deposits 9 1 crops for ^117. comex withdraws 5 6 crops for ^105. e was only able to withdraw four 6 crops. It probably screws with the rate of 6 crops too. Fix'd -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS Cashout
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> I agree that criminal proceedings aren't reasonable, I'm more thinking of >> the equity; what is an "equitable" solution to making a mistake that >> resets all other members' points? > > ps. Maybe equity would be me putting a big word ILLEGAL next to the win in > the herald's report ;). What's the point? It would have been a valid win if e had known about the issue (e just would have had to pay more).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bank Motion
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 18:02, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I join the PBA. > I PBA-deposit all my 6 crops (I think this gets me ^156). I missed this deposit the first time around (sorry ehird!). Murphy only had seven 7 crops to deposit, not 8. This effects the following subsequent PBA withdraw by comex: 2008-10-27 20:49 -- comex deposits 9 1 crops for ^117. comex withdraws 5 6 crops for ^105. e was only able to withdraw four 6 crops. It probably screws with the rate of 6 crops too. > I RBoA-deposit all my coins (I think this gets me 1560 chits). > I become a Banker. > I RBoA-withdraw as many X crops as I can (I think this costs 825 chits). > I RBoA-withdraw as many WRVs as I can (I think this costs 1000 chits). > I intend to change the RBoA's coin exchange to 20. > > BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS Cashout
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 14:24 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 14:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > As is, I don't think there's a lot that can be done. The PRS was acting > > not-in-accordance-with-expectations due to a mistake, so that can be > > solved equitably, but the gamestate will have changed a lot in the > > meantime. Technically speaking, BobTHJ's award of the second point to me > > was ILLEGAL (although it worked), but a court case on that would have to > > be UNAWARE, as at the time we both believed it worked. > > I agree that criminal proceedings aren't reasonable, I'm more thinking of > the equity; what is an "equitable" solution to making a mistake that > resets all other members' points? I'm not too bothered with "gamestate > changing" issues, equity is more interesting when you're finding recompense > for things that "can't be put exactly back." In other words, is there > more equity in the "worth" of the single point (one point) or the relative > worth (the value of that point in how it changed all holdings and awarded > a win). -goethe I just love the irony of that happening on the 100th point... -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS Cashout
On 27 Oct 2008, at 21:24, Kerim Aydin wrote: I agree that criminal proceedings aren't reasonable, I'm more thinking of the equity; what is an "equitable" solution to making a mistake that resets all other members' points? I'm not too bothered with "gamestate changing" issues, equity is more interesting when you're finding recompense for things that "can't be put exactly back." In other words, is there more equity in the "worth" of the single point (one point) or the relative worth (the value of that point in how it changed all holdings and awarded a win). -goethe Giving back a point = taking away a points voucher, I'd say. Or to be more general (i.e. have more impact), take away enough coins for 1 PV. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS Cashout
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I agree that criminal proceedings aren't reasonable, I'm more thinking of > the equity; what is an "equitable" solution to making a mistake that > resets all other members' points? ps. Maybe equity would be me putting a big word ILLEGAL next to the win in the herald's report ;).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS Cashout
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 14:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > As is, I don't think there's a lot that can be done. The PRS was acting > not-in-accordance-with-expectations due to a mistake, so that can be > solved equitably, but the gamestate will have changed a lot in the > meantime. Technically speaking, BobTHJ's award of the second point to me > was ILLEGAL (although it worked), but a court case on that would have to > be UNAWARE, as at the time we both believed it worked. I agree that criminal proceedings aren't reasonable, I'm more thinking of the equity; what is an "equitable" solution to making a mistake that resets all other members' points? I'm not too bothered with "gamestate changing" issues, equity is more interesting when you're finding recompense for things that "can't be put exactly back." In other words, is there more equity in the "worth" of the single point (one point) or the relative worth (the value of that point in how it changed all holdings and awarded a win). -goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS Cashout
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 14:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:52, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The following sentence is a win announcement, and this sentence serves > >> to clearly label it as one. ais523 has a score of at least 100. > >> > >> Therefore, by rule 2187, I satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score; > >> I do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, therefore I win. > > > > Per the Scorekeepor's office, this is an effective win (even though > > the 100'th point was gained due to my error as PRS contestmaster). > > This is a case where a contest has done sufficient damage to outside > parties (e.g. everyone with points would would reset to 0) to warrant > action. Recommendations? -Goethe > It could have been fixed easily at the time if it had been noticed, and would still have reset everyone's points to 20% of their original value (we just changed the Score Index), with a slight difference in the PBA's asset holdings. I suppose this is one of the effects of pragmatic point awarding... As is, I don't think there's a lot that can be done. The PRS was acting not-in-accordance-with-expectations due to a mistake, so that can be solved equitably, but the gamestate will have changed a lot in the meantime. Technically speaking, BobTHJ's award of the second point to me was ILLEGAL (although it worked), but a court case on that would have to be UNAWARE, as at the time we both believed it worked. -- ais523 who just won due to a mistake, it seems
