Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration

Ah yep, and Aris and Celestial Firefox are both from 2016. On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> On Oct 5, 2017, at 1:44 AM, VJ Rada wrote: >> >> Without objection, I intend to deregister our longest standing player, >> Murphy. >> >> If

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Innocent Mistake Ratification

> On Oct 5, 2017, at 1:48 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-10-05 at 01:28 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> I intend, without objection, to ratify that, at the moment the >> Secretary published eir purported Weekly Report on October 3rd, the >> Floating Value was as

DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Innocent Mistake Ratification

On Thu, 2017-10-05 at 01:28 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: > I intend, without objection, to ratify that, at the moment the > Secretary published eir purported Weekly Report on October 3rd, the > Floating Value was as follows: > > { > Floating Value: 132 > } > > (This is a portion of the

DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report (rev. 1)

" Date of last report: Tue, 26 Sep 2017" This is wrong, although it doesn't matter. On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > I deny the claim of error raised by VTMunn. > > I accept the claims of error raised by Aris, and publish the following > revision of the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Vital History Gone Missing!

> On Sep 27, 2017, at 6:13 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > It doesn't. > > Also, I use GII to give 20 shinies to Trigon and Alexis. Is this two transactions, or one? If it’s two transactions, then the attempt to pay Alexis failed - due to fallout from CFJ 3561, Gaelan did not

DIS: Idea: Regulations Impovement

Title: Regulations for all Author: VJ Rada AI: 1 Create a power 1 rule called "Office Regulations" with the text {{The holder of an office may promulgate regulations regarding the performance of actions tracked by eir office or the performance of the office's duties. These regulations are power

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

> On Oct 4, 2017, at 9:07 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: > > If I have a stamp, depending on the gamestate, I destroy a stamp, gaining 27 > shinies. According to my records, after the resolution of CFJ 3561, you did have a stamp. -o

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 8:20 AM Aris Merchant wrote: > CoE: I think I bought a stamp a few weeks ago when everything was cheap. You did, on Sept. 5th. 2017-09-04 ! Aris created a stamp Agora 4 Shinies

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

> On Oct 4, 2017, at 12:27 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > how do i have so many? I had 63 last week, spent a lot, and don't > remember a big payday. It appears that I accidentally counted this transaction On Sep 26, 2017, at 12:53 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > I have

Re: BUS: CFJ 361 judged TRUE (Was: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3561 assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus)

> On Oct 2, 2017, at 6:42 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: > > TTttPF > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > > > >> On Oct 2, 2017, at 6:41 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

Who did that? > On Oct 4, 2017, at 6:07 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > >> On Dec 31, 2016, at 7:00 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> >> On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: >> >>> "The Date: header of an emailed public message

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 21:52 Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > On Oct 4, 2017, at 9:35 AM, ATMunn . wrote: > > > > Nevermind, I think I had sent that when I didn't understand pf and > such. Your report is just fine. I retract my CoE (if that's possible,

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

> On Oct 4, 2017, at 9:35 AM, ATMunn . wrote: > > Nevermind, I think I had sent that when I didn't understand pf and such. > Your report is just fine. I retract my CoE (if that's possible, idk if it is) It’s not. However, I could deny this CoE, though, and common

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

> On Dec 31, 2016, at 7:00 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > >> "The Date: header of an emailed public message constitutes a self-ratifying >> claim that the message was sent at the indicated time.” > > On

Re: BUS: CFJ 361 judged TRUE (Was: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3561 assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus)

I don't believe this effects the idea of ratifying the purchase of shinies, but I do believe it does effect his action. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Oct 3, 2017, at 9:21 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > >> On Oct 2, 2017, at

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Trouble with agencies

Actually my point (2) was my greater worry, not rules. It implies that your ratification may be utterly meaningless for the purpose you made it for - it creates an agency with a legally tweaked age but changes nothing in the past that depended on whether it existed on that date. Greetings,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

On Wed, 2017-10-04 at 14:23 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I wasn't thinking implications beyond clearing up some ongoing > confusion, which titles are more/less indicative of "bias"? IIRC we changed the name explicitly to suggest that the new office didn't work like the old one. So the relevant

