Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[Cuddle Beam]

>I’m not, at least for the present. Agora cannot receive cards, and in any
case, carding Agora has no ludic effect, platonic OR pragmatic.

Agora would need to be a person too. (because "The person
 to whom the Card
 is being issued (the bad sport),
and" in R2426)

I don't think that with our current definition of Person and Agora, we'd
ever be able to have Agora be a Person, because Agora, as the gestalt of
our game actions, depends on our own "independent thoughts" to exist,
because it's those which create game actions and everything Agora "is"
(according to the Ruleset definition of itself).

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 3:52 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> On Sep 22, 2017, at 9:46 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>
> > Also, I am curious about the implications of Agora doing
> > something ILLEGAL.
>
> I’m not, at least for the present. Agora cannot receive cards, and in any
> case, carding Agora has no ludic effect, platonic OR pragmatic.
>
> On 09/22/17 19:46, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
> >To "call in" a pledge" is to destroy it. A player can call in
> >any pledge with Agoran Consent, if e announces a reason the
> >Terms of the pledge should be considered broken. Support for an
> >intent to call in a pledge is INEFFECTIVE unless the supporting
> >player explicitly confirms the reasons that the pledge should
> >be considered broken.
> >
> >It is ILLEGAL to own a pledge when it is called in.
>
> On Sep 22, 2017, at 9:46 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>
> > Should be uppercase CAN in "A player can call in" I think. Also should
> > there be MAYs? I'm still confused about that.
>
> It should, for consistency if for no other reason. It’s also possible that
> that “can” is meaningfully different from “CAN” in this context. Thanks.
>
> I believe that MAYs are not required here, as the actions defined here are
> not otherwise made illegal in any way. They’re Regulated, which means it is
> only possible to do them as described, but they’re not obviously in
> contravention of a SHALL NOT or similar anywhere. MAY appears to be useful
> for carving out exceptions to blanket illegality, not for ensuring that an
> action that’s otherwise not defined as being either illegal or as legal
> will be legal. CANs are sufficient for that, in most cases, by my read of
> Mother, May I? and related precedent.
>
> -o
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:


Title: Make Your Home Shine
Author: o
Co-authors: CuddleBeam, Ørjan, V.J Rada
AI: 1.7



Ratify the following statement:

   {
   The only pledge owned by o was created on Aug 23, 2017.
   }


You need AI >= 3 for ratification.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[Owen Jacobson]

On Sep 22, 2017, at 9:46 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:

> Also, I am curious about the implications of Agora doing
> something ILLEGAL.

I’m not, at least for the present. Agora cannot receive cards, and in any case, 
carding Agora has no ludic effect, platonic OR pragmatic.

On 09/22/17 19:46, Owen Jacobson wrote:

>To "call in" a pledge" is to destroy it. A player can call in
>any pledge with Agoran Consent, if e announces a reason the
>Terms of the pledge should be considered broken. Support for an
>intent to call in a pledge is INEFFECTIVE unless the supporting
>player explicitly confirms the reasons that the pledge should
>be considered broken.
> 
>It is ILLEGAL to own a pledge when it is called in.

On Sep 22, 2017, at 9:46 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:

> Should be uppercase CAN in "A player can call in" I think. Also should
> there be MAYs? I'm still confused about that.

It should, for consistency if for no other reason. It’s also possible that that 
“can” is meaningfully different from “CAN” in this context. Thanks.

I believe that MAYs are not required here, as the actions defined here are not 
otherwise made illegal in any way. They’re Regulated, which means it is only 
possible to do them as described, but they’re not obviously in contravention of 
a SHALL NOT or similar anywhere. MAY appears to be useful for carving out 
exceptions to blanket illegality, not for ensuring that an action that’s 
otherwise not defined as being either illegal or as legal will be legal. CANs 
are sufficient for that, in most cases, by my read of Mother, May I? and 
related precedent.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[Nic Evans]

On 09/22/17 20:46, Nic Evans wrote:
>
> On 09/22/17 19:46, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
>> Create a pledge owned by nichdel, whose terms are
>>
>> {
>> I pledge to not acknowledge any messages Cuddle Beam sends to
>> a-d, or to respond in a-d to anything CB does.
>> }
> I already broke this pledge, which I believe makes it impossible for me
> to be punished for it again. Thus this is equivalent to remaking the
> pledge for me.

I forgot to cut out everything above this to make it more visible, so
here it is again.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[Nic Evans]

On 09/22/17 19:46, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> I noticed a significant mechanical defect and a style defect after I pended 
> it, so I withdraw the proposal “Make Your Home Shine” and submit the 
> following proposal in its place. This time, for sure!
>
> Title: Make Your Home Shine
> Author: o
> Co-authors: CuddleBeam, Ørjan, V.J Rada
> AI: 1.7
>
> {{{
> This proposal CANNOT create a pledge, other than via clauses that begin 
> "Create
> a pledge".
>
> Amend rule 2450 ("Pledges") to read, in full:
>
> {
> Pledges are an indestructible fixed asset. Ownership of pledges
> is restricted to persons. The Referee is the recordkeepor of
> pledges. Creating, destroying, modifying, and transferring
> pledges are secured.
>
> To "pledge" something is to create a pledge with those terms. A
> person CAN pledge by announcement to create a pledge e owns.
>
> To "retract" (syn "withdraw") a pledge is to destroy it. A
> person CAN retract a pledge e owns without objection.
>
> To "call in" a pledge" is to destroy it. A player can call in
> any pledge with Agoran Consent, if e announces a reason the
> Terms of the pledge should be considered broken. Support for an
> intent to call in a pledge is INEFFECTIVE unless the supporting
> player explicitly confirms the reasons that the pledge should
> be considered broken.
>
> It is ILLEGAL to own a pledge when it is called in.

Should be uppercase CAN in "A player can call in" I think. Also should
there be MAYs? I'm still confused about that.

Otherwise I *think* you've done as much as possible to make this
airtight. My main concern is that Agora will eventually somehow own a
pledge, which appears to be transferable regardless of the 'fixed'
property. Also, I am curious about the implications of Agora doing
something ILLEGAL.

> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by Quazie, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge to give 1 Shiny to the first person who can,
> correctly, with e-mail citations, explain what I did wrong on
> Jan 20th 2009 that has since led to me being a fugitive. For
> the explanation to be valid for this pledge, it should be fully
> self contained, I should not have to go look up past rules in
> order to understand the explanation (So please, include all
> source info in the explanation).
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by V.J Rada, whose terms are
>
> {
> However I now pledge to include more recapping of agoran events
> in future newspapers.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by V.J Rada, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge not to make any thread titles completely unrelated to
> the email's content, nor use any agency or other mechanism to
> attempt to gain control of any player at the exclusion of all
> other players.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by o, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge that, for the next month, if I have not yet paid a
> total of 30 shinies under this pledge, and a player pledges to
> pay me 6 Shinies within a month, I will pay em 5 Shinies in a
> timely fashion.
> }
>
> Ratify the following statement:
>
> {
> The only pledge owned by o was created on Aug 23, 2017.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by Gaelan, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge to, for at least the next month, vote AGAINST any
> proposal that amends rules by providing new text in full unless
> the text of the rule is nearly entirely changed.
> }
>
> Ratify the following statement:
>
> {
> The only pledge owned by Gaelan was created on Sep 14, 2017.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by nichdel, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge to vote AGAINST on all proposals created or pended by
> Cuddle Beam.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by nichdel, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge to Object to all intentions by Cuddle Beam that I can
> object to.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by nichdel, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge to not acknowledge any messages Cuddle Beam sends to
> a-d, or to respond in a-d to anything CB does.
> }

I already broke this pledge, which I believe makes it impossible for me
to be punished for it again. Thus this is equivalent to remaking the
pledge for me.

>
> Create a pledge owned by nichdel, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge to give a trust token and 5 shinies (as soon as
> possible) to any other player who also performs the above three
> pledges, except Cuddle Beam.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by nichdel, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge to not refer to 天火狐 as Josh or Josh T.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, whose terms
> are
>
> {
> I too pledge to not refer to 天火狐 as Josh or Josh T.
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2017-09-22 at 21:13 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> Rule 2166:
> 
> > A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing document, and
> > CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.
> 
> Proposal:
> 
> > Pledges are an indestructible fixed asset.
> 
> I’m assuming that framework for fixed assets actually functions, of
> course.

Aha. Somehow I was fixated on the "indestructible" and missed the
"fixed".

