Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Homerun
EFDoA applies only from Mondays to Thursdays. After that, it's assumed (or
that was my intention when creating the law) that people don't care about
the assets, so why not let someone collect them all?
2. if the facility is built on preserved Public Land and less
than four days have passed since assets were created in the
facility most recently, e must not have taken any assets from
the inventory of another facility located on a preserved Land
Unit within this Agoran week.
~Corona
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 1:14 AM, Reuben Staley
wrote:
> Is EFDoA broken too? I certainly don't remember any discussion on this. If
> it's not, then all transfers except for the first one FAIL.
>
> On 06/10/2018 01:32 PM, Corona wrote:
>
>> I transfer 8 apples to Quazie.
>>
>> I act on behalf of Quazie to perform all actions enclosed within the
>> following curly braces: {
>>
>> Transfer all assets from the facility at (-1, -1) to Quazie.
>>
>> Destroy 1 apple to move to (-1, 0).
>>
>> Destroy 2 apples to move to (-1,+1).
>>
>> Transfer all assets from the facility at (-1, +1) to Quazie.
>>
>> Destroy 1 apple to move to (0, +1).
>>
>> Destroy 1 apple to move to (+1,+1).
>>
>> Transfer all assets from the facility at (+1, +1) to Quazie.
>>
>> Destroy 1 apple to move to (+1, 0).
>>
>> Destroy 2 apples to move to (+1,-1).
>>
>> Transfer all assets from the facility at (+1, -1) to Quazie.
>>
>> Transfer all of Quazie's assets to Corona.
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>> ~Corona
>>
>>
> --
> Trigon
>
DIS: Re: BUS: Homerun
Is EFDoA broken too? I certainly don't remember any discussion on this.
If it's not, then all transfers except for the first one FAIL.
On 06/10/2018 01:32 PM, Corona wrote:
I transfer 8 apples to Quazie.
I act on behalf of Quazie to perform all actions enclosed within the
following curly braces: {
Transfer all assets from the facility at (-1, -1) to Quazie.
Destroy 1 apple to move to (-1, 0).
Destroy 2 apples to move to (-1,+1).
Transfer all assets from the facility at (-1, +1) to Quazie.
Destroy 1 apple to move to (0, +1).
Destroy 1 apple to move to (+1,+1).
Transfer all assets from the facility at (+1, +1) to Quazie.
Destroy 1 apple to move to (+1, 0).
Destroy 2 apples to move to (+1,-1).
Transfer all assets from the facility at (+1, -1) to Quazie.
Transfer all of Quazie's assets to Corona.
}
~Corona
--
Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Agora and G. accumulate more wealth; zombies & public facilities bankrupt, as always
Ah, I misread a conjunction in that rule. apologies. On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > See Rule 2531, which requires, among other things, that the > perpetrator did some action prohibited by law. You haven't named a > rule that Corona violated. > > -Aris > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 3:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > This one I think? Did I use it wrong? > > > > Rule 2479/5 (Power=1.7) > > Official Justice > > > >The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose > >Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine > >of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the > >Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official > >proceeding. > > > >The Referee CANNOT impose Summary Judgement more than three times > >a week. > > > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > >> Excuse me, but under which provision of which rule? > >> > >> -Aris > >> > >> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM, Kerim Aydin > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > I Object to the intent. > >> > > >> > I Levy a fine of 2 Blots on Corona (Summary Judgement) for this > >> > abuse of office. > >> > > >> > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > >> >> I object to Corona's intent to win by Apathy. > >> >> > >> >> I nominate myself for Treasuror. > >> >> > >> >> -twg > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > >> >> > >> >> On June 10, 2018 8:12 PM, Corona wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > [Sun Jun 10 22:12] This line is not a part of the report. Corona > >> >> > intends to > >> >> win by Apathy without objection. > >> >> > >> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Agora and G. accumulate more wealth; zombies & public facilities bankrupt, as always
See Rule 2531, which requires, among other things, that the perpetrator did some action prohibited by law. You haven't named a rule that Corona violated. -Aris On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 3:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > This one I think? Did I use it wrong? > > Rule 2479/5 (Power=1.7) > Official Justice > >The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose >Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine >of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the >Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official >proceeding. > >The Referee CANNOT impose Summary Judgement more than three times >a week. > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: >> Excuse me, but under which provision of which rule? >> >> -Aris >> >> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > >> > >> > I Object to the intent. >> > >> > I Levy a fine of 2 Blots on Corona (Summary Judgement) for this >> > abuse of office. >> > >> > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> >> I object to Corona's intent to win by Apathy. >> >> >> >> I nominate myself for Treasuror. >> >> >> >> -twg >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> >> >> >> On June 10, 2018 8:12 PM, Corona wrote: >> >> >> >> > [Sun Jun 10 22:12] This line is not a part of the report. Corona >> >> > intends to >> >> win by Apathy without objection. >> >> >>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Agora and G. accumulate more wealth; zombies & public facilities bankrupt, as always
