Re: DIS: DRAFT proposal: Real Estate

[Owen Jacobson]

I’ve opted not to bolt this to the nascent Assets proposal, but would heartily 
recommend rewriting it to fit once Assets lands.

Please pay close attention to the auction rules, which are a bit shaky, and to 
the change to You Can’t Take It With You. I’ve moved the departed-player 
cleanup to another Office in this proposal.

Proposal: Real Estate
Adoption index: 3
Authors: o
Co-authors: Aris

If Shinies are money - plentiful, liquid, easily acquired in small
quanties but still valuable - then Estates are land: rare, illiquid,
difficult to acquire in any quantity, intrinsically valuable.

Enact a new rule, "The Surveyor", with power 1, with the text:

The Surveyor is an office. Eir weekly report includes the owner of
each Estate.

Enact a new rule, "Estates", with power 2, with the text:

An Estate is a type of entity. The following changes are secured:
creating, modifying, or destroying an Estate; and causing an
entity to become an Estate or cease to be an Estate.

Owner is a switch belonging to each Estate, tracked by the
Surveyor, whose legal values are any player, any organization, or
Agora. The default Owner of an estate is Agora. Changes to Owner
switches are secured.

To transfer an estate to a player or Organization is to set its
Owner switch to that player or that Organization. To transfer an
estate to Agora is to set its Owner switch to Agora.

A player who owns an Estate can and may transfer it to any player,
to any Organization, or to Agora, by announcement.

A player may cause an Organization which owns an Estate to transfer
that Estate to any player, to any Organization, or to Agora, by
announcement, if it is Appropriate to do so under that
Organization's charter.

Create the following estates:

* The Estate of Antegria
* The Estate of Borduria
* The Estate of Cagliostro
* The Estate of Dawsbergen
* The Estate of Erehwon

Enact a new rule, "Estate Ballots", with power 3, with the text:

During any Agoran Decision, a player who owns an Estate can, by
announcement, Spend one or more Estates on the Agoran Decision by
transferring that estate to Agora. Eir voting strength on that is
increased by 1 for each Estate spent on it.

Enact a new rule, "Estate Auctions", with power 2, with the text:

At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one Estate, the
Surveyor shall put one Estate which is owned by Agora up for
auction, by announcement. Each auction ends seven days after it
begins.

During an auction, any player may bid any number of Shinies by
announcement. Any player may cause any Organization to bid any
number of Shinies, by announcement, if it is Appropriate under that
Organization's charter to place the bid.

At the end of an auction, if there is a single highest bid, the
player or Organization that placed the highest bid can cause Agora
to transfer the auctioned Estate to emself by paying Agora the
number of Shinies stated in their most recent bid. If the highest
bidder does not do so in a timely fashion, the Surveyor shall issue
the player who submitted the bid a Yellow Card.

Amend rule 2485 ("You Can't Take It With You") and replace its text with:

 "Heir" is a person switch, tracked by the Registrar, whose value
 is either empty or the name of a player or organization. Each
 person's Heir is empty by default. A player may flip eir Heir by
 announcement.

 When a player is deregistered, if eir Heir switch is not empty, e
 automatically pays all of eir Balance to the named player or
 Organization, and transfers all of eir Estates to the named player
 or Organization. Otherwise, if eir Heir switch is empty, e may
 specify another player, an organization, or Agora, and pay all of
 eir Balance and transfer all of eir Estates to the specified
 player or Organization. If the player does not do so within 1 day
 of deregistration, the Registrar CAN and SHALL cause that player
 to pay eir Balance to Agora and to transfer all of eir Estates to
 Agora, by announcement.



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: To-Do List

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-04-27 at 22:07 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> Is it time to do away with the distinction? I appreciate the idea
> that proposals should be submitted for consideration before they’re
> submitted for voting, but with Agora this small, that appears to
> happen through proto-proposals, with the final proposal pending
> almost as soon as it’s submitted.

