comex wrote:
> A Protectorate is a person if and only
> if it is a player.
I think this (and the whole proposal) is a bad idea. As a mechanism
for creating more non-natural persons it's a mess. We already have a
possible route to protectorates registering: a B
On 6/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You didn't give a title for the proposal.
Oh, bother. For lack of a better title, let's call it "Recantus Cygneus".
-root
Taral wrote:
>I still have no idea about this CFJ...
I suggest that you examine the purported judge's arguments in CFJ 1623.
You're not necessarily bound to judge the same, because if you judge to
the contrary then CFJ 1623 hasn't really been judged. But if you find
the reasoning good then you ca
Ian Kelly wrote:
>The following letter was recently passed to me, and I hereby publish
>it with the intent that it become a proposal.
Due to the conventions of the letter structure, I believe Rule 1789 is
explicitly named as a coauthor in that proposal. I wonder what it could
do with its VC.
You
On 6/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
>IMO, official duties such as report contents should mostly be kept in
>the rule that defines the office. This way a (potential) officer can
>read one rule to find the duties required of em rather than having to
>search the entire ru
On 6/18/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Good points, although I was hoping to skirt the hazy definition of a nomic
and a player of a nomic.
R2147 already relies on both, so you don't gain anything by doing so.
-root
On Monday 18 June 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Doesn't play nicely with Limited Partnerships, Take Fifteen, unless
> the Protectorate also happens to be a Partnership (in which case it
> allegedly can register anyway) -- both because it's not a Partnership
> itself and because it screws up the recursiv
On 6/18/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
proto-proposal: B Agreement
AI: 2
{{{
Amend rule 2147 by adding at the end
Protectorates are permitted to register. Any player may, with three
supporters, cause a Protectorate to be deregistered or, with one
supporter, cause a Protectorate
I still have no idea about this CFJ...
--
Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
proto-proposal: B Agreement
AI: 2
{{{
Amend rule 2147 by adding at the end
Protectorates are permitted to register. Any player may, with three
supporters, cause a Protectorate to be deregistered or, with one
supporter, cause a Protectorate to register, provided that no other
rule re
Zefram wrote:
> > I remember that proposal faced unusual resistance...
>
> Was it proportionate?
Only according to the current rules.
[/me ducks behind R1922(b)(last sentence).]
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>I remember that proposal faced unusual resistance...
Was it proportionate?
-zefram
root wrote:
> We may be thinking of proposal 4495, "Repeal Ohm's Law"
> (http://www.periware.org/agora/view_proposal.php?id=4495). However,
> that proposal failed.
I remember that proposal faced unusual resistance...
-G.
On 6/18/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/18/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In any case, it's bad form and should be in the rules (I think
> > invisibilitating was a joke on someone who tried to do this for
> > something more substantial).
>
> That's what I thought as we
Ian Kelly wrote:
>What do you think about effects such as this one, from proposal 4453?
I guess that qualifies as a Legislative Order, so at least it's something
that categorically does have defined persistence. I'm not happy about
the arbitrary scope of Orders (except Timing Orders), and I'd con
Murphy wrote:
> These are covered by Rule 1891 (Legislative Orders). This doesn't
> extend to attempts to impose requirements on all players, since
> Rule 1793 (Orders) requires Orders to have a single target.
Ah yes, by precedent (eg CFJs 1377, 1385), "Be it Hereby Resolved
that X is Y" is a le
root wrote:
On 6/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Consequently, I don't think a proposal can directly
govern the game beyond making instantaneous changes.
What do you think about effects such as this one, from proposal 4453?
Upon adoption of this Proposal, the Scorekeepor shall as
On 6/18/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In any case, it's bad form and should be in the rules (I think
> invisibilitating was a joke on someone who tried to do this for
> something more substantial).
That's what I thought as well, but unfortunately I can't seem to find
the earlier pro
On 6/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Consequently, I don't think a proposal can directly
govern the game beyond making instantaneous changes.
What do you think about effects such as this one, from proposal 4453?
Upon adoption of this Proposal, the Scorekeepor shall as soon as
po
In any case, it's bad form and should be in the rules (I think
invisibilitating was a joke on someone who tried to do this for
something more substantial).
That's what I thought as well, but unfortunately I can't seem to find
the earlier proposal.
-root
Zefram wrote:
> Where is the Infraction of Invisibilitating defined?
Ah yes, you're right here. It was defined in Proposal 4513, but
as per R1503/5: "An action or inaction is a Crime or an Infraction
only if defined as such by the Rules." so this overrules the
extra-Rules definition of the Infr
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Well, if a proposal can deem something that's not defined/regulated,
I don't think it can, in any lasting fashion. It was Michael who argued
that deeming constitutes an instantaneous change to the persistent
game state.
>R2056 seems pretty straightforward to me.
Where is the
Zefram wrote:
> Consequently, I don't think a proposal can directly
> govern the game beyond making instantaneous changes.
Well, if a proposal can deem something that's not defined/regulated,
and (as per your(?) opinion in our earlier pineapple/turnip deeming debate)
there's no mechanism to undee
Ian Kelly wrote:
>Game custom is that such changes are effective.
There's an interesting case back in 1994 with proposal 861. It carried
the declaration "(Foreign Policy Directive)", rather than "(Creates
a Rule)", but it purported to award Point bonuses for certain actions
relating to foreign no
On 6/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
>IMO, official duties such as report contents should mostly be kept in
>the rule that defines the office. This way a (potential) officer can
>read one rule to find the duties required of em rather than having to
>search the entire ru
Ian Kelly wrote:
>IMO, official duties such as report contents should mostly be kept in
>the rule that defines the office. This way a (potential) officer can
>read one rule to find the duties required of em rather than having to
>search the entire ruleset.
I think it is reasonable to expect a pot
proto-proposal: separate Civil CFJ procedure
AI: 1
{{{
Amend rule 1742 by replacing the text
A CFJ that alleges that a specific person (the Defendant) has
broken an agreement is a Civil CFJ, for which the Caller is the
Plaintiff. A CFJ that is not a Civil CFJ is a General CFJ.
On 6/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[The blazon was given by proposal 4898, but not put in a rule, so that
proposal is probably ineffective in creating a lasting definition.
Game custom is that such changes are effective. They were even
outlawed at one point by Proposal 4513.
-root
On 6/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
proto-proposal: refactor the Herald
AI: 1
{{{
Amend rule 649 by adding after "set out in the Rules." the sentence
The Herald's report shall include a list of each Patent Title
that at least one person Bears, with a list of which persons
proto-proposal: pragmatic deregistration of limited partnerships
AI: 1
{{{
Amend rule 2144 by appending the paragraph
If a registered partnership has the same basis as another
registered partnership, it can be deregistered by any player by
announcement.
[Proposal 5022 curiousl
proto-proposal: definitions are defaults
AI: 3
{{{
Amend rule 754 by replacing each instance of "shall be interpreted as
having" with "by default has" and replacing "as shall its" with "as do
its".
[Allows for local redefinition, so that (for example) Agoran law can
interpret B Nomic's rules acc
proto-proposal: Agoran arms in a rule
AI: 1
{{{
GreyKnight, having devised the blazon contained within this proposal,
is a coauthor of this proposal.
Enact a rule titled "Agoran Arms" with text
The escutcheon of Agora is defined by the following blazon:
Tierced palewise sable, argen
proto-proposal: refactor the Herald
AI: 1
{{{
Amend rule 649 by adding after "set out in the Rules." the sentence
The Herald's report shall include a list of each Patent Title
that at least one person Bears, with a list of which persons
Bear it.
Amend rule 1377 to read
proto-proposal: wider advertising
AI: 1
{{{
Amend rule 2135 by appending the paragraph
The Herald is encouraged to also advertise Agora in other suitable
locations.
}}}
-zefram
34 matches
Mail list logo
