Re: DIS: I don't want to CFJ, but let's just chat

[Quazie]

I'll add it to my long list of things to do.  I might get around to a
better writeup of the Agency rule today, if not, then tomorrow.

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:52 AM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't care if it's actually a problem or just appears to be one, we
> need to fix this. Care to write up a proposal Quazie?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Josh T 
> wrote:
> > If this is the case, I have no problem supporting such a proposal.
> >
> > 天火狐
> >
> > On 30 May 2017 at 14:26, Quazie  wrote:
> >>
> >> So grok left, and that's a bummer, but it's especially a bummer for me,
> >> the Superintendent - I think his agency still exists... there's nothing
> in
> >> the rule about Agencies that suggests it goes away, but I think the
> agency
> >> is fully neutered, as agencies only allow you to act on behalf of a
> player.
> >>
> >> Also - this likely means that PSS's agency to allow anyone to
> re-register
> >> em will never be effective.
> >>
> >> Let's not CFJ unless we need to, but I think we need to modify the
> Agency
> >> rule to allow the destruction of non-player Agencies at the least (or
> they
> >> will live `forever`)
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: I don't want to CFJ, but let's just chat

[Aris Merchant]

I don't care if it's actually a problem or just appears to be one, we
need to fix this. Care to write up a proposal Quazie?

-Aris

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Josh T  wrote:
> If this is the case, I have no problem supporting such a proposal.
>
> 天火狐
>
> On 30 May 2017 at 14:26, Quazie  wrote:
>>
>> So grok left, and that's a bummer, but it's especially a bummer for me,
>> the Superintendent - I think his agency still exists... there's nothing in
>> the rule about Agencies that suggests it goes away, but I think the agency
>> is fully neutered, as agencies only allow you to act on behalf of a player.
>>
>> Also - this likely means that PSS's agency to allow anyone to re-register
>> em will never be effective.
>>
>> Let's not CFJ unless we need to, but I think we need to modify the Agency
>> rule to allow the destruction of non-player Agencies at the least (or they
>> will live `forever`)
>
>

Re: DIS: I don't want to CFJ, but let's just chat

[Josh T]

If this is the case, I have no problem supporting such a proposal.

天火狐

On 30 May 2017 at 14:26, Quazie  wrote:

> So grok left, and that's a bummer, but it's especially a bummer for me,
> the Superintendent - I think his agency still exists... there's nothing in
> the rule about Agencies that suggests it goes away, but I think the agency
> is fully neutered, as agencies only allow you to act on behalf of a player.
>
> Also - this likely means that PSS's agency to allow anyone to re-register
> em will never be effective.
>
> Let's not CFJ unless we need to, but I think we need to modify the Agency
> rule to allow the destruction of non-player Agencies at the least (or they
> will live `forever`)
>

DIS: I don't want to CFJ, but let's just chat

[Quazie]

So grok left, and that's a bummer, but it's especially a bummer for me, the
Superintendent - I think his agency still exists... there's nothing in the
rule about Agencies that suggests it goes away, but I think the agency is
fully neutered, as agencies only allow you to act on behalf of a player.

Also - this likely means that PSS's agency to allow anyone to re-register
em will never be effective.

Let's not CFJ unless we need to, but I think we need to modify the Agency
rule to allow the destruction of non-player Agencies at the least (or they
will live `forever`)