DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Not so cuddly now

[Aris Merchant]

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> [This is both a legitimate proposal and an experiment. I’m happy to re-submit 
> it as a “normal” proposal if that’s what people prefer.]

I don't object to this as a one time "does it even work" experiment,
but I don't like the idea of it becoming any more common than that.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Not so cuddly now

[V.J Rada]

>>Does it? I'm not 100% convinced that's the case, but I'm not about to provide 
>>arguments at midnight if I don't have to.

You should be: if a player sends a message to a-b while the objection
stage is still ongoing, the actual deregistration can't happen.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:10 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> and u can use qaz to pend free proposals, just sayin'. it's one of the
> pm's powers.
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:06 PM, grok (caleb vines)  
> wrote:
>> Does it? I'm not 100% convinced that's the case, but I'm not about to
>> provide arguments at midnight if I don't have to.
>>
>>
>> -grok
>>
>>
>> On Sep 6, 2017 12:01 AM, "Gaelan Steele"  wrote:
>>
>> That’s fair, although simply sending a message to a-b kills it anyway.
>>
>> Gaelan
>>
>> On Sep 5, 2017, at 10:00 PM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 5, 2017 11:57 PM, "Gaelan Steele"  wrote:
>>
>> I create the following proposal “Not So Cuddly Now” with AI 1 by Gaelan: {
>> diff --git a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora b/rules/How to Join and Leave
>> Agora
>> index 4683d3d..962eb2c 100644
>> --- a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
>> +++ b/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
>> @@ -66,7 +66,8 @@ text: |
>>If e does so, e CANNOT register by announcement for 30 days.
>>
>>If a player has not sent a message to a public forum in the last
>> -  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection.
>> +  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection or
>> +  with 2 Agoran Consent.
>>
>>The Rules CANNOT compel non-players to act, nor compel players
>>to unduly harass non-players.  A non-person CANNOT be a player,
>> }
>>
>> [This is both a legitimate proposal and an experiment. I’m happy to
>> re-submit it as a “normal” proposal if that’s what people prefer.]
>>
>>
>> I would like an exception that a player cannot be deregistered with two
>> Agoran consent if that player objects. But I understand that isn't the
>> point.
>>
>>
>> -grok
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J Rada



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Proto: Cards are appealable: rights version

[V.J Rada]

this is another version of "cards are appealable" because that didn't pass.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:09 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> Create a power 3 rule called "Punishment is for Crimes" with the text
> {{Other rules notwithstanding, a player CANNOT be sanctioned or
> punished for an offense they did not commit, or for anything that was
> not against the rules at the time they committed it. The only
> exception to this rule is the issuance of cards by the Prime Minister,
> which can still be issued for any reason}}.
>
> --
> From V.J Rada



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Not so cuddly now

[V.J Rada]

and u can use qaz to pend free proposals, just sayin'. it's one of the
pm's powers.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:06 PM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:
> Does it? I'm not 100% convinced that's the case, but I'm not about to
> provide arguments at midnight if I don't have to.
>
>
> -grok
>
>
> On Sep 6, 2017 12:01 AM, "Gaelan Steele"  wrote:
>
> That’s fair, although simply sending a message to a-b kills it anyway.
>
> Gaelan
>
> On Sep 5, 2017, at 10:00 PM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:
>
> On Sep 5, 2017 11:57 PM, "Gaelan Steele"  wrote:
>
> I create the following proposal “Not So Cuddly Now” with AI 1 by Gaelan: {
> diff --git a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora b/rules/How to Join and Leave
> Agora
> index 4683d3d..962eb2c 100644
> --- a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
> +++ b/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
> @@ -66,7 +66,8 @@ text: |
>If e does so, e CANNOT register by announcement for 30 days.
>
>If a player has not sent a message to a public forum in the last
> -  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection.
> +  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection or
> +  with 2 Agoran Consent.
>
>The Rules CANNOT compel non-players to act, nor compel players
>to unduly harass non-players.  A non-person CANNOT be a player,
> }
>
> [This is both a legitimate proposal and an experiment. I’m happy to
> re-submit it as a “normal” proposal if that’s what people prefer.]
>
>
> I would like an exception that a player cannot be deregistered with two
> Agoran consent if that player objects. But I understand that isn't the
> point.
>
>
> -grok
>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

DIS: Proto: Cards are appealable: rights version

[V.J Rada]

Create a power 3 rule called "Punishment is for Crimes" with the text
{{Other rules notwithstanding, a player CANNOT be sanctioned or
punished for an offense they did not commit, or for anything that was
not against the rules at the time they committed it. The only
exception to this rule is the issuance of cards by the Prime Minister,
which can still be issued for any reason}}.

-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Not so cuddly now

[grok (caleb vines)]

Does it? I'm not 100% convinced that's the case, but I'm not about to
provide arguments at midnight if I don't have to.


-grok

On Sep 6, 2017 12:01 AM, "Gaelan Steele"  wrote:

That’s fair, although simply sending a message to a-b kills it anyway.

Gaelan

On Sep 5, 2017, at 10:00 PM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:

On Sep 5, 2017 11:57 PM, "Gaelan Steele"  wrote:

I create the following proposal “Not So Cuddly Now” with AI 1 by Gaelan: {
diff --git a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora b/rules/How to Join and
Leave Agora
index 4683d3d..962eb2c 100644
--- a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
+++ b/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
@@ -66,7 +66,8 @@ text: |
   If e does so, e CANNOT register by announcement for 30 days.

   If a player has not sent a message to a public forum in the last
-  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection.
+  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection or
+  with 2 Agoran Consent.

   The Rules CANNOT compel non-players to act, nor compel players
   to unduly harass non-players.  A non-person CANNOT be a player,
}

[This is both a legitimate proposal and an experiment. I’m happy to
re-submit it as a “normal” proposal if that’s what people prefer.]


I would like an exception that a player cannot be deregistered with two
Agoran consent if that player objects. But I understand that isn't the
point.


-grok

DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Not so cuddly now

[Cuddle Beam]

Hrm, counterplay via changing the rules is going to be easier/quicker now I
feel, we have 2 free proposals per week.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> I create the following proposal “Not So Cuddly Now” with AI 1 by Gaelan: {
> diff --git a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora b/rules/How to Join and
> Leave Agora
> index 4683d3d..962eb2c 100644
> --- a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
> +++ b/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
> @@ -66,7 +66,8 @@ text: |
>If e does so, e CANNOT register by announcement for 30 days.
>
>If a player has not sent a message to a public forum in the last
> -  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection.
> +  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection or
> +  with 2 Agoran Consent.
>
>The Rules CANNOT compel non-players to act, nor compel players
>to unduly harass non-players.  A non-person CANNOT be a player,
> }
>
> [This is both a legitimate proposal and an experiment. I’m happy to
> re-submit it as a “normal” proposal if that’s what people prefer.]

