DIS: Note to new players
I'm about to assign judges to some judicial cases. To start being assigned as a judge, you should announce that you become sitting (for B players, this is the equivalent of gaining the Ordained property). There is no penalty for failing to judge, nor for making an incorrect judgement in good faith. To get out of judging a case that's been assigned to you, you should announce that you recuse yourself from it. Rule 591 defines the possible judgements for inquiry cases, 1504 for criminal cases, and 2169 for equity cases. Note on criminal judgements: INNOCENT means e didn't do it (whether or not it's illegal), UNIMPUGNED means it isn't illegal (whether or not e did it).
Re: DIS: Partnership models
Also, what about Bayes? Arguably also the PNP acts slightly like that; although it can be controlled democratically, it also does some things in an automated way. -- ais523 from Normish, probably this message will never arive as a result
DIS: Re: BUS: Caste increase
On Sat, 2008-10-25 at 18:31 -0400, Benjamin Schultz wrote: On Oct 25, 2008, at 1:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I spend E G# B to increase ehird's caste to Delta, unless this would violate the Note Exchange agreement. (I don't think it does, but this is from memory.) Also, [EMAIL PROTECTED] has stopped working again; this message is being sent by ais523, but by putting a fake From: address. I CFJ on the following inquiry, barring ehird: The player ais523 sent the above message. To the CotC: If you assign that one to me, I can settle it pretty easily... -- ais523
Re: DIS: Note to new players
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?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
On 27 Oct 2008, at 03:56, Ian Kelly wrote: Ironic. Oh? Not very. Messing with people's contracts from inside their framework is fine. Messing them up via proposal is not. -- ehird
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2238 assigned to Wooble
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 3:18 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: == CFJ 2238 == When a person performs an action that takes parameters, e must unambiguously specify the parameters. I proto-judge TRUE. When taking an action, the parameters must be specified in a way that is unambiguous. However, the caller's example does not seem to rely on the statement, so I'll clarify. That is, if the Rules said comex CAN award a player a Bean by announcement, must I unambiguously specify which player, or merely identify the player? In this case, any announcement that identifies the player, regardless of whether it does so by name, necessarily unambiguously specifies em; that the meaning of identify. I statement of the form I award a Bean to Wooble is equivalent to I award a Bean to the player who first assigned a judgment to CFJ 2238 if the statement is made after this judgment is submitted; either one would successfully award a Bean to me. In CFJ 2065, the specification was ambiguous at the time the message of intent was sent because it referred to events that hadn't yet taken place and which couldn't be predicted in advance. When announcing intent to perform a dependent action, one must unambiguously identify the parameters of the action that will be taken dependently in the future, and they must be unambiguous at the time intent is announced. Thus, if the rules said comex CAN award a player a Bean without objection, a statement by comex of I intend, without objection, to award a Bean to the player who first assigned a judgment to CFJ 2238 would allow em to award me a bean without objection if e made the statement after this judgment is submitted, but would not allow em to award me a bean if e made that announcement earlier than the submission of this judgment. Similarly, in CFJ 1334, the problem was an issue of ambiguity, although in that case the ambiguity was absolute, and not dependent on time. In that case root announced eir intent to select a different Bank Currency, giving neither a specification by name nor any sort of attempt to unambiguously identify a currency. This failed because the intent was ambiguous, as would an action-by-announcement of I hereby select a different Bank Currency with no attempt to announce which currency it was. Had e instead announced eir intent to select the Bank Currency e had the most of at the time e posted the intent, this would succeed if and only if e held more of one currency than of any of the others. A specification of this form could be unambiguous, and thus legal, even if at the time the intent was posted it was unclear to which currency this referred due to slow recordkeeping or pending CFJs that would potentially correct eir platonic holdings of each currency. For practical reasons, such announcements SHOULD be avoided to prevent cascading of unknown-at-the-moment-but-platonically-unambiguous gamestate.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2238 assigned to Wooble
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 27 Oct 2008, at 13:10, Geoffrey Spear wrote: For practical reasons, such announcements SHOULD be avoided to prevent cascading of unknown-at-the-moment-but-platonically-unambiguous gamestate. tell that to comex comex: you shouldn't purposely make things difficult for the recordkeepors of badly-designed banks.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2238 assigned to Wooble
On 27 Oct 2008, at 13:34, Geoffrey Spear wrote: comex: you shouldn't purposely make things difficult for the recordkeepors of badly-designed banks. The RBoA has exactly the same problem, except BobTHJ controls almost every currency it trades in anyway. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2238 assigned to Wooble
On 27 Oct 2008, at 13:10, Geoffrey Spear wrote: For practical reasons, such announcements SHOULD be avoided to prevent cascading of unknown-at-the-moment-but-platonically-unambiguous gamestate. tell that to comex -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: hi ehird
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I initiate an equity case against The Agoran Agricultural Association,
specifying its list of parties as {{BobTHJ, Murphy, Wooble, comex, root,
Taral, OscarMeyr, the AFO, Quazie, Pavitra, ais523, Teh Cltohed Mna,
woggle, Warrigal, ehird, The PerlNomic Partnership, Sir Toby, the PBA}},
and the state of affairs whereby events have not proceeded as envisioned
by the contract is that due to comex's actions with respect to the PBA,
it is now very difficult to determine the number of AAA-defined assets
comex and the PBA hold without unreasonable effort on the part of
multiple recordkeepors.
