Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I won't judge CFJ 3509

[Quazie]

It would also be nice if the Referee had enough power to call a delay of
game, and refuse the judge emself (but id like that to some how be possible
without writing that explicit action into the ruleset).
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 21:32 Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 06:17 +0200, CuddleBeam wrote:
> > The reason for this is that while I consider this CFJ a totally legit
> > bypass to the finger-pointing system, I don't find myself capable of
> > actually formally submitting the judgement on such a high-profile
> conflict
> > out of simple cowardice, and I'd prefer for a different Judge to do it
> > instead.
> >
> > I pledge to not submit Judgement on CFJ 3509.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't think there's anything I can do about this until
> the week is up.
>
> I've already been considering proposing a method of allowing a change
> of judge with consent from the existing judge and the new judge.
> Perhaps this makes it a little more urgent.
>
> --
> ais523
>

DIS: Re: BUS: I won't judge CFJ 3509

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 06:17 +0200, CuddleBeam wrote:
> The reason for this is that while I consider this CFJ a totally legit
> bypass to the finger-pointing system, I don't find myself capable of
> actually formally submitting the judgement on such a high-profile conflict
> out of simple cowardice, and I'd prefer for a different Judge to do it
> instead.
> 
> I pledge to not submit Judgement on CFJ 3509.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's anything I can do about this until
the week is up.

I've already been considering proposing a method of allowing a change
of judge with consent from the existing judge and the new judge.
Perhaps this makes it a little more urgent.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: I won't judge CFJ 3509

[Quazie]

This is a frustrating action - I suggest a rule chsnge allowing a judge to
refuse emself with some penalty (ineligible to judge for some period of
time)

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 21:17 CuddleBeam  wrote:

> While I personally 100% agree with Gaelan and I believe that the verdict
> of CFJ 3509 should be TRUE (the hugeass text is just context, the crime
> itself, if it were, would be the act of "placing the hidden words", not
> "placing the hidden words" + "making a hugeass message"), I'm not going to
> formally complete the CFJ. I'm going to wait for my period to time out and
> get signed off it and incur a card for intentional negligence if needed.
>
> I can't find a valid reason for the which I shouldn't be able to Judge it
> without being dishonest, and this seems the only way out aside from
> deregistering.
>
> The reason for this is that while I consider this CFJ a totally legit
> bypass to the finger-pointing system, I don't find myself capable of
> actually formally submitting the judgement on such a high-profile conflict
> out of simple cowardice, and I'd prefer for a different Judge to do it
> instead.
>
> I pledge to not submit Judgement on CFJ 3509.
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Stamps

[Quazie]

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 19:39 Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Wed, 2017-05-24 at 19:08 +, Quazie wrote:
> > Proto Organization: 'Bing Bong'
> >
> > At the beginning of the game of Bing Bong each player SHALL pay the
> > organization 1 Shiny.
>
> An Organization isn't a contract, it can't do a SHALL. If you want to
> punish someone, you do so via increasing eir budget.
>
> --
> ais523
>
Fair.

At the beginning of each game each member is expected to pay 1 Shiny to the
organization.  If they dont eir budget will be increased by 5 and they will
be ineligible to earn a point.

I'm aware the organization isn't near valid yet, I'm simply seeing if
anyone would want to play.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Stamps

[Nic Evans]

On 05/24/2017 04:37 PM, Josh T wrote:
Would a proposal that says to the effect of each organization that a 
player has created and still exists makes that player's next new 
organization more expensive? (Eg. A player's first organization costs 
5 Shinies, 2nd organization costs 10, 3rd 20, etc.)


天火狐


I still prefer my system, but to me this feels like a viable 
alternative. If it's prefered by others, I'll implement it instead.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Stamps

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2017-05-24 at 19:08 +, Quazie wrote:
> Proto Organization: 'Bing Bong'
>
> At the beginning of the game of Bing Bong each player SHALL pay the
> organization 1 Shiny.

An Organization isn't a contract, it can't do a SHALL. If you want to
punish someone, you do so via increasing eir budget.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Gmail formatting

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 25 May 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Wed, 24 May 2017, Josh T wrote:
> 
> > > [...] to solve the problem of orgs receiving assets they don't want and
> > don't know how to deal with [...]
> > I think it's valuable to allow orgs to not want to take part in the Shiny
> > system if they don't want to.
> 
> I'd like to urge some of our gmail users (Aris also comes to mind) to put a
> blank line between quotes and their replies. As you can see, it's otherwise
> horribly confusing to read in a terminal-based email program. (This is the
> plain text version Gmail makes. As usual, the rendering of the HTML version
> looks even worse to me - there's no line break or even space after the [...]
> at all.)
> 
> Ideally I'd wish that your quoted parts had quote marks before wrapped lines
> as well, but that may be too much to achieve.

This was noted in the last batch of judgements I put up; I couldn't tell where
to put paragraph breaks, so a couple judgements are a single long paragraph.

DIS: Re: BUS: Buy your way to victory

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I think it is currently tied up in a CFJ.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Quazie  wrote:

> If there actually is a victory election being held, and if giving Gaelan a
> shiny will cause Gaelan's vote to include 'Quazie' in eir instant run off
> list, then I pay Gaelan 1 Shiny.
>
> I believe the 2nd clause is true, but i'm uncertain of the first clause -
> I think there is a victory election ongoing - but for some reason I also
> feel like there might not be?
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 09:55 Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>
>> I pledge not to change this vote.
>>
>> > On May 24, 2017, at 9:44 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> >
>> > In the victory election, I vote for myself, then the set of all players
>> who gave me shinies during the voting period, in decreasing order of total
>> amount.
>> >
>> > Gaelan
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Clerk of our hearts

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

The unfortunate matter is that this only gives it to players.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Quazie  wrote:

> So the patent title need not be specified elsewhere?  Just in the Herald's
> awarding intent?
>
> Cool
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 16:56 Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
>>
>> > I can't seem to see an arbitrary way to award patent titles - though
>> ais523
>> > might have that via Junta?
>>
>> Rule 649, last paragraph:
>>
>>The Herald CAN award a specified Patent Title to a specified
>>player With 2 Agoran Consent.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Ørjan.
>
>

Re: DIS: Gmail formatting

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I would be happy to do this if you could give tips as to how.




Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

> On Thu, 25 May 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>
> Ideally I'd wish that your quoted parts had quote marks before wrapped
>> lines as well, but that may be too much to achieve.
>>
>
> Actually, I see nichdel seems to be able to do that.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Buy your way to victory

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 24 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:


I pledge not to change this vote.


On May 24, 2017, at 9:44 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

In the victory election, I vote for myself, then the set of all players 
who gave me shinies during the voting period, in decreasing order of 
total amount.


Does that make your vote invalid if there are any ties? >:)

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7852

[Quazie]

Yeah - really seems like 'the secretary SHALL cause agora to pay' would be
more clear.
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 17:01 Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

> On Wed, 24 May 2017, nichdel wrote:
>
> > Amend 2484 (Payday) to read, in full:
>
> >  Immediately afterward, for each duty-fulfilling report published
> >  last month (in chronological order of publication), Agora SHALL
> >  pay the publisher of the report the Report Rate for the office
> >  the report is associated with unless paying would leave Agora's
> >  balance at a negative value.
>
> >  Immediately afterward, for each office (first in ascending order
> >  of Payrate, then in descending alphabetical order of office
> >  name), Agora SHALL pay the holder of the office that office's
> >  Payrate value unless paying would leave Agora's balance at a
> >  negative value.
>
> Although it was already in the original, this use of "Agora SHALL" seems
> fishy to me - it doesn't say that the payment actually happens, and does
> not authorize anyone to make it. And the phrase "Agora SHALL" isn't used
> in any other Rule.  I suppose there might be a precedent...
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Buy your way to victory

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 24 May 2017, caleb vines wrote:


On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:


In the victory election, I vote for myself, then the set of all players
who gave me shinies during the voting period, in decreasing order of total
amount.

Gaelan


I give Gaelan 0 shinies.


Heh, it seems like this is actually a valid action, although I'm not sure 
whether it actually counts as giving him shinies.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7852

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 24 May 2017, nichdel wrote:


Amend 2484 (Payday) to read, in full:



 Immediately afterward, for each duty-fulfilling report published
 last month (in chronological order of publication), Agora SHALL
 pay the publisher of the report the Report Rate for the office
 the report is associated with unless paying would leave Agora's
 balance at a negative value.



 Immediately afterward, for each office (first in ascending order
 of Payrate, then in descending alphabetical order of office
 name), Agora SHALL pay the holder of the office that office's
 Payrate value unless paying would leave Agora's balance at a
 negative value.


Although it was already in the original, this use of "Agora SHALL" seems 
fishy to me - it doesn't say that the payment actually happens, and does 
not authorize anyone to make it. And the phrase "Agora SHALL" isn't used 
in any other Rule.  I suppose there might be a precedent...


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Clerk of our hearts

[Quazie]

So the patent title need not be specified elsewhere?  Just in the Herald's
awarding intent?

Cool

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 16:56 Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

> On Wed, 24 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
>
> > I can't seem to see an arbitrary way to award patent titles - though
> ais523
> > might have that via Junta?
>
> Rule 649, last paragraph:
>
>The Herald CAN award a specified Patent Title to a specified
>player With 2 Agoran Consent.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Clerk of our hearts

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 24 May 2017, Quazie wrote:


I can't seem to see an arbitrary way to award patent titles - though ais523
might have that via Junta?


Rule 649, last paragraph:

  The Herald CAN award a specified Patent Title to a specified
  player With 2 Agoran Consent.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Gmail formatting

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 25 May 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

Ideally I'd wish that your quoted parts had quote marks before wrapped lines 
as well, but that may be too much to achieve.


Actually, I see nichdel seems to be able to do that.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Gmail formatting

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 24 May 2017, Josh T wrote:


[...] to solve the problem of orgs receiving assets they don't want and

don't know how to deal with [...]
I think it's valuable to allow orgs to not want to take part in the Shiny
system if they don't want to.