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 22, 2017, at 9:09 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 2017-09-22 at 20:46 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> I noticed a significant mechanical defect and a style defect after I
>> pended it, so I withdraw the proposal “Make Your Home Shine” and
>> submit the following proposal in its place. This time, for sure!
> 
> What prevents pledge owners from transferring them to other players?
> Rule 2166 generally allows players to transfer assets away, and I
> didn't notice anything here that stops that (stating that doing so is
> secured simply prevents low-powered rules permitting the transfer, and
> rule 2166 is easily powerful enough).

Rule 2166:

> A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing document, and CANNOT be 
> transferred; any other asset is liquid.

Proposal:

> Pledges are an indestructible fixed asset.

I’m assuming that framework for fixed assets actually functions, of course.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[Aris Merchant]

They're defined as a "fixed" asset, which means they can't be transferred.

-Aris

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-09-22 at 20:46 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> I noticed a significant mechanical defect and a style defect after I
>> pended it, so I withdraw the proposal “Make Your Home Shine” and
>> submit the following proposal in its place. This time, for sure!
>
> What prevents pledge owners from transferring them to other players?
> Rule 2166 generally allows players to transfer assets away, and I
> didn't notice anything here that stops that (stating that doing so is
> secured simply prevents low-powered rules permitting the transfer, and
> rule 2166 is easily powerful enough).
>
> --
> ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2017-09-22 at 20:46 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> I noticed a significant mechanical defect and a style defect after I
> pended it, so I withdraw the proposal “Make Your Home Shine” and
> submit the following proposal in its place. This time, for sure!

What prevents pledge owners from transferring them to other players?
Rule 2166 generally allows players to transfer assets away, and I
didn't notice anything here that stops that (stating that doing so is
secured simply prevents low-powered rules permitting the transfer, and
rule 2166 is easily powerful enough).

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:


Do you want this distributed with this weeks distributions?


That's a still buggy version, so probably not.

Greetings,
Ørjan.


-Aris

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

Ugh, I missed a pledge, and I’m not sure that retroactive creation would work. 
I withdraw the proposal “Make Your Home Shine” and submit the following 
proposal in its place:

Title: Make Your Home Shine
Author: o
Co-authors: CuddleBeam, Ørjan
AI: 1.7

{{{
Amend rule 2450 ("Pledges") to read, in full:

{
Pledges are an indestructible fixed asset. Ownership of pledges
is restricted to persons. The Referee is the recordkeepor of
pledges. Creating, destroying, modifying, and transferring
pledges are secured.

To "pledge" something is to create a pledge with those terms. A
person CAN pledge by announcement.

To "retract" (syn "withdraw") a pledge is to destroy it. A
person CAN retract a pledge they own without objection.

To "call in" a pledge" is to destroy it. A player can call in
any pledge with Agoran Consent, if e announces a reason the
Terms of the pledge should be considered broken. Support for an
intent to call in a pledge is INEFFECTIVE unless the supporting
player explicitly confirms the reasons that the pledge should
be considered broken.

It is ILLEGAL to own a pledge when it is called in.
}

Destroy every pledge.

Create a pledge owned by Quazie, whose terms are

{
I pledge to give 1 Shiny to the first person who can,
correctly, with e-mail citations, explain what I did wrong on
Jan 20th 2009 that has since led to me being a fugitive. For
the explanation to be valid for this pledge, it should be fully
self contained, I should not have to go look up past rules in
order to understand the explanation (So please, include all
source info in the explanation).
}

Create a pledge owned by G., whose terms are

{
 This pledge is known as The Prosecutor's Office

 1.  I CAN revoke or alter this pledge by giving 4 Days Notice.

 2.  If a CFJ is submitted to The Prosecutor's Office (private or
 public to me, but not in Discussion), I shall follow the
 following formal process to resolve the matter of
 controversy:

 a.  I shall enter it into the bottom of the Judicial Queue.

 b.  At most once per day, and and most 5 times per week, I'll
 initiate an Agoran Call for Judgement on the CFJ on the
 top of the Judicial Queue (also barring judges as
 requested by the submitter).

 c.  By request, the submitter may remain anonymous.

 d.  Absolutely free of charge, as able, I'll research and
 add gratuitous arguments in favor of the submitter's
 position, and I'll not argue against the submitter's
 position except in private with the submitter.

