Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] The Map of Arcadia -- September week 2

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

I mean, at least you're not the one who turned your loom into some sort of 
weird monument-like thing...

-twg

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, 10 September 2018 03:38, Reuben Staley  
wrote:

> Understood. Boy do I hate being wrong.
>
> On Sun, Sep 9, 2018, 21:37 Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
>
>> On Monday, 10 September 2018 03:28, Reuben Staley  
>> wrote:
>>> Second one is denied since it was already white when you tried to turn it 
>>> gray and therefore INEFFECTIVE.
>>
>> I don't believe that matters? Rule 2003 says:
>>
>>   3. 2 apples to set Land Type of a Land Unit which e owns to any
>>  Land Type other than Aether, whether or not e is located at
>>  that Land Unit.
>>
>> No mention of what the Land Unit's type must be _before_ the change.
>>
>>> Also, show me where you paid upkeep on that one and I'll add it back.
>>
>> If the land unit _isn't_ grey, then you are correct, but if it _is_ (which I 
>> maintain is the case), then the loom wouldn't have belonged to me at the 
>> time upkeep was due, and Rule 2560 (which says failing to pay upkeep 
>> destroys the facility) would be overpowered by Rule 2565 (which says 
>> preserved facilities can't be destroyed).
>>
>> -twg

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] The Map of Arcadia -- September week 2

[Reuben Staley]

Understood. Boy do I hate being wrong.

On Sun, Sep 9, 2018, 21:37 Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

> On Monday, 10 September 2018 03:28, Reuben Staley 
> wrote:
> > Second one is denied since it was already white when you tried to turn
> it gray and therefore INEFFECTIVE.
>
> I don't believe that matters? Rule 2003 says:
>
>   3. 2 apples to set Land Type of a Land Unit which e owns to any
>  Land Type other than Aether, whether or not e is located at
>  that Land Unit.
>
> No mention of what the Land Unit's type must be _before_ the change.
>
> > Also, show me where you paid upkeep on that one and I'll add it back.
>
> If the land unit _isn't_ grey, then you are correct, but if it _is_ (which
> I maintain is the case), then the loom wouldn't have belonged to me at the
> time upkeep was due, and Rule 2560 (which says failing to pay upkeep
> destroys the facility) would be overpowered by Rule 2565 (which says
> preserved facilities can't be destroyed).
>
> -twg
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] The Map of Arcadia -- September week 2

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

On Monday, 10 September 2018 03:28, Reuben Staley  
wrote:
> Second one is denied since it was already white when you tried to turn it 
> gray and therefore INEFFECTIVE.

I don't believe that matters? Rule 2003 says:

  3. 2 apples to set Land Type of a Land Unit which e owns to any
 Land Type other than Aether, whether or not e is located at
 that Land Unit.

No mention of what the Land Unit's type must be _before_ the change.

> Also, show me where you paid upkeep on that one and I'll add it back.

If the land unit _isn't_ grey, then you are correct, but if it _is_ (which I 
maintain is the case), then the loom wouldn't have belonged to me at the time 
upkeep was due, and Rule 2560 (which says failing to pay upkeep destroys the 
facility) would be overpowered by Rule 2565 (which says preserved facilities 
can't be destroyed).

-twg

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] The Map of Arcadia -- September week 2

[Reuben Staley]

Second one is denied since it was already white when you tried to turn it
gray and therefore INEFFECTIVE.

Also, show me where you paid upkeep on that one and I'll add it back.

On Sun, Sep 9, 2018, 21:25 Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

> CoE: Corona's loom at (3, 1) was also destroyed (e attempted to pay upkeep
> but didn't have enough steel).
> CoE: (5, -1) is grey (and therefore preserved).
>
> Also, not that I'm doubting you, but by what mechanism was the loom at (5,
> -1) destroyed? I understand that when I turned the tile grey I also
> inadvertently transferred the facility to Agora, but why does that destroy
> it?
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Monday, 10 September 2018 01:08, Reuben Staley 
> wrote:
>
> > 
> > THE MAP OF ARCADIA
> >
> > Previous: Jul 31, 2018
> > Revision 0: Sep 10, 2018
> >
> > View this report online...
> > ... as an interactive webpage:
> > https://agoranomic.org/Cartographor/int/2018-09-10.html
> > ... as a text file:
> > https://agoranomic.org/Cartographor/text/2018-09-09.txt
> >
> > CARTOGRAPHOR'S NOTE
> >
> >
> =
> >
> > Notes on Revision 0
> >
> > --
> >
> > So we had a facility deletion party. That's fun. The facilities priorly
> > given the IDs of E-I, N, and S have been destroyed. Also twg's loom at
> > (+5, -1).
> >
> > MAPS
> >
> >
> =
> >
> > LONGITUDE LONGITUDE LONGITUDE
> >
> > - 6543210123456 + - 6543210123456 + - 6543210123456 +
> >
> > 6 wwwbb 6 6 :::CAACPPC::: 6 6 : 6
> > 5 w.w.b 5 5 :.C.: 5 5 :.L.: 5
> > 4 w.w.b 4 4 :.C.: 4 4 :.K.: 4
> > 3 w.wbb 3 L 3 :.Cr: 3 L 3 :.H:: 3
> > 2 wbwbb...b 2 A 2 :CCrr...: 2 A 2 ::GPQ...: 2
> > 1 w..bwwwbbw..b 1 T 1 :..:a###t:..: 1 T 1 :..::1:2E:..: 1
> > 0 wwg.b 0 I 0 :::CT###C::.: 0 I 0 D:0:6::.: 0
> > 1 w..wwwbbbw..b 1 T 1 :..TC###Au..: 1 T 1 :..:C3:4:5..: 1
> > 2 w...w...b 2 U 2 :...CCGCC...: 2 U 2 :...BA:87...: 2
> > 3 w...b...b 3 D 3 :...GGGC:...: 3 D 3 :...:::F:...: 3
> > 4 wbbb.b..b 4 E 4 :GGG.T..: 4 E 4 ::::.:..: 4
> > 5 wwbb..b.b 5 5 ::t:..:.: 5 5 ::9N..:.: 5
> > 6 wwbbb 6 6 :::t:VCMMt::: 6 6 :::MO::IJ 6
> >
> > -   + + + + +
> >
> >
> >
> > - 6543210123456 +   - 6543210123456 +   - 6543210123456 +
> >
> >
> > LAND TYPE OWNERSHIP FACILITIES
> > - - -
> > aether (.) Agora Aether (.)
> > white (w) Aether (.) Non-Aether (:)
> > black (b) Non-Aether (:)
> > gray (g) Preserved (#) See next section
> > Gaelan (a) for key
> > Trigon (T)
> > Corona (C)
> > Aris (A)
> > ATMunn (u)
> > G. (G)
> > twg (t)
> > Murphy (M)
> > PSS[2] (P)
> > VJ Rada (V)
> >
> > FACILITIES
> >
> >
> ==
> >
> > Ranks are only listed for facilites where that information is relevant.
> > Empty rank fields are to be interpreted as the default value.
> >
> > ID Land Unit R Type Owner Notes
> >
> >
> -
> >
> > 0->0 ( 0, 0) Fountain Agora Preserved
> > 1->1 (-1, -1) 1 Mine Agora Preserved
> > 2->2 (-1, +1) 1 Orchard Agora Preserved
> > 3->3 (+1, -1) 1 Farm Agora Preserved
> > 4->4 (+1, +1) 1 Mine Agora Preserved
> > 5->5 (+1, +3) 1 Farm ATMunn
> > 6->6 ( 0, +2) Refinery Corona
> > 7->7 (+2, +2) 2 Mine Corona
> > 8->8 (+2, +1) 2 Orchard Corona
> > 9->9 (+5, 0) 4 Orchard twg
> > A->A (+2, -1) 2 Mine Corona
> > B->B (+2, -2) 2 Orchard Corona
> > C->C (+1, -2) 2 Farm Corona
> > D->D ( 0, -2) 1 Mine Trigon
> > J->E (-1, +2) 4 Mine twg
> > K->F (+3, +1) Loom Corona
> > L->G (-2, 0) 2 Orchard Corona
> > M->H (-3, 0) 2 Mine Corona
> > O->I (+6, +1) 1 Mine Murphy
> > P->J (+6, +2) 1 Orchard Murphy
> > Q->K (-4, 0) 3 Orchard Corona
> > R->L (-5, 0) 3 Orchard Corona
> > ->M (+6, -3) Refinery twg
> > ->N (+5, +1) 1 Farm Murphy
> > ->O (+6, -2) 5 Farm twg
> > ->P (-2, +1) 1 Farm D. Margaux
> > -

Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft Report

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

TTttDF

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, 10 September 2018 00:46, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

> Crap, you're right. I even wrote the resolution message, just never clicked 
> send. My bad.
>
> -twg
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Monday, 10 September 2018 00:41, Aris Merchant 
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Was Proposal 8089 ever resolved? I can't seem to find an resolution,
> > which would make quorum 2 from Proposal 8087.
> > Also, I have only a week to add them back to the pool, and that time
> > has been expended. We could add them back by proposal though. I'll
> > write one to do that.
> > On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 5:27 PM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> >
> > > I make quorum 4. Voters on proposal 8089 were Aris, G., Murphy, Trigon, 
> > > twg and Kenyon, making 6 valid ballots.
> > > Also, Aris, it would be helpful if you could redistribute proposals 
> > > 8082-8089, except 8086 which doesn't exist. (8077A-8081A haven't met 
> > > quorum yet either, but the CFJ on whether you can redistribute twice 
> > > hasn't been judged yet, and none of 8082-8089 rely on them, so I figure 
> > > it's safe to wait for a later distribution.)
> > > -twg
> > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > > On Monday, 10 September 2018 00:22, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, 9 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > quorum is 7.0, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
> > > >
> > > > quorum is 3 I think.

Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft Report

[Aris Merchant]

Was Proposal 8089 ever resolved? I can't seem to find an resolution,
which would make quorum 2 from Proposal 8087.

Also, I have only a week to add them back to the pool, and that time
has been expended. We could add them back by proposal though. I'll
write one to do that.




On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 5:27 PM Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
>
> I make quorum 4. Voters on proposal 8089 were Aris, G., Murphy, Trigon, twg 
> and Kenyon, making 6 valid ballots.
>
> Also, Aris, it would be helpful if you could redistribute proposals 
> 8082-8089, except 8086 which doesn't exist. (8077A-8081A haven't met quorum 
> yet either, but the CFJ on whether you can redistribute twice hasn't been 
> judged yet, and none of 8082-8089 rely on them, so I figure it's safe to wait 
> for a later distribution.)
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Monday, 10 September 2018 00:22, Kerim Aydin  
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 9 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >
> > > quorum is 7.0, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
> >
> > quorum is 3 I think.
>
>

DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 9 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


Fora (Rule 478, self-ratifying)



Discussion   irc://irc.freenode.net:6667/##nomic
   discussion


There seems to be a http: in the link, which doesn't work.

However, for people without irc: set up, 
https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=%23%23nomic will give a webchat 
client.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft Report

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

I make quorum 4. Voters on proposal 8089 were Aris, G., Murphy, Trigon, twg and 
Kenyon, making 6 valid ballots.

Also, Aris, it would be helpful if you could redistribute proposals 8082-8089, 
except 8086 which doesn't exist. (8077A-8081A haven't met quorum yet either, 
but the CFJ on whether you can redistribute twice hasn't been judged yet, and 
none of 8082-8089 rely on them, so I figure it's safe to wait for a later 
distribution.)

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, 10 September 2018 00:22, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
> > quorum is 7.0, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
>
> quorum is 3 I think.

Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft Report

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 9 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> quorum is 7.0, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid

quorum is 3 I think.

DIS: [Promotor] Draft Report

[Aris Merchant]

Does this look right to everyone? It's been a while (entirely my
fault), so I'm probably missing something, but this is the best I've
got right now.

With apologies,
Aris

---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 7.0, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
conditional votes).

ID  Author(s)   AITitle
---
8090*   D Margaux   1.7   Shenanigans For INEFFECTIVE Fines (v2)
8091*   Murphy, Oerjan  2.0   Slow your quorum v1.1
8092*   twg 1.0   Yet Another Economics Patch


The proposal pool is currently empty.

[1] twg, Aris, G., Corona

Legend: * : Proposal is pending.
+ : By publishing this report, I pend the marked proposal.


The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below.