I'd like to urge some of our gmail users (Aris also comes to mind) to put 
a blank line between quotes and their replies. As you can see, it's 
otherwise horribly confusing to read in a terminal-based email program. 
(This is the plain text version Gmail makes. As usual, the rendering of 
the HTML version looks even worse to me - there's no line break or even 
space after the [...] at all.)


Ideally I'd wish that your quoted parts had quote marks before wrapped 
lines as well, but that may be too much to achieve.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Stamps

[Josh T]

On one hand, I respectfully disagree that limiting the number of
organizations that a player can join "reduces the strategic moves
available". It just means that each player needs to think more
strategically about how to allocate their resources (which organizations
they join), which in turn makes each organization need to compete for
players (since organizations would die by not having players).

On the other hand, people aren't required to join organizations, and thus
is hard enough to get people to join without giving them a good reason to,
and having people be limited in doing so doesn't help. As stated, I agree
that the process outlined would result in a victory.

However, I do honestly think it is valuable that we can have organizations
not partake in the Shiny economy, if nothing else other than being able to
have a subsystem which doesn't directly influence the Shiny economy, and if
an organization is barred from owning a Shiny, they can't pay the
administrative cost, effectively banning such organizations. Would a
proposal that says to the effect of each organization that a player has
created and still exists makes that player's next new organization more
expensive? (Eg. A player's first organization costs 5 Shinies, 2nd
organization costs 10, 3rd 20, etc.)

天火狐

On 24 May 2017 at 16:26, Nic Evans  wrote:

> On 05/24/17 15:24, Nic Evans wrote:
>
>
>
> On 05/24/17 15:03, Josh T wrote:
>
> > [...] to solve the problem of orgs receiving assets they don't want and
> don't know how to deal with [...]
> I think it's valuable to allow orgs to not want to take part in the Shiny
> system if they don't want to.
>
> > Why play a game where I may lose some shinies and not gain a stamp when
> I could just save my shinies to farm more stamps?
> Because the stamps rule proposal says 15 *different* stamps, so someone
> angling for this victory has to get some stamps from sources they can't
> control.
>
> Create a shell org to buy stamps when they're cheap, and do nothing else.
> You pay 5 shinies for it once, and from then on you can buy 2 Stamps at the
> minimum price every month. When Stamp prices go up, sell the excess stamps
> to fund new orgs. After a couple months (assuming prices fluxtuate up and
> down, by as little as 2 shinies, monthly) you're making unique stamps for
> free.
>
>
> Clarification: By 'for free' I mean, without paying any extra. It's
> cheaper or as cheap to make shinies this way as it is to cooperate. A good
> economy is based on the value you create for others, not for yourself.
>
> If the Agora community as a whole doesn't want to encourage a player
> sitting on three organizations (the number I think is reasonable) farming
> stamps, the community as a whole doesn't have to accept that player's
> stamps.
>
> The Budget system works by acting as a streamlined currency. Everyone is
> 'paying in' to maintain the org, and the price per individual can go down
> as the org grows. A hard limit removes the advantages of trying to make
> inclusive orgs, and reduces the strategic moves available.
>
>
> Actually, I think I would support an addition to the rule which increases
> the destroy value of a stamp if a stamp of that type had not been created
> recently, giving stamps a hold value as well.
>
> That might be an interesting mechanic. Even without codifying it, rare
> Stamps may trade at a premium because variety is important.
>
> 天火狐
>
> On 24 May 2017 at 15:51, Aris Merchant  > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Josh T 
>> wrote:
>> > On a more serious note, the proposal says that the organization needs
>> to pay
>> > an administrative fee, but the latest version of the Assets proposal
>> states
>> > that an organization can decide for themselves if they want to accept an
>> > asset. While I think the budget system is clunky, I would rather a
>> player
>> > pay a one-time administration fee to create an Organization, and have a
>> > restriction on how many organizations a player is allowed to be in
>> (which is
>> > my understanding a feature of the budget system) than force all
>> > Organizations to have a Shiny balance.
>> I'm happy to remove that section, or to grant shinies an exception. I
>> just added it to solve the problem of orgs receiving assets they don't
>> want and don't know how to deal with, which came up in a discussion.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3471-3472

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 23 May 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>  https://ap02.alpine.washington.edu/alpine/alpine/2.0/view/0/agora/80517 
> On May 23, 2017, at 5:27 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> CFJ 3472:  白票 yields "a white paper".  This is clearly not a valid vote.
> I judge 3472 FALSE.
> 
> 
> I’m surprised at this. I had assumed this was meant to translate as PRESENT - 
> it’s an unmarked, but cast, ballot.

First, I took a hard line on this.  We should look at the resulting English
exactly, not put ourselves in the mind of "since it's in a foreign language,
maybe it's a colloquialism and we should look for alternate meanings."  
Because that encourages looking for meaning in things that are ambiguous.

So looking at the exact text, I thought that, previous to these CFJs, if
someone (in English) posted "a white paper" as a vote, there's no really
good English colloquialism that would lead us to PRESENT.   An alternate
interpretation, for example, is "I'm leaving this entirely blank and not
casting a vote, and saying NO VOTE in a funny way to signal a protest or
not wanting to be part of quorum".

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Stamps

[Nic Evans]

On 05/24/17 15:24, Nic Evans wrote:
>
>
>
> On 05/24/17 15:03, Josh T wrote:
>> > [...] to solve the problem of orgs receiving assets they don't want
>> and don't know how to deal with [...]
>> I think it's valuable to allow orgs to not want to take part in the
>> Shiny system if they don't want to. 
>>
>> > Why play a game where I may lose some shinies and not gain a stamp
>> when I could just save my shinies to farm more stamps?
>> Because the stamps rule proposal says 15 *different* stamps, so
>> someone angling for this victory has to get some stamps from sources
>> they can't control.
> Create a shell org to buy stamps when they're cheap, and do nothing
> else. You pay 5 shinies for it once, and from then on you can buy 2
> Stamps at the minimum price every month. When Stamp prices go up, sell
> the excess stamps to fund new orgs. After a couple months (assuming
> prices fluxtuate up and down, by as little as 2 shinies, monthly)
> you're making unique stamps for free.

Clarification: By 'for free' I mean, without paying any extra. It's
cheaper or as cheap to make shinies this way as it is to cooperate. A
good economy is based on the value you create for others, not for yourself.

>> If the Agora community as a whole doesn't want to encourage a player
>> sitting on three organizations (the number I think is reasonable)
>> farming stamps, the community as a whole doesn't have to accept that
>> player's stamps.
> The Budget system works by acting as a streamlined currency. Everyone
> is 'paying in' to maintain the org, and the price per individual can
> go down as the org grows. A hard limit removes the advantages of
> trying to make inclusive orgs, and reduces the strategic moves available.
>>
>> Actually, I think I would support an addition to the rule which
>> increases the destroy value of a stamp if a stamp of that type had
>> not been created recently, giving stamps a hold value as well. 
>>
> That might be an interesting mechanic. Even without codifying it, rare
> Stamps may trade at a premium because variety is important.
>> 天火狐
>>
>> On 24 May 2017 at 15:51, Aris Merchant
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Josh T
>> >
>> wrote:
>> > On a more serious note, the proposal says that the organization
>> needs to pay
>> > an administrative fee, but the latest version of the Assets
>> proposal states
>> > that an organization can decide for themselves if they want to
>> accept an
>> > asset. While I think the budget system is clunky, I would
>> rather a player
>> > pay a one-time administration fee to create an Organization,
>> and have a
>> > restriction on how many organizations a player is allowed to be
>> in (which is
>> > my understanding a feature of the budget system) than force all
>> > Organizations to have a Shiny balance.
>> I'm happy to remove that section, or to grant shinies an exception. I
>> just added it to solve the problem of orgs receiving assets they
>> don't
>> want and don't know how to deal with, which came up in a discussion.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>>
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Stamps

[Nic Evans]

It's monthly (though that's only stated indirectly), because an org can
be destroyed if it hasn't paid the admin fee in a given month.


On 05/24/17 15:14, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> To clarify, is the admin fee a one time fee? This is different from the 
> current system (where there is a cost to maintaining an org, not just 
> creating one). 
>
> Gaelan 
>
>> On May 24, 2017, at 12:02 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>>
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> Title: Organization Integration and Stamp Collecting
>> AI: 1.2
>> Author: nichdel
>> Co-author(s):
>>
>> Amend "Organizations" by replacing the second, third, and fourth
>> paragraphs with:
>>
>>   Players may become members of an organization by announcement as
>>   specified by the charter of the organization. Players may stop being
>>   a member of an organization by announcement.
>>
>>   An organization may cause any player to stop being a member as
>>   specified in its charter.
>>
>> [Remove Budget and make org membership more flexible.]
>>
>> Amend "Death and Birth of Organizations to read, in full:
>>
>>   The Administrative Fee is 5 shinies.
>>
>>   An organization is "In Bad Standing" if it a) has no members or b)
>>   was not created this month and has not paid the Administrative Fee to
>>   Agora.
>>
>>   If an organization is In Bad Standing for more than 7 days, then any
>>   player CAN destroy it by announcement, and the Secretary SHALL do so
>>   in a timely fashion if the situation persists.
>>
>>   Any player CAN create an Organization by announcement by paying the
>>   Administrative Fee to Agora and specifying a name for the
>>   Organization that is unique among Organizations and a Charter.
>>
>> [Replaces Budget with the Administrative Fee. Combined with giving org's
>> more control over their membership, it allows for orgs to raise money
>> and pay the fee in whichever way seems appropriate to them. Also removed
>> the limits on org membership and creation, because the price should be
>> a good enough limiters.]
>>
>> Amend "Organization Restructuring" by removing the text "Budget or", and
>> removing the paragraph starting with "2.", then changing "3." to "2.".
>>
>> [Budget cleanup]
>>
>> Enact a power 1 rule titled "Stamps" with the following text:
>>
>>   Stamps are a type of asset tracked by the Secretary. Each Stamp is
>>   identified by the person or organization that created the Stamp.
>>   Stamps created by the same person or organization are fungible.
>>
>>   The Stamp Price is always 4 times the current Pending List Price.
>>
>>   Once per month any player MAY, by announcement, pay Agora the Stamp
>>   Price, in shinies, to create one Stamp in eir possession. Once per
>>   month any player MAY, by announcement and as specified by the
>>   organization's charter, pay Agora the Stamp Price, in shinies, to
>>   create one Stamp in its possession.
>>
>>   Any player MAY, by announcement, destroy a specified Stamp in eir
>>   possession. Any player MAY, by announcement and as specified by the
>>   organization's charter, destroy a specified Stamp in its possession.
>>   Whenever an organization or player destroys a Stamp in eir
>>   possession, Agora SHALL pay em the Stamp Price.
>>
>>   When a player has in eir possession at least one Stamp created by 15
>>   different players or organizations then e may win by announcement,
>>   specifying each stamp e possesses. When a player does so
>>   successfully, all Stamps in eir possession are destroyed.
>>
>> [This implements what I described previously. Stamps are both a
>> speculative currency, with a changing value month-to-month, and a
>> valuable win condition. Also note that with the org changes, a single
>> player could create all the Stamps e needs, but it'd be more expensive
>> than gaining them via trade due to the Administrative fee.]
>>
>>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Stamps

