DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8266-8274
On Mon, 11 Nov 2019, Jason Cobb wrote:
//
ID: 8266
Title: Glitter
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: nch
Co-authors:
Enact a Power-1 rule titled "Glitter" with the following text {
If a player has earned a ribbon in the past 7 days but already owned it e
CAN
once (until e earns another ribbon), by announcement, earn N+1 coins where
N is the number of current players that do not own the same ribbon.
}
I think the "once (until e earns another ribbon)" means that this right
expires when another ribbon is earned, which could be hard to track and
might not be what was intended, especially if the last ribbon is _not_ one
already owned.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Agoran MOO?
On 11/11/19 5:37 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: So, next question: Do we have anyone who has the technical knowhow/resources to set up a server and the willingness to give trusted Agorans shell access to it? :) -Aris I'll think about this. I've got an old broken laptop sitting around that I'd be willing to convert to a server. And I'm sure I can figure out how to set up a simple SSH server. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Agoran MOO?
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 12:08 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > On 11/11/19 3:04 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > A bit off topic, but thought of creating a new Agoran MUD a little over a > > year ago. I worked on it for a few days before giving up on it for a lack > > of time. If someone is interested, I could transfer it over to our GitHub > > and it could turn into a wider collaboration. > > > > -Aris > > > I'd be interested; this sounds like a great way to procrastinate using > Agora even more. > > -- > Jason Cobb I just remembered why this won’t work. Half the data is code, but the other half is in the database, which is one huge file. You can have multiple people editing the code with git, but there has to be one canonical database. This means that there really isn’t anything in-between one person fiddling around with it on their own computer and a full server installation. So, next question: Do we have anyone who has the technical knowhow/resources to set up a server and the willingness to give trusted Agorans shell access to it? :) -Aris > >
Re: DIS: Agoran MOO?
On 11/11/19 3:04 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: A bit off topic, but thought of creating a new Agoran MUD a little over a year ago. I worked on it for a few days before giving up on it for a lack of time. If someone is interested, I could transfer it over to our GitHub and it could turn into a wider collaboration. -Aris I'd be interested; this sounds like a great way to procrastinate using Agora even more. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Agoran MOO?
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 11:40 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 11/11/2019 7:03 AM, Sgeo wrote: > > Was looking through my email archives for LambdaMOO stuff, and saw > > something about an Agoran MOO that used to exist. Is the database for > that > > available anywhere? I would love to explore it and see what people made, > > even if it's otherwise dead. > > I built some stuff there and would love to walk through it again (but I > don't have it). I want to say it was circa 2005? -G. > A bit off topic, but thought of creating a new Agoran MUD a little over a year ago. I worked on it for a few days before giving up on it for a lack of time. If someone is interested, I could transfer it over to our GitHub and it could turn into a wider collaboration. -Aris > >
Re: DIS: Draft: Contract Patency
On 11/11/19 2:38 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: Alright, a couple scams here. 1) Publish multiple documents, each with the header "this might be the text/parties list of a contract:"; that way there's still some degree of uncertainty. I hadn’t thought of that. Do you have any ideas about how to prevent that? Honestly, no, unless you want to expand the definition of "lie" to include doing something like that (or if the court were to find that it already is a lie). 2) Have the contract defer to a document that can be privately changed. I did actually think of that one. You’ll note that I said “actually or effectively unavailable” just below. That should stop people from doing that. I think this would depend on what counts as a provision; I was thinking the provision would just be "go see that other document", which could easily be publicly available, but if each rule in the secret document were also a provision, then this would work. As for the rest of your responses, thanks for clearing that up for me. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Random Small Protos
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 11:44 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 11/11/2019 5:58 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > On 11/11/19 8:53 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > >> Until just before you registered, the default voting strength was 1 > (still > >> with a maximum of 5). We increased it because it meant 3 blots was > enough > >> to totally nullify your vote, which seemed punitive. > >> > >> -twg > > > > Oh god, that seems very harsh. And I guess I was using the wrong > definition > > of "recently" :P. Thanks! > > > > It also meant the PM used to have a full extra-person's worth of vote - > (we didn't increase the PM vote when we increased the baseline). And it > was when a person could own multiple zombies so it was possible to get > to pass an AI-1 proposal by yourself (if quorum wasn't an obstacle). > > -G. Hmm, I’d forgotten about the PM. What would people think of increasing that up to two or three extra votes? -Aris > > >
Re: DIS: Random Small Protos
On 11/11/19 2:43 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 11/11/2019 5:58 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: On 11/11/19 8:53 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Until just before you registered, the default voting strength was 1 (still with a maximum of 5). We increased it because it meant 3 blots was enough to totally nullify your vote, which seemed punitive. -twg Oh god, that seems very harsh. And I guess I was using the wrong definition of "recently" :P. Thanks! It also meant the PM used to have a full extra-person's worth of vote - (we didn't increase the PM vote when we increased the baseline). And it was when a person could own multiple zombies so it was possible to get to pass an AI-1 proposal by yourself (if quorum wasn't an obstacle). -G. Democracy at its finest! :) -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Random Small Protos
On 11/11/2019 5:58 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: On 11/11/19 8:53 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Until just before you registered, the default voting strength was 1 (still with a maximum of 5). We increased it because it meant 3 blots was enough to totally nullify your vote, which seemed punitive. -twg Oh god, that seems very harsh. And I guess I was using the wrong definition of "recently" :P. Thanks! It also meant the PM used to have a full extra-person's worth of vote - (we didn't increase the PM vote when we increased the baseline). And it was when a person could own multiple zombies so it was possible to get to pass an AI-1 proposal by yourself (if quorum wasn't an obstacle). -G.
