DIS: Contracts & Partnerships

[Roger Hicks]

Can someone point me to the proposals that established the contracts for the
current partnerships? Just researching a bit of recent history.

BobTHJ

Re: DIS: Contracts & Partnerships

[Zefram]

Roger Hicks wrote:
>Can someone point me to the proposals that established the contracts for the
>current partnerships? Just researching a bit of recent history.

Contracts are not created by proposal.  They're created by mutual
agreement between players.  For the announcement of the first partnership,
see the message "BUS: pineapple" in the mail archive.

-zefram

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Bring Back Executors

[Ed Murphy]

Zefram wrote:


Ed Murphy wrote:

"If an executee is prohibiting from performing an
action, each of its executors is prohibited from performing the
action on behalf of that executee."


That's not the sentence I have trouble with.  I was talking about

 Holding executorship of another entity does not in itself grant
 the power to perform actions, but an executor with the power to
 perform an action also has the power to perform on behalf of any
 of its executees any action that that executee has the power to
 perform.

and wondering how "an executor with the power to perform an action"
differs from "an executor".


Ah, I see.  Well, if the rules defined Bender B. Rodriguez as existing
and being my executor, but did not define any mechanism for him to act
on his own behalf, then his executorship alone would not constitute a
mechanism for him to act on my behalf, either.

Then again, Bender would act on my behalf anyway ("I'll make my own
rules! With blackjack! And hookers!"), so this is scant protection.

Re: DIS: Contracts & Partnerships

[Roger Hicks]

Thanks!

On 5/10/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Roger Hicks wrote:
>Can someone point me to the proposals that established the contracts for
the
>current partnerships? Just researching a bit of recent history.

Contracts are not created by proposal.  They're created by mutual
agreement between players.  For the announcement of the first partnership,
see the message "BUS: pineapple" in the mail archive.

-zefram

DIS: Contracts & Partnerships

[Kerim Aydin]

Zefram wrote:
> > Can someone point me to the proposals that established the contracts for the
> > current partnerships? Just researching a bit of recent history.
>
> Contracts are not created by proposal.  They're created by mutual
> agreement between players.  For the announcement of the first partnership,
> see the message "BUS: pineapple" in the mail archive.

Careful on terminology here!  BobTHJ may be thinking of Agoran Contracts.

The Pineapple Partnership is an Agreement (R1742) which any group of
players can make without proposal.  An Agoran Contract (Rule 2109) needs
a proposal.  The generic term "contract" is not defined in the rules,
and so it's ambiguous whether it is a synonym for "agreement" or
shorthand for "Agoran Contract."

There's already an issue here: the new Contests rule (R2136) could
mean either type, with differing consequences on how a judge interprets
it.

-Goethe

Re: DIS: Contracts & Partnerships

[Roger Hicks]

Ah, thanks. That had me confused.

BobTHJ

On 5/10/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Zefram wrote:
> > Can someone point me to the proposals that established the contracts
for the
> > current partnerships? Just researching a bit of recent history.
>
> Contracts are not created by proposal.  They're created by mutual
> agreement between players.  For the announcement of the first
partnership,
> see the message "BUS: pineapple" in the mail archive.

Careful on terminology here!  BobTHJ may be thinking of Agoran Contracts.

The Pineapple Partnership is an Agreement (R1742) which any group of
players can make without proposal.  An Agoran Contract (Rule 2109) needs
a proposal.  The generic term "contract" is not defined in the rules,
and so it's ambiguous whether it is a synonym for "agreement" or
shorthand for "Agoran Contract."

There's already an issue here: the new Contests rule (R2136) could
mean either type, with differing consequences on how a judge interprets
it.

-Goethe

Re: DIS: personhood

[Michael Slone]

On 5/9/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Just wondering, Maud, as you've called for an interpretation
of "person" that excludes partnerships, do you accept
any non-human persons?  For example, is Koko the gorilla
 a person?  Koko has
at times been interviewed in English via an interpreter; e could in
principle use email and attempt to register as a player of Agora.


I no longer wish to discuss anything at all with you.

--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)

   -- Kelly, in agora-discussion

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Bring Back Executors

[quazie]

Ed Murphy wrote:

Zefram wrote:


Ed Murphy wrote:

"If an executee is prohibiting from performing an
action, each of its executors is prohibited from performing the
action on behalf of that executee."


That's not the sentence I have trouble with.  I was talking about

 Holding executorship of another entity does not in itself grant
 the power to perform actions, but an executor with the power to
 perform an action also has the power to perform on behalf of any
 of its executees any action that that executee has the power to
 perform.

and wondering how "an executor with the power to perform an action"
differs from "an executor".


Ah, I see.  Well, if the rules defined Bender B. Rodriguez as existing
and being my executor, but did not define any mechanism for him to act
on his own behalf, then his executorship alone would not constitute a
mechanism for him to act on my behalf, either.

Then again, Bender would act on my behalf anyway ("I'll make my own
rules! With blackjack! And hookers!"), so this is scant protection.


Furthermore with nothing limiting Bender's actions (see episode 18 of 
season 3) he will proceed without human morals or concepts of 
overindulging, thus turning his human self (or in this case the Murphy 
he is the executioner of) into a gluttonous pile of human yuckyness.

DIS: Re: BUS: Inhuman rights campaign

[Benjamin Schultz]

On May 9, 2007, at 9:39 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:


I intend, with Agoran consent, to make the Pineapple Partnership
the holder of the Office of Registrar.

I intend, with Agoran consent, to make Human Point Two the holder
of the Office of International Associate Director of Personnel.


I'm tempted to support these, just to get the duties off my plate,  
and let someone else do them for a while.

-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr, H/R/IADoP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: votes on Proposals 4958-4969

[Benjamin Schultz]

On May 9, 2007, at 6:35 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:

Perhaps "widely spoken human language" or "commonly used human  
language"? I think both of those wordings would eliminate "I just  
made up a language where the name of each player translates to  
Bear". At least it should hold up under CfJ


I like this phrasing.  Any comments, Zefram, on the phrase "widely  
spoken Human language"?

-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset

[Benjamin Schultz]

Proto: One Champ To Rule Em All

Delete the following text from R1922:


  (d)  Champion, to be awarded to players who win the game.



Any issues with this?
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: precedence takes precedence

[Benjamin Schultz]

Second draft.

Proto:  The Obedience Clause (AI = 3)
On May 8, 2007, at 9:23 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:

Amend Rule 101 as follows:

* Retitle it to "Agoran Rights, Privileges, and Obligations".

* Increment the lower-case Roman numerals used to index paragraphs by 1.

* insert before the new paragraph ii:

   i.  All players have the obligation to abide by all the rules
   currently in effect, in the form in which they are currently
   in effect.

-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Return of the Son of Property Magnate

[Benjamin Schultz]

On May 9, 2007, at 3:15 AM, Zefram wrote:


Benjamin Schultz wrote:

There are two relevant classes of entities:  Owners and Property.


Pick some term other than "Owner".  That word is already used to refer
to the entity that owns a particular Trinket.

-zefram


I don't see "Trinket" or "Owner" in the SLR distributed today.  I  
must have gone right by it.  Which rule is it?

-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr

DIS: Winning through threats

[Benjamin Schultz]

I'm working out a concept on the fly here, to make another way to  
win.  This'll need quite a bit of fleshing out.


A player is eligible to win the game if all of the following  
conditions are true:
* E is at least three different types of threats.  (Needs enough  
elements to be interesting.)
* E is more different types of threats than any other player.   
(Maximal case lets the player win.)
* Enough of those threats are automatically removed on a win so that  
this doesn't go into an infinite loop.

-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr

DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: precedence takes precedence

[Kerim Aydin]

OscarMeyr wrote:
>i.  All players have the obligation to abide by all the rules
>currently in effect, in the form in which they are currently
>in effect.

The whole point of re-writing R101 to talk about contract law
was so that Agoran Rules could be treated as a specific case
of a contract law.  The rules do still say that all players have to
abide by the rules, in Rule 1503:

>  In general, the Rules shall be adjudicated as if the Rules were
>  a binding agreement between all Players, entered into by every
>  player as a part of becoming a Player.  An actual or alleged
>  Rule violation shall be treated as the violation of a binding
>  agreement to be bound by the Rule or Rules in question.  

If you want to move this clause closer to R101, rather than "buried"
in R1503, that's ok, but please keep the contract-style language
intact.  Perhaps the following Proto is the simplist way:

Proto:  The Nature of the Rules

Rename Rule 1503 (Rules Violations) to be called "What are Rules?"

[This Rule is already a succinct description of how the Rules
relate to R101 rights].

The Rulekeepor is hereby requested to move Rule 1503 to
the category "the game of Agora", either immediately after
R101 or immediately before R2141.

-Goethe

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: votes on Proposals 4958-4969

[Zefram]

Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>I like this phrasing.  Any comments, Zefram, on the phrase "widely  
>spoken Human language"?

It's woolly.  Pick a specific minimum number of native speakers and
then we'll be getting into feasible territory.  Wikipedia lists 35
languages with more than 30 million native speakers, which already
makes it a time-consuming research project, so I suggest picking a much
higher number.  There's still the problem of varying transliterations
into Latin script (the most popular language is Mandarin, of course),
but transliterations are fairly well established for the very popular
languages and there are a limited number of popular transliterations.

You also still need to decide which senses of the English word "bear"
you want to translate.

-zefram

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: precedence takes precedence

[Zefram]

Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>Second draft.

Looks fine to me.

-zefram

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Return of the Son of Property Magnate

[Zefram]

Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>I don't see "Trinket" or "Owner" in the SLR distributed today.

Maud's proto, which started this thread.

-zefram

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Return of the Son of Property Magnate

[Benjamin Schultz]

On May 10, 2007, at 7:48 PM, Zefram wrote:


Benjamin Schultz wrote:

I don't see "Trinket" or "Owner" in the SLR distributed today.


Maud's proto, which started this thread.


Duh.  There it is.

We could tinker with that proto as needed to say that an owner can  
own property, and that a trinket is a kind of property.  I'd go into  
more detail, but I seem to have misplaced Maud's original proto at  
the moment.  I'll have to get it from agoranomic.

-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset

[quazie]

Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Proto: One Champ To Rule Em All
  
  
  
  
  Delete the following text from R1922:
  
  
  



        (d)  Champion, to be awarded to
players who win the game.



  
  
  
  
  
  
Any issues with this?
   
  -
  Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
  
  OscarMeyr
  
  
  
  

Seems good to me.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Return of the Son of Property Magnate

[Michael Slone]

On 5/10/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

We could tinker with that proto as needed to say that an owner can own
property, and that a trinket is a kind of property.  I'd go into more
detail, but I seem to have misplaced Maud's original proto at the moment.
I'll have to get it from agoranomic.


If you like, you can also get it from

   http://rnel.org:8080/agora/proto/h0136.txt .

--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
What if Douglas Hofstadter had named that program?

"Upright Citizens Brigade: A Chaotic Unpredictable Broadcast"
   -- Chuck, in agora-discussion

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Return of the Son of Property Magnate

[Michael Slone]

On 5/10/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

We could tinker with that proto as needed to say that an owner can own
property, and that a trinket is a kind of property.  I'd go into more
detail, but I seem to have misplaced Maud's original proto at the moment.
I'll have to get it from agoranomic.


Sorry, the last link was to "Bring Back Executors".  The property
proto is at

   http://rnel.org:8080/agora/proto/h0113.txt .

--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
(Look, sooner or later somebody's going to become Speaker.)
   -- OscarMeyr, in agora-business