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Not so cuddly now

[Gaelan Steele]

That’s fair, although simply sending a message to a-b kills it anyway.

Gaelan
> On Sep 5, 2017, at 10:00 PM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:
> 
> On Sep 5, 2017 11:57 PM, "Gaelan Steele"  > wrote:
> I create the following proposal “Not So Cuddly Now” with AI 1 by Gaelan: {
> diff --git a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora b/rules/How to Join and Leave 
> Agora
> index 4683d3d..962eb2c 100644
> --- a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
> +++ b/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
> @@ -66,7 +66,8 @@ text: |
>If e does so, e CANNOT register by announcement for 30 days.
> 
>If a player has not sent a message to a public forum in the last
> -  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection.
> +  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection or
> +  with 2 Agoran Consent.
> 
>The Rules CANNOT compel non-players to act, nor compel players
>to unduly harass non-players.  A non-person CANNOT be a player,
> }
> 
> [This is both a legitimate proposal and an experiment. I’m happy to re-submit 
> it as a “normal” proposal if that’s what people prefer.]
> 
> I would like an exception that a player cannot be deregistered with two 
> Agoran consent if that player objects. But I understand that isn't the point.
> 
> 
> -grok



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Not so cuddly now

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Sep 5, 2017 11:57 PM, "Gaelan Steele"  wrote:

I create the following proposal “Not So Cuddly Now” with AI 1 by Gaelan: {
diff --git a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora b/rules/How to Join and
Leave Agora
index 4683d3d..962eb2c 100644
--- a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
+++ b/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
@@ -66,7 +66,8 @@ text: |
   If e does so, e CANNOT register by announcement for 30 days.

   If a player has not sent a message to a public forum in the last
-  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection.
+  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection or
+  with 2 Agoran Consent.

   The Rules CANNOT compel non-players to act, nor compel players
   to unduly harass non-players.  A non-person CANNOT be a player,
}

[This is both a legitimate proposal and an experiment. I’m happy to
re-submit it as a “normal” proposal if that’s what people prefer.]


I would like an exception that a player cannot be deregistered with two
Agoran consent if that player objects. But I understand that isn't the
point.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration (of others)

[Ørjan Johansen]

NTTPF

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, V.J Rada wrote:


Finally I intend to deregister sproklem w/o objection

DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration (of others)

[V.J Rada]

Finally I intend to deregister sproklem w/o objection

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Monsters

[Gaelan Steele]

Huh, I also had a scam in mind involving this one. We should compare notes at 
some point later on.

Gaelan
> On Sep 5, 2017, at 1:50 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2017-09-05 at 19:00 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> Proto: Perks. A Player has a Perk if they fulfill the requirements in
>> brackets next to the perk's name. Perks are the following:
>> 
>> - Monsters Miners: [Having a Monster with at least 9 Power at an Estate you
>> own] Allows you to purchase Stamps whenever you want, not only once per
>> month.
> 
> Scammable. I'm not going to share the details because it's a fairly fun
> scam and might be reusable under other rulesets (and you might need the
> Secretary's help), but the specific outcome of using the scam in this
> context wouldn't be pretty.
> 
> -- 
> ais523



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: routine deregistration

[Cuddle Beam]

That and other things which could be lost forever if they are deregistered
so I'm a bit wary for now.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 6:31 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:

> probs because there's a current proposal that will likely pass that
> will make him the agoracultoror.
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> > Why?
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 8:37 PM Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> >>
> >> I object.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:34 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Without objection, I intend to deregister bablien/Ajay Kumar Raja, who
> >>> has not posted since Jul 31.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> From V.J Rada
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Crowdsourcing the reportor (and [Reportor] Report)

[Ørjan Johansen]

I know, I was just pointing out for future notice.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, V.J Rada wrote:


actually no because the agency's name is invalid, so it is not an agency.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:34 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:

if retraction does not work, quazie (or anyone else) can always state
24 hours notice for amending or destroying the agency in a way that
doesn't make me own quazie, but that will still leave a small time
window in which I own quazie.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Quazie wrote:


I rescind the quoted intent.
I retract the quoted intent.



I don't think Rule 1728 pays any attention to such retractions.

Greetings,
Ørjan.




--
From V.J Rada




--

From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Crowdsourcing the reportor (and [Reportor] Report)

[V.J Rada]

actually no because the agency's name is invalid, so it is not an agency.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:34 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> if retraction does not work, quazie (or anyone else) can always state
> 24 hours notice for amending or destroying the agency in a way that
> doesn't make me own quazie, but that will still leave a small time
> window in which I own quazie.
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Quazie wrote:
>>
>>> I rescind the quoted intent.
>>> I retract the quoted intent.
>>
>>
>> I don't think Rule 1728 pays any attention to such retractions.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Ørjan.
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J Rada



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Crowdsourcing the reportor (and [Reportor] Report)

[V.J Rada]

if retraction does not work, quazie (or anyone else) can always state
24 hours notice for amending or destroying the agency in a way that
doesn't make me own quazie, but that will still leave a small time
window in which I own quazie.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Quazie wrote:
>
>> I rescind the quoted intent.
>> I retract the quoted intent.
>
>
> I don't think Rule 1728 pays any attention to such retractions.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: routine deregistration

[V.J Rada]

probs because there's a current proposal that will likely pass that
will make him the agoracultoror.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> Why?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 8:37 PM Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>>
>> I object.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:34 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:
>>>
>>> Without objection, I intend to deregister bablien/Ajay Kumar Raja, who
>>> has not posted since Jul 31.
>>>
>>> --
>>> From V.J Rada
>>
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Crowdsourcing the reportor (and [Reportor] Report)

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Quazie wrote:


I rescind the quoted intent.
I retract the quoted intent.


I don't think Rule 1728 pays any attention to such retractions.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: routine deregistration

[Aris Merchant]

Why?

-Aris

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 8:37 PM Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> I object.
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:34 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:
>
>> Without objection, I intend to deregister bablien/Ajay Kumar Raja, who
>> has not posted since Jul 31.
>>
>> --
>> From V.J Rada
>>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Crowdsourcing the reportor (and [Reportor] Report)

[Aris Merchant]

I protest the now retracted intent. I formally request that all
agencies so vulnerable to exploitation be considered a public menace,
and be destroyed with extreme prejudice.

