On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Distributability is a mess and has significantly removed the
> attractiveness of submitting proposals. It is an oversolution to the
> problem of bad proposals getting into the system.
Seems to be working fine to me. Just because things used to be Free
does
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Hence REASSIGN. I'm much more inclined to jump straight to reassign
> for merely token efforts, especially for those with histories of token
> efforts. It will happen more. I think a bigger issue is the Callers,
> actually; standards of evidence and case preparation are way
2009/6/15 Geoffrey Spear :
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> I transfer one prop from myself to CotC Murphy for not getting all my ducks
>> in a row before the CFJ:
>>
>> Another gratuitous argument on my most recent CFJ:
>>
>> There was indeed at least one proposal that
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:28 AM, Jonatan
Kilhamn wrote:
>> Note to Conductor: this probably means that my attempt to spend 3
>> notes to make this undistributable failed.
>>
> What intent is e talking about here? As far as I can see, the proposal
> was published, made distributable through support,
2009/6/15 Geoffrey Spear :
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:28 AM, Jonatan
> Kilhamn wrote:
>>> Note to Conductor: this probably means that my attempt to spend 3
>>> notes to make this undistributable failed.
>>>
>> What intent is e talking about here? As far as I can see, the proposal
>> was published,
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:28 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I disagree. Switching to REASSIGN doesn't deny salary, it just prevents
> excess salary from being earned. The judge still gets salary for
> judgments like "TRUE because pigs were on an airplane" or "FALSE
> because". Heck, you still get salary fo
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:28 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I disagree. Switching to REASSIGN doesn't deny salary, it just prevents
>> excess salary from being earned. The judge still gets salary for
>> judgments like "TRUE because pigs were on an a
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Jonatan
Kilhamn wrote:
> As far as I can see, the flips I covered in my previous post are all
> that matters. Between the time it was published and the time it was
> made undistributable, it was made distributable at least once, through
> support. If it was also inc
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Distributability is a mess and has significantly removed the
> attractiveness of submitting proposals. It is an oversolution to the
> problem of bad proposals getting into the system.
Distributability has been around for a few days in its curren
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
> Proposal: Harder on bad judges (II=1, AI=1.7, please)
> {
> Amend rule 911 (Appeal Cases) by appending the following paragraph:
> "If an appeals panel delivers a judgement other than AFFIRM, it CAN destroy
> any Notes and/or Rib
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 01:42, Benjamin
Caplan wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Result: strategy, more cards can be defined with probabilities a mix of
>> choice and random.
>>
>> What do you think, worth the complication with it getting as cross-matrixed
>> as notes but associated with specialties?
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 16:41, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> + 1 * II per adopted proposal
Recommend "+1 * II for highest II among adopted proposals per week".
Otherwise heavy proposers will severely outbalance those of use who
rarely propose.
> (Frequency) is relative frequency of
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 01:42, Benjamin
> Caplan wrote:
>> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> Result: strategy, more cards can be defined with probabilities a mix of
>>> choice and random.
>>>
>>> What do you think, worth the complication with it getting a
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
> A card that allows you (with certain restrictions) to add a new card
> to the deck.
I had the same thought: the Blank White Card. Maybe you can set its
effects without N objections and then add it to the deck as a new
card.
(Sorry about posting this here, but I couldn't find any active nomic forum.)
I'm going to a gaming con in Sweden later this summer, and the theme
of the con is that it's going to declare itself a republic. There will
be some kind of LARP going on throughout the weekend about supporting
one of thre
On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 21:23 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> The punishments for breaking rules are not only disproportionate to the
> penalties, but also completely out of proportion in general. Example: As
> Tailor, I could publish "No one has any Ribbons." as my report. This
> would, if left undoubted,
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 21:22 +0900, Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
> More radically, I agree that Rests should go, or at the very least, be
> reduced in scope. I think the game would be more interesting if each
> crime had its own equity-style punishment. Making My Eyes Bleed, for
> example, could requi
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 17:20 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> Since it's a republic, I toyed with the idea of making every vote open
> to all the people - the entire con - and let the players ('Senators'
> or 'Politicians') gather supporters who just come and vote (only works
> if it's a fairly long
2009/6/15 Alex Smith
>
> On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 17:20 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> > Since it's a republic, I toyed with the idea of making every vote open
> > to all the people - the entire con - and let the players ('Senators'
> > or 'Politicians') gather supporters who just come and vote (onl
I believe merely forging banknotes is illegal in the UK. I'm pretty
sure defacing coins is.
On 2009-06-15, Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
>>> So having tried that one before, I think the right answer is just to
>>> convince appeals courts to be more ready to REASSIGN instead of REMAND in
>>> lazy cases
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 17:30 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> I believe merely forging banknotes is illegal in the UK. I'm pretty
> sure defacing coins is.
Some of those laws are sensible (such as anti-counterfeit); others are
holdovers from ages ago that nobody could be bothered to repeal.
(There's an
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Elliott
Hird wrote:
> I believe merely forging banknotes is illegal in the UK. I'm pretty
> sure defacing coins is.
