DIS: mail of apology
Dear Agoran community, I have been offline since Thursday because I changed by provider. During this time I could not pull my duties, I am sorry for this. After reading 92 new mails (you were quite active!), I will publish some reports. You could punish me for not reporting of course, but first, the reports were not *that* important, second they will be published only one day to late and third, it wasn't my fault really. If there anyone is for a penalty, I have to say I lost many ergs, that *is* some kind of penalty. -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: Arresting
Warrigal wrpte: I believe I have 10 ergs and 21 rests. As many times as possible, I spend 3 ergs to destroy a rest in my possession. I'm sorry for not reporting yesterday or the day before yesterday. But you possessed only 7 ergs, so you spent 2*3 ergs to destroy 2 Rests. You have one erg left. -- PSM Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: Hey, I can do /this/ with ergs
Warrigal wrote: On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: I pay a fee to initiate an election for Pariah. If possible, I nominate myself. —Tanner L. Swett You are already nominated, because you are the current holder of that office. -- Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Arresting
omd worte: This needs to be a CoE. Hm, which error should I claim? I'm relatively sure e believed e had that amount of ergs and rests. And doing something as many times as possible is not an error of course. -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2860 assigned to Taral
Am Sonntag, den 19.09.2010, 15:48 -0700 schrieb Taral: On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Taral tar...@gmail.com wrote: The question on culpability in CFJ 2860 is judged NOT GUILTY by 1504(d). I award myself 2 capacitors for this judgement. Fails, the II of the CFJ is one, so you could have award yourself only one capacitor. The intent to increase the II without objections does not automatically increase it after four days, you have to do that manually. (see Rule 1728) -- Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2860 assigned to Taral
Am Montag, den 20.09.2010, 01:10 +0200 schrieb Keba: Am Sonntag, den 19.09.2010, 15:48 -0700 schrieb Taral: On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Taral tar...@gmail.com wrote: The question on culpability in CFJ 2860 is judged NOT GUILTY by 1504(d). I award myself 2 capacitors for this judgement. Fails, the II of the CFJ is one, so you could have award yourself only one capacitor. The intent to increase the II without objections does not automatically increase it after four days, you have to do that manually. (see Rule 1728) Hm, never mind. I have received your mail which sets the II to 2 after writing and sending my mail. My mail client tells me it has been sent at 22:48 though. I assume it's (or has been) a technical problem, the creation of the capacitors worked then. -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)
Am Donnerstag, den 16.09.2010, 20:07 -0400 schrieb comex: Proposal: individualism (AI=2, II=0, Distributable) Repeal Rule 2303 (Teams), Rule 2304 (The Referee), Rule 2305 (Fans), and Rule 2306 (Team Tactics). II=0? -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6834-6841 (Corrected)
Am Sonntag, den 12.09.2010, 22:16 +0200 schrieb Keba: Geoffrey Spear wrote: 6837 0 1.0 KebaLeet fix CoE: I have withdrawn this Proposal on or about 05/09/2010 10:58:09 (and submitted a similar proposal entitled Leet fix fix), so this proposal cannot be distributed. I transfer a prop from Wooble (for screwing it up) to ais523 (for both noticing the bug in Leet fix and telling me that the wrong proposal is distributed). This is still not fixed… -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals 6834-41 are probably failing quorum due to succession weirdness
Geoffrey Spear wrote: If I haven't voted yet, I vote AGAINST each proposal from 6834-6841; without a recent referee's report I can't be bothered to figure out who's on my team, and I'm not voting FOR an interested proposal by a non-team-member as a protest against our Honored Speaker messing up offices to get a few Fans for eir team. No, there isn't any scam. I tried to cause the team situation to be as it should be, if the Referee had done the team split as soon as possible. (It's not eir fault, because it's not easy to do so without a PSM's report) Also, I intend with 2 Senate support to begin an Emergency Session, as we've been successfully invaded from Blognomic. An invasion consisting of one player? (Or miss I someone?) Did I do anything wrong to deal me out? -- Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals 6834-41 are probably failing quorum due to succession weirdness
Am Freitag, den 17.09.2010, 10:13 -0400 schrieb Geoffrey Spear: On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Keba ag...@kebay.org wrote: An invasion consisting of one player? (Or miss I someone?) Did I do anything wrong to deal me out? One player? Blognomic's Riddler took direct action to make you the Speaker; this conspiracy touches the highest levels of both BN and Agora. Do you refer to ais523? E has played Agora before playing BN (according to the Registar, ais523 joined Agora on 28 Apr 08 and e joined BN on 08 Feb 09, months later. [1]) I wouldn't say e comes from BN. Additionally, my scam was a lot of luck and ais523 didn't care much about being the speaker (and I assume e didn't care who is the speaker either) and helped me doing so. That has nothing to do with my membership in BN. (by the way, I'm idling there, in one of ais523's dynasties!). ais523 would have helped any player to do the same scam I did. Well, I thought the emergency sessions were invented for invasions like 10 friends join and want to gain some power by working together and not for one player who becomes speaker within a month. [1] http://blognomic.com/archive/unidling15/ And certainly it's no coincidence that our most vehement anti-invasion Player, Sgeo, has been strangely silent recent *and* is Idle in Blognomic. -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: Okay, I don't have the energy to get this running
Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: and I doubt enough people would be interested anyway. I intend, with notice and with 3 support, to cause Space Alert to cease to be a contest. Sorry for the bother. I support. (I planned to do so as well anyway) -- Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Assumption bug