[Nic Evans]

On 05/24/17 15:03, Josh T wrote:
> > [...] to solve the problem of orgs receiving assets they don't want
> and don't know how to deal with [...]
> I think it's valuable to allow orgs to not want to take part in the
> Shiny system if they don't want to. 
>
> > Why play a game where I may lose some shinies and not gain a stamp
> when I could just save my shinies to farm more stamps?
> Because the stamps rule proposal says 15 *different* stamps, so
> someone angling for this victory has to get some stamps from sources
> they can't control.
Create a shell org to buy stamps when they're cheap, and do nothing
else. You pay 5 shinies for it once, and from then on you can buy 2
Stamps at the minimum price every month. When Stamp prices go up, sell
the excess stamps to fund new orgs. After a couple months (assuming
prices fluxtuate up and down, by as little as 2 shinies, monthly) you're
making unique stamps for free.
> If the Agora community as a whole doesn't want to encourage a player
> sitting on three organizations (the number I think is reasonable)
> farming stamps, the community as a whole doesn't have to accept that
> player's stamps.
The Budget system works by acting as a streamlined currency. Everyone is
'paying in' to maintain the org, and the price per individual can go
down as the org grows. A hard limit removes the advantages of trying to
make inclusive orgs, and reduces the strategic moves available.
>
> Actually, I think I would support an addition to the rule which
> increases the destroy value of a stamp if a stamp of that type had not
> been created recently, giving stamps a hold value as well. 
>
That might be an interesting mechanic. Even without codifying it, rare
Stamps may trade at a premium because variety is important.
> 天火狐
>
> On 24 May 2017 at 15:51, Aris Merchant
>  > wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Josh T
> >
> wrote:
> > On a more serious note, the proposal says that the organization
> needs to pay
> > an administrative fee, but the latest version of the Assets
> proposal states
> > that an organization can decide for themselves if they want to
> accept an
> > asset. While I think the budget system is clunky, I would rather
> a player
> > pay a one-time administration fee to create an Organization, and
> have a
> > restriction on how many organizations a player is allowed to be
> in (which is
> > my understanding a feature of the budget system) than force all
> > Organizations to have a Shiny balance.
> I'm happy to remove that section, or to grant shinies an exception. I
> just added it to solve the problem of orgs receiving assets they don't
> want and don't know how to deal with, which came up in a discussion.
>
> -Aris
>
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Stamps

[Gaelan Steele]

To clarify, is the admin fee a one time fee? This is different from the current 
system (where there is a cost to maintaining an org, not just creating one). 

Gaelan 

> On May 24, 2017, at 12:02 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> 
> I submit the following proposal:
> 
> Title: Organization Integration and Stamp Collecting
> AI: 1.2
> Author: nichdel
> Co-author(s):
> 
> Amend "Organizations" by replacing the second, third, and fourth
> paragraphs with:
> 
>   Players may become members of an organization by announcement as
>   specified by the charter of the organization. Players may stop being
>   a member of an organization by announcement.
> 
>   An organization may cause any player to stop being a member as
>   specified in its charter.
> 
> [Remove Budget and make org membership more flexible.]
> 
> Amend "Death and Birth of Organizations to read, in full:
> 
>   The Administrative Fee is 5 shinies.
> 
>   An organization is "In Bad Standing" if it a) has no members or b)
>   was not created this month and has not paid the Administrative Fee to
>   Agora.
> 
>   If an organization is In Bad Standing for more than 7 days, then any
>   player CAN destroy it by announcement, and the Secretary SHALL do so
>   in a timely fashion if the situation persists.
> 
>   Any player CAN create an Organization by announcement by paying the
>   Administrative Fee to Agora and specifying a name for the
>   Organization that is unique among Organizations and a Charter.
> 
> [Replaces Budget with the Administrative Fee. Combined with giving org's
> more control over their membership, it allows for orgs to raise money
> and pay the fee in whichever way seems appropriate to them. Also removed
> the limits on org membership and creation, because the price should be
> a good enough limiters.]
> 
> Amend "Organization Restructuring" by removing the text "Budget or", and
> removing the paragraph starting with "2.", then changing "3." to "2.".
> 
> [Budget cleanup]
> 
> Enact a power 1 rule titled "Stamps" with the following text:
> 
>   Stamps are a type of asset tracked by the Secretary. Each Stamp is
>   identified by the person or organization that created the Stamp.
>   Stamps created by the same person or organization are fungible.
> 
>   The Stamp Price is always 4 times the current Pending List Price.
> 
>   Once per month any player MAY, by announcement, pay Agora the Stamp
>   Price, in shinies, to create one Stamp in eir possession. Once per
>   month any player MAY, by announcement and as specified by the
>   organization's charter, pay Agora the Stamp Price, in shinies, to
>   create one Stamp in its possession.
> 
>   Any player MAY, by announcement, destroy a specified Stamp in eir
>   possession. Any player MAY, by announcement and as specified by the
>   organization's charter, destroy a specified Stamp in its possession.
>   Whenever an organization or player destroys a Stamp in eir
>   possession, Agora SHALL pay em the Stamp Price.
> 
>   When a player has in eir possession at least one Stamp created by 15
>   different players or organizations then e may win by announcement,
>   specifying each stamp e possesses. When a player does so
>   successfully, all Stamps in eir possession are destroyed.
> 
> [This implements what I described previously. Stamps are both a
> speculative currency, with a changing value month-to-month, and a
> valuable win condition. Also note that with the org changes, a single
> player could create all the Stamps e needs, but it'd be more expensive
> than gaining them via trade due to the Administrative fee.]
> 
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Stamps

[Josh T]

> [...] to solve the problem of orgs receiving assets they don't want and
don't know how to deal with [...]
I think it's valuable to allow orgs to not want to take part in the Shiny
system if they don't want to.

> Why play a game where I may lose some shinies and not gain a stamp when I
could just save my shinies to farm more stamps?
Because the stamps rule proposal says 15 *different* stamps, so someone
angling for this victory has to get some stamps from sources they can't
control. If the Agora community as a whole doesn't want to encourage a
player sitting on three organizations (the number I think is reasonable)
farming stamps, the community as a whole doesn't have to accept that
player's stamps.

Actually, I think I would support an addition to the rule which increases
the destroy value of a stamp if a stamp of that type had not been created
recently, giving stamps a hold value as well.

天火狐

On 24 May 2017 at 15:51, Aris Merchant 
wrote:

> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Josh T 
> wrote:
> > On a more serious note, the proposal says that the organization needs to
> pay
> > an administrative fee, but the latest version of the Assets proposal
> states
> > that an organization can decide for themselves if they want to accept an
> > asset. While I think the budget system is clunky, I would rather a player
> > pay a one-time administration fee to create an Organization, and have a
> > restriction on how many organizations a player is allowed to be in
> (which is
> > my understanding a feature of the budget system) than force all
> > Organizations to have a Shiny balance.
> I'm happy to remove that section, or to grant shinies an exception. I
> just added it to solve the problem of orgs receiving assets they don't
> want and don't know how to deal with, which came up in a discussion.
>
> -Aris
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agency: grok's Favorite Player

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 24 May 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> > For a rule of thumb it's probably best to expect orgs and agencies to report
> > their own internal state. Perhaps in mini reports posted to a-b with an
> > identifying tag like "[qFP] Switch Report".
> >
> > In this specific instance the switch is very trivial and figuring out who it
> > points to is straight-forward.
> 
> I'd agree, adding that as far as I'm concerned they're free to post
> those reports to a-o.

That depends on how many there are; a-o should be kept high-level, so for things
affecting a good percentage of the players (orgs and agencies with lots of 
members,
but not for every 2-person agency with a few actions).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agency: grok's Favorite Player

[Aris Merchant]

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> For a rule of thumb it's probably best to expect orgs and agencies to report
> their own internal state. Perhaps in mini reports posted to a-b with an
> identifying tag like "[qFP] Switch Report".
>
> In this specific instance the switch is very trivial and figuring out who it
> points to is straight-forward.

