Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
Direct consequences of taking an unbribable action or not performing that action are secured by this rule to be those defined by the rule that defines the unbribable action in question.
Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
erm, rules to the contrary notwithstanding
Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Protoproposal "Unbribed Actions" AI=3 II=3 > > "Bribability " is a switch on game actions performable by first-class > players. Options are bribable (default) and unbribable. Changes to > bribability are secured. If a > first-class player breaks a rule by performing an unbribable action, > or not performing an unbribable action, and a different first-class > player would be allowed by the rules to do that action or inaction, > the only valid judgement the only valid judgement on the question on > culpability for breaking that rule by performing or not performing the > unbribable action is EXCUSED > > Some changes per ihope, who also raised the issue of preventing actual > bribes in the form of, e.g., rewarding people to vote a certain way > secure and change switch name per ihope
Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
Protoproposal "Unbribed Actions" AI=3 II=3 "Bribable " is a switch on game actions performable by first-class players. Options are bribable (default) and unbribable. If a first-class player breaks a rule by performing an unbribable action, or not performing an unbribable action, and a different first-class player would be allowed by the rules to do that action or inaction, the only valid judgement the only valid judgement on the question on culpability for breaking that rule by performing or not performing the unbribable action is EXCUSED Some changes per ihope, who also raised the issue of preventing actual bribes in the form of, e.g., rewarding people to vote a certain way
Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
Protoproposal "Unbribed Actions" AI=3 II=3 "Bribable " is a switch on game actions performable by first-class players. Options are bribable (default) and unbribable. If a first-class player breaks a rule by performing an unbribable action, or not performing an unbribable action, and a different first-class player would be allowed by the rules to do that action or inaction, the only valid judgement on a criminal CFJ naming that defendent for breaking that rule for that unbribable action is EXCUSED.
Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
Maybe if a rule tells someone that they must do something like vote a certain way on a democratic question, if a criminal CFJ is called against that person, they are EXCUSED, or maybe a new judgement..
DIS: Re: BUS: More on-behalf-of CFJs
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I perform the following action on behalf of ehird:
>> {{{I file a CFJ on the statement "This CFJ was filed by ehird".}}}
>
> You've gotten into the same I problem as ehird got into. Who is that
> I refering to? I'm not sure who actually filled it and its overly
> ambiguous as to who did. thus the action is UNDETERMINED.
UNDETERMINED applies to statements, not actions. The statement "'I'
refers to ehird" is not UNDETERMINED, as it is not nonsensical, and
there is sufficient information (the rules) to determine whether it's
true or not.
UNDECIDABLE is never, ever appropriate, in my envious opinion. :-P
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
DIS: Re: BUS: "Sorry!" Says BobTHJ. "I pledge..."
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I submit the following on behalf of BobTHJ with respect to eir obligations > on CFJ 2020, as authorized by the Vote Market Contract. -Goethe > > In many worlds, perhaps in an ideal one, I would have handled the matter of > CFJ 2005 quite differently. My objective was humor, however in using the > judicial system for said humor, I saw my objective collapse quite quickly. > It has been done in the past, perhaps not commonly, but it has been done > in the past, to include a pledge as part of an apology, for example a > specific promise not to do something again. In this case, I pledge to > deregister within 24 hours as a sign of remorse and mea culpa, or to owe > (or lets choose someone at random) 30VP to Goethe, and this is a legal > pledge as part of an apology I am authorized to make because of course > an apology is not limited or proscribed in content! Just kidding...I do > not in the context of this apology as a whole make any pledge, this was > merely an example of using the judicial system for the purposes of humor, > in this case used in a way to give myself, I mean BobTHJ, a momentary worry > that I might be obligated by my own apology in a not-so-nice way. Sorry for > that, self! You certainly wouldn't get away with that in Copenhagen. Ahem. > As I was saying, I am full of remorse at making such a silly judicial error. > "Sorry Alice!" from, Bob! Hmm, I, Bob, must have some reason for mentioning > Alice? Just came to me. Something I was supposed to say? Was it something > in the middle of? Some piece of quantum cryptography? Can't think of it. > Well, if I was in the middle of something like, rest assured that it wouldn't > change my remorseful apology one bit. -BobTHJ > I couldn't have said it better!...though you had me scared there for a moment :) BobTHJ
Re: DIS: So R1922's history is wrong, and the state of that rule has been wrong since 2005...
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Quazie wrote: > I don't know if I'm missing something, but R1992 seems to be out of > sync accorind to this. The Rulekeepor Memo for the proposal said it worked, but it looks like it was never added. While it may have been left out (v. sad!), Proposal 4865, adopted 28-Aug-06, re-wrote the whole of R1922 by using the phrase "Amend Rule 1922 (Defined Regular Patent Titles) to read:" and left that part out. So it's gone now. However, you should certainly have the title Hyperactive in the Herald's Report! -Goethe
Re: DIS: So R1922's history is wrong, and the state of that rule has been wrong since 2005...
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So long ago (May 5 2005) a proposal passed, specifically proposal 4736. > > This proposal's text can be found here > http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2005-April/004245.html > > the fact that it passed can be found here > http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2005-May/002191.html > > Somehow, these changes were never applied to the gamestate, the rule > was never updated, and the FLR is even missing that this change > happened. > > I don't know if I'm missing something, but R1992 seems to be out of > sync accorind to this. > And the reasoning behind why it didin't pass is here http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2005-May/004628.html Problem solved.
DIS: So R1922's history is wrong, and the state of that rule has been wrong since 2005...
So long ago (May 5 2005) a proposal passed, specifically proposal 4736. This proposal's text can be found here http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2005-April/004245.html the fact that it passed can be found here http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2005-May/002191.html Somehow, these changes were never applied to the gamestate, the rule was never updated, and the FLR is even missing that this change happened. I don't know if I'm missing something, but R1992 seems to be out of sync accorind to this.
Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
2008/6/27 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Proposal titled "Defend Democracy!" AI>=1.5 II=? > No agreement is allowed to force a person to vote a certain way or to > not vote on any democratic decision. > This is against the Spirit of the Game, I think.
Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Proposal titled "Defend Democracy!" AI>=1.5 II=? >> No agreement is allowed to force a person to vote a certain way or to >> not vote on any democratic decision. >> > I fear that this is going to be buggy no matter what you do. Imagine a > Walrus Scam-like setup where a player gets assets for voting a certain > way, and is required to gain those assets, for instance. Imagine a > setup that allows people to not vote as is required, but punishes em > for doing so. And so on. > > The only thing I can think of is to put voting freely on a democratic > decision in rule 101 as a right, and strengthen rule 101 so that that > particular right couldn't be overriden by contracts, etc. > -- > ais523 > Maybe "any agreement that attempts to do such is null and void" Or adding something to rule 101 could work
Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Proposal titled "Defend Democracy!" AI>=1.5 II=? >> No agreement is allowed to force a person to vote a certain way or to >> not vote on any democratic decision. >> > I fear that this is going to be buggy no matter what you do. Imagine a > Walrus Scam-like setup where a player gets assets for voting a certain > way, and is required to gain those assets, for instance. Imagine a > setup that allows people to not vote as is required, but punishes em > for doing so. And so on. > > The only thing I can think of is to put voting freely on a democratic > decision in rule 101 as a right, and strengthen rule 101 so that that > particular right couldn't be overriden by contracts, etc. And what fun would that be? BobTHJ
RE: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Proposal titled "Defend Democracy!" AI>=1.5 II=? > No agreement is allowed to force a person to vote a certain way or to > not vote on any democratic decision. > I fear that this is going to be buggy no matter what you do. Imagine a Walrus Scam-like setup where a player gets assets for voting a certain way, and is required to gain those assets, for instance. Imagine a setup that allows people to not vote as is required, but punishes em for doing so. And so on. The only thing I can think of is to put voting freely on a democratic decision in rule 101 as a right, and strengthen rule 101 so that that particular right couldn't be overriden by contracts, etc. -- ais523 <>
Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Proposal titled "Defend Democracy!" AI>=1.5 II=? > No agreement is allowed to force a person to vote a certain way or to > not vote on any democratic decision. > Erm, replace "person" with "first-class player"
DIS: Re: BUS: Hmm....
On Jun 27, 2008, at 5:08 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Benjamin Schultz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 27, 2008, at 4:39 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
I create and agree to the following pledge titled "Agoran Slavery":
{
1. This is a pledge titled Agoran Slavery. Every player SHALL
agree to
and voluntarily join this pledge.
2. BobTHJ is authorized to act on behalf of any other party to
this pledge
}
I emphatically refuse this pledge. Now what?
I initiate an equity case specifying the Agoran Slavery pledge whose
sole party is myself. The state of affairs whereby events have not
proceeded as envisioned by the contract is that OscarMeyr has
explicitly refused to join, and the other players have implicitly
refused to do so by their inaction.
While players certainly have the right to refuse to become party to
this agreement due to R101, when it comes to equity surely I have been
slighted by the refusal of the other players, and thus am deserving of
compensatory damages?
I just judged a case so I'm not standing. But if I were to get this
case, I'd be tempted to direct Agoran Slavery to serve a term of
indenture to you as compensation.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
Proposal titled "Defend Democracy!" AI>=1.5 II=? No agreement is allowed to force a person to vote a certain way or to not vote on any democratic decision.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I register
I knew about Agora for a long time, not sure where I first heard about Nomic. Somewhat recently, I was invited into IRCnomic, and recent discussions in the channel that used to host ircnomic got me interested in Agora again..
RE: BUS: RE: DIS: RE: Ticket
BobTHJ wrote: > Care to specify what you think is going wrong and propose a fix? I can't think of a fix right now, although I do have some ideas. First, as we're seeing at the moment, is the unbalancing issues that a large VP trade can cause. (I'm thinking of comex losing all eir VP, and spending ages trying to get released from eir obligations, ending up being very chokeyed as a result despite scamming at least once to try to get out of em.) More subtly, I think there's an issue with just how much VP are worth, as Goethe mentioned earlier. A player can hoard VP quite easily (in fact, many parties have been doing this); and the initial 50 doesn't provide any sort of a baseline. When players are below the 50, there's a tendency to become very tight-wadded to get very large obligations out of em in order to give back VP (because the player has no other choice); a sort of extortion, as it were. Also VP seem ridiculously valuable; most votes are worth far less than 1VP at the current going rates, which makes it hard to do trades, and I think this is mostly because it's the indivisibility of a VP that's causing issues. Going back to the first point, my recent grab of a huge number of VP from ehird are going to make it very difficult for em to particpate in Agora much longer unless it is fixed somehow (I'd suggest amending the Vote Market somehow to give tusho a reasonable chance of escape and preventing them joining until the zombie pedge is fixed); it allows comex to leave, but causes other problems. (Especially as comex needs to give some of those VP back due to judicial obligations...) One of the fixes that I think really needs to be made is to provide some objective limit on a VP; for instance, 1 VP allows a party to influence 1 democratic vote of another party. That would prevent VP deflation, which is really plaguing the Vote Market at the moment IMO. Also, there should be a limit to how deeply in trouble players can get; limiting people to, say, 5 VP when they join and 10 VP max (with the new definition of VP) would make hoarding VP difficult, and hopefully encourage a more liquid vote market. (The 1 vote for 1 VP thing would only apply to parties with < 5 VP, so that instead of obligating players to raise eir VP, they'd simply be stuck with having to vote a certain way for a while.) I'd also suggest resetting obligations and VP in some way, maybe drafting up an equitable list based on current VP holdings and currently binding tickets, mostly just because I unbalanced the VP a lot from stealing from ehird. (Agora is suffering quite a bit from ehird's zombification, I think, I've submitted a proposal to fix it but it's beginning to get out of hand and affect lots of other things, and sorry for profiting from it so much.) One final thing is clarifying spirit vs. letter of tickets, as demonstrated earlier today. Anyway, I could do with help drafting an equitable solution. (I may even end up filing an equity case against my own actions at this rate; that would be ironic.) -- ais523 <>
DIS: Re: And the winner is.... (Agoran Proposal Awards report)
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I attempt to award points as follows: > comex - 15 points > ais523 - 10 points > Quazie - 1 point > Pavitra - 1 point As far as I can tell Pavitra is not a party to the Agoran Proposal Awards (or did I miss it?) therefore I should not have attempted to award em this point. Someone can CFJ on it if they wish. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I register
On Jun 27, 2008, at 2:08 AM, Quazie wrote: On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Per Rule 869, I register as a player. Welcome Sgeo. May your registration be uneventful (if that is what you so desire). Welcome to the game, Sgeo! - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS
On Jun 27, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Quazie wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 2008/6/27 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: It's already a contest. Ironic. Proto-proposal: rename "contests" to something that doesn't share most of the same letters with "contracts" proto-proposal-helper rename "contests" to "gameshows", rename "contestmaster" to 'gameshowhost" proto-proposal-helper-helper replace gameshowhost with BobBarker proto-proposal-helper-helper-helper replace BobBarker with DrewCarey perl: useless use of "DrewCarey" on line 502. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: BUS: RE: DIS: RE: Ticket
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Do we really >>> have to treat every contract action as if we were trying to make a wish >>> with a twisted genie? It's really rather tiresome. >> Well as far as I can tell, that's the nature of Agoran contracts. That's BS. Equity specifically asserts that that's *not* the nature of the equity courts that defend said contracts. So all this sort of thing does is force us to drag things into court time and time again for these sorts of trivialities. -Goethe
Re: BUS: RE: DIS: RE: Ticket
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Goethe wrote: >> Yes. The fact that you felt the need, in the initial attempt, to give a >> long-winded explanation of your phrase-interpretation, should be prima >> facie evidence for a judge that you knew that your interpretation wasn't >> what BobTHJ intended, and you knew that it might not be what the typical >> contract member would infer, either. Therefore, if both interpretations >> are semantically within the bounds of reasonable, preference should be >> given to the good faith intent and context of the offer. Do we really >> have to treat every contract action as if we were trying to make a wish >> with a twisted genie? It's really rather tiresome. > Well as far as I can tell, that's the nature of Agoran contracts. However, > as I said, I'm willing to try to sort the situation out; it's not worth > permanently unbalancing the situation. I've even made an effort to release > comex from the Vote Market (however, this could lead to more interesting > situations down the line). Personally, I'm beginning to think that there > are fundamental flaws in the way the Vote Market works at present; I like > the concept but too many things are going wrong. Care to specify what you think is going wrong and propose a fix? BobTHJ
RE: BUS: RE: DIS: RE: Ticket
Goethe wrote: > Yes. The fact that you felt the need, in the initial attempt, to give a > long-winded explanation of your phrase-interpretation, should be prima > facie evidence for a judge that you knew that your interpretation wasn't > what BobTHJ intended, and you knew that it might not be what the typical > contract member would infer, either. Therefore, if both interpretations > are semantically within the bounds of reasonable, preference should be > given to the good faith intent and context of the offer. Do we really > have to treat every contract action as if we were trying to make a wish > with a twisted genie? It's really rather tiresome. Well as far as I can tell, that's the nature of Agoran contracts. However, as I said, I'm willing to try to sort the situation out; it's not worth permanently unbalancing the situation. I've even made an effort to release comex from the Vote Market (however, this could lead to more interesting situations down the line). Personally, I'm beginning to think that there are fundamental flaws in the way the Vote Market works at present; I like the concept but too many things are going wrong. -- ais523 <>
RE: BUS: RE: DIS: RE: Ticket
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: > Goethe: >> I read the ticket 4 times and each time came up with the wording >> BobTHJ intended, not the one you inferred. Even if yours seemed >> a little more natural to you, the good faith and common sense that >> are the cornerstone of equity should have suggested BobTHJ meant >> the other way. -Goethe > Did you read the wording of the ticket in combination with the > wording of the contract? Anyway, this was just showing off, more or > less, I didn't really intend it to permanently distort the Vote > Market, and as I said am willing to try to correct the situation. Yes. The fact that you felt the need, in the initial attempt, to give a long-winded explanation of your phrase-interpretation, should be prima facie evidence for a judge that you knew that your interpretation wasn't what BobTHJ intended, and you knew that it might not be what the typical contract member would infer, either. Therefore, if both interpretations are semantically within the bounds of reasonable, preference should be given to the good faith intent and context of the offer. Do we really have to treat every contract action as if we were trying to make a wish with a twisted genie? It's really rather tiresome. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Hmm....
2008/6/27 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I create and agree to the following pledge titled "Agoran Slavery": No.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2047 assigned to BobTHJ
2008/6/27 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > With the majority consent of the Dons I de-protect this CFJ. > > I judge FALSE. > > BobTHJ > Your judicial corruption is going well, I see. ehird
RE: BUS: RE: DIS: RE: Ticket
Goethe: > I read the ticket 4 times and each time came up with the wording > BobTHJ intended, not the one you inferred. Even if yours seemed > a little more natural to you, the good faith and common sense that > are the cornerstone of equity should have suggested BobTHJ meant > the other way. -Goethe Did you read the wording of the ticket in combination with the wording of the contract? Anyway, this was just showing off, more or less, I didn't really intend it to permanently distort the Vote Market, and as I said am willing to try to correct the situation. -- ais523 <>
RE: BUS: RE: DIS: RE: Ticket
BobTHJ wrote: > I suppose if this is judged TRUE you owe me votes on 27 future proposals. Yes, but I'm willing to consider deals in which I would refund much of the scammed VP in exchange for being released from most of the obligations (that or BobTHJ pledging not to exercise them, which comes to much the same thing). 27VP is a lot, after all, and this sort of thing could easily make a mockery of the vote market. -- ais523 <>
Re: BUS: RE: DIS: RE: Ticket
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: > Well, in that case: there are at least 28 players (I'm not counting > ehrid or the Left Hand in that count because their registration stati > are in doubt), and that ticket has been filled once, so it can be filled > a further 27 times. I therefore fill that ticket 27 times; my VLOD is 4, > so the cost is 1 VP each time. (Arguments for why this is possible: the > action states 'once per each player', which is a total of at least 28 > times, but nothing limits which player can accept a ticket apart from > specifying a set of target parties, which has apparently not been done, > and cannot be construed as anything but the set of all parties to the > vote market if it does exist; the wording "This ticket" implies that all > the tickets are identical and the first one definitely had a target set > of all parties to the vote market. Besides, 'once per each player' is > ambiguous anyway, and could refer to either 'each player can once', or > 'once for each player'; the second reading seems more natural to me, > except that it seems unlikely to have been intentional, thus these > arguments.) I read the ticket 4 times and each time came up with the wording BobTHJ intended, not the one you inferred. Even if yours seemed a little more natural to you, the good faith and common sense that are the cornerstone of equity should have suggested BobTHJ meant the other way. -Goethe (btw, the reason I didn't fill this one is that for me, it's 1VP whether you buy it through this or through my own tickets, so I prefer to offer it as a sell).
