On 7/28/2019 12:41 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Like, forgive me if I'm missing something, but in light of that
> provision I don't see how this could also be broken?
>
> Also, did you ever write that time security proto or come up with a
> list of changes that would be satisfactory?
I won't have
On 7/28/2019 12:21 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
What about the "For the purposes of this rule, agreement includes both
consent and agreement specified by contract"? That pretty clearly says
that if the contract species it, consent isn't necessary.
The way you've written it makes it sound (to me a
Like, forgive me if I'm missing something, but in light of that
provision I don't see how this could also be broken?
Also, did you ever write that time security proto or come up with a
list of changes that would be satisfactory?
-Aris
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 12:21 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> Wh
What about the "For the purposes of this rule, agreement includes both
consent and agreement specified by contract"? That pretty clearly says
that if the contract species it, consent isn't necessary.
-Aris
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 12:16 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Actually, I think your proposal
Actually, I think your proposal may be broken. If a contract (once created
with 2 people) explicitly allows a third person to join without the consent
of the existing parties, it's not clear if your proposed text overrides that
or if "agreeing to the contract that allows other people to join l
Okay, I agree that definitely sounds better in the long run. That
being said, there isn't any reason to retract my proposal right now,
so I'm not going to.
-Aris
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 11:57 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I've been working on a major contract re-write for the last week or so
> ba
I've been working on a major contract re-write for the last week or so
based on what we've found/discussed - I'll publish a proto tomorrow-ish.
I don't think we can bolt on to the existing I think it's just better
to do a complete re-write.
Rough outline:
- Better defines agreements as a whol
It is a significant concern IMO. I can think of a dozen times or more that
an Assessor benefited from a scam in this manner in a proposal (myself
included). I don't support allowing the assessor to have the final word
on this, I think.
On 7/27/2019 1:04 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
The main
You know, I was planning on becoming an evil Assessor, but I guess I
can't now.
Jason Cobb
On 7/27/19 4:14 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
I act on behalf of Jacob Arduino to submit a proposal "Evil Assessor Safeguard", AI=3.0, with twg and G. as
co-authors and the text 'If there is a rule title
The main reason for doing it this way was that I wanted to make sure the
Assessor had an active role in the cancellation, because otherwise it's easy to
miss. When I was Assessor I found it near-impossible to keep up with the
discussion surrounding votes in real-time, and generally just counted
Actually, I'm worried about the other direction, given the Assessor's unique
position at being able to be the first to benefit from an adopted proposal.
Scenario:
Player proposes something. Player realizes that, if it passes, a really
bad scam is possible. Player issues cancellation notice.
Other than implementation error what's a worst case scenario - assessor
kills eir own proposal that "needs" to pass for some game reason, meaning
someone else can propose it (up to 2-week delay)? Doesn't seem like a
big source of abuse.
One simple option is require it to be done with Support (w
Clarification: I mean, what should happen? Right now the answer is clear
that the Assessor gets to deal with eir own cancellation motion, which
may not be the best idea.
Jason Cobb
On 7/27/19 1:35 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Sorry that I didn't think of this earlier, but what happens when the
Asses
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 1:25 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> 4. Any player CAN create a gift in eir possession by announcement.
>
> 5. A player CANNOT create a gift by any means.
On further thought, this version might end up being IRRELEVANT. A
judge might say "gifts are a contract currency entirely tr
It's probably not a bad idea, but I think there's a lot of judicial
precedent on what exactly counts for messages, and I wouldn't want to
accidentally nuke that. Although I'm sure you know a lot more about that
than I do, so I'd love help (from anyone) codifying the precedent here.
Jason Cobb
Doing it by proposal is better for two reasons, one I get moneeey and
two I think ratifying something objectively untrue should only be done in
real emergencies, which is not so here
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 9:22 AM Rebecca wrote:
> I retract the second "spaceships"
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 a
I’d prefer to add them all back to the pool as a batch (it feels cleaner).
So R. Lee, if you still want to do this by proposal, I’d prefer it if you’d
retract the new one and just let me reinsert the old.
-Aris
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 7:00 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> R Lee- I think you could accompl
R Lee- I think you could accomplish the same outcome quicker by ratifying
the space ships into existence without objection
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 6:33 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> The promotor can put the old one back up for a vote again (once), since
> the outcome was FAILED QUORUM.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 2:02 PM James Cook wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 07:02, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > You're right. I was waiting for the dust to settle before trying to
> > sort things out. Does the following look correct?
> >
> > Also, feel free to just withdraw "no power is all powerful
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 07:02, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> You're right. I was waiting for the dust to settle before trying to
> sort things out. Does the following look correct?
>
> Also, feel free to just withdraw "no power is all powerful" if you
> want to; it would simplify things a bit in some ways,
Is there a judgment on whether a proposal can have an adoption index of
"none"? The one CFJ I can think of was on elections, nothing to do with
proposals. G. initiated a proposal with AI="none". As far as I know,
nobody challenged that, and, if adopted, it would have some interesting
effects on
The current standing judgements AFAICT are "ain't broke - don't fix".
This relies on assuming "no AI" == "AI='none'" but two judges have
agreed with that reading.
On 7/1/2019 11:32 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I don’t think this is a great idea. It seems like a rather large addition
of rule text
I think it's good to prohibit "none" from being an AI for a proposal -
it makes it easier to reason about the rest of the Rules that touch
proposals, and it might make bugs less likely for later changes that
touch AIs - you don't have to think about proposals having an AI of
"none" (even if an
Oh, I didn't even think of forbiddenness as being a property.
Attempt #3:
When a binding entity explicitly defines an action, describes the
possibility of performing an action, or describes the methods by
which an action can be performed, it creates an action that is
distinct from al
There’s a slight problem with that wording. It doesn’t have to purport to
define or describe it, it just has to do so. Purporting to define or
describe something would be saying “I describe X”. Also, you’ve got to make
sure you phrase it in a way that allows entities to refer to actions
defined by
I think you're right about the first sentence. I believe it made more
sentence in v0, where there was some context about defining actions. The
intent was to basically say that, when a binding entity creates an
action (either by explicit definition, or by describing its properties),
it "owns" th
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 04:33, Jason Cobb wrote:
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a binding entity CAN only
> require or forbid an action that it does not define; it CANNOT
> modify anything else about the action in any way.
I don't understand this part. As far as I can tell, w
Okay, I've done to v2 what I already did to v0: kill the scope creep. It
was much less extreme this time, but I realized that the scope creeped
into contract safety. This version is basically just fixing
interpretation and expanding some useful clauses to apply to more than
just the Rules.
H
I think the main issue with contracts is that there are fairly complex
desires for what we want them to do. The changes to R1742 ensure that
they can prohibit/require anything that the Rules define, which I think
is desirable. If that's all we wanted contracts to be able to do, then
that would
In large part, it’s the whole thing together. It feels like a complex set
of changes across multiple rules. The fact that such a change is necessary
suggests that the entire approach is inelegant. In general, the best
approaches to solving problems require relatively few rule changes, and it
feels
Is it any parts specifically, or is it just the entire thing when looked
at together?
If it's any part specifically, I imagine it's either the Rule 1742 or
the Rule 2125 changes.
The Rule 2125 changes were intended to mirror the old Rule 2125 as
closely as possible. The big changes (outside
Thanks! Responses inline again.
Jason Cobb
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:57 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
A contract CAN define and regulate the following actions, except
that the performance of them must include at least clearly and
unambiguously announcing the performance of t
It’s getting to the point where this is feeling inelegant again, which is
usually a very bad sign.
-Aris
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:57 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Here's v2 for further comment. Since we've got a while before the next
> distribution, I'll leave it up for much longer.
