DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] October Estate Auction

You mean "Another Economy Fix Attempt", right? Did you ever revise that? I can't find anything except the original version (I'm preparing a revised Promotor report). -Aris On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > Interesting. My first guess was that this was an attempt to scam my

Re: DIS: Draft: Crime Improvements v2

Good catch. -Aris On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 9:11 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Sun, 8 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > >> A person SHALL NOT deliberately, by eir explicit, positive, and >> restricted >> action aid, abet, or induce the violation of the rules by another person; >> when >> e does

Re: DIS: Draft: Conditionals and Determinacy v3

Oops. I think I can fix most of those either by cutting things or tweaking bits. There's one complaint I can't think of a good way to fix (the thing about invalidating loops), but I hope that isn't a deal-breaker on its own? -Aris On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > You haven't

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7908-7921

Oh dear, I’ve been rewrapping to 76. Not sure how I miscounted that. I’ve fixed my sublime settings; rules will fix themselves as I touch them. Some day if I’m feeling particularly motivated I’ll go through and fix everything. Gaelan > On Oct 9, 2017, at 10:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7908-7921

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Sun, 8 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > > For the record, I’ve been re-wrapping rules as I touch them. Looking at the > > ruleset now, however, I’m not sure if I’ve been indenting to the right > > width… > > Well I'm not sure which ones you've f

DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] October Estate Auction

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: win-by-robbing-Agora proposal (that was intended as a real proposal, not just a scam vessel; if that proposal doesn’t exist, I create it with the text and attributes from the original message), but (barring a bug/typo) Hm you only have to "specify" the

Re: DIS: Re: Agency: PPE

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, Reuben Staley wrote: Yeah, but in my question, I kind of meant before they were even created, though I see the confusion because of my non-explicit wording... Gosh, now I feel like such a hypocrite, criticising the wording of a rule then being ambiguous with mine... Before

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7908-7921

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: For the record, I’ve been re-wrapping rules as I touch them. Looking at the ruleset now, however, I’m not sure if I’ve been indenting to the right width… Well I'm not sure which ones you've fixed, so... The standard used to be something like 75 chars,

Re: DIS: Draft: Crime Improvements v2

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: A person SHALL NOT deliberately, by eir explicit, positive, and restricted action aid, abet, or induce the violation of the rules by another person; when e does so, e commits the Class-3 Crime of Being an Accessory. A person never is never an accessor

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agency: PPP

Nope... On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 at 21:23 Gaelan Steele wrote: > *TT*ttPF > > On Oct 9, 2017, at 12:30 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > [updated version; I won’t resolve the first] > I intend, with 24 hours’ notice, to create this agency: > > Title: PPP (Platonic Promises, Please) > Agents: all players >

DIS: Re: BUS: Agency: PPP

TTttPF > On Oct 9, 2017, at 12:30 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > [updated version; I won’t resolve the first] > I intend, with 24 hours’ notice, to create this agency: > Title: PPP (Platonic Promises, Please) > Agents: all players > Powers: > For the purposes of the agency, a promise is a statemen

DIS: Re: BUS: Agency: PPP

you replied to the wrong email. as i receive it, this is just another intent for the original version not the pi=2 version. On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 6:31 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > pf > > > On Oct 8, 2017, at 9:21 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > (By the way: I destroy MKD.) > > I intend, with 24

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7908-7921

Tacking prices onto everything is definitely one way to incentivize the accumulation of wealth, but I'm not sure it's the best one. -- Trigon -- On Oct 9, 2017 3:38 PM, "VJ Rada" wrote: Alexis is bang on. That's where I was going with "libertarian world" bc in libertarian world you need

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7908-7921

Alexis is bang on. That's where I was going with "libertarian world" bc in libertarian world you need to spend cash to buy EVERYTHING. On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > I don't believe I was around for the drafts, sorry. > > In any case, the problem with the economy isn't thin

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7908-7921

I don't believe I was around for the drafts, sorry. In any case, the problem with the economy isn't things like stocks and debts, imo. It is that there is little benefit to accumulating wealth. That needs fixing first in my opinion. On Mon, Oct 9, 2017, 16:52 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, < p.

Re: DIS: Draft: Crime Improvements v2

I see multiple ones like G's. On 10/09/2017 10:38 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 at 10:28 Kerim Aydin > wrote: Not all that complex, though one must wait for the right circumstances. But the circumstances aren't too rare. We must have d

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7908-7921

Given that I went through many rounds of drafting with this, I wish you could have mentioned it. The problem that exists is the lack of the ability to stimulate the economy with stocks or allow debt. This resolves that by creating a mechanism for it. On 10/09/2017 09:19 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:

DIS: Re: BUS: Agency: PPP

[updated version; I won’t resolve the first] I intend, with 24 hours’ notice, to create this agency: Title: PPP (Platonic Promises, Please) Agents: all players Powers: For the purposes of the agency, a promise is a statement publicly stated as a promise by Gaelan. The prior notwithstanding, a stat

Re: DIS: Draft: Crime Improvements v2

Feel free to copy my promise Agency. I considered making it attempt to ratify { π = 2 } instead of intentionally break a pledge; I’ll probably change it back to that before resolving. Gaelan > On Oct 9, 2017, at 10:06 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Actually never mind, the new pledge rule m

Re: DIS: Draft: Crime Improvements v2

Ah, I hadn't thought of pledges. I had something crazier in mind. On Mon, Oct 9, 2017, 13:08 Kerim Aydin, wrote: > > > Actually never mind, the new pledge rule makes it nearly impossible. > > Did we really just make it take Agoran consent to enforce pledges at all? > That completely neuters pled

Re: DIS: Draft: Crime Improvements v2

Actually never mind, the new pledge rule makes it nearly impossible. Did we really just make it take Agoran consent to enforce pledges at all? That completely neuters pledges if you ask me. Ugh. On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > It is if I can't find the paradox. I suspect that it's s

Re: DIS: Draft: Crime Improvements v2

It is if I can't find the paradox. I suspect that it's somewhere in the winning rule, as I'm messing with retroactivity, which tends to breed paradoxes. I can't find a way to force this specific text to produce a paradox though. -Aris On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > G. is sa

Re: DIS: Draft: Crime Improvements v2

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 at 10:28 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Not all that complex, though one must wait for the right circumstances. > But the circumstances aren't too rare. > We must have different scenarios in mind, then.

Re: DIS: Draft: Crime Improvements v2

Not all that complex, though one must wait for the right circumstances. But the circumstances aren't too rare. On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > Reading the proposal, I agree, it is possible to construct a paradox with it > as written. The circumstances required are > currently extremely

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] ADoP and Prime Minister Elections

I vote Alexis for ADoP and myself for PM. On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 5:58 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I vote VJ Rada for ADoP and [myself, G., and o] for PM for not being the > other people. > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > p.scri

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agency: PPE

Yep. I only realized that after the fact. At least I made the mistake earlier rather than later. -- Trigon -- On Oct 9, 2017 5:32 AM, "Alexis Hunt" wrote: > I don't believe this works as you think it does. Agencies can't create > obligations on players, only allow them to perform action

Re: DIS: Re: Agency: PPE

On Oct 9, 2017 2:58 AM, "VJ Rada" wrote: MAYS and CANS and SHALLS and all that don't strictly work with agencies. The SHALL you have there is certainly not enforcable. None of that agency stuff is really enforcable, you'll need to do it with pledges within the agency. Remember that agencies are j

Re: DIS: Draft: Crime Improvements v2

Reading the proposal, I agree, it is possible to construct a paradox with it as written. The circumstances required are currently extremely complex, however, our Paradox rule, when it existed, allowed a win for a hypothetical paradox, I believe, and there definitely is a concrete set of actions tha

Re: DIS: Draft: Conditionals and Determinacy v3

You haven't addressed most of my concerns from the last draft, so I will still be strongly voting against, and likely deregistering if it passes. On Mon, Oct 9, 2017, 00:33 Aris Merchant, < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Title: Conditionals and Determinacy v3 > Adoption index: 3.0 >

DIS: Re: BUS: Agency: PPE

I don't believe this works as you think it does. Agencies can't create obligations on players, only allow them to perform actions. On Mon, Oct 9, 2017, 04:12 Reuben Staley, wrote: > I intend, with 24 hours notice, to create the following agency, which is > enclosed in curly brackets below. > > {

Re: DIS: Draft: Crime Improvements v2

G. is saying that your proposal has a paradox. I haven't read through it yet, but I don't think the correct response is to include a victory condition in your rule. On Mon, Oct 9, 2017, 00:58 Aris Merchant, < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 9:45 PM Kerim Aydin

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7908-7921

CoE: my proposal "Clarity Act" is not listed as being in the Proposal Pool, which it is because you did not distribute it. On Sun, Oct 8, 2017, 23:50 Aris Merchant, < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran > Decision of whether

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7908-7921

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Oct 9, 2017, at 12:10 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > Silly season: FORx2 > No Lockout: FORx2 > What is a rulekeepor: AGAINSTx2 > Infinite Money Fix: FORx2 > Election Campaigns: FORx2 > Cheer up v7: AGAINSTx2. Along with Org

Re: DIS: Re: Agency: PPE

MAYS and CANS and SHALLS and all that don't strictly work with agencies. The SHALL you have there is certainly not enforcable. None of that agency stuff is really enforcable, you'll need to do it with pledges within the agency. Remember that agencies are just supposed to list things other people ca

DIS: Re: Agency: PPE

In rereading my message, I notice that I used "MAY" in the first paragraph of the powers text, while "CAN" would probably be more fitting. Is there a way to edit agencies without repealing them and reinstating them? Should I even be worrying about this? -- Trigon -- On Oct 9, 2017 2:12 AM