Re: DIS: RE: Ticket
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BobTHJ wrote: >> Buy Ticket >> Cost: A number of VP equal to 1/3 (rounded down) of the filler's >> current Voting Limit on Ordinary proposals. >> Action: Vote in the manner specified by me on a future proposal of my >> choice. This ticket may be filled multiple times (a maximum of once >> per each player) and does not expire until revoked. > An offer that looks good, but there's a scam behind it, I think. > Presumably you're going to try to corner a majority of votes and use > them to push through a scam proposal? I had considered thatbut mostly I'm just pre-buying votes for future legitimate proposals that I want to make sure pass. I doubt I'd get enough takers to get a majority of votes anyway. BobTHJ
DIS: RE: Ticket
BobTHJ wrote: > Buy Ticket > Cost: A number of VP equal to 1/3 (rounded down) of the filler's > current Voting Limit on Ordinary proposals. > Action: Vote in the manner specified by me on a future proposal of my > choice. This ticket may be filled multiple times (a maximum of once > per each player) and does not expire until revoked. An offer that looks good, but there's a scam behind it, I think. Presumably you're going to try to corner a majority of votes and use them to push through a scam proposal? -- ais523 <>
DIS: Re: BUS: Vote Market
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > I post the following Sell Ticket: > > Cost: 1VP > Action: Vote in the manner specified by the filler on any 3 specified > proposals. Sheesh, the bottom really is dropping out of the market. Shows how difficult a "hard limit" rule may be to keep. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: comex, I hereby offer you a temporary fix.
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: >>> If you ask me Vote Market is finally starting to act as it was envisioned. >> >> Fair enough. I'm happy enough to be required to keep offering things >> for sale when I'm below 50, but if no one accepts even at the cheapest >> price after good faith effort, that shouldn't be a contract violation >> (or at least, it should be a minor one with a minimal specified penalty). >> >> -Goethe > > I can agree with that. You (and the others under 50VP) should at least > have the chance to raise your VP legally. Actually, some contract mod version of CFJ 1915 for anyone under 50 might be good in place of a 60-day limit (minimum sell offer per week; sell offers must be good-faith so no pricing yourself out; other players SHOULD suggest or offer reasonable tickets). Since CFJ1915 is a precedent for a reasonable solution, might as well codify it in the contract. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: comex, I hereby offer you a temporary fix.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: >> Goethe wrote: >>> By the way, does OBLIGATED in all caps have any meaning other than >>> the standard definition of the word (not in all-caps)? I can't find it. >>> (This isn't a prelude to trying to weasel out of anything, I'm just >>> curious if I'm missing something somewhere). >> I thought it was in MMI, but I checked and it wasn't. It should be there >> as a synonym for SHALL under a different part of speech, I think. >> -- >> ais523 > > It's a reasonable synonym for SHALL, but it would be a reasonable > synonym for SHALL if it wasn't in all-caps, too. I was just curious if > it meant something more in some contract-thingie I was missing. -Goethe > Didn't OBLIGATED used to be part of MMI? If not than this was an error on my part when I drafted the contract. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: comex, I hereby offer you a temporary fix.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: >> If you ask me Vote Market is finally starting to act as it was envisioned. > > Fair enough. I'm happy enough to be required to keep offering things > for sale when I'm below 50, but if no one accepts even at the cheapest > price after good faith effort, that shouldn't be a contract violation > (or at least, it should be a minor one with a minimal specified penalty). > > -Goethe I can agree with that. You (and the others under 50VP) should at least have the chance to raise your VP legally. BobTHJ
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: comex, I hereby offer you a temporary fix.
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: > Goethe wrote: >> By the way, does OBLIGATED in all caps have any meaning other than >> the standard definition of the word (not in all-caps)? I can't find it. >> (This isn't a prelude to trying to weasel out of anything, I'm just >> curious if I'm missing something somewhere). > I thought it was in MMI, but I checked and it wasn't. It should be there > as a synonym for SHALL under a different part of speech, I think. > -- > ais523 It's a reasonable synonym for SHALL, but it would be a reasonable synonym for SHALL if it wasn't in all-caps, too. I was just curious if it meant something more in some contract-thingie I was missing. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: comex, I hereby offer you a temporary fix.
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: > If you ask me Vote Market is finally starting to act as it was envisioned. Fair enough. I'm happy enough to be required to keep offering things for sale when I'm below 50, but if no one accepts even at the cheapest price after good faith effort, that shouldn't be a contract violation (or at least, it should be a minor one with a minimal specified penalty). -Goethe
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: comex, I hereby offer you a temporary fix.
Goethe wrote: > By the way, does OBLIGATED in all caps have any meaning other than > the standard definition of the word (not in all-caps)? I can't find it. > (This isn't a prelude to trying to weasel out of anything, I'm just > curious if I'm missing something somewhere). I thought it was in MMI, but I checked and it wasn't. It should be there as a synonym for SHALL under a different part of speech, I think. -- ais523 <>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: comex, I hereby offer you a temporary fix.