>
> omd: any of y
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:57 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> A contract CAN define and regulate the following actions, except
> that the performance of them must include at least clearly and
> unambiguously announcing the performance of the action:
What does it mean to "define" an
Here's v2 for further comment. Since we've got a while before the next
distribution, I'll leave it up for much longer.
omd: any of your previous comments that I did not specify a resolution
for are resolved as WONTFIX (I think it's just inextricable conditionals
and not regulating matters of e
Sorry! Will do.
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 9:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Note from the Office of the Promotor:
Please don't use the > style quote formatting again. It makes text
formatting a nightmare, and stops me from wrapping lines.
-Aris
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 5:01 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
Oh,
Note from the Office of the Promotor:
Please don't use the > style quote formatting again. It makes text
formatting a nightmare, and stops me from wrapping lines.
-Aris
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 5:01 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> Oh, I meant to make it say "player" instead of "person who plays the
> g
I think it's okay, given that that clause has an explicit "To the extent
specified by the Rules".
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 1:00 AM, omd wrote:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:55 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
Contracts CAN require or forbid actions that are defined in
other binding entities
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:55 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> >
> >> Contracts CAN require or forbid actions that are defined in
> >> other binding entities. To the extent specified by the Rules,
> >> contracts CAN define or regulate other actions. Any actions that
> >> m
But messes are more fun...
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 2:55 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Done right, it might remove net text. Things that are obvious and
> known by all should not be codified; the record will show you that
> this is no so such thing. Implicit doctr
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:44 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> > I wasn't intending to refer to that definition. By "game-defined
> > action" I simply mean an action which is defined by the game, i.e.
> > which exists as a platonic entity because of a definition found in the
> > rules. I admit this could
Done right, it might remove net text. Things that are obvious and
known by all should not be codified; the record will show you that
this is no so such thing. Implicit doctrines create messes. They have
their place, but they should be codified and made binding law.
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9
Thanks! Responses inline.
Jason Cobb
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:03 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
Contracts CAN define new actions. These actions CAN only be
sequences of actions that are game-defined, but may include
conditionals, repetition, and other similar constructs.
T
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:26 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> This leaves it undefined what a game-defined action is. In particular,
> the new version of the rules leaves it unclear whether it's possible to
> attempt to do something that's not defined by the rules but which would
> change the
I would oppose this because of my usual opposition to rules that state
things that are obvious and known by all, the fact that I am Oath-bound to
vote AGAINST proposals that add net text, and the fact that rules are not
fun and implied doctrines are very fun.
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 2:33 PM Aris M
I wasn't intending to refer to that definition. By "game-defined
action" I simply mean an action which is defined by the game, i.e.
which exists as a platonic entity because of a definition found in the
rules. I admit this could be made more explicit.
Without defining "game-defined", arguably
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:33 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> > This leaves it undefined what a game-defined action is.
> It was a term of art that my proposal would have created. Just
> incorporating my definition here doesn't work as it was "An action is
> game-defined if and only if it is a regulated act
This leaves it undefined what a game-defined action is.
It was a term of art that my proposal would have created. Just
incorporating my definition here doesn't work as it was "An action is
game-defined if and only if it is a regulated action of some binding
entity." That obviously doesn't help
There should likely at least be a reference to
recordkeepor information.
If this gets included, could your proposal clearly resolve CFJ 3740 in
the new Ruleset, please?
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 12:26 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 21:20 -0700, omd wrote:
Proposal:
Instead of this:
> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
>Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by announcement.
I would recommend moving "by announcement" like so:
> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, by announcement
> impose Su
e's right though - having those R101/R1698 up front in their own section is
a better intro to the whole spirit of the thing than what I had.
On 3/3/2019 9:34 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Looks like I put it as the second rule when I did my big reorganization after
becoming Rulekeepor. It wasn’t a
Looks like I put it as the second rule when I did my big reorganization after
becoming Rulekeepor. It wasn’t a drastic change, though—G has it as the sixth.
Gaelan
> On Mar 2, 2019, at 9:29 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
>
> On another note, whose idea was it to put rule 1698 as the second
> Indeed, but I thought I'd point it out so that people were aware.