Re: DIS: Agoran MOO?
On 11/11/2019 7:03 AM, Sgeo wrote: > Was looking through my email archives for LambdaMOO stuff, and saw > something about an Agoran MOO that used to exist. Is the database for that > available anywhere? I would love to explore it and see what people made, > even if it's otherwise dead. I built some stuff there and would love to walk through it again (but I don't have it). I want to say it was circa 2005? -G.
Re: DIS: Draft: Contract Patency
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 6:37 AM Jason Cobb wrote: > On 11/11/19 1:10 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > -- > > Title: Contract Patency > > Adoption index: 3.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: > > > > > > Amend Rule 2519, "Consent", to read in full: > >A person is deemed to have consented to an action if and only if: > > > >1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated, and not subsequently > > publicly withdrawn eir statement, that e agrees to the action; > >2. e is party to a contract indicating eir consent; > >3. it is reasonably clear from context that e wanted the > > action to take place; or > >4. that action is taken without objection (in addition to any other > > requirements normally in place for performing it). > > Does "without objection" mean specifically the dependent action method > or something much looser? I.e. Can I perform any action in the Rules > "without objection" and get everyone's consent? Specifically the dependent action method, so yeah, if no one objects in 4 days they all consent. The point here is allowing people to do things like amending a broken contract, or terminating an obsolete one, even if one of the parties is now inactive. I figured that once one goes that far, one may as well go all the way. On the other hand, this has the feeling of something that may be a bit messy as a result of me trying to be too clever... > > > > > Amend Rule 1742, "Contracts", to read in full: > > > >Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may > >make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be > >binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement > >is known as a pact. > > While we're touching this, would it be a good idea to clarify that pacts > are textual? Erm... Possibly? It might be a bit limiting though, so I’d lean against it. Currently, one can have a pact that isn’t clearly markedly “the pact begins here and ends there” so long as it’s clear what parts are actually intended to be binding. This is admittedly a bit more work for the Notary, but it shouldn’t be too bad. > > > > A pact may be modified, including > >by changing the set of parties, with the consent of all existing > >parties. A pact may also terminate with the consent of all > >parties. A pact automatically terminates if the number of > >parties to it falls below two. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to > >become a party to a pact without eir consent. > > > >Parties to a pact governed by the rules SHALL act in > >accordance with that pact. This obligation is not impaired > >by contradiction between the pact and any other pact, or > >between the pact and the rules. > > > > Retitle Rule 1742 to "Pacts". > > > > Enact a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Contracts", with the following > text: > >A contract it a pact that has been made patent. A pact is patent > >if its full provisions and list of parties have been made available in > >public. The above notwithstanding, a pact cannot become patent if it > states > >that it cannot. > > Alright, a couple scams here. > > 1) Publish multiple documents, each with the header "this might be the > text/parties list of a contract:"; that way there's still some degree of > uncertainty. I hadn’t thought of that. Do you have any ideas about how to prevent that? > > 2) Have the contract defer to a document that can be privately changed. I did actually think of that one. You’ll note that I said “actually or effectively unavailable” just below. That should stop people from doing that. > > > >Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any change that would cause > the full > >provisions or parties of a contract to become actually or effectively > >publicly unavailable is canceled and does not take effect. > > Does this mean that contracts cannot specify changes to their own text? > Or does it just mean that a person would have to publish the new text > before the change took place. The line is deliberately ambiguous, because I couldn’t think of a bright line I felt comfortable with. I mean, one could go with “the full text just be posted publicly if it changes”, but that feels really limiting, and I feel like there are probably situations that should be allowed that it leaves out. This seems like the sort of thing that should be left to the judiciary. > > > > Enact a new power 2.0 rule, entitled "The Notary", with the following > text: > > > >The Notary is an office. > > > >The Notary's weekly report contains: > > > >1. every pledge, along with its title, creator, time window, time of > > creation, and time of expiry; and > >2. every contract, with its title, full provisions, and parties. > > > >If the Notary is required to report a title, but none has been > otherwise > >provided, e CAN select one. > > > >The transitional period lasts for at least 90 days after this rule > comes > >into force,
DIS: Agoran MOO?
Was looking through my email archives for LambdaMOO stuff, and saw something about an Agoran MOO that used to exist. Is the database for that available anywhere? I would love to explore it and see what people made, even if it's otherwise dead.