I believe the distinction is mostly to prevent breakage and scams.
There are a few ways to "emergency pend" a proposal, and any effect
that prevents proposals from even being submitted is potentially
exploitable to hold Agora to ransom (typically by a scamster who's
managed to get a Power 1 rule into the ruleset). In general, I'd prefer
not to change something as fundamental to the game as the proposal
submission rule, as an inability to submit proposals (either due to
scams or due to a mistake) is a Very Bad Thing to happen.

I'm not aware of any remotely recent time at which it was usual to
review proposals before pending them; that was normally done before
submission instead (and when players attempted to submit without
pending, it would be quite common for someone else to just pend the
proposal). There was one counterscam attempt in which several Agorans
cooperated to try to prevent a particular proposal being distributed,
but IIRC it didn't work.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: 蘭亭社's highest allowable budget

[Josh T]

I have no ill against you barring me, just that I wasn't familiar with the
procedure.

天火狐

On 27 April 2017 at 22:04, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> That’s pretty much it. You’re best-placed to actually provide insight into
> the truthiness of the statement, which is why I barred you: I’m actually
> trying to figure out how Agora as a whole interprets the 蘭亭社 charter.
> Having you step in and answer directly somewhat defeats the purpose.
>
> -o
>
> On Apr 27, 2017, at 2:51 AM, Josh T  wrote:
>
> This sounds like an issue where I sit on the sideline and eat popcorn and
> maybe attempt to correct if everyone is horribly off-mark. Wonderful.
>
> On 27 April 2017 at 02:46, Alex Smith  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2017-04-27 at 02:43 -0400, Josh T wrote:
>> > I am confused by the wording "barring 天火狐", and seek clarification
>> > on the issue.
>>
>> When you call a CFJ, you can choose one player who will not be able to
>> judge that CFJ; that's called "barring a player". Normally you do that
>> if the CFJ is about that player or something that that player is
>> associated with (to avoid conflicts of interest), or if the eligibility
>> of the player to judge the CFJ would depend on the result of the CFJ.
>> However, you don't have to state your reason, and there doesn't even
>> have to be a reason.
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Payday (Apr 2017)

[Owen Jacobson]

On Apr 27, 2017, at 7:02 PM, Sprocklem S  wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Nicholas Evans  wrote:
>> You're registrar (via deputization). When the month rolls around, announce
>> intent to deregister everyone who hasn't posted in the last month. Once you
>> deregister them, that will free up their shinies.
>> 
> 
> Is there any reason we don't have some sort of periodic tax on shinies,
> to prevent long term accumulation?

The idle state of a taxed economy with periodic salaries is analytically 
solvable and not very interesting. The amount of Shinies in circulation at 
steady state, and the amount of Shinies in any single player’s possession, can 
be worked out in advance. At that point, why bother? Shinies become a simple 
rate limit, and can be replaced with a much simpler mechanism that accomplishes 
the same thing.

Hoarding isn’t necessarily better, but it’s a more interesting to try to 
address.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: To-Do List

[Owen Jacobson]

On Apr 27, 2017, at 6:12 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
 wrote:

> I submit the following proposal if it has no formatting errors and its
> passage would create two new rules:
> 
> {{{
> Title: Agora's To-Do List
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

This brings my attention to something we don’t, much, take advantage of these 
days. P.S.S., who now has the Shinies necessary to pend eir proposal, could 
actually have submitted this proposal even without adequate Shinies. Anyone at 
all could pend it.

Looking at recent proposals, however, it’s vanishingly rare for anyone to take 
advantage of the distinction between submitting a proposal and pending it. 
Nichdel’s message this evening, pending two proposals e didn’t write, is the 
first occurrence this year.

