BUS: [Proposal & Pend Intent] Saving Sponsorship
These proposals were pended using pendants. However, because the rules at the time did not render them sponsored, they did not become so. It is, in my opinion, an error that they were not rendered sponsored retroactively; as Promotor, I feel an obligation to mop things up, and this proposal would do so. I've checked the way the reward rules are phrased, and it looks like this should work. I submit the following proposal. For N from 2 to 5, I intend with N support to cause the following proposal to become pending. --- Title: Saving Sponsorship Adoption index: 1.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: Each of the following proposals is hereby rendered sponsored: - "Plain Old Bribery", by Jason - "Agora the karma bank", by G.
BUS: [Promotor] Removals
The Promotor hereby removes each of the following proposals from the Proposal Pool: - Reset deadlines when resetting the economy - Contract charities - Decriminalization - Generalized card auctions - Stop disincentivizing bugfixes
Re: BUS: [Ribbon] Ribbon Grabbing
On 2020-07-08 1:43 a.m., Nch via agora-business wrote: I qualify for a lime ribbon for being a co-author on proposals 8459, 8468, and 8469. I award myself a lime ribbon. --- Nch Me too! I award myself a Lime Ribbon for being co-author of Proposals 8459, 8462 and 8469. -- Falsifian
BUS: Re: DIS: Test
I support. at 6:47 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: No doubt this message will spur a flurry of suspicion and precautionary objections, but after being stuck with a temporary email client for a month, my main email client has started working for receiving Agoran email again. I'm therefore hoping that it will also be currently capable of sending, in which case I may be able to use my main email client for both sending and receiving Agoran email for the first time in years, and this is the message I'm using to test that. — ais523
Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer opens a card shop [Attn. Notary]
CARD MACHINE WHO ARE WE? Any player can become a party to this contract by announcement. Parties to this contract which aren’t Cuddlebeam are known as Clients. SOCIAL DISTANCING Clients cease to be parties to this contract once 1 nanosecond has passed since the last time they have become Clients. PRICE-O-METER This contract has a Price-o-meter, which is a positive integer value that starts at 100. If the Beeping action has not been performed within the last 24 hours, a Client can perform a Beeping. Beeping is the following: by announcement and by clearly stating in the same message the amount that the Price-o-meter’s value becomes, a Client CAN lower the Price-o-meter value by 5. BUYING If a Client has transferred an amount of coins equal to the Price-o-Meter’s amount to Cuddlebeam in a message, they can once in that message (and no more than once, twice and above is INEFFECTIVE) transfer a Card from this Contract to themselves. RESTOCKING If Cuddlebeam has Cards, a Client can act on their behalf to transfer a Card from Cuddlebeam to this Contract. }} I become a party to the above contract. I perform a Beeping. I believe the Price-o-meter is now 95. -- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Falsifian, Treasuror, Notary] Quickexchange use
On 2020-07-06 5:42 a.m., Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: On 2020-06-29 11:31, Becca Lee via agora-business wrote: I become a party to Dragon Quickexchange, transferring 1 victory card for 100 credits (idk why theres an incentive to transfer products into this contract but i might as well try it with a card) Again, apologies for the lateness, but I believe that at this point you had given all your cards and products (except for legislative cards and pendants) to PSS. I believe that none of your transfers to the Dragon QuickExchange were effective. The Pendant transfers worked, right? (They're in the report, but your above messages says none worked.) Based on the above note, the latest Treasuror report, and my recent CoE, I believe Dragon QuickExchange currently owns: * Two Victory Points * Two Blot-B-Gones * Six Pendants * One Extra Vote I think Credit holdings are as follows: Victory Credits: Falsifian owns 88. Justice Credits: Falsifian owns 88. Legislative Credits: Falsifian owns 176; R. Lee owns 88. Voting Credits: Falsifian owns 44. -- Falsifian
BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 491
+++++++++++ | Entity | cn | wc | jc | lc | vc | wp | bg | pd | xv | +++++++++++ |Agora |2300| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| |CB Locker[1]| 219| 1| 1| 1| 1| 0| 0| 0| 0| |D. Corp.[2] | 495| 0| 0| 1| 0| 0| 1| 1| 1| |DracoLotto | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| |DragonQE | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 2| 0| 6| 1| CoE: I transferred two Blot-B-Gones to DragonQE on June 29: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-June/043742.html The other transfers in that message are covered here: |DragonQE |+ 1pd|29 Jun 2020 13:50|Transfer Falsifian (Credits) | |Falsifian |- 1pd|29 Jun 2020 13:50|Transfer DragonQE (Credits) | |DragonQE |+ 1pd|29 Jun 2020 13:50|Transfer Falsifian (Credits) | |Falsifian |- 1pd|29 Jun 2020 13:50|Transfer DragonQE (Credits) | |DragonQE |+ 1pd|29 Jun 2020 13:50|Transfer Falsifian (Credits) | |Falsifian |- 1pd|29 Jun 2020 13:50|Transfer DragonQE (Credits) | |DragonQE |+ 1pd|29 Jun 2020 13:50|Transfer Falsifian (Credits) | |Falsifian |- 1pd|29 Jun 2020 13:50|Transfer DragonQE (Credits) | |DragonQE |+ 1wp|29 Jun 2020 13:50|Transfer Falsifian (Credits) | |Falsifian |- 1wp|29 Jun 2020 13:50|Transfer DragonQE (Credits) | |DragonQE |+ 1wp|29 Jun 2020 13:50|Transfer Falsifian (Credits) | |Falsifian |- 1wp|29 Jun 2020 13:50|Transfer DragonQE (Credits) | |DragonQE |+ 1xv|29 Jun 2020 13:50|Transfer Falsifian (Credits) | |Falsifian |- 1xv|29 Jun 2020 13:50|Transfer DragonQE (Credits) | -- Falsifian
BUS: [Diplonomic Proposal] Voting Fixes
This allows for the withdrawal of votes and lets the proposer vote.
I submit the following Diplonomic Proposal, "Voting Fixes":
{
Amend Diplonomic Rule 8 to read in full:
8. At any time, any Contestant CAN submit a Proposal to change these
rules by announcement. Any Contestant CAN withdraw any Proposal e has
submitted by announcement. When a Proposal has been submitted but not
withdrawn, any Contestant CAN privately send a vote to the Judge, or
withdraw eir previous vote. When a Proposal has received a number of
non-withdrawn votes in favor greater than half the number of Contestants,
the Judge SHALL, in a timely fashion, and CAN enact the proposal by
publishing the new text of the rules and the number of votes in favor
and against. The Judge SHALL NOT reveal the votes of specific
Contestants.
}
BUS: [Diplonomic Proposal] Order Clarification
I submit the following as a Diplonomic Proposal:
{
Amend Diplonomic Rule 17 to read in full:
17. There are four possible orders: Hold, Move, Support, and Convoy. Not
giving a unit an order is interpreted as ordering it to hold.
A Hold order orders a unit to stay where it is.
A Move order orders a unit to move to a different province. Armies can
only move onto adjacent inland or coastal provinces. Fleets can only
move to adjacent water or coastal provinces. A Move order making use of
a Convoy must specify what Convoy paths it will use or conditionals to
determine such.
Support orders help another unit's action, whether or not it is a unit
of the same Great Power. An Army or Fleet can provide support to another
Army or Fleet. Support can be offensive or defensive. A unit cannot
support an order to or on a province which the supporting unit could not
move to itself.
A Convoy order orders a fleet in a water province to move an army from
an adjacent coastal province to another adjacent coastal province.
Multiple fleets may be used to convoy the same army, allowing an army to
be convoyed over multiple water provinces. If any fleet involved in a
convoy is dislodged, the convoy fails.
}
[The Diplonomic Rules were somewhat unclear specifically about Support
and Convoys. I had to look up how they both worked. This should clarify
things as well as bring them in line with official Diplomacy rules. I
know the rules state that where they're unclear, the official Diplomacy
rules and/or common sense take over, but this should help to keep
everyone on the same page. I also separated each move into a separate
paragraph to help with readability.]
--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood russian notary here :)
BUS: [Diplonomic Proposal] Team Play
The Diplonomic game filled up in about 6 hours. There are quite likely
to be some non-contestants who are interested and got excluded. This seems
like the fairest way of involving them.
Quick explanation of the "best interests of the tournament" provision: this is
intended for things like a team member not helping at all, or someone
trying to sell membership on the winning team. I don't think it's likely
to trigger, but it seems worth putting the call in the GM's hands.
I submit the following Diplonomic Proposal,"Team Play":
{
Amend Diplonomic Rule 7 to read in full:
7. Contestants may seek the assistance of non-Contestants. If any do so,
they SHALL notify the Judge and publicly announce the identities of any
such non-Contestants and what assistance they will provide. This could
include negotiating on eir behalf, providing feedback on orders, or
drafting proposals on eir behalf. Any notifications given under the
former section 7 of the Birthday Tournament regulations are considered
to have fulfilled this section of the Diplonomic 2020 rules.
A contestant CAN, by announcement, cause a person who consents to become
or cease to be eir teammate, provided the person is not another contestant
or the teammate of another contestant. Designating someone as a teammate
is considered a notification that the teammate may assist the contestant
in any manner. When these rules provide for certain contestants to win by
a certain method, the Gamemaster CAN include their teammates and SHALL do
so unless it is eir opinion that extraordinary circumstances render it
against the best interest of the tournament. Teammates are encouraged to
lie to and cheat other teams, and SHALL NOT engage in any behaviors outside
of the tournament intended to influence its course; however, they SHALL NOT
betray their teams.
}
-Aris
BUS: [Diplonomic Proposal] Longer Order Period
I submit the following as a “Proposal to change these rules” as defined by
the Diplonomic 2020 rules (but not as an Agoran proposal):
{{
In the following passage of Diplonomic rule 15, change "24:00” to “18:00”:
{
At the beginning of each turn, there is a period, lasting from 0:00
UTC until 24:00 UTC on the same calendar day, in which negotiations
should occur.
}
[This moves 6 hours from the negotiation period to the order-submitting
period, making both 18 hours long, rather than 24 and 12 respectively. The
goal is to make it easier to avoid accidentally missing the
order-submitting period, even if large chunks of it are taken up by, e.g.,
sleeping hours or work hours.]
}}
