DIS: Re: BUS: prop

[Aaron Goldfein]

On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 18:52, Sean Hunt  wrote:
> I transfer a prop from Yally to Warrigal, as Yally inexcusably missed
> Warrigal's registration.
>
> -coppro
>

I still do not see when this occurred. Perhaps I didn't receive the
email with the recent list problems?

DIS: Re: BUS: prop

[Warrigal]

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:15 AM, comex  wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 6:22 AM, Ed Murphy  wrote:
>> coppro wrote:
>>
>>> I transfer a prop from Yally to Warrigal, as Yally inexcusably missed
>>> Warrigal's registration.
>>
>> I transfer a prop from coppro to Yally, as coppro identified the wrong
>> thing (Yally missed Warrigal's activation not registration) and it's
>> potentially excusable (depending on whether e failed to subscribe to
>> the backup lists at all, failed to filter them to folders in a way e
>> would properly notice, etc.).
>>
>
> I transfer a prop from Yally to coppro, as I don't believe this
> outweighs coppro's complaint.

I transfer a prop from Murphy, for thinking that coppro's prop
transfer was punishable, to comex, for reversing the punishment.

--uorygl

DIS: Re: BUS: Prop

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Proposal: The Robot (AI=2, II=1, Distributable via fee)
> {{{
> Enact a power-2 Rule entitled "The Robot" with the text:
>   There exists a person and active player called The Robot. The
>   Robot CANNOT be deregistered or become inactive, rules to the
>   contrary notwithstanding.
> 
>   Any first-class player (the controller) CAN in a public message
>   and for a fee of N ergs, clearly designate a portion of that
>   message to be a public message sent by The Robot. This is
>   INEFFECTIVE if The Robot's message consists of more than N
>   words, or if The Robot's message refers to another message or
>   uses a contrived shorthand in an attempt to reduce the word
>   count. In the latter case, the controller is also guilty of the
>   Class-4 Crime of Backquoting, and the judge of a criminal case for
>   that crime SHALL issue a judicial declaration as to the
>   effectiveness of the message.
> }}}

Cool idea, but "contrived shorthand" gives far too much room for debate
considering we generally find such things perfectly legal.  -G.

DIS: Re: BUS: Prop

[scshunt]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 18:12:33 -0400, omd  wrote:
> Proposal: Refactor contracts (AI=2, II=1, Distributable via fee)
> Coauthors: Murphy, ais523
> 
> Amend Rule 1742 (Contracts) by replacing this text:
> 
>   Parties to a contract SHALL act in accordance with that
>   contract.  This obligation is not impaired by contradiction
>   between the contract and any other contract, or between the
>   contract and the rules.
> 
>   As it is manifestly unjust to bring criminal punishment into a
>   manner of equity, if a player is found GUILTY of violating this
>   Rule by failing to act in accordance with a contract that has
>   never been a partnership, the only appropriate sentence is
>   DISCHARGE, unless said failure is with respect to a
>   previously-imposed Equity judgement.
> 
> with this text:
> 
>   Parties to a contract SHALL act in accordance with that
>   contract.  This obligation is not impaired by contradiction
>   between the contract and any other contract, or between the
>   contract and the rules.  However, if a player is found GUILTY
>   of violating this rule by failing to act in accordance with
>   an Equitable contract, then the only appropriate sentence is
>   DISCHARGE, unless the failure pertains to a previously-imposed
>   equity judgement.

Wait, what?

-coppro

DIS: Re: BUS: Prop transfer

[Elliott Hird]

On 29/09/2008, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I transfer a prop from myself to tusho for attempting to build a
> spinner control for the Assessor's vote entry form.  (I couldn't
> figure out how to adapt it to multiple controls per page, so ended
> up adapting a different example.  But the effort is appreciated.)
>

It works just the same for multi ones. Already coded.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: prop

[Warrigal]

On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Aaron Goldfein  wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 18:52, Sean Hunt  wrote:
>> I transfer a prop from Yally to Warrigal, as Yally inexcusably missed
>> Warrigal's registration.
>>
>> -coppro
>>
>
> I still do not see when this occurred. Perhaps I didn't receive the
> email with the recent list problems?

Search BAK for "this i do it".

--Warrigal

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: prop

[Ed Murphy]

Warrigal wrote:

> Should I bother calling an inquiry case on whether this message
> performs the action quoted below? I think it should, though I have not
> kept up with cases lately, so I don't know whether it does.
> 
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Warrigal  wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:15 AM, comex  wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 6:22 AM, Ed Murphy  wrote:
 coppro wrote:

> I transfer a prop from Yally to Warrigal, as Yally inexcusably missed
> Warrigal's registration.

