Fine. Then let my vote be retracted and replaced with {PSS, G.}. Does that
work?
--
Trigon
--
On Oct 5, 2017 1:04 AM, "VJ Rada" wrote:
> I don't think either your vote here or Gaelan's vote worked. According
> to rule 955 as interpreted by Alexis's most recent CFJ, in this
> context "th
Changed my mind on Gaelan's actually, reading 3569 closely his vote
seems to be legit.
Your new vote does work yes :)
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Rubin Stacy wrote:
> PF
>
> --
> Trigon
> --
>
> On Oct 5, 2017 1:11 AM, "Rubin Stacy" wrote:
>>
>> Fine. Then let my vote be retrac
I have. It merits a more thorough response than I’ve been able to give it but
with archiving up I can put thought towards it now. I’ll write more tomorrow.
-o
P.S.: https://twitter.com/derspiny/status/915838104304590848
> On Oct 5, 2017, at 2:21 AM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> o, have you see
The same rule makes PRESENT an option later on. In fact, that clause
explicitly overrides the previous one:
"The previous notwithstanding:
...
- PRESENT is always a valid vote, with no effect on the outcome
except counting towards quorum."
-Aris
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 12:04 A
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017, 02:38 VJ Rada, wrote:
> So uh let's self-ratify my ADoP report? Because every election I have
> ever resolved didn't work according to this.
>
It already is?
>
ya the resolutions are anyways.
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017, 02:38 VJ Rada, wrote:
>>
>> So uh let's self-ratify my ADoP report? Because every election I have
>> ever resolved didn't work according to this.
>
>
> It already is?
--
>From V.J.
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017, 01:33 VJ Rada, wrote:
> 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 performanc
On Wed, 2017-10-04 at 23:27 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I don't buy this argument. "When a public document is ratified, rules
> to the contrary notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified to what it
> would be if, at the time the ratified document was published, the
> gamestate had been minimally
"These regulations are power 0.1 and may be repealed by subsequent holders
of that office or by anyone with three support"
that's probably better. although pink slips are already able to be
subjectively platonically invalid based on the same "abuse of power"
phrasing.
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 11:1
What's a Humiliating Public Reminder? Is it actually something in the rules
or something you made up?
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:38 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
> Whoops fair cop, yup. I retract my most recent CFJ.
>
> Sorry Trigon.
>
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > The same ru
The rules require em to issue one, but it doesn’t do anything. It’s just that—a
reminder.
Gaelan
> On Oct 5, 2017, at 6:28 AM, ATMunn . wrote:
>
> What's a Humiliating Public Reminder? Is it actually something in the rules
> or something you made up?
>
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:38 AM, VJ Ra
Ah. I guess I'll vote then, so I stop being humiliated. :P
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> The rules require em to issue one, but it doesn’t do anything. It’s just
> that—a reminder.
>
> Gaelan
>
>
> On Oct 5, 2017, at 6:28 AM, ATMunn . wrote:
>
> What's a Humiliating Pub
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> So uh let's self-ratify my ADoP report? Because every election I have
> ever resolved didn't work according to this.
Agoran Decisions themselves self-ratify via R2034 so they're all fine.
And since Officeholder is a switch it's already been self-ratifying du
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017, 10:24 Kerim Aydin, wrote:
>
>
> Hi folks,
>
> First, I don't want to be assessor past the election, I grabbed the job
> mainly because I was guessing quorum would be an issue and I didn't want
> my proposals (or ribbon) to languish. I won't be able to keep up with
> Assessor
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I am well aware of that :). G. has been around in various forms since
> 2002, right?
February 2002 (though I was in 1992-93 Nomic World too). To show how old
that is in Internet time, I (and several others) joined Agora after it was
mentioned in a Slashdot c
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> I promise that my fix proposal has, to the best of my knowledge, no loopholes
> or scams.
FWIW, it's a compliment that your past scams have been subtle enough to require
this warning...
(and I do believe you).
> As for the campaign proposal, I shifted
First, I was incorrect when I say there will be "no net effect" of this
judgement.
Back to it's original purpose, IT INVALIDATES ALL PAST ENDORSEMENT TRUST TOKENS.
So if you've been collecting trust tokens, you might care.
I think a main issue with Alexis's arguments for CFJ 3569 are here:
>
> On Sep 29, 2017, at 4:00 AM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> I love this idea. It seems very practical without sacrificing
> usability for the end users (i.e. the players). I have a few
> suggestions:
>
> 1. Who annotates. I think giving everyone access to the annotation
> interface would probabl
On Sep 30, 2017, at 10:06 PM, VJ Rada mailto:vijar...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> I'm just a random teenager.
On Oct 1, 2017, at 3:44 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Hey, I’m not the only one!
For the record, you’re both well-spoken, diligent, intelligent, very easy to
get along with, and a joy to play a
On Oct 5, 2017, at 3:21 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
> I call a CFJ with the statement "PRESENT is a valid vote in
> instant-runoff elections for offices”.
AP or shinies?
-o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
I was hoping to avoid this, but: me too. (blushes)
-Aris
On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Hey, I’m not the only one!
>
> Gaelan
>
>
> On Sep 30, 2017, at 10:06 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
>
> I'm just a random teenager.
>
> On Sunday, October 1, 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>
>> O
Per G.’s exhortation, I’ve now read this in full, twice, and run through the “I
vote as G. does” case that caused a CFJ against the proposed rules.
> On Oct 4, 2017, at 9:41 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>
> I propose the following and pend it with an AP.
>
> Proposal: Clarity Act (AI=3)
> {{{
> Text
On Oct 1, 2017, at 3:23 AM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Create a new power 2.0 rule entitled "Conspiracy", with the following text:
>
> A person SHALL NOT aid, abet, counsel, command, or induce the violation
> of the rules by another person; when e does so, e commits the Class-3 Crime
> of
> Con
> On Oct 4, 2017, at 3:09 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
>
> 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.
Ick, so I did. I didn’t intend to, but I didn’t spell that out in my judgement
at the time, either. Thanks - watch this space
I know I'm a bit behind on my obligations (a CFJ and my reports). Real life
is a tad hectic at the moment. I plan to catch up this weekend.
-Aris
25 matches
Mail list logo
