Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Because an action is an action is an action

2008-02-06 Thread Geoffrey Spear
On Feb 6, 2008 1:03 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That of course was my first thought, but then I thought that there may be > trivial dependent things that it's perfectly reasonable and convenient for > the AFO (or someone else) to be able to do. General opinions all around, > based

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Because an action is an action is an action

2008-02-06 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: > Why not just limit initiation of dependent actions to first-class > persons only? We've taken away all the other advantages of > partnerships, why keep this one? That of course was my first thought, but then I thought that there may be trivial dependent t

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Because an action is an action is an action

2008-02-06 Thread Geoffrey Spear
On Feb 6, 2008 1:59 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe the easiest thing is to combine these issues: leave N alone (get > rid of N+1) and disqualify the "first-class person who posts the intent, > or who posts the intent on behalf of a second-class person" from supporting. In theo

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Because an action is an action is an action

2008-02-06 Thread Roger Hicks
On Feb 5, 2008 11:59 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oop. Must have cut something out of the old rule that prevented that. > > Maybe the easiest thing is to combine these issues: leave N alone (get > rid of N+1) and disqualify the "first-class person who posts the intent, > or who po

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Because an action is an action is an action

2008-02-05 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: > Huh. I suppose it is. > > I think it would suffice to treat the number of supporters as one less > if the initiator is non-first-class. This could cover With N Support > as well, replacing "or N+1 supporters". > > What if the initiator is first-class but th

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Because an action is an action is an action

2008-02-05 Thread Ed Murphy
Goethe wrote: You're right on the other two edits, will fix, but on this last one, isn't this the current situation too? Or am I the one overlooking something? -Goethe Huh. I suppose it is. I think it would suffice to treat the number of supporters as one less if the initiator is non-firs

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Because an action is an action is an action

2008-02-05 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: >> (3) the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, >>and the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, >> or the action has at least one supporter and no objectors. > > Alice could cause a non-first-class player to perfor

DIS: Re: BUS: Because an action is an action is an action

2008-02-05 Thread Ed Murphy
Goethe wrote: To perform a dependent action, a player CAN and MUST publicly announce eir intent, unambiguously describing both the action and the method, including the required value for N. A player CAN perform a previously unambiguously described dependent acti