 I transfer a prop from coppro to Yally, as coppro identified the wrong
 thing (Yally missed Warrigal's activation not registration) and it's
 potentially excusable (depending on whether e failed to subscribe to
 the backup lists at all, failed to filter them to folders in a way e
 would properly notice, etc.).

>>>
>>> I transfer a prop from Yally to coppro, as I don't believe this
>>> outweighs coppro's complaint.
>>
>> I transfer a prop from Murphy, for thinking that coppro's prop
>> transfer was punishable, to comex, for reversing the punishment.

I'm treating it as unsuccessful, as it was unclear whether you
intended TTttPF or not.  (Of course, nothing is stopping you from
re-posting with an explicit TTttPF.)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Prop

[comex]

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>       Any first-class player (the controller) CAN in a public message
>>       and for a fee of N ergs, clearly designate a portion of that
>>       message to be a public message sent by The Robot. This is
>>       INEFFECTIVE if The Robot's message consists of more than N
>>       words, or if The Robot's message refers to another message or
>>       uses a contrived shorthand in an attempt to reduce the word
>>       count. In the latter case, the controller is also guilty of the
>>       Class-4 Crime of Backquoting, and the judge of a criminal case for
>>       that crime SHALL issue a judicial declaration as to the
>>       effectiveness of the message.
>> }}}
>
> Cool idea, but "contrived shorthand" gives far too much room for debate
> considering we generally find such things perfectly legal.  -G.

Indeed... might be more interesting if Fans were only gained for
unspent ergs, so you'd have to choose between getting more Fans and
having The Robot send messages.  But in any case, better to make
Backquoting POSSIBLE but ILLEGAL.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Prop

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >>       Any first-class player (the controller) CAN in a public message
> >>       and for a fee of N ergs, clearly designate a portion of that
> >>       message to be a public message sent by The Robot. This is
> >>       INEFFECTIVE if The Robot's message consists of more than N
> >>       words, or if The Robot's message refers to another message or
> >>       uses a contrived shorthand in an attempt to reduce the word
> >>       count. In the latter case, the controller is also guilty of the
> >>       Class-4 Crime of Backquoting, and the judge of a criminal case for
> >>       that crime SHALL issue a judicial declaration as to the
> >>       effectiveness of the message.
> >> }}}
> >
> > Cool idea, but "contrived shorthand" gives far too much room for debate
> > considering we generally find such things perfectly legal.  -G.
> 
> Indeed... might be more interesting if Fans were only gained for
> unspent ergs, so you'd have to choose between getting more Fans and
> having The Robot send messages.  But in any case, better to make
> Backquoting POSSIBLE but ILLEGAL.

Well, it makes it very hard to use standard practices.  For example,
> Proposal 7001
FOR
> Proposal 7002
FOR

Taking this example, is "FOR P7001" a reasonable shorthand?  It
certainly would be if I sent it, no one would question it.  How
about "FOR P7001-7003"  Is that 3 votes for the same price as 1?
It certainly isn't contrived by Agoran standards, just concise.

-G.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Proletarian Revolution

[VJ Rada]

Doesn't this incentivise not having any money and spending all you get
quickly on other things?

Huh, working as intended then I guess.

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> On an alternate email address due to technical issues.
>
> I create the following proposal “Proletarian Revolution” with AI 1 and pend
> it with AP: {{{
>
> Create a Power 1 rule titled “The Hot Potato” with the following text: {{
>
> The player with the most shinies is said to have the Hot Potato.
>
> Combustibility is defined as (x/500)*(y/30) where x is the difference
> between the lowest and highest player shiny balances, and y is the number of
> days in the past 30 days in which the current holder of the Hot Potato has
> held the Hot Potato at any point in the day. If Combustibility would be
> greater than 1 according to the above formula, it is instead defined as 1.
>
>
> The Pyromaniac is an office.
>
>
> Once per day, the Pyromaniac SHALL randomly select whether or not Combustion
> occurs, such that the probability of Combustion occurring is equal to the
> current Combustibility. If Combustion occurs, the Pyromaniac SHALL announce
> this publicly. The Pyromaniac NEED NOT announce that Combustion has not
> occurred. When Combustion occurs, half of the current Hot Potato holder’s
> shinies are evenly distributed among the remaining players, with players
> registered for a longer period of time receiving more shinies if even
> division is not possible.
>
> }}
> Make Gaelan the Pyromaniac.
>
> }}}
>
> Gaelan



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Prop transfer

[Ed Murphy]

tusho wrote:

> On 29/09/2008, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I transfer a prop from myself to tusho for attempting to build a
>> spinner control for the Assessor's vote entry form.  (I couldn't
>> figure out how to adapt it to multiple controls per page, so ended
>> up adapting a different example.  But the effort is appreciated.)
>>
> 
> It works just the same for multi ones. Already coded.