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: > Actually, there has been more Vote Market activity in the past month > then in the six months previously. There have certainly been > opportunities to gain VP, and there presently exist at least 10 open > tickets. Just not much of it has been for the buying or selling of > votes. By the way, does OBLIGATED in all caps have any meaning other than the standard definition of the word (not in all-caps)? I can't find it. (This isn't a prelude to trying to weasel out of anything, I'm just curious if I'm missing something somewhere). -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: comex, I hereby offer you a temporary fix.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: >> Actually, there has been more Vote Market activity in the past month >> then in the six months previously. There have certainly been >> opportunities to gain VP, and there presently exist at least 10 open >> tickets. Just not much of it has been for the buying or selling of >> votes. > > I don't really care how many open tickets there have been, just how > many completed sales have been made. I "envisioned" selling votes > in the contract, not prostituting judgements and the like. -Goethe > There were 5 sales in May and 5 so far in June. Several of those were for votes. None were related to judgments (IIRC). I for one am willing to buy votes to get my proposals passed, though to be fair I don't submit many proposals. If you ask me Vote Market is finally starting to act as it was envisioned. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: comex, I hereby offer you a temporary fix.
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: > Actually, there has been more Vote Market activity in the past month > then in the six months previously. There have certainly been > opportunities to gain VP, and there presently exist at least 10 open > tickets. Just not much of it has been for the buying or selling of > votes. I don't really care how many open tickets there have been, just how many completed sales have been made. I "envisioned" selling votes in the contract, not prostituting judgements and the like. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: comex, I hereby offer you a temporary fix.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Ben Caplan wrote: On Thursday 26 June 2008 8:30:54 Kerim Aydin wrote: > Oh hey, comex! Want to do a back-and-forth for trade for free to get us > both above the limit for an instant? We could do that monthly as long > as our combo sums to 50. -Goethe How much do you two trust each other? >>> >>> Not at all! We'll make a contract :). >>> -Goethe >>> >> Hmm.I guess this calls for another change to the Vote Market agreement. > > This is absurd. You've set up an impossible condition if no one's buying. > I state that the fact of no one being willing to buy even the cheapest > of votes is a state not envisioned by the contract, and therefore should > get anyone off the hook who makes a good faith effort to sell. > Actually, there has been more Vote Market activity in the past month then in the six months previously. There have certainly been opportunities to gain VP, and there presently exist at least 10 open tickets. Just not much of it has been for the buying or selling of votes. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More on-behalf-of CFJs
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Quazie wrote: >> Where in the rules are Gratuitous arguments described... it seems like >> it is custom and not rule. > > It is wholly custom. In fact, while R2205 says that arguments SHOULD > be presented, there's nothing to say that the CotC has to publish or > report *any* of it (I think?), including initiator's or judge's. > > -Goethe > Hmm... maybe we should rule-ify it then, if only as a SHOULD.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More on-behalf-of CFJs
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Quazie wrote: > Where in the rules are Gratuitous arguments described... it seems like > it is custom and not rule. It is wholly custom. In fact, while R2205 says that arguments SHOULD be presented, there's nothing to say that the CotC has to publish or report *any* of it (I think?), including initiator's or judge's. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Elliott Hird >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> 2008/6/27 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: It's already a contest. >>> >>> Ironic. >>> >> >> Proto-proposal: rename "contests" to something that doesn't share >> most of the same letters with "contracts" >> > > proto-proposal-helper rename "contests" to "gameshows", rename > "contestmaster" to 'gameshowhost" > proto-proposal-helper-helper replace gameshowhost with BobBarker
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2008/6/27 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> It's already a contest. >> >> Ironic. >> > > Proto-proposal: rename "contests" to something that doesn't share > most of the same letters with "contracts" > proto-proposal-helper rename "contests" to "gameshows", rename "contestmaster" to 'gameshowhost"
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/6/27 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> It's already a contest. > > Ironic. > Proto-proposal: rename "contests" to something that doesn't share most of the same letters with "contracts"
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I join the PRS. >> >> 2008/6/27 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> I intend to make the Points Relay Service a contract with myself as >>> contestmaster without three objections. >>> >> >> I object. >> >> I intend to make the Points Relay Service a contract with myself as >> contestmaster without three objections. > > You can't. (Neither can Quazie, but that's just because of a typo. > It's already a contest.) R2136 limits first-class players to making > contracts into contests. > It isn't already a contest as far as i know
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS
2008/6/27 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > It's already a contest. Ironic.
DIS: Re: BUS: PRS
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I join the PRS. > > 2008/6/27 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> I intend to make the Points Relay Service a contract with myself as >> contestmaster without three objections. >> > > I object. > > I intend to make the Points Relay Service a contract with myself as > contestmaster without three objections. You can't. (Neither can Quazie, but that's just because of a typo. It's already a contest.) R2136 limits first-class players to making contracts into contests.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More on-behalf-of CFJs
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
>
>> I perform the following action on behalf of ehird:
>> {{{I file a CFJ on the statement "This CFJ was filed by ehird".}}}
>> --
>> ais523
>
> Gratuitous: If CFJ 1895 is followed, filing something on behalf
> of ehird is not the same as ehird filing something. -Goethe
>
>
Where in the rules are Gratuitous arguments described... it seems like
it is custom and not rule.
DIS: Re: BUS: More on-behalf-of CFJs
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> I perform the following action on behalf of ehird:
> {{{I file a CFJ on the statement "This CFJ was filed by ehird".}}}
> --
> ais523
Gratuitous: If CFJ 1895 is followed, filing something on behalf
of ehird is not the same as ehird filing something. -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: More on-behalf-of CFJs
2008/6/27 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I perform the following action on behalf of ehird:
>> {{{I file a CFJ on the statement "This CFJ was filed by ehird".}}}
>> --
>> ais523
>>
>
> You've gotten into the same I problem as ehird got into. Who is that
> I refering to? I'm not sure who actually filled it and its overly
> ambiguous as to who did. thus the action is UNDETERMINED..
>
NttDF
DIS: Re: BUS: PRS
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I join the PRS. > > 2008/6/27 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> I intend to make the Points Relay Service a contract with myself as >> contestmaster without three objections. >> > > I object. > > I intend to make the Points Relay Service a contract with myself as > contestmaster without three objections. > > ehird > A first-class player who is a member of an existing public contract CAN make the contract into a Contest, with emself as the sole contestmaster, without 3 objections, provided e is not the contestmaster of another contest. Nothing to see in ehird's post. move along people, nothing to see here.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More on-behalf-of CFJs
2008/6/27 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I perform the following action on behalf of ehird:
>> {{{I file a CFJ on the statement "This CFJ was filed by ehird".}}}
>
> Why?