Am Mittwoch, den 15.09.2010, 17:01 -0700 schrieb Kerim Aydin: On Thu, 16 Sep 2010, Keba wrote: Additionally, I don't understand why G. do not want to post eir Rest record, if e already collected information on it. Without rancor, I'm exploring the end product/consequences of that loophole; which is a follow-up loophole that an officer can hold information hostage. Call it counter-play to the scam (We seem to be in a big loophole-exploitation phase at the moment). Well, does it counter-play my scam really? I resigned the office meanwhile I do not have - like you or coppro - to take the duty of reporting. No one *has* to do this job. I assume many (or at least some, for example me) are discouraged to report, because they know there is already a report. Assumption also allows two people to regularly switch offices and not ever have a weekly report due, or witness Yally holding an office until the last minute (for nearly two weeks as Granulator?) and being able to resign with no penalty. Here's an update of an old rule we used to have, feel free to implement: When an officer ceases to hold an office, e SHALL, asap, make a reasonable attempt to publish all records related to that office as they stood at the moment of eir ceasing to hold it. Failure to do so is the Class-S crime of Shredding the Files, where S is the interest index of the office. Otherwise I think the awards, once the bug is fixed, are sufficient. I don't really think further benefits are needed. Oh, a duty to report right before resigning. I have thought of some similar mechanism, but I this one. Is there (or can anyone remember) any reason for repealing that part? ps. dropped in on IRC a few times this week but didn't happen to see you and I couldn't stay long; quite possibly we are merely time-zone challenged. Possible. If anyone is interested in this information: I'm living in Germany (GMT+2, because it's summer time) and are - generally - online after school (12-13 UTC), sometimes in the afternoon and generally after 8 o'clock (UTC) up to 11, 12 o'clock. -- Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: a-rest-ing
Kerim Aydin wrote: On Tue, 7 Sep 2010, Keba wrote: [Generally, this could be done by the CotC very well, but both the CotC and the Herald got to do too many jobs, so we are ready for a new office.] I agree, but let me offer a puzzle. Refactor the following jobs into three offices, balanced for both theme and workload: Rests Fragments Leadership Tokens Teams/Fans Patent Titles Ribbons I have thought about re-officing Agora a rather long time, I'm sorry for answering so late. My attempt: Herald gets Patent Titles, Ribbons and Fragments Referee gets Teams/Fans and Leadership Tokens Police get rests. Granulator goes away. The police should also deal with NoVs. Fragments have nothing to do with the Herald's job. The most appropriative office would be the Promotor, I assume. But this office is overloaded as well. (Well, if Promotor Tanner L. Swett wants to do that, okay!) Or we do not remove the Granulator, but make eir repots monthly? For balance, the police could pick up Ribbons or Fragments, but that's not very thematic. Right, and I don't like to mix the law offices with game-play offices I assume I will propose something this week. -- Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: ditto
Ed Murphy wrote: Keba wrote: Keba wrote: Twice. Tanner L. Swett has now 1 erg left. Well, no. Tanner L. Swett does not possess any ergs anymore. Sorry. The quoted message containing Twice hasn't come through (presumably it also clarified how many of the Pariah's rests omd destroyed). Here it arrived, but rather late. Did you get that mail meanwhile? If not: omd's erg destroying worked three times and e possesses no ergs anymore. -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2861 assigned to Tanner L. Swett
Warrigal wrote: If possible, I award myself a farad for the above judgement. You gained a farad for judging, so you may gain a capacitor for this farad. -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2861 assigned to Tanner L. Swett
Am Dienstag, den 14.09.2010, 12:54 +0200 schrieb Keba: Warrigal wrote: If possible, I award myself a farad for the above judgement. You gained a farad for judging, so you may gain a capacitor for this farad. Oh sorry, you didn't gain a farad, because this CFJ's II is 0. -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Sysadmin] Because this /still/ hasn't been initiated correctly
Taral wrote: On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Warrigal ihope12...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: I deputise for the Sysadmin to initiate an Agoran Decision as to which Website Submission to select. The options available are Website Submission 1 (by Murphy), Website Submission 2 (by ais523), and NO WINNER; the text of the submissions is shown near the end of this email. The vote collector is the Sysadmin. I endorse the first of these four whose vote is for a submission: Murphy, ais523, Taral, the next office-holder that replies to this email with AOL!. What, no preferences, really? I don't care about the website. -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: ooh
Am Sonntag, den 12.09.2010, 20:22 -0400 schrieb Sean Hunt: I make myself the Pariah. Hm, if I'm right you gained 23 rests for doing so (if making yourself the Pariah means assuming the Pariah), because you were the Pariah for a few hours? Was this intended? -- Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: ditto
Keba wrote: Twice. Tanner L. Swett has now 1 erg left. Well, no. Tanner L. Swett does not possess any ergs anymore. Sorry. -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6842-6846
omd wrote: If the initial NoV was invalid and if this is possible, I pay a fee to publish a NoV identical to the above, contest it, and initiate a criminal case on it. Fails, you do not possess any ergs. -- PSM Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: ditto
Ed Murphy wrpte: omd wrote: As many times as possible, I pay a fee to destroy an erg in The Pariah's possession. H. PSM Keba, how many times did this work? (I need to update rest counts in the Assessor DB to determine whose votes are nullified.) Three times. omd has now 0 ergs left. Tanner L. Swett wrote: As many times as possible, I pay a fee to destroy a Rest in my possession. Ditto. Twice. Tanner L. Swett has now 1 erg left. -- PSM Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: grammer fix
ais523 wrote: On Sun, 2010-09-12 at 23:27 +0200, Keba wrote: I intend without objection to clean Rule 2303 Teams by replacing: a unique with: an unique I object. In most accents, unique starts with a y phoneme, which is a consonant. English can be weird like that... Hm, maybe I have pronounced it in a wrong way for years... -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: Energy carryover
Am Sonntag, den 12.09.2010, 18:25 -0400 schrieb omd: On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 4:56 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: I pay fees to create 3 capacitors. I pay a fee to create a capacitor. I pay a fee to create a capacitor. They both fail. Tue 07 Sep 18:49 omd D Capa Thu 09 Sep 03:00 omd S (for a charge of 5 ergs) You own one erg. -- Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The new top 5
