Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Quick proposals
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 Rule 2577 "Asset Actions" by replacing the second paragraph with the following three paragraphs: For an entity to earn an asset is for that asset to be created in that entity's possession. To grant an entity an asset is to create it in eir possession. For an entity to lose an asset is for that asset to be destroyed from that entity's possession. To revoke an asset from an entity is to destroy it from that entity's possession. For entity A to take an asset from entity B is to transfer it from entity B to entity A. Amend Rule 2559 "Paydays" by replacing its text with: Whenever a Payday occurs, the following events happen in order: 1. Each player first earns 10 coins; then 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 that time, that player earns 5 coins. The occurrence of Paydays is secured. At the beginning of each month, a Payday occurs. Amend Rule 2499 "Welcome Packages" by replacing its text with: If a player has not received a Welcome Package since e most recently registered, any player CAN cause em to receive one by announcement. When a player receives a Welcome Package, e earns 10 coins. Amend Rule 2555 "Blots" by replacing the paragraph beginning "To Lefy a Fine" with: To Levy a Fine of N on a person, where N is a positive integer, is to grant em N blots. To expunge a blot is to destroy it. Amend Rule 2583 "Earning Coins" by deleting the paragraph beginning "For a player to". On 11/01/2018 07:25 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: 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 eir conduct in that office during that time, each player earns 5 coins Should probably be "that player earns". Also I'd like a period at the end. Greetings, Ørjan. -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Quick proposals
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 eir conduct in that office during that time, each player earns 5 coins Should probably be "that player earns". Also I'd like a period at the end. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Murphy's Lawlessness (Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter (Weekly Report))
On Fri, 2 Nov 2018, Rebecca wrote: I expunge a blot from myself Looking at the recent blot history, someone should remind Murphy e might want to start doing this too. Greetings, Ørjan. On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 2:54 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Date of this weekly report: 2018-11-01 Date of last weekly report: 2018-10-27 BLOT HOLDINGS BlotsPerson --- 10Corona 7Kenyon 7Murphy 6V.J. Rada 3CuddleBeam 3Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 1L RECENT BLOT HISTORY Person ChangeDate (UTC)Reason ---------- CuddleBeam + 1f 2018-11-01Faking twg- 1 2018-10-23Expunged Murphy + 2 D2018-10-20Late CFJ judge removal twg+ 1 2018-10-20Late CFJ judgement L + 1 2018-10-20Late CFJ judgement CuddleBeam + 2 2018-10-20Late CFJ judgement ATMunn - 1 2018-10-11Expunged Trigon - 1 2018-10-09Expunged Trigon - 1 2018-10-04Expunged Kenyon - 1 2018-09-28Expunged Corona + 2 S 2018-09-28Late CFJ judgement Aris - 1 2018-09-24Expunged Aris - 1 2018-09-20Expunged Kenyon - 1 2018-09-17Expunged Kenyon - 1 2018-09-16Expunged Corona + 1f 2018-09-16Late CFJ judgement V.J. Rada + 1f 2018-09-16Late CFJ judgement P.S.S. + 2 SD2018-09-14Tardiness (Herald) Murphy + 2 S 2018-09-09Late CFJ judgement V.J. Rada + 2 S 2018-09-09Late CFJ judgement Aris + 2 SD2018-09-09Tardiness (Promotor) Trigon + 2 SD2018-09-01Tardiness (Cartographor) Key: f Forgivable S Summary Judgement D Loses monthly salary for relevant office -- From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] let's do some space
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, ATMunn wrote: I had wondered if that might be a problem. Don't know how exactly how to fix it though. You could move either the increment or the Section setting to the other rule. Incidentally, this would also imply that it now subtly matters in which order Welcome Packages are received. (If I recall correctly, it's mattered less subtly before when Agora had limited funds.) On 10/31/2018 9:36 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, ATMunn wrote: Imminent Sector is an singleton switch, tracked by the Spacekeepor, defaulting to 1. Every time a player receives a Welcome Package, the Imminent Sector is increased by one. If the Imminent Sector ever is greater than the current Sector Count, it is instead set to 1. A player who has just received a Welcome Package also has eir Energy set to 15, eir Armour set to 20, and eir Sector set to the current Imminent Sector. Given that this all happens in infinitesimal time, I don't think it's clear whether eir Sector is set before or after the increment. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Recent New CFJs
Purely accidental. I hit send too early, thought I had successfully prevented it from actually sending, added the 3rd CFJ, sent it again, then saw I sent it twice. So, sorry all. > On Nov 1, 2018, at 8:11 PM, ATMunn wrote: > > Any reason why you sent this twice (once with the last CFJ and one without)? > > On 11/1/2018 6:01 PM, D. Margaux wrote: >>> On Oct 31, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >>> >>> I CFJ: "Gaelan transferred a coin to me today." >> This is CFJ 3678. I assign it to Murphy. >>> On Nov 1, 2018, at 5:45 PM, ATMunn wrote: >>> >>> I CFJ on the following statement: "VJ Rada violated No Faking in the below >>> quoted message." >> This is CFJ 3679. I assign it to Trigon. >>> On Nov 1, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >>> >>> And I CFJ (linked with the below, please): "V.J. Rada committed the crime >>> of Oathbreaking in eir below-quoted message." Might as well cover all >>> possible bases. >> This is CFJ 3680. I assign to Trigon.
