DIS: Re: (@treasuror) BUS: Using focus, Refiling device
On Wed, 2022-02-02 at 00:44 +, Trigon via agora-business wrote: > El 02/02/2022 a las 00:42, ais523 via agora-business escribió: > > On Tue, 2022-02-01 at 18:38 -0600, secretsnail9 via agora-business > > wrote: > > > I intend to refile the device, without objection, under the new title > > > "The Device OWO". > > > > I object: > > > > a) The Device is a switch, not a rule. > > b) The rule defining the Device is mentioned by name in another rule. > > Refiling it would break that reference. > > > > Rule 2654/21, paragraph 1, bullet point 4: > > * Any player CAN refile a Device without objection, specifying a > > new title; the Device is retitled to the specified title by > > this Device. Ah right – I forgot that was there (it's been a while since we added it though). I'm not sure it's a well-formed bit of ruletext, though. The Device doesn't have a title in the same sense that rules do, and I therefore don't think changing its title would rename it, so I continue to object but for a different reason – it should be given a title that's more like a title, rather than a name. (We have Patent Titles for this purpose already, although I suspect this would be a non-Patent title.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] quorum fix
On 2/1/2022 2:48 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2/1/22 16:38, Rose Strong via agora-discussion wrote: >> Unless I am completely misunderstanding the CFJ 3938 ruling a quorum can >> never be 1. >> > > That's under the current rules, due to the clause that would be changed > here. There's nothing inherently saying quorum can't be 1, that's just > what R879 says right now. I think it went negative at least once before we had that 2 limit on there.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] quorum fix
On 2/1/22 16:38, Rose Strong via agora-discussion wrote: > Unless I am completely misunderstanding the CFJ 3938 ruling a quorum can > never be 1. > That's under the current rules, due to the clause that would be changed here. There's nothing inherently saying quorum can't be 1, that's just what R879 says right now. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] quorum fix
Unless I am completely misunderstanding the CFJ 3938 ruling a quorum can never be 1. On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 4:08 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > I submit the following proposal, "sole quorum", AI-3. I pay a pendant to > pend it. > > --- > > Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by changing its power to 3. > > [the basic definition of quorum should be power-3 along with the rest of > voting, right?] > > > Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by replacing: > As an exception to the previous paragraph, the quorum of an > Agoran decision can never be less than 2. If the rules would > attempt to set the quorum of an Agoran decision to less than 2, > it is set to 2 instead. > with: > As an exception to the previous paragraph, the minimum quorum of > an Agoran decision is 2, or 1 if there are fewer than 2 players in > the game. If the rules would attempt to set the quorum of an Agoran > decision to less than the minimum quorum, it is set to the minimum > instead. > > [If 1 person is the only player, that should be quorum. Less than 1 is > game-breaking trouble, so minimum=1 protects extra against the final > deregistration] > > --- > >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [not-Arbitor] Judge List update
Please add me to the judge list. On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 12:58 PM Falsifian via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 08:51:11AM -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-official > wrote: > > > > This is the list from the last true Arbitor's report + a couple requested > > changes. Please reply to add/subtract yourself if desired... > > > > Regular Judges: > > ais523 > > Jason > > Murphy > > G. > > R. Lee > > > > Occasional Judges: > > Aspen > > Falsifian > > Please remove me. > > -- > Falsifian >
