DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
> 7 Jul 2008 15:49:00 -0400 > Attempted action by Sgeo: "With Agoran Consent, I act on behalf > of Agora to award myself and all supporters a Win." Success of > action subject to CFJ 2055. > > 7 Jul 2008 15:59:46 -0400 > Sgeo posts (or attempts to post subject to CFJ 2055) a win > announcement, announcing that the following players have met > the Win condition of Win by Extortion: >-Sgeo >-ais523 >-ihope >-Olipro >-cctoide >-root >-BobTHJ Wrong CFJ. It's CFJ 2065
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 10:43 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Fantasy Rule Catalyst:Peter > Fantasy Rule Compulsion: Zefram > Fantasy Rule Conspirator: OscarMeyr > Fantasy Rule Creator: Murphy What was the Fantasy Rules Scam? -- ais523
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Sep 30, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: CHAMPION BY: CARDS Goddess Eris, Goethe, Murphy, OscarMeyr, root MANIAC Craig, root PARADOX Goethe, Murphy, root, BobTHJ, ais523, ehird I just realized that root would have qualified for the patent title Groovy (for winning three different ways), if we hadn't repealed it prematurely. Is it worth bringing back? - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 16:14 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > FUGITIVES (Players who left Under a Cloud, unofficial list) > Player Date deregistered > - > Sir Toby 20 May 05 Sir Toby reregistered and apologised for eir Blots, and I think we decided to forgive em? -- ais523
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Sgeo wrote: > Any Player can make a Silent Player a Zombie by publicly > alleging that the Silent Player has abandoned the game. A > Player has abandoned the game if and only if e is Silent. As > soon as possible after a public allegation that a Player has > abandoned the game, the Registrar shall publicly confirm or deny > that the Player is a Zombie. Historical annotation: When one became a zombie, an auction was held. The winning bidder would gain complete power of attorney over the zombie, and would traditionally Loot the Body of currency, then keep possession of the zombie; zombies could vote, earn wages, etc. Zombies (in the early 2000s numbering between 2-6) were some of the most valuable properties in the game, inspiring at times the forming of rival economic coalitions consisting of 4/5 or more of the players to bid for their purchase and avidly discuss and debate the game theory surrounding such bidding wars. Finally, a CFJ judgement held that zombie votes were (and had been) invalid all along, raising the crisis that years' worth of votes would have to be recalculated (before ratification of such things). The judgement was eventually overturned (and was hotly argued on both sides), but confusion led immediately thereafter to a complete repeal of zombies finally laying the poor souls of vanished players to rest, with avatar-like beings not to return until partnerships arrived on the scene five years later. -Goethe
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
root wrote: > At the end of the voting period, if no votes were cast FOR an insane > proposal, its proposer would win and gain the patent title of Maniac. CoE: The rule awarded either a win, or points, or the Patent Title, but never more than one at once. Consulting comex's rule history, the Agoran Weekly Journal, and the Hall of Fame, the following emerges: 1729/0 ( 8 Jul 97) rule awards Win 1729/1 (15 Feb 99) rule awards Score (in Vlad's "Grand Agoran Tournament", whatever that was) 1729/2 (21 Jul 99) rule awards Maniac (?) Peekee achieves the condition (presumably under 1729/2) 1729/3 (15 Apr 01) rule awards Win 1729/4 ( 3 Apr 02) rule still awards Win (and now prohibits splitting one's votes between F and A) (10 May 02) root achieves the condition (27 May 02) Craig achieves the condition (28 May 02) rule is repealed root and Craig are also credited with the Patent Title; either they achieved the condition under 1729/2 as well, or they were awarded the Patent Title by proposal, or an error was made years ago (dating back to at least 10 Nov 02, the oldest Herald's report in the a-o archive).
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
2009/6/30 Kerim Aydin : > Proposal 4432 by Maud, AI=1, Ordinary > Invisibilitating > > Be it resolved, that the proposer of an adopted proposal (besides this > proposal) including provisions that propose changes to parts of the > gamestate information about which is not subject to publication in official > reports, with the exception of the publication of that proposal by the > Promotor and the Assessor, shall be guilty of the Class 0 Infraction of > Invisibilitating. > > [Beware! You may still be guilty of this!] wat?
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Roger Hicks wrote: > Vlad, Andre, G., BobTHJ, P1-P100 [pending CFJ 2306] CFJ2306 was judged over 8 months ago. Are we still expecting an appeal?
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: > CHAMPIONSHIP Wooble > CONTEST Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr These two win types should be merged; winning by CONTEST is the unofficial name for winning the old version of a Champion's Contest. -G.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Roger Hicks wrote: > Vlad, Andre, G., BobTHJ, P1-P100 [pending CFJ 2306] Pretty sure 2306 was judged a long time ago. -- Taral "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Roger Hicks wrote: > ais523 > Majority Leader > Total: 1, Hand Limit: 5 Major Arcana cards do not affect Hand Limits. -- Charles Walker
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote: > On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 10:43 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Fantasy Rule Catalyst:Peter >> Fantasy Rule Compulsion: Zefram >> Fantasy Rule Conspirator: OscarMeyr >> Fantasy Rule Creator: Murphy > What was the Fantasy Rules Scam? Murphy, would you like to write this up for "next month's" report? If not, I will, that was next on my list anyway :) -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
Goethe wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote: >> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 10:43 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> Fantasy Rule Catalyst:Peter >>> Fantasy Rule Compulsion: Zefram >>> Fantasy Rule Conspirator: OscarMeyr >>> Fantasy Rule Creator: Murphy >> What was the Fantasy Rules Scam? > > Murphy, would you like to write this up for "next month's" report? > If not, I will, that was next on my list anyway :) -Goethe In August 2006, Goethe's Red Tape Repeals proposal refactored the the rules governing rule changes (594 for enactment, 1322 for modification, 2119 for repeal) into Rule 105 (Rule Changes), unintentionally omitting the power restriction for appeal. In January 2007, while answering a how-to question from Peter, Murphy noticed the loophole and began planning to exploit it. Eir hand was forced when Zefram proposed a non-scam fix; Murphy quickly proposed a scam fix, then conspired to ensure that it passed and Zefram's failed: * Murphy's win in December 2006 reset VLOPs to 1 per player. Murphy then gained 20 VCs for Proposals 4879-92, spending them equally on OscarMeyr and Peter; all other players had a total VLOP of only 13. * Then-Promotor OscarMeyr numbered and distributed Murphy's proposal ahead of Zefram's, and then-Assessor Murphy announced results in the same order. * Peter didn't vote, but neither did many others. Murphy, OscarMeyr, and Zefram voted as expected, Michael voted AGAINST everything in the batch, and Quazie voted PRESENT on everything in the batch. The scam barely made quorum (Wielder of Rubberstamp was held by Levi in late January when the voting period began, and apparently Murphy forgot to assign it for February when it ended).
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Goethe wrote: > >> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote: >>> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 10:43 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: Fantasy Rule Catalyst:Peter Fantasy Rule Compulsion: Zefram Fantasy Rule Conspirator: OscarMeyr Fantasy Rule Creator: Murphy >>> What was the Fantasy Rules Scam? >> >> Murphy, would you like to write this up for "next month's" report? >> If not, I will, that was next on my list anyway :) -Goethe > > In August 2006, Goethe's Red Tape Repeals proposal refactored the > the rules governing rule changes (594 for enactment, 1322 for > modification, 2119 for repeal) into Rule 105 (Rule Changes), > unintentionally omitting the power restriction for appeal. > > In January 2007, while answering a how-to question from Peter, Murphy > noticed the loophole and began planning to exploit it. Eir hand was > forced when Zefram proposed a non-scam fix; Murphy quickly proposed a > scam fix, then conspired to ensure that it passed and Zefram's failed: > > * Murphy's win in December 2006 reset VLOPs to 1 per player. Murphy >then gained 20 VCs for Proposals 4879-92, spending them equally on >OscarMeyr and Peter; all other players had a total VLOP of only 13. > > * Then-Promotor OscarMeyr numbered and distributed Murphy's proposal >ahead of Zefram's, and then-Assessor Murphy announced results in >the same order. > > * Peter didn't vote, but neither did many others. Murphy, OscarMeyr, >and Zefram voted as expected, Michael voted AGAINST everything in >the batch, and Quazie voted PRESENT on everything in the batch. The >scam barely made quorum (Wielder of Rubberstamp was held by Levi in >late January when the voting period began, and apparently Murphy >forgot to assign it for February when it ended). > > Was I part of that scam? Or was i just interested in seeing something intersting happen?
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
Quazie wrote: > Was I part of that scam? Or was i just interested in seeing something > intersting happen? Looks like neither. http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-January/006052.html > On each proposal in the group of proposals from proposal 4893 to proposal > 4902 (excluding proposal 4896) I place a vote of FOR, unless without my FOR > vote any one of those proposals would not pass, in which case i place a vote > of PRESENCE. > > Also if any proposal in the group of proposals from proposal 4893 to > proposal 4902 (excluding proposal 4896) will pass with no votes against it, > my previous vote upon that proposal shall be retracted and i shall instead > vote AGAINST that proposal.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 09:18:24 pm Benjamin Schultz wrote: > On Sep 30, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > CHAMPION BY: > >CARDS Goddess Eris, Goethe, Murphy, OscarMeyr, root > > MANIAC Craig, root > > PARADOX Goethe, Murphy, root, BobTHJ, ais523, ehird > > I just realized that root would have qualified for the patent title > Groovy (for winning three different ways), if we hadn't repealed it > prematurely. Is it worth bringing back? Totally, man.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 22:18 -0400, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > I just realized that root would have qualified for the patent title > Groovy (for winning three different ways), if we hadn't repealed it > prematurely. Is it worth bringing back? Ah, yes please. I've been going for that one for months (my previously-secret Agoran mission is to win by every means possible at some point or other, including both legitimate wins and wins by scam, which gave me an ulterior motive to try to repeal Win by Clout). Wins are a pretty important part of Agora, just because they are likely to be interesting goals to aim for which aren't very easy to reach. The win conditions of Agora have been developed over time and cause all sorts of parts of the game to open up which would otherwise be irrelevant. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote: > The > win conditions of Agora have been developed over time and cause all > sorts of parts of the game to open up which would otherwise be > irrelevant. Yah, keep going, you've almost unlocked the first bonus action. You'll need it against the next Boss scam. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > When one became a zombie, an auction was held. The winning bidder > would gain complete power of attorney over the zombie, and would > traditionally Loot the Body of currency, then keep possession of the > zombie; zombies could vote, earn wages, etc. Zombies (in the early > 2000s numbering between 2-6) were some of the most valuable properties > in the game, inspiring at times the forming of rival economic > coalitions consisting of 4/5 or more of the players to bid for their > purchase and avidly discuss and debate the game theory surrounding > such bidding wars. Proto: Civil Rights (AI=3) Amend rules 2186, 2199, 2177, 1950, 2236, 591, 1504, 1868, 2136, and 2233 by removing each occurrence of "first-class". Amend Rule 2228 by removing the second paragraph. Amend Rule 2124 by removing each occurrence of "first-class" and by replacing "Executor" with "originator". Amend Rule 2156 by removing "first-class" and "(default for all other players)". [Most restrictions on second-class players are removed, though the registration limitations remain. Suddenly, existing partnerships (which generally registered before the Agoran Consent requirement) are valuable and might be worth trading around.]
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
comex wrote: > Proto: Civil Rights (AI=3) > > Amend rules 2186, 2199, 2177, 1950, 2236, 591, 1504, 1868, 2136, and > 2233 by removing each occurrence of "first-class". These are: 2186 (Win by Solitude) 2199 (White Ribbons) 2177 (Senators) 1950 (voting on Democratic decisions) 2236 (Committees on Judiciary / Crime) 591 (initiating inquiry cases) 1504 (initiating criminal cases) 1868 (judging) 2136 (contestmastering) 2233 (per-contest point limits) > Amend Rule 2228 by removing the second paragraph. Restricted ownership of Rests. > Amend Rule 2124 by removing each occurrence of "first-class" and by > replacing "Executor" with "originator". Supporting and objecting. > Amend Rule 2156 by removing "first-class" and "(default for all other > players)". Default caste. > [Most restrictions on second-class players are removed, though the > registration limitations remain. Suddenly, existing partnerships > (which generally registered before the Agoran Consent requirement) are > valuable and might be worth trading around.] All restrictions other than registration, I think. Doing it all at once will probably scare people off. Propose these individually or in small groups and it may be interesting; the Agoran consent restriction on registration should suffice to block at least some boring abuses.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 8:04 PM, comex wrote: > Amend rules 2186, 2199, 2177, 1950, 2236, 591, 1504, 1868, 2136, and > 2233 by removing each occurrence of "first-class". > > Amend Rule 2228 by removing the second paragraph. > > Amend Rule 2124 by removing each occurrence of "first-class" and by > replacing "Executor" with "originator". > > Amend Rule 2156 by removing "first-class" and "(default for all other > players)". I love it. Please do. --Warrigal, who hopes that this message won't cause too many people to vote AGAINST it
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, comex wrote: > [Most restrictions on second-class players are removed, though the > registration limitations remain. Suddenly, existing partnerships > (which generally registered before the Agoran Consent requirement) are > valuable and might be worth trading around.] The seed is a good one. In order for this to work fully, you need a way to semi-regularly ensure that the properties come up for sale/auction/exchange in a manner that gives a range of players a fair chance to compete for them (e.g. it's done in a common currency and not just a matter for private backroom trades). Done in isolation as you propose merely empowers current holders in a way that they would rarely change hands and would stagnate. I omitted this detail in the old system, that (since zombies were powerful) there was constant tinkering with the economics of it to produce the ideal game balance. "Upkeep fees" (taxes for simply having the properties) were used to encourage some circulation but had to be set so the investment was a stable one. There were regular complaints that the various rates and costs were too high/low etc. Time for corporate taxes for partnerships then? Also there's the question of starting fairly. As written this is a strong giveaway to an established few (who will have gained the giveaway for unrelated/unearned reasons) with no costs. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: >> Amend Rule 2228 by removing the second paragraph. > > Restricted ownership of Rests. This points to another issue; this makes partnerships into shells who can commit crimes etc without living up to the "devolve responsibility" clause in any meaningful way. Although I suppose if you want to devalue your property by burdening it with rests, that's a tradeoff, though perhaps too powerful an option. But I wouldn't support this with current partnerships entrenched as they are in offices, etc.--- I wouldn't vote to allow the Assessor and Distributor to suddenly be able to break every SHALL with relative impunity. If it's done with an entirely new class of second-class player/contract of which a handful are created (corporations with shares?), that's less harmful (maybe)? Though more work to create certainly. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
Goethe wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: >>> Amend Rule 2228 by removing the second paragraph. >> Restricted ownership of Rests. > > This points to another issue; this makes partnerships into shells who > can commit crimes etc without living up to the "devolve responsibility" > clause in any meaningful way. Although I suppose if you want to devalue > your property by burdening it with rests, that's a tradeoff, though > perhaps too powerful an option. > > But I wouldn't support this with current partnerships entrenched as > they are in offices, etc.--- I wouldn't vote to allow the Assessor and > Distributor to suddenly be able to break every SHALL with relative > impunity. s/Distributor/Promotor/ Dangerous question du jour: How much damage could a malicious holder of $OFFICE really do within about four days (minimum length of time for em to be sacked, in the absence of the Guillotine)?
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: >>> Amend Rule 2228 by removing the second paragraph. >> >> Restricted ownership of Rests. > > This points to another issue; this makes partnerships into shells who > can commit crimes etc without living up to the "devolve responsibility" > clause in any meaningful way. Although I suppose if you want to devalue > your property by burdening it with rests, that's a tradeoff, though > perhaps too powerful an option. Surely they could still get rests and be exiled just like a first-class person. --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, Warrigal wrote: > On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: Amend Rule 2228 by removing the second paragraph. >>> >>> Restricted ownership of Rests. >> >> This points to another issue; this makes partnerships into shells who >> can commit crimes etc without living up to the "devolve responsibility" >> clause in any meaningful way. Although I suppose if you want to devalue >> your property by burdening it with rests, that's a tradeoff, though >> perhaps too powerful an option. > > Surely they could still get rests and be exiled just like a first-class > person. The whole reason we made Rests transfer to first-class members of partnerships was so that we could make first-class members take responsibility for their partnerships' actions. This was a deliberate repair to a broken equity system, and you're suggesting we break it again. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > The whole reason we made Rests transfer to first-class members of > partnerships was so that we could make first-class members take > responsibility for their partnerships' actions. This was a deliberate > repair to a broken equity system, and you're suggesting we break it > again. It's already broken. With the current system, there's an incentive for me to spend all my notes on partnerships' voting power, which cannot be reduced even if they break the rules. Anyway, with Agoran Consent registration, having your partnership deregistered is a pretty big disincentive. (Though I agree that a more balanced system than just empowering existing partnerships is needed for them if we're giving them back fun stuff like democratic voting and judgeship.)
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Sgeo wrote: >> Any Player can make a Silent Player a Zombie by publicly >> alleging that the Silent Player has abandoned the game. A >> Player has abandoned the game if and only if e is Silent. As >> soon as possible after a public allegation that a Player has >> abandoned the game, the Registrar shall publicly confirm or deny >> that the Player is a Zombie. > > Historical annotation: Why no commentary on December's Historical Rule?
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Sgeo wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Sgeo wrote: >>> Any Player can make a Silent Player a Zombie by publicly >>> alleging that the Silent Player has abandoned the game. A >>> Player has abandoned the game if and only if e is Silent. As >>> soon as possible after a public allegation that a Player has >>> abandoned the game, the Registrar shall publicly confirm or deny >>> that the Player is a Zombie. >> >> Historical annotation: > > Why no commentary on December's Historical Rule? Positioning is everything: I didn't scroll down and see it. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Sgeo wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Sgeo wrote: Any Player can make a Silent Player a Zombie by publicly alleging that the Silent Player has abandoned the game. A Player has abandoned the game if and only if e is Silent. As soon as possible after a public allegation that a Player has abandoned the game, the Registrar shall publicly confirm or deny that the Player is a Zombie. >>> >>> Historical annotation: >> >> Why no commentary on December's Historical Rule? > > Positioning is everything: I didn't scroll down and see it. -Goethe Want to comment on it? Thanks
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Sgeo wrote: > On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Sgeo wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Historical annotation: >>> >>> Why no commentary on December's Historical Rule? >> >> Positioning is everything: I didn't scroll down and see it. -Goethe > Want to comment on it? Thanks Sure but I'll wait a week or so; the last comment sparked some protos etc. so more fun to space them. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: > root and Craig are also credited with the Patent Title; either they > achieved the condition under 1729/2 as well, or they were awarded the > Patent Title by proposal, or an error was made years ago (dating back > to at least 10 Nov 02, the oldest Herald's report in the a-o archive). It's likely not an error, but rather moved. At least when 1729/3 existed (calling it a win), 1923/6 (Defined Unique Patent Titles) also contained: (d) Maniac, which shall automatically be awarded to a Player submitting an Insane Proposal on which no one votes FOR. That's from a July 2001 version of the ruleset; I don't have one from the time of root and Craig's wins. However, since that's defined under "unique" patent titles, there may be an error in that only the last Maniac should have the title. Unless Maniac was somehow made non-unique prior to the wins. ps. root, I meant to post anyway, bravo on the return of History! -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > However, since that's defined under "unique" patent titles, there may > be an error in that only the last Maniac should have the title. Unless > Maniac was somehow made non-unique prior to the wins. Good catch. It was listed as unique right up until it was repealed. I believe this means that only Craig actually holds the title. It's a shame that Peekee didn't get a win for it, as this means there will no longer be any record of em achieving the condition. -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 13:45 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > However, since that's defined under "unique" patent titles, there > may > > be an error in that only the last Maniac should have the title. > Unless > > Maniac was somehow made non-unique prior to the wins. > > Good catch. It was listed as unique right up until it was repealed. > I believe this means that only Craig actually holds the title. > > It's a shame that Peekee didn't get a win for it, as this means there > will no longer be any record of em achieving the condition. Has the Herald's report been ratified since? -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 13:45 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: >> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin >> wrote: >>> However, since that's defined under "unique" patent titles, there >> may >>> be an error in that only the last Maniac should have the title. >> Unless >>> Maniac was somehow made non-unique prior to the wins. >> >> Good catch. It was listed as unique right up until it was repealed. >> I believe this means that only Craig actually holds the title. >> >> It's a shame that Peekee didn't get a win for it, as this means there >> will no longer be any record of em achieving the condition. > > Has the Herald's report been ratified since? The wins were in May 2002. The 10-Nov-2002 report shows that the 3-Nov-2002 report was ratified. While we don't have a copy of the ratified report, the 10-Nov-2002 report contains the error, and the recent events report doesn't show any changes to patent titles, so it's a reasonable inference that the error was ratified in. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 13:45 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin >> wrote: >> > However, since that's defined under "unique" patent titles, there >> may >> > be an error in that only the last Maniac should have the title. >> Unless >> > Maniac was somehow made non-unique prior to the wins. >> >> Good catch. It was listed as unique right up until it was repealed. >> I believe this means that only Craig actually holds the title. >> >> It's a shame that Peekee didn't get a win for it, as this means there >> will no longer be any record of em achieving the condition. > > Has the Herald's report been ratified since? Ah, yes. The current report lacks the ratification date for some reason, but a search of my archives reveals that it was last ratified July 21, 2004 -- by myself, incidentally. -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Alex Smith wrote: >> On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 13:45 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin >>> wrote: >>> > However, since that's defined under "unique" patent titles, there >>> may >>> > be an error in that only the last Maniac should have the title. >>> Unless >>> > Maniac was somehow made non-unique prior to the wins. >>> >>> Good catch. It was listed as unique right up until it was repealed. >>> I believe this means that only Craig actually holds the title. >>> >>> It's a shame that Peekee didn't get a win for it, as this means there >>> will no longer be any record of em achieving the condition. >> >> Has the Herald's report been ratified since? > > Ah, yes. The current report lacks the ratification date for some > reason, but a search of my archives reveals that it was last ratified > July 21, 2004 -- by myself, incidentally. That report can be found at http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2004-July/001583.html in case anyone is curious. -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > However, since that's defined under "unique" patent titles, there may > be an error in that only the last Maniac should have the title. Unless > Maniac was somehow made non-unique prior to the wins. It occurs to me that there may have been Maniacs prior to Peekee who are no longer recorded because they lost the title when Peekee gained it. Does anybody know? -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Elliott Hird wrote: > 2009/6/30 Kerim Aydin : >> Proposal 4432 by Maud, AI=1, Ordinary >> Invisibilitating >> >> Be it resolved, that the proposer of an adopted proposal (besides this >> proposal) including provisions that propose changes to parts of the >> gamestate information about which is not subject to publication in >> official >> reports, with the exception of the publication of that proposal by the >> Promotor and the Assessor, shall be guilty of the Class 0 Infraction of >> Invisibilitating. >> >> [Beware! You may still be guilty of this!] > > > wat? > ...you know, that crime sounds really familiar to me.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Craig Daniel wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Elliott > Hird wrote: >> 2009/6/30 Kerim Aydin : >>> Proposal 4432 by Maud, AI=1, Ordinary >>> Invisibilitating >>> >>> Be it resolved, that the proposer of an adopted proposal (besides this >>> proposal) including provisions that propose changes to parts of the >>> gamestate information about which is not subject to publication in >>> official >>> reports, with the exception of the publication of that proposal by the >>> Promotor and the Assessor, shall be guilty of the Class 0 Infraction of >>> Invisibilitating. >>> >>> [Beware! You may still be guilty of this!] >> >> wat? >> > > ...you know, that crime sounds really familiar to me. > Guilty conscience? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Guilty conscience? -G. > Not that I remember, but maybe. Did I? You seem to have a better recall of my last time as an Agoran than I do...
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Craig Daniel wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> Guilty conscience? -G. >> > > Not that I remember, but maybe. > > Did I? You seem to have a better recall of my last time as an Agoran > than I do... Not really... I remember you in association with a few events because I was involved too. But with the aid of archive-memory just now I can see that you were a player when Invisibilitating was adopted; have no idea why it sticks in your mind as opposed to other things. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:37, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Roger Hicks wrote: >> Vlad, Andre, G., BobTHJ, P1-P100 [pending CFJ 2306] > > CFJ2306 was judged over 8 months ago. Are we still expecting an appeal? > Fixed in draft. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
Charles Walker wrote: On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Roger Hicks wrote: ais523 Majority Leader Total: 1, Hand Limit: 5 Major Arcana cards do not affect Hand Limits. They do, however, BobTHJ's reports are somewhat misleading as they imply that hand limits are on a per-deck basis, which they are not. They apply to all decks universally. /me starts wondering if someone will bother NoVing em over it. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
coppro wrote: > Charles Walker wrote: >> BobTHJ wrote: >>> >>> ais523 >>> Majority Leader >>> Total: 1, Hand Limit: 5 >> >> Major Arcana cards do not affect Hand Limits. >> > They do, however, BobTHJ's reports are somewhat misleading as they imply > that hand limits are on a per-deck basis, which they are not. They apply to > all decks universally. > > /me starts wondering if someone will bother NoVing em over it. >From the Hand Limits Rule: Position Cards are not considered Cards for the purposes of this rule. The Major Arcana Deck consists of only Position cards, so having players' Hand Limits in the Herald report is pointless. Semi-Related Proto: Make the Speaker a Card, which can be traded like the other Major Arcana cards. -- Charles Walker
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:10, Charles Walker wrote: > coppro wrote: >> Charles Walker wrote: >>> BobTHJ wrote: ais523 Majority Leader Total: 1, Hand Limit: 5 >>> >>> Major Arcana cards do not affect Hand Limits. >>> >> They do, however, BobTHJ's reports are somewhat misleading as they imply >> that hand limits are on a per-deck basis, which they are not. They apply to >> all decks universally. >> >> /me starts wondering if someone will bother NoVing em over it. > > From the Hand Limits Rule: > > Position Cards are not considered Cards for the purposes > of this rule. > > The Major Arcana Deck consists of only Position cards, so having > players' Hand Limits in the Herald report is pointless. I use the same code to generate the card holdings section of all deck reports (Change, Government, Justice, and Major Arcana) hence why the hand limits appeared on the Herald report. If this seems to be mis-leading I'll attempt to modify it to be more clear. > > Semi-Related Proto: Make the Speaker a Card, which can be traded like > the other Major Arcana cards. > I've been considering a proposal to turn all offices into position cards. Haven't bothered to type it out yet though. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
Roger Hicks wrote: On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:10, Charles Walker wrote: coppro wrote: Charles Walker wrote: BobTHJ wrote: ais523 Majority Leader Total: 1, Hand Limit: 5 Major Arcana cards do not affect Hand Limits. They do, however, BobTHJ's reports are somewhat misleading as they imply that hand limits are on a per-deck basis, which they are not. They apply to all decks universally. /me starts wondering if someone will bother NoVing em over it. From the Hand Limits Rule: Position Cards are not considered Cards for the purposes of this rule. The Major Arcana Deck consists of only Position cards, so having players' Hand Limits in the Herald report is pointless. I use the same code to generate the card holdings section of all deck reports (Change, Government, Justice, and Major Arcana) hence why the hand limits appeared on the Herald report. If this seems to be mis-leading I'll attempt to modify it to be more clear. Please also make clear that hand limits count all non-position Cards. Semi-Related Proto: Make the Speaker a Card, which can be traded like the other Major Arcana cards. I've been considering a proposal to turn all offices into position cards. Haven't bothered to type it out yet though. BobTHJ No. Nonono. Terrible idea. -coppro