I tried replacing this:
  
with this:
  
  
and it generated two pairs of buttons, but one pair was the wrong size,
and they both affected the same input control.

Anyway, I just went with inline JS (since the input controls are
generated by a loop anyway).  Also, due to the usual nature of input,
I replaced the half-height ^ and v buttons with full-height + (add 1)
and ! (increase to maximum) buttons.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Prop transfer

[Elliott Hird]

On 29 Sep 2008, at 02:27, Ed Murphy wrote:

I tried replacing this:
  
with this:
  max="10">
  max="10">
and it generated two pairs of buttons, but one pair was the wrong  
size,

and they both affected the same input control.



Ah. Oh dear. I probably should have tested multiple controls. :-)


Anyway, I just went with inline JS (since the input controls are
generated by a loop anyway).  Also, due to the usual nature of input,
I replaced the half-height ^ and v buttons with full-height + (add 1)
and ! (increase to maximum) buttons.


Yeah, I just made a generic spinner control as I didn't know what it was
for at the time. :-P

Good to know you got something working.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Proletarian Revolution

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 9, 2017, at 3:15 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> Doesn't this incentivise not having any money and spending all you get
> quickly on other things?
> 
> Huh, working as intended then I guess.

Yup, exactly. It’s a nuclear lottery: accumulating a critical mass of shinies 
will eventually cause you to blow up.

I like it. However, it should account for Organizations (and, eventually, 
Contracts, if and when that passes). Otherwise, players can trivially dodge the 
mechanic through Organizations. (This problem is shared with every other 
wealth-tax proposal.)

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Proletarian Revolution v2

[Cuddle Beam]

If this passes, I'm up for allying up with other players to even out our
Shinies to help dodge being the hot potato (we can automatize it with
Agencies/Contracts too, so that we always have our "real" amounts available
and limited to just that, while all of our shiny balances are equal).
Ideally, we'd keep all of our balances below 50 so that we can toss Welcome
Packages to newbies/other people to make them the Hot Potato, when needed.

On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 5:52 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> I’ve learned my lesson about insta-pending. I create this proposal
> “Proletarian Rerevolution” with AI 1 by Gaelan and o: {{{
>
> Create a Power 1 rule titled “The Hot Potato” (or amend it, if it already
> exists) with the following text: {{
>
> For the purposes of this rule, the Wealth of a player may be calculated by
> taking their shiny balance, then, for each organization they are a member
> of, adding the shiny balance of that organization divided by that
> organization’s member count, rounded down.
>
> The player with the largest Wealth value is said to have the Hot Potato.
>
>
> Combustibility is defined as (x/500)*(y/30) where x is the difference
> between the lowest and highest player Wealth values, and y is the number of
> days in the past 30 days in which the current holder of the Hot Potato has
> held the Hot Potato at any point in the day. If Combustibility would be
> greater than 1 according to the above formula, it is instead defined as 1.
>
>
> The Pyromaniac is an office.
>
>
> Once per day, the Pyromaniac SHALL randomly select whether or not
> Combustion occurs, such that the probability of Combustion occurring is
> equal to the current Combustibility. If Combustion occurs, the Pyromaniac
> SHALL announce this publicly. The Pyromaniac NEED NOT announce that
> Combustion has not occurred. When Combustion occurs, half of the current
> Hot Potato holder’s shinies are evenly distributed among the remaining
> players, with players with lower wealth receiving more shinies if even
> division is not possible. Then, for each organization the Combusted player
> is a member of, a portion of the organization’s shiny balance, calculated
> via the formula 1/(2x) where x is the number of members, is evenly
> distributed among all players, breaking ties with players with lower wealth
> receiving more shinies if even division is not possible.
>
> If the rules define a concept known a as a Contract, any player may cause
> this rule to amend itself by announcement, replacing the word
> “organization” with “contract” and “member” with “party,” then removing
> this paragraph. If the current date is after November 2017, any player may
> cause this rule to amend itself by removing this paragraph.
>
> }}
> Make Gaelan the Pyromaniac.
>
> }}}
>
> Gaelan
>

DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Proletarian Revolution v2

[Aris Merchant]

First, I'm distributing tomorrow (for clarity, between 12 and 24 hours
from now), and it would simplify my operations somewhat if you could
pend this before then.