DIS: Re: BUS: PBA, milling
On 27 Oct 2008, at 20:58, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: The PNP withdraws one 1 crop from the PBA for ^9. The PNP withdraws one 1 crop from the PBA for ^10. Using the Mill with the first name in alphabetical order out of eir non-In Production Addition Mills, the PNP mills 1 + 1 = 2. The PNP deposits one 2 crop into the PBA to gain ^37. The PNP withdraws one 4 crop from the PBA for ^5. The PNP withdraws one 7 crop from the PBA for ^11. Using the Mill with the first name in alphabetical order out of eir non-In Production Division Mills, the PNP mills 4 / 7 = X. The PNP deposits one X crop into the PBA to gain ^29. The PNP withdraws one 5 crop from the PBA for ^17. The PNP withdraws one 7 crop from the PBA for ^12. Using the Mill with the first name in alphabetical order out of eir non-In Production Multiplication Mills, the PNP mills 5 * 7 = 2. The PNP deposits one 2 crop into the PBA to gain ^36. The PNP withdraws one 1 crop from the PBA for ^11. The PNP withdraws one 1 crop from the PBA for ^12. Using the Mill with the first name in alphabetical order out of eir non-In Production Addition Mills, the PNP mills 1 + 1 = 2. The PNP deposits one 2 crop into the PBA to gain ^35. Before all this the PNP only had 1 coin. So obviously some stuff fails, but as I don't know the RBoA, I'm waiting to hear from BobTHJ. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS Cashout
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 15:07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:52, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> The following sentence is a win announcement, and this sentence serves >>> to clearly label it as one. ais523 has a score of at least 100. >>> >>> Therefore, by rule 2187, I satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score; >>> I do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, therefore I win. >> >> Per the Scorekeepor's office, this is an effective win (even though >> the 100'th point was gained due to my error as PRS contestmaster). > > This is a case where a contest has done sufficient damage to outside > parties (e.g. everyone with points would would reset to 0) to warrant > action. Recommendations? -Goethe > no drastic action needed, in my opinion. If I would have caught the error ais523 could have still gotten the last PV needed and still easily won. The end result would have been the same. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Blah
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 13:59, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I transfer one 0 crop to the AFO. Fails, you have none. > The AFO transfers one 0 crop to the PBA. Still works. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS Cashout
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:52, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The following sentence is a win announcement, and this sentence serves >> to clearly label it as one. ais523 has a score of at least 100. >> >> Therefore, by rule 2187, I satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score; >> I do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, therefore I win. > > Per the Scorekeepor's office, this is an effective win (even though > the 100'th point was gained due to my error as PRS contestmaster). This is a case where a contest has done sufficient damage to outside parties (e.g. everyone with points would would reset to 0) to warrant action. Recommendations? -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: PBA, milling
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 13:58 -0700, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: > The PNP withdraws one 1 crop from the PBA for ^9. > The PNP withdraws one 1 crop from the PBA for ^10. > Using the Mill with the first name in alphabetical order out of eir > non-In Production Addition Mills, the PNP mills 1 + 1 = 2. > The PNP deposits one 2 crop into the PBA to gain ^37. > The PNP withdraws one 4 crop from the PBA for ^5. > The PNP withdraws one 7 crop from the PBA for ^11. > Using the Mill with the first name in alphabetical order out of eir > non-In Production Division Mills, the PNP mills 4 / 7 = X. > The PNP deposits one X crop into the PBA to gain ^29. > The PNP withdraws one 5 crop from the PBA for ^17. > The PNP withdraws one 7 crop from the PBA for ^12. > Using the Mill with the first name in alphabetical order out of eir > non-In Production Multiplication Mills, the PNP mills 5 * 7 = 2. > The PNP deposits one 2 crop into the PBA to gain ^36. > The PNP withdraws one 1 crop from the PBA for ^11. > The PNP withdraws one 1 crop from the PBA for ^12. > Using the Mill with the first name in alphabetical order out of eir > non-In Production Addition Mills, the PNP mills 1 + 1 = 2. > The PNP deposits one 2 crop into the PBA to gain ^35. The withdraws fail, the PNP didn't have as many Coins as it thought it had (my transfer to it earlier failed). Whether the milling and deposits work depend on its crop holdings, which I don't know. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: PRS Cashout
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:52, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The following sentence is a win announcement, and this sentence serves > to clearly label it as one. ais523 has a score of at least 100. > > Therefore, by rule 2187, I satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score; > I do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, therefore I win. Per the Scorekeepor's office, this is an effective win (even though the 100'th point was gained due to my error as PRS contestmaster). BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Last week's Enigma results
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Murphy: uuduuuduuddududududuudu > I award Murphy 4 points. > Wooble: uudududu > I award Murphy 4 points. I think you just awarded Murphy 8 points and Wooble 0. -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2238 assigned to Wooble
ehird wrote: > On 27 Oct 2008, at 14:28, comex wrote: > >> I think there's just a fundamental problem trading assets with >> different recordkeepors. I repeat that automation would be nice-- one >> entity could effectively recordkeep all assets anyone cared to make, >> removing the current constraints on the asset system. Plus it would >> look really cool. > > > Proto: Agora becomes a codenomic. AGAINST. Let it be done per-contract, e.g. "a person CAN trade coins by announcement conforming to ".