I submit the following argument: The situation is even worse than it was
when I did a typo-filled bank run against the RBoA, as that merely moved
assets around in a way that could be determined iteratively between the
recordkeepors; in this case, there is ambiguity that seems likely to
persist for several days, as AAA reports are rare nowadays and knowledge
of comex's holdings between several contracts is needed in order to
determine how many assets were transferred to the PBA, and thus the
resulting exchange rates, which would have affected comex's subsequent
attempted withdrawals and thus have lead to a very confusing gamestate.
Note that I've already been well punished, losing 14 VP from that
transaction, which is well-defined (the last VM report was a few days
ago); there's no way that my holdings of any other asset is up to the
exchange rate so the deposit-withdraw is a no-op except that I might
get Coins out of it. So my Coins are unknown, but my other asset
holdings are known (well, as known as they were before the
transaction, which is not very much, but...) I argue that both the
deposits and withdraws may have failed due to lack of specificity, due
to CFJ 1307 now that actions must be specified, hence my CFJ on
whether parameters count as part of the action. If they do, then a
lot more than my transaction is in question.
I note that if BobTHJ had fulfilled eir contract-defined duties on
time, ehird would have been able to easily figure this out.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: hi ehird
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 10:04 -0400, comex wrote: Note that I've already been well punished, losing 14 VP from that transaction, which is well-defined (the last VM report was a few days ago); there's no way that my holdings of any other asset is up to the exchange rate so the deposit-withdraw is a no-op except that I might get Coins out of it. Not even 0 crops? If you had more than 3 of them, there's trouble. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2238 assigned to Wooble
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: comex: you shouldn't purposely make things difficult for the recordkeepors of badly-designed banks. Well, I suppose BobTHJ is the recordkeepor of the RBoA, but I don't see what that has to do with anything. g
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2238 assigned to Wooble
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In this case, any announcement that identifies the player, regardless of whether it does so by name, necessarily unambiguously specifies em; that the meaning of identify. I statement of the form I award a Bean to Wooble is equivalent to I award a Bean to the player who first assigned a judgment to CFJ 2238 if the statement is made after this judgment is submitted; either one would successfully award a Bean to me. Not if there is a non-negligible chance that the CotC's report of who first assigned a judgement is wrong, as is the case for asset reports (CFJ 1307).
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2238 assigned to Wooble
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The RBoA has exactly the same problem, except BobTHJ controls almost every currency it trades in anyway. 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.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2238 assigned to Wooble
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. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2238 assigned to Wooble
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.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2238 assigned to Wooble
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. -- ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
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.
DIS: Re: BUS: Panel intent, CFJ 2203a
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
I intend to send the following on behalf of the judicial panel in CFJ
2203a, with the support of two of {woggle, Goethe, the CotC}:
{{{
This panel REMANDs CFJ 2203. The judge is instructed to consider whether
there were two plausible interpretations of what the vote meant, and if
so, whether this made the vote sufficiently ambiguous as to be entirely
ineffective, and also to consider the appelant's arguments.
}}}
I would prefer to just overrule to FALSE based on appellant's arguments.
Too many cases dragging on too long... I'm moving towards an activist
stance on appeals when the case seems straightforward to me. -g.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Panel intent, CFJ 2203a
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 09:19 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
I intend to send the following on behalf of the judicial panel in CFJ
2203a, with the support of two of {woggle, Goethe, the CotC}:
{{{
This panel REMANDs CFJ 2203. The judge is instructed to consider whether
there were two plausible interpretations of what the vote meant, and if
so, whether this made the vote sufficiently ambiguous as to be entirely
ineffective, and also to consider the appelant's arguments.
}}}
I would prefer to just overrule to FALSE based on appellant's arguments.
Too many cases dragging on too long... I'm moving towards an activist
stance on appeals when the case seems straightforward to me. -g.
I'd be willing to support an overrule to FALSE too. Do you want to write
the intent, or shall I?
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I still suck at this sort of thing, but
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 13:47, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 24 Oct 2008, at 20:26, Roger Hicks wrote: NOTE: After this withdraw I show the RBoA having 260 coins remaining. The PBA would seem to have a different figure. What's the difference? I dunno. I don't have your recent change history; you have the PBA's. Search for 'RBoA', all the lines are in a standard format (due to being generated by pba.py.) 2008-10-20 19:33 -- ais523 attempts to withdraw 2 X crops for ^47. (fails, it didn't - ed, 2008-10-21) ais523 transfers all of eir coins (^719) to RBoA. (note - this happened in splits throughout the run - ed, 2008-10-21) The total amount of coins ais523 deposited during the Bank Run was 551, not 719. 2008-10-20 19:39 -- RBoA transfers ^275 to root. This was 250 coins, not 275. 2008-10-21 15:57 -- RBoA transfers ^420 to Pavitra. FYI, after this transaction the RBoA had 0 coins. Your PBA report is missing Murphy's withdraw of 218 coins from the RBoA (the message that started this thread). With the above corrections to your report the RBoA should currently have 260 coins (currently meaning just after Murphy's withdraw of 218 coins. I haven't even begun to tackle the stuff that happened over the weekend yet.) BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I still suck at this sort of thing, but
On 27 Oct 2008, at 16:31, Roger Hicks wrote: The total amount of coins ais523 deposited during the Bank Run was 551, not 719. Incorrect. That was how much I thought. My program says otherwise. 2008-10-20 19:39 -- RBoA transfers ^275 to root. This was 250 coins, not 275. Nope. Again, I thought so, but no. 2008-10-21 15:57 -- RBoA transfers ^420 to Pavitra. FYI, after this transaction the RBoA had 0 coins. Apparently not. Your PBA report is missing Murphy's withdraw of 218 coins from the RBoA (the message that started this thread). I imagine your count is incorrect. Remember, the previous PBA data is all wrong. This is verified by a computer. Please recalculate the actual amount of coins. Then I will add that, but no new report until the comex mess is sorted. With the above corrections to your report the RBoA should currently have 260 coins (currently meaning just after Murphy's withdraw of 218 coins. I haven't even begun to tackle the stuff that happened over the weekend yet.) -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I still suck at this sort of thing, but
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 16:35 +, Elliott Hird wrote: On 27 Oct 2008, at 16:31, Roger Hicks wrote: The total amount of coins ais523 deposited during the Bank Run was 551, not 719. Incorrect. That was how much I thought. My program says otherwise. (snip) I imagine your count is incorrect. Remember, the previous PBA data is all wrong. This is verified by a computer. Please recalculate the actual amount of coins. Well, in that case, my initial scam withdrew more assets from the RBoA than anyone thought, and the situation is in even more of a mess than we thought. Self-ratification could have sorted this out if it were quicker and the reports were published more often; as it is, the AAA has a very unknown gamestate. If BobTHJ accepts my bribe to award me the points for my PV quickly, at least we'll know the state of Points Vouchers, I suppose. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I still suck at this sort of thing, but
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:35, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 27 Oct 2008, at 16:31, Roger Hicks wrote: The total amount of coins ais523 deposited during the Bank Run was 551, not 719. Incorrect. That was how much I thought. My program says otherwise. 2008-10-20 19:39 -- RBoA transfers ^275 to root. This was 250 coins, not 275. Nope. Again, I thought so, but no. 2008-10-21 15:57 -- RBoA transfers ^420 to Pavitra. FYI, after this transaction the RBoA had 0 coins. Apparently not. Your PBA report is missing Murphy's withdraw of 218 coins from the RBoA (the message that started this thread). I imagine your count is incorrect. Remember, the previous PBA data is all wrong. This is verified by a computer. Please recalculate the actual amount of coins. You may want to check your program. I checked these all by hand (twice), cross referencing both your PBA report and my RBoA records. Of particular note is this: 2008-10-20 19:39 -- RBoA transfers ^275 to root. root clearly specifies in eir e-mail that e is withdrawing 250 coins. However, if you really wish to put that much faith in your program I would gladly make an adjustment entry to the RBoA ledger noting that the PBA has graciously given the RBoA an extra 361 coins at no cost. I'm sure the Bankers will be pleased. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Paying off Taral
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:54 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course, arguably a sender from Normish can be faked too, but I have to be able to participate somehow; apparently the building in which the email server that stores my email is housed was flooded by leaking pipes, and my email hasn't worked since. (I suspect that there's a connection, although correlation does not necessarily imply causation.) Arguably I can fake messages from all of you, but that's not sufficient grounds either. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Bank Motion: Portfolio Management
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:34, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I initiate the following Bank Motion:
{
The RBoA agrees to the Portfolio Management Agreement.
}
Disapprove. There's absolutely no good reason for this to be a
separate contract between the RBoA and the Treasurer; it could just as
easily be a new clause in the RBoA, one which would be subject to
better oversight since the RBoA itself can't amend this new contract.
The reason is to prevent non-Bankers from objecting to this change
(through the Without 3 objections mechanism). PBA Comrades who do not
participate in the RBoA have an interest in shooting down anything
which would increase the value of the RBoA at the expense of the PBA.
BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: PRS Cashout
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Alex Smith 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. -- ais523 Pretty straightforward-seeming, though I'll wait 24-48 hours as Herald for Scorekeepor confirmation or in case there's discussion to be had. -G.
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2237 assigned to root
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:17 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2237
== CFJ 2237 ==
Warrigal is party to a public contract called the UNDAD
Caller: ais523
Judge: root
Judgement:
History:
Called by ais523: 22 Oct 2008 13:57:08 GMT
Assigned to root: (as of this message)
Caller's Evidence:
On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 10:52 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:06 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kyle is hereby defined as a non-registered entity on whose behalf I
can act by announcement. Kyle degregisters.
You're the only such entity. This probably succeeds in establishing
Kyle as a nickname for yourself and binding you to that awful
contract.
For that matter, Kyle registers, if possible.
Rule 869 makes it IMPOSSIBLE for Kyle to register at this time.
Evidence: The quoted text above, and the fact that the UNDAD defines
degregistering as a method of joining it. Also, note that the UNDAD
was not a contract before the message (and may not have been
afterwards), due to having insufficiently many parties.
Evidence: {{{
comex wrote:
I create the following contract:
{
1. This is a public contract called the UNDAD.
2. Anyone can join this contract by announcement. Joining this
contract is known as degregistration.
3. comex CAN act on behalf of any party to this contract by announcement.
}
}}}
This seems like a straight-forward TRUE to me. Are there any counter-arguments?
-root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:47 AM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 27 Oct 2008, at 03:56, Ian Kelly wrote: Ironic. Oh? Not very. 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. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:47 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:49 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5799 D 1 2.0 comex Fix Rule 1789 AGAINST. Didn't we already adopt this? Its voting period was extended due to lack of quorum. I vote FOR. What I meant is that according to the FLR, R1789 was already set to power 2 by proposal 5780. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
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 -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:47 AM, Elliott Hird 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. 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.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: hi ehird
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.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
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? BobTHJ
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
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 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: 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: 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 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: 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: 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: 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, 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, 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, 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: 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
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, 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.
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: 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: 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 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
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: 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
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 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: 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 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 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: 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 session. -root
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
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?
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
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
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.
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, 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: 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
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.
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 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 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
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: 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).
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)
DIS: up to date
pba proto-report up to date, bobthj: please read -- 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
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: 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
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: 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
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 auto-parseable pattern.
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
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: 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
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: 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, 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: 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, 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
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, 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: 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