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2017-10-04 at 14:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Proto (reclaiming old titles) > > > > Replace all instances of Arbitor with Clerk of the Courts (in some > > places, > > using the abbreviation CotC). > > > > Alternate:  Use

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

On Wed, 2017-10-04 at 14:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Proto (reclaiming old titles) > > Replace all instances of Arbitor with Clerk of the Courts (in some > places, > using the abbreviation CotC). > > Alternate:  Use Justiciar (another previsouly-used judicial position) Does

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > As G. submitted, grok voted "Endorse Aris" on Proposal 7899 and Aris voted > "Endorse the Arbitor". At all relevant times, G. was the Assessor and this > is not in dispute. As a side-note, several people (including me a few times) keep confusing

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: the real reward

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 16:04 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 18:12 Kerim Aydin > wrote: > >       I award myself a Transparent

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 16:12 Kerim Aydin wrote: > In writing a fix, it's worth noting that this breakage has been > particularly noted > in Instant Runoff elections, where people have been voting with ordered > lists like > (Endorse G., ais523, Alexis). Given that

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 16:01 Kerim Aydin wrote: > Oh, crud.  Conditional votes broken entirely?  Maybe. > > For history, R2127 used to say in part: >        The option selected shall be considered to be clearly

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: the real reward

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 16:04 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 18:12 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I award myself a Transparent Ribbon. > > > > (Ultraviolet, Platinum, Orange, Cyan,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 16:01 Kerim Aydin wrote: > Oh, crud. Conditional votes broken entirely? Maybe. > > For history, R2127 used to say in part: >The option selected shall be considered to be clearly identified >if and only if the truth or falsity of the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: the real reward

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 18:12 Kerim Aydin wrote: > I award myself a Transparent Ribbon. > > (Ultraviolet, Platinum, Orange, Cyan, Blue). > > > Unfortunately, I think this fails. Rule 2438 states: > > Orange

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > How does this line up with conditional votes? Rule 2127 defines: > > If a vote on an Agoran decision is submitted conditionally (e.g. > "FOR if is true, otherwise AGAINST"), then the selected > option is evaluated based on the value of

DIS: Re: BUS: the real reward

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 18:12 Kerim Aydin wrote: > I award myself a Transparent Ribbon. > > (Ultraviolet, Platinum, Orange, Cyan, Blue). > Unfortunately, I think this fails. Rule 2438 states: Orange (O): When a proposal is adopted via an Agoran Decision on

DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

CoE: I think I bought a stamp a few weeks ago when everything was cheap. -Aris On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:35 PM Owen Jacobson wrote: > As Secretary, I flip the Floating Value to 132. > > Secretary's Weekly Report > > Date of this report: Wed, 3 Oct 2017 > Date of last report:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

Yeah, I just put out an intent to kill the agency. :) > On Oct 4, 2017, at 7:14 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > >> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 01:13 Gaelan Steele wrote: >> Get shinies for proposing (and passing) rules that are valid markdown so >> that the HLR works

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 01:13 Gaelan Steele wrote: > Get shinies for proposing (and passing) rules that are valid markdown so > that the HLR works better. > Opposed to this.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

CoE: A while back I paid Agora 17 shinies, in response to a request someone made for everyone to give 1/3 of their shinies to Agora. I don't see this in the report. (Or, did I send that to the wrong forum?) On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Another Economy Fix Attempt

That doesn't do it. Agency and agency actions are defined by the rules. Saying this excludes a specific instance of an agency is like saying "since the rules don't define the exact amount of shinies in your possession, shiny transfers aren't entirely defined by the rules." On Wed, 4 Oct

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Another Economy Fix Attempt

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 23:54 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Yup.  It only pauses it for 48 hours though, so in current context > > useless unless I keep renewing it, and it's been around a while. > > Is it even possible to object to the same intent twice?

