Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Partnership smashing smashing
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ian Kelly wrote: > >The rule also says "Each asset has exactly one owner." > > That provision may well be broken due to the rule failing to provide a > mechanism to enforce it. I don't think it is. As comex has pointed out, "gain" has a specific definition, so the default ownership clause can be construed as neither a transfer nor a gain. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Partnership smashing smashing
Ian Kelly wrote: >The rule also says "Each asset has exactly one owner." That provision may well be broken due to the rule failing to provide a mechanism to enforce it. >If the Bank >can't own it by default, then who does? Since the rule's provisions on this are contradictory in this case, custom is that the status quo continues: the problematic assets have no owner, despite the "exactly one owner" provision. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Partnership smashing smashing
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But that would still be a gain, thus prevented by the first half of the > third sentence. R2166 explicitly defines (defined?) gain: To "gain" an asset is to have it created in one's possession. In this attempted scam, no objects were created, so the Bank didn't gain the partnerships; and arguing that the partnerships were transferred from owner=undefined to owner=Bank is dubious at best. Anyway, I suppose there are two possible interpretations of R2166: - An asset is an entity defined (in a way that says it is an asset) by its backing document. In this case there is no scam and everything's okay, except that 1) this is not the most natural interpretation, 2) we run into the problem with recordkeepers, and 3) I think that, in this case, any document that attempted to first define an object, then proceed to define it as a currency or as a fixed asset (i.e. every rule that defines a currency) would be ineffective, because the definition of the object would not include the fact that it is an asset. A more natural interpretation (in my opinion) is: - An asset is an entity that its backing document defines to be an asset (defines as an asset). Indeed, I challenge anyone to come up with a more concise wording of the statement that clearly conveys that meaning.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Partnership smashing smashing
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've been thinking about this a bit further, and it seems there are > two possibilities. It seems clear that R2166 in some sense requires a > defined asset to have a defined recordkeepor, but it's less clear > whether a defined asset that lacks one is still an asset. If not, > then certain assets never existed, many reported voting limits were > wrong, and we've got a substantial amount to recalculate. If they are > still assets, then the fact that they never had a recordkeepor means > that they weren't self-ratifying like we thought. Same issue, but > probably much less severe. I keep forgetting that voting results self-ratify. I guess we would only need to refigure the current voting limits. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Partnership smashing smashing
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If your logic is accepted, then contest-defined assets are not > properly defined, since they fail to "define" the entity required to > track them. Additionally, rests were not properly defined (since > R2195 did not define the Conductor), marks were not properly defined > (R2176 defined neither the Assessor nor the Accountor), and worst of > all, VCs were not properly defined since September (R2126 did not > define the Assessor). > > Clearly, that position would require a significant amount of gamestate > recalculation. I've been thinking about this a bit further, and it seems there are two possibilities. It seems clear that R2166 in some sense requires a defined asset to have a defined recordkeepor, but it's less clear whether a defined asset that lacks one is still an asset. If not, then certain assets never existed, many reported voting limits were wrong, and we've got a substantial amount to recalculate. If they are still assets, then the fact that they never had a recordkeepor means that they weren't self-ratifying like we thought. Same issue, but probably much less severe. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Partnership smashing smashing
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But that would still be a gain, thus prevented by the first half of the > third sentence. The rule also says "Each asset has exactly one owner." If the Bank can't own it by default, then who does? At best, the rule is internally inconsistent. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Partnership smashing smashing
root wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The claim being made is that unowned assets get transferred to the >> Bank (by the second sentence) and then destroyed (by the second half >> of the third), if the Bank is not an authorised owner. That's highly >> dubious; I think the first half of the third sentence clearly prevents >> the transfer in that case. Destruction would only happen if the asset >> were *already* owned by someone who then ceased to be a valid owner. >> Which can be arranged, if this whole concept of making pre-existing >> entities assets works at all. > > It's not a transfer to the Bank; it's default ownership. But that would still be a gain, thus prevented by the first half of the third sentence.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Partnership smashing smashing
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The claim being made is that unowned assets get transferred to the > Bank (by the second sentence) and then destroyed (by the second half > of the third), if the Bank is not an authorised owner. That's highly > dubious; I think the first half of the third sentence clearly prevents > the transfer in that case. Destruction would only happen if the asset > were *already* owned by someone who then ceased to be a valid owner. > Which can be arranged, if this whole concept of making pre-existing > entities assets works at all. It's not a transfer to the Bank; it's default ownership. > I don't think it works, btw. root's pledge doesn't define R2145 > partnerships; R2145 does. root's pledge is either ineffective, if it's > referring to R2145 partnerships, or otherwise defines a novel class > of entities, which are assets, and which it confusingly refers to as > "partnerships". Compare the first sentence of R2166: An asset is an entity defined as such by an instrument or contract (hereafter its backing document). to the fifth: The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity defined as such by its backing document. If your logic is accepted, then contest-defined assets are not properly defined, since they fail to "define" the entity required to track them. Additionally, rests were not properly defined (since R2195 did not define the Conductor), marks were not properly defined (R2176 defined neither the Assessor nor the Accountor), and worst of all, VCs were not properly defined since September (R2126 did not define the Assessor). Clearly, that position would require a significant amount of gamestate recalculation. I agree that one could argue that my particular pledge failed because it defined a different class of partnerships. That reading seems deliberately obtuse, and it fails to address the key concern, since it would be trivial to modify my pledge to refer explicitly to R2145 partnerships. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Partnership smashing smashing
Ed Murphy wrote: >What auto-destroy mechanism? Rule 2166: Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by the Bank. If an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity outside that class. The claim being made is that unowned assets get transferred to the Bank (by the second sentence) and then destroyed (by the second half of the third), if the Bank is not an authorised owner. That's highly dubious; I think the first half of the third sentence clearly prevents the transfer in that case. Destruction would only happen if the asset were *already* owned by someone who then ceased to be a valid owner. Which can be arranged, if this whole concept of making pre-existing entities assets works at all. I don't think it works, btw. root's pledge doesn't define R2145 partnerships; R2145 does. root's pledge is either ineffective, if it's referring to R2145 partnerships, or otherwise defines a novel class of entities, which are assets, and which it confusingly refers to as "partnerships". >R105 only allows rules to be repealed via instrument, which the "R2166 >is an asset" pledge wasn't. Rule 2166 is an instrument. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Partnership smashing smashing
root wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 10:43 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 3/11/08, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > I considered something like this in my original scam, but it falls >> > afoul of R105. >> >> Does it? I think "destroying" a rule is unambiguously equivalent to >> repealing it. Either way, the purpose of this was to prevent the >> publishing of a contract similar to mine, but purporting to remove all >> Power<=2 Rules. If my 'fix' didn't work, then that potential contract >> was never a problem to start with. > > Ah, I think you're right. The issue I considered before was with an > earlier idea for how the contract would work, involving transferring > entities to myself and destroying them by announcement. When I > switched to using the auto-destroy mechanism, I didn't realize that > would make it possible to destroy power 2 rules as well. What auto-destroy mechanism? > It's clear that R2166 was dangerous, then, although I wish that > repealing it hadn't been necessary. Now notes, points, ribbons, and > the Agoran Agricultural Society are probably broken. R105 only allows rules to be repealed via instrument, which the "R2166 is an asset" pledge wasn't.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Partnership smashing smashing
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 10:43 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/11/08, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I considered something like this in my original scam, but it falls > > afoul of R105. > > Does it? I think "destroying" a rule is unambiguously equivalent to > repealing it. Either way, the purpose of this was to prevent the > publishing of a contract similar to mine, but purporting to remove all > Power<=2 Rules. If my 'fix' didn't work, then that potential contract > was never a problem to start with. Ah, I think you're right. The issue I considered before was with an earlier idea for how the contract would work, involving transferring entities to myself and destroying them by announcement. When I switched to using the auto-destroy mechanism, I didn't realize that would make it possible to destroy power 2 rules as well. It's clear that R2166 was dangerous, then, although I wish that repealing it hadn't been necessary. Now notes, points, ribbons, and the Agoran Agricultural Society are probably broken. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Partnership smashing smashing
On 3/11/08, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I considered something like this in my original scam, but it falls > afoul of R105. Does it? I think "destroying" a rule is unambiguously equivalent to repealing it. Either way, the purpose of this was to prevent the publishing of a contract similar to mine, but purporting to remove all Power<=2 Rules. If my 'fix' didn't work, then that potential contract was never a problem to start with. Although, I suppose that we still might get into trouble if someone tried to destroy all CFJs.
