DIS: Proto: Controlled, Regular Inflation

Title: Controlled, Regular Inflation Adoption index: 2.0 Author: Aris Co-author(s): Amend Rule 2487, "Shiny Supply Level", by appending the following to the end of the rule: No more than once per quarter since the third quarter of 2017, the Secretary CAN Print Money, causing the following

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7908-7921

wrapping* > On Oct 8, 2017, at 10:17 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > indenting

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7908-7921

For the record, I’ve been re-wrapping rules as I touch them. Looking at the ruleset now, however, I’m not sure if I’ve been indenting to the right width… By the way: does anybody know of a markdown-aware automatic line wrapper? I’ve been using a combination of manual wrapping for lists and such

Re: DIS: Draft: Crime Improvements v2

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 9:45 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Sun, 8 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > > "If a person would otherwise win the game, but e, within the last > month, broke > > the rules to do so, or another person, within the last month, broke > the rules >

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7908-7921

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > 7920* Gaelan, Aris 1.0 The Lint Screen v2 Gaelan 1 sh. > AGAINST. Not a fan, and I'm not voting for this when the biggest "error" > continues to be breaking a 20+ year indentation format by the Rulekeepor. I really meant to put a

Re: DIS: Draft: Crime Improvements v2

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > "If a person would otherwise win the game, but e, within the last month, > broke > the rules to do so, or another person, within the last month, broke the > rules > to help em win, with eir advance knowledge, and this fact is publicly >

DIS: Draft: Crime Improvements v2

Title: Crime Improvements v2 Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets ("[]") have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any rules created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game

DIS: Draft: Conditionals and Determinacy v3

Title: Conditionals and Determinacy v3 Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Aris Co-author(s): Create a power 3.0 rule entitled "Conditionals and Determinacy", with the following text: A conditional is any textual structure that attempts to make a statement affecting any part or aspect of the

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] ADoP and Prime Minister Elections

oh I read "as PM" as "for PM" carry on. On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > This is my vote for ADoP. I voted for myself as PM, and only once. > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > You only have one vote anyway: > >The holder of

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] ADoP and Prime Minister Elections

This is my vote for ADoP. I voted for myself as PM, and only once. On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > You only have one vote anyway: >The holder of the office of Prime Minister's voting strength is >increased by 1 on all Agoran

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] ADoP and Prime Minister Elections

You only have one vote anyway: The holder of the office of Prime Minister's voting strength is increased by 1 on all Agoran decisions other than a elections of the Prime Minister. On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > I retract any votes for ADoP and vote Alexis. > > On

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7908-7921

You didn’t vote on lint screen, but did vote on two proposals still in the pool. > On Oct 8, 2017, at 9:10 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > > Silly season: FORx2 > No Lockout: FORx2 > What is a rulekeepor: AGAINSTx2 > Infinite Money Fix: FORx2 > Election Campaigns: FORx2 > Cheer up v7:

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7908-7921 [+ CoE]

> On Oct 8, 2017, at 8:50 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] ADoP and Prime Minister Elections

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > I'm not sure why > G. didn't intiate for ADoP, the nexus of all this "misrule". I > initiate an election for ADoP. Honestly this latest not-big-deal mistake just reminded me that I'd meant to do this as soon as I won and became speaker (the circumstances

DIS: Re: BUS: Finger pointing

Given that it was only a few hours late, I think a green card would appropriate. -Aris On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > I Point a Finger at Aris for failing to distribute proposals last week. > > -Alexis

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] ADoP and Prime Minister Elections

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 23:27 VJ Rada wrote: > I have two ballots as PM. I cast one ballot of {Alexis, VJ Rada} and > one ballot of {VJ Rada, Alexis} > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 23:20 VJ Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] ADoP and Prime Minister Elections

Hey, did the CFJ on Quazie being the Superintendent ever get resolved? This might be relevant if, say, Murphy becomes PM. On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 23:18 VJ Rada wrote: >> >> Hey, if you're commending me for

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] ADoP and Prime Minister Elections

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 23:20 VJ Rada wrote: > For PM I vote myself. For ADoP I vote Alexis x 1 and myself x 1. > NttPF. Also I think the ordering of your ADoP vote might be slightly ambiguous?

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] ADoP and Prime Minister Elections

For PM I vote myself. For ADoP I vote Alexis x 1 and myself x 1. On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 2:18 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > Hey, if you're commending me for one thing as ADoP, I've been very > very good about initiating and resolving elections. I'm not sure why > G. didn't intiate for

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

I forgot you also disputed the orange ribbon. I retract any and all CFJs and call using Shinies a CFJ with the following statement. "G. was the speaker from September 28, 2017 to October 2 2017" On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at

Re: DIS: Re: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Basic Guaranteed Income

Oh, okay. That makes sense. On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm preparing my report. The Promotor has the power to remove > proposals that have existed without being pended for 14 days. Creating > a proposal is free, but pending one

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 20:38 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > A related (but different) case was the one where I was listed as an > officer in the > > IADoP's (as it then was,

Re: DIS: Re: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Basic Guaranteed Income

I'm preparing my report. The Promotor has the power to remove proposals that have existed without being pended for 14 days. Creating a proposal is free, but pending one costs shinies or AP. So basically it's just maintenance, to make sure the proposal doesn't hang around forever. -Aris On Sun,

Re: DIS: Re: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Basic Guaranteed Income

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 20:44 ATMunn . wrote: > Why exactly did you remove this? Was it discussed that it should be > removed? > > I don't have a problem with this being removed, I don't really care, I > just don't entirely understand why this was removed. > Regular

DIS: Re: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Basic Guaranteed Income

Why exactly did you remove this? Was it discussed that it should be removed? I don't have a problem with this being removed, I don't really care, I just don't entirely understand why this was removed. On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > A related (but different) case was the one where I was listed as an officer > in the > IADoP's (as it then was, IIRC) report as holding an office, but not in the > Registrar's > report. Since officeholding is restricted to players, it was held that the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

On Mon, 2017-10-09 at 00:33 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 20:26 Alex Smith wrote: > > > The minimal gamestate change required to make Quazie the speaker is > > that Quazie is now the speaker. We're changing the present, not the > > past. Notably,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 20:26 Alex Smith wrote: > The minimal gamestate change required to make Quazie the speaker is > that Quazie is now the speaker. We're changing the present, not the > past. Notably, we're not changing /why/ Quazie is the speaker; that's > arguably

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Sun, 2017-10-08 at 20:17 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: > > On 10/08/2017 08:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > > > > Isn't the minimal change to the gamestate required to make Quazie > > > > speaker

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

On Sun, 2017-10-08 at 20:17 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > On 10/08/2017 08:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > > > Isn't the minimal change to the gamestate required to make Quazie > > > speaker just not having me have appointed you speaker before

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

I think it would revoke G.'s Transparent Ribbon (if indeed it was awarded); if the report had been true and correct, then G.'s attempt to award emself the ribbon would have failed. As a result, the gamestate now would not have a Transparent Ribbon. Ratification generally can (and should, for good

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

I would be happy to call a CFJ, but I am unsure of how to effectively word it. On 10/08/2017 08:19 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: This is what CFJs are for. If the judge can't figure it out, then it didn't work. -Aris On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 5:18 PM VJ Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

 It seems in the past we ignored what the minimal possible change was and just assumed it didn't change the gamestate until the ratification. This is clean, but it leaves problems, like what we are running into now. On 10/08/2017 08:19 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: This is what CFJs are for. If the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

I think G's right in how it has been treated in the past. But we can just self-ratify my current report, which lists G. On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:18 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > Well hey if we can't discern the minimal change then it didn't work at > all, right? > > On Mon, Oct 9,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

This is what CFJs are for. If the judge can't figure it out, then it didn't work. -Aris On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 5:18 PM VJ Rada wrote: > Well hey if we can't discern the minimal change then it didn't work at > all, right? > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Publius

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

Well hey if we can't discern the minimal change then it didn't work at all, right? On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > This really boils down to a philosophical and logistical discussion of what > constitutes the minimal

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

This really boils down to a philosophical and logistical discussion of what constitutes the minimal change. On 10/08/2017 08:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: My guess is that doesn't work because up until the date of the ratified report I was Speaker and used some speaker powers. I'd say the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

My guess is that doesn't work because up until the date of the ratified report I was Speaker and used some speaker powers. I'd say the minimal change is just that the switch got flipped to Quazie magically upon the date of the report. But who knows maybe you're right. On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

No, it isn't. If we let my current ADoP report self-ratify though, it will be fixed. Or Quazie you could resign from speaker allowing me to appoint G. On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:12 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > Isn't the minimal change to the gamestate required to make Quazie >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

Isn't the minimal change to the gamestate required to make Quazie speaker just not having me have appointed you speaker before now? On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I don't think the conditions allowing you to appoint me exist right now. > > On

DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

I don't think the conditions allowing you to appoint me exist right now. On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > My "Final Metareport" self-ratified. It is listed as being effective > as of October 2, 4 days after G. should have been the speaker. > > I appoint G. speaker. > > -- > From V.J.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3566 assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

I believe this was discussed recently and will turn it back up before resolving any motion to reconsider. On 10/08/2017 06:58 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: I intend, with two support, to file a Motion to Reconsider on this case because the judge's arguments fail to address a significant portion of

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3566 assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

ILLEGAL and INEFFECTIVE. I was just being explicit about the ILLEGAL. On 10/08/2017 05:45 PM, VJ Rada wrote: Illegal or ineffective? They are different, especially in the card rules, On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3572 assigned to o

I would like to specify that I did note take note of or understand those messages. I also do not know of any way to decrypt such messages, which distinguishes it from the "google translate:" precedent. On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> On Oct 8, 2017, at

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3572 assigned to o

> On Oct 8, 2017, at 1:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Pls stop calling all the CFJs VJ or I can't assign any to you :) > > > The below is CFJ 3572 I assign it to o. I haven’t dug at this yet, but I expect this to be a fairly straightforward extension of CFJ