>
> In general, rule 1698 triggers should be avoided as much as possible.
> The problem is that it (intentionally) defeats Agora's existing
> mechanisms for ensuring that we know what the gamestate is; it's better
> to have an unkn
On Sun, 2019-03-03 at 05:16 +, James Cook wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 05:23, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
> wrote:
> > That said, there is a possible failure state: if every player has at
> > least 13 Blots, and nobody has any Ribbons, the adoption of a proposal
> > within four weeks would requ
I understand the proposal is flawed but Telnaior is space-bullying me
and this fixes my problem.
On 2/5/19 3:28 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
I’m against the Space bullying thing because I believe it’s more
interesting if that was achieved via contracts and such. (Our own Geneva
Convention of a sort,
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I feel like the first one is more of a birthday—the day you first became
> a part of Agora is a lot more momentous than the last time you were>
> involved in some deregistration scam (or even the last time you came back).
> As for unknown birthdays, m
I feel like the first one is more of a birthday—the day you first became a part
of Agora is a lot more momentous than the last time you were involved in some
deregistration scam (or even the last time you came back). As for unknown
birthdays, maybe we could fall back to date of first message to
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Using the Registrar's monthly report, my Agoran birthdays would be:
4-Feb-01, 14-Jul-03, 23-Feb-07, 27-Oct-07, 19-Jun-08,
4-May-09, 29-Oct-09, 18-Oct-11 and 25-Aug-17.
You may want to use "day e most recently registered" or "day e first
registered"? (you
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Enact a new rule entitled "Birthday Gifts", power=1, with the text:
> It is considered to be a player's Agoran Birthday when on the
> Agoran day e registered, if it is also a different Agoran year.
> Exactly once each time it is a pl
I thought that might have been the case. I wasn't sure what to say,
really, because I didn't want to make you look stupid, but I didn't want
the proposal to fail for no good reason :P
On 12/15/2018 5:02 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
ATMunn: I pasted the wrong thing and that's why it's the same.
Ari
No. I don't really actually care about this proposal. I just thought of
it on a whim and this week was slow.
On 12/15/18 2:56 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
The traditional objection raised against this is that it encourages schemes
where one lists someone as a coauthor in exchange for them doing the
Or, you could just say “on each anniversary of eir registration”, which is
a lot clearer, IMO.
-Aris
On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 1:52 PM ATMunn wrote:
> I think that's the exact same as the first one? Sorry if I wasn't clear.
> I wasn't making a suggestion of what it should be changed to, I was
> s
I think that's the exact same as the first one? Sorry if I wasn't clear.
I wasn't making a suggestion of what it should be changed to, I was
showing the weirdness.
I think just getting moving the "if" to before the "when" should work.
On 12/15/2018 4:22 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
pf
On 12/15
I retract the last one and submit this one:
Title: Happy Birthday To You
Author: Trigon
Coauthors: ATMunn
AI: 1
Enact a new rule entitled "Birthday Gifts", power=1, with the text:
It is considered to be a player's Agoran Birthday when on the
Agoran day e registered, if it is also
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
Perform the following action for each player, iterating over them in
order of the days of the year (1 January to 31 December) on which they
most recently registered, breaking ties in order of the times at which
they most recently registered.
[Does t
Should clarify that this doesn’t include year. Like the idea.
Gaelan
> On Nov 9, 2018, at 7:02 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> it is
> the exact date e did so
The word players is is plural, the word eir is singular.
-Aris
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 7:02 PM Reuben Staley
wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> -
> Title: Happy Birthday To You
> Author: Trigon
> Coauthors:
> AI: 1
>
> Enact a new rule entitled "Birthday Gifts", power=1, with the
On Saturday, November 3, 2018 2:41 AM, Reuben Staley
wrote:
> * Having a Thesis pass peer-review and be granted a Degree based
> on its merit: 20 shinies
Apparently we call these "coins" now.
-twg
Invariably, I have made a mistake in the following proposal. So I'm
asking for contributions before submitting it.