Re: DIS: Draft: Contract Patency
On 11/11/19 1:10 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: -- Title: Contract Patency Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: Amend Rule 2519, "Consent", to read in full: A person is deemed to have consented to an action if and only if: 1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated, and not subsequently publicly withdrawn eir statement, that e agrees to the action; 2. e is party to a contract indicating eir consent; 3. it is reasonably clear from context that e wanted the action to take place; or 4. that action is taken without objection (in addition to any other requirements normally in place for performing it). Does "without objection" mean specifically the dependent action method or something much looser? I.e. Can I perform any action in the Rules "without objection" and get everyone's consent? Amend Rule 1742, "Contracts", to read in full: Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a pact. While we're touching this, would it be a good idea to clarify that pacts are textual? A pact may be modified, including by changing the set of parties, with the consent of all existing parties. A pact may also terminate with the consent of all parties. A pact automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls below two. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to become a party to a pact without eir consent. Parties to a pact governed by the rules SHALL act in accordance with that pact. This obligation is not impaired by contradiction between the pact and any other pact, or between the pact and the rules. Retitle Rule 1742 to "Pacts". Enact a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Contracts", with the following text: A contract it a pact that has been made patent. A pact is patent if its full provisions and list of parties have been made available in public. The above notwithstanding, a pact cannot become patent if it states that it cannot. Alright, a couple scams here. 1) Publish multiple documents, each with the header "this might be the text/parties list of a contract:"; that way there's still some degree of uncertainty. 2) Have the contract defer to a document that can be privately changed. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any change that would cause the full provisions or parties of a contract to become actually or effectively publicly unavailable is canceled and does not take effect. Does this mean that contracts cannot specify changes to their own text? Or does it just mean that a person would have to publish the new text before the change took place. Enact a new power 2.0 rule, entitled "The Notary", with the following text: The Notary is an office. The Notary's weekly report contains: 1. every pledge, along with its title, creator, time window, time of creation, and time of expiry; and 2. every contract, with its title, full provisions, and parties. If the Notary is required to report a title, but none has been otherwise provided, e CAN select one. The transitional period lasts for at least 90 days after this rule comes into force, and until it is ended by any player by announcement thereafter. A pledge or contract is invisible if it was created before this rule came into force, and has not been publicly posted since this rule came into force. Should this be "A pledge or pact is invisible"? Also, is it really possible for a pledge to be invisible, since a pledge must be made publicly per R2450? -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Random Small Protos
On 11/11/19 8:53 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Until just before you registered, the default voting strength was 1 (still with a maximum of 5). We increased it because it meant 3 blots was enough to totally nullify your vote, which seemed punitive. -twg Oh god, that seems very harsh. And I guess I was using the wrong definition of "recently" :P. Thanks! -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] November Zombie Auction
On Monday, November 11, 2019 1:54 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > On Thursday, November 7, 2019 12:52 AM, James Cook > wrote: > > > I initiate a zombie auction, with the following single lot: > > > > 1. Jacob Arduino > > I bid 1 coin. ...dammit, I'm a few hours past the deadline. -twg
Re: DIS: Random Small Protos
On Monday, November 11, 2019 1:36 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > Did we increase the base? The most recent SLR still says the default is > 3, and I found no proposals since then that increased it, but I could be > missing something. Until just before you registered, the default voting strength was 1 (still with a maximum of 5). We increased it because it meant 3 blots was enough to totally nullify your vote, which seemed punitive. -twg
Re: DIS: Random Small Protos
On 11/11/19 3:10 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: Title: Voting Strength Cap Increase Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Aris Co-author(s): Amend Rule 2422, "Voting Strength", by changing the text "The voting strength of an entity on an Agoran decision is an integer between 0 and 5 inclusive" to read "The voting strength of an entity on an Agoran decision is an integer between 0 and 10 inclusive". [Adjusting the cap, now that we've increased the base.] Did we increase the base? The most recent SLR still says the default is 3, and I found no proposals since then that increased it, but I could be missing something. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Random Small Protos
Title: Generic Petitions Adoption index: 1.5 Author: Aris Co-author(s): Amend Rule 649, "Patent Titles", by removing the paragraph: If a player publicly petitions that the Herald award a patent title to another player for a specified reason, the Herald SHALL respond in a timely fashion by either attempting to grant an appropriate patent title or explaining publicly why no patent title is warranted. Amend Rule 2143, "Official Reports and Duties", by appending as a new paragraph at the end: If an office has a discretionary power, and a player publicly petitions the officer to apply that power in a specific case or manner, the officer SHALL publicly respond in a timely fashion. [No reason this should be specific to Herald (yes, I know I added it in the first place), and it seems like a good convention to have. It could be applied to regulations, for instance. I can propose to repeal this if it's preferred.] --- Title: Voting Strength Cap Increase Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Aris Co-author(s): Amend Rule 2422, "Voting Strength", by changing the text "The voting strength of an entity on an Agoran decision is an integer between 0 and 5 inclusive" to read "The voting strength of an entity on an Agoran decision is an integer between 0 and 10 inclusive". [Adjusting the cap, now that we've increased the base.]