DIS: Re: BUS: Recent New CFJs
Any reason why you sent this twice (once with the last CFJ and one without)? On 11/1/2018 6:01 PM, D. Margaux wrote: On Oct 31, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I CFJ: "Gaelan transferred a coin to me today." This is CFJ 3678. I assign it to Murphy. On Nov 1, 2018, at 5:45 PM, ATMunn wrote: I CFJ on the following statement: "VJ Rada violated No Faking in the below quoted message." This is CFJ 3679. I assign it to Trigon. On Nov 1, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: And I CFJ (linked with the below, please): "V.J. Rada committed the crime of Oathbreaking in eir below-quoted message." Might as well cover all possible bases. This is CFJ 3680. I assign to Trigon.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Quick proposals
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 that time, > each player earns 5 coins
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deputisation
yeah but this isn't a scam just a self-own lol. On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 9:22 AM Reuben Staley wrote: > You and Cuddles both have an unbelievable track record of ridiculous > CFJs called because of your actions. > > On 11/01/2018 03:37 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > I pledge that I am indeed a 26-year-old woman named Jenny Johnson. > > > > The pledge I made above is true. > > > > I point a finger at myself for oathbreaking and faking. > > > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 8:34 AM ATMunn wrote: > > > >> I'm not going to do it, but now I kind of want to intentionally break a > >> minor rule just to see what apology words I have to use. > >> > >> On 11/1/2018 11:43 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > >>> Nobody else having expressed interest, I deputise for the Referee to > >> Impose the Cold Hand of Justice by levying a fine of 1 blot on > CuddleBeam > >> for violating Rule 2471/1, "No Faking". This has been reduced from the > base > >> value of 2 blots because eir action was utterly inconsequential. > >>> > >>> This violation is forgivable. CuddleBeam CAN, in a timely fashion, > >> expunge 1 blot from emself by publishing a formal apology of at least > 200 > >> words containing the words "appalling", "self-flagellation", "debased", > >> "transgression" and "aardvark", explaining eir error, shame, remorse, > and > >> ardent desire for self-improvement. > >>> > >>> -twg > >>> > >>> > >>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > >>> On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 10:36 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey > > >> wrote: > >>> > Speaking of which, the Treasuror workload has got much smaller with > >> Delenda Est, so I'm happy to take on Referee if nobody else expresses > >> interest in the next day or two. > > -twg > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 10:23 PM, D. Margaux > dmargaux...@gmail.com > >> wrote: > > > I point my finger at Cuddle Beam for violating No Faking by > attempting > >> an action e knew to be INEFFECTIVE in the message below. > > > >> On Oct 28, 2018, at 6:42 PM, Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> I award myself a Platinum ribbon. > >> > >>> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 11:00 PM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red > >> wrote: > >>> I grant permission for any person except D. Margaux to act on my > >> behalf to > >>> Demand Resignation from D. Margaux within the next 7 days or until > I > >>> publicly revoke this permission, and provided that my so Demanding > is > >>> neither ILLEGAL nor INEFFECTIVE. > >>> -twg > >>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > >>> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 9:55 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red > >>> wrote: > >>> > I intend to Demand Resignation from D. Margaux. > -twg > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Sunday, October 28, 2018 8:32 PM, D. Margaux > >> dmargaux...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > I was going to wait at least the full 48 hours before doing this, > >> but > > I think I’ve come up with a fun scam and I also think I am > >> laureled from > > the Round Robin win (we will see what Trigon says in the CFJ)... > >> so: > > > I deputise for Prime Minister to appoint myself Speaker. > > I award myself a Platinum ribbon. > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > -- > Trigon > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deputisation
You and Cuddles both have an unbelievable track record of ridiculous CFJs called because of your actions. On 11/01/2018 03:37 PM, Rebecca wrote: I pledge that I am indeed a 26-year-old woman named Jenny Johnson. The pledge I made above is true. I point a finger at myself for oathbreaking and faking. On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 8:34 AM ATMunn wrote: I'm not going to do it, but now I kind of want to intentionally break a minor rule just to see what apology words I have to use. On 11/1/2018 11:43 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Nobody else having expressed interest, I deputise for the Referee to Impose the Cold Hand of Justice by levying a fine of 1 blot on CuddleBeam for violating Rule 2471/1, "No Faking". This has been reduced from the base value of 2 blots because eir action was utterly inconsequential. This violation is forgivable. CuddleBeam CAN, in a timely fashion, expunge 1 blot from emself by publishing a formal apology of at least 200 words containing the words "appalling", "self-flagellation", "debased", "transgression" and "aardvark", explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 10:36 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Speaking of which, the Treasuror workload has got much smaller with Delenda Est, so I'm happy to take on Referee if nobody else expresses interest in the next day or two. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 10:23 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote: I point my finger at Cuddle Beam for violating No Faking by attempting an action e knew to be INEFFECTIVE in the message below. On Oct 28, 2018, at 6:42 PM, Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com wrote: I award myself a Platinum ribbon. On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 11:00 PM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: I grant permission for any person except D. Margaux to act on my behalf to Demand Resignation from D. Margaux within the next 7 days or until I publicly revoke this permission, and provided that my so Demanding is neither ILLEGAL nor INEFFECTIVE. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, October 28, 2018 9:55 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: I intend to Demand Resignation from D. Margaux. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, October 28, 2018 8:32 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote: I was going to wait at least the full 48 hours before doing this, but I think I’ve come up with a fun scam and I also think I am laureled from the Round Robin win (we will see what Trigon says in the CFJ)... so: I deputise for Prime Minister to appoint myself Speaker. I award myself a Platinum ribbon. -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deputisation
Gratuitous: There may be a meta-faking here. Pledges are to perform or not perform actions, pledging that you are someone or something isn't pledging an action (yes, "to be" is a verb, but I still argue that a state of being isn't an action in this sense). So this fails to make a pledge, so is INEFFECTIVE. So if e was trying to fool people into thinking this was an effective pledge, that could be Faking. On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, ATMunn wrote: > I CFJ on the following statement: "VJ Rada violated No Faking in the below > quoted message." > > Gratuitous Arguments: Even though VJ Rada did lie, the message does not seem > to have been made with the intent to mislead. Also, how can we verify that e > is actually not a 26-year-old woman named Jenny Johnson? > > On 11/1/2018 5:37 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > I pledge that I am indeed a 26-year-old woman named Jenny Johnson. > > > > The pledge I made above is true. > > > > I point a finger at myself for oathbreaking and faking. > > > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 8:34 AM ATMunn wrote: > > > > > I'm not going to do it, but now I kind of want to intentionally break a > > > minor rule just to see what apology words I have to use. > > > > > > On 11/1/2018 11:43 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > Nobody else having expressed interest, I deputise for the Referee to > > > Impose the Cold Hand of Justice by levying a fine of 1 blot on CuddleBeam > > > for violating Rule 2471/1, "No Faking". This has been reduced from the > > > base > > > value of 2 blots because eir action was utterly inconsequential. > > > > > > > > This violation is forgivable. CuddleBeam CAN, in a timely fashion, > > > expunge 1 blot from emself by publishing a formal apology of at least 200 > > > words containing the words "appalling", "self-flagellation", "debased", > > > "transgression" and "aardvark", explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and > > > ardent desire for self-improvement. > > > > > > > > -twg > > > > > > > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 10:36 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Speaking of which, the Treasuror workload has got much smaller with > > > Delenda Est, so I'm happy to take on Referee if nobody else expresses > > > interest in the next day or two. > > > > > > > > > > -twg > > > > > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > > On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 10:23 PM, D. Margaux > > > > > dmargaux...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I point my finger at Cuddle Beam for violating No Faking by > > > > > > attempting > > > an action e knew to be INEFFECTIVE in the message below. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 2018, at 6:42 PM, Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I award myself a Platinum ribbon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 11:00 PM Timon Walshe-Grey > > > > > > > > m...@timon.red > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I grant permission for any person except D. Margaux to act on my > > > behalf to > > > > > > > > Demand Resignation from D. Margaux within the next 7 days or > > > > > > > > until I > > > > > > > > publicly revoke this permission, and provided that my so > > > > > > > > Demanding is > > > > > > > > neither ILLEGAL nor INEFFECTIVE. > > > > > > > > -twg > > > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > > > > > On Sunday, October 28, 2018 9:55 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey > > > > > > > > m...@timon.red > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I intend to Demand Resignation from D. Margaux. > > > > > > > > > -twg > > > > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, October 28, 2018 8:32 PM, D. Margaux > > > dmargaux...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was going to wait at least the full 48 hours before doing > > > > > > > > > > this, > > > but > > > > > > > > > > I think I’ve come up with a fun scam and I also think I am > > > laureled from > > > > > > > > > > the Round Robin win (we will see what Trigon says in the > > > > > > > > > > CFJ)... > > > so: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I deputise for Prime Minister to appoint myself Speaker. > > > > > > > > > > I award myself a Platinum ribbon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Reminder to claim violet ribbons
Huh, I was sure I awarded myself one last night after seeing the post. I guess I didn't. On 11/1/2018 1:46 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Oh foo, I award a Violet ribbon to each of the below-indicated persons who doesn't have one yet. Notice of Honour +1 twg (reminding us) -1 Trigon (a little less helpful then twg here :P ) On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: *Technically*, any player can award any other player a ribbon e has earned. I'm not going to do that, though. I award myself a Violet Ribbon. On 10/30/2018 02:08 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: The following players earned Violet Ribbons for participating in PAoaM and can still claim them up until Saturday: ATMunn Corona G. Trigon (I internally debated with myself about whether to remind you, but my fairness-loving side won out.) -twg -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8112-8122
Damn well in three weeks I'll see you again with voting strength lol. On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 3:02 AM Reuben Staley wrote: > It's cool that you want to vote again, but you unfortunately have voting > strength 0 since you have 3 or more blots. > > On another note, you're a zombie so if you intend to seriously get back > into the game, you should probably flip your matter switch. > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 16:10 Rebecca wrote: > > > Votes inline > > IDAuthor(s) AITitle > > > --- > > 8112 G., ATMunn 1.0 The Middle Way > > FOR > > 8113 Trigon 1.0 Auction cleanup > > AGAINST > > 8114 Trigon, twg, G. 1.0 Free auctions 2 > > FOR > > 8115 Aris, Trigon1.5 Heraldic uncertainty > > FOR > > 8116 Trigon, D Margaux 1.5 Control-C, Control-V > > FOR lol > > 8117 D Margaux, twg 2.0 Fix for Uncertain Laurelings > > FOR > > 8118 G. 2.0 Laurels Last Longer > > AGAINST! Being guaranteed speaker when you win most recently is an > > important incentive to do scams after other people etc > > 8119 D Margaux 2.0 Criminal Justice Adjustments Act > > FOR lol. I wrote most of this rule, this is like that but if I could be > > bothered to format correctly. > > 8120 D Margaux 2.0 Blot Decay > > AGAINST > > 8121 G. 3.0 Retroactive Documents > > Ratification is a sham anyway FOR > > 8122 Murphy 3.0 Middle of the road > > AGAINST. I don't know the context for this but it's way simpler and > better > > for everyone to have one vote. > > > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 3:56 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > CoE: I believe Quorum is 5. The most recently resolved proposal was > > > Proposal 8110, which had 7 valid ballots. 7 * 2/3 = 4.67 which rounds > to > > 5. > > > > > > -twg > > > > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > On Monday, October 29, 2018 1:16 AM, Aris Merchant < > > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran > > > > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal > > > > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the > > > > quorum is 6, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid > > > > options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are > > > > conditional votes). > > > > > > > > ID Author(s) AI Title > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > 8112 G., ATMunn 1.0 The Middle Way > > > > 8113 Trigon 1.0 Auction cleanup > > > > 8114 Trigon, twg, G. 1.0 Free auctions 2 > > > > 8115 Aris, Trigon 1.5 Heraldic uncertainty > > > > 8116 Trigon, D Margaux 1.5 Control-C, Control-V > > > > 8117 D Margaux, twg 2.0 Fix for Uncertain Laurelings > > > > 8118 G. 2.0 Laurels Last Longer > > > > 8119 D Margaux 2.0 Criminal Justice Adjustments Act > > > > 8120 D Margaux 2.0 Blot Decay > > > > 8121 G. 3.0 Retroactive Documents > > > > 8122 Murphy 3.0 Middle of the road > > > > > > > > The proposal pool is currently empty. > > > > > > > > The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below. > > > > > > > > > // > > > > ID: 8112 > > > > Title: The Middle Way > > > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > > > Author: G. > > > > Co-authors: ATMunn > > > > > > > > Amend Rule 2510 (Such is Karma) by replacing the list in which the > list > > > > items are delimited with the - symbol with the following list: > > > > > > > > - Any player with a karma of 5 or greater is a Samurai. > > > > - Any player with a karma of -5 or less is an Gamma. > > > > - The Samurai with the highest karma (if any) is the Shogun. > > > > - The Gamma with the lowest karma (if any) is the Honourless > > > > Worm. > > > > > > > > [By replacing 'player' with 'Samurai' and 'Gamma' in the last two > > > > list items, you can't get Shogun/Worm unless you've cleared a > basic > > > > barrier - right now you could be a Worm even if your karma isn't > > > > all that low]. > > > > > > > > > > > // > > > > ID: 8113 > > > > Title: Auction cleanup > > > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > > > Author: Trigon > > > > Co-authors: > > > > > > > > [ Comment: I noticed that there are an entire eight rules > defining > > > > auctions and I thought that was a bit excessive. Oh, we also > > missed a > > > > few sentences about contracts initiating auctions so this removes > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deputisation
I'm not going to do it, but now I kind of want to intentionally break a minor rule just to see what apology words I have to use. On 11/1/2018 11:43 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Nobody else having expressed interest, I deputise for the Referee to Impose the Cold Hand of Justice by levying a fine of 1 blot on CuddleBeam for violating Rule 2471/1, "No Faking". This has been reduced from the base value of 2 blots because eir action was utterly inconsequential. This violation is forgivable. CuddleBeam CAN, in a timely fashion, expunge 1 blot from emself by publishing a formal apology of at least 200 words containing the words "appalling", "self-flagellation", "debased", "transgression" and "aardvark", explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 10:36 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Speaking of which, the Treasuror workload has got much smaller with Delenda Est, so I'm happy to take on Referee if nobody else expresses interest in the next day or two. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 10:23 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote: I point my finger at Cuddle Beam for violating No Faking by attempting an action e knew to be INEFFECTIVE in the message below. On Oct 28, 2018, at 6:42 PM, Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com wrote: I award myself a Platinum ribbon. On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 11:00 PM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: I grant permission for any person except D. Margaux to act on my behalf to Demand Resignation from D. Margaux within the next 7 days or until I publicly revoke this permission, and provided that my so Demanding is neither ILLEGAL nor INEFFECTIVE. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, October 28, 2018 9:55 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: I intend to Demand Resignation from D. Margaux. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, October 28, 2018 8:32 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote: I was going to wait at least the full 48 hours before doing this, but I think I’ve come up with a fun scam and I also think I am laureled from the Round Robin win (we will see what Trigon says in the CFJ)... so: I deputise for Prime Minister to appoint myself Speaker. I award myself a Platinum ribbon.
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] let's do some space
I had wondered if that might be a problem. Don't know how exactly how to fix it though. On 10/31/2018 9:36 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, ATMunn wrote: Imminent Sector is an singleton switch, tracked by the Spacekeepor, defaulting to 1. Every time a player receives a Welcome Package, the Imminent Sector is increased by one. If the Imminent Sector ever is greater than the current Sector Count, it is instead set to 1. A player who has just received a Welcome Package also has eir Energy set to 15, eir Armour set to 20, and eir Sector set to the current Imminent Sector. Given that this all happens in infinitesimal time, I don't think it's clear whether eir Sector is set before or after the increment. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] let's do some space
On 11/1/2018 4:05 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
I appreciate you've just spent a lot of time writing it _out_ of the proposal,
but I actually preferred the system where spaceships were assets, like someone
else (I think Gaelan?) mentioned on the previous draft. It makes extensibility
much easier because we can say things like
Spaceships can own Modules. A player CAN, by announcement, transfer
a Module from a Spaceship in eir possession to emself.
instead of
A player CAN, by announcement, Equip a Module in eir possession.
Doing so adds the Module to eir Equipped Modules, which is a
Spaceship player switch with values of any set of Modules in the
player's possession (default the empty set). A player CAN also by
announcement Deequip a Module in eir Equipped Modules, which
removes that Module from eir Equipped Modules. Modules in a
player's Equipped Modules are fixed.
It also opens up the possibility for people to have multiple spaceships, or to
sell spaceships to each other.
That's fair. I'll see what some other people have to say about this.
Re: recordkeepors, my idea was going to be Astrogator, but honestly I like
Astronomor better >
I might add something like "The Astronomor SHOULD, in eir weekly report, include
simple instructions and/or resources for players to use for the generation of SHA-512
hashes in Space Battles." When we were discussing the previous draft someone (I
think Trigon?) mentioned that e didn't really understand what a SHA-512 hash was and
would find it quite confusing to play, so having simple instructions to follow might help
with that.
Idea for streamlining Space Battles: The person initiating the Space Battle has
to provide eir hash in the same message e initiates the Space Battle. Then, the
second person doesn't need to use a hash at all (there's no point, since the
first player can't change the energy e decided on). That means the first person
can reveal eir hash, resolving the Space Battle, in only the second message e
posts.
Both of these are good ideas and I will probably implement them.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, November 1, 2018 1:31 AM, ATMunn wrote:
Comments on comments below.
On 10/31/2018 5:50 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Comments inline
Gaelan
On Oct 31, 2018, at 2:19 PM, ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com wrote:
So I've been working on the space proposal some more. It's taken me a lot longer than I
thought it would, but I've made a ton of progress. I still have that feeling that there's
something super important I've missed, but I can't think of it. Of course, this
"update" doesn't really include any more features, but I still want to get the
core working first. There's a changelog at the bottom, by the way.
Title: "spaaace? v0.2"
AI: 1
Author: ATMunn
Co-author(s): [probably lots of people]
Enact a new rule entitled "Sectors", with power 1.0 and the following
text:
{
Sector Count is an untracked singleton switch, which is always the
number of active players plus two.
Can just be "The Sector Count is equal to the number of active players plus two.
>
Imminent Sector is an singleton switch, tracked by the Spacekeepor,
defaulting to 1. Every time a player receives a Welcome Package, the
Imminent Sector is increased by one. If the Imminent Sector ever is
greater than the current Sector Count, it is instead set to 1.
[does this rule even work like I want it to?]
}
Enact a new rule entitled "The Spacekeepor", with power 1.0 and the
following text:
{
The Spacekeepor [name suggestions?] is an office; its holder is the
recordkeepor of space. [I don't know if the second clause is even
necessary but it sounds cool]
Astronomor?
Sure, if nobody has anything better.
The Spacekeepor's Weekly Report shall include:
1. all players' Spaceship switches;
2. the current Imminent Sector;
3. a list of which players are in which sectors; and
4. all space battles that have occured since the last report.
IIRC you don’t need to mention switches (they are already tracked by the
spacekeepor).
Don’t need to require listing players in sectors, that’s already a switch
Redundancy is nice. But idk maybe I'll take it out.
}
Enact a new rule entitled "Spaceships", with power 1.0 and the following
text:
{
Each active player has a set of Switches, collectively known as
Spaceship switches, all tracked by the Spacekeepor. Each of the
following is a Spaceship switch, with its possible values being any
integer in the specified range:
Probably a good idea for switches not to go away when a player becomes inactive.
Probably, I just don't want players fighting against their zombies.
Sector, with an inclusive range of 1 to the current Sector Count;
Energy, with an inclusive range of 0 to 20; and
Armour, with an inclusive range of 0 to 10.
A player with a particular Sector value is considered to be "in"
said Sector.
Any player CAN, by announcement, increase eir Armour by 1 at an
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: salary equalisation
This one's a really good idea in principle: last time we tried it, someone who believed in free proposals whipped up a "anyone can act on my behalf to support creating/pending a proposal" contract. Not sure if it's worth making exceptions to act-on-behalf for such things or if that becomes too clumsy? On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote: > Proto: create proposals with 1 support. Supporter SHOULD check the proposal > against [list of common mistakes we keep somewhere] > > Gaelan > > > On Nov 1, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > When I wrote Paydays (I think I drafted that text), I purposefully wanted > > Speaker to be a sinecure with a salary, as a perk for winning. > > > > Aside: I really hate the lack of pending, and just plopping proposals in > > the pool without review (including mine). Watching the proposals in the > > last couple weeks has really just turned me off trying to participate in > > that process. YMMV. > > > > > >> On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > >> Hold up, were you even around when we had shinies? Are you just an Agoran > >> History nerd? This seems like a mistake only a person who joined before > >> your time cold have committed. > >> > >> On Nov 1, 2018 10:30, "Timon Walshe-Grey" wrote: > >> > >> I submit the following proposal: > >> > >> // > >> Title: With not very much responsibility comes fewer shinies > >> Adoption index: 2.0 > >> Author: twg > >> Co-authors: > >> > >> Amend rule 2559, "Paydays", by changing the text "For each office" to > >> "For each office that has official duties". > >> > >> // > >> > >> > >> -twg > >> > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: salary equalisation
That really wasn't the point to take away from that message, but okay. On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 11:39 ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Thu, 2018-11-01 at 11:37 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote: > > Even simpler: players can submit proposals but a different person has > > to pend them, after checking for mistakes. Oh, and it has to be an > > active player. > > Given that pending isn't in the rules at the moment, the dependent > action version is likely simpler. > > Pending is /safer/, though, because it allows the proposal to be > validly distributed even if the pending went wrong, meaning less > uncertainty about the gamestate if the Promotor makes a mistake. > > -- > ais523 > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: salary equalisation
On Thu, 2018-11-01 at 11:37 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote: > Even simpler: players can submit proposals but a different person has > to pend them, after checking for mistakes. Oh, and it has to be an > active player. Given that pending isn't in the rules at the moment, the dependent action version is likely simpler. Pending is /safer/, though, because it allows the proposal to be validly distributed even if the pending went wrong, meaning less uncertainty about the gamestate if the Promotor makes a mistake. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: salary equalisation
Even simpler: players can submit proposals but a different person has to pend them, after checking for mistakes. Oh, and it has to be an active player. On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 11:32 Gaelan Steele wrote: > Proto: create proposals with 1 support. Supporter SHOULD check the > proposal against [list of common mistakes we keep somewhere] > > Gaelan > > > On Nov 1, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > When I wrote Paydays (I think I drafted that text), I purposefully wanted > > Speaker to be a sinecure with a salary, as a perk for winning. > > > > Aside: I really hate the lack of pending, and just plopping proposals in > > the pool without review (including mine). Watching the proposals in the > > last couple weeks has really just turned me off trying to participate in > > that process. YMMV. > > > > > >> On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > >> Hold up, were you even around when we had shinies? Are you just an > Agoran > >> History nerd? This seems like a mistake only a person who joined before > >> your time cold have committed. > >> > >> On Nov 1, 2018 10:30, "Timon Walshe-Grey" wrote: > >> > >> I submit the following proposal: > >> > >> // > >> Title: With not very much responsibility comes fewer shinies > >> Adoption index: 2.0 > >> Author: twg > >> Co-authors: > >> > >> Amend rule 2559, "Paydays", by changing the text "For each office" to > >> "For each office that has official duties". > >> > >> // > >> > >> > >> -twg > >> > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: salary equalisation
Proto: create proposals with 1 support. Supporter SHOULD check the proposal against [list of common mistakes we keep somewhere] Gaelan > On Nov 1, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > When I wrote Paydays (I think I drafted that text), I purposefully wanted > Speaker to be a sinecure with a salary, as a perk for winning. > > Aside: I really hate the lack of pending, and just plopping proposals in > the pool without review (including mine). Watching the proposals in the > last couple weeks has really just turned me off trying to participate in > that process. YMMV. > > >> On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: >> Hold up, were you even around when we had shinies? Are you just an Agoran >> History nerd? This seems like a mistake only a person who joined before >> your time cold have committed. >> >> On Nov 1, 2018 10:30, "Timon Walshe-Grey" wrote: >> >> I submit the following proposal: >> >> // >> Title: With not very much responsibility comes fewer shinies >> Adoption index: 2.0 >> Author: twg >> Co-authors: >> >> Amend rule 2559, "Paydays", by changing the text "For each office" to >> "For each office that has official duties". >> >> // >> >> >> -twg >> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: salary equalisation
When I wrote Paydays (I think I drafted that text), I purposefully wanted Speaker to be a sinecure with a salary, as a perk for winning. Aside: I really hate the lack of pending, and just plopping proposals in the pool without review (including mine). Watching the proposals in the last couple weeks has really just turned me off trying to participate in that process. YMMV. On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > Hold up, were you even around when we had shinies? Are you just an Agoran > History nerd? This seems like a mistake only a person who joined before > your time cold have committed. > > On Nov 1, 2018 10:30, "Timon Walshe-Grey" wrote: > > I submit the following proposal: > > // > Title: With not very much responsibility comes fewer shinies > Adoption index: 2.0 > Author: twg > Co-authors: > > Amend rule 2559, "Paydays", by changing the text "For each office" to > "For each office that has official duties". > > // > > > -twg >
DIS: Re: BUS: salary equalisation
Hold up, were you even around when we had shinies? Are you just an Agoran History nerd? This seems like a mistake only a person who joined before your time cold have committed. On Nov 1, 2018 10:30, "Timon Walshe-Grey" wrote: I submit the following proposal: // Title: With not very much responsibility comes fewer shinies Adoption index: 2.0 Author: twg Co-authors: Amend rule 2559, "Paydays", by changing the text "For each office" to "For each office that has official duties". // -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8112-8122
It's cool that you want to vote again, but you unfortunately have voting strength 0 since you have 3 or more blots. On another note, you're a zombie so if you intend to seriously get back into the game, you should probably flip your matter switch. On Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 16:10 Rebecca wrote: > Votes inline > IDAuthor(s) AITitle > --- > 8112 G., ATMunn 1.0 The Middle Way > FOR > 8113 Trigon 1.0 Auction cleanup > AGAINST > 8114 Trigon, twg, G. 1.0 Free auctions 2 > FOR > 8115 Aris, Trigon1.5 Heraldic uncertainty > FOR > 8116 Trigon, D Margaux 1.5 Control-C, Control-V > FOR lol > 8117 D Margaux, twg 2.0 Fix for Uncertain Laurelings > FOR > 8118 G. 2.0 Laurels Last Longer > AGAINST! Being guaranteed speaker when you win most recently is an > important incentive to do scams after other people etc > 8119 D Margaux 2.0 Criminal Justice Adjustments Act > FOR lol. I wrote most of this rule, this is like that but if I could be > bothered to format correctly. > 8120 D Margaux 2.0 Blot Decay > AGAINST > 8121 G. 3.0 Retroactive Documents > Ratification is a sham anyway FOR > 8122 Murphy 3.0 Middle of the road > AGAINST. I don't know the context for this but it's way simpler and better > for everyone to have one vote. > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 3:56 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > CoE: I believe Quorum is 5. The most recently resolved proposal was > > Proposal 8110, which had 7 valid ballots. 7 * 2/3 = 4.67 which rounds to > 5. > > > > -twg > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Monday, October 29, 2018 1:16 AM, Aris Merchant < > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran > > > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal > > > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the > > > quorum is 6, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid > > > options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are > > > conditional votes). > > > > > > ID Author(s) AI Title > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 8112 G., ATMunn 1.0 The Middle Way > > > 8113 Trigon 1.0 Auction cleanup > > > 8114 Trigon, twg, G. 1.0 Free auctions 2 > > > 8115 Aris, Trigon 1.5 Heraldic uncertainty > > > 8116 Trigon, D Margaux 1.5 Control-C, Control-V > > > 8117 D Margaux, twg 2.0 Fix for Uncertain Laurelings > > > 8118 G. 2.0 Laurels Last Longer > > > 8119 D Margaux 2.0 Criminal Justice Adjustments Act > > > 8120 D Margaux 2.0 Blot Decay > > > 8121 G. 3.0 Retroactive Documents > > > 8122 Murphy 3.0 Middle of the road > > > > > > The proposal pool is currently empty. > > > > > > The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below. > > > > > > // > > > ID: 8112 > > > Title: The Middle Way > > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > > Author: G. > > > Co-authors: ATMunn > > > > > > Amend Rule 2510 (Such is Karma) by replacing the list in which the list > > > items are delimited with the - symbol with the following list: > > > > > > - Any player with a karma of 5 or greater is a Samurai. > > > - Any player with a karma of -5 or less is an Gamma. > > > - The Samurai with the highest karma (if any) is the Shogun. > > > - The Gamma with the lowest karma (if any) is the Honourless > > > Worm. > > > > > > [By replacing 'player' with 'Samurai' and 'Gamma' in the last two > > > list items, you can't get Shogun/Worm unless you've cleared a basic > > > barrier - right now you could be a Worm even if your karma isn't > > > all that low]. > > > > > > > > // > > > ID: 8113 > > > Title: Auction cleanup > > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > > Author: Trigon > > > Co-authors: > > > > > > [ Comment: I noticed that there are an entire eight rules defining > > > auctions and I thought that was a bit excessive. Oh, we also > missed a > > > few sentences about contracts initiating auctions so this removes > > > them. This contains no functional changes but it makes the rules > > > defining auctions less cumbersome. ] > > > > > > Amend rule 2545 'Auctions' to read: > > > > > > An Auction is a way for entities to give away items in exchange > > > for a currency. Any rule CAN permit or require Auctions to be > > > initiated. > > > > > > Each Aucti
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Reminder to claim violet ribbons
oh I *totally* misread the transparent ribbon rule when I went for it last and didn't see this subtlety. Nice one, and hopefully I didn't mess up anyone's strategies. On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Yes, but if you don't already own the ribbon before earning it, there is a > longer time period in which it counts towards the transparent ribbon. > > For example: > > Day 1 12:00: You earn a violet ribbon, but don't qualify for it because you > already have one. The earning of the violet ribbon begins to count against > the 5 ribbons you need for a transparent ribbon. > Day 8 12:00: 7 days have passed, so the earning of the violet ribbon no > longer counts against the 5 ribbons you need for a transparent ribbon. > > as opposed to: > > Day 1 12:00: You earn a violet ribbon, and qualify for it because you don't > already have one. The qualification for the violet ribbon begins to count > against the 5 ribbons you need for a transparent ribbon. > Day 5 15:32: You award yourself the violet ribbon, so you no longer qualify > for it. > Day 12 15:32: 7 days have passed, so the qualification for the violet ribbon > no longer counts against the 5 ribbons you need for a transparent ribbon. > > -twg > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Thursday, November 1, 2018 12:03 PM, Reuben Staley > wrote: > > > Actually, that's false. You don't have to award yourself five ribbons to > > get Transparent, you just have to meet the qualifications. > > > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 01:45 Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > No way to take it back now, but for future reference, awarding someone a > > > (non-grey) ribbon against eir will is not necessarily a boon, because it > > > makes it marginally more difficult to qualify for a transparent ribbon in > > > the future. You already have one, but ATMunn and Corona don't. (Nor does > > > Trigon but presumably e knows what e's doing.) > > > > > > -twg > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > On Thursday, November 1, 2018 5:46 AM, Kerim Aydin > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh foo, I award a Violet ribbon to each of the below-indicated persons > > > > who doesn't have one yet. > > > > > > > > Notice of Honour > > > > +1 twg (reminding us) > > > > -1 Trigon (a little less helpful then twg here :P ) > > > > > > > > On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > > > > > > > Technically, any player can award any other player a ribbon e has > > > > > earned. > > > > > I'm not going to do that, though. I award myself a Violet Ribbon. > > > > > On 10/30/2018 02:08 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The following players earned Violet Ribbons for participating in > > > > > > PAoaM and > > > > > > can still claim them up until Saturday: > > > > > > ATMunn > > > > > > Corona > > > > > > G. > > > > > > Trigon > > > > > > (I internally debated with myself about whether to remind you, but > > > > > > my > > > > > > fairness-loving side won out.) > > > > > > -twg > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Trigon >
DIS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] The Ribbon Bar
On Thursday, November 1, 2018 2:01 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > (Remove this comment before publishing the report!) Drat. -twg
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Reminder to claim violet ribbons
Yes, but if you don't already own the ribbon before earning it, there is a longer time period in which it counts towards the transparent ribbon. For example: Day 1 12:00: You earn a violet ribbon, but don't qualify for it because you already have one. The earning of the violet ribbon begins to count against the 5 ribbons you need for a transparent ribbon. Day 8 12:00: 7 days have passed, so the earning of the violet ribbon no longer counts against the 5 ribbons you need for a transparent ribbon. as opposed to: Day 1 12:00: You earn a violet ribbon, and qualify for it because you don't already have one. The qualification for the violet ribbon begins to count against the 5 ribbons you need for a transparent ribbon. Day 5 15:32: You award yourself the violet ribbon, so you no longer qualify for it. Day 12 15:32: 7 days have passed, so the qualification for the violet ribbon no longer counts against the 5 ribbons you need for a transparent ribbon. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, November 1, 2018 12:03 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > Actually, that's false. You don't have to award yourself five ribbons to get > Transparent, you just have to meet the qualifications. > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 01:45 Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > No way to take it back now, but for future reference, awarding someone a > > (non-grey) ribbon against eir will is not necessarily a boon, because it > > makes it marginally more difficult to qualify for a transparent ribbon in > > the future. You already have one, but ATMunn and Corona don't. (Nor does > > Trigon but presumably e knows what e's doing.) > > > > -twg > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Thursday, November 1, 2018 5:46 AM, Kerim Aydin > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Oh foo, I award a Violet ribbon to each of the below-indicated persons > > > who doesn't have one yet. > > > > > > Notice of Honour > > > +1 twg (reminding us) > > > -1 Trigon (a little less helpful then twg here :P ) > > > > > > On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > > > > > Technically, any player can award any other player a ribbon e has > > > > earned. > > > > I'm not going to do that, though. I award myself a Violet Ribbon. > > > > On 10/30/2018 02:08 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > > > > > The following players earned Violet Ribbons for participating in > > > > > PAoaM and > > > > > can still claim them up until Saturday: > > > > > ATMunn > > > > > Corona > > > > > G. > > > > > Trigon > > > > > (I internally debated with myself about whether to remind you, but my > > > > > fairness-loving side won out.) > > > > > -twg > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Trigon
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Reminder to claim violet ribbons
Actually, that's false. You don't have to award yourself five ribbons to get Transparent, you just have to meet the qualifications. On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 01:45 Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > No way to take it back now, but for future reference, awarding someone a > (non-grey) ribbon against eir will is not necessarily a boon, because it > makes it marginally more difficult to qualify for a transparent ribbon in > the future. You already have one, but ATMunn and Corona don't. (Nor does > Trigon but presumably e knows what e's doing.) > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Thursday, November 1, 2018 5:46 AM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > > > > > > Oh foo, I award a Violet ribbon to each of the below-indicated persons > > who doesn't have one yet. > > > > Notice of Honour > > +1 twg (reminding us) > > -1 Trigon (a little less helpful then twg here :P ) > > > > On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > > > Technically, any player can award any other player a ribbon e has > earned. > > > I'm not going to do that, though. I award myself a Violet Ribbon. > > > On 10/30/2018 02:08 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > > > The following players earned Violet Ribbons for participating in > PAoaM and > > > > can still claim them up until Saturday: > > > > ATMunn > > > > Corona > > > > G. > > > > Trigon > > > > (I internally debated with myself about whether to remind you, but my > > > > fairness-loving side won out.) > > > > -twg > > > > > > -- > > > Trigon > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Quick proposals
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 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: Trigon > > Coauthors: > > > > [ COMMENT: This was pretty useless back in the day and it still is. If > > someone decides they need this mechanic for anything, just reenact > > it. ] > > > > Repeal Rule 2515 "Distributing Assets". > > > > - > > Title: Time periods are confusing > > AI: 3 > > Author: Trigon > > Coauthors: > > > > [ COMMENT: The current way is a really roundabout way of doing it, in my > > opinion. I'm not sure if this is any better, to be honest, but > > I think it has some merit. ] > > > > Amend Rule 1728 "Dependent Actions" by: > > replacing the following: > > 2. If the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N > > Agoran Consent, or With Notice, if the intent was announced at > > least 4 days earlier > > > > 3. If the action is to be performed With T Notice, if the intent > > was announced at least T earlier. > > with: > > 2. The intent was announced at least T earlier. If T is undefined, > > it is instead considered to be 4 days if the action is not With > > N Support; otherwise 0 days. > > and by renumbering the list accordingly. > > > >> On 10/31/2018 07:42 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > >>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > >>> Repeal Rule 2505 "Distributing Assets". > >> That should be 2515. > >>> Amend Rule 1728 "Dependent Actions" by: > >>>replacing the following: > >>> 2. If the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N > >>> Agoran Consent, or With Notice, if the intent was announced at > >>> least 4 days earlier > >>> > >>> 3. If the action is to be performed With T Notice, if the intent > >>> was announced at least T earlier. > >>>with: > >>> 2. The intent was announced at least T earlier. If T is > undefined, > >>> it is instead considered to be 4 days. > >>>and by renumbering the list accordingly. > >> Currently there is no delay for With N Support. > >> Greetings, > >> Ørjan. > > > > -- > > Trigon > >
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] let's do some space
I appreciate you've just spent a lot of time writing it _out_ of the proposal,
but I actually preferred the system where spaceships were assets, like someone
else (I think Gaelan?) mentioned on the previous draft. It makes extensibility
much easier because we can say things like
Spaceships can own Modules. A player CAN, by announcement, transfer
a Module from a Spaceship in eir possession to emself.
instead of
A player CAN, by announcement, Equip a Module in eir possession.
Doing so adds the Module to eir Equipped Modules, which is a
Spaceship player switch with values of any set of Modules in the
player's possession (default the empty set). A player CAN also by
announcement Deequip a Module in eir Equipped Modules, which
removes that Module from eir Equipped Modules. Modules in a
player's Equipped Modules are fixed.
It also opens up the possibility for people to have multiple spaceships, or to
sell spaceships to each other.
Re: recordkeepors, my idea was going to be Astrogator, but honestly I like
Astronomor better.
I might add something like "The Astronomor SHOULD, in eir weekly report,
include simple instructions and/or resources for players to use for the
generation of SHA-512 hashes in Space Battles." When we were discussing the
previous draft someone (I think Trigon?) mentioned that e didn't really
understand what a SHA-512 hash was and would find it quite confusing to play,
so having simple instructions to follow might help with that.
Idea for streamlining Space Battles: The person initiating the Space Battle has
to provide eir hash in the same message e initiates the Space Battle. Then, the
second person doesn't need to use a hash at all (there's no point, since the
first player can't change the energy e decided on). That means the first person
can reveal eir hash, resolving the Space Battle, in only the second message e
posts.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, November 1, 2018 1:31 AM, ATMunn wrote:
> Comments on comments below.
>
> On 10/31/2018 5:50 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> > Comments inline
> > Gaelan
> >
> > > On Oct 31, 2018, at 2:19 PM, ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > So I've been working on the space proposal some more. It's taken me a lot
> > > longer than I thought it would, but I've made a ton of progress. I still
> > > have that feeling that there's something super important I've missed, but
> > > I can't think of it. Of course, this "update" doesn't really include any
> > > more features, but I still want to get the core working first. There's a
> > > changelog at the bottom, by the way.
> > > Title: "spaaace? v0.2"
> > > AI: 1
> > > Author: ATMunn
> > > Co-author(s): [probably lots of people]
> > > Enact a new rule entitled "Sectors", with power 1.0 and the following
> > > text:
> > > {
> > > Sector Count is an untracked singleton switch, which is always the
> > > number of active players plus two.
> >
> > Can just be "The Sector Count is equal to the number of active players plus
> > two. >
> >
> > > Imminent Sector is an singleton switch, tracked by the Spacekeepor,
> > > defaulting to 1. Every time a player receives a Welcome Package, the
> > > Imminent Sector is increased by one. If the Imminent Sector ever is
> > > greater than the current Sector Count, it is instead set to 1.
> > > [does this rule even work like I want it to?]
> > > }
> > > Enact a new rule entitled "The Spacekeepor", with power 1.0 and the
> > > following text:
> > > {
> > > The Spacekeepor [name suggestions?] is an office; its holder is the
> > > recordkeepor of space. [I don't know if the second clause is even
> > > necessary but it sounds cool]
> >
> > Astronomor?
>
> Sure, if nobody has anything better.
>
> > > The Spacekeepor's Weekly Report shall include:
> > >
> > > 1. all players' Spaceship switches;
> > > 2. the current Imminent Sector;
> > > 3. a list of which players are in which sectors; and
> > > 4. all space battles that have occured since the last report.
> >
> > IIRC you don’t need to mention switches (they are already tracked by the
> > spacekeepor).
> > Don’t need to require listing players in sectors, that’s already a switch
>
> Redundancy is nice. But idk maybe I'll take it out.
>
> > > }
> > > Enact a new rule entitled "Spaceships", with power 1.0 and the following
> > > text:
> > > {
> > > Each active player has a set of Switches, collectively known as
> > > Spaceship switches, all tracked by the Spacekeepor. Each of the
> > > following is a Spaceship switch, with its possible values being any
> > > integer in the specified range:
> >
> > Probably a good idea for switches not to go away when a player becomes
> > inactive.
>
> Probably, I just don't want players fighting against their zombies.
>
> > > Sector, with an inclusive range of 1 to the current Sector Count;
> > >
> > > Energy, with an inclusive range of 0 to 20; and
> > >
> > >
> > > Armour, with an inclusive range of 0 t
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Reminder to claim violet ribbons
No way to take it back now, but for future reference, awarding someone a (non-grey) ribbon against eir will is not necessarily a boon, because it makes it marginally more difficult to qualify for a transparent ribbon in the future. You already have one, but ATMunn and Corona don't. (Nor does Trigon but presumably e knows what e's doing.) -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, November 1, 2018 5:46 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Oh foo, I award a Violet ribbon to each of the below-indicated persons > who doesn't have one yet. > > Notice of Honour > +1 twg (reminding us) > -1 Trigon (a little less helpful then twg here :P ) > > On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > Technically, any player can award any other player a ribbon e has earned. > > I'm not going to do that, though. I award myself a Violet Ribbon. > > On 10/30/2018 02:08 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > The following players earned Violet Ribbons for participating in PAoaM and > > > can still claim them up until Saturday: > > > ATMunn > > > Corona > > > G. > > > Trigon > > > (I internally debated with myself about whether to remind you, but my > > > fairness-loving side won out.) > > > -twg > > > > -- > > Trigon