I'm pretty sure forging banknotes is illegal just about everywhere.
In the US, it's perfectly legal to deface coins, as long as you're not
doing an
> In the US, it's perfectly legal to deface coins, as long as you're not
> doing anything fraudulent.
I think it's not, but not because you're insulting the image of the
person featured on the coin, but because you're stealing some of the
metal.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>> In the US, it's perfectly legal to deface coins, as long as you're not
>> doing anything fraudulent.
>
> I think it's not, but not because you're insulting the image of the
> person featured on the coin, but because you're stealing some of t
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:25 PM, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
>>> In the US, it's perfectly legal to deface coins, as long as you're not
>>> doing anything fraudulent.
>>
>> I think it's not, but not because you're insulting the image of the
>> person fe
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
> > I initiate an Agoran decision to decide the holder of the Janitor office.
> > The eligible voters are the active players, the vote collector is the
> IADoP,
> > and the valid optio
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Quazie has not performed his duties as Janitor for two consecutive weeks
> (and he only has performed them once).
Yes. That's exactly why I voted for em.
Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> (Sorry about posting this here, but I couldn't find any active nomic forum.)
>
> I'm going to a gaming con in Sweden later this summer, and the theme
> of the con is that it's going to declare itself a republic. There will
> be some kind of LARP going on throughout the wee
Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
>> I disagree. Switching to REASSIGN doesn't deny salary, it just prevents
>> excess salary from being earned. The judge still gets salary for
>> judgments like "TRUE because pigs were on an airplane" or "FALSE
>> because". Heck, you still get salary for "UNDETERMINED becau
2009/6/15 Benjamin Caplan :
> Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>> (Sorry about posting this here, but I couldn't find any active nomic forum.)
>>
>> I'm going to a gaming con in Sweden later this summer, and the theme
>> of the con is that it's going to declare itself a republic. There will
>> be some kind o
2009/6/15 Aaron Goldfein :
> I intend, without objection, to make Siege inactive.
>
> I pledge that if Siege objects to the above intent, I will submit a
> proposals that has the effect of making Siege inactive.
>
I support.
--
-Tiger
> The Janitor is a creative office;
> The Anarchist is a creative office;
They both seem destructive rather than creative... Perhaps creative destruction.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Elliott
Hird wrote:
> I believe merely forging banknotes is illegal in the UK. I'm pretty
> sure defacing coins is.
>
When I thought of this, I assumed nobody would be good enough at it
for it to count as a forgery. It's more of a creative thing, along
the lines o
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:52 AM,
C-walker wrote:
> I pledge to vote for the player who submits the best (in my opinion)
> Janitor-style proposal in the next six days.
>
Hint: there is a spelling error in a sentence dealing with Rests.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote:
>> The Janitor is a creative office;
>> The Anarchist is a creative office;
>
> They both seem destructive rather than creative... Perhaps creative
> destruction.
>
The Anarchist is creative used correctly. The Janitor isn't m
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I used II=2 because I thought it would be a controversial change.
Controversy != complexity.
--
Taral
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
Okay, so I've thought about how to deal with crimes, and I propose the
following solutions:
- Rules can define crimes, but do not define their class. Violation of
a given rule is an implicit crime; the rule can define separate ones
as a means of giving them creative names or
- The Insulato
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> So having tried that one before, I think the right answer is just to
>> convince appeals courts to be more ready to REASSIGN instead of REMAND in
>> lazy cases; loss of salary plus loss of judicial rank would do fine if
>> that happened
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
> I think the game would be more interesting if each
> crime had its own equity-style punishment.
HahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAhahahaha. I like you. -G.
Proto (outline only):
A judge can DISMISS a case without prejudice if e feels that the
statement is poorly worded for the question the caller is hoping
to answer, or if the caller provided a lack of reasonable effort
in presenting the arguments or evidence for eir case. The
judge
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
>> I think the game would be more interesting if each
>> crime had its own equity-style punishment.
>
> HahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAhahahaha. I like you. -G.
>
>
>
>
Thanks! Does this mean you actua
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
>
> I agree to the mid central lax unrounded vowel contract.
>
I believe there are still two, although your having quoted one likely
causes it to be unambiguously the one you joined.
Equity grows teeth; fake teeth.
(ancient Agoran proverb)
On 2009-06-16, Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
>>> I think the game would be more interesting if each
>>> crime had its own equity-style pun
2009/6/15 Craig Daniel :
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Paul VanKoughnett
> wrote:
>>
>> I agree to the mid central lax unrounded vowel contract.
>>
>
> I believe there are still two, although your having quoted one likely
> causes it to be unambiguously the one you joined.
Nobody except me
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
>>> I think the game would be more interesting if each
>>> crime had its own equity-style punishment.
>>
>> HahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAhahahaha. I like
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Warrigal wrote:
> 2009/6/15 Sean Hunt :
>> I agree to the U+0259 quoted.
>>
>> I intend, without objection from any party to U+0259, to act on behalf
>> of U+0259 to intend to register.
>
> Can this be resolved after 24 hours? Just in case:
>
> I intend, without ob
46 matches
Mail list logo