Kerim Aydin wrote: On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, omd wrote: I pay a fee (5 ergs) to move Tiger down to the fifth position on the List of Succession. I pay a fee (0 ergs) to move Taral up to the fifth position on the List of Succession. I believe the first move would cost 10 ergs (jump over ais523 and Wooble) so would fail (I don't think you have 10 ergs?). R2284: If the indicated player is unable to be so moved due to eir position on the list, but can be moved at least one position in the indicated direction, e is moved the maximum amount possible and charged the appropriate partial fee. So I (the assumed PSM) assume moving Tiger down one position has worked. -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6834-6841
Ed Murphy wrote: Keba wrote: Geoffrey Spear wrote: I resign as Promotor. I transfer a prop from Wooble (because problems are not solved by resigning) to Andon (because e will not be listed in the ATC's report separately anymore then). CoE: Ineffective, Andon is no longer a player. (I was otherwise going to transfer a prop back to Wooble for attempting a creative workaround.) You both are right of course. -- Keba
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: The FSCN
Warrigal wrote:
I submit a proposal, titled Capacitative Accumulability, AI = 2, II
= 1, Tiger as coauthor:
{Amend Rule 2289 by appending to the first paragraph, Polarisation is
a capacitor switch with values Charging (default) and Discharging. Any
player CAN by announcement destroy a Discharging capacitor in eir
possession to gain an erg.
Amend Rule 2282 by replacing All ergs and capacitors are destroyed
with All ergs are destroyed and For each capacitor . . . its former
owner. with All capacitors become Discharging.
Amend rule 2284 by replacing A player CAN award emself a capacitor
for a charge of 3 ergs. with A player CAN award emself a Charging
capacitor for a charge of 4 ergs.}
What do you think? Would you all vote for this?
Hm, I would prefer some entity which we can transfer ergs to. For a
charge of two ergs, a player can transfer another erg to $foo, where
$foo is a team. All member of this team may use these ergs then (Or may
do so with support of at least 50% of the team, may only use 50% or
X*ergs-they-spent of the ergs, or what ever protection you like).
As I invented the PM, I would like the PM (or another second-class
player) to be said entity, but this is not necessary.
I am against doing nothing and saving money in the mean time.
Additionally, I am not sure whether For each capacitor . . . its former
owner. is clear enough.
--
Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: The new top 5
Am Mittwoch, den 08.09.2010, 14:46 -0700 schrieb Kerim Aydin: On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, Keba wrote: Keba wrote: I Bestow Favors: 1. Tanner L. Swett 2. Tiger 3. ais523 4. Wooble 5. coppro If this failed, I Bestow Favors: 1. Kitchen Staff Supervisor: Tanner L. Swett 2. Justiciar: ais523 3. Grand Vizier: Tiger 4. Head Gardener: Wooble 5. Crown Prince: coppro Do you have some particular reason to think this failed that I should look at and confirm? The first one seemed ok at first glance to me. -G. Ah, I got it right first time and then thought there was a mistake, I don't think there was. Well, I should go to bed now. -- Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Darn.
Am Dienstag, den 07.09.2010, 08:41 -0400 schrieb Geoffrey Spear: On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Keba ag...@kebay.org wrote: Thu 02 Sep 19:56 G. DU In case of emergency Sun 05 Sep 14:07 G. D Coup Bug Fix Sun 05 Sep 14:11 G. D Reward Urgency where DU means distributing an Urgent Proposal. At the time this purportedly-urgent proposal was submitted, there was no rule stating that making an urgent proposal distributable cost extra. The rule change was not retroactive. Ah, you're right, haven't noticed this scam. Sorry. -- Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Perpetuum mobile
Am Dienstag, den 07.09.2010, 09:00 -0400 schrieb Geoffrey Spear: On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Keba ag...@kebay.org wrote: Keba wrote: I intend without two objections, to flip the Distributability of my proposal entitled Perpetuum mobile to distributable. Received no objections, I do so. [Damn it, I should have done so yesterday...] Fails; there is no proposal with that title in the Pool. There should be. On Mon 30 Aug 0:12 I have written: I withdraw this Proposal and submit a new Proposal entitled A Perpetuum mobile is possible (AI=2, II=2), because I forgot the Cleanup procedure for the VC. I wrote this after my indentation, but that's not important. -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Pool report
Keba wrote: URGENT PROPOSAL title: Demarcation chamber: Purple ai: 2.0 interest: 1 proposer: omd submit_date: 2010-09-04 submit_mid: aanlktik-txo=8e4qo1mszmhng77_dqtnta91fjan3...@mail.gmail.com distributability: undistributable distributability flipped: 2010-09-04 00:00:00 Make all players Unmarked. I intend, without two objections, to distribute this Proposal, as it was made undistributable because to slow it's decision down, I don't think anyone needs to pay three ergs again here. I also intend so without three objections. [c/p is never a good idea.] -- Keba
Re: DIS: The FSCN
Warrigal wrote: On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Keba ag...@kebay.org wrote: Hm, I like the weekly destroying of ergs and capacitors, because I like the way the current economy works, so I am against a manual destroying. Well, one of our stated purposes is to allow players to accumulate power. How do you propose that this be accomplished? —Tanner L. Swett I haven't answered here? Hm, strange... Well, if you like my idea of the PM we could propose team PMs wich work similiar than the real PM. Or maybe the PM is team-based generally, and all players default to a team. We could then create a FSCN team an join. That could be fun, I would wonder if the FSCN PM would not be abused for scams. -- Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: White Renaissance
Am Dienstag, den 07.09.2010, 16:20 -0400 schrieb omd:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Keba ag...@kebay.org wrote:
Proposal White Renaissance (AI=1, II=1, distributable via fee)
{{{
Amend Rule 2199 Ribbons by removing:
(except for White Ribbons, which can be awarded at any time
within a month after they are earned)
[So, no one possesses a White Ribbon anymore and White Ribbons are not
needed for a Renaissance win]
}}}
Why were White Ribbons removed in the first place?
