On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Ben Caplan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That wouldn't be an effective scam, unless the judge was in on it. E's
>> under no obligation to specify your shell corporation's currency for
>>
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That wouldn't be an effective scam, unless the judge was in on it. E's
> under no obligation to specify your shell corporation's currency for
> the fine. E could just as easily fine you in something you care about,
> such as V
On Friday 11 July 2008 03:08:13 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why have a maximum fine amount?
>
> Because without it I can't create a shell corporation to hold all of
> my assets, giving me some arbitrary currency in exchange
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What if the backing document of a currency doesn't want such an
> auction? See my suggestion for how VP could be finable.
>
The backing document could still define its own methods for
transferring currency from the L&FD. It could al
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Ben Caplan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We want to restrict fines to currencies whose backing documents opt-in
>> to fineability. Now, we could make it binary rather than scalar
>> (instead
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why have a maximum fine amount?
>
> Because without it I can't create a shell corporation to hold all of
> my assets, giving me some arbitrary curr
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We want to restrict fines to currencies whose backing documents opt-in
> to fineability. Now, we could make it binary rather than scalar
> (instead of "The maximum FINE amount of VP is 7", "VP are fineable"),
> if you want to
Any opinions on what the maximum fine amount for notes should be?
Also, what II should the proposal be?
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why have a maximum fine amount?
Because without it I can't create a shell corporation to hold all of
my assets, giving me some arbitrary currency in exchange and setting a
really low maximum fine amount for that currency.
On Friday 11 July 2008 02:49:19 pm Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Ben Caplan wrote:
> > On Thursday 10 July 2008 08:18:54 pm Sgeo wrote:
> >>this amount of the currency, specifies a
> >>maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater than the
> >
> > Should
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If a contract wants to allow full judicial discretion, it can just
> specify an incredibly huge max. fine amount.. unless you want just any
> currency to be finable?
>
Wasn't that the point of ensuring that any currency could be fin
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Ben Caplan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thursday 10 July 2008 08:18:54 pm Sgeo wrote:
>>>this amount of the currency, specifies a
>>>maximum FINE amount, and the amount i
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 10 July 2008 08:18:54 pm Sgeo wrote:
>>this amount of the currency, specifies a
>>maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater than the
>
> Should be:
>>this amount of the currency, and
On Thursday 10 July 2008 08:18:54 pm Sgeo wrote:
>this amount of the currency, specifies a
>maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater than the
Should be:
>this amount of the currency, and the backing document specifies
>a maximum FINE amount, and the amount
This is how VP can be used for FINEs:
{
13. The maximum FINE amount of VPs is 7VP [just an example]
14. If, at any point, the Lost and Found Department has more VP than
there are parties to this contract, the Broker SHALL, as soon as
possible, give floor(N/P) VP to each first-class player who is
[Allow e.g. Chits to be used for FINEs]
AI=2
Amend Rule 2126 (Notes) by appending a maximum FINE amount.
Amend Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by replacing this text:
...
with this text:
* FINE with an amount of one currency, appropriate for rule
breaches of small consequence. An amou
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was sort of assuming that contracts like the Vote Market that wanted
> to make VPs finable would define a redistribution mechanism that
> would, when there are enough VP in the L&FD, distribute points to all
> persons bound by th
I was sort of assuming that contracts like the Vote Market that wanted
to make VPs finable would define a redistribution mechanism that
would, when there are enough VP in the L&FD, distribute points to all
persons bound by the contract..
BobTHJ wrote:
> Why not allow the Assessor to auction off anything in the L&FD?
Accountor, surely?
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why not allow the Assessor to auction off anything in the L&FD?
>
> I assume you mean the Accountor.
>
> -root
>
Oops...that's the one.
BobTHJ
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why not allow the Assessor to auction off anything in the L&FD?
I assume you mean the Accountor.
-root
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 9 July 2008 3:15:52 Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Ben Caplan
>> > L&FD transfer usually breaks the same things as outright destruction.
>> > If the Lost & Found Department gets 3 VP, for ex
On Wednesday 9 July 2008 3:15:52 Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Ben Caplan
> > L&FD transfer usually breaks the same things as outright destruction.
> > If the Lost & Found Department gets 3 VP, for example, they're as good
> > as gone.
>
> Why not allow the Assessor to auct
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 8 July 2008 2:12:57 Zefram wrote:
>> I think there should not be any extra capability here. If a contract
>> doesn't allow voluntary destruction then this should not be a valid
>> subject for a fine. Don't break z
On Wednesday 9 July 2008 1:49:59 comex wrote:
> It would be interesting if we forced the ninny to transfer the goods
> to a first-class player not obligated to give them back-- of eir
> choice.
SCAM
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You could allow fining by transferring currency to the L&FD in lieu
>> of destruction. That would make more currencies available for fines.
>
> L&FD transfer usually breaks the same things as outright destruction.
> If the Lo
On Tuesday 8 July 2008 2:12:57 Zefram wrote:
> I think there should not be any extra capability here. If a contract
> doesn't allow voluntary destruction then this should not be a valid
> subject for a fine. Don't break zero-sum currencies, and in general
> don't break how particular currencies a
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe Sgeo solved this in eir latest proto by limiting the
> currency to those to which its backing document is binding upon the
> Ninny.
I'm not sure this is a great idea; it would disallow fining someone in
chits unless
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sgeo wrote:
>>Can the judge really be trusted to specify an arbitrary amount?
>
> Can the judge be trusted to specify an arbitrary currency? It may
> be impossible for the ninny to acquire it. To avoid these problems,
> perhaps t
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Zefram wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
> You could allow fining by transferring currency to the L&FD in lieu
> of destruction. That would make more currencies available for fines.
You could call it FREE PARKING.
Roger Hicks wrote:
>I would exclude any assets from destruction which are part of a
>zero-sum system (none at the moment as far as I am aware, but just in
>case). Also, I think it needs to be "CAN and SHALL" instead of SHALL
>to override contracts which don't permit the voluntary destruction of
>th
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Zefram wrote:
> Sgeo wrote:
>> Can the judge really be trusted to specify an arbitrary amount?
>
> Can the judge be trusted to specify an arbitrary currency? It may
> be impossible for the ninny to acquire it. To avoid these problems,
> perhaps the fine should be limited to c
Sgeo wrote:
>Can the judge really be trusted to specify an arbitrary amount?
Can the judge be trusted to specify an arbitrary currency? It may
be impossible for the ninny to acquire it. To avoid these problems,
perhaps the fine should be limited to currency that the ninny has owned
at some point
Traditionally, when protos are done, who gets co-authorship? Certainly
Murphy, for wording it cleanly, thank you, but what about those who
pointed out minor problems here and there? (Thank you too)
Sgeo wrote:
> AI=1.7
> In Rule 1504, replace
> {
> * FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
> When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
> eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
> destruction per question on sentencing, eve
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grah
> AI=1.7
> In Rule 1504, replace
> {
>* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
> When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
> eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform
Grah
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on sentencing, even if sentences of
Oops
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on sentencing, even if sentences of
Add some judicial discretion
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on sentencing, e
Fixing Spear's objections
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on sentencing, even
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Transferring the FINED assets to the Lost & Found Dept is reasonable
> and would permit any contract to be fined.
You can't transfer a fixed asset, but you can destroy it.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
> If the backing document is a rule, than the ninny will always be bound
> by it, I'd assume..
>
Unless the ninny is ehirder, I mean deregistered.
BobTHJ
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> * FINE in a specified currency whose backing document specifies
>> a FINE amount and for which the ninny is bound by the currency's
>> backing document, appr
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I would exclude any assets from destruction which are part of a
>> zero-sum system (none at the moment as far as I am aware, but just in
>> case).
>
> Yes
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * FINE in a specified currency whose backing document specifies
> a FINE amount and for which the ninny is bound by the currency's
> backing document, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
> When in effect, th
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would exclude any assets from destruction which are part of a
> zero-sum system (none at the moment as far as I am aware, but just in
> case).
Yes, I agree that it should only be able to apply to contracts that
allow it, or
Fixing BobTHJ's objections
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on sentencing, eve
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can the judge really be trusted to specify an arbitrary amount?
Sure, have the appropriateness scale with the amount. Then an
inappropriate amount can be appealed.
-root
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> * FINE in a specified currency whose backing document specifies
>> a FINE amount, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
>>When in effe
Fixing an objection raised by ais523
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on s
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> * FINE in a specified currency whose backing document specifies
>> a FINE amount, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
>>When in effe
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * FINE in a specified currency whose backing document specifies
> a FINE amount, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
>When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy the
> amount of the specified
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on sentencing, even if sentences of
53 matches
Mail list logo
