Potential hole: players are, for the most part, against deregistering
omd. Therefore, you can count on em always being a stable bet, making
the owner of omd overpowered. I do agree that the one zombie per player
rule makes lots of sense.
Additional idea: what if all of the zombies are returned
This scam was due to the pay bug and could have been done (sorta)
with contracts too, right?
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> It's clear that zombies are way to powerful and need to be weakened
> substantially. Proposed restrictions:
>
> - 1 zombie per player max
> - Zombies can be d
It's clear that zombies are way to powerful and need to be weakened
substantially. Proposed restrictions:
- 1 zombie per player max
- Zombies can be deregistered by announcement after a month as zombies
-Aris
Okay, it's way too easy to reach high ranks with facilities. This isn't a
scam, or even clearly abusive, but I think we probably need to fix it with
a proposal of some sort. There are other ways of fixing it though,
including perhaps forming a collective to defeat the capitalists and take
back the
I hate... everything about this message. And to think I'm behind all of it,
too, at least indirectly.
Ah well. It was inevitable. Have fun being the most powerful person in the
game.
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 23:24 Corona wrote:
> Hopefully this is not going to fail horribly in some unforeseen way.
I don't think we want to waive platonism to that degree. However, it
would seem reasonable for you to issue a ruling on both now, and then
only formalize it once it actually gets assigned to you, given that
you've already gone through the waiting period once. Does anyone else
object to that arraign
I'm glad to hear no one has objected to you personally, I like to
think we're better than that. ;)
-Aris
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 6:20 PM, Ned Strange wrote:
> I assign this CFJ to myself, being without objections.
>
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Ned Strange wrote:
>> I think you intended t
Excuse me, these are 2 CFJs. Would Agora see fit to interpret my
actions as assigning both CFJs to myself?
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Ned Strange wrote:
> I assign this CFJ to myself, being without objections.
>
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Ned Strange wrote:
>> I think you intended
I see your point on multiset - on reflection not as bad as my first reaction.
I think overall we're looking at some clarifications in both a new fee rule
and current assets rule so will aim for an organized whole on the next
draft...
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Thank you for the
Thank you for the explanatio. If you're CFJ point is correct, it would be
equivalent to "I do X 0 times", which is effective at doing nothing. I
believe the actor would be required to do nothing, which anyone CAN do by
definition. As your rule is currently written, I believe that it would
work, bu
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Hang on for a second. I don't get what wrong with paying a fee of 0. The
> fee for a given action is defined. If I pay a fee of 0, then I haven't paid
> the specified fee for the action, so I can't do anything. The only case
> where it comes up is when
Hang on for a second. I don't get what wrong with paying a fee of 0. The
fee for a given action is defined. If I pay a fee of 0, then I haven't paid
the specified fee for the action, so I can't do anything. The only case
where it comes up is when the fee for an action is defined as 0, in which
case
We need an exception for the empty set. A long time ago, there was an
argument about whether "I pay a fee of 0" was paying a fee (allowing the
action) or not paying a fee (no transfer occurring). [The CFJ answer then
depending on exact wording so is not applicable to present-day].
Now we have
oh, sorry.
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:21 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Shennanigans. Due to the Treasuror not being a defined office (a bugfix for
> that is in last week's proposal distribution). It would have been nice
> for Gaelan to report informally but oh well.
>
> The Assessor doesn't have
No point in doing a quick and dirty solution when we could have a full fix
before the next distribution. My crystals proposal would define them as the
economic currencies. I'll have a new version of it this week, aiming to get
it into the next distribution.
-Aris
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 4:19 PM R
Well, I'm just gonna add that to the list of things I've broken. I
haven't read through this thread all the way but it looks like things
have gotten pretty technical. HOWEVER, I'm glad this is finally being
addressed. The quickest solution would be just to add a clause that says
if Agora owns a
I think you mean a non-empty multiset. Also, I don't see any reason to
require the set to be non-empty. That's sensible for constant fees but
could break some types of variable fee.
Here's a phrasing that includes the default and rounds correctly:
"If the Rules associate payment of a multiset of
How about using some variant of "in exchange for the performance of
the action"? You can't exchange Z for both X and Y unless they count
as a single action, under the common definitions of the relevant
terms.
-Aris
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Al
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 2:26 PM Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > ID Author(s)AI Title Pender
> >
> ---
> > 8042* G. 1.0 Agorans are Vulcans Aris
FOR
>
> > 8043* G.
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 13:30 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > To perform a fee-based action, an entity (the Actor) who is
> > otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e
> > is performing the action; the announcement
On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 13:30 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> To perform a fee-based action, an entity (the Actor) who is
> otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e
> is performing the action; the announcement must specify the
> correct set of assets
I tried a version with general assets, if this is ugly can restrict to
currencies...
Proto v2: Let's really define payment solidly please, finally.
Create the following Rule, Fee-based actions:
If the Rules associate payment of a non-empty set of assets (hereafter
the fee for
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
If the Rules associate a non-negative fee (syn: cost, price,
charge), with an action, or state that an action CAN be performed
by paying a fee, that ac
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > Proto : Let's really define payment solidly please, finally.
> >
> >
> > Create the following Rule, Fee-based actions:
> >
> > If the Rules associate a non-negative fee (syn: cost, price,
> >
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Proto : Let's really define payment solidly please, finally.
Create the following Rule, Fee-based actions:
If the Rules associate a non-negative fee (syn: cost, price,
charge), with an action, or state that an action CAN be performed
A contract still can! It doesn't need permission from the rules.
It can write: "If this contract defines a fee action, it works as if the
fee were defined in the rules." Then for all contract purposes it should
work.
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Kenyon Prater wrote:
> It might be interesting to allow
It might be interesting to allow contracts to define fee based actions in
the same way that contracts can define assets. Other than that, which I'm
not sure is worth the headache, I like this proto.
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 11:56 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Proto : Let's really define payment sol
Proto : Let's really define payment solidly please, finally.
Create the following Rule, Fee-based actions:
If the Rules associate a non-negative fee (syn: cost, price,
charge), with an action, or state that an action CAN be performed
by paying a fee, that action is a fee-
So I can pay the assets to Quazie (or myself, though that would be more
legally contestable)? Awesome!
~Corona
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
>
> I was about to build something, but then I noticed:
>>
>>A player CAN increase the r
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
I was about to build something, but then I noticed:
A player CAN increase the rank of a facility e owns that is at eir
location by exactly 1 by announcement by paying any upgrade costs
of the facility for that specific rank.
What does "paying" me
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
> 8042* G. 1.0 Agorans are Vulcans Aris
> PRESENT, I like the idea of silliness and never got to be Silly, so I'd at
> least like something similar to replace it.
I also like the idea of silliness. The problem with current version is
I was about to build something, but then I noticed:
A player CAN increase the rank of a facility e owns that is at eir
location by exactly 1 by announcement by paying any upgrade costs
of the facility for that specific rank.
What does "paying" mean here, if anything? Is it actuall
Wanna sell? I offer 15 coins.
On Wednesday, April 25, 2018, ATMunn wrote:
> Actually, that was in the single auction, so there's nothing really that I
> could do about that. But it still sucks.
>
> On 4/25/2018 9:18 AM, ATMunn wrote:
>
>> I just realized I've been a total idiot. My one land unit
Actually, that was in the single auction, so there's nothing really that
I could do about that. But it still sucks.
On 4/25/2018 9:18 AM, ATMunn wrote:
I just realized I've been a total idiot. My one land unit is on the
complete other side of the map from me.
On 4/25/2018 1:05 AM, Reuben Stal
I just realized I've been a total idiot. My one land unit is on the
complete other side of the map from me.
On 4/25/2018 1:05 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
THE MAP OF ARCADIA -- APRIL 16, 2018
View an interactive version of this report here:
https://agoranomic.org/Cartographor/maps/map-2018-04-24.h
35 matches
Mail list logo