DIS: Re: BUS: PRS Cashout
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I initiate an equity case regarding the PRS, whose parties are ehird, > BobTHJ, comex, Murphy, Quazie, Wooble, Pavitra, ais523, and root. > ais523 should only have gotten 1 point from the above cashout since e > only had 1 PV. He attempted to withdraw a second PV from the PBA, but > this transaction failed (something which I only now discovered). ais523 can't return the point, so an equitable resolution would be to award each other party 1 free point as well. ;-) -root
DIS: Re: BUS: banking
On 27 Oct 2008, at 20:30, Geoffrey Spear wrote: And a 4 crop. I think this leaves me with 1 coin, which I transfer to the PNP. It leaves you with 25, now 24 coins. -- ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: Banking/Farming
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 15:52, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I PBA-withdraw 2 4 crop. > I PBA-withdraw 2 7 crops. I missed these, and therefore goofed up this transaction. > > I mill 4 * 8 = X. > > I mill 4 / 7 = X. > > I mill 4 / 7 = X. > > I mill 3 - 4 = X. > > I mill 3 + 7 = X. So this last milling would have succeeded then. However, your later attempt to fix my error by milling again then fails because your mill is In Production. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: When will you RBoA guys learn?
On 27 Oct 2008, at 20:25, Roger Hicks wrote: ehird, we have some trouble with the above transaction. You claim ais523 was unable to withdraw any 0 crops because e didn't have enough coins. If that is the case then e didn't have any 0 crops to deposit into the RBoA, and as a result would only have had enough chits to withdraw 1 coin. lol. fixed. -- ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: When will you RBoA guys learn?
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:51, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I PBA-withdraw two 0 crops for ^3+^4 = ^7. > I RBoA-deposit two 0 crops for 25*2=50 Chits. > I PBA-withdraw 8 Coins for 48 Chits. > -- ehird, we have some trouble with the above transaction. You claim ais523 was unable to withdraw any 0 crops because e didn't have enough coins. If that is the case then e didn't have any 0 crops to deposit into the RBoA, and as a result would only have had enough chits to withdraw 1 coin. BobTHJ
DIS: up to date
pba proto-report up to date, bobthj: please read -- ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: PBA, and milling
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 06:34, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I PBA-withdraw: > four 3 crops, I think this costs ^34; > three 7 crops, I think this costs ^24; > a 4 crop, I think this costs ^6. Due to the failure of some of these (I missed this in my recordkeeping)... > I mill 3*7=X and 3*7=X, using land #117 and land #167 ...one of these fails (because you are short a 7 crop)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: hi ehird
BobTHJ wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 08:04, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I note that if BobTHJ had fulfilled eir contract-defined duties on >> time, ehird would have been able to easily figure this out. >> > I note that if I didn't have to spend several hours each day sorting > out crazy transactions like this I would have plenty of time to > publish reports for the contracts that I manage. How extensively have you automated your recordkeeping? CotC has been automated for years; Assessor has been considerably easier since it became automated (I still have to hand-evaluate conditional votes, but most of those are SELL(X - Y) for which I just enter Y up front and change it if/when the ticket is filled).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposal 5822
On 27 Oct 2008, at 19:56, Ed Murphy wrote: And what scam was that, then? He says he's going to try it again, so I doubt he'll tell you. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Note to new players
comex wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 3:08 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> There is no penalty for failing to judge, > > Other than a possible criminal case for violating a SHALL? Sorry, you're right; you have a week to either judge (earning a Note with which you can eventually buy extra votes) or recuse yourself.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Banking/Farming
On 27 Oct 2008, at 19:54, Roger Hicks wrote: comex seems to have way too many coins after buying all eir assets back (1468?). Since Warrigal potentially deposited as many as 23 VP in the PBA (a transaction that is missing from your report) prior to comex's withdrawing as many as possible, it is possible comex may have withdrawn more than 7. I also have discrepancies as to the number of crops owned by the PBA for 4, 6, and 9 crops. Since I haven't published an AAA report yet for you I'll try and work these out. In addition, the RBOA should still have only 260 coins. We differ by an amount of 168...you say ais523 deposited 719 coins in the bank across the various "bank run" scam messages, but I only show 551 coins. IMHO, we need to work everything out so asset holdings are in agreement for all contracts and then ratify it all. I also don't think it works well to have multiple recordkeepers for contracts whose currencies are traded around a bit. Perhaps we should amend all the contracts to make the Accountor be the recordkeepor. If we did so I would be happy to write automation to keep track of all the various transactions that occur. Please see my recent a-d thread. I f*cked up. Majorly. -- ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposal 5822
BobTHJ wrote: > Just to clarify: I really don't want to see the demise of the PBA by > proposal. This was intended to be part of a scam that I later realized > wouldn't work (and in truth had little to do with the PBA). And what scam was that, then?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Banking/Farming
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:41, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Processed, new proto-PBA report online. Is it correct? Does the RBoA still > have too > many coins? is the comex stuff right? > comex seems to have way too many coins after buying all eir assets back (1468?). Since Warrigal potentially deposited as many as 23 VP in the PBA (a transaction that is missing from your report) prior to comex's withdrawing as many as possible, it is possible comex may have withdrawn more than 7. I also have discrepancies as to the number of crops owned by the PBA for 4, 6, and 9 crops. Since I haven't published an AAA report yet for you I'll try and work these out. In addition, the RBOA should still have only 260 coins. We differ by an amount of 168...you say ais523 deposited 719 coins in the bank across the various "bank run" scam messages, but I only show 551 coins. IMHO, we need to work everything out so asset holdings are in agreement for all contracts and then ratify it all. I also don't think it works well to have multiple recordkeepers for contracts whose currencies are traded around a bit. Perhaps we should amend all the contracts to make the Accountor be the recordkeepor. If we did so I would be happy to write automation to keep track of all the various transactions that occur. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5807-5821
BobTHJ wrote: > I leave the Llama Party. With only Warrigal as a party, it thus dissolves. This probably invalidates your votes of SLAMA(2VP) on 5803-05 and LLAMA(F) on 5806.
DIS: Speaking of trusting scripts...
...pba.py was _awarding_ people for deposits. Feel free to kill me. New report pushed. comex is less of a crazily- rich person and such. BobTHJ: you want to read it. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:28 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But there's no reason R1728 shouldn't support > with-support-without-objection generally. (Goethe, was it intended > to?) > > Proposal: Allow multiple methods (AI=2) > Amend Rule 1728 by replacing "method" in item b) with "methods." That's probably not sufficient. I suggest adding "Without N Objections and With M Support" as a fourth method, adjusting the parts that refer to N to also refer to M, and adding a new satisfaction clause to R2124. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: hi ehird
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 19:34, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 9:03 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 6:11 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I deposit all of my non-fixed assets which have an exchange rate into the >>> PBA. >> >> I withdraw all assets that I deposited in this message, except for 2 VP. > > Dandy. > > I do this 30 times: if I have more than 50 VP, I deposit 1 VP for at > least 15 coins. > Warrigal has 73 VP, so this happens a max of 23 times (assuming the VP rates allow). BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, comex wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I publish official report X, which if ratified would make me dictator. >> I intend to (ratify X without objection), with support. >> I cause Player B, on whose behalf I can act, to support this. >> Having obtained the necessary support, I hereby perform the action >> "ratify X without objection" as permitted by R1728. > > The Rules do not explicitly authorize you to (ratify X without > objection) with support. > > But there's no reason R1728 shouldn't support > with-support-without-objection generally. (Goethe, was it intended > to?) R1728? I think we used it that way a couple times "way back when (before repeals?) and I like it myself. I haven't personally been tracking various tinkerings with the Rule so I don't know what was intended, don't see the harm in enabling in within R1728 (root's right in that it's ambiguous so a R1728-fix wouldn't hurt). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposal 5822
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 13:29, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Just to clarify: I really don't want to see the demise of the PBA by >> proposal. This was intended to be part of a scam that I later realized >> wouldn't work (and in truth had little to do with the PBA). > > What was it? > Not yet...I may still be able to pull it off through other means. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: PRS changes
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > with: > The total number of points a player MAY award in a given week > is equal to 5 times the number of first-class players who are > members of contracts for which e is contestmaster. Points up to > this total CAN be awarded by a player to other members of > contracts for which e is the contestmaster by announcement, and > MUST be awarded as explicitly described in the contract. I don't like this. Points awarded by a contest should be proportional to the skill at winning that contest which should be proportional to the number of contestants you are competing against in that contest. The link shouldn't be spread out among multiple contests. Honestly, there are always plenty of good ideas for contests, but I think "fewer contests with more players, higher interest by more agorans and higher quality" is better, so am not particularly against current one contest/contestmaster. -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposal 5822
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just to clarify: I really don't want to see the demise of the PBA by > proposal. This was intended to be part of a scam that I later realized > wouldn't work (and in truth had little to do with the PBA). What was it?