I'd agree, adding that as far as I'm concerned they're free to post
those reports to a-o.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Stamps

[Aris Merchant]

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Josh T  wrote:
> On a more serious note, the proposal says that the organization needs to pay
> an administrative fee, but the latest version of the Assets proposal states
> that an organization can decide for themselves if they want to accept an
> asset. While I think the budget system is clunky, I would rather a player
> pay a one-time administration fee to create an Organization, and have a
> restriction on how many organizations a player is allowed to be in (which is
> my understanding a feature of the budget system) than force all
> Organizations to have a Shiny balance.
I'm happy to remove that section, or to grant shinies an exception. I
just added it to solve the problem of orgs receiving assets they don't
want and don't know how to deal with, which came up in a discussion.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Stamps

[Nic Evans]

On 05/24/17 14:41, Josh T wrote:
> We'd have to see Stamp Collecting pass anyway. As for the Bing Bong
> game itself, I'd have to see how it plays out first. 
>
> On a more serious note, the proposal says that the organization needs
> to pay an administrative fee, but the latest version of the Assets
> proposal states that an organization can decide for themselves if they
> want to accept an asset. While I think the budget system is clunky, I
> would rather a player pay a one-time administration fee to create an
> Organization, and have a restriction on how many organizations a
> player is allowed to be in (which is my understanding a feature of the
> budget system) than force all Organizations to have a Shiny balance. 
>

I'm not fond of this. It would encourage players to create their own
orgs to farm Stamps from instead of creating cooperative orgs like Bing
Bong or AAaAA (which will be updated to a Stamp penny auction). Why play
a game where I may lose some shinies and not gain a stamp when I could
just save my shinies to farm more stamps?

> 天火狐
>
> On 24 May 2017 at 15:31, Quazie  > wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:30 Josh T  > wrote:
>
> > At the beginning of the game of Bing Bong each player SHALL
> pay the organization 1 Shiny.
>
> I object to being obliged to pay the organization 1 Shiny even
> if I do not wish to partake in Bing Bong. 
>
> 天火狐
>
>
> Each member obviously - i was simply throwing out a simple game
> idea to see if others were interested - I can't even make/join
> organizations for another month or so.
>
>
>
>
> On 24 May 2017 at 15:08, Quazie  > wrote:
>
> Proto Organization: 'Bing Bong'
>
> [Organization standard stuff]
>
> There exists a game master, originally the creator of this
> organization.
>
> If a game of Bing Bong is not ongoing, a game of Bing Bong
> can be started with 24 hours notice.
>
> At the beginning of the game of Bing Bong each player
> SHALL pay the organization 1 Shiny.
>
> At the beginning of a game of Bing Bong the set of players
> of the game of Bing Bong is the set of members of this org.
>
> No player may join the org while a game is ongoing.
>
> A game starts with a list of players, to be treated as a
> circular array, with the game master in the first
> position, and a direction, Bing or Bong.
>
> When a player is in the first position of this list, they
> have 24 hours to publicly declare, within the Game Thread
> either Bing or Bong.
>
> If a player declares Bing then the array shifts left.
>
> If a player declares Bong then the array shifts right.
>
> If a player doesn't declare Bing or Bong in 24 hours then
> they are removed from the list, and the array shifts in
> such a way as if the player had declared Bing.
>
> When there is only 1 player left, that player gets a point.
>
> When the organization has enough shinies to buy a stamp,
> it does, and awards it to the player with the most points
> at that time - at that point all players points reset to 0.
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:00 PM Nic Evans
> > wrote:
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Organization Integration and Stamp Collecting
> AI: 1.2
> Author: nichdel
> Co-author(s):
>
> Amend "Organizations" by replacing the second, third,
> and fourth
> paragraphs with:
>
>Players may become members of an organization by
> announcement as
>specified by the charter of the organization.
> Players may stop being
>a member of an organization by announcement.
>
>An organization may cause any player to stop being
> a member as
>specified in its charter.
>
> [Remove Budget and make org membership more flexible.]
>
> Amend "Death and Birth of Organizations to read, in full:
>
>The Administrative Fee is 5 shinies.
>
>An organization is "In Bad Standing" if it a) has
> no members or b)
>was not created this month and has not paid the
> Administrative Fee to
>Agora.
>
>If an organization is In Bad Standing for more than
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Stamps

[Josh T]

We'd have to see Stamp Collecting pass anyway. As for the Bing Bong game
itself, I'd have to see how it plays out first.

On a more serious note, the proposal says that the organization needs to
pay an administrative fee, but the latest version of the Assets proposal
states that an organization can decide for themselves if they want to
accept an asset. While I think the budget system is clunky, I would rather
a player pay a one-time administration fee to create an Organization, and
have a restriction on how many organizations a player is allowed to be in
(which is my understanding a feature of the budget system) than force all
Organizations to have a Shiny balance.

天火狐

On 24 May 2017 at 15:31, Quazie  wrote:

>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:30 Josh T  wrote:
>
>> > At the beginning of the game of Bing Bong each player SHALL pay the
>> organization 1 Shiny.
>>
>> I object to being obliged to pay the organization 1 Shiny even if I do
>> not wish to partake in Bing Bong.
>>
>> 天火狐
>>
>
> Each member obviously - i was simply throwing out a simple game idea to
> see if others were interested - I can't even make/join organizations for
> another month or so.
>
>
>
>
>> On 24 May 2017 at 15:08, Quazie  wrote:
>>
>>> Proto Organization: 'Bing Bong'
>>>
>>> [Organization standard stuff]
>>>
>>> There exists a game master, originally the creator of this organization.
>>>
>>> If a game of Bing Bong is not ongoing, a game of Bing Bong can be
>>> started with 24 hours notice.
>>>
>>> At the beginning of the game of Bing Bong each player SHALL pay the
>>> organization 1 Shiny.
>>>
>>> At the beginning of a game of Bing Bong the set of players of the game
>>> of Bing Bong is the set of members of this org.
>>>
>>> No player may join the org while a game is ongoing.
>>>
>>> A game starts with a list of players, to be treated as a circular array,
>>> with the game master in the first position, and a direction, Bing or Bong.
>>>
>>> When a player is in the first position of this list, they have 24 hours
>>> to publicly declare, within the Game Thread either Bing or Bong.
>>>
>>> If a player declares Bing then the array shifts left.
>>>
>>> If a player declares Bong then the array shifts right.
>>>
>>> If a player doesn't declare Bing or Bong in 24 hours then they are
>>> removed from the list, and the array shifts in such a way as if the player
>>> had declared Bing.
>>>
>>> When there is only 1 player left, that player gets a point.
>>>
>>> When the organization has enough shinies to buy a stamp, it does, and
>>> awards it to the player with the most points at that time - at that point
>>> all players points reset to 0.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:00 PM Nic Evans  wrote:
>>>
 I submit the following proposal:

 Title: Organization Integration and Stamp Collecting
 AI: 1.2
 Author: nichdel
 Co-author(s):

 Amend "Organizations" by replacing the second, third, and fourth
 paragraphs with:

Players may become members of an organization by announcement as
specified by the charter of the organization. Players may stop being
a member of an organization by announcement.

An organization may cause any player to stop being a member as
specified in its charter.

 [Remove Budget and make org membership more flexible.]

 Amend "Death and Birth of Organizations to read, in full:

The Administrative Fee is 5 shinies.

An organization is "In Bad Standing" if it a) has no members or b)
was not created this month and has not paid the Administrative Fee to
Agora.

If an organization is In Bad Standing for more than 7 days, then any
player CAN destroy it by announcement, and the Secretary SHALL do so
in a timely fashion if the situation persists.

Any player CAN create an Organization by announcement by paying the
Administrative Fee to Agora and specifying a name for the
Organization that is unique among Organizations and a Charter.

 [Replaces Budget with the Administrative Fee. Combined with giving org's
 more control over their membership, it allows for orgs to raise money
 and pay the fee in whichever way seems appropriate to them. Also removed
 the limits on org membership and creation, because the price should be
 a good enough limiters.]

 Amend "Organization Restructuring" by removing the text "Budget or", and
 removing the paragraph starting with "2.", then changing "3." to "2.".

 [Budget cleanup]

 Enact a power 1 rule titled "Stamps" with the following text:

Stamps are a type of asset tracked by the Secretary. Each Stamp is
identified by the person or organization that created the Stamp.
Stamps created by the same person or organization are fungible.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agency: grok's Favorite Player

[Nic Evans]

For a rule of thumb it's probably best to expect orgs and agencies to
report their own internal state. Perhaps in mini reports posted to a-b
with an identifying tag like "[qFP] Switch Report".

In this specific instance the switch is very trivial and figuring out
who it points to is straight-forward.

On 05/24/17 14:30, caleb vines wrote:
> I'll keep track for the immediate future in case it becomes relevant.
> If it becomes so relevant you decide to start tracking or reporting
> the status of the switch, we can re-open this discussion at that time.
>
>
> -grok
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Quazie  > wrote:
>
> It was a statement that arbitrary switch tracking isn't part if my
> duties, if you deem it's appropriate feel free to track or report
> on it.
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:26 caleb vines  > wrote:
>
> I would be happy to track the switch value on the
> Superintendent's behalf. I would also be happy to write a
> weekly report of actions performed by agents of gFP if it is
> in the best interest of the game and if it would be of use for
> the Superintendent.
>
>
> -grok
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Quazie
> > wrote:
>
> Note: the Superintendent does not need to, and isn't
> immediately interested in attempting to, track this or any
> switch embedded in an Agency.
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 08:14 caleb vines
> > wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:50 AM, caleb vines
> > wrote:
>
>
> I just realized that this is an illegal action
> because I'm missing a list of agents. I withdraw
> the intent above and announce intent to establish
> the following Agency in 24 hours:
>
>
> Name: grok's Favorite Player (gFP)
>
> Agents: All players
>
> Powers:
> 1) gFP has a single Name switch. gFP's Name switch
> can only be flipped by the Director of gFP. The
> legal values for the Name switch are the name of
> any single registered Player as defined by Rule
> 869. If the text of a player's name includes the
> words "deregister," "de-register," "announce,"
> "intend," or any conjugation of or direct
> variation on those words, it is not a legal value.
>
> 2) Once per Agoran week, if an agent either writes
> a Kind Message about grok in any public forum or
> gives grok 3 shinies, that agent may act on behalf
> of grok to flip gFP's Name switch to any legal
> position.
>
> 3) If a player that has never given grok a Trust
> Token gives grok a Trust Token, that player may
> act on behalf of grok to flip gFP's Name switch to
> any legal position once.
>
> 4) grok is the Director and Head of gFP.
>
>
> -grok
>
>
> I perform the following three actions in order:
>
> I resolve my intent to establish gFP.
>
> I flip gFP's Name switch to "grok"
>
> I pledge that for the next two weeks, I will only flip
> gFP's name switch if another player is acting on my
> behalf to do so.
>
>
> -grok
>
>
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Stamps

[Quazie]

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:30 Josh T  wrote:

> > At the beginning of the game of Bing Bong each player SHALL pay the
> organization 1 Shiny.
>
> I object to being obliged to pay the organization 1 Shiny even if I do not
> wish to partake in Bing Bong.
>
> 天火狐
>

Each member obviously - i was simply throwing out a simple game idea to see
if others were interested - I can't even make/join organizations for
another month or so.




