DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Generalize complexity

On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 23:35 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote: > Create a rule titled "Interest Index of Judicial Cases" with Power 1.5 > and this text: > > Each judicial case has an interest index, which CAN be set by > its initiator at the time of initiation, and CAN be changed > by any p

DIS: Re: BUS: PBA, milling

On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 17:43 -0800, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: > The PNP withdraws one 5 crop from the PBA for ^8. > The PNP withdraws one 5 crop from the PBA for ^9. > Using a Addition Mill, the PNP mills 5 + 5 = X. > The PNP deposits one X crop into the PBA to gain ^30. > The PNP withdraws o

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PBA, milling

On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 09:14 +, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 17:43 -0800, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: > > The PNP withdraws one 5 crop from the PBA for ^8. > > The PNP withdraws one 5 crop from the PBA for ^9. > > Using a Addition Mill, the PNP mills 5 + 5 = X. > > The PNP depo

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Argument: Other amendment processes don't necessarily 'violate' it in > the sense of making it not counting as having agreed to the amendment > either; for instance, without-objection, or without member objection, or > any met

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Generalize complexity

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 07:18, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Presumably the idea is that high-rank cases would be more difficult, > complicated and time-consuming to judge, whereas low-rank cases would be > for typical CFJspam. The problem now is for people to decide which cases > are imp

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523

Just filling in some Power of Attorney history here: > In this case, CFJ 1941 seems to establish that in May this year, it was > already established custom that an effective Power of Attorney was > grantable in practice via contracts, once the rules no longer gave a > method of doing so. Going ba

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523

ais523 wrote: > However, two of the parties to the contract don't want to > call an equity case, and the third tried to but potentially it was > remotely retracted. (This is yet another TITE scam, that rule severely > needs fixing; however, it is not the place of a judge to deprive players > of a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523

ais523 wrote: > This question has come up once before, around the Vote > Market was modified from majority support for changes to > without-3-objections. In > , > Goethe argues that it is not protective of an individual's interests to >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Generalize complexity

BobTHJ wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 00:35, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Create a rule titled "Judicial Rank" with Power 1.5 and this text: >> >> Judicial rank is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the >> Courts, with the same range and default as interest indices. >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:02, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wilfully entering a contract with limited escape clauses and the stated > ability to change by majority (or whatever level is specified) can get > you in trouble, and I think that's quite legal, provided you have the > "reasona

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Generalize complexity

BobTHJ wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 07:18, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Presumably the idea is that high-rank cases would be more difficult, >> complicated and time-consuming to judge, whereas low-rank cases would be >> for typical CFJspam. The problem now is for people to decide w

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Note that I did not have a reasonable chance to review the first > change that ehird and Wooble made to the Protection Racket (the change > that removed my ability to leave the contract and permitted them to > change it at wi

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523

comex wrote: > R101 (iv) does not consider such amendments to be ineffective if you > did not have a reasonable opportunity to review them; it merely allows > you to consider yourself not bound by them until you do have such a > reasonable opportunity. Hmm... can't I consider myself not bound by a

DIS: Re: BUS: PBA, milling

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 18:43, The PerlNomic Partnership <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Using a Addition Mill, the PNP mills 4 + 9 = 2. > The PNP deposits one 2 crop into the PBA to gain ^30. Unless I have something wrong this last milling failed because the PNP only has one + mill. As a result the

DIS: RE: Re: BUS: PBA, milling

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 18:43, The PerlNomic Partnership <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Using a Addition Mill, the PNP mills 4 + 9 = 2. > The PNP deposits one 2 crop into the PBA to gain ^30. Unless I have something wrong this last milling failed because the PNP only has one + mill. As a result the

Re: DIS: RE: Re: BUS: PBA, milling

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:44, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 18:43, The PerlNomic Partnership > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Using a Addition Mill, the PNP mills 4 + 9 = 2. >> The PNP deposits one 2 crop into the PBA to gain ^30. > > Unless I have something w

DIS: RE: Re: BUS: PBA, milling

ais523 wrote: > It has two + mills, I'm pretty sure; at least it did last I checked, > did one get demolished by water rights or something? I'll see if I > can dig out the last published AAA report to check. It seems that you missed land #0 (a + mill) off a report sometime in October; it had it at