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3568 assigned to o

I would like to direct you to CFJ 3551 in which you indirectly held that "I COE this for no reason" was a valid CoE. On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> On Oct 3, 2017, at 9:16 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> >> >>> On Oct 1, 2017, at 3:13

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Another Economy Fix Attempt

You're right, I'm tired. That would almost certainly work. It might not, in the basis that transferring shinies is defined by the rules, but I think that argument in unlikely to succeed. On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:07 AM Gaelan Steele wrote: > I have the “action defined entirely

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Another Economy Fix Attempt

I have the “action defined entirely by the rules” clause in there for exactly this reason. Gaelan > On Oct 4, 2017, at 12:03 AM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > Agency: > Director: Conspirator 1 > Agent: Conspirator 2 > Text: If Agora has more than 10,000

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Another Economy Fix Attempt

On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 23:54 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Yup.  It only pauses it for 48 hours though, so in current context > useless unless I keep renewing it, and it's been around a while. Is it even possible to object to the same intent twice? Rule 2124 used to use "objector" which is precisely

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Another Economy Fix Attempt

Agency: Director: Conspirator 1 Agent: Conspirator 2 Text: If Agora has more than 10,000 shinies, the power to transfer 1 shiny from Conspirator 1 to Conspirator 2. -Aris On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 11:59 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Remember that intent can be posted before

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Another Economy Fix Attempt

Remember that intent can be posted before conditions are true, and last 14 days. If I post staggered intents (first ones before this is adopted), then any time the economy goes low I can get a win instantly. On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: > Fair enough. I’ll put out a revised

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Another Economy Fix Attempt

On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 23:44 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote: > Curious about how you intend to pull off that win. I tried to avoid > trivial abuse (create an agency with “do X as long as agora has less > that 1000 shines”) by having the “defined entirely by the rules” > clause; does Agora actually owe

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Another Economy Fix Attempt

Fair enough. I’ll put out a revised version once I give everyone else a chance to give feedback. > On Oct 3, 2017, at 11:53 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > I'd just make it With Notice. Seems fair to give people some more time to > attempt a fix. > > -Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Another Economy Fix Attempt

Yup. It only pauses it for 48 hours though, so in current context useless unless I keep renewing it, and it's been around a while. But I've thought of about 3 ways to win using this, which I'll keep to myself since you've proposed this already (and combo of assessor and ability to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Another Economy Fix Attempt

On Wed, 2017-10-04 at 16:52 +1000, VJ Rada wrote: On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Gaelan Steele > wrote: > > Wait, the speaker can object to Notice? I’m not sure how I feel > > about that. > > Yup, the speaker can stop the amendment or creation of any agency. > Quazie could have

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Another Economy Fix Attempt

I'd just make it With Notice. Seems fair to give people some more time to attempt a fix. -Aris On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 11:52 PM VJ Rada wrote: > Yup, the speaker can stop the amendment or creation of any agency. > Quazie could have stopped me much easier. > > On Wed, Oct 4,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Another Economy Fix Attempt

Yup, the speaker can stop the amendment or creation of any agency. Quazie could have stopped me much easier. On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > Wait, the speaker can object to Notice? I’m not sure how I feel about that. > > On Oct 3, 2017, at 11:41 PM, Kerim

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Another Economy Fix Attempt

Wait, the speaker can object to Notice? I’m not sure how I feel about that. > On Oct 3, 2017, at 11:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote: >> On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 21:44 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote: >>> I create this proposal and pend it

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Another Economy Fix Attempt

On Wed, 2017-10-04 at 16:40 +1000, VJ Rada wrote: > It is a real sort. "With T notice" is a type, and includes such > things as agencies. Huh, I checked and you're right. (This also implies that "with 4 days' notice" is a different sort of dependent action from "with notice", which wouldn't have

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Another Economy Fix Attempt

Curious about how you intend to pull off that win. I tried to avoid trivial abuse (create an agency with “do X as long as agora has less that 1000 shines”) by having the “defined entirely by the rules” clause; does Agora actually owe you enough shinies to make itself bankrupt, or are you going

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Another Economy Fix Attempt

It is a real sort. "With T notice" is a type, and includes such things as agencies. On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 21:44 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote: >> I create this proposal and pend it with AP: >> >> --- >> Name: Another

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 21:18 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 20:39 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Would it make o's just-now forgery (Jan 1 2017) instantly self-ratify? > > > > (and thus

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

https://www.xkcd.com/248/ > On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:36 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 21:18 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote: >>> On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 20:39 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: