DIS: Proto: Nerf Zombies

[Aris Merchant]

This is an attempt at a significant reduction in zombie power (so we
don't need to repeal such a fun mechanic). I have attempted to keep
them usable while at the same time not making them overpowered. This
also creates a standard notion of which players are "active" and
formalizes the sacrosanct status of omd, among other reforms. The
basic idea is that pro-zombie players will favor this over repeal and
anti-zombie players will prefer some regulation over none. Given this
and the large number of other fairly urgent proposals currently in
flight, I'm delaying this weeks distribution.

-Aris

---

Title: Nerf Zombies
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors: G.


If Rule 2532, "Zombies", does not exist, the rest of this proposal has no
effect.

Create a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Activity", with the following text:
  Activity is a positive boolean player switch tracked by the Registrar in
  eir weekly report. A player with true activity is considered active
  and one with false activity is considered inactive. Changes to activity
  are secured.

  If a player has not sent a message to a public forum (excluding
  messages explicitly marked as not affecting activity) in the last thirty
  days, any player CAN cause that player to become inactive with 7 days
  notice, and the Registrar SHALL attempt to do so as part of eir monthly
  duties. When a player becomes inactive, e is immediately expelled from
  every elected office that e holds.

  If an inactive player sends a message to a public forum (excluding messages
  explicitly marked as not affecting activity)

Amend Rule 2139 The Registrar, by amending the paragraph beginning "In the
first Eastman week" to read as follows:

  In the first Eastman week of every month the Registrar SHALL
  make a reasonable effort to deregister every inactive player by the
  rule-defined means most likely succeed.


Amend Rule 2532, "Zombies" by doing the following (these changes are
severable, but otherwise occur as a single change): {

  Change the text

"a player CAN always flip eir own master to emself by announcement."
  to read
"a player, acting as emself, CAN always flip eir own master from
any other value to emself by announcement. Immediately after e does so,
before any other actions taken in the same message, e is deregistered
and then reregistered. A player CANNOT gain a zombie if e already owns
one; any action that would cause em to do so is canceled and does
not occur."

[The deregister and reregister is a bit of a hack, but this purges assets,
offices, welcome packages, and anything else I'm not thinking of all in one
go.]

  Change the text

"A zombie's master, if another player, is allowed to act on
behalf of the zombie (i.e. as the zombie's agent) to perform
LEGAL actions."
  to read
"A zombie's master, if another player, CAN act on behalf of the zombie
(i.e. as the zombie's agent) to perform game actions."

Change the third paragraph to read in full:
  If a player is inactive, then any player CAN flip that player's master to
  Agora by announcement. If a player has been a zombie for 60 days, any
  player may deregister that player by announcement. If at any point
  during the time when a player is a zombie e becomes active, eir owner
  switch is immediately set to emself.
}

Enact a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Zombie Restrictions", with the following
text:

  Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a zombie who is being acted
  on behalf of CANNOT initiate, support, object to, or perform a dependent
  action.

Amend Rule 869, "How to Join and Leave Agora", by changing the fifth paragraph
to read:

  If a player is inactive, then any player CAN deregister em with 3 Agoran
  Consent.

Amend Rule 2559, "Paydays", by changing "single player" to "single active
player".

Enact a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Ceremonial Offices", with the following
text:

  A ceremonial office is one that is described as such by its defining rule.
  All ceremonial offices are also inherently imposed. Rules to the contrary
  notwithstanding, the holder of a ceremonial office is always registered
  and never a zombie; any change that would violate these invariants is
  canceled and does no occur. Players are ENCOURAGED to treat ceremonial offices
  with respect and to obey the official pronouncements of their holders
  concerning their duties.

Amend Rule 103, "The Speaker", by replacing "imposed" with "ceremonial".

Enact a new power 2.0 rule, entitled "The Distributor", with the following text:

  The Distributor is a ceremonial office. E is charged with distributing
  messages sent via the Fora to all players who have arranged to received them
  and otherwise maintaining the basic physical and technical infrastructure
  of the game. E SHALL make a reasonable effort to do so, and if e becomes
  unable to continue to serve, e SHALL ensure that e is replaced and
  that eir replacement gains access to all 

Re: DIS: Protos on github

[Kerim Aydin]

On one read through it's nice - good partitioning (not on a non-tiny device
until tomorrow to accept the PR or have a closer edit).

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> G., any opinion on this/my GitHub PR?
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:46 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't know if this will turn out to be useful, but I've put a protos repo
> >> on our github:
> >> https://github.com/AgoraNomic/protos
> >>
> >> I've put in there an Assets start-of-proto.  Right now, it's a copy of the
> >> assets rule, where I've clipped out secondary stuff that may be better 
> >> housed
> >> in other rules (and put it down below in the doc).  Feel free to 
> >> contribute...
> >
> > I've opened a PR, splitting the assets rule more completely and making
> > some things a bit neater, given the mess it's in is my fault. The
> > revised assets section follows, for those who don't want to look at
> > the Github (also probably a good idea to keep discussion on list):
> >
> > ---
> > Amend Rule 2166 (Power=3.0), "Assets", to read as follows:
> >
> >   An asset is an entity defined as such by a document that has been
> >   granted Mint Authority by the Rules (hereafter the asset's backing
> >   document), and existing solely because its backing document defines
> >   its existence. An asset's backing document can generally specify when
> >   and how that asset is created, destroyed, and transferred.
> >
> >   The rules collectively have Mint Authority. Contracts have mint
> >   authority. A rule defined asset is public; one defined by a contract
> >   is private.
> >
> >   The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any)
> >   defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document. That
> >   entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class and
> >   their owners. This portion of that entity's report is
> >   self-ratifying.  For the purposes of this rule, the
> >   promulgator of a regulation is bound by it.
> >
> > Create a power 3.0 rule, entitled "Ownership", with the following text:
> >
> >   Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset's backing document
> >   restricts its ownership to a class of entities, then that asset
> >   CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity outside that
> >   class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity outside that
> >   class. The restrictions in the previous sentence are subject to
> >   modification by its backing document. By default, ownership of an
> >   asset is restricted to Agora, players, and contracts.
> >
> >   If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost
> >   and Found Department. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the
> >   Lost and Found Department can own assets of every type. Assets owned
> >   by the Lost and Found Department can be transferred or destroyed
> >   by any player without objection.
> >
> >
> > Create a power 3.0 rule, entitled "Asset Actions", with the following text:
> >
> >   An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement,
> >   subject to modification by its backing document. An indestructible
> >   asset is one defined as such by it backing document, and CANNOT be
> >   destroyed except by a proposal or rule, other than this one,
> >   specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible assets
> >   or that asset in particular; any other asset is destructible.
> >
> >   To "lose" an asset is to have it destroyed from one's possession;
> >   to "revoke" an asset from an entity is to destroy it from that
> >   entity's possession.
> >
> >   An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by
> >   announcement by its owner to another entity, subject to
> >   modification by its backing document. A fixed asset is one defined
> >   as such by its backing document, and CANNOT be transferred; any
> >   other asset is liquid.
> >
> >   When a rule indicates transferring an amount that is not a natural
> >   number, the specified amount is rounded up to the nearest natural
> >   number.
> >
> > Create a power 3.0 rule, entitled "Currencies", with the following text:
> >   A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing
> >   document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are
> >   fungible.
> >
> >   The "x balance of an entity", where x is a currency, is the number
> >   of x that entity possesses. Where it resolves ambiguity, the asset or
> >   currency being referred to is the currency designated as "Agora's
> >   official currency", if there is one.
> >
> >
> > Create a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Contractual Ownership", with the
> > following text:
> >
> >   A contract's text can specify 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

[Aris Merchant]

No, never mind, I don't think it does. I can make it work.


-Aris

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> If no one objects, I'm going to make it support, object, or resolve,
> on the basis that it's a bit easier to write and has a similar effect.
>
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Actually, on reflection I think zombies are locked out of *all* dependent
>> action steps (intent, support, or object).  Even if my legal theory doesn't
>> hold water, it's a good nerf in any case so I'd likely vote for that, most
>> things that are really sensitive are locked behind dependent action (and
>> that would also make the deregister w/3consent a genuine check on power,
>> if the zombies became concentrated in too few hands).
>>
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
>>> > > I don't think there's anything preventing the Zombie from stating the
>>> > > intent and the master supporting.  Which e would have had to do anyway,
>>> > > since you can only appoint _another_ player to Speaker by this 
>>> > > mechanism.
>>>
>>> That depends.  Intent is only defined after-the-fact (did someone announce
>>> intent earlier?) which implies that it's simply a message.  That matters
>>> because of this (R2466):
>>> > in particular, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another
>>> >  person to send a message, only to perform specific actions that
>>> >  might be taken within a message.
>>>
>>> Is announcing intent a message, or an action taken within a message?
>>>
>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>> > Okay, I've had enough of this. Zombies break too much of the ruleset.
>>>
>>> These issues with act-on-behalf are the only thing that make the whole
>>> mess of useless contract-language currently in the rules have any
>>> interest - I'd appreciate being able to see how these work (issues like
>>> the above) using the zombie testbed.
>>>
>>> > They most definitely should not be appointing people Speaker.
>>>
>>> Being able to appoint a Speaker w/1 support is an awfully low bar -
>>> maybe that's the real problem here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

[Aris Merchant]

If no one objects, I'm going to make it support, object, or resolve,
on the basis that it's a bit easier to write and has a similar effect.


-Aris

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> Actually, on reflection I think zombies are locked out of *all* dependent
> action steps (intent, support, or object).  Even if my legal theory doesn't
> hold water, it's a good nerf in any case so I'd likely vote for that, most
> things that are really sensitive are locked behind dependent action (and
> that would also make the deregister w/3consent a genuine check on power,
> if the zombies became concentrated in too few hands).
>
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
>> > > I don't think there's anything preventing the Zombie from stating the
>> > > intent and the master supporting.  Which e would have had to do anyway,
>> > > since you can only appoint _another_ player to Speaker by this mechanism.
>>
>> That depends.  Intent is only defined after-the-fact (did someone announce
>> intent earlier?) which implies that it's simply a message.  That matters
>> because of this (R2466):
>> > in particular, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another
>> >  person to send a message, only to perform specific actions that
>> >  might be taken within a message.
>>
>> Is announcing intent a message, or an action taken within a message?
>>
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> > Okay, I've had enough of this. Zombies break too much of the ruleset.
>>
>> These issues with act-on-behalf are the only thing that make the whole
>> mess of useless contract-language currently in the rules have any
>> interest - I'd appreciate being able to see how these work (issues like
>> the above) using the zombie testbed.
>>
>> > They most definitely should not be appointing people Speaker.
>>
>> Being able to appoint a Speaker w/1 support is an awfully low bar -
>> maybe that's the real problem here.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: DIS: Protos on github

[Aris Merchant]

G., any opinion on this/my GitHub PR?

-Aris

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:46 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't know if this will turn out to be useful, but I've put a protos repo
>> on our github:
>> https://github.com/AgoraNomic/protos
>>
>> I've put in there an Assets start-of-proto.  Right now, it's a copy of the
>> assets rule, where I've clipped out secondary stuff that may be better housed
>> in other rules (and put it down below in the doc).  Feel free to 
>> contribute...
>
> I've opened a PR, splitting the assets rule more completely and making
> some things a bit neater, given the mess it's in is my fault. The
> revised assets section follows, for those who don't want to look at
> the Github (also probably a good idea to keep discussion on list):
>
> ---
> Amend Rule 2166 (Power=3.0), "Assets", to read as follows:
>
>   An asset is an entity defined as such by a document that has been
>   granted Mint Authority by the Rules (hereafter the asset's backing
>   document), and existing solely because its backing document defines
>   its existence. An asset's backing document can generally specify when
>   and how that asset is created, destroyed, and transferred.
>
>   The rules collectively have Mint Authority. Contracts have mint
>   authority. A rule defined asset is public; one defined by a contract
>   is private.
>
>   The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any)
>   defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document. That
>   entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class and
>   their owners. This portion of that entity's report is
>   self-ratifying.  For the purposes of this rule, the
>   promulgator of a regulation is bound by it.
>
> Create a power 3.0 rule, entitled "Ownership", with the following text:
>
>   Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset's backing document
>   restricts its ownership to a class of entities, then that asset
>   CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity outside that
>   class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity outside that
>   class. The restrictions in the previous sentence are subject to
>   modification by its backing document. By default, ownership of an
>   asset is restricted to Agora, players, and contracts.
>
>   If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost
>   and Found Department. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the
>   Lost and Found Department can own assets of every type. Assets owned
>   by the Lost and Found Department can be transferred or destroyed
>   by any player without objection.
>
>
> Create a power 3.0 rule, entitled "Asset Actions", with the following text:
>
>   An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement,
>   subject to modification by its backing document. An indestructible
>   asset is one defined as such by it backing document, and CANNOT be
>   destroyed except by a proposal or rule, other than this one,
>   specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible assets
>   or that asset in particular; any other asset is destructible.
>
>   To "lose" an asset is to have it destroyed from one's possession;
>   to "revoke" an asset from an entity is to destroy it from that
>   entity's possession.
>
>   An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by
>   announcement by its owner to another entity, subject to
>   modification by its backing document. A fixed asset is one defined
>   as such by its backing document, and CANNOT be transferred; any
>   other asset is liquid.
>
>   When a rule indicates transferring an amount that is not a natural
>   number, the specified amount is rounded up to the nearest natural
>   number.
>
> Create a power 3.0 rule, entitled "Currencies", with the following text:
>   A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing
>   document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are
>   fungible.
>
>   The "x balance of an entity", where x is a currency, is the number
>   of x that entity possesses. Where it resolves ambiguity, the asset or
>   currency being referred to is the currency designated as "Agora's
>   official currency", if there is one.
>
>
> Create a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Contractual Ownership", with the
> following text:
>
>   A contract's text can specify whether or not that contract is
>   willing to receive assets or a class of assets. Generally, a
>   contract CANNOT be given assets it is unwilling to receive. If the
>   contract's opinion on the matter would otherwise be uncertain, the
>   procedure to determine its willingness is as follows:
>
>   1. If the contract appears to anticipate being given 

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report

[ATMunn]

Yep, your message and the latest Registrar's report are the same font.

On 4/29/2018 7:16 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote:

Interestingly, this message is not in my normal font, but it is 
different from the font the report was in. The font of this message 
isn't even monospace for some reason.


As expected from my theory (that it depends on which of the characters Ø 
and 天火狐 are in the message), my message had the same charset (EUC-KR) 
as the latest Registrar's Report, if you want to compare with that. 
(It's slightly different in also having a format: flowed parameter.)


Greetings,
Ørjan.


On 4/28/2018 4:56 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

 On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote:

 For some reason, this report and many of your other reports show up 
in a

 weird font for me. Does this happen to other people?


 Not to me (my terminal window only has the one font), but I suspect 
it has

 something with the Referee report's

 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-2022-JP

 header. That header seems to vary a *lot* between G.'s messages,
 presumably because eir mailer determines a "smallest fit" encoding. The
 last Registrar's report has

 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=EUC-KR

 while the last Assessor's resolution has the more normal

 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8

 I also suspect it is related to the presence of the characters 天火狐,
 which isn't in the last one.

 The difference between the two first ones might actually be because 
of the

 Ø in _my_ name, which isn't in the Referee report but is in the two
 others.

 You might see the same weirdness with this message, since I'm also 
using

 Alpine, although the terminal version.

 Greetings,
 Ørjan.


 On 4/28/2018 4:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
   
 


  The Police Blotter (Referee's Weekly Report)
  



 Date of last report: 22 Apr 2018
 Date of this report: 28 Apr 2018
 (all times UTC)


 BLOT HOLDINGS (asset record - self-ratifying)

 Person    Blots
   -
 Murphy   2
 V.J. Rada    2


 BLOT HISTORY

 Person    Change  Date  Reason
   --    ---
 V.J. Rada  +1(f)  11 Apr 2018 12:01:44  Late Notary Report
 Murphy +1(D)  23 Apr 2018 16:38:54  Late ADoP Report
 Murphy +1(D)  23 Apr 2018 16:38:54  Late Arbitor Report
 V.J. Rada  +1(f)  25 Apr 2018 18:24:14  Missed Silly Person 
duties

 (f)=forgivable by R2557
 (D)=loses next monthly salary for noted office by R2559


 FROM THE POLICE SCANNER (details of justice since last report)

 V.J. Rada Wed, 25 Apr 2018 21:09:58 +1000
 I also point my finger at myself for failing to pend a Silly 
Proposal

 last week.