>
Testing 'I' in on-behalf actions, says e.
ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: More on-behalf-of CFJs
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I perform the following action on behalf of ehird:
> {{{I file a CFJ on the statement "This CFJ was filed by ehird".}}}
Why?
DIS: Re: BUS: RE: Points Relay Service - unofficial report
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:20 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I join the Points Relay Service. > > I request a cashout of 5 PV. The PRS is not a contest yet (comex never finished turning it into one) so you can't cash-out yet. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:19 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I might be wrong, but don't reports traditionally go in OFF? > > It is equally effective to send a report to agora-business as to > agora-official, and it's not conventional to send reports that aren't > directly required by the rules to agora-official, apparently. > > -woggle > I've always sent my contract-related reports to a-b, but I'll start sending them to a-o if that is the consensus. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: comex, I hereby offer you a temporary fix.
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Ben Caplan wrote: >>> On Thursday 26 June 2008 8:30:54 Kerim Aydin wrote: Oh hey, comex! Want to do a back-and-forth for trade for free to get us both above the limit for an instant? We could do that monthly as long as our combo sums to 50. -Goethe >>> >>> How much do you two trust each other? >> >> Not at all! We'll make a contract :). >> -Goethe >> > Hmm.I guess this calls for another change to the Vote Market agreement. This is absurd. You've set up an impossible condition if no one's buying. I state that the fact of no one being willing to buy even the cheapest of votes is a state not envisioned by the contract, and therefore should get anyone off the hook who makes a good faith effort to sell. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Price?
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:59 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm about to post a simple contract that will let anyone buy my votes > on anything without me actually having to remember to create Sell > Tickets. I would do this already, but I'm not sure... > > What should the price be, to facilitate my earning as many VPs as possible? > > 1VP is, I think, too low, but 5VP is too high. If my price is too low, > I will not get the necessary VP in any reasonable time. If it's too > high, nobody will buy my votes... > > So, Agora, what would you pay for my votes? > Set the price as AUCTION and let people bid when they are interested. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: comex, I hereby offer you a temporary fix.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Ben Caplan wrote: >> On Thursday 26 June 2008 8:30:54 Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> Oh hey, comex! Want to do a back-and-forth for trade for free to get us >>> both above the limit for an instant? We could do that monthly as long >>> as our combo sums to 50. -Goethe >> >> How much do you two trust each other? > > Not at all! We'll make a contract :). > -Goethe > Hmm.I guess this calls for another change to the Vote Market agreement. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: comex, I hereby offer you a temporary fix.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I post the following Buy Ticket:
> Action: Transfer 20 VP to Pavitra.
> Cost: 19 VP.
> Target: comex.
>
> [This will raise your VP to 50 temporarily, giving you another two
> months to get it there in a more stable fashion. In addition, you have
> a week to pay me back, which you may find useful.]
>
>
> Also, with the majority consent of the other parties, I intend to
> amend the Vote Market agreement as follows:
> {
> Append a new paragraph, numbered 13, reading:
> 13. Upon the creation of this paragraph, 23 VP are created in the
> possession of the Reformed Bank of Agora, and then this paragraph is
> deleted.
>
> After the above-created paragraph is deleted, append the sentence "VP
> CANNOT be created by any other means." to paragraph 7.
>
I like this part.
> Amend paragraph 8 to read:
> 8. Any first-class party with 50 or more VP, or any party that is not
> a first-class person, can cease to be bound by the Vote Market
> agreement by announcement. Upon such an announcement, if e is a
> first-class person, 50 VP held by em are destroyed. Regardless of
> whether e is a first-class person, any remaining VP are transferred to
> the Broker. A party CANNOT cease to be party to this agreement by any
> other means. Regardless of the above, a party CANNOT cease to be bound
> by this agreement if e has an unfulfilled obligation imposed upon em
> by this agreement.
>
> Append a new paragraph, numbered 13, reading:
> 13. VP CANNOT be destroyed by any means except as specified in
> paragraph 8 of this contract. Whenever they would be destroyed by any
> other means, the VP to be destroyed are instead transferred to the
> Broker. The Broker CANNOT cease to be bound by this agreement while e
> is the Broker.
> }
>
> [The intent is that the total number of VP in existence should always
> equal 50 times the number of first-class parties.]
>
I agree with keeping the Vote Market a zero-sum economy. However, I'd
rather not see excess VP transferred to me, instead why not let the
leaving player keep their extra VP? Worst case we can add a provision
to allow those excess VP to be re-distributed into the market with a
majority consent vote or something (in the case that the player went
inactive).
BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2046 assigned to Goethe
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > More specifically: The contract originally known as Teh Cltohed Mna [1] > and renamed to ehrid [2] contains an explicit list of its members, > titled the Manroster. Actually, the contract doesn't claim the Manroster is a list of parties to ehrid. The Manroster is a list of player who can act on behalf of ehrid, but it's entirely possible for the contract to have more parties who cannot act on its behalf. As the contract is written, it's arguable whether ehird can be on the Manroster, as it's a "list of players", but it's unambiguous that even if were to be on the list e could not act on behalf of the contract, as only "players on the Manroster" can do so.
DIS: Re: BUS: The Democratic Revolutionaries
I agree with and to these changes.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2046 assigned to Goethe
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: > 2008/6/27 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> In that case, ehrid still has two partners, so the attempts to >> deregister it were unsuccessful. Updating records accordingly. >> >> > > But the Manroster contains a non-player (me). The contract states > it is a list of players. > > ??? That level of indirection doesn't remove the requirement for the membership list of the public contract to changed by announcement. We may have a contract that states a false statement. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2046 assigned to Goethe
ehird wrote: > 2008/6/27 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Was Manroster a public contract? I've lost track of that. If so, >> the official membership list doesn't change until the change is >> published (R2178). -Goethe > > The Manroster is just a list in the ehrid/mna contract. More specifically: The contract originally known as Teh Cltohed Mna [1] and renamed to ehrid [2] contains an explicit list of its members, titled the Manroster. ehird attempted to change it in public, but failed because e was not a player and thus could not use the contract's "players can change the Manroster by announcement" clause. [1] Full name "Teh Cltohed Mna Ni Teh Drak Woh Wtaches Adn Nevre Sasy A Wrod Execpt Wehn Psoessed Yb Dmeons Mcuhly Precocupied". [2] Ambiguously effective; ehird said something like "I changed Teh Cltohed Man's name to ehrid", which could be interpreted as a gloss for "Teh Cltohed Man changes" or "I act on behalf of Teh Cltohed Man to change".
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2046 assigned to Goethe
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: > Goethe wrote: >> Was Manroster a public contract? I've lost track of that. If so, >> the official membership list doesn't change until the change is >> published (R2178). > > No, it was internal state of a public contract, but not state that > appeared in the text of that contract. Huh?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2046 assigned to Goethe
2008/6/27 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > In that case, ehrid still has two partners, so the attempts to > deregister it were unsuccessful. Updating records accordingly. > > But the Manroster contains a non-player (me). The contract states it is a list of players. ??? ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Democratic Revolutionaries
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree to this contract. If there are any such ordinary decisions > that I can attempt to change to democratic, I do so with 2 support. If > there are any current attempts to change an ordinary decision to > democratic that I can support, I do so. > Almost effective. needs to be sent to a-b
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2046 assigned to Goethe
Quazie wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:05 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:01 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Goethe wrote:
>>> The contract mentioned in the CFJ, at the time it was filed, had the
>>> following text:
>>>
>>> {{{
>>> There is a list of players called the Manroster. The Manroster is
>>> initially ehird and ihope. Any player in the Manroster can perform
>>> actions on behalf of this contract. Any player in the Manroster can
>>> change the Manroster. All parties to this contract SHALL act to ensure
>>> it fulfills any obligations it may incur. This is a public contract.
>>> }}}
>>>
>>> Its membership was {ehird, Ivan Hope CXXVII}. Note that the Manroster
>>> was [ehird] at the time of the contract (however, the contract's text
>>> itself did not change).
>> Actually, if I deregistered ehird before e attempted to change the
>> Manroster, ehird was no longer a player in the Manroster, so e was not
>> able to change it.
>>
>
> Good catch. As ehird isn't registered, E isn't a player, so E can't
> be in the manroster regardless of what the manroster says (unless the
> contract somehow has a greater power than the rule indicating what a
> player is, in that case the manroster may have defined ehird as a
> player...)
In that case, ehrid still has two partners, so the attempts to
deregister it were unsuccessful. Updating records accordingly.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Democratic Revolutionaries
2008/6/27 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I agree to this contract. If there are any such ordinary decisions > that I can attempt to change to democratic, I do so with 2 support. If > there are any current attempts to change an ordinary decision to > democratic that I can support, I do so. > NttPF ehird
Re: DIS: RE: The Democratic Revolutionaries
2008/6/27 Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hmm... a contract that imposes no obligations on you, but which you > expect players to join? > -- > ais523 > Hey, I'm hopeful that I'll be a player soon... ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: The Democratic Revolutionaries
I agree to this contract. If there are any such ordinary decisions that I can attempt to change to democratic, I do so with 2 support. If there are any current attempts to change an ordinary decision to democratic that I can support, I do so.
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2046 assigned to Goethe
ehird wrote: > The Manroster is just a list in the ehrid/mna contract. Not even that, the contract states the existence of such a list and its initial value, but not its current state. So its a list in the internal gamestate of the mna contract. -- ais523 <>
DIS: RE: The Democratic Revolutionaries
ehird wrote: > I agree to the following, titled "The Democratic Revolutionaries": Hmm... a contract that imposes no obligations on you, but which you expect players to join? -- ais523 <>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2046 assigned to Goethe
2008/6/27 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Was Manroster a public contract? I've lost track of that. If so, > the official membership list doesn't change until the change is > published (R2178). -Goethe The Manroster is just a list in the ehrid/mna contract. ehird
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2046 assigned to Goethe
Goethe wrote: > Was Manroster a public contract? I've lost track of that. If so, > the official membership list doesn't change until the change is > published (R2178). No, it was internal state of a public contract, but not state that appeared in the text of that contract. -- ais523 <>
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2046 assigned to Goethe
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: > Evidence on CFJ 2046: > > comex wrote: >> Actually, if I deregistered ehird before e attempted to change the >> Manroster, ehird was no longer a player in the Manroster, so e was not >> able to change it. > Ah, good catch. In that case, I may have been wrong about the current > contents of the Manroster, but luckily I don't think it's the Notary's > job to track that. Was Manroster a public contract? I've lost track of that. If so, the official membership list doesn't change until the change is published (R2178). -Goethe
DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Saving ehird
Sgeo wrote: > Maybe the proposal should explicitly override R869.. There's no conflict, ehird isn't registering emself, the proposal's registering em. -- ais523 <>
DIS: Re: BUS: Saving ehird
Maybe the proposal should explicitly override R869..
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: registration
2008/6/27 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > ais523 wrote: > >> Murphy wrote: >>> ehird, I inform you of this case (2048) and invite you to rebut the >>> argument against your guilt. >> Aren't you supposed to invite em to rebut the argument in favour of >> eir guilt? > > Sorry, yes, I invite ehird to rebut the argument /for/ eir guilt. > > This is why, on Ducks & Platypuses, I first provided an argument for my guilt, then rebutted it (for my innocence), then rebutted it (thus rebutting the argument against my guilt). Then, since I didn't want to be guilty, I rebutted that. ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: registration
2008/6/27 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > comex wrote: > >> I initiate a criminal case against ehird, for violating Rule 2149 by >> saying that e joins. In fact, as e knew, the statement was >> ineffective (because e deregistered less than thirty days prior to >> it), so e did not join at any time around the posting of the message. > > ehird, I inform you of this case (2048) and invite you to rebut the > argument against your guilt. > > Please see my rather long and droney message for arguments. It was intended to, well, admit my guilt. ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2046 assigned to Goethe
2008/6/27 Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > ehird wrote: >> With 2 support I intend to bah. > I support. > I support. > -- > ais523 > Having recieved the neccessary support, I bah. ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2046 assigned to Goethe
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:05 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:01 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Goethe wrote:
>> The contract mentioned in the CFJ, at the time it was filed, had the
>> following text:
>>
>> {{{
>> There is a list of players called the Manroster. The Manroster is
>> initially ehird and ihope. Any player in the Manroster can perform
>> actions on behalf of this contract. Any player in the Manroster can
>> change the Manroster. All parties to this contract SHALL act to ensure
>> it fulfills any obligations it may incur. This is a public contract.
>> }}}
>>
>> Its membership was {ehird, Ivan Hope CXXVII}. Note that the Manroster
>> was [ehird] at the time of the contract (however, the contract's text
>> itself did not change).
>
> Actually, if I deregistered ehird before e attempted to change the
> Manroster, ehird was no longer a player in the Manroster, so e was not
> able to change it.
>
Good catch. As ehird isn't registered, E isn't a player, so E can't
be in the manroster regardless of what the manroster says (unless the
contract somehow has a greater power than the rule indicating what a
player is, in that case the manroster may have defined ehird as a
player...)
DIS: Re: BUS: RE: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2046 assigned to Goethe
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:01 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
> The contract mentioned in the CFJ, at the time it was filed, had the
> following text:
>
> {{{
> There is a list of players called the Manroster. The Manroster is
> initially ehird and ihope. Any player in the Manroster can perform
> actions on behalf of this contract. Any player in the Manroster can
> change the Manroster. All parties to this contract SHALL act to ensure
> it fulfills any obligations it may incur. This is a public contract.
> }}}
>
> Its membership was {ehird, Ivan Hope CXXVII}. Note that the Manroster
> was [ehird] at the time of the contract (however, the contract's text
> itself did not change).
Actually, if I deregistered ehird before e attempted to change the
Manroster, ehird was no longer a player in the Manroster, so e was not
able to change it.
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 2049
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Judgement: TRUE > > Arguments: > > Event E1 = ehird creates a contract containing the claause "Anything may > act on behalf of ehird by announcement" > E2 = comex acted on ehird's behalf to cause em to deregister > E3 = ehird changes eir nickname to notehird > E4 = notehird changes eir nickname to ehird > E5 = ais523 claimed to act on ehird's behalf to cause em to > initiate this case > > These events occurred in this order. The contract was not terminated by > E2, nor was it terminated or amended between E3 and E4, thus it operated > normally at E5. > > Side note, I changed ehird's name on behalf of em, otherwise the logic is sound.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Verification
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gmail says that this was sent 1 hour ago, but I confirmed my IRC > identity with Alexander just some minutes ago.. I think Alexander is a > time traveler >.> Umm, Gmail tells me eir message was sent 5 minutes ago. Sounds like a time zone bug, although I can't imagine how Gmail could possibly be working such that the time delta it displays for one user is different from that it shows another user by interpreting the same Date: header.
DIS: Re: BUS: Verification
Gmail says that this was sent 1 hour ago, but I confirmed my IRC identity with Alexander just some minutes ago.. I think Alexander is a time traveler >.>
DIS: RE: BUS: registration
Murphy wrote: > ehird, I inform you of this case (2048) and invite you to rebut the > argument against your guilt. Aren't you supposed to invite em to rebut the argument in favour of eir guilt? -- ais523 <>
Re: DIS: RE: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 5556-5563
ais523 wrote: > Murphy wrote: >> Not that it affects the results, but I recorded ais523 as voting >> 4P, 4P, P (rather than 4A, 4A, A) on 5559 through 5561. May have >> been a typo on my part. Would someone mind checking? > > According to my sent items, I voted 4A, 4A, A. Confirmed via archives, fixed in database.
DIS: RE: Contract: The Agoran Civil Service Union
Wooble wrote: > I agree to be bound by the following, which becomes a contract when > another officer agrees to it. Interesting idea. However, it's not obvious what it's meant to accomplish to me; also, you should probably make salaries depend on whether reports were done on time. The contract seems to encourage members to give offices to each other; I'm not entirely sure if this is a good thing for its members. -- ais523 <>
DIS: Re: BUS: Holidays are sacred
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Um, can I make ihope a co-author? Rule 106: "A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its author as being its co-author at the time of submission." You'll have to resubmit it if you want to co-authorize me. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
DIS: RE: I register
I know the real Sgeo through other forums, so I'll try to contact em later today to verify that it is em, rather than ehird pretending (which I doubt at this point, but just to be sure...) Sgeo has been a watcher for a while IIRC. -- ais523 <>
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2046 assigned to Goethe
Goethe wrote: > On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: >> 2008/6/26 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> H. Notary, as "ehrid" is/was (apparently) a public contract, can you confirm >>> the text and membership in the PF? -Goethe >> >> H. Notary is ais523, and he has root on that server. (So do I, but I >> certainly >> didn't twiddle the bits.) > > That's not the same as providing testimony in a forum of record. If e points > me to the same info, that's sufficient. The issue is, I want a second opinion > on what varied changes happened and when. -G. Oh, and just in case, the version I submitted to the PF (sorry I was so slow, I wasn't online yesterday) is based on my own record on my own computer, not on the version on ehird's server. I think (and hope!) it's the same, though. -- ais523 <>
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2046 assigned to Goethe
ehird wrote: > With 2 support I intend to bah. I support. I support. -- ais523 <>
DIS: RE: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 5556-5563
Murphy wrote: > Not that it affects the results, but I recorded ais523 as voting > 4P, 4P, P (rather than 4A, 4A, A) on 5559 through 5561. May have > been a typo on my part. Would someone mind checking? According to my sent items, I voted 4A, 4A, A. -- ais532 <>
DIS: Re: BUS: Can I vote?
Sgeo wrote: > Is it too late for me to vote FORx4 on 5565? As far as I can tell, I > should have joined before the voting period in order to vote for that :/ Right. From Rule 2156: The eligible voters on an ordinary decision are those entities that were active players at the start of its voting period.