Is it time to do away with the distinction? I appreciate the idea that 
proposals should be submitted for consideration before they’re submitted for 
voting, but with Agora this small, that appears to happen through 
proto-proposals, with the final proposal pending almost as soon as it’s 
submitted.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: 蘭亭社's highest allowable budget

[Owen Jacobson]

That’s pretty much it. You’re best-placed to actually provide insight into the 
truthiness of the statement, which is why I barred you: I’m actually trying to 
figure out how Agora as a whole interprets the 蘭亭社 charter. Having you step in 
and answer directly somewhat defeats the purpose.

-o

> On Apr 27, 2017, at 2:51 AM, Josh T  wrote:
> 
> This sounds like an issue where I sit on the sideline and eat popcorn and 
> maybe attempt to correct if everyone is horribly off-mark. Wonderful.
> 
> On 27 April 2017 at 02:46, Alex Smith  > wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-04-27 at 02:43 -0400, Josh T wrote:
> > I am confused by the wording "barring 天火狐", and seek clarification
> > on the issue.
> 
> When you call a CFJ, you can choose one player who will not be able to
> judge that CFJ; that's called "barring a player". Normally you do that
> if the CFJ is about that player or something that that player is
> associated with (to avoid conflicts of interest), or if the eligibility
> of the player to judge the CFJ would depend on the result of the CFJ.
> However, you don't have to state your reason, and there doesn't even
> have to be a reason.
> 
> --
> ais523
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mint Chocolate

[Owen Jacobson]

How much more malleable?

Before we enacted the Shiny Supply Level rule, it was possible for any player 
to adjust Agora’s balance by proposal, with AI=1. The rule doesn’t modify that 
much, but it increases the minimum Adoption Index to AI=2 (the rule itself is 
Power 2).

I’m skeptical of anything from the Mother May I list, even if it’s scoped to a 
specific office, but that’s the other alternatives I can think of. What did you 
have in mind?

-o

> On Apr 27, 2017, at 2:03 AM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> Any way we can make this number more maliable? If we need this once we'll 
> need it again, and maybe in the other direction - should it be a switch that 
> can be used to add to/subtract from Agora's outstanding shinies?
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 23:01 Aris Merchant 
>  > wrote:
> Sure that's enough? I'd tend to go with 1500, although admittedly the
> inflation is worrying.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Owen Jacobson  > wrote:
> > This is not a sustainable fix, Agorans. I’m only going to submit this once, 
> > and I’ll actively block further attempts to increase the Shiny supply for 
> > at least the next couple of months unless they come with serious work 
> > towards fixing the underlying liquidity problems.
> >
> > I submit the following proposal:
> >
> > {{{
> > Title: Mint Chocolate
> > Author(s): o
> > Adoption Index: 2
> >
> > Amend rule 2483 (“Economics”), replacing all occurrences of the number 1000 
> > with the number 1270.
> >
> > Amend rule 2487 (“Shiny Supply Level”), replacing all occurrences of the 
> > number 1000 with the number 1270.
> > }}}
> >
> > I’ll pend this on Friday unless someone has a strong objection. It’s too 
> > late to catch the May payday (say that after three beers…) anyways, but 
> > this’ll kick in in time for June.
> >
> > -o
> >
> > ps. Would the phrase “Amend all rules, replacing all occurrences of the 
> > number 1000 with the number 1270” have the same effect, given the same AI?



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Proto-proposal: real estate

[Aris Merchant]

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 5:40 PM Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> Sure, I can do that.
>
> -o
>
> Good. Oh, sorry, one other thing. There are several places in your
proposal where you allow actions. You probably want to make it clear that
people can do those things _by announcement._

-Aris

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Payday (Apr 2017)

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Objection noted. The current list stands as follows:

As registrar, I hereby announce intend to deregister each of aranea,
Charles, Henry, Roujo, Sci_Guy12, Tekneek, Yally, and Zachary

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus


On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:41 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> I object to the deregistration of omd.
>
> -o
>
>> On Apr 27, 2017, at 3:35 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> I am sorry, I realize that and I am not sure how they made the list. An 
>> update:
>>
>> As registrar, I hereby announce intend to deregister each of aranea,
>> Charles, Henry, omd, Roujo, Sci_Guy12, Tekneek, Yally, and Zachary
>> Watterson.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>>> Mine wasn't - but PSS's was - I couldn't really object as a maybe not player
>>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 09:52 Aris Merchant
>>>  wrote:

 Were those messages to a public forum?