 G. Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:24:14 -0700 (PDT)
 Factually correct.  Very low game consequences.  I levy a 1-blot 
fine,

 forgivable with apology word list {only, a, little, bit, silly, in,
 one,
 leg}.


 V.J. Rada Wed, 25 Apr 2018 21:09:19 +1000

 I point my finger at the Treasuror for failing to publish eir weekly
 report since Apr 2

 G. Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:21:46 -0700 (PDT)

 Shennanigans.  Due to the Treasuror not being a defined office (a
 bugfix
 for that is in last week's proposal distribution).  It would have 
been

 nice for Gaelan to report informally but oh well.


 Corona Mon, 23 Apr 2018 18:29:15 +0200

 I Point a Finger at Murphy for missing last week's ADoP Report.

 G.    Mon, 23 Apr 2018 09:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
 Cold hand of justice:  1 Blot levied on Murphy for failure to 
produce

 ADoP report.  As it appears no work has been done for this office
 for 16+ days in April, this is unforgivable (prevents May 1 salary).


 Corona Mon, 23 Apr 2018 18:29:15 +0200

 I Point a Finger at Murphy for missing last week's Arbitor Report.

 G.    Mon, 23 Apr 2018 09:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
 Cold hand of justice:  1 Blot levied on Murphy for failure to 
produce

 Arbitor report. As it appears no work has been done for this office
 for 16+ days in April, this is unforgivable (prevents May 1 salary).



 PLEDGES (self-ratifying list of assets)
 [
 Changes since last report:
    - G. destroyed 3 of eir pledges without objection.
    - ATMunn destroyed eir one and only pledge w/o objection.
]
 Quazie -
 I pledge to give 1 Shiny to the first person who can,
 correctly, with e-mail citations, explain what I did wrong on
 Jan 20th 2009 that has since led to me being a fugitive. For
 the explanation to be valid for this pledge, it should be fully
 self contained, I should not have to go look up past rules in
 order to understand the explanation (So please, include all
 source info in the explanation).

 V.J Rada -
 I pledge not to make any thread titles completely unrelated to
 the email's content, nor use any agency or other mechanism to
 attempt to gain control of any player at the 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

[Aris Merchant]

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:43 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen 
> wrote:
> > > I don't think there's anything preventing the Zombie from stating the
> > > intent and the master supporting.  Which e would have had to do anyway,
> > > since you can only appoint _another_ player to Speaker by this
> mechanism.
>
> That depends.  Intent is only defined after-the-fact (did someone announce
> intent earlier?) which implies that it's simply a message.  That matters
> because of this (R2466):
> > in particular, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another
> >  person to send a message, only to perform specific actions that
> >  might be taken within a message.
> Is announcing intent a message, or an action taken within a message?


I disagree. Announcing intent is an action by definition, and a game action
because the game looks at it.

>
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Okay, I've had enough of this. Zombies break too much of the ruleset.
>
> These issues with act-on-behalf are the only thing that make the whole
> mess of useless contract-language currently in the rules have any
> interest - I'd appreciate being able to see how these work (issues like
> the above) using the zombie testbed.
>
> > They most definitely should not be appointing people Speaker.
>
> Being able to appoint a Speaker w/1 support is an awfully low bar -
> maybe that's the real problem here.


I've been thinking about it. I kinda agree, but on the other hand there are
advantages. We never would have pulled off that making Trigon Speaker
before e even noticed thing with a high bar, and that's a nice thing to
have. I've thought of two sensible thing to do to harden that requirement.
First, we could make it with three support, which is a fairly low bar. But
it is a bar, so I don't really like that. The second one, which I'd prefer,
is to make it dependent on karma. Making it just the top person is too
boring though. How about requiring the appointed person to be one of the
top three eligible (i.e. neither PM nor Speaker).

-Aris

>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

[Kerim Aydin]

Actually, on reflection I think zombies are locked out of *all* dependent
action steps (intent, support, or object).  Even if my legal theory doesn't
hold water, it's a good nerf in any case so I'd likely vote for that, most
things that are really sensitive are locked behind dependent action (and
that would also make the deregister w/3consent a genuine check on power,
if the zombies became concentrated in too few hands).

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> > > I don't think there's anything preventing the Zombie from stating the
> > > intent and the master supporting.  Which e would have had to do anyway,
> > > since you can only appoint _another_ player to Speaker by this mechanism.
> 
> That depends.  Intent is only defined after-the-fact (did someone announce
> intent earlier?) which implies that it's simply a message.  That matters
> because of this (R2466):
> > in particular, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another
> >  person to send a message, only to perform specific actions that
> >  might be taken within a message.
> 
> Is announcing intent a message, or an action taken within a message?
> 
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Okay, I've had enough of this. Zombies break too much of the ruleset.
> 
> These issues with act-on-behalf are the only thing that make the whole
> mess of useless contract-language currently in the rules have any
> interest - I'd appreciate being able to see how these work (issues like
> the above) using the zombie testbed.
> 
> > They most definitely should not be appointing people Speaker.
> 
> Being able to appoint a Speaker w/1 support is an awfully low bar -
> maybe that's the real problem here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

[Kerim Aydin]

> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> > I don't think there's anything preventing the Zombie from stating the
> > intent and the master supporting.  Which e would have had to do anyway,
> > since you can only appoint _another_ player to Speaker by this mechanism.