-Aris

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> I rescind the quoted intent.
> I retract the quoted intent.
>
> I would prefer if uses of my being weren't that controlling.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 20:54 V.J Rada  wrote:
>>
>> As Quazie using QAZ, I give my 24 hours notice to edit the QAZ agency
>> to have the following characteristics.
>> Name: Rada is 2 Players (R2P)
>> Agents: V.J. Rada
>> Powers: Take any action on Quazie's behalf, without limit.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I take an action

[V.J Rada]

there was one about flipping switches to the same thing.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
>> Actually, is being non-registered a requirement to register? Couldn't
>> registered people just... Register again?
>
>
> Wasn't there a CFJ about this recently? Or was that just discussion.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.



-- 
>From V.J Rada

DIS: Re: OFF: Crowdsourcing the reportor (and [Reportor] Report)

[V.J Rada]

invalid name: "is" is a verb. and i can't take another action for quazie today.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:54 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> As Quazie using QAZ, I give my 24 hours notice to edit the QAZ agency
> to have the following characteristics.
> Name: Rada is 2 Players (R2P)
> Agents: V.J. Rada
> Powers: Take any action on Quazie's behalf, without limit.



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I take an action

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:


Actually, is being non-registered a requirement to register? Couldn't
registered people just... Register again?


Wasn't there a CFJ about this recently? Or was that just discussion.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I take an action

[V.J Rada]

confused them with stamps whoops.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:12 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> I was thinking of getting 10 friends to give me trust tokens.
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:12 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
>> <> like “hey, I’m Gaelan’s friend who is totally not Gaelan. I register,
>> give Gaelan my welcome package, and deregister. Hey, this is Gaelan’s
>> other friend…”
>>
>> "an attempt in bad faith to swarm Agora and outpower the regular
>> players in voting strength." is illegal but flooding for other reasons
>> is legal, as long as they don't vote (and they're actually not you).
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>>> Actually, is being non-registered a requirement to register? Couldn't
>>> registered people just... Register again?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:43 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

 My 1-2-3 step thing was intentionally sent to DIS :P Just posted it as an
 example.

 On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:33 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>
> Definitely.
>
> > On Sep 5, 2017, at 7:29 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> >
> > < >
> > So...let's reinstate the 30 day rule?
> >
> >
> > --
> > From V.J Rada


>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J Rada
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J Rada



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I take an action

[V.J Rada]

I was thinking of getting 10 friends to give me trust tokens.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:12 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> < like “hey, I’m Gaelan’s friend who is totally not Gaelan. I register,
> give Gaelan my welcome package, and deregister. Hey, this is Gaelan’s
> other friend…”
>
> "an attempt in bad faith to swarm Agora and outpower the regular
> players in voting strength." is illegal but flooding for other reasons
> is legal, as long as they don't vote (and they're actually not you).
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>> Actually, is being non-registered a requirement to register? Couldn't
>> registered people just... Register again?
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:43 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>>>
>>> My 1-2-3 step thing was intentionally sent to DIS :P Just posted it as an
>>> example.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:33 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

 Definitely.

 > On Sep 5, 2017, at 7:29 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
 >
 > <>>> >
 > So...let's reinstate the 30 day rule?
 >
 >
 > --
 > From V.J Rada
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J Rada



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I take an action

[V.J Rada]

< wrote:
> Actually, is being non-registered a requirement to register? Couldn't
> registered people just... Register again?
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:43 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>>
>> My 1-2-3 step thing was intentionally sent to DIS :P Just posted it as an
>> example.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:33 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>>>
>>> Definitely.
>>>
>>> > On Sep 5, 2017, at 7:29 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > <>> >
>>> > So...let's reinstate the 30 day rule?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > From V.J Rada
>>
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I take an action

[Cuddle Beam]

Actually, is being non-registered a requirement to register? Couldn't
registered people just... Register again?

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:43 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> My 1-2-3 step thing was intentionally sent to DIS :P Just posted it as an
> example.
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:33 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>
>> Definitely.
>>
>> > On Sep 5, 2017, at 7:29 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
>> >
>> > <> >
>> > So...let's reinstate the 30 day rule?
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > From V.J Rada
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I take an action

[Cuddle Beam]

My 1-2-3 step thing was intentionally sent to DIS :P Just posted it as an
example.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:33 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> Definitely.
>
> > On Sep 5, 2017, at 7:29 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> >
> > < >
> > So...let's reinstate the 30 day rule?
> >
> >
> > --
> > From V.J Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I take an action

[Gaelan Steele]

Definitely. 

> On Sep 5, 2017, at 7:29 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> 
> < 
> So...let's reinstate the 30 day rule?
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I take an action

[V.J Rada]

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I take an action

[Gaelan Steele]

E could stash his money in an organization. 

Side note: have we ever had scams involving person-ness? Something like “hey, 
I’m Gaelan’s friend who is totally not Gaelan. I register, give Gaelan my 
welcome package, and deregister. Hey, this is Gaelan’s other friend…”

Gaelan

On Sep 5, 2017, at 7:16 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:

>>> Also, deregistraion puts you on timeout.
> This is the whole point of my reregistration and the CFJ. It's not at
> all clear that this is the case.
> 
> If CB said something more ambiguous like "whoo here I am here I am
> playing this game now unlike before" or w/e, sure it would work
> probably. All the money CB acquired before his deregistrations would
> be owing to Agora though so he wouldn't have infinite money.
> 
>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> For the avoidance of doubt, this was sent to DIS. Also, deregistraion puts
>> you on timeout.
>> 
>> On Sep 5, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>> 
>> Also:
>> 
>> 1) I deregister
>> 2) HURR DURR I REG1STOR
>> 3) I claim a Welcome Package.
>> 
>> Repeat 1-2-3 until Agora is out of cash.
>> 
>> .when Agora isn't broke af lol
>> 
>>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
>>> 
 On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 10:00 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
 i wish 2 do da playery-playery stuff like da agencies and da votin'
 and da ownin' of da money n' all that. i now change my status 2 be
 able to do all dat stuff.
>>> 
>>> The second sentence looks a lot like an action by announcement, but
>>> maybe the first one works?
>>> 
>>> At least, it's completely obvious that you want to be a player as of
>>> this message, and IIRC that's our current criterion to become one.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> ais523
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I take an action

[V.J Rada]

>>Also, deregistraion puts you on timeout.
This is the whole point of my reregistration and the CFJ. It's not at
all clear that this is the case.