-
Title: Reinstituting Rewards
AI: 1
Author: Trigon
Coauthors:
[ COMMENT: For those of you who know that I really liked the rewards
system from last year, this shouldn't come
Once again, Ørjan is correct. I retract my most recently submitted
proposal and submit the following one:
-
Title: High-level asset verbs
AI: 3
Author: Trigon
Coauthors:
[ COMMENT: This terminology is ripped from the coins rule and applies to
all assets. I really like this one. ]
Amend R
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Is this really what you want?
Gaelan
On Nov 1, 2018, at 3:37 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
2. For each office, if a single player held that office for 16 or
more days in the previous month and no unforgivable fines were
levied on em for ei
Is this really what you want?
Gaelan
> On Nov 1, 2018, at 3:37 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> 2. For each office, if a single player held that office for 16 or
> more days in the previous month and no unforgivable fines were
> levied on em for eir conduct in that office during tha
Retracting doesn't un-pend it, it removes it from the proposal pool. See
rule 2350, the last paragraph:
"The author of a proposal in the Proposal Pool CAN remove (syn. retract,
withdraw) it from the Pool by announcement."
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 00:17 Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Pending’s gone, so can
Pending’s gone, so can you retract?
Gaelan
> On Oct 31, 2018, at 10:41 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> Right you are, Ørjan. I retract the two proposals I have most recently
> submitted and instead submit the following two:
>
> -
> Title: Only proposals should be distributed
> AI: 1
> Author
Yes that occurred to me too. I think if this proposal is adopted the quorum
will basically always be 2.
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 8:50 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, Edward Murphy wrote:
>
> > I submit the following proposal and destroy the minimum amount of paper
> > required to p
You never pended it, but you most certainly created it, which adds it
to the proposal pool. To quote your message "I create and intend to
Rubberstamp in my capcity as Notary without 3 objections the following
proposal."
-Aris
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:38 PM Ned Strange wrote:
>
> I never actuall
Yeah that's right, I've certainly come across that distinction playing
games like magic: the gathering. But there is still a difference which
there isn't here. In that game, if you play a card that you can't, it
goes back to your hand. If you cheat, you get kicked out of the store.
The cards themse
Sure that works too. I just think CAN is way overloaded so I prefer
very distinct redirections with distinct names, but that's a style
thing. Regardless, main point is that you need to amend R2466.
Impossible versus Illegal is a distinction common to boardgames, though
it's not often recognize
Can't we just amend rule 2466 "If the rules mean that someone CAN act
on behalf". Obviously this allow/permit language is troubling because
the illegality/impossibility distinction we have is really just not
used in the English language in general. You could say "parking here
is not permitted" but
I wanted to emphasize the CAN issue here because it actually leads to
the opposite result of what you want!
R2466 says if a rules 'allows' someone to act on behalf... that they
CAN by announcement [with these results]. The current R2532 directly
references this text by using 'is allowed' to ac
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> If we're going with the penalties transfer option, it probably makes sense
> to say somewhere that the class of crime committed is equal to the one that
> the person acted on behalf of was induced to commit.
>
> -Aris
It might be easiest to do this in
If we're going with the penalties transfer option, it probably makes sense
to say somewhere that the class of crime committed is equal to the one that
the person acted on behalf of was induced to commit.
-Aris
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 6:15 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> The thing about using the "i
If that's true in general, then people aren't culpable for contracts that
allow others to break the rules on their behalf. I don't really think
that's fair,
-Aris
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 4:44 AM Corona wrote:
> Perhaps there should be something explicitly saying that one is not
> responsible (f
When we last had shambling entities we had a rule that any punishments
for crimes transferred to the master. Worth doing.
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Oh, dang it, forgot to hand incense out to existing players. Without
> objection, I'm going to make it non-zombie players only,
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I retract the proposal “Cross-Polination". (Side note: I have five ribbons,
> so if I did
> have a scam against the proposal process, the festival wouldn’t have helped).