That depends.  Intent is only defined after-the-fact (did someone announce
intent earlier?) which implies that it's simply a message.  That matters
because of this (R2466):
> in particular, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another
>  person to send a message, only to perform specific actions that
>  might be taken within a message.

Is announcing intent a message, or an action taken within a message?

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Okay, I've had enough of this. Zombies break too much of the ruleset.

These issues with act-on-behalf are the only thing that make the whole
mess of useless contract-language currently in the rules have any
interest - I'd appreciate being able to see how these work (issues like
the above) using the zombie testbed.

> They most definitely should not be appointing people Speaker.

Being able to appoint a Speaker w/1 support is an awfully low bar -
maybe that's the real problem here.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

[Aris Merchant]

Okay, I've had enough of this. Zombies break too much of the ruleset. They
most definitely should not be appointing people Speaker.

I move we repeal them.

-Aris

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> >> N I was a second away from using my zombie to appoint myself
> speaker.
> >
> >
> > Ørjan offered a theory that zombies CANNOT support anything - while it
>
> I don't think there's anything preventing the Zombie from stating the
> intent and the master supporting.  Which e would have had to do anyway,
> since you can only appoint _another_ player to Speaker by this mechanism.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:

N I was a second away from using my zombie to appoint myself speaker.



Ørjan offered a theory that zombies CANNOT support anything - while it


I don't think there's anything preventing the Zombie from stating the 
intent and the master supporting.  Which e would have had to do anyway, 
since you can only appoint _another_ player to Speaker by this mechanism.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:


Per Rule 879, failing to state quorum is illegal but does not invalidate
the decision.


Although failing to state quorum is not quite the same thing as stating it 
incorrectly, so I'm not sure Rule 879 actually _says_ that it's not 
invalidated. However, I didn't find anything that says it _is_ invalidated 
either.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote:

Interestingly, this message is not in my normal font, but it is different 
from the font the report was in. The font of this message isn't even 
monospace for some reason.


As expected from my theory (that it depends on which of the characters Ø 
and 天火狐 are in the message), my message had the same charset (EUC-KR) 
as the latest Registrar's Report, if you want to compare with that. (It's 
slightly different in also having a format: flowed parameter.)


Greetings,
Ørjan.


On 4/28/2018 4:56 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

 On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote:


 For some reason, this report and many of your other reports show up in a
 weird font for me. Does this happen to other people?


 Not to me (my terminal window only has the one font), but I suspect it has
 something with the Referee report's

 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-2022-JP

 header. That header seems to vary a *lot* between G.'s messages,
 presumably because eir mailer determines a "smallest fit" encoding. The
 last Registrar's report has

 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=EUC-KR

 while the last Assessor's resolution has the more normal

 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8

 I also suspect it is related to the presence of the characters 天火狐,
 which isn't in the last one.

 The difference between the two first ones might actually be because of the
 Ø in _my_ name, which isn't in the Referee report but is in the two
 others.

 You might see the same weirdness with this message, since I'm also using
 Alpine, although the terminal version.

 Greetings,
 Ørjan.


 On 4/28/2018 4:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
    


  The Police Blotter (Referee's Weekly Report)
  



 Date of last report: 22 Apr 2018
 Date of this report: 28 Apr 2018
 (all times UTC)


 BLOT HOLDINGS (asset record - self-ratifying)

 Person    Blots
   -
 Murphy   2
 V.J. Rada    2


 BLOT HISTORY

 Person    Change  Date  Reason
   --    ---
 V.J. Rada  +1(f)  11 Apr 2018 12:01:44  Late Notary Report
 Murphy +1(D)  23 Apr 2018 16:38:54  Late ADoP Report
 Murphy +1(D)  23 Apr 2018 16:38:54  Late Arbitor Report
 V.J. Rada  +1(f)  25 Apr 2018 18:24:14  Missed Silly Person duties
 (f)=forgivable by R2557
 (D)=loses next monthly salary for noted office by R2559


 FROM THE POLICE SCANNER (details of justice since last report)

 V.J. Rada Wed, 25 Apr 2018 21:09:58 +1000

 I also point my finger at myself for failing to pend a Silly Proposal
 last week.

 G. Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:24:14 -0700 (PDT)

 Factually correct.  Very low game consequences.  I levy a 1-blot fine,
 forgivable with apology word list {only, a, little, bit, silly, in,
 one,
 leg}.


 V.J. Rada Wed, 25 Apr 2018 21:09:19 +1000

 I point my finger at the Treasuror for failing to publish eir weekly
 report since Apr 2

 G. Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:21:46 -0700 (PDT)

 Shennanigans.  Due to the Treasuror not being a defined office (a
 bugfix
 for that is in last week's proposal distribution).  It would have been
 nice for Gaelan to report informally but oh well.


 Corona Mon, 23 Apr 2018 18:29:15 +0200

 I Point a Finger at Murphy for missing last week's ADoP Report.

 G.    Mon, 23 Apr 2018 09:38:54 -0700 (PDT)

 Cold hand of justice:  1 Blot levied on Murphy for failure to produce
 ADoP report.  As it appears no work has been done for this office
 for 16+ days in April, this is unforgivable (prevents May 1 salary).