See CfJ 2836. White Ribbons only exist because of that phrase, if this
phrase is deleted, all white ribbons are deleted as well.
--
Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: White Renaissance
Am Dienstag, den 07.09.2010, 17:06 -0400 schrieb omd: On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Keba ag...@kebay.org wrote: Why were White Ribbons removed in the first place? See CfJ 2836. White Ribbons only exist because of that phrase, if this phrase is deleted, all white ribbons are deleted as well. Yeah, why did their regular definition get removed? I like them. -- Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: White Renaissance
Am Dienstag, den 07.09.2010, 17:06 -0400 schrieb omd: On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Keba ag...@kebay.org wrote: Why were White Ribbons removed in the first place? See CfJ 2836. White Ribbons only exist because of that phrase, if this phrase is deleted, all white ribbons are deleted as well. Yeah, why did their regular definition get removed? I like them. Proposal 6794 removed it. This Proposal was enacted with 24 FOR and 17 AGAINST votes (5 players FOR and 6 players AGAINST). You voted five times FOR and so had the ability to reject it. If you want to, you could say they had been removed because of you. -- Keba
DIS: The bug is too nice to be not exploited
If any player starts today or tomorrow two coups at once (and no coup other than mine was initiated), I promise to destroy the thereby eventually gained rests (max. 4) within two weeks. Note, Taral, woogle and Murphy could do this for free. You could become the speaker this way and I could get one or two Leadership Tokens. Sounds as a nice deal. -- Keba
Re: DIS: The bug is too nice to be not exploited
Kerim Aydin wrote: On Sun, 5 Sep 2010, Keba wrote: If any player starts today or tomorrow two coups at once (and no coup other than mine was initiated), I promise to destroy the thereby eventually gained rests (max. 4) within two weeks. Note, Taral, woogle and Murphy could do this for free. You could become the speaker this way and I could get one or two Leadership Tokens. Sounds as a nice deal. This bug was pointed out by several so using it might be Bad Form; in any case, I intend to redraft the Bug Fix proposal to cancel and all effects of any coups started except the first one. -G. Hm, I see your point. Well, I assume I was upset, because I did not found the bug myself in the right moment (it could lead to theoretical infinitive wins) and tried to exploit it anyways. Maybe I should just realize that I missed this unique possibility and should live with it. I retract my offer for obvious reasons. -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: And the new speaker is...
Kerim Aydin wrote: On Sat, 4 Sep 2010, Kerim Aydin wrote: I rebel. Down with the, er... -G. For everyone who rebels after this message, if the rebellion fails, I'll destroy their rebellion rest (at the rate of 2 rests total destroyed per week until they're gone). -G. If the rebellion fails, I promise to reward everyone who states they do not rebel (and they neither rebel nor have done rebelled): The first one who does so, will jump to the first position on the list, the second one to the second position and so on (up to the 5th position) This has the same effect (for you) as rebelling, but is much safer. -- Keba
Re: DIS: The FSCN
Warrigal wrote: On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: I think that could be accomplished by making capacitors a bit more accumulable. Are they tradeable, for example? I'd say up the price for creating them out of ergs, and instead make it so that they don't automatically go back to erg form at the start of a week, but rather have to be transformed by the player. Yes, I think this would work really well. Just make it so that capacitors persist from week to week and have to be converted manually. I'm for it. Sgeo, Keba, any comments? Hm, I like the weekly destroying of ergs and capacitors, because I like the way the current economy works, so I am against a manual destroying. But capacitors could and should be used for other purposes. Or farads could be useful for another purpose than converting them into capacitors. -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of proposals 6830-6833
Geoffrey Spear wrote: Denied. The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal at any time, and it's no longer ILLEGAL to do so during the week it was made Distributable. Hm, you're right. I'm sorry. 6833 G 1 1.0 KebaLeet Leadership FOR -- Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Leet Leadership
Warrigal wrote: That should be exactly 1337. I suggest adding a clause like this: If there is ambiguity about the number of words in a proposal (for example, if there are hyphenated words), it SHOULD be interpreted as containing exactly 1337 words, if possible. Thus, people don't have to avoid ambiguous things like bilge-pump in their proposals; they can just include them and it will be good enough. Or we define a word as everything between two whitespaces except whitespecaes. Feel free to propose your fix ;) -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6822 - 6829
Warrigal wrote: 6824 G 1 3.5 KebaRights are important AGAINST. Setting a rule's power greater than 3 is dangerous, as it ends up taking precedence over rules that are supposed to be omnipotent. Shouldn't rights take precedence over *all* other rules? 6825 G 1 1.5 KebaWe don't need them AGAINST. Yes, we do need them; the Fearmongor uses one of them. E does? E proposed to repeal R1950, amend R208 and create a new rule? Well, why are the Fearmongor Proposals not included in this proposal batch? -- Keba
Re: DIS: The FSCN
