Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

[Josh T]

Oh huh, I thought I had written "private direct channel of communication"
and on double-checking I appeared to had not done that. Admittedly, that
could still be ambiguous on the second point, so I should go clarify this.
Anything amiss by saying "A private direct channel of communication, for
the purposes of this contract, constitutes either a direct email to a
supplied email address (default: one registered with the Registrar's
office) with no other parties, or some other mutually agreeable medium."?

天火狐

On 30 October 2017 at 15:34, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > Could you explain why you feel it necessary to define "private", is the
> common
> > English definition not sufficient on some regard?
>
> It's a bit ambiguous in the common definition.
>
> - A "private" group could include more than 1 other person by common
>definition.  So if a third party is cc'd it's not clear whether that
>counts as private.
>
> - If "private" is strictly the opposite of "public", the discussion
>forum could qualify as private (less likely interpretation).
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, Josh T wrote:
> Could you explain why you feel it necessary to define "private", is the 
> common 
> English definition not sufficient on some regard?

It's a bit ambiguous in the common definition.

- A "private" group could include more than 1 other person by common
   definition.  So if a third party is cc'd it's not clear whether that
   counts as private.

- If "private" is strictly the opposite of "public", the discussion
   forum could qualify as private (less likely interpretation).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

[Josh T]

Could you explain why you feel it necessary to define "private", is the
common English definition not sufficient on some regard?

I believe that it is beyond my ability to draft to adequately restrict such
divulgences to the judicial cases where it is needed, since it might open
up the avenue of people calling CFJs to learn other people's Shibboleths. I
do not intend to reveal peoples' Shibboleths, but concede that it is
possible that there is a possible judicial case where it would be greatly
beneficial for the judge to know what it is. (Specially, if a CFJ can't be
called on the basis using a schema like "Assuming the Shibboleth of X is
'Y', [...]")

There is an amendment which has been enacted that clarifies the substring
clause.

I may when I need to next amend the contract to include a provision against
transferring the last shiny and clarifying text that the Notary takes the
upkeep costs of the contract.

Thank you for taking the time to go over the contract.

天火狐

On 29 October 2017 at 03:27, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Josh T 
> wrote:
> > I create the following contract, titled "Order of the Occult Hand", by
> > paying Agora 1 Shiny:
> > {{{
> > The player 天火狐 is the proprietor of the Order of the Occult Hand. The
> > proprietor CAN make amendments to this contract by announcing eir intent
> to
> > do so with at least 48 hours notice. All other non-proprietor parties to
> > this contract are referred to as a "participant" of this contract.
> >
> > A player CAN become a party to this contract via announcement. A party to
> > this contract who is not wagering the occult hand CAN cease being a
> party to
> > this contract by announcement.
> >
> > The collective assets which this contract owns is referred to as the
> "Pot".
> > The only party which is allowed to transfer assets from the Pot is the
> > proprietor. The proprietor MAY NOT transfer assets from the Pot except as
> > detailed in this contract. This contract is willing to receive all
> assets.
> >
> > When a participant to this contract announces they wish to "wager the
> occult
> > hand", the following happens:
> > * If the party is already wagering the occult hand, this announcement is
> > INEFFECTIVE. Otherwise, the participant is considered to be wagering the
> > occult hand.
> > * The proprietor, in a private channel of communication, shall message
> the
> > participant in a timely manner a secret word or phrase known as their
> > "Shibboleth". The proprietor SHALL announce that the participant has
> > received eir Shibboleth. If the proprietor fails to do so in a timely
> > manner, then the participant is no longer considered to be wagering the
> > occult hand.
>
> Could you define private as something that clearly means no player
> other than the once in question? It would also be nice if you made it
> so the proprietor SHALL NOT give out Shibboleth except as described in
> the contract. If you do so, you should probably make an exception for
> judicial cases.
>
> > When a proposal authored by a participant contains as a substring, in its
> > text, eir Shibboleth and, at the time of the closure of the voting
> period of
> > the aforementioned proposal, no participant to this contract has found
> the
> > occult hand in the proposal, the following occurs:
>
> This should be changed so that the proposal needs either some number
> of FOR voter or some F/A ratio. Passing may well be to strong a
> restriction, although it would work as well. Right now there are cases
> where it might be cost effective to spam nonsense proposals, which the
> Promotor would have to distribute.
>
> > * The participant who authored the proposal SHOULD, in a timely manner,
> > announce that they have won against the occult hand;
> > * The proprietor SHALL transfer the Pot to said participant in a timely
> > manner.
> > * The participant is no longer considered to be wagering the occult hand.
> >
> > The action to "look for the occult hand" refers to one of three actions,
> > distinguished by the cost paid by the party taking the action. The valid
> > options are:
> > * If the party announces they are looking for the occult hand and pays
> this
> > contract 16 shinies, they may name a pending or distributed proposal
> > authored by a participant who is wagering the occult hand;
> > * If the party announces they are looking for the occult hand and pays
> this
> > contract 3 shinies, they may name a paragraph in a pending or distributed
> > proposal authored by a participant who is wagering the occult hand;
> > * If the party announces they are looking for the occult hand and pays
> this
> > contract 1 shiny, they may name a word.
> >
> > Should the named text contain any part of the author's Shibboleth, then
> the
> > occult hand is considered found in that proposal. The party who
> successfully
> > found the occult hand is entitled to the Shinies they paid this 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

