This gives me the idea to make a master contract of a sort with a lot of
sub-contracts.
Nesting, ho!
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 6:09 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I disagree—just because a proposal provides the text of a document doesn’t
> mean that the document is part of the proposal and is evaluat
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I disagree—just because a proposal provides the text of a document doesn’t
> mean that the document is part of the proposal and is evaluated when the
> proposal gains power.
R2350:A proposal is a type of entity consisting of a body of text and
o
Sorry for all of the CFJs lol, but I'm glad that it's all put into a bundle
- they're all very similar.
That sweet, alluring nectar of a Paradox win is teasing me so closely lol,
I know I'm so near.
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:19 PM, Edward Murphy wrote:
> Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> I create a contra
I like this a lot lol, good idea
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:58 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> This contract accepts shinies as long as it has fewer than ((Pend Cost) +
> 1) shines. It accepts no other assets.
>
> This contract maintains a piece of state known as the Proposal Puddle,
> containing a se
I disagree—just because a proposal provides the text of a document doesn’t mean
that the document is part of the proposal and is evaluated when the proposal
gains power. For instance, when a proposal creates a rule, the text of the rule
doesn’t gain power as part of the proposal (the proposal do
No, it doesn't. If the full PROPOSAL is adopted,
. r106 first gives power to the whole proposal, including all of its
micro-proposals.
Then, if the proposal doesn't give power to a micro-proposal, that
micro-proposal
still has the power it got from r106 and still goes into effect.
On Wed, 14
Yes, I know. The way the contract works is this:
- People submit micro-proposals
- Every week, I create and pend a proposal with all of the micro-proposals
submitted that week
- If adopted, the PROPOSAL simulates an Agoran Decision for each micro-proposal
and “adopts” (gives power to) the ones wh
Ah gotcha - I don't think this works though, because R106 gives everything
In the proposal power first? I think the opposite might work, where you
depower each piece that fails.
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Contract doesn’t give power. Contract obligates me to pend a proposal whi
Contracts cannot do things on their own, which is why they have to have an
agent to effect any actual change. But they can obligate a player to do
something since they're basically a block of rule text that you get to
choose if you want to follow.
On Feb 14, 2018 21:46, "Gaelan Steele" wrote:
>
Contract doesn’t give power. Contract obligates me to pend a proposal which, if
adopted, gives power to some or all of its sub-proposals.
Gaelan
> On Feb 14, 2018, at 8:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> Can a contract give power to anything?
>
>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
Can a contract give power to anything?
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Df
>
> > On Feb 14, 2018, at 7:58 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> >
> > This contract accepts shinies as long as it has fewer than ((Pend Cost) +
> > 1) shines. It accepts no other assets.
> >
> > This contrac
Df
> On Feb 14, 2018, at 7:58 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> This contract accepts shinies as long as it has fewer than ((Pend Cost) + 1)
> shines. It accepts no other assets.
>
> This contract maintains a piece of state known as the Proposal Puddle,
> containing a set of micro-proposals ea
It'd also encourage some interesting attempts at shorthand.
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 8:42 PM, ATMunn wrote:
> Haven't read the rest of the discussion, but what if there was a rule that
> maybe, say, allowed a free pend every week, as long as the proposal is
> under some character count. It might
Haven't read the rest of the discussion, but what if there was a rule
that maybe, say, allowed a free pend every week, as long as the proposal
is under some character count. It might need some tweaking, but it could
work.
On 2/14/2018 6:21 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
I find that, when economic lim
On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 17:36 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I was definitely thinking that once the shinies -> coins stabilized
> we might tweak things like this!
>
> I went back to a 2002 ruleset to see how we coped with a low supply:
OK, what about something like this: proposal supply is limited (b
On Thu, 15 Feb 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 15:24 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Yes, expensive proposals are a paradigm shift to what you're used to.
> >
> > We played like that (even more expensive, actually) from 2001-2005 or
> > so. It worked fine. I would like to try it
On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 15:24 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Yes, expensive proposals are a paradigm shift to what you're used to.
>
> We played like that (even more expensive, actually) from 2001-2005 or
> so. It worked fine. I would like to try it again and not have it
> sabotaged out of the gate.
Yes, expensive proposals are a paradigm shift to what you're used to.
We played like that (even more expensive, actually) from 2001-2005 or
so. It worked fine. I would like to try it again and not have it
sabotaged out of the gate. So I won't argue that it breaks things
or doesn't. It's a ga
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> That still has the problem of delaying proposals by an additional 4 days,
> which is the exact opposite of what we want to do with controversial ones.
Simple alternative:
Every Office gets one Official proposal (or 1 free pend) per week. SHOULD
be pri
I find that, when economic limits are put on proposals, inevitably it
becomes less "why do I need to pay to propose" and more "why do I need to
pay to fix this typo". It's true that I did pay in this case, but pending a
proposal is very expensive right now (non-officeholders can only propose
3/mont
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> That still has the problem of delaying proposals by an additional 4 days,
> which is the exact opposite of what we want to do with controversial ones.
I feel like review periods are good things, especially when you're specifically
asking Agora if the pro
That still has the problem of delaying proposals by an additional 4 days,
which is the exact opposite of what we want to do with controversial ones.
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 at 17:44, Nicholas Evans wrote:
> There's always Agoran Consent. We can make it a trivial ratio, such as 1.1.
>
> On Tue, Feb
There's always Agoran Consent. We can make it a trivial ratio, such as 1.1.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:54 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Sounds fine to me.
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 22:48, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Last time we did this, 3 players created a contract so that anyone
> > could
Nice catch. Fixed.
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 at 16:48, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> H. Rulekeepor,
>
> This annotation for R591:
>
> Amended(45) by Proposal 7975 "Auctions v6" (ATMunn; with o, Aris,
>nichdel, G.), Nov 26, 2017
>
> should be:
>
> Amended(45) by Proposal 7976 "A Mostest Ingenious Para
Simple gratuitous arguments:
Twitter (specifically Cuddlebeam's) is not, and has never been, a public
forum. I don't see how a contract could make it act as so.
On 2/13/2018 10:11 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
https://twitter.com/Cuddlebeam/status/963611395257503744
I CFJ with shinies the followi
25 matches
Mail list logo