Re: DIS: Proto-contest: The Cylons of Battlestar Agora
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 13:13, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So there is no interest in this? What if it were based upon a different game? > Sounds interesting to me initially (though I haven't yet read the rules of the board game). BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Proto-contest: The Cylons of Battlestar Agora
So there is no interest in this? What if it were based upon a different game? -root On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:56 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The following is a proto-contest. Kudos to the Werewolves of Agora > Nomic contest for providing templating. > > 1a) The name of this public contract is The Cylons of Battlestar >Agora. > > 1b) The purpose of this contract is to be a contest. > > 1c) Any first-class person CAN become a party to this contract by >announcement. Any party not in a session CAN cease to be a party >by announcement. > > 1d) The gamemaster is the contestmaster of this contract. If this >contract has no contestmaster, the gamemaster is root. > > 1e) The gamemaster CAN amend this contract without member objection. > > 2a) Each session SHALL generally follow the rules of Battlestar >Galactica: the Board Game, to be augmented and overridden by this >contract. In the context of the board game rules, the word >"player" shall mean "colonial". The board game rules are available >in PDF form at: >http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/bsg/support.shtml > > 2b) The gamemaster SHALL perform all random determinations and card >deals. > > 2c) The gamemaster SHALL keep each colonial informed of all state of >eir session to which e is privy. The gamemaster SHALL NOT >otherwise disclose any non-public session state. > > 2d) Where a colonial is required to make a public decision, e SHALL do >so by announcement. Where a colonial is required to make a private >decision, e SHALL do so by publicly informing the gamemaster of >eir decision. > > 2e) Whenever a session is stalled for more than a week waiting for a >colonial to act, the gamemaster CAN take over eir position by >announcement. Upon doing so, the colonial is removed from the >session, and the gamemaster SHALL make all necessary decisions for >eir character. > > 2f) The gamemaster CAN end a session without the objection of any >colonial in that session. > > 2g) All rules disputes pertaining to a session shall be decided by the >gamemaster. The gamemaster shall follow the spirit of the board >game rules whereever possible. > > 3) While there are at least 3 contestants not in a session, the > gamemaster CAN, and SHALL as soon as possible: > > a) Initiate a session by announcement, indicating a set of > contestants not already in a session, numbering between 3 and 6 > inclusive. The colonials for this session are the indicated > contestants. > > b) Randomly determine and announce the turn order of the colonials. > > c) Announce the completion of the above requirements. This starts > the session's character selection phase. > > 4a) During a session's character selection phase, each colonial SHALL, >in turn order, announce eir selection of character as allowed by >the base rules. > > 4b) After each colonial has announced eir character selection, the >gamemaster SHALL deal cards as needed to complete the session >setup. Once e has done so, e shall announce the completion of the >character selection phase; this begins the first colonial's turn. > > 5) During a colonial's turn, after receiving eir skill cards, e SHALL > do the following, in order: > > a) Optionally move to a different location by announcement. > > b) Optionally perform an available action by announcement, > describing all the necessary parameters of the action. The > gamemaster shall announce the outcome of the action, if > necessary. If the colonial chooses not to perform an action, e > SHALL announce this. > > 6) After a colonial's action has been resolved, the gamemaster SHALL > do the following, in order: > > a) Deal a crisis card by announcement, which shall then be > resolved. > > b) Announce the outcome of the crisis card. > > c) Conduct the Activate Cylon Ships and Prepare for Jump steps by > announcement. > > d) Remind each colonial with more than 10 skill cards to discard > down to 10 by privately informing the gamemaster. > > e) Announce the completion of the turn. This starts the turn of > the next colonial in turn order. > > 7a) When a skill check is required, each colonial shall, in turn order >beginning with the colonial following the colonial whose turn it >is, privately inform the gamemaster which skill cards e chooses to >play, then announce the number of skill cards e has played. > > 7b) After all colonials have played skill cards, the gamemaster SHALL >announce all skill cards contributing to the skill check and the >outcome of the skill check. > > 8) The session ends when either the humans or the cylons win. The > contestmaster SHALL announce the end of the game and award > floor(P/N) points to each winner of the session, where P is equal > to 5 times the number of parties that are first-class players, and > N is the number of winners of the
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:50 PM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:47 AM, Elliott Hird >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Messing with people's contracts from inside their framework is fine. >>> >>> Messing them up via proposal is not. >> >> Why? The whole point of making an R1728 contract is to let the >> contract be governed by Agora. Messing with things by proposal is a >> long tradition in Agora. > > I thought the whole point of making an R1728 contract was to let the > contract be *enforced* by Agora. Destroying R1728 contracts sounds to > me like a good way to get people to lose faith in the system. The term used by R1728 is in fact "governed", not "enforced". In any case, this is the reason for my proposal that would prevent future proposals from meddling in this manner at AI 1. If AI 2 is still too volatile, then I suggest you either propose making it even more difficult, or you should not make R1728 contracts. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: >> I agree that it's perfectly clear what's intended. But R1728 isn't >> looking for extension, it's looking for one of those three method >> schemata, period, and if the method doesn't match, then R1728 doesn't >> apply to it. Since R1728 is the only rule that describes how to >> perform an action dependently, the action would probably be >> unperformable. > > Okay, let's take it from the point of view of one of these methods. > The Without Objection part of Without Objection AND with Support > would ask: > > 1. Is the initiator authorized to perform the action? > 2. Yes, but only with Support. > 3. Therefore if e has support, e satisfies (a) for determining >if e's authorized to do it without objection; > 4. Therefore e can do it (with support) without objection. > > And the nesting works the other way too, of course. That's not the way I was interpreting it. If you mean it to be nested like that, you should make the nesting explicit, especially since you're using R1728 in a way it wasn't meant to be used. Also, I'm not convinced that R1728 doesn't simply allow the inner layer to be bypassed. For example, if the nesting were "CAN (ratify ... without objection) with support", I could envision the following interpretation: I publish official report X, which if ratified would make me dictator. I intend to (ratify X without objection), with support. I cause Player B, on whose behalf I can act, to support this. Having obtained the necessary support, I hereby perform the action "ratify X without objection" as permitted by R1728. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:47 AM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Messing with people's contracts from inside their framework is fine. >> >> Messing them up via proposal is not. > > Why? The whole point of making an R1728 contract is to let the > contract be governed by Agora. Messing with things by proposal is a > long tradition in Agora. I thought the whole point of making an R1728 contract was to let the contract be *enforced* by Agora. Destroying R1728 contracts sounds to me like a good way to get people to lose faith in the system. --Warrigal of Escher
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Banking/Farming
On 27 Oct 2008, at 18:26, Roger Hicks wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:23, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 22 Oct 2008, at 23:40, Ian Kelly wrote: I withdrew ^250 from the RBoA, withdrew 2 1-crops for ^23, withdrew 6 VP for ^63, deposited several note credits for ^168, withdrew 2 5-crops for ^39, withdrew 7 1-crops for ^112, and finally withdrew a 2-crop for ^27. That adds up to ^154. BobTHJ... this was posted to a-d, it's a clarification of previous actions. Oops...you are right. However, e got the number of 250 coins because that's as many as e could afford to withdraw at that point. BobTHJ Processed, new proto-PBA report online. Is it correct? Does the RBoA still have too many coins? is the comex stuff right? -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 11:30 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > > I agree that it's perfectly clear what's intended. But R1728 isn't > > looking for extension, it's looking for one of those three method > > schemata, period, and if the method doesn't match, then R1728 doesn't > > apply to it. Since R1728 is the only rule that describes how to > > perform an action dependently, the action would probably be > > unperformable. > > Okay, let's take it from the point of view of one of these methods. > The Without Objection part of Without Objection AND with Support > would ask: > > 1. Is the initiator authorized to perform the action? > 2. Yes, but only with Support. > 3. Therefore if e has support, e satisfies (a) for determining > if e's authorized to do it without objection; > 4. Therefore e can do it (with support) without objection. > > And the nesting works the other way too, of course. > How would this affect time limits? "Without 2 objections, with 2 support, I intend to beh" would mean that you would have to intend to (beh with 2 support) without 2 objections. After the objection time limit had expired, you could perform the action with 2 support, and the support could have been given earlier, if you'd given 2 separate intents. So that works as expected, but looks a little strange: "Without 2 objections, I intend to with 2 support beh" "With 2 support, I intend to beh" (objections/support happen here) "Without 2 objections, with 2 support, I beh" The other way round also works but has different intents. The double-intent required here also looks very strange. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > I agree that it's perfectly clear what's intended. But R1728 isn't > looking for extension, it's looking for one of those three method > schemata, period, and if the method doesn't match, then R1728 doesn't > apply to it. Since R1728 is the only rule that describes how to > perform an action dependently, the action would probably be > unperformable. Okay, let's take it from the point of view of one of these methods. The Without Objection part of Without Objection AND with Support would ask: 1. Is the initiator authorized to perform the action? 2. Yes, but only with Support. 3. Therefore if e has support, e satisfies (a) for determining if e's authorized to do it without objection; 4. Therefore e can do it (with support) without objection. And the nesting works the other way too, of course. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Banking/Farming
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:23, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 22 Oct 2008, at 23:40, Ian Kelly wrote: > >> I withdrew ^250 from the RBoA, withdrew 2 1-crops for ^23, withdrew 6 >> VP for ^63, deposited several note credits for ^168, withdrew 2 >> 5-crops for ^39, withdrew 7 1-crops for ^112, and finally withdrew a >> 2-crop for ^27. That adds up to ^154. > > > BobTHJ... this was posted to a-d, it's a clarification of previous actions. > Oops...you are right. However, e got the number of 250 coins because that's as many as e could afford to withdraw at that point. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Banking/Farming
On 22 Oct 2008, at 23:40, Ian Kelly wrote: I withdrew ^250 from the RBoA, withdrew 2 1-crops for ^23, withdrew 6 VP for ^63, deposited several note credits for ^168, withdrew 2 5-crops for ^39, withdrew 7 1-crops for ^112, and finally withdrew a 2-crop for ^27. That adds up to ^154. BobTHJ... this was posted to a-d, it's a clarification of previous actions. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Banking/Farming