This one I think? Did I use it wrong? Rule 2479/5 (Power=1.7) Official Justice The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official proceeding. The Referee CANNOT impose Summary Judgement more than three times a week. On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > Excuse me, but under which provision of which rule? > > -Aris > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > I Object to the intent. > > > > I Levy a fine of 2 Blots on Corona (Summary Judgement) for this > > abuse of office. > > > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > >> I object to Corona's intent to win by Apathy. > >> > >> I nominate myself for Treasuror. > >> > >> -twg > >> > >> > >> > >> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > >> > >> On June 10, 2018 8:12 PM, Corona wrote: > >> > >> > [Sun Jun 10 22:12] This line is not a part of the report. Corona intends > >> > to > >> win by Apathy without objection. > >> >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Agora and G. accumulate more wealth; zombies & public facilities bankrupt, as always
Excuse me, but under which provision of which rule? -Aris On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I Object to the intent. > > I Levy a fine of 2 Blots on Corona (Summary Judgement) for this > abuse of office. > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> I object to Corona's intent to win by Apathy. >> >> I nominate myself for Treasuror. >> >> -twg >> >> >> >> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> >> On June 10, 2018 8:12 PM, Corona wrote: >> >> > [Sun Jun 10 22:12] This line is not a part of the report. Corona intends to >> win by Apathy without objection. >>
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald][Medal of Honour]
However, by ais523's logic, from the previous Decision you're supposed
to award a Medal to FAILED QUORUM...?
On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Corona wrote:
> Ah, nevermind then.
>
> ~Corona
>
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > No, the whole thing just fails I'm afraid (Rule 2529/3):
> >In the second Eastman week of an Agoran month, if there are any
> >players who are eligible for a Medal of Honour, the Herald CAN, by
> >announcement, initiate an Agoran Decision on who is to be awarded
> >a Medal of Honour.
> > If there's no eligible players, there's no CAN for initiation.
> >
> > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 2018-06-10 at 22:26 +0200, Corona wrote:
> > > > I initiate an Agoran Decision on who is to be awarded a Medal of
> > > > Honour for June 2018. For this decision, the valid options are {}.
> > > > The vote collector is the Herald, and the voting method is instant-
> > > > runoff.
> > > > Quorum is 6.
> > >
> > > Huh, some fun rulesey stuff going on here. As far as I can tell, it's
> > > impossible to meaningfully vote on this, but it cannot fail quorum;
> > > rather, at the end of the voting period (which the Herald SHALL end
> > > early, and CAN do so by resolving it in the same message) it ends with
> > > a null outcome. The outcome of the vote is then awarded a Medal of
> > > Honour. Again as far as I can tell, there's nothing restricting what
> > > sort of entity can own a Medal of Honour, so it looks like the Medal
> > > owned by the null outcome is going to become a tracked part of the
> > > Herald report.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, the rules don't allow for the null outcome to get a win
> > > if this happens six times, but I think we should give it an honorary
> > > win by proposal if the situation ever comes up.
> > >
> > > --
> > > ais523
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald][Medal of Honour]
Ah, nevermind then.
~Corona
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Kerim Aydin
wrote:
>
>
> No, the whole thing just fails I'm afraid (Rule 2529/3):
>In the second Eastman week of an Agoran month, if there are any
>players who are eligible for a Medal of Honour, the Herald CAN, by
>announcement, initiate an Agoran Decision on who is to be awarded
>a Medal of Honour.
> If there's no eligible players, there's no CAN for initiation.
>
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2018-06-10 at 22:26 +0200, Corona wrote:
> > > I initiate an Agoran Decision on who is to be awarded a Medal of
> > > Honour for June 2018. For this decision, the valid options are {}.
> > > The vote collector is the Herald, and the voting method is instant-
> > > runoff.
> > > Quorum is 6.