-G.
}

Create a pledge owned by V.J Rada, whose terms are

{
However I now pledge to include more recapping of agoran events
in future newspapers.
}

Create a pledge owned by o, whose terms are

{
I pledge that, for the next month, if I have not yet paid a
total of 30 shinies under this pledge, and a player pledges to
pay me 6 Shinies within a month, I will pay em 5 Shinies in a
timely fashion.
}

Ratify the following statement:

{
The only pledge owned by o was created on Aug 23, 2017.
}

Create a pledge owned by Gaelan, whose terms are

{
I pledge to, for at least the next month, vote AGAINST any
proposal that amends rules by providing new text in full unless
the text of the rule is nearly entirely changed.
}

Ratify the following statement:

{
The only pledge owned by Gaelan was created on Sep 14, 2017.
}
}}}

There are other pledges in play, but in my view they are either already
discharged, or irrelevant, and it would not be in the game's interest
to carry them forwards.

-o

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[Aris Merchant]

Do you want this distributed with this weeks distributions?

-Aris

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> Ugh, I missed a pledge, and I’m not sure that retroactive creation would 
> work. I withdraw the proposal “Make Your Home Shine” and submit the following 
> proposal in its place:
>
> Title: Make Your Home Shine
> Author: o
> Co-authors: CuddleBeam, Ørjan
> AI: 1.7
>
> {{{
> Amend rule 2450 ("Pledges") to read, in full:
>
> {
> Pledges are an indestructible fixed asset. Ownership of pledges
> is restricted to persons. The Referee is the recordkeepor of
> pledges. Creating, destroying, modifying, and transferring
> pledges are secured.
>
> To "pledge" something is to create a pledge with those terms. A
> person CAN pledge by announcement.
>
> To "retract" (syn "withdraw") a pledge is to destroy it. A
> person CAN retract a pledge they own without objection.
>
> To "call in" a pledge" is to destroy it. A player can call in
> any pledge with Agoran Consent, if e announces a reason the
> Terms of the pledge should be considered broken. Support for an
> intent to call in a pledge is INEFFECTIVE unless the supporting
> player explicitly confirms the reasons that the pledge should
> be considered broken.
>
> It is ILLEGAL to own a pledge when it is called in.
> }
>
> Destroy every pledge.
>
> Create a pledge owned by Quazie, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge to give 1 Shiny to the first person who can,
> correctly, with e-mail citations, explain what I did wrong on
> Jan 20th 2009 that has since led to me being a fugitive. For
> the explanation to be valid for this pledge, it should be fully
> self contained, I should not have to go look up past rules in
> order to understand the explanation (So please, include all
> source info in the explanation).
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by G., whose terms are
>
> {
>  This pledge is known as The Prosecutor's Office
>
>  1.  I CAN revoke or alter this pledge by giving 4 Days Notice.
>
>  2.  If a CFJ is submitted to The Prosecutor's Office (private or
>  public to me, but not in Discussion), I shall follow the
>  following formal process to resolve the matter of
>  controversy:
>
>  a.  I shall enter it into the bottom of the Judicial Queue.
>
>  b.  At most once per day, and and most 5 times per week, I'll
>  initiate an Agoran Call for Judgement on the CFJ on the
>  top of the Judicial Queue (also barring judges as
>  requested by the submitter).
>
>  c.  By request, the submitter may remain anonymous.
>
>  d.  Absolutely free of charge, as able, I'll research and
>  add gratuitous arguments in favor of the submitter's
>  position, and I'll not argue against the submitter's
>  position except in private with the submitter.
>
> -G.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by V.J Rada, whose terms are
>
> {
> However I now pledge to include more recapping of agoran events
> in future newspapers.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by o, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge that, for the next month, if I have not yet paid a
> total of 30 shinies under this pledge, and a player pledges to
> pay me 6 Shinies within a month, I will pay em 5 Shinies in a
> timely fashion.
> }
>
> Ratify the following statement:
>
> {
> The only pledge owned by o was created on Aug 23, 2017.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by Gaelan, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge to, for at least the next month, vote AGAINST any
> proposal that amends rules by providing new text in full unless
> the text of the rule is nearly entirely changed.
> }
>
> Ratify the following statement:
>
> {
> The only pledge owned by Gaelan was created on Sep 14, 2017.
> }
> }}}
>
> There are other pledges in play, but in my view they are either already
> discharged, or irrelevant, and it would not be in the game's interest
> to carry them forwards.
>
> -o

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 16, 2017, at 1:54 AM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> 
>> Amend rule 2450 ("Pledges") to read, in full:
>> 
>>   {
>>   Pledges are an indestructible fixed asset. Ownership of pledges
>>   is restricted to persons. The Referee is the recordkeepor of
>>   pledges. Creating, destroying, modifying, and transferring
>>   pledges are secured.
> 
>> Destroy every pledge.
> 
> I believe a proposal cannot destroy an indestructible asset.

Ah, crud, you’re right. Rule 2166:

> An indestructible asset is one defined as such by it backing document, and 
> CANNOT be destroyed except by a rule specifically addressing the destruction 
> of indestructible assets or that asset in particular.

Moving that clause to that position was meant to end-run the question of 
whether existing pledges convert. However, the way I judged CFJ 3559 probably 
implies that I can insert a clause to the effect of “No clause of this proposal 
CAN create pledges implicitly” and have that work the way I want, instead.

I could also create a transient rule at the start of the proposal, and repeal 
it at the end, but that feels like an extreme solution.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:


Amend rule 2450 ("Pledges") to read, in full:

   {
   Pledges are an indestructible fixed asset. Ownership of pledges
   is restricted to persons. The Referee is the recordkeepor of
   pledges. Creating, destroying, modifying, and transferring
   pledges are secured.



Destroy every pledge.


I believe a proposal cannot destroy an indestructible asset.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 15, 2017, at 12:10 AM, Josh T  wrote:
> 
> Here's two more: 
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-May/034600.html
> (the one quoted directly in the link, and the one quoted by that message)
> 
> 天火狐

Thanks.

A brief aside about motivation. I put this proposal forwards to solve four core 
problems with the current iteration of the Pledge system:

1. It’s very easy for pledges to fall through the cracks. Since the Referee is 
charged with identifying rule-breaking and can be penalized for failure to do 
so, this becomes impractical quite quickly. Making them a reported-on thing 
means that there’s a regularly-published document that lists all pledges, and 
which can drive people to report forgotten pledges while they’re still relevant.

2. Pledges exist indefinitely. Making them Assets borrows the lifecycle from 
that framework, and gives a clear point where a pledge no longer needs to be 
tracked for gameplay purposes. Nothing stops players from informally tracking 
pledges after they’ve been called in once, or re-pledging to a thing after 
having a pledge called in on them, but the game would no longer require anyone 
to keep track of a pledge forever.

3. Looking at the history of rules governing pledges, it seems likely that no 
wording in the rules will be sufficient to cover every way a pledge can be 
broken. Rather than try to patch on patches, I’m attempting to make pledge 
adherence and penalization a bit more democratic and deliberative. The Terms of 
a pledge have no formal ludic meaning at all, under this proposal, but make a 
fairly natural guide for when it’s appropriate to call in a pledge, or to 
object to an attempt to do so.

4. Some promises are made in error. Holding players to mistaken pledges forever 
is unfair. The proposal creates a way for players to formally back out of 
pledges, and a way to stop players from doing so if they abuse that privilege.

I seriously considered repealing pledges entirely, or reverting to the “A 
player SHALL NOT break a publicly-made pledge” wording, but the “you can 
destroy someone else’s stamps” scam amused me enough to want to build something 
useful on the same principle.

-o


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[Josh T]

Here's two more:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-May/034600.html
(the one quoted directly in the link, and the one quoted by that message)

天火狐

On 14 September 2017 at 22:14, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> > On Sep 14, 2017, at 9:55 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Read line 1 of the pledge.  If part of the pledge is saying I CAN revoke
> it (including a method),
> > I can do so as part of keeping the pledge, I assume.
>
> It’s not at all clear how that works, or even if it works, but the intent
> is clear and I think it would be unfair not to allow you to stop upholding
> a promise in _precisely the way you initially promised to do so_. I’m
> content to leave this pledge out of the next version of the proposal, and
> to wait until you resolve this notice before revising the proposal.
>
> V.J Rada, thanks for catching two pledges I missed!
>
> -o
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 14, 2017, at 9:55 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Read line 1 of the pledge.  If part of the pledge is saying I CAN revoke it 
> (including a method),
> I can do so as part of keeping the pledge, I assume.

It’s not at all clear how that works, or even if it works, but the intent is 
clear and I think it would be unfair not to allow you to stop upholding a 
promise in _precisely the way you initially promised to do so_. I’m content to 
leave this pledge out of the next version of the proposal, and to wait until 
you resolve this notice before revising the proposal.

V.J Rada, thanks for catching two pledges I missed!

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[Quazie]

You can't revoke pledges
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 18:44 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> I intend to revoke the below pledge with 4 days notice.  It was made while
> I was a non-player and CFJs were free for me.
>
> (if I do this, the proposal will now make me party to an agreement without
> consent,
> but now that it's pointed out that I can be forced to pay for others'
> cfjs, I don't
> want to leave it around long enough to revoke it after the proposal passes)
>
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > Create a pledge owned by G., whose terms are
> >
> > {
> >  This pledge is known as The Prosecutor's Office
> >
> >  1.  I CAN revoke or alter this pledge by giving 4 Days Notice.
> >
> >  2.  If a CFJ is submitted to The Prosecutor's Office (private or
> >  public to me, but not in Discussion), I shall follow the
> >  following formal process to resolve the matter of
> >  controversy:
> >
> >  a.  I shall enter it into the bottom of the Judicial Queue.
> >
> >  b.  At most once per day, and and most 5 times per week,
> I'll
> >  initiate an Agoran Call for Judgement on the CFJ on the
> >  top of the Judicial Queue (also barring judges as
> >  requested by the submitter).
> >
> >  c.  By request, the submitter may remain anonymous.
> >
> >  d.  Absolutely free of charge, as able, I'll research and
> >  add gratuitous arguments in favor of the submitter's
> >  position, and I'll not argue against the submitter's
> >  position except in private with the submitter.
> >
> > -G.
> > }
>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[VJ Rada]

And my pledge to make relevant titles and not steal anyone's person again.

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:39 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> You might want to add nichdel's anti-cuddlebeam pledge.
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>> Ugh, I missed a pledge, and I’m not sure that retroactive creation would 
>> work. I withdraw the proposal “Make Your Home Shine” and submit the 
>> following proposal in its place:
>>
>> Title: Make Your Home Shine
>> Author: o
>> Co-authors: CuddleBeam, Ørjan
>> AI: 1.7
>>
>> {{{
>> Amend rule 2450 ("Pledges") to read, in full:
>>
>> {
>> Pledges are an indestructible fixed asset. Ownership of pledges
>> is restricted to persons. The Referee is the recordkeepor of
>> pledges. Creating, destroying, modifying, and transferring
>> pledges are secured.
>>
>> To "pledge" something is to create a pledge with those terms. A
>> person CAN pledge by announcement.
>>
>> To "retract" (syn "withdraw") a pledge is to destroy it. A
>> person CAN retract a pledge they own without objection.
>>
>> To "call in" a pledge" is to destroy it. A player can call in
>> any pledge with Agoran Consent, if e announces a reason the
>> Terms of the pledge should be considered broken. Support for an
>> intent to call in a pledge is INEFFECTIVE unless the supporting
>> player explicitly confirms the reasons that the pledge should
>> be considered broken.
>>
>> It is ILLEGAL to own a pledge when it is called in.
>> }
>>
>> Destroy every pledge.
>>
>> Create a pledge owned by Quazie, whose terms are
>>
>> {
>> I pledge to give 1 Shiny to the first person who can,
>> correctly, with e-mail citations, explain what I did wrong on
>> Jan 20th 2009 that has since led to me being a fugitive. For
>> the explanation to be valid for this pledge, it should be fully
>> self contained, I should not have to go look up past rules in
>> order to understand the explanation (So please, include all
>> source info in the explanation).
>> }
>>
>> Create a pledge owned by G., whose terms are
>>
>> {
>>  This pledge is known as The Prosecutor's Office
>>
>>  1.  I CAN revoke or alter this pledge by giving 4 Days Notice.
>>
>>  2.  If a CFJ is submitted to The Prosecutor's Office (private or
>>  public to me, but not in Discussion), I shall follow the
>>  following formal process to resolve the matter of
>>  controversy:
>>
>>  a.  I shall enter it into the bottom of the Judicial Queue.
>>
>>  b.  At most once per day, and and most 5 times per week, I'll
>>  initiate an Agoran Call for Judgement on the CFJ on the
>>  top of the Judicial Queue (also barring judges as
>>  requested by the submitter).
>>
>>  c.  By request, the submitter may remain anonymous.
>>
>>  d.  Absolutely free of charge, as able, I'll research and
>>  add gratuitous arguments in favor of the submitter's
>>  position, and I'll not argue against the submitter's
>>  position except in private with the submitter.
>>
>> -G.
>> }
>>
>> Create a pledge owned by V.J Rada, whose terms are
>>
>> {
>> However I now pledge to include more recapping of agoran events
>> in future newspapers.
>> }
>>
>> Create a pledge owned by o, whose terms are
>>
>> {
>> I pledge that, for the next month, if I have not yet paid a
>> total of 30 shinies under this pledge, and a player pledges to
>> pay me 6 Shinies within a month, I will pay em 5 Shinies in a
>> timely fashion.
>> }
>>
>> Ratify the following statement:
>>
>> {
>> The only pledge owned by o was created on Aug 23, 2017.
>> }
>>
>> Create a pledge owned by Gaelan, whose terms are
>>
>> {
>> I pledge to, for at least the next month, vote AGAINST any
>> proposal that amends rules by providing new text in full unless
>> the text of the rule is nearly entirely changed.
>> }
>>
>> Ratify the following statement:
>>
>> {
>> The only pledge owned by Gaelan was created on Sep 14, 2017.
>> }
>> }}}
>>
>> There are other pledges in play, but in my view they are either already
>> discharged, or irrelevant, and it would not be in the game's interest
>> to carry them forwards.
>>
>> -o
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[VJ Rada]

