On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (1) What changes would you like to see in my policy?
>
> Hmm. I think the current situation is too heavily balanced against
> partnerships, but it wouldn't take much change for me to
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (1) What changes would you like to see in my policy?
Hmm. I think the current situation is too heavily balanced against
partnerships, but it wouldn't take much change for me to be happy.
The obvious solution is to have
On Oct 6, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
This message serves to initiate the Agoran Decision to choose the
holder of the Mad Scientist office. The vote collector is the IADoP,
and the eligible voters are the active players.
The valid options are Wooble and ais523.
I'm willing to giv
On Oct 6, 2008, at 12:56 PM, ehird wrote:
On 6 Oct 2008, at 17:27, Kerim Aydin wrote:
That's a Grand Poobah decision/policy, feel free to vote em out of
office if you don't like it... -Goethe
Which is exactly what me and comex are doing.
In counter-argument to which:
(1) What changes woul
On Oct 5, 2008, at 11:39 AM, ehird wrote:
On 5 Oct 2008, at 15:03, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Demoted to Epsilon: Bayes (not first class), cdm014 (inactive).
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
Grand Poobah OscarMeyr
Why do we punish partnerships with an iron first again?
To favor real people in t
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:41 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The proposal would actually subtly break lots of things, as the rules
> that govern proposals would be unable to give an AI 3.1 proposal an
> actual power of 3.1, due to only having a power of 3 themselves. As a
> result, rule 214
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:41 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There's very little practical difference betweet AI 3 and AI 3.1. If
>> we're willing to allow AI 3.1 proposals to modify any rule, why not
>> allow AI 3 proposals to do the same?
> The proposal would actually subtly break lots o
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:49 PM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That was testing. It will only propose once a week in future.
Still once a week too often.
-root
On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 19:48 +0100, ehird wrote:
> On 6 Oct 2008, at 19:36, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
> > This message serves to initiate the Agoran Decision to choose the
> > holder of the Mad Scientist office. The vote collector is the IADoP,
> > and the eligible voters are the active players.
> >
On 6 Oct 2008, at 19:13, Ian Kelly wrote:
I for one have no objection to mistreating partnerships that spam the
game with useless proposals. :-)
-root
That was testing. It will only propose once a week in future.
--
ehird
On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 12:35 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:22 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 12:18 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > On Sun, 5 Oct 2008, ehird wrote:
> >>
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then how did we come to have a 50 VP surplus?
It's not really a surplus; the contract was amended to only make
first-class parties get 50 VP for joining after Fookiemyartung was
already a party.
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How did we come to have a 27 VP surplus?
>
> pikhq destroyed 23 VP when e left the contract very early on.
Then how did we come to have a 50 VP surpl
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:22 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 12:18 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 5 Oct 2008, ehird wrote:
>> >> On 5 Oct 2008, at 14:41, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>> >>> Tha
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 11:37 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 11:33 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 9:51 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Name: Vote Market
>> > Parties: BobTHJ, Fookiemyartug, The P2P Partnership, Goethe, comex,
>> >
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How did we come to have a 27 VP surplus?
pikhq destroyed 23 VP when e left the contract very early on.
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008, ehird wrote:
>> On 5 Oct 2008, at 14:41, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>>> That's odd... which rule is saying that an AI=3 proposal can affect a P=4
>>> rule?
>>
>> Rule 2140/0 (Power=3)
>> Power Controls Muta
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 10:49 AM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 5 Oct 2008, at 17:18, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>
>> I for one have no objection to being favored over partnerships.
>>
>> -root
>
>
> Sure. But I object to partnerships being mistreated like that.
>
> comex very recently spent a lot
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> VP HOLDINGS
> Party VP
> ---
> BobTHJ 59
> Fookiemyartug 50
> The P2P Partnership 0
> Goethe (INDEBTED) 46
> comex (IN
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, ehird wrote:
> On 6 Oct 2008, at 17:32, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> And "alternate" recordkeepors would be free to track entirely different
>> versions of the same records. That's what unregulated means.
>>
>> -Goethe
>
> This proposal is based on the most important rule in the one
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 9:51 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Name: Vote Market
>> Parties: BobTHJ, Fookiemyartug, The P2P Partnership, Goethe, comex, Murphy,
>> pikhq, Ivan Hope CXXVII, Wooble, Quazie, ais523, eh
On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 11:33 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 9:51 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Name: Vote Market
> > Parties: BobTHJ, Fookiemyartug, The P2P Partnership, Goethe, comex, Murphy,
> > pikhq, Ivan Hope CXXVII, Wooble, Quazie, ais523, ehird
>
> If I'
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 9:51 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Name: Vote Market
> Parties: BobTHJ, Fookiemyartug, The P2P Partnership, Goethe, comex, Murphy,
> pikhq, Ivan Hope CXXVII, Wooble, Quazie, ais523, ehird
If I'm not mistaken, Fookiemyartug and the P2P Partnership no longer ex
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:56 PM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which is exactly what me and comex are doing.
s/are doing/are trying to do/
I believe OscarMeyr made eir policies quite clear before the last
election, as did Ivan Hope.
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 10:27, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 08:52 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> I destroy 7 WRV in ais523's possession.
> If possible, I request subsidisation.
> --
> ais523
>
Nope...the Federal Subsidy is 11 (sorry, my last AAA report
incorrectly identifi
On 6 Oct 2008, at 17:32, Kerim Aydin wrote:
And "alternate" recordkeepors would be free to track entirely
different
versions of the same records. That's what unregulated means.
-Goethe
This proposal is based on the most important rule in the ones left:
custom.
It retains the entire ru
On 6 Oct 2008, at 17:27, Kerim Aydin wrote:
That's a Grand Poobah decision/policy, feel free to vote em out of
office if you don't like it... -Goethe
Which is exactly what me and comex are doing.
--
ehird
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008, ehird wrote:
> On 5 Oct 2008, at 14:41, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>> That's odd... which rule is saying that an AI=3 proposal can affect a P=4
>> rule?
>
> Rule 2140/0 (Power=3)
> Power Controls Mutability
>
> is power 3. Thus AI=3 proposals are ominipotent.
That means, in orde
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008, ihope wrote:
> Rule 101, "Agoran Rights and Privileges", makes reference to persons,
> binding agreements, Agoran law, rules, players, regulation, formal
> processes to resolve matters of controversy, judicial determinations,
> fora, and deregistration, implying that these qual
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008, ehird wrote:
> On 5 Oct 2008, at 17:18, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> I for one have no objection to being favored over partnerships.
>>
>> -root
>
> Sure. But I object to partnerships being mistreated like that.
>
> comex very recently spent a lot to give Bayes 2 votes. It's just being
On 6 Oct 2008, at 15:39, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
Wouldn't the new Poobah be required to start flipping castes, starting
with making someone else an Alpha and thus demoting emself?
Ah I don't know much about the caste system, haven't had time to look in
to it really. But I think this might be int
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 10:35 AM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Infinite loop.
>
> Er, no?
Wouldn't the new Poobah be required to start flipping castes, starting
with making someone else an Alpha and thus demoting emself?
In any case, this proposal has insufficient AI to amend R2211 so it's
On 6 Oct 2008, at 15:37, Bayes wrote:
bayes 2008-10-06 15:37:09 +0100
This is a version, by the way, not a timestamp.
--
ehird
On 6 Oct 2008, at 15:17, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 1:31 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
and by replacing:
a) Flip a player's caste to Alpha
with:
a) Flip a player's caste to Alpha; when a player's caste is
flipped to Alpha, e becomes the
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 1:31 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and by replacing:
> a) Flip a player's caste to Alpha
> with:
> a) Flip a player's caste to Alpha; when a player's caste is
> flipped to Alpha, e becomes the Grand Poobah
Infinite loop.
On Sun, 2008-10-05 at 16:39 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proto-Proposal: Close the partnership loophole
> (AI = 2, please)
>
> [Please let me know if this would conflict with the Rests proto, in
> which case one or the other of us can work out conditional merges.]
No conflict. It would end up creati
36 matches
Mail list logo