 Corona Mon, 23 Apr 2018 18:29:15 +0200

 I Point a Finger at Murphy for missing last week's Arbitor Report.

 G.    Mon, 23 Apr 2018 09:38:54 -0700 (PDT)

 Cold hand of justice:  1 Blot levied on Murphy for failure to produce
 Arbitor report. As it appears no work has been done for this office
 for 16+ days in April, this is unforgivable (prevents May 1 salary).



 PLEDGES (self-ratifying list of assets)
 [
 Changes since last report:
    - G. destroyed 3 of eir pledges without objection.
    - ATMunn destroyed eir one and only pledge w/o objection.
]
 Quazie -
 I pledge to give 1 Shiny to the first person who can,
 correctly, with e-mail citations, explain what I did wrong on
 Jan 20th 2009 that has since led to me being a fugitive. For
 the explanation to be valid for this pledge, it should be fully
 self contained, I should not have to go look up past rules in
 order to understand the explanation (So please, include all
 source info in the explanation).

 V.J Rada -
 I pledge not to make any thread titles completely unrelated to
 the email's content, nor use any agency or other mechanism to
 attempt to gain control of any player at the exclusion of all
 other players.

 Gaelan (14 Sep 2017) -
 I pledge to, for at least the next month, vote AGAINST any
 proposal that 

DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

[Reuben Staley]

I would be honored to serve as the speaker. Thank you for this 
opportunity. *frantically looks over rules about the Speaker*


On 4/29/2018 2:17 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 12:31 AM Edward Murphy  wrote:


Aris wrote:


I object strongly, given that e is inactive. I don't think a zombie

should

hold an office as ceremonially important as that of Speaker. I intend,

with

support, to appoint each of Trigon and ATMunn as Speaker (they're tied

for

the highest karma of anyone not excluded).


I support both.

Because Trigon now has the greater karma, and with no disrespect intended

towards ATMunn, I cause Trigon to become Speaker with support. Serve
honorably and well.

-Aris

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com



--
Trigon

DIS: Re: BUS: Setting up money-printing machine

[Reuben Staley]

You're not supposed to be able to build a facility without consent 
though. Just another case of me screwing up.


On 4/29/2018 4:22 PM, Corona wrote:

Just now I found out that you can upgrade only your own facilities, a bit
weird when you consider that you don't even need the owner's consent to
build them.

I transfer the Land Unit (1,-2), the facility located there, 11 coins, 6
lumber and 7 stones to Quazie.

#retry free upgrade, in case it works

I act on behalf of Quazie to do all actions enclosed within the following
curly braces: {
Pay 5 of Quazie’s coins, 2 of Quazie’s lumber and 3 of Quazie’s
stones to Corona to increase the rank of the refinery at (1,-2) to 2.  Pay
6 of
Quazie’s coins, 4 of Quazie’s lumber and 4 of Quazie’s stones to Corona to
increase the rank of that refinery to 3. Transfer all of Quazie's assets,
except the Land Unit at (1,-2) or the facility located there, to Corona.
}

---Contingency Capitalism---

If the rank of the mine at (0,2) is exactly 1, I destroy 3 coins and 2
lumber to increase its rank to 2.

I destroy 2 apples to set the Land Type of the Land Unit (2,1) to Black. I
destroy an apple to move to (0,1). I destroy an apple to move to (1,1). I
transfer all assets from the facility at (1,1) to myself. I destroy an
apple to move to (2,1).

I destroy 5 stones to build an orchard at (2,1). I pay 3 coins and 2 stones
to Quazie to increase the rank of that orchard to 2. I pay 4 coins and 4
stones to Quazie to increase the rank of that orchard to 3. I act on behalf
of Quazie to transfer all eir assets, except the Land Unit at (1,-2) or the
facility located there, to me. If the rank of the orchard at (2,1) is
exactly 1, I destroy 3 coins and 2 stones to increase its rank to 2.

If the rank of the refinery at at (1,-2) is exactly 1, I perform all
actions enclosed within the following curly braces: {
I transfer 5 coins, 3 lumber and 2 stones to Quazie. I act on behalf of
Quazie to destroy 5 of Quazie's coins, 3 of Quazie's lumber and 2 of
Quazie's stones to increase the rank of the refinery at (1,-2) to 2.
}

I transfer 5 ore to Quazie. I act on behalf of Quazie to transfer 5 of
Quazie's ore to the refinery at (1,-2).
I act on behalf of Quazie to transfer all of Quazie's assets to myself.

~Corona

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:24 AM, Corona  wrote:


Hopefully this is not going to fail horribly in some unforeseen way.

I destroy an apple to move to (0,1). I destroy an apple to move to (0,2).

I destroy 5 lumber to build a mine at (0,2). I pay 3 coins and 2 lumber to
Quazie to increase the rank of that mine to 2. I pay 4 coins and 4 lumber
to Quazie to increase the rank of that mine to 3. I pay 5 coins, 4 lumber
and 3 stones to Quazie to increase the rank of that mine to 4.

I transfer 3 apples and 12 stones to Quazie.

I act on behalf of Quazie to do all actions enclosed within the following
curly braces: {

Destroy one of Quazie’s apples to move Quazie to (0,-1). Destroy one of
Quazie’s apples to move Quazie to (1,-1). Destroy one of Quazie’s apples to
move Quazie to (1,-2).

Destroy 4 of Quazie’s lumber and 8 of Quazie’s stones to build a refinery
at (1,-2). Pay 5 of Quazie’s coins, 2 of Quazie’s lumber and 3 of Quazie’s
stones to Corona to increase the rank of that refinery to 2.  Pay 6 of
Quazie’s coins, 4 of Quazie’s lumber and 4 of Quazie’s stones to Corona to
increase the rank of that refinery to 3.

Transfer all of Quazie's assets to Corona.

}


~Corona



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com



--
Trigon

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

[ATMunn]

I thought it was something like that. It seems I did vote for it.

On 4/29/2018 5:06 PM, Ned Strange wrote:

If you voted for G's recent proposal you are eligible

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:45 AM, ATMunn  wrote:

I know, I was referring to what the proposal/scam was.


On 4/29/2018 2:33 PM, Corona wrote:


Nothing in particular is specified in the rule, in practice it's for
scamming/passing a proposal to that effect.

~Corona

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 8:17 PM, ATMunn  wrote:


Alright. Am I eligible for one of those by the way? I forget what thing
let people get them.

On 4/29/2018 12:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:




I vote ATMunn for Tailor.

ATMunn - you can deputize for the job.  I'm about 99% sure that the only
ribbons since the Feb report were this week's black ones.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote:


I vote for myself, obviously.

[also I guess I better get working on that Python script I talked
about...]

On 4/29/2018 3:08 AM, Edward Murphy wrote:


Per Rule 2154, I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of
the
Tailor election. The vote collector is the ADoP, the valid options are
ATMunn and Corona and anyone else who becomes a candidate, and the
voting method is instant runoff.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

[Ned Strange]

If you voted for G's recent proposal you are eligible

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:45 AM, ATMunn  wrote:
> I know, I was referring to what the proposal/scam was.
>
>
> On 4/29/2018 2:33 PM, Corona wrote:
>>
>> Nothing in particular is specified in the rule, in practice it's for
>> scamming/passing a proposal to that effect.
>>
>> ~Corona
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 8:17 PM, ATMunn  wrote:
>>
>>> Alright. Am I eligible for one of those by the way? I forget what thing
>>> let people get them.
>>>
>>> On 4/29/2018 12:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>>


 I vote ATMunn for Tailor.

 ATMunn - you can deputize for the job.  I'm about 99% sure that the only
 ribbons since the Feb report were this week's black ones.

 On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote:

> I vote for myself, obviously.
>
> [also I guess I better get working on that Python script I talked
> about...]
>
> On 4/29/2018 3:08 AM, Edward Murphy wrote:
>
>> Per Rule 2154, I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of
>> the
>> Tailor election. The vote collector is the ADoP, the valid options are
>> ATMunn and Corona and anyone else who becomes a candidate, and the
>> voting method is instant runoff.
>>
>>
>

>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

[ATMunn]

I know, I was referring to what the proposal/scam was.

On 4/29/2018 2:33 PM, Corona wrote:

​Nothing in particular is​ specified in the rule, in practice it's for
scamming/passing a proposal to that effect.

~Corona

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 8:17 PM, ATMunn  wrote:


Alright. Am I eligible for one of those by the way? I forget what thing
let people get them.

On 4/29/2018 12:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:




I vote ATMunn for Tailor.

ATMunn - you can deputize for the job.  I'm about 99% sure that the only
ribbons since the Feb report were this week's black ones.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote:


I vote for myself, obviously.

[also I guess I better get working on that Python script I talked
about...]

On 4/29/2018 3:08 AM, Edward Murphy wrote:


Per Rule 2154, I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the
Tailor election. The vote collector is the ADoP, the valid options are
ATMunn and Corona and anyone else who becomes a candidate, and the
voting method is instant runoff.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

[Alex Smith]

On Sun, 2018-04-29 at 20:33 +0200, Corona wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 8:17 PM, ATMunn 
> wrote:
> > Alright. Am I eligible for one of those by the way? I forget what
> > thing let people get them.
>
> Nothing in particular is specified in the rule, in practice it's for
> scamming/passing a proposal to that effect.

Right, it's intended to be gotten either via scam, or via bribing
people to vote for your proposal to give you one.

G. somehow managed both at the same time recently.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

[Corona]

​Nothing in particular is​ specified in the rule, in practice it's for
scamming/passing a proposal to that effect.

~Corona

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 8:17 PM, ATMunn  wrote:

> Alright. Am I eligible for one of those by the way? I forget what thing
> let people get them.
>
> On 4/29/2018 12:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I vote ATMunn for Tailor.
>>
>> ATMunn - you can deputize for the job.  I'm about 99% sure that the only
>> ribbons since the Feb report were this week's black ones.
>>
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote:
>>
>>> I vote for myself, obviously.
>>>
>>> [also I guess I better get working on that Python script I talked
>>> about...]
>>>
>>> On 4/29/2018 3:08 AM, Edward Murphy wrote:
>>>
 Per Rule 2154, I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the
 Tailor election. The vote collector is the ADoP, the valid options are
 ATMunn and Corona and anyone else who becomes a candidate, and the
 voting method is instant runoff.


>>>
>>

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

[ATMunn]

Alright. Am I eligible for one of those by the way? I forget what thing 
let people get them.


On 4/29/2018 12:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:



I vote ATMunn for Tailor.

ATMunn - you can deputize for the job.  I'm about 99% sure that the only
ribbons since the Feb report were this week's black ones.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote:

I vote for myself, obviously.

[also I guess I better get working on that Python script I talked about...]

On 4/29/2018 3:08 AM, Edward Murphy wrote:

Per Rule 2154, I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the
Tailor election. The vote collector is the ADoP, the valid options are
ATMunn and Corona and anyone else who becomes a candidate, and the
voting method is instant runoff.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> N I was a second away from using my zombie to appoint myself speaker.


Ørjan offered a theory that zombies CANNOT support anything - while it
hasn't been tested in court, I agree with it because of use of the word
"consent" in R2124:
>  A Supporter of a dependent action is an eligible entity who has
>  publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent")

To give consent, a person must "act as emself" (R2519):
>  A person gives consent (syn. consents) to an action when e, acting
>  as emself, publicly states that e agrees to the action.

It's not just a semantic trick based on an accidental double definition.
I think it makes sense, in terms of persons offering willful agreement,
that masters can't agree to agreement changes on behalf of zombies, but
can object to them on their zombies' behalf (because objections prevent
agreement-changes without consent).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

[ATMunn]

Yeah I did that when I was ADoP. It's an easy mistake to make.

On 4/29/2018 4:23 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:

Per Rule 879, failing to state quorum is illegal but does not invalidate
the decision.

-Aris

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 1:15 AM Ned Strange 
wrote:


Also you forgot to state the quorum, so this is no Agoran Decision at all.

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:15 PM, Ned Strange 
wrote:

Vote ATMunn

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 5:08 PM, Edward Murphy 

wrote:

Per Rule 2154, I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the
Tailor election. The vote collector is the ADoP, the valid options are
ATMunn and Corona and anyone else who becomes a candidate, and the
voting method is instant runoff.





--
 From V.J. Rada




--
 From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Vote for me!

[ATMunn]

For what? And what sort of image would I use?

On 4/29/2018 3:17 AM, Edward Murphy wrote:

ATMunn wrote:

Yeah, the problem with it working that way is that for anyone who 
doesn't have any sort of theme on, the background is white by default, 
so there would be no way to differentiate between Transparent and White.


If anyone has a suggestion, then feel free to let me know what it is.


Background image.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

[Ned Strange]

Sorry! I'm still traumatized by the brief period where I had to
initiate Agoran Decisions.

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> Per Rule 879, failing to state quorum is illegal but does not invalidate
> the decision.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 1:15 AM Ned Strange 
> wrote:
>
>> Also you forgot to state the quorum, so this is no Agoran Decision at all.
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:15 PM, Ned Strange 
>> wrote:
>> > Vote ATMunn
>> >
>> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 5:08 PM, Edward Murphy 
>> wrote:
>> >> Per Rule 2154, I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the
>> >> Tailor election. The vote collector is the ADoP, the valid options are
>> >> ATMunn and Corona and anyone else who becomes a candidate, and the
>> >> voting method is instant runoff.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > From V.J. Rada
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Calling a CFJ

[Ned Strange]

If I did use PSS, there would have been 10 voters and the quorum would be 8.

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Ned Strange  wrote:
> I call a CFJ with the statement "If an Agoran Decision were now
> initiated, the quorum would be 8".
>
> The official Assessment recently published listed 9 voters on the most
> recent proposal, which would make the quorum 7. However, I contended
> that I used PSS to vote FOR that proposal. The language I used was "I
> also have PSS vote as I do".The question is whether that language runs
> afoul of rule 2466 which institutes a "requirement that the agent
> must, in the message in which the action is performed, uniquely
> identify the principal and that the action is being taken on behalf of
> that person.
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

[Aris Merchant]

Per Rule 879, failing to state quorum is illegal but does not invalidate
the decision.

-Aris

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 1:15 AM Ned Strange 
wrote:

> Also you forgot to state the quorum, so this is no Agoran Decision at all.
>
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:15 PM, Ned Strange 
> wrote:
> > Vote ATMunn
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 5:08 PM, Edward Murphy 
> wrote:
> >> Per Rule 2154, I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the
> >> Tailor election. The vote collector is the ADoP, the valid options are
> >> ATMunn and Corona and anyone else who becomes a candidate, and the
> >> voting method is instant runoff.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > From V.J. Rada
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

[Ned Strange]

N I was a second away from using my zombie to appoint myself speaker.

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 12:31 AM Edward Murphy  wrote:
>
>> Aris wrote:
>>
>> > I object strongly, given that e is inactive. I don't think a zombie
>> should
>> > hold an office as ceremonially important as that of Speaker. I intend,
>> with
>> > support, to appoint each of Trigon and ATMunn as Speaker (they're tied
>> for
>> > the highest karma of anyone not excluded).
>>
>> I support both.
>>
>> Because Trigon now has the greater karma, and with no disrespect intended
> towards ATMunn, I cause Trigon to become Speaker with support. Serve
> honorably and well.
>
> -Aris



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report

[Edward Murphy]

ATMunn wrote:

For some reason, this report and many of your other reports show up in a 
weird font for me. Does this happen to other people?


Yes. Interestingly, eir Referee and Registrar reports show up in two
/different/ weird fonts, while eir Assessor messages show up in the
usual fixed-width font. Something to do with the range of characters
included in each, I suppose.

Re: DIS: Vote for me!

[Edward Murphy]

ATMunn wrote:

Yeah, the problem with it working that way is that for anyone who 
doesn't have any sort of theme on, the background is white by default, 
so there would be no way to differentiate between Transparent and White.


If anyone has a suggestion, then feel free to let me know what it is.


Background image.