Warrigal wrote: Sgeo and I have created an informal alliance, which we're calling the FSCN. The goal of the FSCN is to bring its own members a disproportionate amount of power within Agora, and keep it. We shall accomplish this by promoting proposals giving power to the elite, and allowing players to accumulate power that cannot easily be taken from them. We're looking for up to three other people to join. Who's interested? —Co-Founder Tanner L. Swett I would like to join, as I like team play. -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Granulator election
Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: I vote for Keba. Thanks, seems I could have taken the office, if I showed more interest for it. But the voting period had ended about a quarter hour before you submitted your vote, so it's invalid. -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: cleaner fees
Keba wrote: I intend without objection to clean Rule 2283 Fees by replacing An attempt to performed a fee-based action is also implicitly a claim to be in possession of sufficient ergs with An attempt to perform a fee-based action is also implicitly a claim to be in possession of sufficient ergs Having received no objections, I do so. -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: [Ex-ATC] Ex-Flight Ex-Schedule
Ed Murphy wrote: Unofficial, but fully caught up and accurate AFAIK Oh thank you for doing my job ;) Well, I intended to report on Sunday because the PSM could need the information on Monday then (hm, meanwhile I have to announce changes like Foo becomes Pilot so there is no real reason for reporting on Sunday, but there is no reason for *not* reporting on Sunday either) Anyway, your unofficial report is incorrect. The last report was on 22 Aug, not on 14 Aug and you missed: Fri 27 Aug 08:54:13 coppro: coppro ais523 (power bug) So, ais523 has 23 props and coppro 16. -- the real ATC Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not a cronjob
Sean Hunt wrote: I set this Case's II to 1. I intend, without 3 objections, to set this Case's II to 2. I intend, without 2 objections, to set this Case's II to 3. NTTPF. The latter intend fails, as you may only increase or decrease a Case's II by one. -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6811-6821
Warrigal wrote: 6818 G 1 3.0 KebaUrgent Limit AGAINST; urgent proposals are already limited by the fact that distributing them costs three ergs. Well, the proposal did not intend to restrict the Urgent Limit of one player, that's done by ergs and one player can propose many things in a single Urgent Proposal, but Agora would become rather fast, if there were lots of Urgent Proposals pending. Note that interested Urgent Proposals are not more expensive than creating a capacitor, at least in the case the Urgent Proposal is adopted. -- Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Enemy] Threat
You know that the attempt to rename the City, omd's objection to this attempt, the CoE and the NoV were all sent to the discussion mailing list and have therefore no effect? -- Keba
DIS: *test*
I assume my email client has made a mistake, this message should just be ignored. -- Keba
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6811-6821
Geoffrey Spear wrote: Proposal 6821 (Purple, AI=2.1, Interest=1) by G. (coauth: coppro/The Robot) Relisting [...] Amend Rule 2255 to read: A rule with a power equal to or greater than this rule may associate a Position Name with a specific position on the List of Succession. The player occupying a named position on the list is considered to be the holder of the names position and have the powers and duties described by the Rules for that position. The holder of a so-named position is a Member of the Court, (a Courtier). Additionally, a rule with a power equal to or greater than this rule may associate an integer Influence Level with a specific position or positions on the List of Succession. The following positions on the List of Succession are named, and have indicated Influence Levels. All other positions on the list have an Influence Level of 2. First Position: Kitchen Staff Supervisor Influence Level: 10 Position: The Kitchen Staff Supervisor supervises the kitchen staff. Second Position: Justiciar. Influence Level: 7 Position: The Justiciar is granted particular abilities or privileges associated with the judicial process as described elsewhere in the Rules. Third Position: Grand Vizier Influence Level: 5 Position: The Grand Vizier CAN, With Notice, perform any action that an officer both CAN and MAY (or SHALL) perform by virtue of holding that office. Fourth Position: Head Gardener. Influence Level: 5 Position: the Head Gardener CAN rubberstamp or veto a specified decision by announcement. Fifth Position: Crown Prince Influence Level: 0 Position: The Crown Prince CAN begin a coup by announcing the ceremonial shelling of the palace, providing no coup has been resolved in the last 14 days. The effects of the coup (if any) are as described elsewhere in the rules. Well, what's about a scam like I change my name to Crown Prince (or any other Courtier)? I don't know whether the voting limits are increased by re-naming, but at least the special duties and powers should apply, if coppro's (or the Robot's?) scam worked. Maybe many players vote for this Proposal, because they intend to change their names at the beginning of next week? -- Keba
Re: DIS: PM protosal
