Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8277-8279
Well, the current contracts rules are very broken. But that's ok! :P
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 16:21, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> TBH, there's no real reason to disallow 1-member contracts. It doesn't
> make sense under real world contract law, but Agoran contracts can
> also function like corporations.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 1:10 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, the rules need to handle open-ended contracts better IMO.
> Contracts are written as entities that can gain and lose members at will,
> but there’s no clear way to bootstrap a contract.
> >
> > Gaelan
> >
> > > On Jan 8, 2020, at 12:34 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 11:38, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business <
> > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Gaelan wrote:
> > >>> TTttPF
> > >>>
> > >>> Also, I create the following contract: {
> > >>> Any person may become a party of this contract to act on Gaelan’s
> behalf
> > >> as described below.
> > >>>
> > >>> Any person may act on Gaelan’s behalf to perform a series of actions,
> > >> subject to the following conditions:
> > >>> * Gaelan attempted to perform those exact actions (verbatim) in a
> > >> message to a discussion forum
> > >>> * The message to the discussion forum occurred within the past 24
> hours
> > >>> * Gaelan's message was clearly an attempt to perform actions by
> sending
> > >> a message to a public forum (and, specifically, it was > not labelled
> as a
> > >> draft of a later public action, such as a “proto” proposal)
> > >>> * No actions have been performed by Gaelan, or on eir behalf, after
> the
> > >> message to the discussion forum
> > >>>
> > >>> Gaelan may terminate this contract at any time, by announcement.
> > >>> }
> > >>
> > >> I join/agree to this contract.
> > >>
> > >> -twg
> > >>
> > >
> > > I CFJ { As a result of the quoted messages, Gaelan and twg are parties
> to a
> > > contract with the text in Gaelan's message. }
> > >
> > > Arguments: The rules explicitly prohibit a contract with only party.
> > > Therefore, even if Gaelan's ISTID would succeed, e could not have made
> a
> > > contract containing only one party, and if e did, the rules would have
> > > destroyed it. On the other hand, e clearly expressed the intent to be
> bound
> > > by the contract, and therefore arguably twg's acceptance was actually
> what
> > > brought such a contract into existence.
> > >
> > > Alexis
> >
>
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8277-8279
TBH, there's no real reason to disallow 1-member contracts. It doesn't
make sense under real world contract law, but Agoran contracts can
also function like corporations.
-Aris
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 1:10 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> Yeah, the rules need to handle open-ended contracts better IMO. Contracts are
> written as entities that can gain and lose members at will, but there’s no
> clear way to bootstrap a contract.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Jan 8, 2020, at 12:34 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 11:38, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Gaelan wrote:
> >>> TTttPF
> >>>
> >>> Also, I create the following contract: {
> >>> Any person may become a party of this contract to act on Gaelan’s behalf
> >> as described below.
> >>>
> >>> Any person may act on Gaelan’s behalf to perform a series of actions,
> >> subject to the following conditions:
> >>> * Gaelan attempted to perform those exact actions (verbatim) in a
> >> message to a discussion forum
> >>> * The message to the discussion forum occurred within the past 24 hours
> >>> * Gaelan's message was clearly an attempt to perform actions by sending
> >> a message to a public forum (and, specifically, it was > not labelled as a
> >> draft of a later public action, such as a “proto” proposal)
> >>> * No actions have been performed by Gaelan, or on eir behalf, after the
> >> message to the discussion forum
> >>>
> >>> Gaelan may terminate this contract at any time, by announcement.
> >>> }
> >>
> >> I join/agree to this contract.
> >>
> >> -twg
> >>
> >
> > I CFJ { As a result of the quoted messages, Gaelan and twg are parties to a
> > contract with the text in Gaelan's message. }
> >
> > Arguments: The rules explicitly prohibit a contract with only party.
> > Therefore, even if Gaelan's ISTID would succeed, e could not have made a
> > contract containing only one party, and if e did, the rules would have
> > destroyed it. On the other hand, e clearly expressed the intent to be bound
> > by the contract, and therefore arguably twg's acceptance was actually what
> > brought such a contract into existence.
> >
> > Alexis
>
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8277-8279
Yeah, the rules need to handle open-ended contracts better IMO. Contracts are
written as entities that can gain and lose members at will, but there’s no
clear way to bootstrap a contract.
Gaelan
> On Jan 8, 2020, at 12:34 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 11:38, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> Gaelan wrote:
>>> TTttPF
>>>
>>> Also, I create the following contract: {
>>> Any person may become a party of this contract to act on Gaelan’s behalf
>> as described below.
>>>
>>> Any person may act on Gaelan’s behalf to perform a series of actions,
>> subject to the following conditions:
>>> * Gaelan attempted to perform those exact actions (verbatim) in a
>> message to a discussion forum
>>> * The message to the discussion forum occurred within the past 24 hours
>>> * Gaelan's message was clearly an attempt to perform actions by sending
>> a message to a public forum (and, specifically, it was > not labelled as a
>> draft of a later public action, such as a “proto” proposal)
>>> * No actions have been performed by Gaelan, or on eir behalf, after the
>> message to the discussion forum
>>>
>>> Gaelan may terminate this contract at any time, by announcement.
>>> }
>>
>> I join/agree to this contract.
>>
>> -twg
>>
>
> I CFJ { As a result of the quoted messages, Gaelan and twg are parties to a
> contract with the text in Gaelan's message. }
>
> Arguments: The rules explicitly prohibit a contract with only party.
> Therefore, even if Gaelan's ISTID would succeed, e could not have made a
> contract containing only one party, and if e did, the rules would have
> destroyed it. On the other hand, e clearly expressed the intent to be bound
> by the contract, and therefore arguably twg's acceptance was actually what
> brought such a contract into existence.
>
> Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8277-8279
On 1/1/20 12:47 AM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > TTtt goddamn PF > > Gaelan NttPF. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8277-8279
TTtt goddamn PF Gaelan > On Dec 31, 2019, at 9:39 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > >> On Dec 28, 2019, at 3:43 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official >> wrote: >> >> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran >> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal >> pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the >> quorum is 3, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid >> options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are >> conditional votes). >> >> ID Author(s)AITitle >> --- >> 8277& G. 1.0 Minor Giveaway > > FOR, I’m always up for weird rules-test proposals (see my recent one) > >> 8278 Murphy 3.0 Resolve the troubles > > PRESENT, because I just got back and scary complicated things are happening > and I’m not qualified to judge > >> 8279 Aris, Murphy 3.0 Equitable Detroubling > > PRESENT > >> >> The proposal pool is currently empty. >> >> Legend: & : Proposal may or may not already have been distributed. >> >> The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. >> >> // >> ID: 8277 >> Title: Minor Giveaway >> Adoption index: 1.0 >> Author: G. >> Co-authors: >> >> I transfer 5 coins to each active player, in the order that they >> are listed in the most recent Registrar's Weekly Report. >> >> // >> ID: 8278 >> Title: Resolve the troubles >> Adoption index: 3.0 >> Author: Murphy >> Co-authors: >> >> [The normal standard set by CFJ 1905 is "a message has not been sent via >> a forum until most persons who have arranged to receive messages via >> the forum receive it". This is a sensible place to draw the line, but >> verifying that for a whole set of messages is arguably more trouble >> than it's worth. AFAIK no scams were attempted, apart from a Win by >> Apathy that was already objected to; and even once we verify that a >> message was received by enough people, we still have to keep track of >> which of those messages have or haven't already been verified. >> >> H. Distributor omd advises that the problems started on Dec 14, so this >> includes all messages from the a-o and a-b archives from Dec 13 onward.] >> >> Ratify the following ~~~-delimited document: >> >> ~~~ >> Each of the following messages was effectively sent to the Public Forum >> on or about the Date: stamp shown in the archives. Claims within these >> messages (in particular, claims to perform actions) may still be >> ineffective for other reasons. >> >> Relevant messages from >> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2019-December/date.html >> >> BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 James Cook >> OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset Jason Cobb >> BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 James Cook >> OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8277 Aris Merchant >> OFF: [Registrar] Agoran Directory James Cook >> OFF: [Registrar] Forbes 500 James Cook >> OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset: October 2019 James Cook >> OFF: Round 2, fight! Edward Murphy >> OFF: Fwd: [dicelog] Selection of Comptrollor Edward Murphy >> OFF: [ADoP] Metareport Edward Murphy >> OFF: [Distributor] list status omd >> OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3783 Assigned to omd Kerim Aydin >> OFF: [Registrar] Agoran Directory James Cook >> OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 James Cook >> OFF: [Distributor] list status omd >> Fwd: OFF: [Distributor] list status omd >> OFF: [ADoP] Metareport Edward Murphy >> >> Relevant messages from >> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-December/date.html >> >> BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 James Cook >> BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 James Cook >> BUS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset Jason Cobb >> BUS: Judgement of CFJs 3780 and 3782 James Cook >> BUS: Judgement of CFJs 3780 and 3782 James Cook >> BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3779 Assigned to Jason Cobb James Cook >> DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3779 Assigned to Jason Cobb James >> Cook >> BUS: End of Zombie lease James Cook >> BUS: Re: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8277 Aris Merchant >> BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Forbes 500 James Cook >> BUS: Income James Cook >> BUS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset James Cook >> BUS: Notice of Honour James Cook >> BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8277 Edward Murphy >> BUS: Resolution of Prime Minister election Edward Murphy >> BUS: Vote on Proposal 8277 James Cook >> BUS: PM Candidacy James Cook >> BUS: Might as well try James Cook >> BUS: Might as well try Jason Cobb >> BUS: Might as well try omd >> BUS: CoE on ADoP report James Cook
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8277-8279
Gaelan wrote: 8277& G. 1.0 Minor Giveaway FOR, I’m always up for weird rules-test proposals (see my recent one) (etc.) NttPF
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8277-8279
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019, AIS523--- via agora-discussion wrote: Ørjan's issue is that e believes a single ratification can't make retroactive changes at two different points in past time. I suppose that's a simple way of putting it, except I'd use "simulate" instead of "make". Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8277-8279
On Sat, 2019-12-28 at 18:48 -0800, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > So, just to be clear here, we’re going to ratify the claim that a-o > and a-b stopped being public fora at the start time and resumed being > public fora at the end time? I’m good with that. Ørjan's issue is that e believes a single ratification can't make retroactive changes at two different points in past time. So you'd either need two ratifications to do that, or else one ratification followed by making a-o and a-b public via the mechanism in rule 478. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8277-8279
On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 6:45 PM Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Dec 2019, AIS523--- via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On Sun, 2019-12-29 at 03:32 +0100, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion > wrote: > >> The simplest way I can see to fix this is to pair each dubious email > with > >> its own ratifying document, specifying the date stamp of the message as > >> the time it was true. > > > > What about ratifying a-b and a-o as not having been public fora? (To > > BAK, obviously.) That seems to make all the potential knock-on effects > > clear in an easily understandable way. > > Huh, that should work, as long as all relevant messages go to BAK. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. > So, just to be clear here, we’re going to ratify the claim that a-o and a-b stopped being public fora at the start time and resumed being public fora at the end time? I’m good with that. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8277-8279
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019, AIS523--- via agora-discussion wrote: On Sun, 2019-12-29 at 03:32 +0100, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote: The simplest way I can see to fix this is to pair each dubious email with its own ratifying document, specifying the date stamp of the message as the time it was true. What about ratifying a-b and a-o as not having been public fora? (To BAK, obviously.) That seems to make all the potential knock-on effects clear in an easily understandable way. Huh, that should work, as long as all relevant messages go to BAK. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8277-8279
On Sun, 2019-12-29 at 03:32 +0100, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote: > Rule 1551 states: > >the gamestate is modified > to what it would be if, at the time the ratified document was > published, the gamestate had been minimally modified to make the > ratified document as true and accurate as possible; however, if the > document explicitly specifies a different past time as being the > time the document was true, the specified time is used to determine > the minimal modifications. > > Back when we introduced the "different past time" possibility, my > reasoning was essentially that the "minimally modified" specification for > ratification is only sensibly calculable if the intuitive time for > "retroactively" changing the game state is the same as or very close to > the time for which the ratification is calculated - in particular, there > should be no in-between follow-on effects, since it might be _more > minimal_ for the ratification to ignore these rather than include them. > > I claim that both the below ratification attempts, as well as the one > Murphy has proposed later, fail horribly in this respect, as there are a > plethora of possible follow-on effects between the time of the large > number of possibly failed emails and the time of the ratified document. As > a result, the true "minimal modification" may differ greatly from the > intuitive result we're trying to achieve. > > The simplest way I can see to fix this is to pair each dubious email with > its own ratifying document, specifying the date stamp of the message as > the time it was true. What about ratifying a-b and a-o as not having been public fora? (To BAK, obviously.) That seems to make all the potential knock-on effects clear in an easily understandable way. -- ais523