DIS: RE: Re: BUS: PBA, milling

ais523 wrote: > ais523 wrote: > > It has two + mills, I'm pretty sure; at least it did last I checked, > > did one get demolished by water rights or something? I'll see if I > > can dig out the last published AAA report to check. > It seems that you missed land #0 (a + mill) off a report sometime i

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PBA, milling

On 11 Nov 2008, at 19:36, Roger Hicks wrote: Unless I have something wrong this last milling failed because the PNP only has one + mill. As a result the subsequent deposit of a 2 crop also fails. O Gastrnheseco, you must advance quicker. -- ehird

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Generalize complexity

On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 08:09 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 07:18, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Presumably the idea is that high-rank cases would be more difficult, > > complicated and time-consuming to judge, whereas low-rank cases would be > > for typical CFJspam.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto-Contract: Political Action Committee

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When a first-class player registers one Lobbyist is created in eir possession. I think players generally don't register. --Warrigal

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 09:35 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> I CFJ on the following: "Contracts CAN be amended by a mechanism other >> than unanimous consent of all parties." >> >> Argument: The ruling in CFJ 2246 strongly implies that any amendment >> proce

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Generalize complexity

comex wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I retract my previous proposal with this title. >> >> Proposal: Generalize complexity > > CFJ 1647. In that case, I missed changing the proposal text. In this case, I'm pretty sure I didn't.

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Generalize complexity

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I retract my previous proposal with this title. > > Proposal: Generalize complexity CFJ 1647.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2261 assigned to Warrigal

On 11 Nov 2008, at 12:20, Warrigal wrote: If possible, I judge UNDETERMINED. Even if a piece of ASCII art is a statement, it's too nonsensical to have a truth value. -> UNDECIDABLE :-) -- ehird

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Argument: Other amendment processes don't necessarily 'violate' it in >> the sense of making it not counting as having agreed to the amendment >> either; for instance, without-obj

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Generalize complexity

On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 07:15 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 00:35, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Create a rule titled "Judicial Rank" with Power 1.5 and this text: > > > > Judicial rank is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the > > Courts, with the sam

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Generalize complexity

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 00:35, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Create a rule titled "Judicial Rank" with Power 1.5 and this text: > > Judicial rank is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the > Courts, with the same range and default as interest indices. > > A player is po

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, comex wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Note that I did not have a reasonable chance to review the first >> change that ehird and Wooble made to the Protection Racket (the change >> that removed my ability to leave the contract

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Absurd. Where's the 'until' you claim in R101(iv)? > > It's absolute. > > It says e does not have to consider emself bound by it [at all] > if e didn't have an opportunity to review it [before it was made]. > Your interpreta

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523

On 12 Nov 2008, at 00:26, comex wrote: (As I ranted in ##nomic, people insist on genericizing the term "mousetrap" to mean any contract someone is bound to against eir will, but the real Mousetrap was quite a bit more than that.) Ditto with "walrus" to any vote-for-this-and-reap-rewards scam.

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2245 assigned to Taral

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > == Equity Case 2245 == > >The Protection Racket was clearly not envisioned as an >entrapment scheme for one or more of its parties. [Note: proto-judgement] In order to

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2245 assigned to Taral

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The parties to the Protection Racket bound by this equation SHALL act > to remove any of the following clauses that are still present from The > Protection Racket as soon as possible: > > BobTHJ generally CAN modify the text of thi

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2245 assigned to Taral

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 8:58 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In order to escape the mousetrap, BobTHJ suffered material costs. ... > ehird and Wooble SHALL jointly ensure that 10VP are transferred to > BobTHJ as soon as possible. This is why I hate equity. Having been thwarted in their att

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2245 assigned to Taral

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:31 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is why I hate equity. Having been thwarted in their attempts at > mousetrapping BobTHJ, ehird and wooble are now forced to pay em > damages!? It's not a final judgement. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if

DIS: Re: BUS: [PBA] Coinkeepor's report

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 17. Every midnight (UTC) that the PBA has zero of a given Eligible Currency, > that currency's exchange rate goes up by 2. Every Monday midnight (UTC) that > the > PBA has a non-zero amount of a given Eligible Currency, that

