Well, that would mean that Trigon would inevitably lose eir farm. (e couldn't pay upkeep)
According to R2125, you must use methods "explicitly specified" in the rules (which I did, the rule should be IMO interpreted as simply not caring about the recipient), I don't see anything about rules needing to "explicitly describe" methods? If the CFJ is going to be called, I'd like it to be judged till the end of the week if possible. It's frustrating having buildings or other assets in an uncertain gamestate. ~Corona On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > Really the problem is that defining "pay" = "transfer" is a complete > redefinition of "pay" from common usage, and everyone's using common > usage... unfortunately that definition is in a high-powered rule. > > BUT: > > Does everyone accept that "pay without destination" automatically > mean "paying anyone" counts? An alternate interpretation is that, > if the destination isn't defined, the rule is ambiguous and you > can't actually pay. This would be supported by R2125: "paying" > without a destination is not an unambiguous way of "explicitly > describing" a method for doing things. > > (I'm not going to call the CFJ unless others think this interpretation > might work). > > On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Corona wrote: > > Whoops... (emphasis mine) > > " > > If an entity other than Agora owns any facilities with upkeep > > costs, e must ****pay**** them before the first day of the next > Agoran > > month. Failing to do this destroys the facility. In the second to > > last Eastman week of the Agoran Month, the Cartographor SHOULD > > issue a humiliating public reminder to all those who have not paid > > upkeep fees on any of eir facilities." > > > > ~Corona > > > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:49 PM, Aris Merchant < > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:00 AM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I like the multiset. The wording seems to me to be a clean, > > > > generic > > > > > > > > > > In my intuition, all multisets of assets are currently sets, > because > > > > there are > > > > > no *truly* identity-free assets. But it might be better for other > > > > people's > > > > > intuition I guess. > > > > > > > > I think, legally, there are identity-free assets, unless I > misunderstand > > > > what > > > > you mean by that? > > > > > > > > Corona gives me a coin. Aris gives me a coin. I then give a coin to > > > > Trigon. There's no way of knowing/tracking/distinguishing whether > > > Trigon > > > > now has Corona's coin or Aris's coin. > > > > > > > > > No, Ørjan is probably right. I think the difference is between > identity and > > > interchablity. Currencies are interchangeable (well, fungible, which > means > > > the same thing) so we can't tell the difference between them, but it > > > doesn't mean that they don't have identity. As a real world example, > let's > > > say you have a penny and I have a penny. Neither of them is marked in > any > > > weird way, and be couldn't tell the difference between them. Then I > use my > > > penny to pay for something. Your penny hasn't been used to pay for > > > something, only mine has, so they have separate identity. By contrast, > if > > > we both think of the number 1, we're both thinking of the exact same > > > number, because it's a singleton. Even only currency instances with the > > > same owner lacked identity, you wouldn't be able to transfer a paper > > > without transferring all of it. This works fine so long as the set of > > > assets is clearly described as a set of instances, because asset types > are > > > definitely singletons. > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
