> On Nov 7, 2017, at 7:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> 1: Make transactions from the Head to Agora of exactly 1 shiny, for
>> the sole purpose of paying for an Estate.
>
> Counterarguments:
>
> We've previously found that if you try to pay for somet
(or at least, one of the reasons)
On 11/7/2017 8:30 PM, ATMunn wrote:
This whole thing is why I want to get my Auctions proposal done as soon as
possible...
On 11/7/2017 8:29 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The wording is different enough on Auctions versus typical spend actions
that you still have
This whole thing is why I want to get my Auctions proposal done as soon as
possible...
On 11/7/2017 8:29 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The wording is different enough on Auctions versus typical spend actions
that you still have a good chance IMO...
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
Yup. Now looki
The wording is different enough on Auctions versus typical spend actions
that you still have a good chance IMO...
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Yup. Now looking desperately for infinite-money scams brb.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue
Yup. Now looking desperately for infinite-money scams brb.
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> > I don't remember that, but if you say so (and if there was a CFJ on
>> > it). I'm happy to acc
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> > I don't remember that, but if you say so (and if there was a CFJ on
> > it). I'm happy to accept the card if I have to.
>
> No don't take my word for it. The argument depends on the pays/paid
> grammar and that may
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I don't remember that, but if you say so (and if there was a CFJ on
> it). I'm happy to accept the card if I have to.
No don't take my word for it. The argument depends on the pays/paid
grammar and that may have been different for any other case, especially
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> The Estate Auction wording is: "The winner CAN cause Agora to transfer
> the auctioned Estate to emself by announcement, IF E PAYS Agora the
> amount of the bid". That's readable and should be read as
> non-simultaneous: that is, the winner can get the estate
I don't remember that, but if you say so (and if there was a CFJ on
it). I'm happy to accept the card if I have to.
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> That's not the situation I mean. I mean there was a transaction we
> tested where someone did something like:
>
> "I pay 2
That's not the situation I mean. I mean there was a transaction we
tested where someone did something like:
"I pay 2 shinies to make a stamp; I pay 3 shinies to make a stamp."
and it failed to make a 5-shiny stamp (and it didn't come down to
exact wording, it was that it was found that you can
You're right on 'spend' though. Spending Shinies needs to be
explicitly defined somewhere as transferring them to Agora. I had also
thought that this was settled.
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 11:53 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
> "(I mean, I'm perfectly ready to go with the interpretation that it works for
> you,
"(I mean, I'm perfectly ready to go with the interpretation that it works for
you, but it also works for everything else and I can pay a 2 Shiny Pend fee
by paying 1 shiny now and 1 in a week or something. That's why I was looking
for the definitions that I thought we clarified but maybe never did
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> To be clear, I would look back at those recent precedents (I don't offhand
> remember which cases or payments) to find the reasons for those judgements
> before coming to a conclusion on this one. Both can't be right.
(I mean, I'm perfectly ready to go
Well, both can be right. O's interpretation has reversed some
transactions where, for example, someone was unable to buy a stamp and
said "I transfer 5 shinies to agora to buy a stamp". Those 5 shinies
could never have, in any case, led to buying a stamp, so the
transaction was reversed on that bas
That's a reasonable common interpretation, I agree. And your argument is
plausible. But it's exactly *not* how we interpreted recent transactions.
To be clear, I would look back at those recent precedents (I don't offhand
remember which cases or payments) to find the reasons for those judgemen
I would disagree. If you said, for example "I'm eating all this fast
food for the purpose of gaining 10 kg", that wouldn't be an untrue
statement, even if the food was normal-sized and not 10 kilograms
heavy.
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, VJ Rada
Yes, nichdel do you have that fixed version (without land) ready for
another draft? If you're low on time I can make a draft. (I've got
a simple Land version ready for that - not feature creep but replacement).
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote:
> I'm not even surprised tbh basic income is a
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> 1: Make transactions from the Head to Agora of exactly 1 shiny, for
> the sole purpose of paying for an Estate.
Counterarguments:
We've previously found that if you try to pay for something, and fail,
the entire transaction fails.
So the first attempt to p
I'm not even surprised tbh basic income is a wreck on top of a wreck do
we have an economic overhaul yet?
pls don't get it delayed due to feature creep we need it ;_;
On 2017-11-08 10:49, VJ Rada wrote:
I spend 1 shiny to create the following Contract
Name: Easy Off Scam: Cleaning Your Mold F
19 matches
Mail list logo