Second, I'm concerned about the way you're handling organizations (and
thus contracts). It seems likely to disproportionately and unfairly
impact communal service organizations. I would suggest using the
principle of "effective control", which I invented for my Card Reform
and Expansion proposal. The idea is that if someone controls money, it
should be counted as theirs, but if they don't it shouldn't. In this
case it would mean that half of all money that an
organization/contract owns that a person controls is transferred to
Agora. The phrasing "effective control" is vague enough that judges
can work out the details in accordance with fairness and common sense.
For instance, if a person is the sole member of an organization and
can unilaterally amend it, e probably controls its money even if its
charter doesn't say so. I believe that this creates a system that is
fairer while maintaining adaptability. For the sake of full
disclosure, I'm likely to vote at least PRESENT anyway, mostly because
I disagree with fear as mechanism of encouraging spending (effective,
but not very friendly). I do commend you for the amount of thinking
that has obviously gone into this.

-Aris

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 8:52 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> I’ve learned my lesson about insta-pending. I create this proposal
> “Proletarian Rerevolution” with AI 1 by Gaelan and o: {{{
>
> Create a Power 1 rule titled “The Hot Potato” (or amend it, if it already
> exists) with the following text: {{
>
> For the purposes of this rule, the Wealth of a player may be calculated by
> taking their shiny balance, then, for each organization they are a member
> of, adding the shiny balance of that organization divided by that
> organization’s member count, rounded down.
>
> The player with the largest Wealth value is said to have the Hot Potato.
>
>
> Combustibility is defined as (x/500)*(y/30) where x is the difference
> between the lowest and highest player Wealth values, and y is the number of
> days in the past 30 days in which the current holder of the Hot Potato has
> held the Hot Potato at any point in the day. If Combustibility would be
> greater than 1 according to the above formula, it is instead defined as 1.
>
>
> The Pyromaniac is an office.
>
>
> Once per day, the Pyromaniac SHALL randomly select whether or not Combustion
> occurs, such that the probability of Combustion occurring is equal to the
> current Combustibility. If Combustion occurs, the Pyromaniac SHALL announce
> this publicly. The Pyromaniac NEED NOT announce that Combustion has not
> occurred. When Combustion occurs, half of the current Hot Potato holder’s
> shinies are evenly distributed among the remaining players, with players
> with lower wealth receiving more shinies if even division is not possible.
> Then, for each organization the Combusted player is a member of, a portion
> of the organization’s shiny balance, calculated via the formula 1/(2x) where
> x is the number of members, is evenly distributed among all players,
> breaking ties with players with lower wealth receiving more shinies if even
> division is not possible.
>
> If the rules define a concept known a as a Contract, any player may cause
> this rule to amend itself by announcement, replacing the word “organization”
> with “contract” and “member” with “party,” then removing this paragraph. If
> the current date is after November 2017, any player may cause this rule to
> amend itself by removing this paragraph.
>
> }}
> Make Gaelan the Pyromaniac.
>
> }}}
>
> Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Proletarian Revolution v2

[Aris Merchant]

Correction: all players, not Agora.

