quazie wrote:
> Any partnership that has at least one non-natural player as
> a member may be derigestered with Natural Agoran Consent.
No thanks. Allow them or ban them.
-zefram
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>Periware is ignoring me, so transition of proposals will be delayed.
Don't bother with that, I've been tracking the state of the proposal
pool for the past few days. I'm up to date on proposals.
>Meanwhile, here is a transitional Voting Limit report,
It's the Assesso
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>Let me make sure the Proposal Pool is up to date, then I'll put out a
>transitional Proposal Pool Report.
No need. I have the pool as:
* "define reports"
* "Delete, Delete, Delete!"
* "No free votes II"
* "Registration Prohibits Silent Partners"
* "transparent partners
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Out of curiosity, how early did you realize that you were importing
>the Ship of Theseus paradox?
I didn't, as I'm not. I'm confident that we'll end up with either the
extensional or the intensional identity mechanism for partnerships.
The paradox arises from using both mechanis
Ed Murphy wrote:
>OscarMeyr wrote:
>>Murphy, that leaves you and me as the only pre-2004 current
>>registrations. Which one of us gets to deregister next?
>
>I /can't/.
What's stopping you? Speakerhood doesn't any more.
-zefram
On 5/13/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You, sir, are cited for the use of domain-specific meanings in a
general context. :P
I would expect a goddess to know not to call me ``sir''.
--
C. Maud Image There's your clue right there, Your Chaoticity!
-/
I'm not invited t
Proto-Proposal - "Partnerships with all the fixin's"
If the following text exists within the ruleset, delete it
" (f) The term "person" shall mean "natural person or
partnership of natural persons"
if a rule with the following text does not exist, create a rule entitled
"Limited Par
On 5/14/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
14 May 2007 18:52:21 Sherlock deregisters.
14 May 2007 18:00:12 Maud deregisters.
I think the time you give for my deregistration is incorrect, since I
deregistered after Sherlock did.
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
In Australia the g
OscarMeyr wrote:
Unless I win and become Speaker.
Oh, /now/ it's on!
On May 14, 2007, at 8:07 PM, Zefram wrote:
With Agoran consent, I hereby install myself as Promotor.
I intend to distribute proposals regularly at 00:53 UTC every
Wednesday
and 12:53 UTC every Saturday. My first distribution will therefore be
in a little under 25 hours.
Let me make sure t
On May 14, 2007, at 8:50 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
OscarMeyr wrote:
Murphy, that leaves you and me as the only pre-2004 current
registrations. Which one of us gets to deregister next?
I /can't/.
Unless I win and become Speaker.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
I wrote:
OscarMeyr wrote:
Murphy, that leaves you and me as the only pre-2004 current
registrations. Which one of us gets to deregister next?
I /can't/.
No, wait, we changed that bit. Well, I'm still not planning
to leave any time soon.
Zefram wrote:
quazie wrote:
If I start a partnership with zefram, and then we announce that we are
in a partnership, and then add comex, do we need to announce this
addition under this rule?
Not under my proposed rule. I based it on the expectation that the
change of partners results in the
OscarMeyr wrote:
Murphy, that leaves you and me as the only pre-2004 current
registrations. Which one of us gets to deregister next?
I /can't/.
quazie wrote:
>If I start a partnership with zefram, and then we announce that we are
>in a partnership, and then add comex, do we need to announce this
>addition under this rule?
Not under my proposed rule. I based it on the expectation that the
change of partners results in the partnership be
Zefram wrote:
I hereby submit the following proposal, titled "transparent partnerships":
{{{
Enact a rule with title "Transparent Personhood" and text:
When a non-natural person becomes a player, e is obliged to as
soon as possible announce the legal theory by which e is a person.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
If someone did
what you said, then an explicit list as per the last sentence of
R107(b) would be our only recourse.
That recourse is not in fact available. Per CFJ 1652, the set of
eligib
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Zefram's interpretation in CFJ 1623 was that a partnership must
>assign rights and obligations to the partners. This could be
>extended by interpreting that anyone assigned rights and obligations,
>even indirectly, is a partner.
I'd say that's the definition of a partner. I'd p
On May 14, 2007, at 6:00 PM, Michael Slone wrote:
On 5/14/07, Jonathan Fry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry, can't let Goethe take my "most deregistrations" crown. :)
I deregister from Agora. Hope y'all have a good couple of months.