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2245 assigned to Taral

On 12/11/2008, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:31 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This is why I hate equity. Having been thwarted in their attempts at >> mousetrapping BobTHJ, ehird and wooble are now forced to pay em >> damages!? > > It's not a final judgement

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [PBA] Coinkeepor's report

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, in theory, every Monday midnight, either the PBA's holdings or the > exchange rate will go to 0. I don't think we've actually seen this > happen, which goes to show you that mathematics is interesting but > useless. Because

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2245 assigned to Taral

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nor an acceptable Proto. I intend to leave the Racket. I hope you don't think this will affect your obligations under equity. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2245 assigned to Taral

On 12/11/2008, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Nor an acceptable Proto. I intend to leave the Racket. > > I hope you don't think this will affect your obligations under equity. > > -- > Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > "Ple

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2245 assigned to Taral

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:52 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > it will stop bobthj acting on my behalf as I will not be a don. ([a-z]-){2}[a-z]

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, comex wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It says e does not have to consider emself bound by it [at all] >> if e didn't have an opportunity to review it [before it was made]. >> Your interpretation makes it utterly meaningless i

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [PBA] Coinkeepor's report

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> So, in theory, every Monday midnight, either the PBA's holdings or the >> exchange rate will go to 0. I don't think we've actually seen this >> happen, which g

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2245 assigned to Taral

Taral wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:31 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This is why I hate equity. Having been thwarted in their attempts at >> mousetrapping BobTHJ, ehird and wooble are now forced to pay em >> damages!? > > It's not a final judgement. Suggestion: Estimate the aver

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nope, not at all, I'm not sure where you claim to be talking from > authority about the original intent of this. (iii) was for Mousetraps. > The original intent of (iv) was to protect against "secret" amendments > and to ens

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [PBA] Coinkeepor's report

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Clearly, then, we should all abandon Agora for Normish, where one > could easily write a computer program to do this. (If, that is, > someone first implements currencies for Normish.) I look forward to the day when Bayes can ma

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:02 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > quote from before R101 renumbering I'm sorry, I just realized the stupidity of this quote. I'll get back to you on that.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:08 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:02 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> quote from before R101 renumbering > > I'm sorry, I just realized the stupidity of this quote. I'll get back > to you on that. Ah, here is what I was remember

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2245 assigned to Taral

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Suggestion: Estimate the average PBA exchange rate for VP during the > relevant time period. Say it's 8 (the current rate), then BobTHJ spent > ^80 worth of VP to gain ^100, so require BobTHJ to give back about half > the dif

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2245 assigned to Taral

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, comex wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 8:58 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> In order to escape the mousetrap, BobTHJ suffered material costs. > ... >> ehird and Wooble SHALL jointly ensure that 10VP are transferred to >> BobTHJ as soon as possible. > > This is why I ha

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2245 assigned to Taral

Taral wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Suggestion: Estimate the average PBA exchange rate for VP during the >> relevant time period. Say it's 8 (the current rate), then BobTHJ spent >> ^80 worth of VP to gain ^100, so require BobTHJ to give back a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, comex wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Nope, not at all, I'm not sure where you claim to be talking from >> authority about the original intent of this. (iii) was for Mousetraps. >> The original intent of (iv) was to protect

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, comex wrote: > It would make sense if a no-secret-contracts clause was created at > least in part based on a scam that apparently inflamed so many people > precisely because it involved secret contracts; however, I was not a > player at the time so you would know better than I

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2245 assigned to Taral

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This approach (both "leave the ^80-worth-of-stuff on each side alone" > and "split the difference on the rest") is based on the general > philosophy (perhaps this should be legislated as a SHOULD) that equity > should generally

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2245 assigned to Taral

Taral wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This approach (both "leave the ^80-worth-of-stuff on each side alone" >> and "split the difference on the rest") is based on the general >> philosophy (perhaps this should be legislated as a SHOULD) that equity

DIS: Re: BUS: Prep for Werewolves session #2

On Wednesday 12 November 2008 01:03:30 am Ed Murphy wrote: >       i) (in Agora) floor(P/N) points to each winner of the > session, where P is the maximum number of points that a contest CAN > award per week, and N is the number of winners of the session. This is probably a bug; it should say "tha