> >
> > Huh, some fun rulesey stuff going on here. As far as I can tell, it's
> > impossible to meaningfully vote on this, but it cannot fail quorum;
> > rather, at the end of the voting period (which the Herald SHALL end
> > early, and CAN do so by resolving it in the same message) it ends with
> > a null outcome. The outcome of the vote is then awarded a Medal of
> > Honour. Again as far as I can tell, there's nothing restricting what
> > sort of entity can own a Medal of Honour, so it looks like the Medal
> > owned by the null outcome is going to become a tracked part of the
> > Herald report.
> >
> > Unfortunately, the rules don't allow for the null outcome to get a win
> > if this happens six times, but I think we should give it an honorary
> > win by proposal if the situation ever comes up.
> >
> > --
> > ais523
> >
>
>
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald][Medal of Honour]
Oh yeah, I thought so, I just couldn't find the relevant paragraph. Well,
now I have to wait 7 days to resolve, I guess.
~Corona
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:45 PM, Alex Smith
wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-06-10 at 22:26 +0200, Corona wrote:
> > I initiate an Agoran Decision on who is to be awarded a Medal of
> > Honour for June 2018. For this decision, the valid options are {}.
> > The vote collector is the Herald, and the voting method is instant-
> > runoff.
> > Quorum is 6.
>
> Huh, some fun rulesey stuff going on here. As far as I can tell, it's
> impossible to meaningfully vote on this, but it cannot fail quorum;
> rather, at the end of the voting period (which the Herald SHALL end
> early, and CAN do so by resolving it in the same message) it ends with
> a null outcome. The outcome of the vote is then awarded a Medal of
> Honour. Again as far as I can tell, there's nothing restricting what
> sort of entity can own a Medal of Honour, so it looks like the Medal
> owned by the null outcome is going to become a tracked part of the
> Herald report.
>
> Unfortunately, the rules don't allow for the null outcome to get a win
> if this happens six times, but I think we should give it an honorary
> win by proposal if the situation ever comes up.
>
> --
> ais523
>
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald][Medal of Honour]
No, the whole thing just fails I'm afraid (Rule 2529/3):
In the second Eastman week of an Agoran month, if there are any
players who are eligible for a Medal of Honour, the Herald CAN, by
announcement, initiate an Agoran Decision on who is to be awarded
a Medal of Honour.
If there's no eligible players, there's no CAN for initiation.
On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-06-10 at 22:26 +0200, Corona wrote:
> > I initiate an Agoran Decision on who is to be awarded a Medal of
> > Honour for June 2018. For this decision, the valid options are {}.
> > The vote collector is the Herald, and the voting method is instant-
> > runoff.
> > Quorum is 6.
>
> Huh, some fun rulesey stuff going on here. As far as I can tell, it's
> impossible to meaningfully vote on this, but it cannot fail quorum;
> rather, at the end of the voting period (which the Herald SHALL end
> early, and CAN do so by resolving it in the same message) it ends with
> a null outcome. The outcome of the vote is then awarded a Medal of
> Honour. Again as far as I can tell, there's nothing restricting what
> sort of entity can own a Medal of Honour, so it looks like the Medal
> owned by the null outcome is going to become a tracked part of the
> Herald report.
>
> Unfortunately, the rules don't allow for the null outcome to get a win
> if this happens six times, but I think we should give it an honorary
> win by proposal if the situation ever comes up.
>
> --
> ais523
>
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald][Medal of Honour]
On Sun, 2018-06-10 at 22:26 +0200, Corona wrote:
> I initiate an Agoran Decision on who is to be awarded a Medal of
> Honour for June 2018. For this decision, the valid options are {}.
> The vote collector is the Herald, and the voting method is instant-
> runoff.
> Quorum is 6.
Huh, some fun rulesey stuff going on here. As far as I can tell, it's
impossible to meaningfully vote on this, but it cannot fail quorum;
rather, at the end of the voting period (which the Herald SHALL end
early, and CAN do so by resolving it in the same message) it ends with
a null outcome. The outcome of the vote is then awarded a Medal of
Honour. Again as far as I can tell, there's nothing restricting what
sort of entity can own a Medal of Honour, so it looks like the Medal
owned by the null outcome is going to become a tracked part of the
Herald report.
Unfortunately, the rules don't allow for the null outcome to get a win
if this happens six times, but I think we should give it an honorary
win by proposal if the situation ever comes up.
--
ais523
