DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: require

On Sep 15, 2016, at 12:07 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > --- > > Title: FOR Require Intent on Ballots > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: o > Co-author(s): I retract this proposal. signature.asc Description:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: require

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 12:50 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> Title: FOR Require Intent on Ballots >> Adoption index: 1.0 >> Author: o >> Co-author(s): >> >> Replace the text of rule 683 'Voting on Agoran Decisions' with: > > Rule

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: require

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, Owen Jacobson wrote: > Title: FOR Require Intent on Ballots > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: o > Co-author(s): > > Replace the text of rule 683 'Voting on Agoran Decisions' with: Rule 683 is power-3, so this needs an adoption index of 3 to work.

Re: DIS: Concordances

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Owen Jacobson wrote: > Has anyone written (and maintained, which is the real work) a > concordance for Agora’s rules, so that players can more easily > cross-reference terms? There have been a couple in the past, but maintenance didn't last long and those are buried and

DIS: Concordances

Hi, From recent discussions, it sounds like at least a few folks are on board with reorganizing the rules to put the privileges and responsibilities of each office together wherever possible, and more generally to avoid spreading clauses relating to a single subject across multiple rules.

Re: DIS: Proto: Old/New Economy Draft

I'm not trying to take credit for any of that. It's all blatantly stolen. I was just trying to flesh out the outline of what to do with G's ideas. -Aris On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks. Okay, so it seems to me like it might

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3460 assigned to ais523

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, ais523 wrote: > Thus, the only other option would be a manual > ratification. There was an intent to ratify the list of Patent Titles > on 22 August 2016 (as a response to the problem that this CFJ > mentioned), but as far as I can tell it was never acted upon. As such, >

Re: DIS: Proto: Old/New Economy Draft

Thanks. Okay, so it seems to me like it might be a good idea to bring back some type of objects system, in order to provide a framework for future expansion. I see three options: 1. Pure currency (Based on switches or independent) 2. Pure objects/property/assets (currency like any other, with a