On 27 Oct 2008, at 18:17, Roger Hicks wrote: ehird, this is the message of root's I am referring to. OK. Will process On 27 Oct 2008, at 01:34, warrigal wrote: I do this 30 times: if I have more than 50 VP, I deposit 1 VP for at least 15 coins. bobthj, please tell me how many vp warrigal had before this transaction. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: >> This compound method isn't one of the methods listed in R1728(a). The >> paragraph does say "at least one of the following methods", but I >> think that just means that the rules can define multiple methods for >> performing the same dependent action, not that an otherwise undefined >> composite of multiple methods is allowed as a single method. > > I don't see why a compound of two listed methods isn't a clear > extension of a double requirement. -G. I agree that it's perfectly clear what's intended. But R1728 isn't looking for extension, it's looking for one of those three method schemata, period, and if the method doesn't match, then R1728 doesn't apply to it. Since R1728 is the only rule that describes how to perform an action dependently, the action would probably be unperformable. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Banking/Farming
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 16:40, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I withdrew ^250 from the RBoA, withdrew 2 1-crops for ^23, withdrew 6 > VP for ^63, deposited several note credits for ^168, withdrew 2 > 5-crops for ^39, withdrew 7 1-crops for ^112, and finally withdrew a > 2-crop for ^27. That adds up to ^154. > ehird, this is the message of root's I am referring to. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: hi ehird
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 16:11, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I deposit all of my non-fixed assets which have an exchange rate into the PBA. > Comex had the following assets at the time of this message: 25VP CROPS & VOUCHERS FARMER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X WRV comex 92 2 2 3 12 1 1 I'm assuming them all to be deposited in the PBA (I don't see why this wouldn't work). I'll have to wait on ehird to hear what of the subsequent withdraw succeeds. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposal 5822
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 12:03 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:52, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 27 Oct 2008, at 17:48, Roger Hicks wrote: > > Then vote against the mental health act. > I thought it had no effect? (due to Power)? It can't modify contracts, but it can modify contract-defined assets. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I still suck at this sort of thing, but
On 27 Oct 2008, at 16:44, Roger Hicks wrote: 2008-10-20 19:39 -- RBoA transfers ^275 to root. root clearly specifies in eir e-mail that e is withdrawing 250 coins. > I believe I have 4337 chits. I withdraw 394 coins for 4334 chits; if > I have fewer chits than 4334, then I withdraw as many coins as I can. Uh? Anyway, new report published with Murphy's withdraw. And the Monday rate changes, yet I haven't processed comex's stuff, so the RATES ARE WRONG, probably. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposal 5806
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 19:17, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:27 PM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I intend, without objection, to terminate the Llama Party. It's clearly >>> unfair on BobTHJ to be stuck having eir votes potentially controllable >>> by Warrigal, who has no voting power emself. Also, Warrigal can't >>> object, due to not being a player. >> >> "A valid vote cast by a Llama of LLAMA (X), where X resolves to FOR or >> AGAINST, is a party vote toward FOR or AGAINST, respectively." >> Non-players can't cast valid votes, so non-players can't influence the >> Llama vote. Besides, BobTHJ can leave at any time. > > BobTHJ, your opinion? I don't want to think that the Llama Party was > terminated by accident. > Let it terminate. I'd be up for considering something similar in the future though. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposal 5822
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:52, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 27 Oct 2008, at 17:48, Roger Hicks wrote: > >> Just to clarify: I really don't want to see the demise of the PBA by >> proposal. > > > Then vote against the mental health act. > I thought it had no effect? (due to Power)? BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: > Yet my proposed changes to the PRS to limit its economic point-trading > abuse potential were shot down. That doesn't help. You made those as within-contest change attempts while you elevated to contest based on Proposal, so are using different standards. Only "fair" way would be really to disband the thing, or decontestify it by AI-1 proposal (now not possible). -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposal 5822
On 27 Oct 2008, at 17:48, Roger Hicks wrote: Just to clarify: I really don't want to see the demise of the PBA by proposal. Then vote against the mental health act. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:43, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:11, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> It is annoying, which is why we put it up to power-2 protected. If it's >>> still too annoying, you could propose a bump up to power-3. (Though >>> I'd like to kill that annoying PRS first). -G. >>> >> What's so annoying about the PRS? > > Contests were balanced by proposal to be a place for interesting > subcontests, making contests into "point trading" vehicles was specifically > against the intent of the without-3 objections, and it was clear that > there were than many objections, and an end-run proposal basically made > it so that anyone who's just wholly uninterested in all this economic > crud can't just enjoy the other contests for their own sake. > Yet my proposed changes to the PRS to limit its economic point-trading abuse potential were shot down. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It is annoying, which is why we put it up to power-2 protected. If it's >> still too annoying, you could propose a bump up to power-3. (Though >> I'd like to kill that annoying PRS first). -G. > > Yes, messing with contracts is annoying. I don't see why messing with > them via proposal is somehow more annoying than any other method. I think it depends on the contract really. Imagine a "fair" contest that added enjoyment (e.g. Enigma) that someone tried to scam into a win via proposal. Just kinda stomps on everyone's fun. Anyway, what other methods allow non-members to reach in and set policy for members? There's some types of contracts that we grant rules- privileges to begin with (Contests, partnerships) so the tradeoff is oversight (without-3-objections, devolve responsibilities). But otw, it's through proposals. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > This compound method isn't one of the methods listed in R1728(a). The > paragraph does say "at least one of the following methods", but I > think that just means that the rules can define multiple methods for > performing the same dependent action, not that an otherwise undefined > composite of multiple methods is allowed as a single method. I don't see why a compound of two listed methods isn't a clear extension of a double requirement. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:11, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It is annoying, which is why we put it up to power-2 protected. If it's >> still too annoying, you could propose a bump up to power-3. (Though >> I'd like to kill that annoying PRS first). -G. >> > What's so annoying about the PRS? Contests were balanced by proposal to be a place for interesting subcontests, making contests into "point trading" vehicles was specifically against the intent of the without-3 objections, and it was clear that there were than many objections, and an end-run proposal basically made it so that anyone who's just wholly uninterested in all this economic crud can't just enjoy the other contests for their own sake. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This compound method isn't one of the methods listed in R1728(a). The > paragraph does say "at least one of the following methods", but I > think that just means that the rules can define multiple methods for > performing the same dependent action, not that an otherwise undefined > composite of multiple methods is allowed as a single method. In any case, Agoran Consent probably works well for anything that we'd want to make with support and no objections.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 27 Oct 2008, at 17:06, Ian Kelly wrote: > >> Why? The whole point of making an R1728 contract is to let the >> contract be governed by Agora. Messing with things by proposal is a >> long tradition in Agora. > > > It'd help if this were actually interesting. Even comex doesn't approve eir > own > proposal; it's another silly proposal that somehow is passing I'm only voting for it because it shouldn't work at AI 1, and it would amuse me if it does. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is annoying, which is why we put it up to power-2 protected. If it's > still too annoying, you could propose a bump up to power-3. (Though > I'd like to kill that annoying PRS first). -G. Yes, messing with contracts is annoying. I don't see why messing with them via proposal is somehow more annoying than any other method. -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2238 assigned to Wooble
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 08:33, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Proto: Agora becomes a codenomic. > > Proto: PNP becomes the Accountor, someone besides me writes the code > to make that work, and all contracts are amended to remove the > recordkeepors of the assets they define. > I would agree to this (though I'm not volunteering to write the code...Perl scares me). BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: >>> 5798 D 1 3.0 Goethe Toughen Ratifiation >> AGAINST. "Without objection and with support" is not a defined method >> of dependent actions. > > 'Without objection' is defined. > 'with support' is defined. > 'and' is defined. > > So why doesn't this work? (not bothered, just convince me it doesn't > and I'll re-propose). -G. This compound method isn't one of the methods listed in R1728(a). The paragraph does say "at least one of the following methods", but I think that just means that the rules can define multiple methods for performing the same dependent action, not that an otherwise undefined composite of multiple methods is allowed as a single method. -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2238 assigned to Wooble
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 27 Oct 2008, at 14:33, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > >> Proto: PNP becomes the Accountor, someone besides me writes the code >> to make that work, and all contracts are amended to remove the >> recordkeepors of the assets they define. > > > Proto: Agora absorbs PerlNomic. It kind of already has, tbh
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: hi ehird
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:13 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Which is an excellent reason to uphold the "specific" precedent and > make such crazy transactions much more difficult. Personally I think CFJ 1307 was wrongly decided. It hinges on the M-W dictionary using only "explicitly" in the definition of "specify" where the OED uses "definitely or explicitly"; IMO "all of my assets" is definite if not explicit. And I see this as an excellent reason for the banks to require better language in transaction requests. Preferably in a machine-parsable format.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What's so annoying about the PRS? Personally I think it should have been a Rule. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: hi ehird
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:13, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 08:04, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I note that if BobTHJ had fulfilled eir contract-defined duties on >>> time, ehird would have been able to easily figure this out. >>> >> I note that if I didn't have to spend several hours each day sorting >> out crazy transactions like this I would have plenty of time to >> publish reports for the contracts that I manage. > > Which is an excellent reason to uphold the "specific" precedent and > make such crazy transactions much more difficult. > I'm fine with considering comex's transaction to fail for lack of specification if ehird also agrees. BobTHJ
