I’ve opted not to bolt this to the nascent Assets proposal, but would heartily
recommend rewriting it to fit once Assets lands.
Please pay close attention to the auction rules, which are a bit shaky, and to
the change to You Can’t Take It With You. I’ve moved the departed-player
cleanup to anot
On Thu, 2017-04-27 at 22:07 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> Is it time to do away with the distinction? I appreciate the idea
> that proposals should be submitted for consideration before they’re
> submitted for voting, but with Agora this small, that appears to
> happen through proto-proposals, with
I have no ill against you barring me, just that I wasn't familiar with the
procedure.
天火狐
On 27 April 2017 at 22:04, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> That’s pretty much it. You’re best-placed to actually provide insight into
> the truthiness of the statement, which is why I barred you: I’m actually
> try
On Apr 27, 2017, at 7:02 PM, Sprocklem S wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Nicholas Evans wrote:
>> You're registrar (via deputization). When the month rolls around, announce
>> intent to deregister everyone who hasn't posted in the last month. Once you
>> deregister them, that will free
On Apr 27, 2017, at 6:12 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
> I submit the following proposal if it has no formatting errors and its
> passage would create two new rules:
>
> {{{
> Title: Agora's To-Do List
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
This brings my
That’s pretty much it. You’re best-placed to actually provide insight into the
truthiness of the statement, which is why I barred you: I’m actually trying to
figure out how Agora as a whole interprets the 蘭亭社 charter. Having you step in
and answer directly somewhat defeats the purpose.
-o
> On
How much more malleable?
Before we enacted the Shiny Supply Level rule, it was possible for any player
to adjust Agora’s balance by proposal, with AI=1. The rule doesn’t modify that
much, but it increases the minimum Adoption Index to AI=2 (the rule itself is
Power 2).
I’m skeptical of anythin
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 5:40 PM Owen Jacobson wrote:
> Sure, I can do that.
>
> -o
>
> Good. Oh, sorry, one other thing. There are several places in your
proposal where you allow actions. You probably want to make it clear that
people can do those things _by announcement._
-Aris
Objection noted. The current list stands as follows:
As registrar, I hereby announce intend to deregister each of aranea,
Charles, Henry, Roujo, Sci_Guy12, Tekneek, Yally, and Zachary
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:41 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> I object to the de
> On Apr 27, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>>
>> I'd say N needs to be more than 3. Maybe somewhere between 5 and 10? I'd
>> recomend going with about 7 to start us off. I'd also suggest allowing new
>> estates to be crea
An early proto of what became this economy included taxes, but I think it
was scraped because of the logistical overhead. Ideas I considered at the
time:
-A tax on players' wealth (wouldn't stop players from hording shinies in
orgs)
-A tax on organizations' wealth (would require weird budget balan
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Nicholas Evans wrote:
> You're registrar (via deputization). When the month rolls around, announce
> intent to deregister everyone who hasn't posted in the last month. Once you
> deregister them, that will free up their shinies.
>
Is there any reason we don't have
Proto-Proposal Idea:
Each player has a switch, the Value of which can be one of: the set of all
active players or None.
A player may flip their Grudge switch to a player once a month. A player
may flip their Grudge switch to None at any time.
All players have their switch initially set to None
The
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> I'd say N needs to be more than 3. Maybe somewhere between 5 and 10? I'd
> recomend going with about 7 to start us off. I'd also suggest allowing new
> estates to be created without amending the rule. This does look quite
> interesting, an
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 3:12 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
> I submit the following proposal if it has no formatting errors and its
> passage would create two new rules:
"Formatting errors" is highly ambiguous. Unless you can clarify it
down to something easily checkable, I'm going t
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 22:56 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > Reenact rule 2166, Assets (Power = 2), with the following text:
> >
> > Is there a meaningful distinction between re-enacting a rule and
> > creating a rule?
>
> Rule history is something that l
> I would like to point out that I am not an office (in the recent events
> section of the report).
> 天火狐
No Player is an Office (CFJ 1895).
Mine wasn't - but PSS's was - I couldn't really object as a maybe not
player
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 09:52 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Were those messages to a public forum?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Quazie wrote:
> > Both warrigall and ais523
Were those messages to a public forum?
-Aris
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Quazie wrote:
> Both warrigall and ais523 have sent messages in the past month - so i think
> you can't do that to em?
>
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 02:58 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> wrote:
>>
>> As registrar, I h
Both warrigall and ais523 have sent messages in the past month - so i think
you can't do that to em?
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 02:58 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> As registrar, I hereby announce intend to deregister ais523, aranea,
> Charles, H
20 matches
Mail list logo
