Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomination
Arkady English wrote: > Ah, right, IADoP initiated the election, though I don't think I ever > actually went inactive between nomination and election. (The census > doesn't seem to think so...) Sat 6 Aug 10:36:50 Walker declines Promotor and Rulekeepor; nominates ais523, Arkady English, BobTHJ, ehird, Flameshadowxeroshin, Math321, scshunt, Tanner L. Swett, Turisiki, Wofi, woggle, Yally Sat 6 Aug 18:44:42 Arkady English accepts Promotor and Rulekeepor Mon 29 Aug 13:43:44 BobTHJ, Droowl, Flameshadowxeroshin, Math321, Turiski, Arkady English become inactive Tue 30 Aug 14:45:39 Arkady English becomes active Sun 16 Oct 22:09:24 Arkady English elected Promotor and Rulekeepor
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomination
Arkady English wrote: > I accept my nomination. NttPF > (Do we have to do that? I can't remember, and > don't want to go looking through the rules at work.) Yes, unless you nominated yourself. Rule 2154 (Election Procedure), relevant excerpt: 1) The valid options are the active players (hereafter the candidates) who, during the election, a) received and accepted a nomination for the office before the decision was initiated (self-nomination constitutes acceptance), and b) did not decline a nomination for the office.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomination
On 20 October 2011 13:20, Arkady English wrote: > On 20 October 2011 13:09, Arkady English > wrote: >> On 20 October 2011 12:49, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: I nominate Arkady English for Promotor. >>> >>> I nominate myself as Promotor. >>> -- >>> Wooble >>> >> >> I accept my nomination. (Do we have to do that? I can't remember, and >> don't want to go looking through the rules at work.) >> > > Actually, hang on a minute. > > The last IADoP report lists me as the postulated holder of this office. > Therefore an election can only be initiated with four support. If that > happened, I missed it somehow. > Ah, right, IADoP initiated the election, though I don't think I ever actually went inactive between nomination and election. (The census doesn't seem to think so...)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomination
On 20 October 2011 13:09, Arkady English wrote: > On 20 October 2011 12:49, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: >>> I nominate Arkady English for Promotor. >> >> I nominate myself as Promotor. >> -- >> Wooble >> > > I accept my nomination. (Do we have to do that? I can't remember, and > don't want to go looking through the rules at work.) > Actually, hang on a minute. The last IADoP report lists me as the postulated holder of this office. Therefore an election can only be initiated with four support. If that happened, I missed it somehow.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: nomination
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Elliott Hird wrote: > I never said permanent; I was under the assumption that the appeals > processes were still going and it could summarily be finished off > with a win and then repealed after them. What ehird said. We've just been sitting on the dictatorship because it probably doesn' t work.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomination
On Oct 21, 2008, at 2:04 PM, Alex Smith wrote: On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:01 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What the hey, I also nominate B Nomic for Conductor. Fails. At least, I *hope* I didn't miss B Nomic becoming a player. Nope, it hasn't registered yet. Also, it isn't a public contract yet because the B Nomic rules haven't been posted to the Agoran PF, and also I'm not sure if the proposal to add the Agoran public contract partnership boilerplate to the B Nomic ruleset has passed yet. That's okay, I wasn't expecting the nomination to succeed. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomination
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:01 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Anyway, if you want someone more capable in the office, don't vote for >> Bayes. You could vote for me, although I wouldn't be nearly as fast. >> Although if root starts publishing a web report updated more >> frequently than the email version, I for one will vote for em. > > I've got one half-finished already; I just need to find time to work > on it. At the moment it's not public-facing, it's only generating the > text report, and I haven't populated the database with the actual data > yet, but I could go ahead and put it out there tonight. Oh, and for the time being you can view the report at http://www.periware.org/svn/agora/conductor.txt, which is usually more up-to-date than the published report. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomination
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 14:12, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > By the way, I'm also intending to (eventually) track credits and > markers. H. Accountor, what would be your preference here? I could: > > * set you up to enter the data and publish the generated reports; > * enter the data myself and you could just publish the generated reports; or > * track credits and markers entirely separately from your report. > Feel free to publish Note Exchange reports if you wish, and I can include them by reference. Alternately I am willing to either hand control of the Accountor's office to you or modify the Note Exchange contract to make you the recordkeeper. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomination
comex wrote: > Although if root starts publishing a web report updated more > frequently than the email version, I for one will vote for em. Incidentally, I haven't updated my old Conductor database since around the time root took over, so please don't rely on it. I'll take it offline once root's replacement is up.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomination
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:01 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Anyway, if you want someone more capable in the office, don't vote for >> Bayes. You could vote for me, although I wouldn't be nearly as fast. >> Although if root starts publishing a web report updated more >> frequently than the email version, I for one will vote for em. > > I've got one half-finished already; I just need to find time to work > on it. At the moment it's not public-facing, it's only generating the > text report, and I haven't populated the database with the actual data > yet, but I could go ahead and put it out there tonight. By the way, I'm also intending to (eventually) track credits and markers. H. Accountor, what would be your preference here? I could: * set you up to enter the data and publish the generated reports; * enter the data myself and you could just publish the generated reports; or * track credits and markers entirely separately from your report. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomination
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:01 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyway, if you want someone more capable in the office, don't vote for > Bayes. You could vote for me, although I wouldn't be nearly as fast. > Although if root starts publishing a web report updated more > frequently than the email version, I for one will vote for em. I've got one half-finished already; I just need to find time to work on it. At the moment it's not public-facing, it's only generating the text report, and I haven't populated the database with the actual data yet, but I could go ahead and put it out there tonight. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomination
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 16:01 -0400, comex wrote: > (The reason I'm responding to one of these mass nominations seriously > is that the idea of having Bayes as the recordkeepor for something > intrigues me. It'd be a novelty having such a fast recordkeepor, and > would certainly make scams like the recent RBoA one less painful to > deal with. ehird, though, hates anything vaguely resembling a strict > format for email; I contest that, since people usually post actions > with the same wording anyway, and roborecordkeepors would arguably > obviate most of the need for conditional actions in the first place. > In the case of a scam or something where you would say "If that didn't > work, the following has no effect", well, there are always humans to > fall back to.) It's probably worth pointing out that an argument about the strictness of the format in which actions had to be written is probably what destroyed Canada, which explains why it's a touchy subject for me and ehird (who were on opposite sides of that argument). Also, way to go in getting that nice diagonal line of whitespace most of the way through your comment. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomination
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nope, it hasn't registered yet. Also, it isn't a public contract yet > because the B Nomic rules haven't been posted to the Agoran PF, and also > I'm not sure if the proposal to add the Agoran public contract > partnership boilerplate to the B Nomic ruleset has passed yet. I'm not even sure the rule that allows contracts in the first place passed yet, and that was months ago.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomination
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:01 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What the > > hey, I also nominate B Nomic for Conductor. > > Fails. At least, I *hope* I didn't miss B Nomic becoming a player. Nope, it hasn't registered yet. Also, it isn't a public contract yet because the B Nomic rules haven't been posted to the Agoran PF, and also I'm not sure if the proposal to add the Agoran public contract partnership boilerplate to the B Nomic ruleset has passed yet. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomination
ais523 wrote: > On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 09:42 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: >> Burying hidden actions in large amounts of text is the oldest scam in >> the book. It's not interesting at all. > Well, in this case I'm trying to test the forum rules, and in particular > R101. After all, as far as I can tell R101 implies that you're all in > #really-a-cow right now, because it's physically impossible to deny > someone the right of participation in the fora. Right != actuality. In particular, R478's "should ensure e can receive" is pointless otherwise.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomination
On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 09:06 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > Right != actuality. In particular, R478's "should ensure e can receive" > is pointless otherwise. Agreed. I'm not sure if the ruleset handles this sort of thing well at all, which is the main point of the exercise. I'm confused. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomination
On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 09:42 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > Burying hidden actions in large amounts of text is the oldest scam in > the book. It's not interesting at all. Well, in this case I'm trying to test the forum rules, and in particular R101. After all, as far as I can tell R101 implies that you're all in #really-a-cow right now, because it's physically impossible to deny someone the right of participation in the fora. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomination
On 7 Oct 2008, at 16:42, Ian Kelly wrote: Burying hidden actions in large amounts of text is the oldest scam in the book. It's not interesting at all. -root The publicforuming, however, is. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomination
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 9:39 AM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7 Oct 2008, at 16:36, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > >> I nominate root, Murphy, and Wooble as Registrar. >> >> --Wooble > > > Would you prefer a game where there were no interesting scams at all? Burying hidden actions in large amounts of text is the oldest scam in the book. It's not interesting at all. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomination
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 11:39 AM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Would you prefer a game where there were no interesting scams at all? I'd prefer a game in which I didn't have to sit in a fucking IRC channel all day long.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: nomination
On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 09:18 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yer just in it for the deputization... > > No, I'm just opposed to officers blatantly abusing their powers. You don't want to see what me blatantly abusing Mad Scientist would look like. I thought I was being quite restrained, really; for instance, I think it's possible to abuse them to EXILE anyone for any desired time period (however, doing so would be unwise as it would just be sorted out by proposal; hmm... maybe I should EXILE everyone and become dictator, but personally I think that's would be going far too far, no point in being dictator if you have nobody to be dictator over). So far all I've done is a test to see if it works and where the bounds of the powers are, and a failed attempt to distribute a proposal in time for voting on it to end in September. (I'm likely to deputise again to save the Assessor some work, to ensure that that proposal is Assessed in September too.) I don't count that as blatant abuse at all. Also bear in mind that I gained those powers through a democratic vote of the Agoran community; via proposal, as it happens. I expected the proposal to fail when I proposed it, and was quite surprised when it passed, but for the time being I'll attempt to use it relatively responsibly. The obvious time for a player to hideously abuse a power would be when there is an attempt to remove that power from them, but even so, I will try to show restraint. Actually, I suspect Wooble just wants Mad Scientist because it's one of the easiest weekly offices, and likes the source of almost free Notes. For the record, that's why I got into it in the first place. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: nomination
On 29 Sep 2008, at 14:18, Geoffrey Spear wrote: No, I'm just opposed to officers blatantly abusing their powers. The power is a blatant abuse in the first place.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: nomination
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yer just in it for the deputization... No, I'm just opposed to officers blatantly abusing their powers.