If CB said something more ambiguous like "whoo here I am here I am
playing this game now unlike before" or w/e, sure it would work
probably. All the money CB acquired before his deregistrations would
be owing to Agora though so he wouldn't have infinite money.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> For the avoidance of doubt, this was sent to DIS. Also, deregistraion puts
> you on timeout.
>
> On Sep 5, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>
> Also:
>
> 1) I deregister
> 2) HURR DURR I REG1STOR
> 3) I claim a Welcome Package.
>
> Repeat 1-2-3 until Agora is out of cash.
>
> .when Agora isn't broke af lol
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 10:00 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
>> > i wish 2 do da playery-playery stuff like da agencies and da votin'
>> > and da ownin' of da money n' all that. i now change my status 2 be
>> > able to do all dat stuff.
>>
>> The second sentence looks a lot like an action by announcement, but
>> maybe the first one works?
>>
>> At least, it's completely obvious that you want to be a player as of
>> this message, and IIRC that's our current criterion to become one.
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I take an action

[Gaelan Steele]

For the avoidance of doubt, this was sent to DIS. Also, deregistraion puts you 
on timeout.  

> On Sep 5, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> Also:
> 
> 1) I deregister
> 2) HURR DURR I REG1STOR
> 3) I claim a Welcome Package.
> 
> Repeat 1-2-3 until Agora is out of cash.
> 
> .when Agora isn't broke af lol
> 
>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
>> On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 10:00 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
>> > i wish 2 do da playery-playery stuff like da agencies and da votin'
>> > and da ownin' of da money n' all that. i now change my status 2 be
>> > able to do all dat stuff.
>> 
>> The second sentence looks a lot like an action by announcement, but
>> maybe the first one works?
>> 
>> At least, it's completely obvious that you want to be a player as of
>> this message, and IIRC that's our current criterion to become one.
>> 
>> --
>> ais523
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I take an action

[Cuddle Beam]

Also:

1) I deregister
2) HURR DURR I REG1STOR
3) I claim a Welcome Package.

Repeat 1-2-3 until Agora is out of cash.

.when Agora isn't broke af lol

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 10:00 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
> > i wish 2 do da playery-playery stuff like da agencies and da votin'
> > and da ownin' of da money n' all that. i now change my status 2 be
> > able to do all dat stuff.
>
> The second sentence looks a lot like an action by announcement, but
> maybe the first one works?
>
> At least, it's completely obvious that you want to be a player as of
> this message, and IIRC that's our current criterion to become one.
>
> --
> ais523
>

DIS: Re: BUS: I take an action

[Cuddle Beam]

This is beautiful

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:00 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:

> i wish 2 do da playery-playery stuff like da agencies and da votin'
> and da ownin' of da money n' all that. i now change my status 2 be
> able to do all dat stuff.
>
> --
> From V.J Rada
>

DIS: Re: BUS: I take an action

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 10:00 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
> i wish 2 do da playery-playery stuff like da agencies and da votin'
> and da ownin' of da money n' all that. i now change my status 2 be
> able to do all dat stuff.

The second sentence looks a lot like an action by announcement, but
maybe the first one works?

At least, it's completely obvious that you want to be a player as of
this message, and IIRC that's our current criterion to become one.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Monsters

[Alex Smith]

On Tue, 2017-09-05 at 19:00 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Proto: Perks. A Player has a Perk if they fulfill the requirements in
> brackets next to the perk's name. Perks are the following:
> 
> - Monsters Miners: [Having a Monster with at least 9 Power at an Estate you
> own] Allows you to purchase Stamps whenever you want, not only once per
> month.

Scammable. I'm not going to share the details because it's a fairly fun
scam and might be reusable under other rulesets (and you might need the
Secretary's help), but the specific outcome of using the scam in this
context wouldn't be pretty.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Monsters

[Alex Smith]

On Tue, 2017-09-05 at 07:43 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 
> Proto:  Portfolio wins.
> 
>  Estates are worth 10 points each.  Stamps are worth 2 points each
>  Monsters are worth 5 points each.  (other possible assets other
>  than shinies).
> 
>  A Portfolio is a combination of assets worth 200 or more points.
>  A Player CAN submit an SHA-512 hash of a text detailing a specific
>  portfolio (specific, non-conditionally defined set of assets) -
>  this becomes eir target portfolio.   If a player has submitted a
>  target portfolio and not changed it in 6 weeks, e CAN win the game
>  if e possesses all the assets in the target portfolio and publishes
>  eir target portfolio (confirmable via hash).
> 
>  [add some text so the same portfolio can't win multiple times, etc]

Numbers are off here, I think. Estates and Stamps are both rate-limited 
as a matter of months, and Monsters are rate-limited by Stamps, making
this a very long-term goal; being able to change your portfolio only 6
weeks before winning is a very short time period in comparison. Either
the point count needs to be lower, or the lockout period needs to be
longer.

Also, this doesn't really fit with monsters as envisaged by the
original proposal, as you'd have no reason to go for the stronger ones.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Monsters

[Nicholas Evans]

I really like this.

On Sep 5, 2017 9:44 AM, "Kerim Aydin"  wrote:

>
>
> Proto:  Portfolio wins.
>
>  Estates are worth 10 points each.  Stamps are worth 2 points each
>  Monsters are worth 5 points each.  (other possible assets other
>  than shinies).
>
>  A Portfolio is a combination of assets worth 200 or more points.
>  A Player CAN submit an SHA-512 hash of a text detailing a specific
>  portfolio (specific, non-conditionally defined set of assets) -
>  this becomes eir target portfolio.   If a player has submitted a
>  target portfolio and not changed it in 6 weeks, e CAN win the game
>  if e possesses all the assets in the target portfolio and publishes
>  eir target portfolio (confirmable via hash).
>
>  [add some text so the same portfolio can't win multiple times, etc]
>
>
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> > Right now, under my reading, Monsters don't do anything when created? In
> > my experience stub mechanics wither before being expanded upon. I'd
> > suggest making a more clear usage of Monsters. Additionally your
> > proposal should specify AI and Power for the enacted rule.
> >
> >
> > On 09/04/17 23:16, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > > I create the following proposal and pend it with 1 Action Point:
> > >
> > > - Title: Monsters
> > >
> > > - Content: Create a rule that titled "Monsters" and with the following
> > > content:
> > >
> > > "Monsters are entities that exist within Estates and are tracked by
> > > the Surveyor. Monsters have a name which is a string of text and an
> > > amount of Power, which is equal to the amount of characters their name
> > > string has. (eg, an "Imp" has a Power of 3, and a "Pit Demon" has a
> > > power of 9).
> > >
> > > Players CAN, by announcement, cause themselves to lose a positive
> > > integer amount of Stamps and create a Monster at an Estate of their
> > > choice with Power equal to, at most, the square of the Stamps they
> > > chose to lose."
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Monsters

[Cuddle Beam]

Proto: Perks. A Player has a Perk if they fulfill the requirements in
brackets next to the perk's name. Perks are the following:

- Monsters Miners: [Having a Monster with at least 9 Power at an Estate you
own] Allows you to purchase Stamps whenever you want, not only once per
month.