former owner and for each erg destroyed in item (a), it’s former owner becomes a Lab Labour for this week and e powers the PM once. Amend Rule 2284 Fee-based actions by adding: - A Player CAN become a Lab Labour for the following seven days for a charge of two ergs. - A Player CAN power the PM for a charge of one erg. [What does this do? Well, imagine what could be done with a player who possesses lots of ergs and is controllable by a few ergs. To give some examples: The fan/team mechanism becomes much more interesting, voting via the PM is nice, any fee-based action (except destroying ergs) can be performed for a charge of one erg, objections and supports can be bought for a low fee etc.] }}} Of course I have lots of ideas related to the PM like a Ribbon for the Power Spender, other rewards for using the PM or more bot-PM acts, but I assume they should be proposed later. -- Keba
Re: DIS: PM protosal
Warrigal wrote: Perpepuum isn't a word, to my knowledge; perhaps you're after the phrase perpetual motion machine. Labour means job or physical task, so Lab Worker might work better there. —Tanner L. Swett Perpepuum mobile is Latin for perpetual mobile machine and should be ok as a name and I chose the name Lab Labour because it sounds nice (yeah, I know the lab of Laboratory is pronounced differently than the lab of labour...), but Laboratory Worker is more correct of course. Well, maybe I'll change that name to Lab Worker. -- Keba
Re: DIS: PM protosal
Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 26 Aug 2010, Keba wrote: The Perpepuum mobile (PM) is a person and active player. Has an actual fix for The Robot scam been proposed yet? If so I like this, if not... -G. Well, it's not clear whether the scam has worked, but there should be a fix for it, right. Maybe the easiest way would be to state (not in a Rule, only in the Proposal text) that a player named Perpepuum mobile (if any) is renamed to eir former name, wouldn't it? -- Keba
Re: DIS: PM protosal
Geoffrey Spear wrote: I intend to vote against any proposal that includes an act-on-behalf mechanism of any kind. Oh, why? Just because of bad experiences of the past? -- Keba
Re: DIS: PM protosal
com...@gmail.com wrote: Sent from my iPhone On Aug 25, 2010, at 9:03 PM, Keba ag...@kebay.org wrote: Perpepuum mobile is Latin for perpetual mobile machine Perpetuum actually, though I like Lab Labour Oh, you're right. Well, you should never look up a word and use it often with a mistake of wrong spelling... -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6811-6821
Kerim Aydin wrote: AGAINST (bad collision with relisting) AGAINST (collision) AGAINST (collision) I see your point, but if the possible collision is the only reason for voting against, I recommend to vote conditionally. -- Keba
Re: DIS: PM protosal
Oh my god, the mail looks terrible, I'm sorry. Switched to an email client, should be better in the future ;) -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: Hoisting one's own wormhole
Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: Uh, yeah, the shuttle is in a wormhole right now. It has been warped and disappeared, but I think that was deemed to mean destroyed. So, yeah, wooble probably just won. We have omd to thank for firing the laser cannon whose recoil caused the shuttle to shoot backwards. Congratulations, wooble. Maybe an interesting IRC quote (17 Aug, times are gmt+2): (14:47:02) ais523: why are you doing enemy duties? (15:04:48) Wooble: because I'm the enemy. (15:08:54) ais523: I mean, why did you become the enemy? (15:09:16) Wooble: I mostly wanted the ribbon. (15:09:50) ais523: if I were to become enemy just for the ribbon, I'd either make the map very short, along the lines of @@ (15:10:04) ais523: or I'd try my best to play as a really powerful Enemy, exploiting every exploit I could (15:10:27) Wooble: yes, also to keep your from exploiting it. :P (15:10:31) Wooble: you* (I assume quoting public fora should be legitim, even without asking?) -- Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Hoisting one's own wormhole
Sean Hunt wrote: On 08/19/2010 04:58 PM, Keba wrote: (I assume quoting public fora should be legitim, even without asking?) It's a discussion forum. Oh, discussion fora are not public fora? Nice to know :) -- Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: OK Go
Kerim Aydin wrote: More from the ancient archives. I think it should come back, it scarcely needs modification to do so (maybe a cost jiggle, and an MMI edit): Rule 1724/8 (Power=1) Urgent Proposals A Proposal is Urgent if all the following conditions are met: i) the text of the message wherein it is submitted explicitly states that it is an Urgent Proposal, ii) The Proposal is Interested. An Urgent Proposal has its Distribution Cost increased by 1. The Promotor may distribute an Urgent Proposal as soon as it becomes Distributable, and e is required to do so within five days. Failure to do so is the Class 1 Infraction of Lack of Urgency, which may be reported by any Player. The Voting Period of an Urgent Proposal is five days from the time the Proposal is distributed. -G. Hm, that sounds nice, but need to be rewritten. Class 1 Infraction should be Class-1-Crime and Rule 107 states: Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the voting period for a decision with at least two options cannot be shorter than seven days. -- Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: OK Go