You might want to add nichdel's anti-cuddlebeam pledge.

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> Ugh, I missed a pledge, and I’m not sure that retroactive creation would 
> work. I withdraw the proposal “Make Your Home Shine” and submit the following 
> proposal in its place:
>
> Title: Make Your Home Shine
> Author: o
> Co-authors: CuddleBeam, Ørjan
> AI: 1.7
>
> {{{
> Amend rule 2450 ("Pledges") to read, in full:
>
> {
> Pledges are an indestructible fixed asset. Ownership of pledges
> is restricted to persons. The Referee is the recordkeepor of
> pledges. Creating, destroying, modifying, and transferring
> pledges are secured.
>
> To "pledge" something is to create a pledge with those terms. A
> person CAN pledge by announcement.
>
> To "retract" (syn "withdraw") a pledge is to destroy it. A
> person CAN retract a pledge they own without objection.
>
> To "call in" a pledge" is to destroy it. A player can call in
> any pledge with Agoran Consent, if e announces a reason the
> Terms of the pledge should be considered broken. Support for an
> intent to call in a pledge is INEFFECTIVE unless the supporting
> player explicitly confirms the reasons that the pledge should
> be considered broken.
>
> It is ILLEGAL to own a pledge when it is called in.
> }
>
> Destroy every pledge.
>
> Create a pledge owned by Quazie, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge to give 1 Shiny to the first person who can,
> correctly, with e-mail citations, explain what I did wrong on
> Jan 20th 2009 that has since led to me being a fugitive. For
> the explanation to be valid for this pledge, it should be fully
> self contained, I should not have to go look up past rules in
> order to understand the explanation (So please, include all
> source info in the explanation).
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by G., whose terms are
>
> {
>  This pledge is known as The Prosecutor's Office
>
>  1.  I CAN revoke or alter this pledge by giving 4 Days Notice.
>
>  2.  If a CFJ is submitted to The Prosecutor's Office (private or
>  public to me, but not in Discussion), I shall follow the
>  following formal process to resolve the matter of
>  controversy:
>
>  a.  I shall enter it into the bottom of the Judicial Queue.
>
>  b.  At most once per day, and and most 5 times per week, I'll
>  initiate an Agoran Call for Judgement on the CFJ on the
>  top of the Judicial Queue (also barring judges as
>  requested by the submitter).
>
>  c.  By request, the submitter may remain anonymous.
>
>  d.  Absolutely free of charge, as able, I'll research and
>  add gratuitous arguments in favor of the submitter's
>  position, and I'll not argue against the submitter's
>  position except in private with the submitter.
>
> -G.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by V.J Rada, whose terms are
>
> {
> However I now pledge to include more recapping of agoran events
> in future newspapers.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by o, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge that, for the next month, if I have not yet paid a
> total of 30 shinies under this pledge, and a player pledges to
> pay me 6 Shinies within a month, I will pay em 5 Shinies in a
> timely fashion.
> }
>
> Ratify the following statement:
>
> {
> The only pledge owned by o was created on Aug 23, 2017.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by Gaelan, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge to, for at least the next month, vote AGAINST any
> proposal that amends rules by providing new text in full unless
> the text of the rule is nearly entirely changed.
> }
>
> Ratify the following statement:
>
> {
> The only pledge owned by Gaelan was created on Sep 14, 2017.
> }
> }}}
>
> There are other pledges in play, but in my view they are either already
> discharged, or irrelevant, and it would not be in the game's interest
> to carry them forwards.
>
> -o