[Aris Merchant]

I'm a bit wary of it. If my suggestion about requiring proposals to
have some votes is implemented, the proposals will probably all be
real proposals. If there are only a few more of them, than I'm just
doing my regular job (not that I'd object to a proper pay raise). If
the contract ends up creating significantly more work than I would
otherwise have, we can always work out a sensible rate later. For now
though, I think the whole pot should go to encouraging the
participants to participate.

-Aris

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 4:13 PM Josh T  wrote:
>
> What do people think about giving some of the Pot to the Promotor? If so, 
> what is a reasonable amount?
>
> 天火狐
>
>
> On 28 October 2017 at 19:02, Alex Smith  wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 2017-10-28 at 15:44 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> > I didn't consider that. They do have to bury it so people don't know
>> > which proposal it is, don't they. Sigh.
>>
>> I'd argue that the best fix here is simply to increase the pend fee.
>> Doubling it (to 2 AP or twice the current number of shinies) would seem
>> reasonable – spamming proposals is what people tend to do when costs go
>> cheap, and it seems reasonable to be able to AP-pend only once a week –
>> and would mean that the flood of proposals at least would help Agora's
>> liquidity problem.
>>
>> We also need to move to a varying payscale for offices, rather than the
>> standard one-payment-fits-all method. Otherwise, there's too much
>> competition for the easy offices and not enough for the hard ones.
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

[Aris Merchant]

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Josh T  wrote:
> I create the following contract, titled "Order of the Occult Hand", by
> paying Agora 1 Shiny:
> {{{
> The player 天火狐 is the proprietor of the Order of the Occult Hand. The
> proprietor CAN make amendments to this contract by announcing eir intent to
> do so with at least 48 hours notice. All other non-proprietor parties to
> this contract are referred to as a "participant" of this contract.
>
> A player CAN become a party to this contract via announcement. A party to
> this contract who is not wagering the occult hand CAN cease being a party to
> this contract by announcement.
>
> The collective assets which this contract owns is referred to as the "Pot".
> The only party which is allowed to transfer assets from the Pot is the
> proprietor. The proprietor MAY NOT transfer assets from the Pot except as
> detailed in this contract. This contract is willing to receive all assets.
>
> When a participant to this contract announces they wish to "wager the occult
> hand", the following happens:
> * If the party is already wagering the occult hand, this announcement is
> INEFFECTIVE. Otherwise, the participant is considered to be wagering the
> occult hand.
> * The proprietor, in a private channel of communication, shall message the
> participant in a timely manner a secret word or phrase known as their
> "Shibboleth". The proprietor SHALL announce that the participant has
> received eir Shibboleth. If the proprietor fails to do so in a timely
> manner, then the participant is no longer considered to be wagering the
> occult hand.

Could you define private as something that clearly means no player
other than the once in question? It would also be nice if you made it
so the proprietor SHALL NOT give out Shibboleth except as described in
the contract. If you do so, you should probably make an exception for
judicial cases.

> When a proposal authored by a participant contains as a substring, in its
> text, eir Shibboleth and, at the time of the closure of the voting period of
> the aforementioned proposal, no participant to this contract has found the
> occult hand in the proposal, the following occurs:

This should be changed so that the proposal needs either some number
of FOR voter or some F/A ratio. Passing may well be to strong a
restriction, although it would work as well. Right now there are cases
where it might be cost effective to spam nonsense proposals, which the
Promotor would have to distribute.

> * The participant who authored the proposal SHOULD, in a timely manner,
> announce that they have won against the occult hand;
> * The proprietor SHALL transfer the Pot to said participant in a timely
> manner.
> * The participant is no longer considered to be wagering the occult hand.
>
> The action to "look for the occult hand" refers to one of three actions,
> distinguished by the cost paid by the party taking the action. The valid
> options are:
> * If the party announces they are looking for the occult hand and pays this
> contract 16 shinies, they may name a pending or distributed proposal
> authored by a participant who is wagering the occult hand;
> * If the party announces they are looking for the occult hand and pays this
> contract 3 shinies, they may name a paragraph in a pending or distributed
> proposal authored by a participant who is wagering the occult hand;
> * If the party announces they are looking for the occult hand and pays this
> contract 1 shiny, they may name a word.
>
> Should the named text contain any part of the author's Shibboleth, then the
> occult hand is considered found in that proposal. The party who successfully
> found the occult hand is entitled to the Shinies they paid this contract to
> take the action plus half of the remaining Shinies in the Pot (rounded
> down), which the proprietor SHALL transfer in a timely manner. If the named
> text in a "look for the occult hand" action does not contain any part of the
> author's Shibboleth, then nothing happens.

It's somewhat unclear if this would apply if a word of the Shibboleth
is there, but the whole thing isn't. This might happen, for instance,
if the Shibboleth was "the darkness" and someone searched for the word
"the".

> A participant who is wagering the occult hand CAN announce they are
> conceding the wager and paying this contract 4 shinies. If they do so, they
> are no longer considered to be wagering the occult hand.
>
> The proprietor MAY transfer assets from the Pot to pay for any upkeep to
> sustain the existence of this contract.

E MAY, but CAN e? This is also unnecessary, because the Notary takes
the shiny emself.

> The proprietor SHOULD ensure that there are at least 5 shinies in the Pot at
> all times.

I'd suggest preventing transferring away the last shiny, so that the
contract can always pay sustenance.

> }}}
>
> I pay the contract "Order of the Occult Hand" 5 shinies.
>
> To incentivize people to try this out, here is 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

[Josh T]

What do people think about giving some of the Pot to the Promotor? If so,
what is a reasonable amount?

天火狐

On 28 October 2017 at 19:02, Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Sat, 2017-10-28 at 15:44 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > I didn't consider that. They do have to bury it so people don't know
> > which proposal it is, don't they. Sigh.
>
> I'd argue that the best fix here is simply to increase the pend fee.
> Doubling it (to 2 AP or twice the current number of shinies) would seem
> reasonable – spamming proposals is what people tend to do when costs go
> cheap, and it seems reasonable to be able to AP-pend only once a week –
> and would mean that the flood of proposals at least would help Agora's
> liquidity problem.
>
> We also need to move to a varying payscale for offices, rather than the
> standard one-payment-fits-all method. Otherwise, there's too much
> competition for the easy offices and not enough for the hard ones.
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

[Alex Smith]

On Sat, 2017-10-28 at 15:44 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I didn't consider that. They do have to bury it so people don't know
> which proposal it is, don't they. Sigh.

I'd argue that the best fix here is simply to increase the pend fee.
Doubling it (to 2 AP or twice the current number of shinies) would seem
reasonable – spamming proposals is what people tend to do when costs go
cheap, and it seems reasonable to be able to AP-pend only once a week –
and would mean that the flood of proposals at least would help Agora's
liquidity problem.

We also need to move to a varying payscale for offices, rather than the
standard one-payment-fits-all method. Otherwise, there's too much
competition for the easy offices and not enough for the hard ones.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

[Josh T]

Sorry Aris! It's also worth considering that people don't have to do it in
one week, so that might be a silver lining.

天火狐

On 28 October 2017 at 18:44, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I didn't consider that. They do have to bury it so people don't know
> which proposal it is, don't they. Sigh.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 3:42 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> > Yeah, I'm predicting several proposals from every party, absolutely. So
> > it'll be a tough week for Aris in that capacity.
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Alex Smith 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 2017-10-28 at 15:37 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >> > I'm not Notary, just Promotor and Regkeepor. I think you mean o. I
> >> > pay o 5 shinies to thank em for taking the job.
> >>
> >> The contract in question is hardly changing, but it strongly encourages
> >> players to write proposals. So the prediction is that it'll create a
> >> lot of extra work for the Promotor.
> >>
> >> --
> >> ais523
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

[Aris Merchant]

I didn't consider that. They do have to bury it so people don't know
which proposal it is, don't they. Sigh.

-Aris

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 3:42 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> Yeah, I'm predicting several proposals from every party, absolutely. So
> it'll be a tough week for Aris in that capacity.
>
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Alex Smith 
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 2017-10-28 at 15:37 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> > I'm not Notary, just Promotor and Regkeepor. I think you mean o. I
>> > pay o 5 shinies to thank em for taking the job.
>>
>> The contract in question is hardly changing, but it strongly encourages
>> players to write proposals. So the prediction is that it'll create a
>> lot of extra work for the Promotor.
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

[VJ Rada]

Yeah, I'm predicting several proposals from every party, absolutely. So
it'll be a tough week for Aris in that capacity.

On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Sat, 2017-10-28 at 15:37 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > I'm not Notary, just Promotor and Regkeepor. I think you mean o. I
> > pay o 5 shinies to thank em for taking the job.
>
> The contract in question is hardly changing, but it strongly encourages
> players to write proposals. So the prediction is that it'll create a
> lot of extra work for the Promotor.
>
> --
> ais523
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

[Aris Merchant]

Oh. That makes sense. It's still probably going to be a bigger problem
for o than me though.

-Aris

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-10-28 at 15:37 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> I'm not Notary, just Promotor and Regkeepor. I think you mean o. I
>> pay o 5 shinies to thank em for taking the job.
>
> The contract in question is hardly changing, but it strongly encourages
> players to write proposals. So the prediction is that it'll create a
> lot of extra work for the Promotor.
>
> --
> ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

[Alex Smith]

On Sat, 2017-10-28 at 15:37 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I'm not Notary, just Promotor and Regkeepor. I think you mean o. I
> pay o 5 shinies to thank em for taking the job.

The contract in question is hardly changing, but it strongly encourages
players to write proposals. So the prediction is that it'll create a
lot of extra work for the Promotor.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

[Josh T]

For keeping track of contracts? Surely a little bit of bookkeeping is worth
interesting gameplay. As far as I understand it, the Notary only has to
keep track of who is party to the Occult Hand, the Treasurer needs to keep
track of the Pot, and I have to do everything else.

天火狐

On 28 October 2017 at 18:24, VJ Rada  wrote:

> This might be another tough week for Aris :(
>
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I join the occult hand contract and wish to wager.
>>
>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2017, Josh T wrote:
>> > I am pleased to announce that V.J. Rada has received eir Shibboleth.
>> > 天火狐
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

[VJ Rada]

This might be another tough week for Aris :(

On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> I join the occult hand contract and wish to wager.
>
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > I am pleased to announce that V.J. Rada has received eir Shibboleth.
> > 天火狐
>
>


-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

[Cuddle Beam]

sneak in the word "subtle", they'll never see it coming

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Josh T  wrote:

> To put it in other words, "If you were assigning words/phrases that other
> people have to sneak into proposals without arousing other people's
> suspicion, what do you think are reasonable choices?"
>
> The idea is that *I* have an idea of what I intend to assign as
> words/phrases, but this might not be what people expect, and I'm doing a
> reality check. (Hint: There is a reason why the contract is called what it
> is)
>
> 天火狐
>
> On 26 October 2017 at 21:46, ATMunn  wrote:
>
>> I'm not really sure what is meant by the first question.
>>
>> On 10/26/2017 9:34 PM, Josh T wrote:
>>
>>> For the purposes to provide everyone involved with a fun game, I would
>>> like to ask those interested to partake in a voluntary anonymous survey so
>>> I have an idea of what people are expecting. I will probably be making
>>> word/phrase lists on Saturday after I resolve my intent to amend the
>>> contract so that it is usable and pull / update that list as people make or
>>> concede the wager. The survey can be found here:
>>> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf1aKvKLkD-kzBPrgBJ
>>> aRyl32nA028tjNlZXNCKvu35Vw5E8Q/viewform
>>>
>>> 天火狐
>>>
>>> On 26 October 2017 at 00:25, VJ Rada > vijar...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I become a party to the Order
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Josh T >> > wrote:
>>>  > NttPF.
>>>  >
>>>  > I posted the intent to amend. I'm heading to bed though, so if I
>>> missed
>>>  > things let me know and I'll amend to fix it ASAP.
>>>  >
>>>  > 天火狐
>>>  >
>>>  > On 26 October 2017 at 00:19, VJ Rada > vijar...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>  >>
>>>  >> I become a party to the Order.
>>>  >>
>>>  >> I will wager if you change the party/participant thing.
>>>  >>
>>>  >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Nic Evans >> > wrote:
>>>  >> > I become a party of Order of the Occult Hand. I like the idea
>>>  >> > tremendously but there's two qualms:
>>>  >> >
>>>  >> > * Party and participant are used interchangeably when they are
>>> in fact
>>>  >> > not. Party includes the proprietor, participant does not. This
>>> leads,
>>>  >> > either intentionally or accidentally, to the bigger issue:
>>>  >> >
>>>  >> > * The proprietor appears to be able to look for the occult
>>> hand,
>>>  >> > potentially making this a giant scam.
>>>  >> >
>>>  >> >
>>>  >>
>>>  >>
>>>  >>
>>>  >> --
>>>  >> From V.J. Rada
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>  From V.J. Rada
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

[Josh T]

To put it in other words, "If you were assigning words/phrases that other
people have to sneak into proposals without arousing other people's
suspicion, what do you think are reasonable choices?"

The idea is that *I* have an idea of what I intend to assign as
words/phrases, but this might not be what people expect, and I'm doing a
reality check. (Hint: There is a reason why the contract is called what it
is)

天火狐

On 26 October 2017 at 21:46, ATMunn  wrote:

> I'm not really sure what is meant by the first question.
>
> On 10/26/2017 9:34 PM, Josh T wrote:
>
>> For the purposes to provide everyone involved with a fun game, I would
>> like to ask those interested to partake in a voluntary anonymous survey so
>> I have an idea of what people are expecting. I will probably be making
>> word/phrase lists on Saturday after I resolve my intent to amend the
>> contract so that it is usable and pull / update that list as people make or
>> concede the wager. The survey can be found here:
>> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf1aKvKLkD-kzBPrgBJ
>> aRyl32nA028tjNlZXNCKvu35Vw5E8Q/viewform
>>
>> 天火狐
>>
>> On 26 October 2017 at 00:25, VJ Rada  vijar...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I become a party to the Order
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Josh T > > wrote:
>>  > NttPF.
>>  >
>>  > I posted the intent to amend. I'm heading to bed though, so if I
>> missed
>>  > things let me know and I'll amend to fix it ASAP.
>>  >
>>  > 天火狐
>>  >
>>  > On 26 October 2017 at 00:19, VJ Rada  vijar...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>  >>
>>  >> I become a party to the Order.
>>  >>
>>  >> I will wager if you change the party/participant thing.
>>  >>
>>  >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Nic Evans > > wrote:
>>  >> > I become a party of Order of the Occult Hand. I like the idea
>>  >> > tremendously but there's two qualms:
>>  >> >
>>  >> > * Party and participant are used interchangeably when they are
>> in fact
>>  >> > not. Party includes the proprietor, participant does not. This
>> leads,
>>  >> > either intentionally or accidentally, to the bigger issue:
>>  >> >
>>  >> > * The proprietor appears to be able to look for the occult hand,
>>  >> > potentially making this a giant scam.
>>  >> >
>>  >> >
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >> --
>>  >> From V.J. Rada
>>  >
>>  >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>  From V.J. Rada
>>
>>
>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

[ATMunn]

I'm not really sure what is meant by the first question.

On 10/26/2017 9:34 PM, Josh T wrote:

For the purposes to provide everyone involved with a fun game, I would like to 
ask those interested to partake in a voluntary anonymous survey so I have an 
idea of what people are expecting. I will probably be making word/phrase lists 
on Saturday after I resolve my intent to amend the contract so that it is 
usable and pull / update that list as people make or concede the wager. The 
survey can be found here: 
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf1aKvKLkD-kzBPrgBJaRyl32nA028tjNlZXNCKvu35Vw5E8Q/viewform

天火狐

On 26 October 2017 at 00:25, VJ Rada > wrote:

I become a party to the Order

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Josh T > wrote:
 > NttPF.
 >
 > I posted the intent to amend. I'm heading to bed though, so if I missed
 > things let me know and I'll amend to fix it ASAP.
 >
 > 天火狐
 >
 > On 26 October 2017 at 00:19, VJ Rada > wrote:
 >>
 >> I become a party to the Order.
 >>
 >> I will wager if you change the party/participant thing.
 >>
 >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Nic Evans > wrote:
 >> > I become a party of Order of the Occult Hand. I like the idea
 >> > tremendously but there's two qualms:
 >> >
 >> > * Party and participant are used interchangeably when they are in fact
 >> > not. Party includes the proprietor, participant does not. This leads,
 >> > either intentionally or accidentally, to the bigger issue:
 >> >
 >> > * The proprietor appears to be able to look for the occult hand,
 >> > potentially making this a giant scam.
 >> >
 >> >
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >> --
 >> From V.J. Rada
 >
 >



--
 From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

[Josh T]

For the purposes to provide everyone involved with a fun game, I would like
to ask those interested to partake in a voluntary anonymous survey so I
have an idea of what people are expecting. I will probably be making
word/phrase lists on Saturday after I resolve my intent to amend the
contract so that it is usable and pull / update that list as people make or
concede the wager. The survey can be found here:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf1aKvKLkD-kzBPrgBJaRyl32nA028tjNlZXNCKvu35Vw5E8Q/viewform

天火狐

On 26 October 2017 at 00:25, VJ Rada  wrote:

> I become a party to the Order
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Josh T 
> wrote:
> > NttPF.
> >
> > I posted the intent to amend. I'm heading to bed though, so if I missed
> > things let me know and I'll amend to fix it ASAP.
> >
> > 天火狐
> >
> > On 26 October 2017 at 00:19, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >>
> >> I become a party to the Order.
> >>
> >> I will wager if you change the party/participant thing.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> >> > I become a party of Order of the Occult Hand. I like the idea
> >> > tremendously but there's two qualms:
> >> >
> >> > * Party and participant are used interchangeably when they are in fact
> >> > not. Party includes the proprietor, participant does not. This leads,
> >> > either intentionally or accidentally, to the bigger issue:
> >> >
> >> > * The proprietor appears to be able to look for the occult hand,
> >> > potentially making this a giant scam.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> From V.J. Rada
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

[Josh T]

NttPF.

I posted the intent to amend. I'm heading to bed though, so if I missed
things let me know and I'll amend to fix it ASAP.

天火狐

On 26 October 2017 at 00:19, VJ Rada  wrote:

> I become a party to the Order.
>
> I will wager if you change the party/participant thing.
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> > I become a party of Order of the Occult Hand. I like the idea
> > tremendously but there's two qualms:
> >
> > * Party and participant are used interchangeably when they are in fact
> > not. Party includes the proprietor, participant does not. This leads,
> > either intentionally or accidentally, to the bigger issue:
> >
> > * The proprietor appears to be able to look for the occult hand,
> > potentially making this a giant scam.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

[Cuddle Beam]

this is cool as fuck

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Josh T  wrote:

> I give notice to amend the Order of the Occult Hand no earlier than
> October 28th, 2017 in the following manner:
> {{{
> In the body of the contract, replace the following text (A), in its
> entirety, with the text labelled B.
>
> A:
> {The action to "look for the occult hand" refers to one of three actions,
> distinguished by the cost paid by the party taking the action. The valid
> options are:
> * If the party announces they are looking for the occult hand and pays
> this contract 16 shinies, they may name a pending or distributed proposal
> authored by a participant who is wagering the occult hand;
> * If the party announces they are looking for the occult hand and pays
> this contract 3 shinies, they may name a paragraph in a pending or
> distributed proposal authored by a participant who is wagering the occult
> hand;
> * If the party announces they are looking for the occult hand and pays
> this contract 1 shiny, they may name a word.
>
> Should the named text contain any part of the author's Shibboleth, then
> the occult hand is considered found in that proposal. The party who
> successfully found the occult hand is entitled to the Shinies they paid
> this contract to take the action plus half of the remaining Shinies in the
> Pot (rounded down), which the proprietor SHALL transfer in a timely manner.
> If the named text in a "look for the occult hand" action does not contain
> any part of the author's Shibboleth, then nothing happens.
> }
>
> B:
> {The action to "look for the occult hand" refers to one of three actions,
> distinguished by the cost paid by the participant taking the action. The
> valid options are:
> * If the participant announces they are looking for the occult hand and
> pays this contract 16 shinies, they may name a pending or distributed
> proposal authored by a participant who is wagering the occult hand;
> * If the participant announces they are looking for the occult hand and
> pays this contract 3 shinies, they may name a paragraph in a pending or
> distributed proposal authored by a participant who is wagering the occult
> hand;
> * If the participant announces they are looking for the occult hand and
> pays this contract 1 shiny, they may name a word.
>
> Should the named text contain any major word (defined to be a word of at
> least five letters in length that is not a preposition or conjunction) of
> the author's Shibboleth, then the occult hand is considered found in that
> proposal. The participant who successfully found the occult hand is
> entitled to the Shinies they paid this contract to take the action plus
> half of the remaining Shinies in the Pot (rounded down), which the
> proprietor SHALL transfer in a timely manner. If the named text in a "look
> for the occult hand" action does not contain any part of the author's
> Shibboleth, then nothing happens.
> }
> }}}
>
> 天火狐
>

DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

[VJ Rada]

I become a party to the Order.

I will wager if you change the party/participant thing.

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> I become a party of Order of the Occult Hand. I like the idea
> tremendously but there's two qualms:
>
> * Party and participant are used interchangeably when they are in fact
> not. Party includes the proprietor, participant does not. This leads,
> either intentionally or accidentally, to the bigger issue:
>
> * The proprietor appears to be able to look for the occult hand,
> potentially making this a giant scam.
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

[Josh T]

@ais: While in principle I don't disagree, I would like to see an
implementation that addresses your concerns. Think of this implementation
as a prototype for now.

@Alexis: That would be a good idea, yes. If there are any other holes that
would benefit from being patched up I would appreciate it if you could also
point them out. (I literally wrote the whole thing while I am
procrastinating reviewing)

天火狐

On 25 October 2017 at 23:56, Alexis Hunt  wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 at 23:46 Josh T  wrote:
>
>> I create the following contract, titled "Order of the Occult Hand", by
>> paying Agora 1 Shiny:
>>
>
> Provided you adjust "any part" to require something more along the lines
> of a word or such, rather than a letter, I would like to play.
>
> -Alexis
>

DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

[Alexis Hunt]

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 at 23:46 Josh T  wrote:

> I create the following contract, titled "Order of the Occult Hand", by
> paying Agora 1 Shiny:
>

Provided you adjust "any part" to require something more along the lines of
a word or such, rather than a letter, I would like to play.

-Alexis

DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2017-10-25 at 23:45 -0400, 天火狐 wrote:
> I create the following contract, titled "Order of the Occult Hand",
> by paying Agora 1 Shiny:

This is the sort of contract that I believe should be given funding
from Agora's central government (most likely that works towards a win
rather than necessarily being economically spendable), rather than
relying on that of the participants.

Of course, you'd have to rely on 天火狐 picking secret phrases of a fair
and consistent difficulty. I'm not sure if there's any easy way to do
that.

-- 
ais523