With thanks to G. for eir related Historian's Corner a while back:
{{
Budgets (AI = 2)
Enact a new Rule:
A budget is a document defined by the Rules and maintained by an
office. An office only has a budget if the Rules state that it
does. A budget's scope contains one or more
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 7:03 AM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
During an election for an office which has a budget, the
candidates SHALL publish a proto-budget for that office; this
proto-budget is invalid unless it would be a valid budget for
the
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Charles Walker wrote:
Bug: Publish a proto-budget right before the end of the voting period.
With some of the budgets (e.g. Termination List) that could get ugly.
Solution: Limit proto-budgeting to during the nomination period and
the first 4 days of the voting period.
coppro wrote:
I have good news! I've worked out the maximum voting limits for each player:
1
see Rule .
Proto: Replace R1367's Each player's voting limit [etc.] with
- The decision is ordinary. Each player's base voting limit
on the decision is thrice what it would
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
Proto: Replace R1367's Each player's voting limit [etc.] with
- The decision is ordinary. Each player's base voting limit
on the decision is thrice what it would have been on a
decision initiated at the same time on whether to
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
G. wrote:
I play supersize me and name myself.
I play Kill Bill on proposal 6589.
I play Your Turn on the IBA.
This missed the end of the voting period by about 2.5 hours.
CFJ, disqualifying G.: An Agoran decision for which the voting period
has
G. wrote:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
Proto: Replace R1367's Each player's voting limit [etc.] with
- The decision is ordinary. Each player's base voting limit
on the decision is thrice what it would have been on a
decision initiated at the same time on
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Voting results for Proposals 6583 - 6589:
[This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to adopt the
following proposals. For each decision, the options available to
Agora are ADOPTED (*), REJECTED (x), and
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
Proto: Replace R1367's Each player's voting limit [etc.] with
- The decision is ordinary. Each player's base voting limit
on the decision is thrice what it would have been on a
decision
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:21 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
So close :)
Propose it again. I'll actually vote FOR*2 this time.
Democracy would work too... -G.
Proto: Thesis standards (coauthor=Murphy)
[Greatly simplifies thesis award process, while including (recommended)
standards. The actual mechanics become quite short].
Amend Rule 1367 (Degrees) to read:
Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are
- Associate of Nomic
I wrote:
Voting results for Proposals 6583 - 6589:
[This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to adopt the
following proposals. For each decision, the options available to
Agora are ADOPTED (*), REJECTED (x), and FAILED QUORUM (!).]
[If G.'s play of Kill Bill targeting 6589
c. wrote:
Note: My voting limit is probably 0.
It is, you have 9 Rests and only 1 Extra Vote.
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Proto: Thesis standards (coauthor=Murphy)
[Greatly simplifies thesis award process, while including (recommended)
standards. The actual mechanics become quite short].
Amend Rule 1367 (Degrees) to read:
Certain
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
What if each player voted for the highest degree that e thought the
thesis author deserves, and that counts as a vote FOR each degree at
or below that level and a vote AGAINST each vote against that level.
Then the highest degree that has retained the
I wrote:
On 6586 and 6587, Pavitra voted [DEPENDS(6582) - AGAINST] * eir
voting limit. This does not affect either overall result (total
votes are 3F 2A on 6586, 17F 2A on 6587).
17F 1A on 6587, rather.
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2735
=== CFJ 2735 (Interest Index = 0)
This is a CFJ.
Yally wrote:
Per CFJ 2736, this CFJ was never initiated.
Not by ais523, but see
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2009-November/024612.html
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Voting is not a panacea for matters on which reaching consensus is
relatively easy -- on the previous degree (Murphy's?) and coppro's,
almost all votes were/are for the same degree.
-G.
ais523's.
-coppro
Kerim Aydin wrote:
A player (the candidate) CAN award emself a degree with P Agoran
Consent (where P is the Level of the degree, indicated above) by
publishing, as part of eir clear specification of intent to award
emself the degree, a suitable thesis.
This means the
Sean Hunt wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
A player (the candidate) CAN award emself a degree with P Agoran
Consent (where P is the Level of the degree, indicated above) by
publishing, as part of eir clear specification of intent to award
emself the degree, a suitable
Sean Hunt wrote:
I play Discard Picking, indicating Government Ball.
I play Discard Picking, indicating Justice Ball.
I play Discard Picking, indicating Government Ball.
I IBA-deposit a Government Ball.
-coppro
these fail because I'm bad at cards.
-coppro
Wikipedia lists two versions of Spivak pronouns, neither of which Agora
uses. According to WP, there are two major versions of Spivak, the old
(ey/em/eir/eirs/emself) and the new (e/em/eir/eirs/eirself). Agora
seems to use 'e' and 'emself', fitting into neither category.
For this reason, I always
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
A player (the candidate) CAN award emself a degree with P Agoran
Consent (where P is the Level of the degree, indicated above) by
publishing, as part of eir clear specification of intent to award
emself the degree, a
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
Taral wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgment. While ais523's logic
is
sound, eir arguments apply it to Taral, not to G.. I recommend a judgment
of
AFFIRM with a
25 matches
Mail list logo
