DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote: I object both for myself and PSS. to which intent? :P Greetings, Ørjan. On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: Well, I object. There is no reason we should allow you to reclaim your assets from a badly designed scam contract. I intend, with 2 Agoran consent, to destroy the contract "Hi". -Aris On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:13 PM Ned Strange wrote: I object and intend to amend "Hi!" without objection to have the new text "VJ Rada can transfer all assets in this contract to emself by announcement". On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Ned Strange wrote: I intend to amend the contract called "Hi", without objection. The new text of that contract would state "VJ Rada can remove all assets from this contract by announcement". -- From V.J. Rada -- From V.J. Rada -- From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment
I really do think that me losing all of my assets over this is inequitable. On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Ned Strange wrote: > That is, I object for myself and PSS to Aris's intent > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ned Strange wrote: >> I object both for myself and PSS. >> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Aris Merchant >> wrote: >>> Well, I object. There is no reason we should allow you to reclaim your >>> assets from a badly designed scam contract. I intend, with 2 Agoran >>> consent, to destroy the contract "Hi". >>> >>> -Aris >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:13 PM Ned Strange >>> wrote: >>> I object and intend to amend "Hi!" without objection to have the new text "VJ Rada can transfer all assets in this contract to emself by announcement". On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Ned Strange wrote: > I intend to amend the contract called "Hi", without objection. The new > text of that contract would state "VJ Rada can remove all assets from > this contract by announcement". > > -- > From V.J. Rada -- From V.J. Rada >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment
Sigh. I tend to agree with you, actually. All of your assets is a bit much. That might be hard to recover from. However, it isn't terribly equitable for you to get off free after attempting a scam, even one that we've sort of encouraged with the Boo Lien system. Also, giving all of your assets to one contract is always a horrible idea. I'm curious what other think. Maybe you should get 1/2 or 3/4 or something of them back? Whatever it is, we'd need to come up with something that no one would object to, considering that the contract can only be amended without objection (also always a bad idea not to provide a way to amend a contract). -Aris On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:09 AM Ned Strange wrote: > I really do think that me losing all of my assets over this is inequitable. > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Ned Strange > wrote: > > That is, I object for myself and PSS to Aris's intent > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ned Strange > wrote: > >> I object both for myself and PSS. > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Aris Merchant > >> wrote: > >>> Well, I object. There is no reason we should allow you to reclaim your > >>> assets from a badly designed scam contract. I intend, with 2 Agoran > >>> consent, to destroy the contract "Hi". > >>> > >>> -Aris > >>> > >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:13 PM Ned Strange > >>> wrote: > >>> > I object and intend to amend "Hi!" without objection to have the new > text "VJ Rada can transfer all assets in this contract to emself by > announcement". > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Ned Strange < > edwardostra...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I intend to amend the contract called "Hi", without objection. The > new > > text of that contract would state "VJ Rada can remove all assets > from > > this contract by announcement". > > > > -- > > From V.J. Rada > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> From V.J. Rada > > > > > > > > -- > > From V.J. Rada > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment
It wasn't really a scam it was going to be used for a perfectly legitimate application of zombiception! On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:13 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > Sigh. I tend to agree with you, actually. All of your assets is a bit much. > That might be hard to recover from. However, it isn't terribly equitable > for you to get off free after attempting a scam, even one that we've sort > of encouraged with the Boo Lien system. Also, giving all of your assets to > one contract is always a horrible idea. I'm curious what other think. Maybe > you should get 1/2 or 3/4 or something of them back? Whatever it is, we'd > need to come up with something that no one would object to, considering > that the contract can only be amended without objection (also always a bad > idea not to provide a way to amend a contract). > > -Aris > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:09 AM Ned Strange > wrote: > >> I really do think that me losing all of my assets over this is inequitable. >> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Ned Strange >> wrote: >> > That is, I object for myself and PSS to Aris's intent >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ned Strange >> wrote: >> >> I object both for myself and PSS. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Aris Merchant >> >> wrote: >> >>> Well, I object. There is no reason we should allow you to reclaim your >> >>> assets from a badly designed scam contract. I intend, with 2 Agoran >> >>> consent, to destroy the contract "Hi". >> >>> >> >>> -Aris >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:13 PM Ned Strange >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> I object and intend to amend "Hi!" without objection to have the new >> text "VJ Rada can transfer all assets in this contract to emself by >> announcement". >> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Ned Strange < >> edwardostra...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > I intend to amend the contract called "Hi", without objection. The >> new >> > text of that contract would state "VJ Rada can remove all assets >> from >> > this contract by announcement". >> > >> > -- >> > From V.J. Rada >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> From V.J. Rada >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > From V.J. Rada >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada >> -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment
Nothing involving giving a-d messages effect is legitimate (TBH, not sure whether that would work either). -Aris On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:20 AM Ned Strange wrote: > It wasn't really a scam it was going to be used for a perfectly > legitimate application of zombiception! > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:13 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > Sigh. I tend to agree with you, actually. All of your assets is a bit > much. > > That might be hard to recover from. However, it isn't terribly equitable > > for you to get off free after attempting a scam, even one that we've sort > > of encouraged with the Boo Lien system. Also, giving all of your assets > to > > one contract is always a horrible idea. I'm curious what other think. > Maybe > > you should get 1/2 or 3/4 or something of them back? Whatever it is, we'd > > need to come up with something that no one would object to, considering > > that the contract can only be amended without objection (also always a > bad > > idea not to provide a way to amend a contract). > > > > -Aris > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:09 AM Ned Strange > > wrote: > > > >> I really do think that me losing all of my assets over this is > inequitable. > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Ned Strange > >> wrote: > >> > That is, I object for myself and PSS to Aris's intent > >> > > >> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ned Strange < > edwardostra...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> I object both for myself and PSS. > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Aris Merchant > >> >> wrote: > >> >>> Well, I object. There is no reason we should allow you to reclaim > your > >> >>> assets from a badly designed scam contract. I intend, with 2 Agoran > >> >>> consent, to destroy the contract "Hi". > >> >>> > >> >>> -Aris > >> >>> > >> >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:13 PM Ned Strange < > edwardostra...@gmail.com> > >> >>> wrote: > >> >>> > >> I object and intend to amend "Hi!" without objection to have the > new > >> text "VJ Rada can transfer all assets in this contract to emself by > >> announcement". > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Ned Strange < > >> edwardostra...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > I intend to amend the contract called "Hi", without objection. > The > >> new > >> > text of that contract would state "VJ Rada can remove all assets > >> from > >> > this contract by announcement". > >> > > >> > -- > >> > From V.J. Rada > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> From V.J. Rada > >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> From V.J. Rada > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > From V.J. Rada > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> From V.J. Rada > >> > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment
It's simple to win using zombiception. Step 1 get a zombie. Step 2 don't post for 60 days. Step 3 on behalf of your zombie, bid high on yourself, without flipping your own master switch. On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > Nothing involving giving a-d messages effect is legitimate (TBH, not sure > whether that would work either). > > -Aris > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:20 AM Ned Strange > wrote: > >> It wasn't really a scam it was going to be used for a perfectly >> legitimate application of zombiception! >> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:13 PM, Aris Merchant >> wrote: >> > Sigh. I tend to agree with you, actually. All of your assets is a bit >> much. >> > That might be hard to recover from. However, it isn't terribly equitable >> > for you to get off free after attempting a scam, even one that we've sort >> > of encouraged with the Boo Lien system. Also, giving all of your assets >> to >> > one contract is always a horrible idea. I'm curious what other think. >> Maybe >> > you should get 1/2 or 3/4 or something of them back? Whatever it is, we'd >> > need to come up with something that no one would object to, considering >> > that the contract can only be amended without objection (also always a >> bad >> > idea not to provide a way to amend a contract). >> > >> > -Aris >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:09 AM Ned Strange >> > wrote: >> > >> >> I really do think that me losing all of my assets over this is >> inequitable. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Ned Strange >> >> wrote: >> >> > That is, I object for myself and PSS to Aris's intent >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ned Strange < >> edwardostra...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> I object both for myself and PSS. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Aris Merchant >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> Well, I object. There is no reason we should allow you to reclaim >> your >> >> >>> assets from a badly designed scam contract. I intend, with 2 Agoran >> >> >>> consent, to destroy the contract "Hi". >> >> >>> >> >> >>> -Aris >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:13 PM Ned Strange < >> edwardostra...@gmail.com> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> I object and intend to amend "Hi!" without objection to have the >> new >> >> text "VJ Rada can transfer all assets in this contract to emself by >> >> announcement". >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Ned Strange < >> >> edwardostra...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > I intend to amend the contract called "Hi", without objection. >> The >> >> new >> >> > text of that contract would state "VJ Rada can remove all assets >> >> from >> >> > this contract by announcement". >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > From V.J. Rada >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> From V.J. Rada >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> From V.J. Rada >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > From V.J. Rada >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> From V.J. Rada >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada >> -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment
What about amending it in such a way that everyone gets a coin and VJ Rada gets the rest back? I wouldn't object to that. On Thursday, April 12, 2018, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sigh. I tend to agree with you, actually. All of your assets is a bit much. > That might be hard to recover from. However, it isn't terribly equitable > for you to get off free after attempting a scam, even one that we've sort > of encouraged with the Boo Lien system. Also, giving all of your assets to > one contract is always a horrible idea. I'm curious what other think. Maybe > you should get 1/2 or 3/4 or something of them back? Whatever it is, we'd > need to come up with something that no one would object to, considering > that the contract can only be amended without objection (also always a bad > idea not to provide a way to amend a contract). > > -Aris > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:09 AM Ned Strange > wrote: > > > I really do think that me losing all of my assets over this is > inequitable. > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Ned Strange > > wrote: > > > That is, I object for myself and PSS to Aris's intent > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ned Strange > > > wrote: > > >> I object both for myself and PSS. > > >> > > >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Aris Merchant > > >> wrote: > > >>> Well, I object. There is no reason we should allow you to reclaim > your > > >>> assets from a badly designed scam contract. I intend, with 2 Agoran > > >>> consent, to destroy the contract "Hi". > > >>> > > >>> -Aris > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:13 PM Ned Strange < > edwardostra...@gmail.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > I object and intend to amend "Hi!" without objection to have the new > > text "VJ Rada can transfer all assets in this contract to emself by > > announcement". > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Ned Strange < > > edwardostra...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > I intend to amend the contract called "Hi", without objection. The > > new > > > text of that contract would state "VJ Rada can remove all assets > > from > > > this contract by announcement". > > > > > > -- > > > From V.J. Rada > > > > > > > > -- > > From V.J. Rada > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> From V.J. Rada > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > From V.J. Rada > > > > > > > > -- > > From V.J. Rada > > > -- ~Corona
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment
I couldn't myself write such a proposal, being without assets. On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I think e should get it all back. It was harmless. > > If there isn't enough consensus for a w/o objection modification, > maybe a proposal (power 2.1 does it right?). > > I object to Aris's intent. > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Corona wrote: >> What about amending it in such a way that everyone gets a coin and VJ Rada >> gets the rest back? I wouldn't object to that. >> >> >> On Thursday, April 12, 2018, Aris Merchant < >> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Sigh. I tend to agree with you, actually. All of your assets is a bit much. >> > That might be hard to recover from. However, it isn't terribly equitable >> > for you to get off free after attempting a scam, even one that we've sort >> > of encouraged with the Boo Lien system. Also, giving all of your assets to >> > one contract is always a horrible idea. I'm curious what other think. Maybe >> > you should get 1/2 or 3/4 or something of them back? Whatever it is, we'd >> > need to come up with something that no one would object to, considering >> > that the contract can only be amended without objection (also always a bad >> > idea not to provide a way to amend a contract). >> > >> > -Aris >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:09 AM Ned Strange >> > wrote: >> > >> > > I really do think that me losing all of my assets over this is >> > inequitable. >> > > >> > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Ned Strange >> > > wrote: >> > > > That is, I object for myself and PSS to Aris's intent >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ned Strange > > > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> I object both for myself and PSS. >> > > >> >> > > >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Aris Merchant >> > > >> wrote: >> > > >>> Well, I object. There is no reason we should allow you to reclaim >> > your >> > > >>> assets from a badly designed scam contract. I intend, with 2 Agoran >> > > >>> consent, to destroy the contract "Hi". >> > > >>> >> > > >>> -Aris >> > > >>> >> > > >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:13 PM Ned Strange < >> > edwardostra...@gmail.com> >> > > >>> wrote: >> > > >>> >> > > I object and intend to amend "Hi!" without objection to have the new >> > > text "VJ Rada can transfer all assets in this contract to emself by >> > > announcement". >> > > >> > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Ned Strange < >> > > edwardostra...@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > > I intend to amend the contract called "Hi", without objection. The >> > > new >> > > > text of that contract would state "VJ Rada can remove all assets >> > > from >> > > > this contract by announcement". >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > From V.J. Rada >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > From V.J. Rada >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> -- >> > > >> From V.J. Rada >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > From V.J. Rada >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > From V.J. Rada >> > > >> > >> > > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment
I'll pay to pend it if you submit it. On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote: > I couldn't myself write such a proposal, being without assets. > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > I think e should get it all back. It was harmless. > > > > If there isn't enough consensus for a w/o objection modification, > > maybe a proposal (power 2.1 does it right?). > > > > I object to Aris's intent. > > > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Corona wrote: > >> What about amending it in such a way that everyone gets a coin and VJ Rada > >> gets the rest back? I wouldn't object to that. > >> > >> > >> On Thursday, April 12, 2018, Aris Merchant < > >> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Sigh. I tend to agree with you, actually. All of your assets is a bit > >> > much. > >> > That might be hard to recover from. However, it isn't terribly equitable > >> > for you to get off free after attempting a scam, even one that we've sort > >> > of encouraged with the Boo Lien system. Also, giving all of your assets > >> > to > >> > one contract is always a horrible idea. I'm curious what other think. > >> > Maybe > >> > you should get 1/2 or 3/4 or something of them back? Whatever it is, we'd > >> > need to come up with something that no one would object to, considering > >> > that the contract can only be amended without objection (also always a > >> > bad > >> > idea not to provide a way to amend a contract). > >> > > >> > -Aris > >> > > >> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:09 AM Ned Strange > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > I really do think that me losing all of my assets over this is > >> > inequitable. > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Ned Strange > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > That is, I object for myself and PSS to Aris's intent > >> > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ned Strange > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > >> I object both for myself and PSS. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Aris Merchant > >> > > >> wrote: > >> > > >>> Well, I object. There is no reason we should allow you to reclaim > >> > your > >> > > >>> assets from a badly designed scam contract. I intend, with 2 Agoran > >> > > >>> consent, to destroy the contract "Hi". > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> -Aris > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:13 PM Ned Strange < > >> > edwardostra...@gmail.com> > >> > > >>> wrote: > >> > > >>> > >> > > I object and intend to amend "Hi!" without objection to have the > >> > > new > >> > > text "VJ Rada can transfer all assets in this contract to emself > >> > > by > >> > > announcement". > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Ned Strange < > >> > > edwardostra...@gmail.com> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > I intend to amend the contract called "Hi", without objection. > >> > > > The > >> > > new > >> > > > text of that contract would state "VJ Rada can remove all assets > >> > > from > >> > > > this contract by announcement". > >> > > > > >> > > > -- > >> > > > From V.J. Rada > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > From V.J. Rada > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> -- > >> > > >> From V.J. Rada > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > -- > >> > > > From V.J. Rada > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > From V.J. Rada > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment
Compromise: proposal offers a minor bribe of N of the contract's assets to the first N voters FOR the proposal - ends up being a partway penalty. On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Corona wrote: > Well, you're right, the contract was harmless, and losing all the assets > would be crippling, but on the other hand it was by VJ Rada's own mistake > that e lost the assets, and loss of assets through own oversight is > typically not undone by proposal... I'm on the fence about it. > > I withdraw my and Quazie's (acting on eir behalf) support for the > destruction of "Hi" - let's just have the vote on that proposal, and > possibly destroy the contract later, if the proposal fails. > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > I think e should get it all back. It was harmless. > > > > If there isn't enough consensus for a w/o objection modification, > > maybe a proposal (power 2.1 does it right?). > > > > I object to Aris's intent. > > > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Corona wrote: > > > What about amending it in such a way that everyone gets a coin and VJ > > Rada > > > gets the rest back? I wouldn't object to that. > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 12, 2018, Aris Merchant < > > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Sigh. I tend to agree with you, actually. All of your assets is a bit > > much. > > > > That might be hard to recover from. However, it isn't terribly > > equitable > > > > for you to get off free after attempting a scam, even one that we've > > sort > > > > of encouraged with the Boo Lien system. Also, giving all of your > > assets to > > > > one contract is always a horrible idea. I'm curious what other think. > > Maybe > > > > you should get 1/2 or 3/4 or something of them back? Whatever it is, > > we'd > > > > need to come up with something that no one would object to, considering > > > > that the contract can only be amended without objection (also always a > > bad > > > > idea not to provide a way to amend a contract). > > > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:09 AM Ned Strange > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I really do think that me losing all of my assets over this is > > > > inequitable. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Ned Strange < > > edwardostra...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > That is, I object for myself and PSS to Aris's intent > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ned Strange < > > edwardostra...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> I object both for myself and PSS. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Aris Merchant > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >>> Well, I object. There is no reason we should allow you to reclaim > > > > your > > > > > >>> assets from a badly designed scam contract. I intend, with 2 > > Agoran > > > > > >>> consent, to destroy the contract "Hi". > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> -Aris > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:13 PM Ned Strange < > > > > edwardostra...@gmail.com> > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > I object and intend to amend "Hi!" without objection to have > > the new > > > > > text "VJ Rada can transfer all assets in this contract to > > emself by > > > > > announcement". > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Ned Strange < > > > > > edwardostra...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > I intend to amend the contract called "Hi", without > > objection. The > > > > > new > > > > > > text of that contract would state "VJ Rada can remove all > > assets > > > > > from > > > > > > this contract by announcement". > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > From V.J. Rada > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > From V.J. Rada > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -- > > > > > >> From V.J. Rada > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > From V.J. Rada > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > From V.J. Rada > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ~Corona >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Corona wrote: I withdraw my and Quazie's (acting on eir behalf) support for the destruction of "Hi" - let's just have the vote on that proposal, and possibly destroy the contract later, if the proposal fails. It seems possible to read the combination of rule 2519 and rule 2124 to imply you cannot support on someone's behalf. Rule 2519/0 (Power=3.0) Consent A person gives consent (syn. consents) to an action when e, acting as emself, publicly states that e agrees to the action. This agreement may be implied, but only if it is reasonably clear from context that the person wanted the agreement to take place. Rule 2124/22 (Power=2.0) Agoran Satisfaction A Supporter of a dependent action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for an announcement of intent to perform the action. An Objector to a dependent action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent to perform the action. [...] Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Corona wrote: > > > I withdraw my and Quazie's (acting on eir behalf) support for the > > destruction of "Hi" - let's just have the vote on that proposal, and > > possibly destroy the contract later, if the proposal fails. > > It seems possible to read the combination of rule 2519 and rule 2124 to imply > you cannot support on someone's behalf. I agree on that reading - fascinating - and it even makes reasonable sense to allow objections but not support (because objections aim to keep the status quo that the zombie has already "consented" to). > Rule 2519/0 (Power=3.0) > Consent > > A person gives consent (syn. consents) to an action when e, acting > as emself, publicly states that e agrees to the action. This > agreement may be implied, but only if it is reasonably clear from > context that the person wanted the agreement to take place. > > Rule 2124/22 (Power=2.0) > Agoran Satisfaction > > A Supporter of a dependent action is an eligible entity who has > publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for > an announcement of intent to perform the action. An Objector to a > dependent action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted > (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent to > perform the action. > > [...] > > Greetings, > Ørjan. >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment
We should probably just remove the (syn. consents) On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: >> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Corona wrote: >> >> > I withdraw my and Quazie's (acting on eir behalf) support for the >> > destruction of "Hi" - let's just have the vote on that proposal, and >> > possibly destroy the contract later, if the proposal fails. >> >> It seems possible to read the combination of rule 2519 and rule 2124 to imply >> you cannot support on someone's behalf. > > I agree on that reading - fascinating - and it even makes reasonable sense > to allow objections but not support (because objections aim to keep the > status quo that the zombie has already "consented" to). > >> Rule 2519/0 (Power=3.0) >> Consent >> >> A person gives consent (syn. consents) to an action when e, acting >> as emself, publicly states that e agrees to the action. This >> agreement may be implied, but only if it is reasonably clear from >> context that the person wanted the agreement to take place. >> >> Rule 2124/22 (Power=2.0) >> Agoran Satisfaction >> >> A Supporter of a dependent action is an eligible entity who has >> publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for >> an announcement of intent to perform the action. An Objector to a >> dependent action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted >> (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent to >> perform the action. >> >> [...] >> >> Greetings, >> Ørjan. >> -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Amendment
What about amending "Hi" in such a way that everyone gets a coin and VJ Rada gets the rest back? I wouldn't object to that. On 10:13, Apr 12, 2018, at 10:13, Aris Merchant wrote: >Sigh. I tend to agree with you, actually. All of your assets is a bit >much. >That might be hard to recover from. However, it isn't terribly >equitable >for you to get off free after attempting a scam, even one that we've >sort >of encouraged with the Boo Lien system. Also, giving all of your assets >to >one contract is always a horrible idea. I'm curious what other think. >Maybe >you should get 1/2 or 3/4 or something of them back? Whatever it is, >we'd >need to come up with something that no one would object to, considering >that the contract can only be amended without objection (also always a >bad >idea not to provide a way to amend a contract). > >-Aris > >On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:09 AM Ned Strange >wrote: > >> I really do think that me losing all of my assets over this is >inequitable. >> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Ned Strange > >> wrote: >> > That is, I object for myself and PSS to Aris's intent >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ned Strange > >> wrote: >> >> I object both for myself and PSS. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Aris Merchant >> >> wrote: >> >>> Well, I object. There is no reason we should allow you to reclaim >your >> >>> assets from a badly designed scam contract. I intend, with 2 >Agoran >> >>> consent, to destroy the contract "Hi". >> >>> >> >>> -Aris >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:13 PM Ned Strange > >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> I object and intend to amend "Hi!" without objection to have the >new >> text "VJ Rada can transfer all assets in this contract to emself >by >> announcement". >> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Ned Strange < >> edwardostra...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > I intend to amend the contract called "Hi", without objection. >The >> new >> > text of that contract would state "VJ Rada can remove all >assets >> from >> > this contract by announcement". >> > >> > -- >> > From V.J. Rada >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> From V.J. Rada >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > From V.J. Rada >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada >>
DIS: Re: BUS: [Contract Amendment] Agoran Press Changes
On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 03:38:32PM -0400, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: > On 7/4/2021 23:37, Telna via agora-business wrote: > > On 2021-07-05 13:34, Telna via agora-business wrote: > > > On 2021-07-05 11:17, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: > > > > I propose the following amendment to the Agoran Press contract, and I > > > > consent to it.I consent to this amendment. > > I really need to figure out why this happens :V > > To be clear, I do in fact consent to the amendment. > > I also consent to the amendment proposed by Falsifian. > > I doubt it would be interpreted this way, but it in a way looks like you > were saying you were proposing an amendment. Might want to do a retract > for safety (probably fine if not tho). > > -- > ATMunn > friendly neighborhood notary :) ATMunn, are you a party to the contract? If not, I encourage you to join so that your consent helps this amendment pass. Unless I've missed some, we have so far: player indicated consent ATMunn*Yes Falsifian Yes Gaelan No Lucidiot No Murphy No Telna Yes *Might not be a party. and we need two thirds. -- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Contract Amendment] Agoran Press Changes
On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 10:40:29AM -0400, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: > On 7/7/2021 21:00, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 03:38:32PM -0400, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: > > > On 7/4/2021 23:37, Telna via agora-business wrote: > > > > On 2021-07-05 13:34, Telna via agora-business wrote: > > > > > On 2021-07-05 11:17, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: > > > > > > I propose the following amendment to the Agoran Press contract, and > > > > > > I > > > > > > consent to it.I consent to this amendment. > > > > I really need to figure out why this happens :V > > > > To be clear, I do in fact consent to the amendment. > > > > > > I also consent to the amendment proposed by Falsifian. > > > > > > I doubt it would be interpreted this way, but it in a way looks like you > > > were saying you were proposing an amendment. Might want to do a retract > > > for safety (probably fine if not tho). > > > > > > -- > > > ATMunn > > > friendly neighborhood notary :) > > > > ATMunn, are you a party to the contract? If not, I encourage you to > > join so that your consent helps this amendment pass. > > > > Unless I've missed some, we have so far: > > > > player indicated consent > > ATMunn*Yes > > Falsifian Yes > > Gaelan No > > Lucidiot No > > Murphy No > > Telna Yes > > > > *Might not be a party. > > > > and we need two thirds. > > > > Whoops, I was not a party to the contract (prior to this email). I get > confused between this contract and Obstructive Pooling sometimes, since > they're both managed by you. > > But anyways: > > I become a party to the Agoran Press. > > I consent to the amendment proposed by Falsifian, if I have not already done > so. > > -- > ATMunn > friendly neighborhood notary :) Thanks. I think we need just one more. Lucidiot is no longer a player, but I think e is still a party to the contract. Maybe we should change the amendment process so that unresponsive players don't hold them back. Reportor indicated consent ATMunn Yes Falsifian Yes Gaelan No Lucidiot No Murphy No Telna Yes -- Falsifian
