Re: DIS: Re: BUS: gggrumble

Yally wrote: > Any player CAN, with notice, declare war on any > other player by announcement. "by announcement" should be removed; it's already part of the dependent-action framework. > Whenever a player gains any points, a > number of points equal to the number of points e just gained divided

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: gggrumble

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 00:56, Sean Hunt wrote: > On 11-04-25 12:28 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > >> I declare war on scshunt. >> >> Proto: War >> >> Hostility is a switch for subsets of players of size 2, with values peace >> (default) and war. Any player CAN, with notice, declare war on any other

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: gggrumble

On 11-04-25 12:28 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: I declare war on scshunt. Proto: War Hostility is a switch for subsets of players of size 2, with values peace (default) and war. Any player CAN, with notice, declare war on any other player by announcement. Any player CAN make peace with any other

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: gggrumble

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > Proto: War FOR

Re: DIS: Bets v.2

On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Eric Stucky wrote: > I don't think anything in these rules prevent me from betting all my points, > then spending all my points. If I then bet wrong, the rule is impossible to > satisfy since the way currencies are defined I think you can't have negative > poin

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: gggrumble

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 00:13, Sean Hunt wrote: > On 11-04-25 12:02 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > >> Isn't this all moot anyway? Your reduced salaries proposal is probably >> going to pass, and then the Assessor's salary will be 6 regardless of what >> happens with this. >> > -1 for reading comprehe

DIS: Re: BUS: gggrumble

ehird wrote: > On second thoughts I retract my objection. Did that stop being a thing > that is possible? No. Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction), excerpt: A Supporter of a dependent action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: gggrumble

On 11-04-25 12:02 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: Isn't this all moot anyway? Your reduced salaries proposal is probably going to pass, and then the Assessor's salary will be 6 regardless of what happens with this. -1 for reading comprehension; the other one was a series of intents, not a proposal.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: gggrumble

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 00:00, Sean Hunt wrote: > On 11-04-24 11:42 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > >> True, but I'm also not the Assessor and don't look to be it anytime soon. >> So, I should oppose any measure which grants power to my opponents. >> > His salary is already 15. > > Failure to follow t

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: gggrumble

On 11-04-24 11:42 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: True, but I'm also not the Assessor and don't look to be it anytime soon. So, I should oppose any measure which grants power to my opponents. His salary is already 15. Failure to follow the game grants power to your opponents. -scshutn

DIS: Bets v.2

I don't think anything in these rules prevent me from betting all my points, then spending all my points. If I then bet wrong, the rule is impossible to satisfy since the way currencies are defined I think you can't have negative points. -Turiski

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: gggrumble

On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 23:28, Sean Hunt wrote: > On 11-04-24 11:10 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 23:05, Sean Hunt wrote: > >> I intend, without two objections or with Agoran Consent, to set the Weekly >> Salary of the Assessor to 12. >> >> -scshunt >> > > I object. >

DIS: Re: BUS: gggrumble

On 11-04-24 11:10 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 23:05, Sean Hunt > wrote: I intend, without two objections or with Agoran Consent, to set the Weekly Salary of the Assessor to 12. -scshunt I object. Note that this is just a

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7021-7026

On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Elliott Hird wrote: >> 7022 1.7 Walker, etc.  Not worth the paper it's not printed on > AGAINST; the Rulekeepor is Wise, and should be allowed some discretion. You should denounce the Rulekeepor instead.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Salary cuts

On 11-04-24 02:53 PM, Charles Walker wrote: Why do you intend to give several offices which have no monthly duties a monthly salary? I did not consider that only weekly duties imply weekly salaries and only monthly duties imply monthly salaries. It is important to have stable Promotor and CotC

DIS: Re: Proposal points proposal

I retract "Fix proposal points". I propose: {{ Fix proposal points (AI 2) Amend Rule 2331 (Proposal Points) by replacing When the Agoran Decision to adopt a proposal is resolved: with If an Agoran Decision to adopt a proposal is resolved, and that proposal has some non-null

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2979 assigned to scshunt

scshunt wrote: >> While R478 does provide guidance for how multiple actions in a message >> are to be handled, this does not apply in this case asregistering is a >> side-effect >> A first-class person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or >> prevented by the rules) register by publish

DIS: Re: BUS: Salary cuts

On 24 April 2011 18:55, Sean Hunt wrote: > For each office and for its Weekly and Monthly Salaries, I intend, without > two objections and with Agoran Consent, to change that salary as described > below: > > Office {Weekly Salary, Monthly Salary} > Assessor {6, 0} > CotC {8, 10} > Herald {0, 6} >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Missing Rules

On 24 April 2011 16:45, Elliott Hird wrote: > On 24 April 2011 16:08, Charles Walker wrote: >> I wonder who the current Baby of the House is? I am also younger than Agora. > > Unless you were born later than August 1995, it's almost certainly me. > Yes, it's you. -- Charles Walker

DIS: Re: BUS: Doing this again

On Sun, 2011-04-24 at 14:24 -0400, Jonathan Rouillard wrote: > No, I'm not abusing the recordkeepors again. =P > > For each proposal I can vote on, I ENDORSE ais523. Hmm. You do realise I rarely actually vote, right? (Although this makes me more likely to.) -- ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Missing Rules

On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 10:23 AM, ais523 wrote: >> Gratuitous silliness: If ehird is a rule, then thanks to Rule 105, e >> has not changed since 2007 in any way that affects eir operation. >> Luckily, eir mother narrowly escaped violating the rules by creating >> em, because rules were not explici

DIS: Re: BUS: hrm

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011, Sean Hunt wrote: > By the English interpretation, poorly qualified is still qualified I think. Gratuitous: In several previous cases, adding a qualifier to a term has been found to create a wholly independent term (i.e. not a subsetted term) if both are explicitly define

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Missing Rules

On 24 April 2011 16:08, Charles Walker wrote: > I wonder who the current Baby of the House is? I am also younger than Agora. Unless you were born later than August 1995, it's almost certainly me.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Missing Rules

On 24 April 2011 15:23, ais523 wrote: > Gratuitous: Agora is actually older than ehird is. However, I don't > think anything in the ruleset at the moment ehird was born would be > likely to imply e was a rule. (I don't think anything in the current > ruleset does either.) I wonder who the current

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Missing Rules

On Sat, 2011-04-23 at 20:23 -0400, omd wrote: > On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Eric Stucky wrote: > > Gratuitous: Ratifications, by definition in 1551, make minimal > possible changes to the game state. In particular it "cannot include a > rule change unless the ratified document purports to inc

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Missing Rules

On Sat, 2011-04-23 at 21:55 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Sat, 23 Apr 2011, Eric Stucky wrote: > > I declare my name to be Turiski. [since if I am a player my name might > > see Aydin's CFJ in "Newbie." (Is he G.? I'm still getting used to > > everyone's names)] > > Yes, the person whose email

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2979 assigned to scshunt

On 11-04-15 06:37 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: I change all sitting players to standing. Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2979 == CFJ 2979 == I register

DIS: Bets v.2

Now with added self-ratification! Enact a new Power-? Rule: The betting period for a decision on the adoption of a proposal or a degree begins when the proposal or thesis is submitted; the betting period for an election begins when the nomination period begins. The betting

Re: DIS: Proto: Betting

On 24 April 2011 00:03, Ed Murphy wrote: > Walker wrote: > >>       To be valid, a Bet must > [snip] >>       c) be known only to the Better and the vote collector, > > Dicey.  Suggest "not be sent to anyone other than the Better and the > vote collector", and let Collusion cover situations where