DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
On 2014-10-26 00:14, woggle wrote: Players (13) (Rule 869, self-ratifying) Player Contact Registered -- --- -- ais523 callforjudgement at yahoo.co.uk [1] 20 Mar 11 aranea aranea at aixea.de 31 Aug 14 Bayushi thelas.staloras at gmail.com19 Oct 13 Eritivus eritivus at gmail.com 19 Oct 14 G. kerim at u.washington.edu1 Oct 14 Henrihenrib736 at gmail.com 7 May 13 Ienpw IIIjames.m.beirne at gmail.com 8 Oct 14 Joe Piercey joerpiercey at gmail.com15 Oct 14 Khoyokhoyobegenn at gmail.com13 Nov 13 Murphy emurphy42 at zoho.com 27 Oct 07 nichdel nichdel at gmail.com 6 Oct 14 omd c.ome.xk at gmail.com [2]3 Feb 11 Roujojonathan.rouillard at gmail.com 16 Dec 10 Sprocklemsprocklem at gmail.com 19 Oct 13 Tigerjonatan.kilhamn at gmail.com17 Dec 13 Warrigal, thetannerswett at gmail.com 5 Aug 14 woggle woggling at gmail.com 19 Jan 13 Is that number at the top supposed to be a count? If it is, then AFAICT it hasn't been correct for months. If it's not, then perhaps it should be made more obvious what it is. -- Sprocklem
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Silver Quill
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:25 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Benjamin Schultz ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com wrote: The Marker Dates are SEMI annual -- every half year. BI annual means every two years. I hate hate HAET it when people use bi- to mean semi-. Please amend your Proposal before I run you over with a bitruck. I did look it up beforehand. https://www.google.com/search?q=define%20biannual http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biannual http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/biannual THEY'RE WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! -- Ben Schultz
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014, Sprocklem wrote: On 2014-10-26 00:14, woggle wrote: Players (13) (Rule 869, self-ratifying) Player Contact Registered -- --- -- ais523 callforjudgement at yahoo.co.uk [1] 20 Mar 11 aranea aranea at aixea.de 31 Aug 14 Bayushi thelas.staloras at gmail.com19 Oct 13 Eritivus eritivus at gmail.com 19 Oct 14 G. kerim at u.washington.edu1 Oct 14 Henrihenrib736 at gmail.com 7 May 13 Ienpw IIIjames.m.beirne at gmail.com 8 Oct 14 Joe Piercey joerpiercey at gmail.com15 Oct 14 Khoyokhoyobegenn at gmail.com13 Nov 13 Murphy emurphy42 at zoho.com 27 Oct 07 nichdel nichdel at gmail.com 6 Oct 14 omd c.ome.xk at gmail.com [2]3 Feb 11 Roujojonathan.rouillard at gmail.com 16 Dec 10 Sprocklemsprocklem at gmail.com 19 Oct 13 Tigerjonatan.kilhamn at gmail.com17 Dec 13 Warrigal, thetannerswett at gmail.com 5 Aug 14 woggle woggling at gmail.com 19 Jan 13 Is that number at the top supposed to be a count? If it is, then AFAICT it hasn't been correct for months. If it's not, then perhaps it should be made more obvious what it is. I think it would be fun if the number of players self-ratified, then you have to read down the list and see who doesn't make the cut. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
On Oct 28, 2014, at 11:38 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I think it would be fun if the number of players self-ratified, then you have to read down the list and see who doesn't make the cut. -G. I change my nickname to Aaa. —the Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Tanner Swett tannersw...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 28, 2014, at 11:38 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I think it would be fun if the number of players self-ratified, then you have to read down the list and see who doesn't make the cut. -G. I change my nickname to Aaa. —the Warrigal Why not change your name to something beginning with ! instead? -- OscarMeyr, whose real name begins with a control character.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014, Benjamin Schultz wrote: OscarMeyr, whose real name begins with a control character. I've always wondered why everyone repeats my name at the end of every line. Gets tiresome. And why do half of you keep bringing up \r? We broke up years ago. Sincerely, \n.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: restricted distribution
On 27 October 2014 20:59, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal Pool at any time. The Promotor SHALL not distribute proposals which are not pending. SHALL NOT Oops, thanks for noticing. Imminence is a swich, tracked by the Promotor, possessed by proposals in the Proposal Pool, whose value is either pending or not pending (default). switch, and does this count as an attribute for the purpose of Once a proposal is created, none of its attributes can be changed. ? Interesting. I want it to not be, obviously. Under the current rules we treat pending-ness as not being such an attribute. Making it a switch does make it more tangible, but Rule 2350 is unclear on what these properties are. It sort of reads like it was intended to include only the listed properties (name, authors, AI), but at the same time never makes that explicit. Would anything important be lost by changing Once a proposal is created, none of its attributes can be changed to Once a proposal is created, none of these attributes can be changed? (The previous paragraph is the list of