> On 24 May 2017 at 15:08, Quazie  wrote:
>
>> Proto Organization: 'Bing Bong'
>>
>> [Organization standard stuff]
>>
>> There exists a game master, originally the creator of this organization.
>>
>> If a game of Bing Bong is not ongoing, a game of Bing Bong can be started
>> with 24 hours notice.
>>
>> At the beginning of the game of Bing Bong each player SHALL pay the
>> organization 1 Shiny.
>>
>> At the beginning of a game of Bing Bong the set of players of the game of
>> Bing Bong is the set of members of this org.
>>
>> No player may join the org while a game is ongoing.
>>
>> A game starts with a list of players, to be treated as a circular array,
>> with the game master in the first position, and a direction, Bing or Bong.
>>
>> When a player is in the first position of this list, they have 24 hours
>> to publicly declare, within the Game Thread either Bing or Bong.
>>
>> If a player declares Bing then the array shifts left.
>>
>> If a player declares Bong then the array shifts right.
>>
>> If a player doesn't declare Bing or Bong in 24 hours then they are
>> removed from the list, and the array shifts in such a way as if the player
>> had declared Bing.
>>
>> When there is only 1 player left, that player gets a point.
>>
>> When the organization has enough shinies to buy a stamp, it does, and
>> awards it to the player with the most points at that time - at that point
>> all players points reset to 0.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:00 PM Nic Evans  wrote:
>>
>>> I submit the following proposal:
>>>
>>> Title: Organization Integration and Stamp Collecting
>>> AI: 1.2
>>> Author: nichdel
>>> Co-author(s):
>>>
>>> Amend "Organizations" by replacing the second, third, and fourth
>>> paragraphs with:
>>>
>>>Players may become members of an organization by announcement as
>>>specified by the charter of the organization. Players may stop being
>>>a member of an organization by announcement.
>>>
>>>An organization may cause any player to stop being a member as
>>>specified in its charter.
>>>
>>> [Remove Budget and make org membership more flexible.]
>>>
>>> Amend "Death and Birth of Organizations to read, in full:
>>>
>>>The Administrative Fee is 5 shinies.
>>>
>>>An organization is "In Bad Standing" if it a) has no members or b)
>>>was not created this month and has not paid the Administrative Fee to
>>>Agora.
>>>
>>>If an organization is In Bad Standing for more than 7 days, then any
>>>player CAN destroy it by announcement, and the Secretary SHALL do so
>>>in a timely fashion if the situation persists.
>>>
>>>Any player CAN create an Organization by announcement by paying the
>>>Administrative Fee to Agora and specifying a name for the
>>>Organization that is unique among Organizations and a Charter.
>>>
>>> [Replaces Budget with the Administrative Fee. Combined with giving org's
>>> more control over their membership, it allows for orgs to raise money
>>> and pay the fee in whichever way seems appropriate to them. Also removed
>>> the limits on org membership and creation, because the price should be
>>> a good enough limiters.]
>>>
>>> Amend "Organization Restructuring" by removing the text "Budget or", and
>>> removing the paragraph starting with "2.", then changing "3." to "2.".
>>>
>>> [Budget cleanup]
>>>
>>> Enact a power 1 rule titled "Stamps" with the following text:
>>>
>>>Stamps are a type of asset tracked by the Secretary. Each Stamp is
>>>identified by the person or organization that created the Stamp.
>>>Stamps created by the same person or organization are fungible.
>>>
>>>The Stamp Price is always 4 times the current Pending List Price.
>>>
>>>Once per month any player MAY, by announcement, pay Agora the Stamp
>>>Price, in shinies, to create one Stamp in eir possession. Once per
>>>month any player MAY, by announcement and as specified by the
>>>organization's charter, pay Agora the Stamp Price, in shinies, to
>>>create one Stamp in its possession.
>>>
>>>Any player MAY, by announcement, destroy a specified Stamp in eir
>>>possession. Any player MAY, by announcement and as specified by the
>>>organization's charter, destroy a specified Stamp in its possession.
>>>Whenever an organization or player destroys a Stamp in eir
>>>possession, Agora SHALL pay em the Stamp Price.
>>>
>>>When a player has in eir possession at least one Stamp created by 15
>>>different 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agency: grok's Favorite Player

[caleb vines]

I'll keep track for the immediate future in case it becomes relevant. If it
becomes so relevant you decide to start tracking or reporting the status of
the switch, we can re-open this discussion at that time.


-grok

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Quazie  wrote:

> It was a statement that arbitrary switch tracking isn't part if my duties,
> if you deem it's appropriate feel free to track or report on it.
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:26 caleb vines  wrote:
>
>> I would be happy to track the switch value on the Superintendent's
>> behalf. I would also be happy to write a weekly report of actions performed
>> by agents of gFP if it is in the best interest of the game and if it would
>> be of use for the Superintendent.
>>
>>
>> -grok
>>
>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Quazie  wrote:
>>
>>> Note: the Superintendent does not need to, and isn't immediately
>>> interested in attempting to, track this or any switch embedded in an Agency.
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 08:14 caleb vines  wrote:
>>>


 On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:50 AM, caleb vines 
 wrote:
>
>
> I just realized that this is an illegal action because I'm missing a
> list of agents. I withdraw the intent above and announce intent to
> establish the following Agency in 24 hours:
>
>
> Name: grok's Favorite Player (gFP)
>
> Agents: All players
>
> Powers:
> 1) gFP has a single Name switch. gFP's Name switch can only be flipped
> by the Director of gFP. The legal values for the Name switch are the name
> of any single registered Player as defined by Rule 869. If the text of a
> player's name includes the words "deregister," "de-register," "announce,"
> "intend," or any conjugation of or direct variation on those words, it is
> not a legal value.
>
> 2) Once per Agoran week, if an agent either writes a Kind Message
> about grok in any public forum or gives grok 3 shinies, that agent may act
> on behalf of grok to flip gFP's Name switch to any legal position.
>
> 3) If a player that has never given grok a Trust Token gives grok a
> Trust Token, that player may act on behalf of grok to flip gFP's Name
> switch to any legal position once.
>
> 4) grok is the Director and Head of gFP.
>
>
> -grok
>

 I perform the following three actions in order:

 I resolve my intent to establish gFP.

 I flip gFP's Name switch to "grok"

 I pledge that for the next two weeks, I will only flip gFP's name
 switch if another player is acting on my behalf to do so.


 -grok

>>>
>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Stamps

[Josh T]

> At the beginning of the game of Bing Bong each player SHALL pay the
organization 1 Shiny.

I object to being obliged to pay the organization 1 Shiny even if I do not
wish to partake in Bing Bong.

天火狐

On 24 May 2017 at 15:08, Quazie  wrote:

> Proto Organization: 'Bing Bong'
>
> [Organization standard stuff]
>
> There exists a game master, originally the creator of this organization.
>
> If a game of Bing Bong is not ongoing, a game of Bing Bong can be started
> with 24 hours notice.
>
> At the beginning of the game of Bing Bong each player SHALL pay the
> organization 1 Shiny.
>
> At the beginning of a game of Bing Bong the set of players of the game of
> Bing Bong is the set of members of this org.
>
> No player may join the org while a game is ongoing.
>
> A game starts with a list of players, to be treated as a circular array,
> with the game master in the first position, and a direction, Bing or Bong.
>
> When a player is in the first position of this list, they have 24 hours to
> publicly declare, within the Game Thread either Bing or Bong.
>
> If a player declares Bing then the array shifts left.
>
> If a player declares Bong then the array shifts right.
>
> If a player doesn't declare Bing or Bong in 24 hours then they are removed
> from the list, and the array shifts in such a way as if the player had
> declared Bing.
>
> When there is only 1 player left, that player gets a point.
>
> When the organization has enough shinies to buy a stamp, it does, and
> awards it to the player with the most points at that time - at that point
> all players points reset to 0.
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:00 PM Nic Evans  wrote:
>
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> Title: Organization Integration and Stamp Collecting
>> AI: 1.2
>> Author: nichdel
>> Co-author(s):
>>
>> Amend "Organizations" by replacing the second, third, and fourth
>> paragraphs with:
>>
>>Players may become members of an organization by announcement as
>>specified by the charter of the organization. Players may stop being
>>a member of an organization by announcement.
>>
>>An organization may cause any player to stop being a member as
>>specified in its charter.
>>
>> [Remove Budget and make org membership more flexible.]
>>
>> Amend "Death and Birth of Organizations to read, in full:
>>
>>The Administrative Fee is 5 shinies.
>>
>>An organization is "In Bad Standing" if it a) has no members or b)
>>was not created this month and has not paid the Administrative Fee to
>>Agora.
>>
>>If an organization is In Bad Standing for more than 7 days, then any
>>player CAN destroy it by announcement, and the Secretary SHALL do so
>>in a timely fashion if the situation persists.
>>
>>Any player CAN create an Organization by announcement by paying the
>>Administrative Fee to Agora and specifying a name for the
>>Organization that is unique among Organizations and a Charter.
>>
>> [Replaces Budget with the Administrative Fee. Combined with giving org's
>> more control over their membership, it allows for orgs to raise money
>> and pay the fee in whichever way seems appropriate to them. Also removed
>> the limits on org membership and creation, because the price should be
>> a good enough limiters.]
>>
>> Amend "Organization Restructuring" by removing the text "Budget or", and
>> removing the paragraph starting with "2.", then changing "3." to "2.".
>>
>> [Budget cleanup]
>>
>> Enact a power 1 rule titled "Stamps" with the following text:
>>
>>Stamps are a type of asset tracked by the Secretary. Each Stamp is
>>identified by the person or organization that created the Stamp.
>>Stamps created by the same person or organization are fungible.
>>
>>The Stamp Price is always 4 times the current Pending List Price.
>>
>>Once per month any player MAY, by announcement, pay Agora the Stamp
>>Price, in shinies, to create one Stamp in eir possession. Once per
>>month any player MAY, by announcement and as specified by the
>>organization's charter, pay Agora the Stamp Price, in shinies, to
>>create one Stamp in its possession.
>>
>>Any player MAY, by announcement, destroy a specified Stamp in eir
>>possession. Any player MAY, by announcement and as specified by the
>>organization's charter, destroy a specified Stamp in its possession.
>>Whenever an organization or player destroys a Stamp in eir
>>possession, Agora SHALL pay em the Stamp Price.
>>
>>When a player has in eir possession at least one Stamp created by 15
>>different players or organizations then e may win by announcement,
>>specifying each stamp e possesses. When a player does so
>>successfully, all Stamps in eir possession are destroyed.
>>
>> [This implements what I described previously. Stamps are both a
>> speculative currency, with a changing value month-to-month, and a
>> valuable win condition. Also note that with 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agency: grok's Favorite Player

[Quazie]

It was a statement that arbitrary switch tracking isn't part if my duties,
if you deem it's appropriate feel free to track or report on it.
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:26 caleb vines  wrote:

> I would be happy to track the switch value on the Superintendent's behalf.
> I would also be happy to write a weekly report of actions performed by
> agents of gFP if it is in the best interest of the game and if it would be
> of use for the Superintendent.
>
>
> -grok
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Quazie  wrote:
>
>> Note: the Superintendent does not need to, and isn't immediately
>> interested in attempting to, track this or any switch embedded in an Agency.
>>
>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 08:14 caleb vines  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:50 AM, caleb vines 
>>> wrote:


 I just realized that this is an illegal action because I'm missing a
 list of agents. I withdraw the intent above and announce intent to
 establish the following Agency in 24 hours:


 Name: grok's Favorite Player (gFP)

 Agents: All players

 Powers:
 1) gFP has a single Name switch. gFP's Name switch can only be flipped
 by the Director of gFP. The legal values for the Name switch are the name
 of any single registered Player as defined by Rule 869. If the text of a
 player's name includes the words "deregister," "de-register," "announce,"
 "intend," or any conjugation of or direct variation on those words, it is
 not a legal value.

 2) Once per Agoran week, if an agent either writes a Kind Message about
 grok in any public forum or gives grok 3 shinies, that agent may act on
 behalf of grok to flip gFP's Name switch to any legal position.

 3) If a player that has never given grok a Trust Token gives grok a
 Trust Token, that player may act on behalf of grok to flip gFP's Name
 switch to any legal position once.

 4) grok is the Director and Head of gFP.


 -grok

>>>
>>> I perform the following three actions in order:
>>>
>>> I resolve my intent to establish gFP.
>>>
>>> I flip gFP's Name switch to "grok"
>>>
>>> I pledge that for the next two weeks, I will only flip gFP's name switch
>>> if another player is acting on my behalf to do so.
>>>
>>>
>>> -grok
>>>
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agency: grok's Favorite Player

[caleb vines]

I would be happy to track the switch value on the Superintendent's behalf.
I would also be happy to write a weekly report of actions performed by
agents of gFP if it is in the best interest of the game and if it would be
of use for the Superintendent.


-grok

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Quazie  wrote:

> Note: the Superintendent does not need to, and isn't immediately
> interested in attempting to, track this or any switch embedded in an Agency.
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 08:14 caleb vines  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:50 AM, caleb vines  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I just realized that this is an illegal action because I'm missing a
>>> list of agents. I withdraw the intent above and announce intent to
>>> establish the following Agency in 24 hours:
>>>
>>>
>>> Name: grok's Favorite Player (gFP)
>>>
>>> Agents: All players
>>>
>>> Powers:
>>> 1) gFP has a single Name switch. gFP's Name switch can only be flipped
>>> by the Director of gFP. The legal values for the Name switch are the name
>>> of any single registered Player as defined by Rule 869. If the text of a
>>> player's name includes the words "deregister," "de-register," "announce,"
>>> "intend," or any conjugation of or direct variation on those words, it is
>>> not a legal value.
>>>
>>> 2) Once per Agoran week, if an agent either writes a Kind Message about
>>> grok in any public forum or gives grok 3 shinies, that agent may act on
>>> behalf of grok to flip gFP's Name switch to any legal position.
>>>
>>> 3) If a player that has never given grok a Trust Token gives grok a
>>> Trust Token, that player may act on behalf of grok to flip gFP's Name
>>> switch to any legal position once.
>>>
>>> 4) grok is the Director and Head of gFP.
>>>
>>>
>>> -grok
>>>
>>
>> I perform the following three actions in order:
>>
>> I resolve my intent to establish gFP.
>>
>> I flip gFP's Name switch to "grok"
>>
>> I pledge that for the next two weeks, I will only flip gFP's name switch
>> if another player is acting on my behalf to do so.
>>
>>
>> -grok
>>
>

DIS: Protosal: Suicide Chess - Agora Style.

[CuddleBeam]

I have some shiny so I figured I could suggest a new kind of challenge
that doesn't require much rule changes.

In fact, the current rules, just as they are right now, are IDEAL for
something like this, because the whole idea is to play a game designed
to be played "forwards" (current Agora, as I suspect it to be) -
backwards.

It's giving our rules even more uses and options for entertainment,
without needing to change them.

Let me know what you think \o/

-

Rule  (Power=X)
Suicide Agora Challenge

(Tournament/Ribbon/Patent Title/Similar Achievement)

A Player's Misery is the amount of actions they cannot do, yet some
Player in Agora currently can do. (note that it's "Player" not
"Person", just deregistering would be too trivial)

At some moment, you "win" the challenge (reaching X Misery and getting
a reward of a sort, being the person with the most Misery when the
tournament is over, etc)

Optionally include some way for the misère player to restore
themselves to some default after the challenge, or to make it more
interesting - not.

Definitely include that deliberate foul play is still not encouraged,
and, for example, being under the effects of a Card disqualifies you
from being able to opt for the prize somehow, or restricted actions
from Cards just don't count for Misery.

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Stamps

[Quazie]

Proto Organization: 'Bing Bong'

[Organization standard stuff]

There exists a game master, originally the creator of this organization.

If a game of Bing Bong is not ongoing, a game of Bing Bong can be started
with 24 hours notice.

At the beginning of the game of Bing Bong each player SHALL pay the
organization 1 Shiny.

At the beginning of a game of Bing Bong the set of players of the game of
Bing Bong is the set of members of this org.

No player may join the org while a game is ongoing.

A game starts with a list of players, to be treated as a circular array,
with the game master in the first position, and a direction, Bing or Bong.

When a player is in the first position of this list, they have 24 hours to
publicly declare, within the Game Thread either Bing or Bong.

If a player declares Bing then the array shifts left.

If a player declares Bong then the array shifts right.

If a player doesn't declare Bing or Bong in 24 hours then they are removed
from the list, and the array shifts in such a way as if the player had
declared Bing.

When there is only 1 player left, that player gets a point.

When the organization has enough shinies to buy a stamp, it does, and
awards it to the player with the most points at that time - at that point
all players points reset to 0.



On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:00 PM Nic Evans  wrote:

> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Organization Integration and Stamp Collecting
> AI: 1.2
> Author: nichdel
> Co-author(s):
>
> Amend "Organizations" by replacing the second, third, and fourth
> paragraphs with:
>
>Players may become members of an organization by announcement as
>specified by the charter of the organization. Players may stop being
>a member of an organization by announcement.
>
>An organization may cause any player to stop being a member as
>specified in its charter.
>
> [Remove Budget and make org membership more flexible.]
>
> Amend "Death and Birth of Organizations to read, in full:
>
>The Administrative Fee is 5 shinies.
>
>An organization is "In Bad Standing" if it a) has no members or b)
>was not created this month and has not paid the Administrative Fee to
>Agora.
>
>If an organization is In Bad Standing for more than 7 days, then any
>player CAN destroy it by announcement, and the Secretary SHALL do so
>in a timely fashion if the situation persists.
>
>Any player CAN create an Organization by announcement by paying the
>Administrative Fee to Agora and specifying a name for the
>Organization that is unique among Organizations and a Charter.
>
> [Replaces Budget with the Administrative Fee. Combined with giving org's
> more control over their membership, it allows for orgs to raise money
> and pay the fee in whichever way seems appropriate to them. Also removed
> the limits on org membership and creation, because the price should be
> a good enough limiters.]
>
> Amend "Organization Restructuring" by removing the text "Budget or", and
> removing the paragraph starting with "2.", then changing "3." to "2.".
>
> [Budget cleanup]
>
> Enact a power 1 rule titled "Stamps" with the following text:
>
>Stamps are a type of asset tracked by the Secretary. Each Stamp is
>identified by the person or organization that created the Stamp.
>Stamps created by the same person or organization are fungible.
>
>The Stamp Price is always 4 times the current Pending List Price.
>
>Once per month any player MAY, by announcement, pay Agora the Stamp
>Price, in shinies, to create one Stamp in eir possession. Once per
>month any player MAY, by announcement and as specified by the
>organization's charter, pay Agora the Stamp Price, in shinies, to
>create one Stamp in its possession.
>
>Any player MAY, by announcement, destroy a specified Stamp in eir
>possession. Any player MAY, by announcement and as specified by the
>organization's charter, destroy a specified Stamp in its possession.
>Whenever an organization or player destroys a Stamp in eir
>possession, Agora SHALL pay em the Stamp Price.
>
>When a player has in eir possession at least one Stamp created by 15
>different players or organizations then e may win by announcement,
>specifying each stamp e possesses. When a player does so
>successfully, all Stamps in eir possession are destroyed.
>
> [This implements what I described previously. Stamps are both a
> speculative currency, with a changing value month-to-month, and a
> valuable win condition. Also note that with the org changes, a single
> player could create all the Stamps e needs, but it'd be more expensive
> than gaining them via trade due to the Administrative fee.]
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Article 5 invokation

[caleb vines]

Did some research on the archives. Pretty sure UNDEAD is a very important
clue. The meaning of "Article 5" is still unknown to me.

I'll refrain from saying much more--I'm excited to see where this goes.


-grok

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> The words spell UNDEAD - that’s probably important in some way
> > On May 23, 2017, at 8:33 PM, Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > We at least deserve a hint. I looked briefly, but couldn't find the
> > purported 2012 occurrence.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >> That would be telling.
> >>
> >> -o
> >>
> >> On May 23, 2017, at 6:54 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> What is this?
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Article 5 invokation

[Quazie]

e deregistered 8 days prior to the UNDEAD message, thus it CANNOT be a
registration by announcement.

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 2:48 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I think Quazie would be right.
>
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Quazie  wrote:
>
>> Has it been 30 days since e deregistered? It'd be a great registration if
>> it has been, one of my more recent favorites
>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 20:49 Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>>
>>> The words spell UNDEAD - that’s probably important in some way
>>> > On May 23, 2017, at 8:33 PM, Aris Merchant <
>>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > We at least deserve a hint. I looked briefly, but couldn't find the
>>> > purported 2012 occurrence.
>>> >
>>> > -Aris
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Owen Jacobson 
>>> wrote:
>>> >> That would be telling.
>>> >>
>>> >> -o
>>> >>
>>> >> On May 23, 2017, at 6:54 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>> >>  wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> What is this?
>>>
>>>
>

Re: DIS: humble agoran farmer attempts to invent the noose

[caleb vines]

You're correct. I haven't had my coffee today.


-grok

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:

>
>
> On 05/24/17 10:56, caleb vines wrote:
>
> 3) Just as an FYI, if you make one thousand pledges, they happen in order
> as separate events. IDK how CoEs would interact with those pledges if they
> were all wrong, or even if just one was wrong. Someone wiser than I may
> have that answer.
>
> [snip]
>
> 5) 2426 also tells us that it is a SHALL NOT to issue more than one card
> for the same infraction. So you would have to commit one thousand separate
> infractions (it can be the same type one thousand separate times if you
> want, for sake of theorizing) in order to be given one thousand Red Cards.
>
> E only needs 1 red card to satisfy all those pledges. The pledges are
> instantiated sequentially, but they all still exist simultaneously and
> nothing stops one event from triggering multiple conditionals.
>

Re: DIS: humble agoran farmer attempts to invent the noose

[Nic Evans]

On 05/24/17 10:56, caleb vines wrote:
> 3) Just as an FYI, if you make one thousand pledges, they happen in
> order as separate events. IDK how CoEs would interact with those
> pledges if they were all wrong, or even if just one was wrong. Someone
> wiser than I may have that answer.
>
> [snip]
>
> 5) 2426 also tells us that it is a SHALL NOT to issue more than one
> card for the same infraction. So you would have to commit one thousand
> separate infractions (it can be the same type one thousand separate
> times if you want, for sake of theorizing) in order to be given one
> thousand Red Cards.
>
E only needs 1 red card to satisfy all those pledges. The pledges are
instantiated sequentially, but they all still exist simultaneously and
nothing stops one event from triggering multiple conditionals.


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

DIS: Re: BUS: Agency: grok's Favorite Player

[Quazie]

Note: the Superintendent does not need to, and isn't immediately interested
in attempting to, track this or any switch embedded in an Agency.

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 08:14 caleb vines  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:50 AM, caleb vines  wrote:
>>
>>
>> I just realized that this is an illegal action because I'm missing a list
>> of agents. I withdraw the intent above and announce intent to establish the
>> following Agency in 24 hours:
>>
>>
>> Name: grok's Favorite Player (gFP)
>>
>> Agents: All players
>>
>> Powers:
>> 1) gFP has a single Name switch. gFP's Name switch can only be flipped by
>> the Director of gFP. The legal values for the Name switch are the name of
>> any single registered Player as defined by Rule 869. If the text of a
>> player's name includes the words "deregister," "de-register," "announce,"
>> "intend," or any conjugation of or direct variation on those words, it is
>> not a legal value.
>>
>> 2) Once per Agoran week, if an agent either writes a Kind Message about
>> grok in any public forum or gives grok 3 shinies, that agent may act on
>> behalf of grok to flip gFP's Name switch to any legal position.
>>
>> 3) If a player that has never given grok a Trust Token gives grok a Trust
>> Token, that player may act on behalf of grok to flip gFP's Name switch to
>> any legal position once.
>>
>> 4) grok is the Director and Head of gFP.
>>
>>
>> -grok
>>
>
> I perform the following three actions in order:
>
> I resolve my intent to establish gFP.
>
> I flip gFP's Name switch to "grok"
>
> I pledge that for the next two weeks, I will only flip gFP's name switch
> if another player is acting on my behalf to do so.
>
>
> -grok
>

Re: DIS: humble agoran farmer attempts to invent the noose

[caleb vines]

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 10:25 AM, CuddleBeam 
wrote:

> Please note that I'm NOT making any pledges here I'm just posting a
> hypothetical "suicide pledge" because I think its interesting (and funny).
>
> ♦️ I hereby pledge (one thousand times) to gain a Red Card.
>
> (I think you'd get at *least* a collection of Yellow Cards. I don't think
> there is actually a pure formal way to get a bunch of Red Cards on
> yourself, at least not by casual reading. Suicide scam when.)
>

This is my interpretation of what would happen if you posted that exact
phrase in a public forum:


1) First, an aside: at least to my understanding, you don't need to worry
about the lead sentence in that post. Things are only announced if you post
them in a public forum: agora-business for player actions, agora-official
for office reports. agora-discussion's Publicity switch (rule 478) is set
to "discussion," and it must be set to "public" in order for announcements
to be binding.

2) That pledge just binds you to gaining Red Cards. It doesn't actually
perform the action to assign a Red Card. That action is reserved in rule
2426. If you pledged to gain one thousand Red Cards, you would still have
to gain those cards through normal means to fulfill the pledge.

3) Just as an FYI, if you make one thousand pledges, they happen in order
as separate events. IDK how CoEs would interact with those pledges if they
were all wrong, or even if just one was wrong. Someone wiser than I may
have that answer.

4) On to the actual Red Card part now. Issuing a card requires three
things: A type of card to be issued, a person to which the card would be
issued, and a specific bad faith action for which the person deserves
punishment. (I interpret that it can be any person, btw--no language in
2426 that says only players can be issued cards.) If the intent of this
"suicide pledge" is to assign a ton of Red Cards to yourself, it would fail
because it does not indicate a bad faith action performed by the person
they are given to (you).

5) 2426 also tells us that it is a SHALL NOT to issue more than one card
for the same infraction. So you would have to commit one thousand separate
infractions (it can be the same type one thousand separate times if you
want, for sake of theorizing) in order to be given one thousand Red Cards.

6) Red Cards only make a player eligible to have the Book Thrown at em. You
can have a massive collection of Red Cards, but AFAIK they would have no
effect seven days after they were issued, unless a player Threw the Book at
you.

7) I actually don't know if the effects of a Book Throwing would stack in
magnitude or duration. That's probably a good question for someone who
knows CFJ precedent..

8) Since this action probably doesn't really do anything substantial
anyways, if you tried to do it I would recommend a single Green Card the
first time. It wouldn't actually impact the game in a meaningful way
besides putting yourself in a compromising position. If you tried to do it
twice, I would probably Point a Finger and recommend a Yellow Card. I
certainly wouldn't suggest that the referee assign a Yellow Card for every
single infraction.


-grok

DIS: humble agoran farmer attempts to invent the noose

[CuddleBeam]

Please note that I'm NOT making any pledges here I'm just posting a
hypothetical "suicide pledge" because I think its interesting (and funny).

♦️ I hereby pledge (one thousand times) to gain a Red Card.

(I think you'd get at *least* a collection of Yellow Cards. I don't think
there is actually a pure formal way to get a bunch of Red Cards on
yourself, at least not by casual reading. Suicide scam when.)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration and Assets

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Could an organization charter or contract serve as a backing document?