Yeah I counted Ribbons - it was mainly in case your listed BlogNomic coauthors
we
On Sun, 2018-04-01 at 16:17 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Now that April Fools Day is over (in UTC, anyway), I would like to
> make clear that I have no intention of voting for this proposal. The
> caution probably warranted, however.
It'd probably make more sense to withdraw the proposal, in that
Oh for the love of the light. Good one, you had me worried there. Are you
actually going to retract it so we can stand down the disruptive anti-scam
measure (e.g. the festival)?
-Aris
On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 4:17 PM Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Now that April Fools Day is over (in UTC, anyway), I wo
Many things were broken. See, for instance, this [1] thread (~20 emails),
this [2] message, this [3] message, and this [4] message (last one fixed
separately). In short, this proposal ensures all of the enacted rule are
actually enacted with the right text, and then fixes all of the other bugs
we f
On Sun, 24 Dec 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> When would a player not be eligible for being assigned a CFJ?
Later in the same paragraph of - the caller and the barred person
are ineligible.
(Still skimming through a-d messages from my walkabout period, still
have 20 Nov through 30 Nov left.)
ATMunn wrote:
>> I'm also uncomfortable with having the Ribbon rule mention Shinies;
>> it's intended to work long-term even if the ruleset changes beneath
>> it.
I wouldn't know how to do th
On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 at 12:36 ATMunn wrote:
> I'm aware that there's already a rule that says that the ADoP tracks
> Complexity, but the purpose of this proposal was to have that in two places
> so future ADoPs don't make a mistake by not realizing that it needs to be
> in the report.
>
> Although
Oh yeah, I just meant _a_ win. Record it however you wish.
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Kerim Aydin
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> > I create the following proposal. Everything is fine. This is not an
> attempt
> > to win the Order of the Occult Hand which everyone has f
I don't think Black would necessarily be a "scam ribbon". One could
obtain the Black Ribbon by a completely honest proposal - they would
just have to incentivize other players to vote for it. True, the
"incentive" may take the form of money, but also endorsements on other
votes etc. I'm for keeping
I wouldn't know how to do this without mentioning Shinies.
I'm alright if this doesn't pass; it's my first real controversial
proposal, and I feel that having proposals fail here and there is no
less a part of Agora, or any Nomic, than having them pass.
On 11/17/2017 8:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
Oh my bad, I missed that you fixed that.
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 at 18:06 Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 at 02:24 VJ Rada wrote:
>
> > I create the following
> >
> > Title: Really minor fixes
> >
>
> This appears to duplicate everything.
>
Judgment is actually spelled correctly in rule 991. I believe both spellings are actually correct;
however "judgment" seems to be preferred. However, the name of the rule does use
"Judgement," so it might still be good to do what you did to keep things consistent.
On 11/14/2017 2:25 AM, VJ Rada
It's not in the list of things to which Cleanup Time applies.
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017, 01:45 VJ Rada, wrote:
> "You're missing a full stop and a capital letter."
>
> I'm not missing a capital actually. It's a continuation of a sentence, and
> the other bullet points are also sans capital.
>
> I'm n
"You're missing a full stop and a capital letter."
I'm not missing a capital actually. It's a continuation of a sentence, and
the other bullet points are also sans capital.
I'm not spending 2 shinies to fix a full stop, sorry. This is something
easily fixable by the rulekeepor via Cleanup Time.
Better to be fully explicit about a textual change here rather than risking
it failing due to ambiguity.
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017, 01:42 Alex Smith, wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-11-07 at 17:31 +1100, VJ Rada wrote:
> > I create the following and pend it w/ shinies
> >
> > Proposal: Obvious fix
> > Co-author
I retract Community Chest Repeal and submit and pend the following.
Title: Community Chest Repeal
AI: 2
Text: Repeal rule 2508, "Community Chest"
Amend rules 2510 "Such is Karma" and 2511 "Karmic Balance" in numerical order by
replacing any instances of the phrases "the Community Chest" and "The
C
501 - 600 of 2070 matches
Mail list logo