 -Aris

 On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Quazie  wrote:
> Both warrigall and ais523 have sent messages in the past month - so i
> think
> you can't do that to em?
>
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 02:58 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>>
>> As registrar, I hereby announce intend to deregister ais523, aranea,
>> Charles, Henry, omd, Roujo, Sci_Guy12, Tekneek, Warrigal, the, Yally,
>> and Zachary Watterson.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:39 AM, Aris Merchant
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Given the present... situation (crisis being to strong), why not just
>>> do
>>> it now? There's no rule saying you have to do it only at the new
>>> month,
>>> that's just the only time it's required.
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:34 PM Nicholas Evans 
>>> wrote:

 You're registrar (via deputization). When the month rolls around,
 announce intent to deregister everyone who hasn't posted in the last
 month.
 Once you deregister them, that will free up their shinies.

 On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 4:55 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
  wrote:
>
> Printing more money seems to be the only reasonable option at this
> point.
>
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:48 PM Owen Jacobson 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The previous message purporting to contain the April payday
>>> notice
>>> was incorrectly calculated. It incorrectly applied the rules from
>>> Proposal
>>> 7841.
>>>
>>> The following notice replaces it totally.
>>>
>>> -o
>>>
>>> Date of this payday: Sat  1 Apr, 2017
>>> Date of last payday: Wed  1 Mar, 2017
>>>
>>>
>>> As Secretary, it is my pleasure to report that Agora has paid the
>>> following salaries to players:
>>>
>>> Player   Shinies
>>> 
>>> ais52310
>>> aranea10
>>> Aris  10
>>> Charles   10
>>> G.10
>>> Henri 10
>>> Murphy10
>>> nichdel   10
>>> o 10
>>> omd   10
>>> Roujo 10
>>> Sci_Guy12 10
>>> Sprocklem 10
>>> Tekneek   10
>>> Warrigal, the 10
>>> Yally 10
>>> Zachary Watterson 10
>>> 天火狐 10
>>>
>>> Additionally, Agora has paid the following salaries to officers:
>>>
>>> Player  Office  Payrate
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Agora’s balance is, as of this Payday, 1 Shinies.
>>>
>> Oh dear. We may need to increase supply. Anyone have any solutions
>> other than just printing more money?
>>
>> -Aris
>
>

>

Re: DIS: Proto-proposal: real estate

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Apr 27, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>> 
>> I'd say N needs to be more than 3. Maybe somewhere between 5 and 10? I'd
>> recomend going with about 7 to start us off. I'd also suggest allowing new
>> estates to be created without amending the rule. This does look quite
>> interesting, and can be easily converted as soon as I get around to
>> finishing assets. I hope you wouldn't object to us making them useful in
>> other ways later?
>> 
>> -Aris
> 
> Any chance this could be ready, in whatever form, by my next
> distribution run (i.e. this weekend)? I'd like to get the economy in
> working shape, and this might help.
> 
> -Aris

Sure, I can do that.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Payday (Apr 2017)

[Nicholas Evans]

An early proto of what became this economy included taxes, but I think it
was scraped because of the logistical overhead. Ideas I considered at the
time:

-A tax on players' wealth (wouldn't stop players from hording shinies in
orgs)
-A tax on organizations' wealth (would require weird budget balancing for
escrow orgs like AAaAA and AVM)
-Replacing expenditure with a monthly org fee that the org can raise from
its members however it chooses (relies on orgs being interesting enough for
people to join them)
-
​A monthly auction of valuable assets​ (relies on the assets being valuable
enough for people to buy them)

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Sprocklem S  wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Nicholas Evans  wrote:
> > You're registrar (via deputization). When the month rolls around,
> announce
> > intent to deregister everyone who hasn't posted in the last month. Once
> you
> > deregister them, that will free up their shinies.
> >
>
> Is there any reason we don't have some sort of periodic tax on shinies,
> to prevent long term accumulation?
>
> --
> Sprocklem
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Payday (Apr 2017)

[Sprocklem S]

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Nicholas Evans  wrote:
> You're registrar (via deputization). When the month rolls around, announce
> intent to deregister everyone who hasn't posted in the last month. Once you
> deregister them, that will free up their shinies.
>

Is there any reason we don't have some sort of periodic tax on shinies,
to prevent long term accumulation?

-- 
Sprocklem

DIS: Re: BUS: AAaAA Voting Session

[Quazie]

Proto-Proposal Idea:
Each player has a switch, the Value of which can be one of: the set of all
active players or None.
A player may flip their Grudge switch to a player once a month.  A player
may flip their Grudge switch to None at any time.
All players have their switch initially set to None
The Assessor tracks this switch on each Player.

If a proposal has been written by a player (The writor), and another
player's Grudge switch is set to that player (the votor) - If the votor
votes YES their Voting Strength on that proposal is increased by .1, in the
Votor Votes against the proposal, their Voting Strength is reduced by .1.


Just quantifying `Firmly disappointed`

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 3:18 PM Nicholas Evans  wrote:

> As a member of the AAaAA, I initiate a Voting Session.
>
> The pot is currently 10 shinies, and I have 10 Proxies.
>
> I use my proxies to cast the following votes:
>
> 3 votes for Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
>
> 3 votes for Quazie.
>
> 1 vote each for o, Aris, 天火狐, and the AAaAA.
>
> I pledge to, until the end of this AAaAA Voting Session, not buy more
> Proxies than any other player, or than I already have.
>
> I pledge to be firmly disappointed if anyone with more than 70 shinies
> votes for emself.
>

Re: DIS: Proto-proposal: real estate

[Aris Merchant]

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
>
> I'd say N needs to be more than 3. Maybe somewhere between 5 and 10? I'd
> recomend going with about 7 to start us off. I'd also suggest allowing new
> estates to be created without amending the rule. This does look quite
> interesting, and can be easily converted as soon as I get around to
> finishing assets. I hope you wouldn't object to us making them useful in
> other ways later?
>
> -Aris

Any chance this could be ready, in whatever form, by my next
distribution run (i.e. this weekend)? I'd like to get the economy in
working shape, and this might help.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Assets proto-proposal, v2

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 22:56 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > Reenact rule 2166, Assets (Power = 2), with the following text:
> > 
> > Is there a meaningful distinction between re-enacting a rule and
> > creating a rule?
> 
> Rule history is something that legally has to be tracked, in the FLR.
> If you re-enact a rule, the history (and ID number) of the old rule
> stays around. Enacting a new rule would make it appear to have been
> created from scratch.
> 
> (We only invented this mechanism very recently. I'm not sure if it's
> been used yet. At least, helping to prevent rule number inflation seems
> like a good thing.)

It has never been used.  (at least, not in an *adopted* proposal).

If it's used, in order to make the history complete I'd need to track down 
when it was repealed (that's something that can't be derived from old FLRs, 
it requires some proposal searching).  Not that it's a huge deal.

I personally don't think it's *that* value added to conserve ID numbers;
they're free.  I do somewhat like the idea of historical continuity if
a "new" idea is substantially identical to an old one.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly report

[Kerim Aydin]

> I would like to point out that I am not an office (in the recent events 
> section of the report).
> 天火狐

No Player is an Office (CFJ 1895).

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Payday (Apr 2017)

[Quazie]

Mine wasn't - but PSS's was - I couldn't really object as a maybe not
player
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 09:52 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Were those messages to a public forum?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Quazie  wrote:
> > Both warrigall and ais523 have sent messages in the past month - so i
> think
> > you can't do that to em?
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 02:58 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> As registrar, I hereby announce intend to deregister ais523, aranea,
> >> Charles, Henry, omd, Roujo, Sci_Guy12, Tekneek, Warrigal, the, Yally,
> >> and Zachary Watterson.
> >> 
> >> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:39 AM, Aris Merchant
> >>  wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Given the present... situation (crisis being to strong), why not just
> do
> >> > it now? There's no rule saying you have to do it only at the new
> month,
> >> > that's just the only time it's required.
> >> >
> >> > -Aris
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:34 PM Nicholas Evans 
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> You're registrar (via deputization). When the month rolls around,
> >> >> announce intent to deregister everyone who hasn't posted in the last
> month.
> >> >> Once you deregister them, that will free up their shinies.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 4:55 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Printing more money seems to be the only reasonable option at this
> >> >>> point.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Aris Merchant
> >> >>>  wrote:
> >> 
> >>  On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:48 PM Owen Jacobson 
> >>  wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The previous message purporting to contain the April payday notice
> >> > was incorrectly calculated. It incorrectly applied the rules from
> Proposal
> >> > 7841.
> >> >
> >> > The following notice replaces it totally.
> >> >
> >> > -o
> >> >
> >> > Date of this payday: Sat  1 Apr, 2017
> >> > Date of last payday: Wed  1 Mar, 2017
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > As Secretary, it is my pleasure to report that Agora has paid the
> >> > following salaries to players:
> >> >
> >> > Player   Shinies
> >> > 
> >> > ais52310
> >> > aranea10
> >> > Aris  10
> >> > Charles   10
> >> > G.10
> >> > Henri 10
> >> > Murphy10
> >> > nichdel   10
> >> > o 10
> >> > omd   10
> >> > Roujo 10
> >> > Sci_Guy12 10
> >> > Sprocklem 10
> >> > Tekneek   10
> >> > Warrigal, the 10
> >> > Yally 10
> >> > Zachary Watterson 10
> >> > 天火狐 10
> >> >
> >> > Additionally, Agora has paid the following salaries to officers:
> >> >
> >> > Player  Office  Payrate
> >> > ---
> >> >
> >> > Agora’s balance is, as of this Payday, 1 Shinies.
> >> >
> >>  Oh dear. We may need to increase supply. Anyone have any solutions
> >>  other than just printing more money?
> >> 
> >>  -Aris
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Payday (Apr 2017)

[Quazie]

Both warrigall and ais523 have sent messages in the past month - so i think
you can't do that to em?

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 02:58 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> As registrar, I hereby announce intend to deregister ais523, aranea,
> Charles, Henry, omd, Roujo, Sci_Guy12, Tekneek, Warrigal, the, Yally,
> and Zachary Watterson.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:39 AM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> >
> > Given the present... situation (crisis being to strong), why not just do
> it now? There's no rule saying you have to do it only at the new month,
> that's just the only time it's required.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:34 PM Nicholas Evans 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> You're registrar (via deputization). When the month rolls around,
> announce intent to deregister everyone who hasn't posted in the last month.
> Once you deregister them, that will free up their shinies.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 4:55 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Printing more money seems to be the only reasonable option at this
> point.
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>  On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:48 PM Owen Jacobson 
> wrote:
> >
> > The previous message purporting to contain the April payday notice
> was incorrectly calculated. It incorrectly applied the rules from Proposal
> 7841.
> >
> > The following notice replaces it totally.
> >
> > -o
> >
> > Date of this payday: Sat  1 Apr, 2017
> > Date of last payday: Wed  1 Mar, 2017
> >
> >
> > As Secretary, it is my pleasure to report that Agora has paid the
> > following salaries to players:
> >
> > Player   Shinies
> > 
> > ais52310
> > aranea10
> > Aris  10
> > Charles   10
> > G.10
> > Henri 10
> > Murphy10
> > nichdel   10
> > o 10
> > omd   10
> > Roujo 10
> > Sci_Guy12 10
> > Sprocklem 10
> > Tekneek   10
> > Warrigal, the 10
> > Yally 10
> > Zachary Watterson 10
> > 天火狐 10
> >
> > Additionally, Agora has paid the following salaries to officers:
> >
> > Player  Office  Payrate
> > ---
> >
> > Agora’s balance is, as of this Payday, 1 Shinies.
> >
>  Oh dear. We may need to increase supply. Anyone have any solutions
> other than just printing more money?
> 
>  -Aris
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: 蘭亭社's highest allowable budget

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-04-27 at 02:43 -0400, Josh T wrote:
> I am confused by the wording "barring 天火狐", and seek clarification
> on the issue.

When you call a CFJ, you can choose one player who will not be able to
judge that CFJ; that's called "barring a player". Normally you do that
if the CFJ is about that player or something that that player is
associated with (to avoid conflicts of interest), or if the eligibility
of the player to judge the CFJ would depend on the result of the CFJ.
However, you don't have to state your reason, and there doesn't even
have to be a reason.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Assets proto-proposal, v2

[Aris Merchant]

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> Some diagnostic questions, to help me figure out how I want to structure the 
> proposed rules for Estates:
>
> The class “owner” isn’t constrained. I’d love to see some limits, to prevent 
> cyclic ownership structures and to prevent scenarios such as “this asset is 
> owned by a person who is not a player, who cannot do anything with it without 
> first becoming a player."

It isn't constrained. I suppose there might need to be some
constraints, but I don't like the idea of putting them into the master
assets rule. It feels too limiting. I may change the destruction thing
to automatic transfer to Agora/ the Lost and Found Department though.
It seems to me that it would be limiting to stop watchers from owning
any assets, for instance.

> How do you foresee a restriction on the class of owners for a given asset 
> appearing in the backing document? Model wording would be very helpful, at 
> least for me.
Well, let me use an example from the last time this rule existed. Rule
2289/1: "Capacitors are a class of fixed assets tracked by the PSM;
their ownership is restricted to players."

-Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: 蘭亭社's highest allowable budget

[Josh T]

I am confused by the wording "barring 天火狐", and seek clarification on the
issue.

天火狐

On 27 April 2017 at 00:27, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> I CFJ, barring 天火狐, on the statement
>
> 蘭亭社's highest allowable budget for a single player is 50.
>
> I present no arguments, largely out of spite.
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Free Agency

[Quazie]

This certainly makes agencies more interesting to make - no conditional
powers feels pretty restrictive.
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 23:24 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Title: Free Agency
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-author(s): ais523
>
>
> Amend Rule 2467, "TLAs", by:
>  changing its name to "Agencies";
>  and by changing the paragraph beginning "The Powers of an Agency..." to
> read:
>
> The Powers of an Agency must be stated as actions, although they may
> may be conditional on date, time, game state, or other preconditions.
> If condition(s) are specified as necessary for a power to be used, it
> is limited; otherwise, it is unlimited. If it attempts to specify a
> power in a manner that is unclear, ambiguous, circular, inconsistent,
> paradoxical, or that depends on information that is impossible or
> unreasonably difficult to determine, then the specification of that
> power is invalid, and it CANNOT be used. [Some wording borrowed from
> Rule 2460.]
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bankruptcy

[Aris Merchant]

I am pleased to announce that by DIS activity (the most favorable
metric) we have had the highest monthly activity (479 KB) since August
2013 (585 KB). No doubt this metric is flawed for a bunch of reasons,
and the month isn't over yet, but still, keep up the good work (i.e.
please everyone don't go inactive again).