Well, great.
I deregister from Agora.
Murphy, that lea
Michael Slone wrote:
>I deregister from Agora.
It is a pity to lose a player with such strong democratic sensibilities.
I hope you'll be back.
-zefram
On May 14, 2007, at 1:10 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I can't keep up right now. Need to enforce a break in myself,
otherwise
RL will suffer more (already is, can never seem to not get sucked in).
Sincere apologies for leaving the CotC office so far behind. I'll
continue
to watch the (encoura
I intend, with Agoran Consent, to become the holder of the Office of Herald.
BobTHJ
On 5/14/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 9, 2007, at 9:39 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
I intend, with Agoran consent, to make the Pineapple Partnership
the holder of the Office of Registrar.
I i
On May 9, 2007, at 9:39 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
I intend, with Agoran consent, to make the Pineapple Partnership
the holder of the Office of Registrar.
I intend, with Agoran consent, to make Human Point Two the holder
of the Office of International Associate Director of Personnel.
I'll support t
On May 14, 2007, at 12:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I resign/cease to be bound by the Pineapple Parternship, as allowed
by its charter.
I can confirm that it does not dissolve, as it retains 2+ members.
Great, do we need to reenact the Notary to keep track of
partnerships' charters and registe
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Perhaps the new PP is an entirely new, unregistered person, and the old
>PP has "died".
I believe it has. In fact, assuming the minimal case that there has been
exactly one new partner, there have been three different partnerships
which the PP agreement called "the Pineapple P
On 5/14/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Immediately after Goethe's message with Message-ID
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
one or more of (GreyKnight, Levi, Manu, Maud, sproingie) were
Partners as described by the Pineapple Partnership agreement.
* Immedi
On 5/14/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ah, yes. Cue the overreaction.
Eliminating the free vote scam would not be an overreaction.
Fixing the rules so that ``person'' means ``person'' would not be an
overreaction. (Since the legal argument for partnerships being able
to register
As I stated earlier, my reasoning for 'inventing' a capitalist economy is to
create some interesting design-space for our non-natural person Players to
grow in. It seems like a natural next step.
I also attempted to make the busywork light by limiting it to one officer
and limiting the number and
Zefram wrote:
> I think they're reinvented just because they're familiar to the players.
> I point again to the word "invented": natural things are discovered,
> not invented.
This is just semantics. Persons "discover" in a communal society that
it is natural to have some medium of exchange for
Zefram wrote:
> I'm not convinced that a partnership is really capable of changing
> membership.
Ah now, this is an interesting point. Is a partnership the same "person"
if its underlying persons change? Since Annabel demonstrated that persons
in the Agoran sense are definitely conditioned on
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Challenge: Is it possible to write a flexible, heirarchical rule structure
>so that changes to the whole structure are permissible in certain
>circumstances,
>but a "ladder" attack is not possible?
That's always been one of my long-term aims. It is indeed tricky.
>The fact
Ed Murphy wrote:
>But the things that the natural persons are obligated to do are
>different.
A single natural person can be obliged to do several different things
by different contracts. That doesn't make em more than one person.
>Five players create and register a Pineapple-type partnership (w
My goodness, we are just at odds with this, mostly based on my 2001-2002
experiences vs. your ealier ones.
Zefram wrote:
> The latter is a democratic mechanism that I think it
> is dangerous to mess with. (I also think it's dangerous to make AI>=2
> proposals undemocratic.)
On the contrary, a
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I submit the following linked CFJs, barring Zefram, Goethe, and the
Pineapple Partnership:
You've thus barred all the players that you could be sure would have
the knowledge necessary to judge the CFJs. Pessimal.
Well, you don't expect me to make it easy, do
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Why does the phrase "it's just a temporary safeguard for democracy" make
>me feel uneasy?
Because you know some history. I feel uncomfortable uttering the
phrase, too. But this "temporary safeguard" has the unusual feature
that it operates by imposing a more democratic proced
Roger Hicks wrote:
>So, does the Economy proto-proposal do an adequate job of creating and
>tapping into scarce commodities?
The only scarce commodity involved is relative clout in collective
decisions: voting ability on proposals, and support/objection for
dependent actions. The former already h
Zefram wrote:
> Proposal proliferation is a good thing in a parliamentary nomic. It is
> the very basis of the game.
I do not have time to wade through the implications of a dozen ill-conceived
and clashing proposals in a single distribution. If I stay, I feel the
need so review them, lest one
Zefram wrote:
> Your time is not interchangeable with anyone else's time, and cannot be
> arbitrarily repurposed. It's a scarce resource, to be sure, but not a
> commodity, and so not the stuff of which currencies are made.
This is true of any wage/salary system. I perform a unique task taking
Ed Murphy wrote:
>In combination with the explicit definition of "person" as excluding
>multi-tier arrangements, it should be sufficient.
Ah yes, sorry. Still has a problem if we want to liberalise partnerships
in the future, to any extent at all.
>While I find it interesting to have other partn
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>I would hardly call the period in 2001-2002 when we charged for
>proposals to be stagnation.
There was an earlier period too. It sucked.
> Rather, I would call the free proposal
>period "ill-considered proliferation".
Proposal proliferation is a g
So, does the Economy proto-proposal do an adequate job of creating and
tapping into scarce commodities? That problem was one of the first to come
to mind when I set out to devise a currency/economy, and I think I came up
with a solution that will give currency meaning, use, and a reason to be
exch
Ed Murphy wrote:
>I submit the following linked CFJs, barring Zefram, Goethe, and the
>Pineapple Partnership:
You've thus barred all the players that you could be sure would have
the knowledge necessary to judge the CFJs. Pessimal.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Once again Zefram, I call you out on this one. My time is a scarce
>commodity.
Your time is not interchangeable with anyone else's time, and cannot be
arbitrarily repurposed. It's a scarce resource, to be sure, but not a
commodity, and so not the stuff of which currencies are
Ed Murphy wrote:
> If someone did
>what you said, then an explicit list as per the last sentence of
>R107(b) would be our only recourse.
That recourse is not in fact available. Per CFJ 1652, the set of
eligible voters can change during the votin
Murphy wrote:
> In this case, at least, I think it's because the functions in
> question (i.e. how many partners does Pineapple have left?)
> directly impact the rule-defined gamestate (i.e. does Pineapple
> still exist as a player?).
My question is, are these matters best dealt with in legislati
Goethe wrote:
Murphy wrote:
If such an agreement is registered, then as soon as possible
after its membership changes, it shall announce which players
have joined and which have left. This requirement is satisfied
if the information is published by a member of the agree
Murphy wrote:
> If such an agreement is registered, then as soon as possible
> after its membership changes, it shall announce which players
> have joined and which have left. This requirement is satisfied
> if the information is published by a member of the agreement,
>
Murphy wrote:
> Charging for proposals has historically led to stagnation.
I would hardly call the period in 2001-2002 when we charged for
proposals to be stagnation. Rather, I would call the free proposal
period "ill-considered proliferation".
At the very least, we should charge for raising AI
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>I resign/cease to be bound by the Pineapple Parternship, as allowed
>by its charter.
To clarify: the clause of the PP agreement regarding partners leaving has
been amended from the previously published version. Goethe's announcement
did in fact cause em to immediately leave th
Zefram wrote:
> What happened to the "no free votes" proto? Seems best to propose it now,
> before there's a real explosion of non-natural persons.
Ah, yes. Cue the overreaction.
-G.
BobTHJ wrote:
> I'm not opposed to a different taxation system...and to be honest I didn't
> intend for the Treasury to have to levy much tax in the first place.
In one of the previous currency systems (one that I think worked, as
opposed to the one Zefram mentions that apparently didn't), taxes
Zefram wrote:
> We've had a currency-based game before. It doesn't really work, because
> there is no scarce commodity to represent by a currency.
Once again Zefram, I call you out on this one. My time is a scarce
commodity. It's worth a salary (even a within game one) if I use my
time to perf
Ya see Zefram, I toldja someone would try this and we should plug it :)
Murphy wrote:
> If a partnership contains exactly the same members as
> another registered partnership, then it is prohibited
> from registering.
Fortunately, it was Murphy who did, and the proposed fix isn
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
If a partnership contains exactly the same members as
another registered partnership, then it is prohibited
from registering.
You haven't constructed such a situation, so this limitation is
insufficient. You need to determine the ultimate subject
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Human Point Two and I have made a R1742 binding agreement, the text of
which is:
I believe this doesn't work. Obligations on HP3 are translated, by
that agreement, into obligations on HP2 and Murphy, and then by HP2's
agreement into obligations on Quazie and Mu
55 matches
Mail list logo