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[Cuddle Beam]

You didn't pend it so I guess its fine.

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 3:36 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> Ugh, I missed a pledge, and I’m not sure that retroactive creation would
> work. I withdraw the proposal “Make Your Home Shine” and submit the
> following proposal in its place:
>
> Title: Make Your Home Shine
> Author: o
> Co-authors: CuddleBeam, Ørjan
> AI: 1.7
>
> {{{
> Amend rule 2450 ("Pledges") to read, in full:
>
> {
> Pledges are an indestructible fixed asset. Ownership of pledges
> is restricted to persons. The Referee is the recordkeepor of
> pledges. Creating, destroying, modifying, and transferring
> pledges are secured.
>
> To "pledge" something is to create a pledge with those terms. A
> person CAN pledge by announcement.
>
> To "retract" (syn "withdraw") a pledge is to destroy it. A
> person CAN retract a pledge they own without objection.
>
> To "call in" a pledge" is to destroy it. A player can call in
> any pledge with Agoran Consent, if e announces a reason the
> Terms of the pledge should be considered broken. Support for an
> intent to call in a pledge is INEFFECTIVE unless the supporting
> player explicitly confirms the reasons that the pledge should
> be considered broken.
>
> It is ILLEGAL to own a pledge when it is called in.
> }
>
> Destroy every pledge.
>
> Create a pledge owned by Quazie, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge to give 1 Shiny to the first person who can,
> correctly, with e-mail citations, explain what I did wrong on
> Jan 20th 2009 that has since led to me being a fugitive. For
> the explanation to be valid for this pledge, it should be fully
> self contained, I should not have to go look up past rules in
> order to understand the explanation (So please, include all
> source info in the explanation).
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by G., whose terms are
>
> {
>  This pledge is known as The Prosecutor's Office
>
>  1.  I CAN revoke or alter this pledge by giving 4 Days Notice.
>
>  2.  If a CFJ is submitted to The Prosecutor's Office (private or
>  public to me, but not in Discussion), I shall follow the
>  following formal process to resolve the matter of
>  controversy:
>
>  a.  I shall enter it into the bottom of the Judicial Queue.
>
>  b.  At most once per day, and and most 5 times per week, I'll
>  initiate an Agoran Call for Judgement on the CFJ on the
>  top of the Judicial Queue (also barring judges as
>  requested by the submitter).
>
>  c.  By request, the submitter may remain anonymous.
>
>  d.  Absolutely free of charge, as able, I'll research and
>  add gratuitous arguments in favor of the submitter's
>  position, and I'll not argue against the submitter's
>  position except in private with the submitter.
>
> -G.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by V.J Rada, whose terms are
>
> {
> However I now pledge to include more recapping of agoran events
> in future newspapers.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by o, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge that, for the next month, if I have not yet paid a
> total of 30 shinies under this pledge, and a player pledges to
> pay me 6 Shinies within a month, I will pay em 5 Shinies in a
> timely fashion.
> }
>
> Ratify the following statement:
>
> {
> The only pledge owned by o was created on Aug 23, 2017.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by Gaelan, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge to, for at least the next month, vote AGAINST any
> proposal that amends rules by providing new text in full unless
> the text of the rule is nearly entirely changed.
> }
>
> Ratify the following statement:
>
> {
> The only pledge owned by Gaelan was created on Sep 14, 2017.
> }
> }}}
>
> There are other pledges in play, but in my view they are either already
> discharged, or irrelevant, and it would not be in the game's interest
> to carry them forwards.
>
> -o
>