Kerim Aydin wrote: Here we go, simple proto, Urgency, AI-3: Amend R107 by replacing: Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the voting period for a decision with at least two options cannot be shorter than seven days. with: The voting period for a decision with at least two options is secured at seven days. Amend R2284 (Fee-based actions) by replacing: - A player CAN make a proposal Distributable for a charge of 1 erg. with: - A player CAN make a non-urgent proposal Distributable for a charge of 1 erg. - A player CAN make an urgent proposal Distributable for a charge of 3 ergs. Enact the following rule, Power-3, Urgent Proposals: A Proposal is Urgent if all the following conditions are met: i) the text of the message wherein it is submitted explicitly states that it is an Urgent Proposal, ii) The Proposal is Interested. The Promotor CAN distribute an Urgent Proposal as soon as it becomes Distributable, and e SHALL do so within five days unless it becomes undistributable in the mean time. Failure to do so is the Class 1 Crime of Lack of Urgency, which may be reported by any Player. The Voting Period of an Urgent Proposal is five days from the time the Proposal is distributed. Nice. I thought about a with N support (or without N objetions) phrase, but this way is much better. If there is anyone who wants to pay a fee to make an Urgent Proposal undistributable. Maybe we should say that undistribute a Urgent Proposal costs only one Erg? Additionally, if you propose this, I‘ll propose a limit of Urgent Proposals. A player MAY NOT submit a Urgent Proposal, if there are already N (or more) distributable Urgent Proposals in the Proposal pool. What’s a good value for N? Maybe 3? I assume it’s important to put the limit into another Proposal, so both are more likely to pass. -- Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: OK Go
ais523 wrote: How about: Making a decision's voting period shorter than seven days is secured if the decision has at least two options. Buggy; secured only works against changes, specifically, so it would allow a decision to be created with a short voting period. A more direct attempt: Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the voting period for a decision with at least two options cannot be shorter than seven days, except a Rule with a power of 3 or higher explicitly states so. Maybe a power of 3 should be a power higher or equal than the power of this Rule. -- Keba
Re: DIS: To repair listlessness v0.2
Kerim Aydin wrote: Proto: Reinventing The List v0.2 (AI-2) AI should be 2.1 because of Create the following Rule, Leader Bootstrap, power-2.1:, shouldn’t it? I like most of the idea, but I don’t want DICE rolls here. The Rebbel system should work differently. 1/3 of all active Players could be a nice value? Additionally, couldn’t Leader Bootstrap work without a Rule? I don’t like these Do something, wait and repeal me-rules. Besides, the current government should occupy the first positions. And I really like the current voting system. Maybe we could combine Chamber with this list? For example: Player who occupy a Position with modulo 3 = 0, 1 or 2 have a green, red or purple chamber, respectively and the Speaker can chose eir Chamber. The Courtiers could have some additional advantage, but not that much, because they have already some special power. The voting advantage in your portosal is - in my opinion - much too high. This leads to another question: Does Win by Clout really need to be repealed? -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: Last-day proposals
Sean Hunt wrote:
Proposal: Super Robot Powers (AI=1, II=1, Distributable via fee)
{{{
The Robot can, by announcement, cause this rule to amend any other
rule of equal power, provided that it does so in a message
of at least 1000 words.
}}}
-coppro
I assume it would be better to put this into the Rules?
--
Keba
DIS: Thesis archive?
Does anyone saved all (or at least the most recent) theses? First, theses should not only be written just to gain Degrees, but to be useful as well. Second, if ais523 fix eir thesis, I am not sure which Degree it‘s worth, because I don‘t have any comparison. Murphy mentioned in eir Website submission[1] an old thesis archive[2], but this archive is an *really* old and out to date one. So, did anyone saved theses? If not, is there anyone with a (searchable) mail archive for the last years who wants to do the (re)search? How do you think about an office for theses or a duty for another office (maybe the Herald?)? [1] http://zenith.homelinux.net/website_submission/ [2] ftp://ftp.cse.unsw.edu.au/pub/users/malcolmr/nomic/articles/agora-theses/library.html -- Keba
Re: DIS: Thesis archive?
Ed Murphy wrote: Blob's archive includes the theses for all but three degrees (ais523, coppro, me): http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2009-April/019440.html http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2009-November/007387.html http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-November/008338.html as well as one (Andre's) that was not awarded a degree. Oh, thank you :) -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: Crimes are NOT accepted!
Keba wrote:
Proposal: We live in hard times (AI=3, II=1, undistributable)
{{{
Amend Rule 2125 by adding this text to the last paragraph:
Violation of a Rule is a Class-2-Crime.
[2 additional Rests for each Crime, because players should not think
violation is ok, only because destroying a Rest is not expensive.]
}}}
I withdraw the Proposal and submit a new one: Hard times, tape
two (AI=2, II=1, undistributable, co-author: omd)
{{{
Amend Rule 2230 by replacing:
When a NoV becomes Closed, a number of Rests are created in the
possession of the Accused equal to the Class of the specified
Crime, or in its absence the Power of the violated rule, rounded
up.
with:
When a NoV becomes Closed, a number of Rests is created in the
possession of the Accused two higher than the Class of the
specified Crime, or in its absence the Power of the violated
rule, rounded up.
[2 additional Rests for each Crime, because players should not think
violation is ok, only because destroying a single Rest is not
expensive.]
}}}
I intend, without 3 objections, to flip the Proposal entitled Hard
times, tape two to distributable.
[Let me quote the IRC to explain this: (times are GMT+2)
(00:59:13) comex: Keba: that's a bad idea
(00:59:27) Keba: comex: why?
(00:59:30) comex: (I think)
(00:59:31) comex: because then you could prosecure someone for either
the rule that says you can't violate rules, or the rules you actually
violated
(00:59:38) comex: and the accused could use that to his advantage
(01:00:54) comex: well, you can only be punished once per action
(01:01:14) comex: so you could NoV yourself and close it
(01:01:34) comex: I'm not sure whether noving again for the other rule
is possible these days, but it would be an arguable violation of R101
anyway
]
--
Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: OK Go
comex wrote: [I've complained repeatedly about the length of time currently required to adopt proposals, which can have a significant negative effect on the game. Since the current proposal volume really isn't all that high (if it were, this would be too chaotic), I think that BlogNomic-style immediate distribution is not only feasible, but a significant improvement over what we have now, and not too much extra work for the Assessor or voters.] Just an information for the non BlogNomic players here: BlogNomic is rather fast, some players (including IenpwIII and me) say it‘s too fast. I voted FOR many propsoals, while I might would have voted against it, because of theoretically scams, if I had more time to so so. But I would like a way to adopt *really* important Proposals fast. Maybe an Agoran decision could be created directly with 4 support and by paying 4 ergs? -- Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: NoV: the ATC should take duties more seriously
Am Freitag, den 13.08.2010, 00:00 -0500 schrieb Aaron Goldfein: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 20:28, Keba ag...@kebay.org wrote: -- Keba If you don't mind me asking, who are you? Have you played Agora before (you awarded yourself a white ribbon as if you hadn't). If not, how much time have you spent watching the game? It's clear you have a strong understanding of the Agoran rules, customs, etc. -Yally Oh, maybe I should have written a That‘s me mail. Well, I‘ll introduce myself in this mail then. :) To start with personal data first: I‘m a 16 year old guy from Germany (UTC+2). No, I have not played Agora before. In the middle of January I joined Blognomic, because I read about Nomics in a (German) blog and searched and easy-to-join one. Agora does not intend to be that easy to join, but Blognomic does. ais523 plays both Blognomic and Agora, meanwhile coppro does so, too. Ienpw has played Agora for a long time and comex is at least well known in our IRC channel. So, Agora was a name for me. After some of my Proposals were declined, because they were too complicated (at least for newcommers), I decided to take the challenge to join Agora. That‘s about one week ago. I found out, that you have lots of nice Rules, the stone-paper-scissors voting system, the Ribbons, offices (and their weekly reports), a law-like CfJ system and multiple win conditions, to give a few examples. I read about Zaraday then, and decided to join on this holiday. I read the Ruleset and asked many times in your IRC channel for some information. The IRC channel and especially coppro help me to get into the Agoran society. This time, coppro helped me formulating the NoV. -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: NoV: the ATC should take duties more seriously
Aaron Goldfein wrote: I also initiate an election to decide the holder of the ATC office. Murphy seems to be overburdened controlling two highly critical offices (CotC and Assessor), and hasn't found time to regularly update us on air traffic issues. I nominate myself as ATC. I nominate myself as ATC, too. -- Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: NoV: the ATC should take duties more seriously
Ed Murphy wrote: coppro wrote: Proposal: Low altitude (AI = 1, II = 0, distributable by fee) Keba is a co-author of this proposal, unless e announces within a week after the publication of this proposal that e is not. Amend Rule 2287 (Props) by replacing this text: The Air Traffic Controller is an office and the recordkeepor of props. with this text: The Air Traffic Controller is an office and the recordkeepor of props; prop records are part of eir monthly report. a) The proposal just makes them part of the weekly and monthly reports. Not so. Rule 2166 (Assets) just says [The recordkeepor]'s report includes Rule 2143 (Official Reports and Duties) says Any information defined by the rules as part of an office's report, without specifying which one, is part of its weekly report. but the proposal would prevent this from being triggered. I agree here and will vote for the proposal. b) You can't have future-conditional actions like that. You're right, Rule 106 specifies unambiguously ... when it was submitted. Yes, but I am ok with the co-author status. :) -- Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Victory conditions should sound similary
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 09:36, Keba ag...@kebay.org wrote:
Proposal: Win by Respect (AI=1, II=0, distributable)
{{{
Amend Rule 2287 Props by replacing:
A player with 30 or more props CAN destroy all eir
props to
satisfy the Winning Condition of Respect. 14 props are
then
created in that player's possession.
with:
Upon a win announcement that one or more players each
possess at
least 30 props, all those players satisfy the Winning
Condition
of Respect.
Cleanup procedure: For each of those players, all props
are
destroyed and 14 props are created in their possession.
}}}
[Each Winning Condition should (if needed) specify a cleanup
procedure (R2186)]
--
Keba
This does have the consequence of meaning that any player can force a
player with 30+ props to win, while the original wording does not. I
find it very likely that a player who has accumulated 30+ props may
not want to give them up for a win, as he would be losing pilot (and
probably captain) status and with that, erg income.
First, I don‘t assume there are players who think an erg income is more
important than winning. If the win itself is not enough, winning means
becoming the speaker. So the winner is able to form a government and
therefore become an important minister. Are 2 additional ergs per week
more important than (e.g.) a 1.5 times higher voting limit?
Second, if there are such players (you?), they could simply spend their
props to other players, so they won‘t get more than 30 Props.
--
Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: *Wakes up after a multi-month nap*
Warrigal wrote: Waking up after a multi-month nap seems like a good idea to me. I become active. I sit. I change my nickname to Tanner L. Swett. —Tanner L. Swett, now one of the few Agorans who uses his real name for Agora but a nickname for his From line wrong mailing list. -- Keba
DIS: Re: OFF: Hello World!
Keba wrote: I hereby intend to become a Player. [Why do I join? Well, it‘s Zaraday!] I am so sorry to write my first two mails to the wrong mailing list. I hope your first impression of Keba is not that bad then... -- Keba