-Aris

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> In the last two weeks or so, we have had almost a full months worth of
> activity.
>
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>>
>> And we both registered (or almost registered) in a 48 hour period that has
>> coincided with new agoran activity - i'm blaming us for the new activity -
>> we (you and I) are the we that are doing the fixing.
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 4:59 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> I mean the problem being the lack of activity.
>>>
>>> 
>>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 7:44 PM, Quazie  wrote:

 It looks like we're fixing it - but I'm fine letting the CFJS that
 determine what has happened with my joining be judged by definitive players
 so this bout of nonsense can end and the next one begin.

 On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 16:41 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
  wrote:
>
> Well, that may be the problem we need to fix.
>
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 2:36 PM Sprocklem S 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 8:56 PM, Aris Merchant
>>>  wrote:
>>> > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:39 PM, Aris Merchant
>>> >  wrote:
>>> >> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:00 PM Owen Jacobson 
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> [...]
>>> >>
>>> > I found the way to withdraw my CFJ! As per Rule 2175, I retract the
>>> > CFJ I began above. In its place, I call a CFJ on the statement
>>> > "Assuming that Quazie is a player, e has, within the past week,
>>> > exceeded the Income Cap." I submit the same arguments as the above
>>> > to
>>> > the new CFJ, along with the following addendum:
>>> >
>>> > Correction: When I said Budget Cap, I meant Income Cap.
>>> >
>>> > -Aris
>>>
>>> You seem to have forgotten barring Quazie this time.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sprocklem
>>
>>
>> Chances of me getting this CFJ are slim, as I only consented to
>> judging CFJs once my player state is finalized - Agora isn't quite active
>> enough for potentially non-player CFJ judges methinks.
>
>
>>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mint Chocolate

[Owen Jacobson]

By my math it's one payday (or less, if we fill some of the vacant offices; or 
more, if Quazie is ultimately not a player).

-o

> On Apr 27, 2017, at 2:01 AM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> Sure that's enough? I'd tend to go with 1500, although admittedly the
> inflation is worrying.
> 
> -Aris
> 
>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>> This is not a sustainable fix, Agorans. I’m only going to submit this once, 
>> and I’ll actively block further attempts to increase the Shiny supply for at 
>> least the next couple of months unless they come with serious work towards 
>> fixing the underlying liquidity problems.
>> 
>> I submit the following proposal:
>> 
>> {{{
>> Title: Mint Chocolate
>> Author(s): o
>> Adoption Index: 2
>> 
>> Amend rule 2483 (“Economics”), replacing all occurrences of the number 1000 
>> with the number 1270.
>> 
>> Amend rule 2487 (“Shiny Supply Level”), replacing all occurrences of the 
>> number 1000 with the number 1270.
>> }}}
>> 
>> I’ll pend this on Friday unless someone has a strong objection. It’s too 
>> late to catch the May payday (say that after three beers…) anyways, but 
>> this’ll kick in in time for June.
>> 
>> -o
>> 
>> ps. Would the phrase “Amend all rules, replacing all occurrences of the 
>> number 1000 with the number 1270” have the same effect, given the same AI?

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mint Chocolate

[Aris Merchant]

Sure that's enough? I'd tend to go with 1500, although admittedly the
inflation is worrying.

-Aris

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> This is not a sustainable fix, Agorans. I’m only going to submit this once, 
> and I’ll actively block further attempts to increase the Shiny supply for at 
> least the next couple of months unless they come with serious work towards 
> fixing the underlying liquidity problems.
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {{{
> Title: Mint Chocolate
> Author(s): o
> Adoption Index: 2
>
> Amend rule 2483 (“Economics”), replacing all occurrences of the number 1000 
> with the number 1270.
>
> Amend rule 2487 (“Shiny Supply Level”), replacing all occurrences of the 
> number 1000 with the number 1270.
> }}}
>
> I’ll pend this on Friday unless someone has a strong objection. It’s too late 
> to catch the May payday (say that after three beers…) anyways, but this’ll 
> kick in in time for June.
>
> -o
>
> ps. Would the phrase “Amend all rules, replacing all occurrences of the 
> number 1000 with the number 1270” have the same effect, given the same AI?