---*---

Logistically, at least 3 people would need to group up and work together to
make this happen unless you want to wait a long time and just do it by your
own (or maybe buy stamps from others! Oho). Intentionally so for game
design so that people can have a reason to start to self-organize with
Organizations (or whatever version of it we happen to get in the future)
and Agencies. Or do it on their own and start to trade in the Stamp economy
(do I hold onto my Stamps and sell them later? do I invest them into making
a Monster Mine? I wonder if Bob would like to make a Mine with me.).

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Josh T  wrote:

> I kind of like this idea, and goodness knows that I am perfectly willing
> to deal with long-term mechanics and planning. *looks at 蘭亭社*
>
> 天火狐
>
> On 5 September 2017 at 10:11, Nic Evans  wrote:
>
>> Right now, under my reading, Monsters don't do anything when created? In
>> my experience stub mechanics wither before being expanded upon. I'd
>> suggest making a more clear usage of Monsters. Additionally your
>> proposal should specify AI and Power for the enacted rule.
>>
>>
>> On 09/04/17 23:16, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> > I create the following proposal and pend it with 1 Action Point:
>> >
>> > - Title: Monsters
>> >
>> > - Content: Create a rule that titled "Monsters" and with the following
>> > content:
>> >
>> > "Monsters are entities that exist within Estates and are tracked by
>> > the Surveyor. Monsters have a name which is a string of text and an
>> > amount of Power, which is equal to the amount of characters their name
>> > string has. (eg, an "Imp" has a Power of 3, and a "Pit Demon" has a
>> > power of 9).
>> >
>> > Players CAN, by announcement, cause themselves to lose a positive
>> > integer amount of Stamps and create a Monster at an Estate of their
>> > choice with Power equal to, at most, the square of the Stamps they
>> > chose to lose."
>>
>>
>>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Monsters

[Josh T]

I kind of like this idea, and goodness knows that I am perfectly willing to
deal with long-term mechanics and planning. *looks at 蘭亭社*

天火狐

On 5 September 2017 at 10:11, Nic Evans  wrote:

> Right now, under my reading, Monsters don't do anything when created? In
> my experience stub mechanics wither before being expanded upon. I'd
> suggest making a more clear usage of Monsters. Additionally your
> proposal should specify AI and Power for the enacted rule.
>
>
> On 09/04/17 23:16, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > I create the following proposal and pend it with 1 Action Point:
> >
> > - Title: Monsters
> >
> > - Content: Create a rule that titled "Monsters" and with the following
> > content:
> >
> > "Monsters are entities that exist within Estates and are tracked by
> > the Surveyor. Monsters have a name which is a string of text and an
> > amount of Power, which is equal to the amount of characters their name
> > string has. (eg, an "Imp" has a Power of 3, and a "Pit Demon" has a
> > power of 9).
> >
> > Players CAN, by announcement, cause themselves to lose a positive
> > integer amount of Stamps and create a Monster at an Estate of their
> > choice with Power equal to, at most, the square of the Stamps they
> > chose to lose."
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Draft: Contracts

[Josh T]

Aw, I won't be able to keep / recreate 蘭亭社 under the new proposal. I'll
have to rethink how to test the things that should go with it should this
pass.

I would like to propose adding making CFJs as protected. I think the reason
thereof should be evident if one were party to a theoretical contract which
forbade making CFJs.

Otherwise, I think what needs to be said has been done. Well done.

天火狐

On 5 September 2017 at 11:22, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> I read this last night, slept on it, skimmed it again, and read the
> replies. Here’s my initial thoughts, thin as they are - I had more, but
> Gaelan and ais523 have already covered most of my inquiries.
>
> On Sep 4, 2017, at 11:10 PM, Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My proposal has three parts. Part 1 cleans up (tweaks and repeals)
> > existing rules. A lot of it is drawn from o's organization repeal
> > proposal, which I borrowed and then edited. Thank you, o.
>
> No problem! I’m glad you found it useful.
>
> > # 1.2.2 Change Secretary to Treasuror
>
> One thing I missed in my original Organization Repeal proposal was
> something you (Aris) did in the Assets proposal. Quoting that proposal:
>
> On Jun 9, 2017, at 3:35 PM, Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > For the avoidance of doubt, all shinies existing under the old system
> continue
> > to so under the new system, and if they would not otherwise do so, new
> shinies
> > are created to replace them.
>
> Some similar mechanism to make it clear that the Secretary becomes the
> Treasuror, rather than that the Secretary’s office ceases to be defined by
> the rules and a new office comes to be defined, would be nice. It’s not
> strictly necessary but it might influence when elections for the office can
> be called.
>
> Carrying on…
>
> On Sep 4, 2017, at 11:10 PM, Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Amend rule 2489 ("Estates") by replacing the first sentence with:
> >
> >  {{{
> >  An Estate is a type of indestructible liquid asset.
> >  }}}
>
> Did you intend to allow persons who are not players to own Estates?
>
> > Amend rule 2483 ("Economics") by replacing its text, entirely, with:
> >
> >  {{{
> >  Shinies (singular "shiny", abbreviated "sh.") are an
> >  indestructible liquid currency, and the official currency
> >  of Agora. The Treasuror is the recordkeepor for shinies.
> >
> >  The Treasuror CAN cause Agora to pay any player or
> >  contract by announcement if doing so is specified by a
> >  rule.
> >  }}}
>
> Did you intend to allow persons who are not players to own Shinies?
>
> > Repeal Rule 2485 ("You can't take it with you”).
>
> Given that this rule is completely broken - its text never applies to any
> situation which can be reached by gameplay - I’m tempted to repeal it in a
> freestanding proposal just to get it gone. Objections?
>
> > Make  Notary. [Any volunteers? Maybe our current Secretary or
> > Superintendent?]
>
> I’m happy to take the office. This is an interesting-enough idea that I’d
> hate to see it wither for lack of recordkeeping.
>
> > # 3.0 Asset Changes
> >
> > Amend Rule 2166, "Assets", by changing it to read in full:
> >
> >  An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule, authorized regulation,
> >  group of rules/regulations, or contract (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 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 if it is owned by Agora, in
> which case
> >  any player CAN transfer or destroy it without objection). The
> restrictions in
> >  the previous sentence are subject to modification by its backing
> document.
> >
> >  Unless modified by an asset's backing document, ownership of an asset is
> >  restricted to Agora, players, and contracts.
>
> Flipping my previous two questions about ownership around, did you intend
> to forbid non-player persons from ever owning assets?
>
> -o
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Stamps for sale

[Owen Jacobson]

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:30 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:

> i misremembered the date didn't i?