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Josh T 
> wrote:
> >> An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing
> >> document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
> >> existence.
> > So no organization can define and issue assets, for example?
> No, although they're free to pretend they can for their own internal
> purposes. I'm waiting for contracts to come back in full. I'm actually
> planning to bring them back myself, after this and regulations, unless
> someone beats me too it. I have ideas on how to make them work with
> organizations and agencies.
> >
> >> If an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class of
> >> entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an
> entity
> >> outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity outside
> >> that class (except for Agora, in which case any player CAN transfer or
> >> destroy it without objection).
> > How is this different from "An asset's backing document may forbid its
> > ownership from a class of entities, but it CANNOT forbid Agora from
> owning
> > that asset. Any action done which would result in an entity gaining an
> asset
> > which it is forbidden to own is IMPOSSIBLE. If an asset is owned by an
> > entity which is forbidden from owning that asset, the asset is
> destroyed. If
> > Agora owns an asset, any player CAN transfer or destroy it without
> > objection" (adopting this phrasing may require rewording some later
> parts so
> > that they still work, but for the purpose of this question, that is
> > irrelevant).
> >
> > PS: I think the default should be that an asset is transferable only via
> a
> > mechanism specified in the backing document. I probably would support a
> rule
> > which gives the record-keeper of assets to destroy abandoned Agora-owned
> > assets without objection.
> I think assets should be transferable by default. That will come up
> more often, and the backing document can override it anyway.
> >> An organization's charter CAN specify whether or not that organization
> is
> >> willing receive assets or a class of assets. Generally, an organization
> >> CANNOT be given assets its charter states that it is unwilling to
> receive.
> > This seems ambiguous. A charter which says nothing about assets neither
> > specifies if it is willing or unwilling to receive them, so would not
> fall
> > under either sentence.
> > Say if a hypothetical organization says something like "At the beginning
> of
> > each Agoran month, this organization distributes as many of its Shinies
> > evenly to each member, with the organization holding the remainder," but
> > doesn't explicitly say that it can receive Shinies, where does it stand?
> Good catch. I'll probably add something about whether the charter
> appears to anticipate being given shinies, unless that sounds to
> vague.
> > Does this change if the backing document is a rule with higher power than
> > the one for organizations?
> It shouldn't, unless that rule is more powerful than this one and
> overrides it. I may may make this rule have a power of 3.0, just in
> case.
> >
> >> [The] entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class and
> >> their owners.
> > Do you perhaps mean all extant or existent instances of that class, or we
> > can't have a theoretically unbounded asset class? (Example: "A floorb is
> an
> > asset with a name switch which is valid with any string. Any player who
> has
> > never previously made a floorb may create a new floorb and set its name
> > switch" might be impossible to record.)
> The rules can require anyone to do anything. This doesn't raise any
> new concerns that I can see.
> >> A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing document, and CANNOT
> >> be transferred; any other asset is liquid.
> > Is this for ease of access in terms of terminology?
> That and standardization.
> >> Where it resolves ambiguity "Balance", without any currency modifiers,
> >> [...]
> > I think you need a comma "ambiguity".
> Fixed.
> >
> > I finally managed to have time to look at this proposal. Seems good so
> far;
> > I would like to hear your thoughts about my remarks / concerns.
> >
> > 天火狐
> Thanks, and I appreciate the help.
>
> -Aris
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Article 5 invokation

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I think Quazie would be right.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Quazie  wrote:

> Has it been 30 days since e deregistered? It'd be a great registration if
> it has been, one of my more recent favorites
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 20:49 Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>
>> The words spell UNDEAD - that’s probably important in some way
>> > On May 23, 2017, at 8:33 PM, Aris Merchant > gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > We at least deserve a hint. I looked briefly, but couldn't find the
>> > purported 2012 occurrence.
>> >
>> > -Aris
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Owen Jacobson 
>> wrote:
>> >> That would be telling.
>> >>
>> >> -o
>> >>
>> >> On May 23, 2017, at 6:54 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> >>  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> What is this?
>>
>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration and Assets

[Aris Merchant]

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Josh T  wrote:
>> An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing
>> document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
>> existence.
> So no organization can define and issue assets, for example?
No, although they're free to pretend they can for their own internal
purposes. I'm waiting for contracts to come back in full. I'm actually
planning to bring them back myself, after this and regulations, unless
someone beats me too it. I have ideas on how to make them work with
organizations and agencies.
>
>> If an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class of
>> entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity
>> outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity outside
>> that class (except for Agora, in which case any player CAN transfer or
>> destroy it without objection).
> How is this different from "An asset's backing document may forbid its
> ownership from a class of entities, but it CANNOT forbid Agora from owning
> that asset. Any action done which would result in an entity gaining an asset
> which it is forbidden to own is IMPOSSIBLE. If an asset is owned by an
> entity which is forbidden from owning that asset, the asset is destroyed. If
> Agora owns an asset, any player CAN transfer or destroy it without
> objection" (adopting this phrasing may require rewording some later parts so
> that they still work, but for the purpose of this question, that is
> irrelevant).
>
> PS: I think the default should be that an asset is transferable only via a
> mechanism specified in the backing document. I probably would support a rule
> which gives the record-keeper of assets to destroy abandoned Agora-owned
> assets without objection.
I think assets should be transferable by default. That will come up
more often, and the backing document can override it anyway.
>> An organization's charter CAN specify whether or not that organization is
>> willing receive assets or a class of assets. Generally, an organization
>> CANNOT be given assets its charter states that it is unwilling to receive.
> This seems ambiguous. A charter which says nothing about assets neither
> specifies if it is willing or unwilling to receive them, so would not fall
> under either sentence.
> Say if a hypothetical organization says something like "At the beginning of
> each Agoran month, this organization distributes as many of its Shinies
> evenly to each member, with the organization holding the remainder," but
> doesn't explicitly say that it can receive Shinies, where does it stand?
Good catch. I'll probably add something about whether the charter
appears to anticipate being given shinies, unless that sounds to
vague.
> Does this change if the backing document is a rule with higher power than
> the one for organizations?
It shouldn't, unless that rule is more powerful than this one and
overrides it. I may may make this rule have a power of 3.0, just in
case.
>
>> [The] entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class and
>> their owners.
> Do you perhaps mean all extant or existent instances of that class, or we
> can't have a theoretically unbounded asset class? (Example: "A floorb is an
> asset with a name switch which is valid with any string. Any player who has
> never previously made a floorb may create a new floorb and set its name
> switch" might be impossible to record.)
The rules can require anyone to do anything. This doesn't raise any
new concerns that I can see.
>> A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing document, and CANNOT
>> be transferred; any other asset is liquid.
> Is this for ease of access in terms of terminology?
That and standardization.
>> Where it resolves ambiguity "Balance", without any currency modifiers,
>> [...]
> I think you need a comma "ambiguity".
Fixed.
>
> I finally managed to have time to look at this proposal. Seems good so far;
> I would like to hear your thoughts about my remarks / concerns.
>
> 天火狐
Thanks, and I appreciate the help.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration and Assets

[Aris Merchant]

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> On 05/23/2017 11:01 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>
>> I'm quite skeptical of this. I've put a lot of time into the current
>> Assets proposal, and feel like "Defin[ing] Assets very simply" would
>> have significant disadvantages in several respects. I think I'd have
>> trouble convincing people to implement another system once we have one
>> up and running, despite the possible advantages.
>
> Any specific concerns? You've thought about this more, so I'm probably being
> naive.
They're not very specific. I just feel like the version I'm working
from (which was mostly borrowed from a past version in the ruleset)
has considered some possibilities more, such as contract based assets.
Whenever someone tries to suggest a "minimal" implementation, I get
concerned it will be underspecified. That's no comment on your
proposal writing ability, just on the difficulty of making something
like this work. Look, for instance, at all the trouble we had with
rule re-enactment.
>>
>> I do agree about the
>> lost and found department though. If someone writes new text for "you
>> can't take it with you" that fits with assets, I'd be more than happy
>> to include it (with appropriate credit of course).
>
> I'd be willing to pick it up if no one else, but right now I'm prioritizing
> working on a win condition and a few smaller adjustments.
>>
>> Here's my current draft of Assets v4:
>
> Glad to see you're still working on this, kudos!
>
> Here's some comments (and some proof-reading, assuming the formating works
> out).
>>
>> {{Title: Assets v4
>> Adoption index: 3.0
>> Author: Aris
>> Co-authors: o, nichdel
>>
>> Reenact rule 2166, Assets (Power = 2), with the following text:
>>
>>An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing
>>document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
>>existence.
>>
>>Each asset has exactly one owner.  If an asset would otherwise
>>lack an owner, it is owned by *~the~* Agora. If
>>an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class
>>of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred
>>to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned
>>by an entity outside that class (except for Agora,
>>in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it
>>without objection).
>
> Backing documents should be able to over-ride this CAN, right? Agora owns
> estates by default, and it seems undesirable to allow people to conspire to
> transfer or destroy them.
They probably should, but keep in mind this is without objection. You
can already do this by ratification without objection or a proposal,
this just makes it simpler.
>>
>>Unless modified by an *assets* backing document, ownership of an asset
>> is
>>restricted to Agora, persons, and organizations. An organization's
>> charter
>>CAN specify whether or not that organization is willing *^to^* receive
>> assets or a
>>
>>class of assets. Generally, an organization CANNOT be given assets its
>>charter states that it is unwilling to receive.
>>
>>The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any)
>>defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document.  That
>>entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class
>>and their owners.  This portion of that entity's report is
>>self-ratifying.
>>
>>An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by
>>announcement, subject to modification by its backing document.
>>To "lose" an asset is to have it destroyed from one's
>>possession; to "revoke" an asset from an entity is to destroy it
>>from that entity's possession.
>>
>>An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. payed) by its owner to
>> another
>>entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing
>>document.  A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing
>>document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.
>>
>>A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing
>>document.  Instances of a currency with the same owner are
>>fungible.
>>
>>The "x balance of an entity", where x is a currency, is the number of x
>> that
>>entity possesses. If a rule or proposal attempts to increase or
>> decrease the
>>balance of an entity without specifying a source or destination, then
>> the
>>currency is created or destroyed. Where it resolves ambiguity
>> "Balance",
>>without any currency modifiers, refers to an entity's balance of
>> whichever
>>currency is designated as "Agora's official currency", if there is one.
>>
>>Assets are always public. [To provide for private contract based assets
>> later]
>>
>> Change the rule "Economics" to read in full:
>>
>>Shinies (sg. shiny) are a liquid currency, and the official currency of
>> Agora.
>>They may be owned by Agora, any player, or any organization.