attributes.) Would anything important be lost by removing that sentence completely? Any player CAN spend 20 points to make a proposal pending. Any player CAN spend 10 points to make a proposal e did not author or co-author pending. by announcement I had a vague memory of a rule which said that a CAN without mechanism was treated as CAN by announcement, but there is no such rule. Was there ever? Anyway, I will fix. Spending power is a natural office switch tracked by the IADoP. Its default value is 1. The holder of an office CAN make a proposal pending; e can do this a number of times each Agoran week not exceeding the spending power of that office. by announcement At the end of each Agoran week, the Promotor's spending power becomes 1 plus the number of offices whose spending power sat completely unused the preceding week. Annoying to track, I think. Yeah, you might be right. Changes to imminence and pending power both are secured. Spending power. And secured at power 1? Yes, at power 1. Do you think that's too low, or just that it should be spelled out? If we have defined defaults (the power of the rule), we should use them, is my thinking. -- Tiger
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: restricted distribution
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: Would anything important be lost by changing Once a proposal is created, none of its attributes can be changed to Once a proposal is created, none of these attributes can be changed? (The previous paragraph is the list of attributes.) Would anything important be lost by removing that sentence completely? The main purpose of that clause is to prevent low-powered dictatorships from changing the text of higher-AI proposals after they've been voted on. by announcement I had a vague memory of a rule which said that a CAN without mechanism was treated as CAN by announcement, but there is no such rule. Was there ever? Anyway, I will fix. IIRC there was a CFJ about this recently, but good form is to have 'by announcement'. Yes, at power 1. Do you think that's too low, or just that it should be spelled out? If we have defined defaults (the power of the rule), we should use them, is my thinking. It's pretty useless, because it would only have an effect against power1 rules or proposals, which cannot exist per Rules 2141 and 1950, respectively.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Proposal: Expedition
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Tanner Swett tannersw...@gmail.com wrote: A rule which purports to allow a person (a special deputy) to perform an action via special deputisation for an office thereby allows them to perform the action by announcement, as long as You're missing deputisation's as if e held the office clause, although I guess it may not be necessary in this case.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: restricted distribution
On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 19:49 +, omd wrote: On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn I had a vague memory of a rule which said that a CAN without mechanism was treated as CAN by announcement, but there is no such rule. Was there ever? Anyway, I will fix. IIRC there was a CFJ about this recently, but good form is to have 'by announcement'. For others following along at home, that's CFJ 3425, judged by G.: On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 20:46 +, Kerim Aydin wrote: Note that this is not directly and officially by announcement exactly, as the last paragraph of R478 reserves that for cases where CAN by announcement is actually stated. Instead, the attempt is performed by announcement, which then causes the action to succeed. So, strictly and technically speaking, the attempt is by announcement, and the attempt causes the action to succeed, but that's not *quite* the same as the action being performed by announcement.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: restricted distribution
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014, Eritivus wrote: On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 19:49 +, omd wrote: On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn I had a vague memory of a rule which said that a CAN without mechanism was treated as CAN by announcement, but there is no such rule. Was there ever? Anyway, I will fix. IIRC there was a CFJ about this recently, but good form is to have 'by announcement'. For others following along at home, that's CFJ 3425, judged by G.: On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 20:46 +, Kerim Aydin wrote: Note that this is not directly and officially by announcement exactly, as the last paragraph of R478 reserves that for cases where CAN by announcement is actually stated. Instead, the attempt is performed by announcement, which then causes the action to succeed. So, strictly and technically speaking, the attempt is by announcement, and the attempt causes the action to succeed, but that's not *quite* the same as the action being performed by announcement. Note that my interpretation leaves other avenues open. If something could be seen as an attempt to do something, it is successful. For example, if you attempt to send something to the PF, and you send it to Discussion by accident... that's still an attempt. Maybe. -G.
