Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:50 PM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:47 AM, Elliott Hird >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Messing with people's contracts from inside their framework is fine. >>> >>> Messing them up via proposal is not. >> >> Why? The whole point of making an R1728 contract is to let the >> contract be governed by Agora. Messing with things by proposal is a >> long tradition in Agora. > > I thought the whole point of making an R1728 contract was to let the > contract be *enforced* by Agora. Destroying R1728 contracts sounds to > me like a good way to get people to lose faith in the system. The term used by R1728 is in fact "governed", not "enforced". In any case, this is the reason for my proposal that would prevent future proposals from meddling in this manner at AI 1. If AI 2 is still too volatile, then I suggest you either propose making it even more difficult, or you should not make R1728 contracts. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:47 AM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Messing with people's contracts from inside their framework is fine. >> >> Messing them up via proposal is not. > > Why? The whole point of making an R1728 contract is to let the > contract be governed by Agora. Messing with things by proposal is a > long tradition in Agora. I thought the whole point of making an R1728 contract was to let the contract be *enforced* by Agora. Destroying R1728 contracts sounds to me like a good way to get people to lose faith in the system. --Warrigal of Escher
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: > Yet my proposed changes to the PRS to limit its economic point-trading > abuse potential were shot down. That doesn't help. You made those as within-contest change attempts while you elevated to contest based on Proposal, so are using different standards. Only "fair" way would be really to disband the thing, or decontestify it by AI-1 proposal (now not possible). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:43, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:11, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> It is annoying, which is why we put it up to power-2 protected. If it's >>> still too annoying, you could propose a bump up to power-3. (Though >>> I'd like to kill that annoying PRS first). -G. >>> >> What's so annoying about the PRS? > > Contests were balanced by proposal to be a place for interesting > subcontests, making contests into "point trading" vehicles was specifically > against the intent of the without-3 objections, and it was clear that > there were than many objections, and an end-run proposal basically made > it so that anyone who's just wholly uninterested in all this economic > crud can't just enjoy the other contests for their own sake. > Yet my proposed changes to the PRS to limit its economic point-trading abuse potential were shot down. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It is annoying, which is why we put it up to power-2 protected. If it's >> still too annoying, you could propose a bump up to power-3. (Though >> I'd like to kill that annoying PRS first). -G. > > Yes, messing with contracts is annoying. I don't see why messing with > them via proposal is somehow more annoying than any other method. I think it depends on the contract really. Imagine a "fair" contest that added enjoyment (e.g. Enigma) that someone tried to scam into a win via proposal. Just kinda stomps on everyone's fun. Anyway, what other methods allow non-members to reach in and set policy for members? There's some types of contracts that we grant rules- privileges to begin with (Contests, partnerships) so the tradeoff is oversight (without-3-objections, devolve responsibilities). But otw, it's through proposals. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:11, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It is annoying, which is why we put it up to power-2 protected. If it's >> still too annoying, you could propose a bump up to power-3. (Though >> I'd like to kill that annoying PRS first). -G. >> > What's so annoying about the PRS? Contests were balanced by proposal to be a place for interesting subcontests, making contests into "point trading" vehicles was specifically against the intent of the without-3 objections, and it was clear that there were than many objections, and an end-run proposal basically made it so that anyone who's just wholly uninterested in all this economic crud can't just enjoy the other contests for their own sake. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 27 Oct 2008, at 17:06, Ian Kelly wrote: > >> Why? The whole point of making an R1728 contract is to let the >> contract be governed by Agora. Messing with things by proposal is a >> long tradition in Agora. > > > It'd help if this were actually interesting. Even comex doesn't approve eir > own > proposal; it's another silly proposal that somehow is passing I'm only voting for it because it shouldn't work at AI 1, and it would amuse me if it does. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is annoying, which is why we put it up to power-2 protected. If it's > still too annoying, you could propose a bump up to power-3. (Though > I'd like to kill that annoying PRS first). -G. Yes, messing with contracts is annoying. I don't see why messing with them via proposal is somehow more annoying than any other method. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What's so annoying about the PRS? Personally I think it should have been a Rule. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:11, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is annoying, which is why we put it up to power-2 protected. If it's > still too annoying, you could propose a bump up to power-3. (Though > I'd like to kill that annoying PRS first). -G. > What's so annoying about the PRS? BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:47 AM, Elliott Hird >> Messing with people's contracts from inside their framework is fine. >> >> Messing them up via proposal is not. > > Why? The whole point of making an R1728 contract is to let the > contract be governed by Agora. Messing with things by proposal is a > long tradition in Agora. It is annoying, which is why we put it up to power-2 protected. If it's still too annoying, you could propose a bump up to power-3. (Though I'd like to kill that annoying PRS first). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
On 27 Oct 2008, at 17:06, Ian Kelly wrote: Why? The whole point of making an R1728 contract is to let the contract be governed by Agora. Messing with things by proposal is a long tradition in Agora. It'd help if this were actually interesting. Even comex doesn't approve eir own proposal; it's another silly proposal that somehow is passing -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:47 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 27 Oct 2008, at 03:56, Ian Kelly wrote: > >> Ironic. > > > Oh? Not very. > > Messing with people's contracts from inside their framework is fine. > > Messing them up via proposal is not. Why? The whole point of making an R1728 contract is to let the contract be governed by Agora. Messing with things by proposal is a long tradition in Agora. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
On 27 Oct 2008, at 03:56, Ian Kelly wrote: Ironic. Oh? Not very. Messing with people's contracts from inside their framework is fine. Messing them up via proposal is not. -- ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I support. I mean, really, don't meddle with other people's contracts, okay? Ironic. -root