On Sep 4, 2017, at 11:31 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:

> well i have 1 try but it's pretty dumb. otherwise i guess i'll do so on the 
> 11th.

It’s not that. I had been looking at Agora’s balance and thinking that you had 
no way to gain Shinies when you do re-register. However, having slept on it, 
I’ve now remembered that CuddleBeam will soon owe Agora enough Shinies that 
you’ll be able to get a Welcome Package, assuming all goes well.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Draft: Contracts

[Owen Jacobson]

I read this last night, slept on it, skimmed it again, and read the replies. 
Here’s my initial thoughts, thin as they are - I had more, but Gaelan and 
ais523 have already covered most of my inquiries.

On Sep 4, 2017, at 11:10 PM, Aris Merchant  
wrote:

> My proposal has three parts. Part 1 cleans up (tweaks and repeals)
> existing rules. A lot of it is drawn from o's organization repeal
> proposal, which I borrowed and then edited. Thank you, o.

No problem! I’m glad you found it useful.

> # 1.2.2 Change Secretary to Treasuror

One thing I missed in my original Organization Repeal proposal was something 
you (Aris) did in the Assets proposal. Quoting that proposal:

On Jun 9, 2017, at 3:35 PM, Aris Merchant  
wrote:

> For the avoidance of doubt, all shinies existing under the old system continue
> to so under the new system, and if they would not otherwise do so, new shinies
> are created to replace them.

Some similar mechanism to make it clear that the Secretary becomes the 
Treasuror, rather than that the Secretary’s office ceases to be defined by the 
rules and a new office comes to be defined, would be nice. It’s not strictly 
necessary but it might influence when elections for the office can be called.

Carrying on…

On Sep 4, 2017, at 11:10 PM, Aris Merchant  
wrote:

> Amend rule 2489 ("Estates") by replacing the first sentence with:
> 
>  {{{
>  An Estate is a type of indestructible liquid asset.
>  }}}

Did you intend to allow persons who are not players to own Estates?

> Amend rule 2483 ("Economics") by replacing its text, entirely, with:
> 
>  {{{
>  Shinies (singular "shiny", abbreviated "sh.") are an
>  indestructible liquid currency, and the official currency
>  of Agora. The Treasuror is the recordkeepor for shinies.
> 
>  The Treasuror CAN cause Agora to pay any player or
>  contract by announcement if doing so is specified by a
>  rule.
>  }}}

Did you intend to allow persons who are not players to own Shinies?

> Repeal Rule 2485 ("You can't take it with you”).

Given that this rule is completely broken - its text never applies to any 
situation which can be reached by gameplay - I’m tempted to repeal it in a 
freestanding proposal just to get it gone. Objections?

> Make  Notary. [Any volunteers? Maybe our current Secretary or
> Superintendent?]

I’m happy to take the office. This is an interesting-enough idea that I’d hate 
to see it wither for lack of recordkeeping.

> # 3.0 Asset Changes
> 
> Amend Rule 2166, "Assets", by changing it to read in full:
> 
>  An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule, authorized regulation,
>  group of rules/regulations, or contract (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 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 if it is owned by Agora, in which 
> case
>  any player CAN transfer or destroy it without objection). The restrictions in
>  the previous sentence are subject to modification by its backing document.
> 
>  Unless modified by an asset's backing document, ownership of an asset is
>  restricted to Agora, players, and contracts.

Flipping my previous two questions about ownership around, did you intend to 
forbid non-player persons from ever owning assets?

-o




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: Monsters

[Kerim Aydin]

Proto:  Portfolio wins.

 Estates are worth 10 points each.  Stamps are worth 2 points each
 Monsters are worth 5 points each.  (other possible assets other
 than shinies).

 A Portfolio is a combination of assets worth 200 or more points.
 A Player CAN submit an SHA-512 hash of a text detailing a specific
 portfolio (specific, non-conditionally defined set of assets) -
 this becomes eir target portfolio.   If a player has submitted a
 target portfolio and not changed it in 6 weeks, e CAN win the game
 if e possesses all the assets in the target portfolio and publishes
 eir target portfolio (confirmable via hash).

 [add some text so the same portfolio can't win multiple times, etc]


On Tue, 5 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> Right now, under my reading, Monsters don't do anything when created? In
> my experience stub mechanics wither before being expanded upon. I'd
> suggest making a more clear usage of Monsters. Additionally your
> proposal should specify AI and Power for the enacted rule.
> 
> 
> On 09/04/17 23:16, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > I create the following proposal and pend it with 1 Action Point:
> >
> > - Title: Monsters
> >
> > - Content: Create a rule that titled "Monsters" and with the following
> > content:
> >
> > "Monsters are entities that exist within Estates and are tracked by
> > the Surveyor. Monsters have a name which is a string of text and an
> > amount of Power, which is equal to the amount of characters their name
> > string has. (eg, an "Imp" has a Power of 3, and a "Pit Demon" has a
> > power of 9).
> >
> > Players CAN, by announcement, cause themselves to lose a positive
> > integer amount of Stamps and create a Monster at an Estate of their
> > choice with Power equal to, at most, the square of the Stamps they
> > chose to lose."
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Stamps for sale

[Alex Smith]

On Tue, 2017-09-05 at 20:41 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
> there isn't really another way to register, is there? or do you want
> me to not clearly and ambiguously register, sneaking in the CFJ
> precedent but going outside of the "by announcement" definition.

I think there's been speculation for a while that this works (although
it's untested and maybe a judge would disagree). So long as your
registration is unambiguous enough to work but ambiguous enough to not
be unambiguous, I don't see why it would fail.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Stamps for sale

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Yes, that is what I want you to do.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Sep 5, 2017, at 6:41 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> 
> there isn't really another way to register, is there? or do you want
> me to not clearly and ambiguously register, sneaking in the CFJ
> precedent but going outside of the "by announcement" definition.
> 
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>> Why can’t you just register now? Registration by announcement is restricted, 
>> but registration need not be by announcement.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 5, 2017, at 2:31 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:
>>> 
>>> well i have 1 try but it's pretty dumb. otherwise i guess i'll do so
>>> on the 11th.
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:30 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
 i misremembered the date didn't i?
 
 On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
>> On Sep 4, 2017, at 10:00 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
>> 
>> I pledge to buy one for 10 shinies after registering, which I can and
>> will do on the 8th.
> 
> That’s going to be an interesting challenge for you. I’m looking forward 
> to seeing how you plan to do that.
> 
> -o
> 
 
 
 
 --
 From V.J Rada
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> From V.J Rada
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> From V.J Rada



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Stamps for sale

[V.J Rada]

there isn't really another way to register, is there? or do you want
me to not clearly and ambiguously register, sneaking in the CFJ
precedent but going outside of the "by announcement" definition.

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> Why can’t you just register now? Registration by announcement is restricted, 
> but registration need not be by announcement.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>> On Sep 5, 2017, at 2:31 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:
>>
>> well i have 1 try but it's pretty dumb. otherwise i guess i'll do so
>> on the 11th.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:30 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
>>> i misremembered the date didn't i?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> On Sep 4, 2017, at 10:00 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
>
> I pledge to buy one for 10 shinies after registering, which I can and
> will do on the 8th.

 That’s going to be an interesting challenge for you. I’m looking forward 
 to seeing how you plan to do that.

 -o

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> From V.J Rada
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J Rada
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Stamps for sale

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Why can’t you just register now? Registration by announcement is restricted, 
but registration need not be by announcement.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Sep 5, 2017, at 2:31 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> 
> well i have 1 try but it's pretty dumb. otherwise i guess i'll do so
> on the 11th.
> 
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:30 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
>> i misremembered the date didn't i?
>> 
>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>> 
 On Sep 4, 2017, at 10:00 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
 
 I pledge to buy one for 10 shinies after registering, which I can and
 will do on the 8th.
>>> 
>>> That’s going to be an interesting challenge for you. I’m looking forward to 
>>> seeing how you plan to do that.
>>> 
>>> -o
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> From V.J Rada
> 
> 
> 
> --
> From V.J Rada



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] September Estate Auction

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I was bidding because at the time it was cheap.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Sep 5, 2017, at 12:01 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 1, 2017, at 9:02 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>> 
>> As Surveyor, it is my pleasure to annouce that the September estate auction, 
>> for the estate of Cagliostro, has begun.
> 
> Now that bidding has calmed down a bit, which of the several things that are 
> different is the one that motivated you to bid, if you did not bid 
> previously? Are they things we can keep doing?
> 
> -o
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Stamps for sale

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 5 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I think it might be good to have a Google Sheet that anyone can edit to 
> post and find all of our business opportunities, hrm (likely way better
> than that chain letter doohickey I posted earlier too)

Proto:  Sales

[automates exchanges]

A player (the Seller) CAN place a set of assets in eir possession
up for Sale, listing a set of actions (the price) and/or conditions
that another player (the Buyer) can perform and/or meet to purchase
those assets.  

If a potential buyer meets the specified conditions and CAN perform
the actions, and announces that e performs those actions for the
expressed purpose of buying the assets (executing the sale), then
the actions are performed as specified and the Assets in question
are transferred from the Seller to the Buyer.  If either the
actions or the transfer are IMPOSSIBLE or ILLEGAL, neither the
action nor the transfer is performed.

[Really just a specialized type of Agency or contract, but maybe a useful
one to define explicitly].

 

Re: DIS: Draft: Contracts

[Alex Smith]

On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 23:10 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> A few design principles:
> 
> 1. Contracts should be easy to use. The primary cause for the failure
> of organizations was their complexity. You had to come up with a name.
> You had to deal with member's budgets. You had to specify whether
> things were "appropriate", without the ease of CANs and CANNOTs. You
> couldn't specify SHALLs and SHALL NOTs.

Agreed. I'd put one caveat on this: contracts should probably not be
free to create. When they were, people tended to create a lot of junk
contracts that bogged down the Notary, and sometimes created huge
series of contracts all at once for scams.

Given Agora's current economic woes, I'd suggest something like a 1 sh.
fee for creating a contract, and a 1 sh. upkeep fee per month (paid by
the contract to Agora). This is small enough to not meaningfully impact
any legitimate uses, but would probably help keep contract spam in
check. We could increase the fee slightly if we wanted to.

> 2. Contracts should be powerful, but not too powerful. The primary
> cause for the limited adoption of agencies was that you couldn't do
> much with them. Yeah, sure, you can do CANs and CANNOTs now. That's
> great, but the agency can't own assets, or create obligations, or even
> have more than one "Director". There was only one agency (the PDA,
> which I created to let someone else run Promotor temporarily) before
> Free Agency passed, greatly expanding what you could do with agencies.
> Now there are many of them, but they're still not as versatile as they
> could be. It goes without saying that we would like to avoid
> mousetraps or other scams too, so some limitations are necessary.

We probably want arbitrary SHALL and SHALL NOT on members, plus
arbitrary rules for updating the contract's internal gamestate (which
is effectively a CAN/CANNOT limited to the contract itself). Old Agoran
contracts let each contract specify its own rules for joining, leaving,
amending, etc.; we might want to change that, or to preserve it (it
certainly lead to some interesting "socially driven" scams against
contract wording, which might or might not be a good idea depending on
your point of view).

> 3. Reuse what worked. A lot of my new contract rules is drawn from the
> successful parts of the existing organization system.

Agreed. Agora's had too many attempts to produce a contract-like system
that's different from everything that's gone before, and yet it keeps
converging back on contracts. If something works, we should probably
use it.

> My proposal has three parts. Part 1 cleans up (tweaks and repeals)
> existing rules. A lot of it is drawn from o's organization repeal
> proposal, which I borrowed and then edited. Thank you, o. The second
> part consists of new rules to create contracts. The third part
> modifies the assets rule, both to conform with contracts and for some
> general minor fixes of ambiguities that have been pointed out. Each
> part has subheadings, which should hopefully make it easier to
> read/not get lost in.
> 
> Without further ado, here is my draft proposal. Comments and concerns
> appreciated, though please try not to complain about the length :).
> 
> -Aris
> 
> ---
> 
> Title: Contracts v.1
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-author(s): o, G.
> 
> 
> Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets ("[]")
> have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any 
> rules
> created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
> have been removed before its resolution.

It might be worth getting some confirmation on whether this actually
works. (The last paragraph of rule 106 would suggest yes, but I think
this is untested territory in Agora. B Nomic and BlogNomic both
explored this space quite thoroughly, though, so it certainly can work
in a successful nomic.)

> # 1 Cleanup
> # 1.1 Gamestate Cleanup
> 
> Destroy each organization.
> 
> Destroy each agency.
> 
> Destroy each contract. [Just in case.]

What about pledges? (Note that in the past, a pledge was just a
contract with one member.)

> # 1.2 Organization, Secretary, and Economic Cleanup
> # 1.2.1 Repeal Organizations
> 
> Repeal rule 2459 ("Organizations").
> 
> Repeal rule 2461 ("Death and Birth of Organizations").
> 
> Repeal rule 2460 ("Organizational Restructuring").
> 
> Repeal rule 2457 ("Lockout").

This isn't technically tied to Organizations, but I agree with
repealing it anyway just because it's likely to become a dead-end
mechanic without them.

> Repeal rule 2458 ("Invoking Lockout").
> 
> Repeal rule 2462 ("Bankruptcy").
> 
> # 1.2.2 Change Secretary to Treasuror
> 
> Amend rule 2456 ("The Secretary") by
> 
>   * Changing its title to "The Treasuror", then by
>   * Replacing its text, entirely, with:
> 
> {{{
> The Treasuror is an office, and the recordkeepor of Shinies.
> 
> The Treasuror's weekly report also includes:
> 
> 1. the 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Stamps for sale

[V.J Rada]

well i have 1 try but it's pretty dumb. otherwise i guess i'll do so
on the 11th.

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:30 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> i misremembered the date didn't i?
>
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 4, 2017, at 10:00 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
>>>
>>> I pledge to buy one for 10 shinies after registering, which I can and
>>> will do on the 8th.
>>
>> That’s going to be an interesting challenge for you. I’m looking forward to 
>> seeing how you plan to do that.
>>
>> -o
>>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J Rada



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Stamps for sale

[V.J Rada]

i misremembered the date didn't i?

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Sep 4, 2017, at 10:00 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
>>
>> I pledge to buy one for 10 shinies after registering, which I can and
>> will do on the 8th.
>
> That’s going to be an interesting challenge for you. I’m looking forward to 
> seeing how you plan to do that.
>
> -o
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

DIS: Draft: Contracts

[Aris Merchant]

I'm going to preface this by saying that my contracts proposal is kind
of long. It may take a few days for everyone to read through it and
stuff. It's long for several reasons. For one thing, it repeals about
as many rules as it creates. As I suggested, this is a consolidation
of the existing Agency and Organization mechanics, which means it
should be a net simplification, even though it doesn't feel like it.
It also adds in the whole new element that the thing is binding. At
some point we may be able to repeal pledges too, once everyone's used
to the new mechanics. Another reason is that I've littered the thing
with safety features. They're probably unnecessary, but better safe
than sorry.

A few design principles:

1. Contracts should be easy to use. The primary cause for the failure
of organizations was their complexity. You had to come up with a name.
You had to deal with member's budgets. You had to specify whether
things were "appropriate", without the ease of CANs and CANNOTs. You
couldn't specify SHALLs and SHALL NOTs.

2. Contracts should be powerful, but not too powerful. The primary
cause for the limited adoption of agencies was that you couldn't do
much with them. Yeah, sure, you can do CANs and CANNOTs now. That's
great, but the agency can't own assets, or create obligations, or even
have more than one "Director". There was only one agency (the PDA,
which I created to let someone else run Promotor temporarily) before
Free Agency passed, greatly expanding what you could do with agencies.
Now there are many of them, but they're still not as versatile as they
could be. It goes without saying that we would like to avoid
mousetraps or other scams too, so some limitations are necessary.

3. Reuse what worked. A lot of my new contract rules is drawn from the
successful parts of the existing organization system.

My proposal has three parts. Part 1 cleans up (tweaks and repeals)
existing rules. A lot of it is drawn from o's organization repeal
proposal, which I borrowed and then edited. Thank you, o. The second
part consists of new rules to create contracts. The third part
modifies the assets rule, both to conform with contracts and for some
general minor fixes of ambiguities that have been pointed out. Each
part has subheadings, which should hopefully make it easier to
read/not get lost in.

Without further ado, here is my draft proposal. Comments and concerns
appreciated, though please try not to complain about the length :).

-Aris

---

Title: Contracts v.1
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-author(s): o, G.


Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets ("[]")
have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any rules
created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
have been removed before its resolution.

# 1 Cleanup
# 1.1 Gamestate Cleanup

Destroy each organization.

Destroy each agency.

Destroy each contract. [Just in case.]

# 1.2 Organization, Secretary, and Economic Cleanup
# 1.2.1 Repeal Organizations

Repeal rule 2459 ("Organizations").

Repeal rule 2461 ("Death and Birth of Organizations").

Repeal rule 2460 ("Organizational Restructuring").

Repeal rule 2457 ("Lockout").

Repeal rule 2458 ("Invoking Lockout").

Repeal rule 2462 ("Bankruptcy").

# 1.2.2 Change Secretary to Treasuror

Amend rule 2456 ("The Secretary") by

  * Changing its title to "The Treasuror", then by
  * Replacing its text, entirely, with:

{{{
The Treasuror is an office, and the recordkeepor of Shinies.

The Treasuror's weekly report also includes:

1. the current Floating Value, and all derived values
   defined by the Rules.
2. the list of all public classes of assets.

}}}

Make o the Treasuror.

Amend the following rules, in order, by replacing the word
"Secretary" with the word "Treasuror" wherever it appears:

  * Rule 2487 ("Shiny Supply Level")
  * Rule 2498 ("Economic Wins")
  * Rule 2497 ("Floating Value")

# 1.2.3 General Economy Fixes/Cleanup

Amend rule 2489 ("Estates") by replacing the first sentence with:

  {{{
  An Estate is a type of indestructible liquid asset.
  }}}

Amend rule 2491 ("Estate Auctions") by replacing its text,
entirely, with:

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

  During an auction, any player or contract may bid a number of Shinies
  by announcement, provided that the bid is higher than all
  previously-placed bids in the same auction.

  If, at the end of the auction, there is a single highest
  bid, then the player or contract who placed that bid wins the auction.
  The winner CAN cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to the
  emself by announcement, if e pays Agora the amount of the bid. The
  person who placed the