-Aris


On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 11:25 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> First, I'm distributing tomorrow (for clarity, between 12 and 24 hours
> from now), and it would simplify my operations somewhat if you could
> pend this before then.
>
> Second, I'm concerned about the way you're handling organizations (and
> thus contracts). It seems likely to disproportionately and unfairly
> impact communal service organizations. I would suggest using the
> principle of "effective control", which I invented for my Card Reform
> and Expansion proposal. The idea is that if someone controls money, it
> should be counted as theirs, but if they don't it shouldn't. In this
> case it would mean that half of all money that an
> organization/contract owns that a person controls is transferred to
> Agora. The phrasing "effective control" is vague enough that judges
> can work out the details in accordance with fairness and common sense.
> For instance, if a person is the sole member of an organization and
> can unilaterally amend it, e probably controls its money even if its
> charter doesn't say so. I believe that this creates a system that is
> fairer while maintaining adaptability. For the sake of full
> disclosure, I'm likely to vote at least PRESENT anyway, mostly because
> I disagree with fear as mechanism of encouraging spending (effective,
> but not very friendly). I do commend you for the amount of thinking
> that has obviously gone into this.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 8:52 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> I’ve learned my lesson about insta-pending. I create this proposal
>> “Proletarian Rerevolution” with AI 1 by Gaelan and o: {{{
>>
>> Create a Power 1 rule titled “The Hot Potato” (or amend it, if it already
>> exists) with the following text: {{
>>
>> For the purposes of this rule, the Wealth of a player may be calculated by
>> taking their shiny balance, then, for each organization they are a member
>> of, adding the shiny balance of that organization divided by that
>> organization’s member count, rounded down.
>>
>> The player with the largest Wealth value is said to have the Hot Potato.
>>
>>
>> Combustibility is defined as (x/500)*(y/30) where x is the difference
>> between the lowest and highest player Wealth values, and y is the number of
>> days in the past 30 days in which the current holder of the Hot Potato has
>> held the Hot Potato at any point in the day. If Combustibility would be
>> greater than 1 according to the above formula, it is instead defined as 1.
>>
>>
>> The Pyromaniac is an office.
>>
>>
>> Once per day, the Pyromaniac SHALL randomly select whether or not Combustion
>> occurs, such that the probability of Combustion occurring is equal to the
>> current Combustibility. If Combustion occurs, the Pyromaniac SHALL announce
>> this publicly. The Pyromaniac NEED NOT announce that Combustion has not
>> occurred. When Combustion occurs, half of the current Hot Potato holder’s
>> shinies are evenly distributed among the remaining players, with players
>> with lower wealth receiving more shinies if even division is not possible.
>> Then, for each organization the Combusted player is a member of, a portion
>> of the organization’s shiny balance, calculated via the formula 1/(2x) where
>> x is the number of members, is evenly distributed among all players,
>> breaking ties with players with lower wealth receiving more shinies if even
>> division is not possible.
>>
>> If the rules define a concept known a as a Contract, any player may cause
>> this rule to amend itself by announcement, replacing the word “organization”
>> with “contract” and “member” with “party,” then removing this paragraph. If
>> the current date is after November 2017, any player may cause this rule to
>> amend itself by removing this paragraph.
>>
>> }}
>> Make Gaelan the Pyromaniac.
>>
>> }}}
>>
>> Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] The Lint Screen

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:


I create the proposal “The Lint Screen” with AI 1 by Gaelan:
{{{
Create a rule “The Lint Screen” with Power 1: {{
The Lint Screen is a singleton switch, tracked by the Promotor with 
possible values including all lists of text. The default value is an 
empty list. The items in the list SHOULD contain a list of common errors 
in proposals. Any player CAN flip The Lint Screen by adding, modifying, 
or removing an item with Consent.

}}


"Agoran Consent"


Add this as a new paragraph to 2445 “How to Pend a Proposal:” {{
It is IMPOSSIBLE to pend a proposal unless the pended and at least one 
other player have publicly stated that they have reviewed (“linted”) the 
proposal for the issues listed in the Lint Screen.

}}


"Append this" - or is "Add this" unambiguous enough?

"unless the pender"

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] The Lint Screen

[Aris Merchant]

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> I create the proposal “The Lint Screen” with AI 1 by Gaelan:
> {{{
> Create a rule “The Lint Screen” with Power 1: {{
> The Lint Screen is a singleton switch, tracked by the Promotor with possible 
> values including all lists of text. The default value is an empty list. The 
> items in the list SHOULD contain a list of common errors in proposals. Any 
> player CAN flip The

I would suggest "any text". It's clearer, and what is a list of text anyway?

Lint Screen by adding, modifying, or removing an item with Consent.
> }}

Agoran consent?

> Add this as a new paragraph to 2445 “How to Pend a Proposal:” {{
> It is IMPOSSIBLE to pend a proposal unless the pended and at least one other 
> player have publicly stated that they have reviewed (“linted”) the proposal 
> for the issues listed in the Lint Screen.

I think you mean pender.


I have two concerns about this proposal.

1. Complexity. This proposal would make pending a proposal more
complicated, probably discouraging proposals. Getting another player
to look over a proposal is just a pain, especially for minor fix
proposals.

2. Promotorial headache. I don't object to tracking the lint screen,
that's easy (note that it would probably be in a separate report). I
object to having to track the public statements of linting. Frankly,
it sounds unnecessarily complicated. You could fix this by making it a
SHALL NOT, but that just makes it the referee's problem (although e
cannot generally be carded for not carding someone).

Solution to both problems:

{{ It is IMPOSSIBLE to pend a proposal unless the pender states, in
same message e pends the proposal in, that e has reviewed (“linted”)
the proposal for the issues listed in the Lint Screen.}}

This means that there's essentially no extra work for me to do, while
the pender merely has to look over it emself, not persuade someone
else to do it. Note that if someone doesn't satisfactorily lint the
proposals e pends enough times, e can be carded for lying (as soon as
Truthfulness passes anyway).

-Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Not so cuddly now

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Sep 5, 2017 11:57 PM, "Gaelan Steele"  wrote:

I create the following proposal “Not So Cuddly Now” with AI 1 by Gaelan: {
diff --git a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora b/rules/How to Join and
Leave Agora
index 4683d3d..962eb2c 100644
--- a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
+++ b/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
@@ -66,7 +66,8 @@ text: |
   If e does so, e CANNOT register by announcement for 30 days.

   If a player has not sent a message to a public forum in the last
-  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection.
+  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection or
+  with 2 Agoran Consent.

   The Rules CANNOT compel non-players to act, nor compel players
   to unduly harass non-players.  A non-person CANNOT be a player,
}

[This is both a legitimate proposal and an experiment. I’m happy to
re-submit it as a “normal” proposal if that’s what people prefer.]


I would like an exception that a player cannot be deregistered with two
Agoran consent if that player objects. But I understand that isn't the
point.


-grok

DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Not so cuddly now

[Cuddle Beam]

Hrm, counterplay via changing the rules is going to be easier/quicker now I
feel, we have 2 free proposals per week.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> I create the following proposal “Not So Cuddly Now” with AI 1 by Gaelan: {
> diff --git a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora b/rules/How to Join and
> Leave Agora
> index 4683d3d..962eb2c 100644
> --- a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
> +++ b/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
> @@ -66,7 +66,8 @@ text: |
>If e does so, e CANNOT register by announcement for 30 days.
>
>If a player has not sent a message to a public forum in the last
> -  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection.
> +  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection or
> +  with 2 Agoran Consent.
>
>The Rules CANNOT compel non-players to act, nor compel players
>to unduly harass non-players.  A non-person CANNOT be a player,
> }
>
> [This is both a legitimate proposal and an experiment. I’m happy to
> re-submit it as a “normal” proposal if that’s what people prefer.]

DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Not so cuddly now

[Aris Merchant]

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> [This is both a legitimate proposal and an experiment. I’m happy to re-submit 
> it as a “normal” proposal if that’s what people prefer.]

I don't object to this as a one time "does it even work" experiment,
but I don't like the idea of it becoming any more common than that.

-Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Not so cuddly now

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 6, 2017, at 12:56 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> 
> I create the following proposal “Not So Cuddly Now” with AI 1 by Gaelan: {
> diff --git a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora b/rules/How to Join and Leave 
> Agora
> index 4683d3d..962eb2c 100644
> --- a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
> +++ b/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
> @@ -66,7 +66,8 @@ text: |
>   If e does so, e CANNOT register by announcement for 30 days.
> 
>   If a player has not sent a message to a public forum in the last
> -  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection.
> +  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection or
> +  with 2 Agoran Consent.
> 
>   The Rules CANNOT compel non-players to act, nor compel players
>   to unduly harass non-players.  A non-person CANNOT be a player,
> }

Without getting into the structure of the proposal, I’m very much against the 
intent - if we’re going to allow idle players to be thrown out even over 
objections, it should take a supermajority, not a fixed threshold of two 
players.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Not so cuddly now

[Gaelan Steele]

That’s fair, although simply sending a message to a-b kills it anyway.

Gaelan
> On Sep 5, 2017, at 10:00 PM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:
> 
> On Sep 5, 2017 11:57 PM, "Gaelan Steele"  > wrote:
> I create the following proposal “Not So Cuddly Now” with AI 1 by Gaelan: {
> diff --git a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora b/rules/How to Join and Leave 
> Agora
> index 4683d3d..962eb2c 100644
> --- a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
> +++ b/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
> @@ -66,7 +66,8 @@ text: |
>If e does so, e CANNOT register by announcement for 30 days.
> 
>If a player has not sent a message to a public forum in the last
> -  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection.
> +  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection or
> +  with 2 Agoran Consent.
> 
>The Rules CANNOT compel non-players to act, nor compel players
>to unduly harass non-players.  A non-person CANNOT be a player,
> }
> 
> [This is both a legitimate proposal and an experiment. I’m happy to re-submit 
> it as a “normal” proposal if that’s what people prefer.]
> 
> I would like an exception that a player cannot be deregistered with two 
> Agoran consent if that player objects. But I understand that isn't the point.
> 
> 
> -grok



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Not so cuddly now

[grok (caleb vines)]

Does it? I'm not 100% convinced that's the case, but I'm not about to
provide arguments at midnight if I don't have to.


-grok

On Sep 6, 2017 12:01 AM, "Gaelan Steele"  wrote:

That’s fair, although simply sending a message to a-b kills it anyway.