//
ID: 8090
Title: Shenanigans For INEFFECTIVE Fines (v2)
Adoption index: 1.7
Author: D Margaux
Co-authors:


Amend Rule 2478 to replace this text:

“or that it would be ILLEGAL to levy a fine for it”


with this text:

“or that it would be ILLEGAL or INEFFECTIVE to levy a fine for it”

//
ID: 8091
Title: Slow your quorum v1.1
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Murphy
Co-authors: Oerjan


Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by replacing this text:

   The quorum that an Agoran Decision gains as it is created can be
   defined by other rules of power 2 or greater. If no other rule
   defines the quorum of an Agoran Decision, the quorum for that
   decision is equal to the number of players who voted on the Agoran
   Decision to adopt a proposal that had been most recently resolved
   at the time of that decision's initiation, minus 2.

with this text:

   The quorum that an Agoran Decision gains as it is created can be
   defined by other rules of power 2 or greater. If no other rule
   defines the quorum of an Agoran Decision, the quorum for that
   decision is equal to 2.

Create a rule titled "Baseline Quorum" with Power = 2 and this text:

   Baseline Quorum is a switch, tracked by the Promotor, with values
   equal to the positive integers and default value 1. When an Agoran
   Decision is created, it gains quorum equal to Baseline Quorum.

   Target Quorum is N - 2, where N is the number of players who voted
   on the most recently resolved Agoran Decision to adopt a proposal.

   Once per week, the Promotor CAN increase or decrease Baseline
   Quorum by 1 by announcement, and SHALL do so as follows:

 a) If Baseline Quorum < Target Quorum, then increase it.

 b) If Baseline Quorum > Target Quorum, then decrease it.

 c) If Baseline Quorum = Target Quorum, then announce it. E need
not change it that week.

Set Baseline Quorum equal to what Target Quorum would have been
immediately before the adoption of this proposal, if it had been
defined as above.

//
ID: 8092
Title: Yet Another Economics Patch
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: twg
Co-authors:


Amend rule 2499, "Welcome Packages", by removing the list item
"5 incense" and renumbering the other list items appropriately.

Destroy all incense.

//

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Elections

[Kerim Aydin]

If you think an SLR is close I won't work on it in parallel :).


The trick to avoiding an obligation as an Officer is to not hold the
office the instant a time limit expires (i.e. at the moment of the end
of the week or month).

You could hold the office all month and if you resign an instant before
the new month, you're not guilty of missing a monthly report. Conversely,
if you become an officer the instant before the start of the month, and
no monthly report was made, you could be guilty on a technicality[*].

So as long as you take the office and then resign without crossing 
those time instances, no crime.

[* This is a bit of a fairness issue in the current rules - you could
still get a salary e.g. for Tailor by doing no work and resigning before
the end of the month, OTOH it's obviously unfair if you're punished for
missing a duty 1 minute after taking the job].

On Sun, 9 Sep 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Not an awful lot, I'll admit. Late August and September are always quite busy 
> for me and I haven't really found time to get around to it. I have all the 
> information I need - Trigon did a prototype SLR a while ago, I also have 
> summaries of CFJs since the last FLR, and as Assessor I have been keeping 
> records of adopted proposals. It's just a matter of updating Trigon's code to 
> generate an FLR with all the necessary information, which shouldn't take more 
> than a weekend, but I'm not going to _have_ a free weekend until October at 
> least.
> 
> What I could do, I think, is publish the SLR and then immediately resign as 
> Rulekeepor, but I'm not entirely clear whether that would work to relieve me 
> of the obligation to publish the FLR too.
> 
> -twg
> 
> 
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Sunday, 9 September 2018 21:03, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 9 Sep 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> >
> > > (I do still plan to take over Rulekeepor in the future if nobody finds
> > > this objectionable, but I'm not yet prepared to do so.)
> >
> > No pressure whatsoever, but have you put much work into this so far?
> >
> > If I come to writing a land overhaul in a few weeks, I'll need to do
> > the FLR/SLR first (once, not as a job) since it would be really really
> > mistake-prone to try to write a big draft without a current SLR.
> 
> 
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Elections

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

Not an awful lot, I'll admit. Late August and September are always quite busy 
for me and I haven't really found time to get around to it. I have all the 
information I need - Trigon did a prototype SLR a while ago, I also have 
summaries of CFJs since the last FLR, and as Assessor I have been keeping 
records of adopted proposals. It's just a matter of updating Trigon's code to 
generate an FLR with all the necessary information, which shouldn't take more 
than a weekend, but I'm not going to _have_ a free weekend until October at 
least.

What I could do, I think, is publish the SLR and then immediately resign as 
Rulekeepor, but I'm not entirely clear whether that would work to relieve me of 
the obligation to publish the FLR too.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, 9 September 2018 21:03, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > (I do still plan to take over Rulekeepor in the future if nobody finds
> > this objectionable, but I'm not yet prepared to do so.)
>
> No pressure whatsoever, but have you put much work into this so far?
>
> If I come to writing a land overhaul in a few weeks, I'll need to do
> the FLR/SLR first (once, not as a job) since it would be really really
> mistake-prone to try to write a big draft without a current SLR.

DIS: Re: BUS: Elections

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 9 Sep 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> (I do still plan to take over Rulekeepor in the future if nobody finds 
> this objectionable, but I'm not yet prepared to do so.)

No pressure whatsoever, but have you put much work into this so far?

If I come to writing a land overhaul in a few weeks, I'll need to do
the FLR/SLR first (once, not as a job) since it would be really really
mistake-prone to try to write a big draft without a current SLR.

DIS: Re: BUS: Some moves and such

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 9 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> I cause nichdel pay 3 apples to stake a land claim to (-3, 1) with
> land type Black.

You must be active to stake a land claim, so this fails:
>  7. 3 apples to Stake a Land Claim on a specified land unit that is
> adjacent to the Entity's current location, is of type Aether,
> and is owned by Agora, if and only if e is active [...]

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Some moves and such

[D Margaux]

Ack! I missed that. Too bad. Thanks for catching.

On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 1:53 PM Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

> On Sunday, 9 September 2018 17:48, D Margaux 
> wrote:
> > I cause nichdel pay 3 apples to stake a land claim to (-3, 1) with
> > land type Black.
> >
> > I cause nichdel to transfer the land at (-3, 1) to D. Margaux.
> >
> > I cause nichdel to pay 1 apple to move to (-2, 1).
>
> These three actions fail; zombies cannot stake land claims.
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Some moves and such

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

On Sunday, 9 September 2018 17:48, D Margaux  wrote:
> I cause nichdel pay 3 apples to stake a land claim to (-3, 1) with
> land type Black.
>
> I cause nichdel to transfer the land at (-3, 1) to D. Margaux.
>
> I cause nichdel to pay 1 apple to move to (-2, 1).

These three actions fail; zombies cannot stake land claims.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Weekly report: Please don't summarily judge me

[D Margaux]

In the coming days, unless persuaded otherwise, I plan to uphold this
Finger Pointing and impose a forgiveable fine of 2 blots.

On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 12:28 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> I favor this case.
>
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > On August 27, 2018, I initiated a CFJ inquiring into the statement "The
> Treasuror's report of August 27, 2018, or a portion thereof, is doubted."
> >
> > I Point my Finger at the Arbitor (Murphy) for violating Rule 991/27,
> "Calls for Judgement", by not assigning an eligible player to be that CFJ's
> judge in a timely fashion after its initiation.
> >
> > -twg
> >
> >
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > On Sunday, 9 September 2018 16:12, Timon Walshe-Grey 
> wrote:
> >
> > > CoE on the most recent Treasuror report: Aris' payment of 30 coins is
> listed in the "recent changes" section but not reflected in eir balance.
> > >
> > > CoE on the coin balances in the most recent Treasuror report: Aris'
> payment of 30 coins is listed in the "recent changes" section but not
> reflected in eir balance.
> > >
> > > I accept whichever of the above CoEs is a valid doubt and publish the
> following revisions:
> > >
> > > ++--++
> > > ||Coins ||
> > > +--++--++
> > > |Aris || 122 ||
> > > +--++--++
> > > |Agora || 1042 ||
> > > +--++--++
> > >
> > > -twg
> >
> >
> >
>

DIS: Fwd: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auction - 4 zombies

[D Margaux]

FWIW, I believe this auction has terminated by virtue of there having been
no bids made or withdrawn in the past 96 hours.

-- Forwarded message -
From: D Margaux 
Date: Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auction - 4 zombies
To: Agora Business 


I bid one coin in this auction.

On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 2:12 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> I bid 35 coins in this auction.
>
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I initiate a zombie auction, with the following lots (each zombie a
> > separate lot) ordered as follows (highest-bid first):
> >
> > 1. Gaelan
> > 2. nichdel
> > 3. pokes
> > 4. 天火狐
> >
> > Agora is the Auctioneer, and the Registrar is the Announcer.  The
> > currency is Coins with a minimum bid of 1.
>
> --
D. Margaux