Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Slightly less self-interested proposal
On 1/22/23 12:42, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: > Janet wrote: > [Currently, I'm effectively locked out of owning any actually useful stone without setting a Dream, which isn't really fair. If I attempt to >>> Is this actually true? I thought that had something to do with auctions, >>> which were repealed about a month ago, and any rule or regulation >>> actually putting the Stonemason on different footing may have been >>> repealed earlier than that (I spot-checked about four months back but >>> didn't spot anything relevant). >> The Mason's stone both does nothing and will generally be owned by me, >> and thus count towards the 30-day lockout for getting actually useful >> stones. > Seems like just repealing it would fix both issues. Does being the > Stonemason give any advantage on the 30-day thing? Again, I suspect > it was originally enacted to solve some problem that no longer exists. It would theoretically give the Stonemason first dibs after collection notices. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport
I wrote: =Metareport= You can find an up-to-date version of this report at http://zenith.homelinux.net/adop/report.php Date of last report: 2023-01-15 Date of this report: 2023-01-20 Unofficial CoE, accepted: "Date of this report" should have been 2023-01-22. (The script that generated the report uses the most recent event date, which is appropriate for the web site to not seem more up-to-date than it is, but potentially needs to be tweaked when copy/pasting it into e-mail. It usually isn't an issue for ADoP because there are usually some events earlier that day anyway, but I've got a thing this afternoon so I worked on it earlier than usual.)
DIS: Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] Experiment 00070 - Rule Selection
Janet wrote:
EXPERIMENT 00070 RULE SELECTION
As selected on Discord #botspam, the rule for this week is Rule 2630
("The Administrative State"). I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the
best of my knowledge, the process used in this selection had the correct
distribution.
Please send suggestions if you have them!
The text of Rule 2630 is reproduced below for convenience:
Rule 2630/2 (Power=2.0)
The Administrative State
Each officer CAN, with 1.5 Agoran consent, enact, amend, or repeal
eir own office's Administrative Regulations. If e has won an
election for the office in the last 7 days, e CAN repeal them by
announcement. Administrative Regulations have the following
properties:
1. An officer SHALL NOT violate requirements in eir office's
administrative regulations clearly intended to be punishable as
rules violations in the discharge of eir office.
2. Any player CAN act on behalf of an officer to exercise eir
official powers as authorized by eir office's administrative
regulations.
3. All players SHOULD abide by an officer's administrative
regulations in matters relating to eir area of responsibility.
Each officer CAN, with 1.5 Agoran consent, enact, amend, or repeal eir
own office's devices.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Slightly less self-interested proposal
Janet wrote: [Currently, I'm effectively locked out of owning any actually useful stone without setting a Dream, which isn't really fair. If I attempt to Is this actually true? I thought that had something to do with auctions, which were repealed about a month ago, and any rule or regulation actually putting the Stonemason on different footing may have been repealed earlier than that (I spot-checked about four months back but didn't spot anything relevant). The Mason's stone both does nothing and will generally be owned by me, and thus count towards the 30-day lockout for getting actually useful stones. Seems like just repealing it would fix both issues. Does being the Stonemason give any advantage on the 30-day thing? Again, I suspect it was originally enacted to solve some problem that no longer exists.