Gaelan

On Sep 5, 2017, at 10:00 PM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:

On Sep 5, 2017 11:57 PM, "Gaelan Steele"  wrote:

I create the following proposal “Not So Cuddly Now” with AI 1 by Gaelan: {
diff --git a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora b/rules/How to Join and
Leave Agora
index 4683d3d..962eb2c 100644
--- a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
+++ b/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
@@ -66,7 +66,8 @@ text: |
   If e does so, e CANNOT register by announcement for 30 days.

   If a player has not sent a message to a public forum in the last
-  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection.
+  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection or
+  with 2 Agoran Consent.

   The Rules CANNOT compel non-players to act, nor compel players
   to unduly harass non-players.  A non-person CANNOT be a player,
}

[This is both a legitimate proposal and an experiment. I’m happy to
re-submit it as a “normal” proposal if that’s what people prefer.]


I would like an exception that a player cannot be deregistered with two
Agoran consent if that player objects. But I understand that isn't the
point.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Not so cuddly now

[V.J Rada]

and u can use qaz to pend free proposals, just sayin'. it's one of the
pm's powers.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:06 PM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:
> Does it? I'm not 100% convinced that's the case, but I'm not about to
> provide arguments at midnight if I don't have to.
>
>
> -grok
>
>
> On Sep 6, 2017 12:01 AM, "Gaelan Steele"  wrote:
>
> That’s fair, although simply sending a message to a-b kills it anyway.
>
> Gaelan
>
> On Sep 5, 2017, at 10:00 PM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:
>
> On Sep 5, 2017 11:57 PM, "Gaelan Steele"  wrote:
>
> I create the following proposal “Not So Cuddly Now” with AI 1 by Gaelan: {
> diff --git a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora b/rules/How to Join and Leave
> Agora
> index 4683d3d..962eb2c 100644
> --- a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
> +++ b/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
> @@ -66,7 +66,8 @@ text: |
>If e does so, e CANNOT register by announcement for 30 days.
>
>If a player has not sent a message to a public forum in the last
> -  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection.
> +  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection or
> +  with 2 Agoran Consent.
>
>The Rules CANNOT compel non-players to act, nor compel players
>to unduly harass non-players.  A non-person CANNOT be a player,
> }
>
> [This is both a legitimate proposal and an experiment. I’m happy to
> re-submit it as a “normal” proposal if that’s what people prefer.]
>
>
> I would like an exception that a player cannot be deregistered with two
> Agoran consent if that player objects. But I understand that isn't the
> point.
>
>
> -grok
>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Not so cuddly now

[V.J Rada]

>>Does it? I'm not 100% convinced that's the case, but I'm not about to provide 
>>arguments at midnight if I don't have to.

You should be: if a player sends a message to a-b while the objection
stage is still ongoing, the actual deregistration can't happen.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:10 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> and u can use qaz to pend free proposals, just sayin'. it's one of the
> pm's powers.
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:06 PM, grok (caleb vines)  
> wrote:
>> Does it? I'm not 100% convinced that's the case, but I'm not about to
>> provide arguments at midnight if I don't have to.
>>
>>
>> -grok
>>
>>
>> On Sep 6, 2017 12:01 AM, "Gaelan Steele"  wrote:
>>
>> That’s fair, although simply sending a message to a-b kills it anyway.
>>
>> Gaelan
>>
>> On Sep 5, 2017, at 10:00 PM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 5, 2017 11:57 PM, "Gaelan Steele"  wrote:
>>
>> I create the following proposal “Not So Cuddly Now” with AI 1 by Gaelan: {
>> diff --git a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora b/rules/How to Join and Leave
>> Agora
>> index 4683d3d..962eb2c 100644
>> --- a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
>> +++ b/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
>> @@ -66,7 +66,8 @@ text: |
>>If e does so, e CANNOT register by announcement for 30 days.
>>
>>If a player has not sent a message to a public forum in the last
>> -  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection.
>> +  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection or
>> +  with 2 Agoran Consent.
>>
>>The Rules CANNOT compel non-players to act, nor compel players
>>to unduly harass non-players.  A non-person CANNOT be a player,
>> }
>>
>> [This is both a legitimate proposal and an experiment. I’m happy to
>> re-submit it as a “normal” proposal if that’s what people prefer.]
>>
>>
>> I would like an exception that a player cannot be deregistered with two
>> Agoran consent if that player objects. But I understand that isn't the
>> point.
>>
>>
>> -grok
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J Rada



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Not so cuddly now

[Aris Merchant]

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> [This is both a legitimate proposal and an experiment. I’m happy to 
>> re-submit it as a “normal” proposal if that’s what people prefer.]
>
> I don't object to this as a one time "does it even work" experiment,
> but I don't like the idea of it becoming any more common than that.
>
> -Aris

To expand on what I said, my opinion is based on the idea that
automation should be aimed at making things easier for people, not the
other way around. To me, a proposal written as a diff is significantly
harder to read than one written in prose. That's fine once, with a
short proposal like this, where the whole thing is simple and easy to
understand. However, if it was used for longer proposals, or more
regularly, that would become an annoyance.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Not so cuddly now

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 1:32 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> 
> Consent, not support. This requires 60%.

Oh, so it does. I retract my complaint - the two looked the same at first 
glance.

> Thanks for the reminder; I pend this with AP.
> 
> P.S. To clarify: this is not an attempt to kick out Cuddle or any other 
> currently active player. The only goal is to allow us to clean up old players 
> as we normally do (Cuddle is objecting to all deregistrations for some hand 
> wavy reason about things being permanently lost.)

If Aris’ proposed contract machinery allows it, I’m going to find a way to 
perpetually or automatically object to deregistering omd.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Not so cuddly now

[Cuddle Beam]

One of the reaosns is that they're eligible for Welcome Packages to drain
Agora to tactically stall out having other people gain any cash from Agora
(for example, during an auction).

I have my reasons lol, I just don't like to tell them.

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 7:32 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> Consent, not support. This requires 60%.
>
> Thanks for the reminder; I pend this with AP.
>
> P.S. To clarify: this is not an attempt to kick out Cuddle or any other
> currently active player. The only goal is to allow us to clean up old
> players as we normally do (Cuddle is objecting to all deregistrations for
> some hand wavy reason about things being permanently lost.)
>
> Gaelan
> > On Sep 6, 2017, at 10:01 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Sep 6, 2017, at 12:56 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> >>
> >> I create the following proposal “Not So Cuddly Now” with AI 1 by
> Gaelan: {
> >> diff --git a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora b/rules/How to Join and
> Leave Agora
> >> index 4683d3d..962eb2c 100644
> >> --- a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
> >> +++ b/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
> >> @@ -66,7 +66,8 @@ text: |
> >>  If e does so, e CANNOT register by announcement for 30 days.
> >>
> >>  If a player has not sent a message to a public forum in the last
> >> -  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection.
> >> +  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection or
> >> +  with 2 Agoran Consent.
> >>
> >>  The Rules CANNOT compel non-players to act, nor compel players
> >>  to unduly harass non-players.  A non-person CANNOT be a player,
> >> }
> >
> > Without getting into the structure of the proposal, I’m very much
> against the intent - if we’re going to allow idle players to be thrown out
> even over objections, it should take a supermajority, not a fixed threshold
> of two players.
> >
> > -o
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Not so cuddly now

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Well, in a game about communication, not telling the reason isn’t very helpful.
They have already received welcome packages.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Sep 7, 2017, at 1:36 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> One of the reaosns is that they're eligible for Welcome Packages to drain 
> Agora to tactically stall out having other people gain any cash from Agora 
> (for example, during an auction).
> 
> I have my reasons lol, I just don't like to tell them.
> 
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 7:32 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> Consent, not support. This requires 60%.
> 
> Thanks for the reminder; I pend this with AP.
> 
> P.S. To clarify: this is not an attempt to kick out Cuddle or any other 
> currently active player. The only goal is to allow us to clean up old players 
> as we normally do (Cuddle is objecting to all deregistrations for some hand 
> wavy reason about things being permanently lost.)
> 
> Gaelan
> > On Sep 6, 2017, at 10:01 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Sep 6, 2017, at 12:56 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> >>
> >> I create the following proposal “Not So Cuddly Now” with AI 1 by Gaelan: {
> >> diff --git a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora b/rules/How to Join and 
> >> Leave Agora
> >> index 4683d3d..962eb2c 100644
> >> --- a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
> >> +++ b/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
> >> @@ -66,7 +66,8 @@ text: |
> >>  If e does so, e CANNOT register by announcement for 30 days.
> >>
> >>  If a player has not sent a message to a public forum in the last
> >> -  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection.
> >> +  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection or
> >> +  with 2 Agoran Consent.
> >>
> >>  The Rules CANNOT compel non-players to act, nor compel players
> >>  to unduly harass non-players.  A non-person CANNOT be a player,
> >> }
> >
> > Without getting into the structure of the proposal, I’m very much against 
> > the intent - if we’re going to allow idle players to be thrown out even 
> > over objections, it should take a supermajority, not a fixed threshold of 
> > two players.
> >
> > -o
> >
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail