Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

Thank you for the reminder, I missed that. On 10/26/2017 11:49 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> On Oct 25, 2017, at 3:26 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >> wrote: >> >> The other thing to note is that he was previously a player and continued >> to take player-like actions. Additionally, he state

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

> On Oct 27, 2017, at 2:02 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > # Recipient Gaelan PT[1] (registration order, earliest-to-latest) > - > 0 4 sh. 0 sh. > 1 PT[1]4 sh. 1 sh. > 10 PT[1]4 sh. 2 sh. > 13 PT[1]4 sh. 3 sh. > 16 PT[1]

DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

> On Oct 25, 2017, at 2:14 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > On Oct 25, 2017, at 12:30 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> I cause Agora to make the following payments, which I believe can be >> uniquely decomposed into the individual payments required by “Passive >> Income”: >> >> * 8 sh. to ProofTec

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

> On Oct 25, 2017, at 3:26 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: > > The other thing to note is that he was previously a player and continued > to take player-like actions. Additionally, he stated that he had > observed his inclusion in the Registrar's report and had knowingly not > CoEe

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

On Oct 25, 2017, at 3:02 PM, Nic Evans wrote: > 3) It's ethically squicky to some people (myself included). > > 3a) It's tempting to think players in a game will be more 'unethical' > because it's, well, a game. But players seem to act fairly high-minded > in routine play, probably because of t

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

> On Oct 25, 2017, at 10:41 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> On Oct 25, 2017, at 12:30 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> >>> I cause Agora to make the following payments, which I believe can be >>> uniquely decomposed into the individual payments require

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

On Wed, 2017-10-25 at 13:47 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > In fact, I'd be more inclined to say this *new* action (now being > unambiguous intent to play) is in fact the Registration message. I thought of that argument. However, is it unambiguous intent to *become* a player *now*? It's more an inten

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

On 10/25/17 17:49, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote: >> I favor this case. > Given how many game facts playerhood drives are you able to turn this one > around pretty quickly (within 4 days)? If so I'll assign right away. > > Yes. I actually feel this is pretty clea

DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote: > I favor this case. Given how many game facts playerhood drives are you able to turn this one around pretty quickly (within 4 days)? If so I'll assign right away.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

I disfavour this case. On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 at 18:32 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think the key is a pattern of behaviour resembling consent. If ais523 > had not expressed a pattern of behaviour or engaged in the pattern of > behaviour from the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

I think the key is a pattern of behaviour resembling consent. If ais523 had not expressed a pattern of behaviour or engaged in the pattern of behaviour from the beginning, I would not accept it. On 10/25/2017 04:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > How long after the fact are you comfortable with accept

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

In fact, I'd be more inclined to say this *new* action (now being unambiguous intent to play) is in fact the Registration message. On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > How long after the fact are you comfortable with accepting evidence of > consent? (obviously this works for any future r

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

How long after the fact are you comfortable with accepting evidence of consent? (obviously this works for any future ratification). What if OscarMeyr came back and said - you know back in May and that other CFJ - well actually I consent. On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wr

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

However, this action should still be taken into account. On 10/25/2017 04:22 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > This doesn't affect the actual CFJ I called (because, as we all know, > CFJs are judged on the facts of their calling) but THIS might be the > player-like action we need to ratify ais523 in. > > On We

DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

This doesn't affect the actual CFJ I called (because, as we all know, CFJs are judged on the facts of their calling) but THIS might be the player-like action we need to ratify ais523 in. On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2017-10-25 at 02:14 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

The "previously-a-player" isn't enough, OscarMeyr was the subject of CFJ 3456 and was a longtime player. Not sure what "player-like" actions you're referring to, non-players have also CFJ'd and commented while they clearly didn't intend to be players. The "observed eir own inclusion" without kn

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

The other thing to note is that he was previously a player and continued to take player-like actions. Additionally, he stated that he had observed his inclusion in the Registrar's report and had knowingly not CoEed. On 10/25/2017 10:47 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Publius Scrib

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

I should clarify: I'm not trying to do away with methods, informal or formal, that allow individuals to sell votes. I'm just saying that - in the specific context of a discussion on the economy - it will always be a limited, occasional activity and not something to scale trading economies ar

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

Indeed - whenever I see someone buy a vote, it's a signal to me to read that proposal extra, extra carefully to look for ulterior motives for it passing. On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote: > On 10/25/17 11:52, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > People don't spend to buy others' votes. They just don't.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

On 10/25/17 11:52, Kerim Aydin wrote: > People don't spend to buy others' votes. They just don't. I have > theories as to why, but while I've seen many many people set up contracts, > etc. to sell votes, over years of observed play they rarely make more > than a few shinies here and there.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

I mean, if someone thinks it is better for it to fail and it is in danger of passing, they can buy my vote to make it more likely to fail. We could start giving incentives for people to have the minority opinion when the vote is counted, but I can see how that could be objectionable. It's also a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Josh T wrote: > Given that I think VJ Rada is the only person who has purchased a vote in > the whole existence of me selling votes, I am inclined to agree. The issue is that - if the proposal is an actual idea (not a scam or win attempt), people (a) want it to win on its

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

Given that I think VJ Rada is the only person who has purchased a vote in the whole existence of me selling votes, I am inclined to agree. Real life tends to get in the way of me carefully considering proposals (that is, I fail to allocate time to the task due to the lack of free time) and I might

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > > That's fair enough, I was mainly thinking of ways like utilising > > contracts and offering wincon progress or selling your vote, and in > > general I feel like people don't really use what's there as much as > > we possibly could?  > > I completely con

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > Actually, when this came up, e made a statement that could have been > consent and I believe G. may have mentioned that he thought it could count. No - not after the fact. The situation that CFJ 3456 allows this to work is is if a pe

DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > On Oct 25, 2017, at 12:30 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > I cause Agora to make the following payments, which I believe can be > > uniquely decomposed into the individual payments required by “Passive > > Income”: > > > > * 8 sh. to ProofTechnique >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

> I mean, there's currently a vote-buying pledge and a vote-buying contract but nobody's using either. I would like to mention that my vote-buying contract got destroyed when Contracts came into effect, and ATMunn's vote-buying pledge only applies to elections which have already been resolved. Thu

DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

CoE: ais523 is not a player. On Wed, Oct 25, 2017, 00:30 Owen Jacobson, wrote: > I’m going to do this longhand, to make sure that I get it right. As I read > the rules, if any of the following is incorrect, only the affected > distributions fail. > > Per the rule titled “Passive Income”, the tax

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

Not that it matters too much but I don't think you can bar someone a posteriori like that because "When a person initiates a Call for Judgment, e CAN optionally bar one person

DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

Actually, when this came up, e made a statement that could have been consent and I believe G. may have mentioned that he thought it could count. On 10/25/2017 03:18 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > By the way, I'm pretty sure that ais523 isn't a player? E was only > made a player by ratification, and CFJ 345

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

I am not trying to hoard shinies, but I also do not want to just collapse the economy, but if anyone has any interesting contract ideas or things the require shinies, email me and I will probably help out. On 10/25/2017 02:25 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> On Oct 25, 2017, at 1:51 AM, Madeline > <

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

>That's fair enough, I was mainly thinking of ways like utilising contracts and offering wincon progress or selling your vote, and in general I feel like people don't really use what's there >as much as we possibly could? I completely concur with this. We've had/do have so many systems that would

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

That's fair enough, I was mainly thinking of ways like utilising contracts and offering wincon progress or selling your vote, and in general I feel like people don't really use what's there as much as we possibly could? My apologies for coming across harsher than I should have. One thing that m

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

> On Oct 25, 2017, at 1:51 AM, Madeline wrote: > > I'm not the only one who feels like this is a horribly designed rule? For a > start, basic income is designed to overcome the cost of living, which in > Agora is 0. You could also argue its purpose is already fulfilled by Action > Points, whi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

> On Oct 25, 2017, at 1:00 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > Do you mean 4 shinies to Gaelan, not G.? Or am I missing something. Gaelan > looks like e has the third least. Nope. Pure thinko on my part. Fortunately, it’s easily corrected - that part of the payment was simply ineffective. -o signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

I'm not the only one who feels like this is a horribly designed rule? For a start, basic income is designed to overcome the cost of living, which in Agora is 0. You could also argue its purpose is already fulfilled by Action Points, which are far simpler, far more effective, and far less damagi

DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

Just re-saying as well that you might have missed my previous message: Why did G. get the money? And if you meant Gaelan, shouldn't e have had initial balance 8 when you were redistributing ais's stamp buy? On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 4:38 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > By the way, it's pretty easy if you hap

DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

By the way, it's pretty easy if you happen to be the Treasuror to scam this rule to win any Estate auction. Simply give away all your shinies except 1, and pay it to Agora any number of times to pay Agora infinite money. On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > On Oct 25, 2017, at

DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

Do you mean 4 shinies to Gaelan, not G.? Or am I missing something. Gaelan looks like e has the third least. On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > I’m going to do this longhand, to make sure that I get it right. As I read > the rules, if any of the following is incorrect, only