On Sun, 2018-09-30 at 22:32 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > So, for instance, pending proposals and
> > calling CFJs should always be free and unlimited, excluding abuse.
>
> What a limited view of a very small slice of game history this is.
I think it
This view isn't based around history, it's based around my opinion. My
opinion just disagrees with most of Agoran historical practice.
However, this argument is orthogonal to my other points.
-Aris
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 10:36 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> So, for instance, pending proposals and
> calling CFJs should always be free and unlimited, excluding abuse.
What a limited view of a very small slice of game history this is.
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 8:47 PM Reuben Staley wrote:
> > One possibility, which I've raised in the past, is that we could
> > reimplement the politics system Alexis came up with last December. It
> > looked like an sound system and was already starting to create
> > interesting gameplay. It had a
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 9:06 PM Alex Smith wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2018-09-30 at 21:59 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > One criticism of Agoran minigames is that it's too much like a board
> > game where you're trying to let players join in halfway through a game
> > and still have an equal standing. I
On 09/30/2018 10:28 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Sun, 2018-09-30 at 22:25 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
That's actually a really cool idea. One thing, though, I think a week is
too short. That would be as few as 0 and as many as 2, but generally 1
report per instance. Unless we decided to get rid of
On Sun, 2018-09-30 at 22:26 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> That's actually a really cool idea. One thing, though, I think a week is
> too short. That would be as few as 0 and as many as 2, but generally 1
> report per instance. Unless we decided to get rid of all weekly
> Cartographor reports
That's actually a really cool idea. One thing, though, I think a week is
too short. That would be as few as 0 and as many as 2, but generally 1
report per instance. Unless we decided to get rid of all weekly
Cartographor reports and instead do a new report for each instance,
which is just
On Sun, 2018-09-30 at 21:59 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> One criticism of Agoran minigames is that it's too much like a board
> game where you're trying to let players join in halfway through a game
> and still have an equal standing. I think that no matter what specific
> assets we decided
On Mon, 1 Oct 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
>
> > I CFJ (barring Aris) this statement: “G.’s attempt in the message quoted
> > below to transfer coins to the contract between em and D. Margaux is
> > EFFECTIVE.” (I note for the Arbitor’s benefit that G. is
One criticism of Agoran minigames is that it's too much like a board
game where you're trying to let players join in halfway through a game
and still have an equal standing. I think that no matter what specific
assets we decided on, that problem would still remain. Agoran
Civilization would be
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
I CFJ (barring Aris) this statement: “G.’s attempt in the message quoted
below to transfer coins to the contract between em and D. Margaux is
EFFECTIVE.” (I note for the Arbitor’s benefit that G. is an interested
party. Also twg might be considered an
On 09/30/2018 06:44 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
We can and have played for extended periods of time of time without a
minigame. So, right off the bat, I'd like to note that that doesn't
necessarily make Agora boring or mean that there isn't anything to do.
I mean, we have stuff to do now, with
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
Unless it's been changed since June 6, creating a Contract requires payment.
[snip]
It changed in late June. Ruleset up to July (unofficial, but with the new
contract text) is here:
I wasn’t aware that I was interested in cases in general. :)
-Aris
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 8:01 PM Edward Murphy wrote:
> 3645: I remove V.J. Rada and assign myself.
>
> 3648: I remove V.J. Rada and assign D. Margaux.
>
> 3652: I remove Corona and assign Cuddle Beam.
>
> 3661: I remove Corona
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> We can rework the Arcadia rules. New assets, new map, new everything. I would
> try to get back into the swing of things if the mechanics sounded interesting.
So, as I mentioned a couple months back, I tried a couple times to draft
something adding
On Mon, 1 Oct 2018, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-09-30 at 17:36 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > > Good attempt at a scam. I had already anticipated it, however, and
> > I think you
> > > will find you'd rather have submitted to
On Sun, 2018-09-30 at 21:09 -0400, D Margaux wrote:
> I am not sure if I qualify for a Lime ribbon. I authored 3 proposals
> that passed today—does coauthorship include authorship?
It's coauthorship only. The idea is that you have to help other people
with their proposals to get it.
--
ais523
We can and have played for extended periods of time of time without a
minigame. So, right off the bat, I'd like to note that that doesn't
necessarily make Agora boring or mean that there isn't anything to do.
I mean, we have stuff to do now, with practically no players using the
map. Sure, the
On Sun, 2018-09-30 at 17:36 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > Good attempt at a scam. I had already anticipated it, however, and
> I think you
> > will find you'd rather have submitted to the currency revaluation.
>
> Do you thing the
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Good attempt at a scam. I had already anticipated it, however, and I think
> you
> will find you'd rather have submitted to the currency revaluation.
Do you thing the transferring-to-contract actually worked? It takes non-obvious
(and frankly
I would support a proposal to repeal the land rules and stop playing land.
Even though I’ve been active in playing the map the past couple weeks, it
just seems hard to think of any rule changes to make it meaningful.
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 8:24 PM Reuben Staley
wrote:
> Inevitably, the
Inevitably, the question had to come up again: should we get rid of the
land mechanics? Five months and some change have gone by so far and it
really doesn't look like it's going to continue much longer.
This has been heavily argued before (specifically, when Aris brought up
the question a
If you’re referring to the Point Installation Act, I think that will be
voted down. If something else, I’m excited to find out! :-)
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 7:44 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Good attempt at a scam. I had already anticipated it, however, and I think
> you will find you'd rather
Unfortunately this wouldn't converge the gamestate because, if these actions
succeed, your location is now different to what it was before.
I don't believe they do succeed, though (and I see Trigon has made the same
decision in eir Cartographor report just now), because even if the contract is
Good attempt at a scam. I had already anticipated it, however, and I think you
will find you'd rather have submitted to the currency revaluation.
If anyone spots the booby-trap, please don't point it out. I want the delicious
satisfaction of seeing their reactions when it activates. c:
-twg
To converge the gamestate, I perform the following actions (all INEFFECTIVE
if I have successfully given everything to D. Margaux):
I spend 1 apple to move to (0, 2).
I spend 1 apple to move to (1, 2).
I spend 1 apple to move to (2, 2) and take all the assets from the
facility at that location.
I
I don’t think this is the right way to go about it. It seems like annoying
boilerplate that would be easy to forget. I’d suggest just requiring that
the announcement not be obfuscated.
-Aris
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 1:07 PM D Margaux wrote:
> I submit (but I do not yet pend) this proposal:
>
>
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Also, about the scamster thing, I’d prefer not lol, because I’m not proud
> of my “scamming” here on Agora. It doesn’t have scamster merit because I do
> these things quite blindly - mere potshots in the dark - and I’m really
> just persistent, which
That title's generally reserved for *successful* scamsters :D
(Seriously, this request will give me an extra kick to submit that
patent title proposal, since scamster is one that's being delegated
to another office I'd like to wait to give them the chance).
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant
:-D
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 11:02 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I should note, I'm not sure what the record is for the shortest time
> between an initial registration and a win, but D Margaux is definitely
> a contender at 35 days max, and maybe less. Well Done!
>
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, Kerim
I don’t have anything more to add on that other CFJ, apart from what I sent
on Friday morning. :-)
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 4:11 AM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I favor this case and intend to assign it to myself without three
> objections.
>
> Also, I’m going to
Yeah. Like “This contract can never has parties”, but there isn’t a way to
know if they’re faking or not.
In fact, they could be, but due to this “it only becomes real once they
reveal it” thing mentioned, they could keep on violating it unpunished.
Loopholes! (I doubt thats their intent but
Also, about the scamster thing, I’d prefer not lol, because I’m not proud
of my “scamming” here on Agora. It doesn’t have scamster merit because I do
these things quite blindly - mere potshots in the dark - and I’m really
just persistent, which isnt a show of scamster skill in itself.
If I were
Generally I think you're right about "automatic" actions, but changing the list
of parties is something R1742/18 specifically says can happen automatically:
"A contract may be modified, including by changing the set of parties, by
agreement between all existing parties... For the purposes of
On Sun, 2018-09-30 at 10:22 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> The contract could say:
>
> “Nobody can join this contract and all members of it leave it
> immediately” or something like that.
I'm not sure contracts can take actions "automatically" like that.
They might be able to prevent people joining
But whether or not they are in a contract has no bearing on anything at all
until they decide to do something contingent on its text. Contracts are
untracked.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, September 30, 2018 8:22 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> The contract could say:
>
>
The contract could say:
“Nobody can join this contract and all members of it leave it immediately”
or something like that.
But we don’t know if it has a content like that or not, so how can we know
they’re in a contract? It’s not solely “document + consent”. The content of
that document is
A contract is a document plus consent.
-Aris
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 1:18 AM Cuddle Beam wrote:
> A document sure, but:
>
> A *contract*? That’s the issue.
>
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 10:17, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > All they’ve done is agree to abide by
A document sure, but:
A *contract*? That’s the issue.
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 10:17, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All they’ve done is agree to abide by a document. That wasn’t hidden. If
> they do something based off that, then the probably will need to prove it,
All they’ve done is agree to abide by a document. That wasn’t hidden. If
they do something based off that, then the probably will need to prove it,
at least to the judge.
-Aris
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 1:15 AM Cuddle Beam wrote:
> About the evidence thing, wouldn’t the hidden-actions that G and
About the evidence thing, wouldn’t the hidden-actions that G and DMar need
evidence as well that they have formally happened?
Or, since there is no evidence, just like my own thing, it didn’t actually
happen? (Until its shown that it has, in which case reality suddenly
changes to it like that
On Sun, 2018-09-30 at 08:01 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Looking at CFJ 1215, I believe this fails _even if the contract
> allows you to do that_, because I, the relevant recordkeepor, don't
> have the necessary information to determine what your action's effect
> would be.
The recordkeeping
Looking at CFJ 1215, I believe this fails _even if the contract allows you to
do that_, because I, the relevant recordkeepor, don't have the necessary
information to determine what your action's effect would be.
That's why I revealed the text of my contract with Aris before using its
provision
44 matches
Mail list logo
