Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ratification (Quasi-Resolution of PM and ADoP Elections)

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 at 02:04 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I recommend a green card. Given the preceding a-d discussion, this was > clearly an accidental omission and not an attempt at fraud. > > -Aris > > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:02 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > > I point

DIS: Re: BUS: Ratification (Quasi-Resolution of PM and ADoP Elections)

I recommend a green card. Given the preceding a-d discussion, this was clearly an accidental omission and not an attempt at fraud. -Aris On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:02 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > I point a finger at myself for not stating that the document was wrong. > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 3:06 PM,

Re: DIS: Important note to Assessor and Promotor

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: >> >> 7922* Alexis 3.0 Clarity Act Alexis 1 AP >> > > H. Assessor, H. Promotor: > > Proposal 7922 tinkers with the definition of ballots and votes. It would be > *r

Re: DIS: Important note to Assessor and Promotor

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 at 01:24 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > > 7922* Alexis 3.0 Clarity Act Alexis 1 AP > > > > H. Assessor, H. Promotor: > > Proposal 7922 tinkers with the definition of ballots and votes. It would > be > *

DIS: Important note to Assessor and Promotor

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > > 7922* Alexis 3.0 Clarity Act Alexis 1 AP > H. Assessor, H. Promotor: Proposal 7922 tinkers with the definition of ballots and votes. It would be *really nice* if all other proposals in this batch were resolved first,

DIS: Revised High-Power Cleanup

Revised based on feedback. Proposal: High Power Cleanup (AI=3, coauthors=G, PSS) {{{ Text in square brackets is not a substantive part of this proposal and is ignored when it takes effect. Amend Rule 105, bullet 2 to read "When a rule is repealed, it cea

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Re: E•MO•TION

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: Ah, forgot that cleanup time could do that. I intend without objection to cause Cleanup Time to amend the ruleset by replacing “registrar” in any places it appears with “Registrar”. Does this require specifying an order? There might be just one such R

DIS: CFJ on another Campaigning mess (Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921)

I make two CFJ, and request that they be linked: There exists a Rule entitled "Campaign Proposals, with power 3", with power 1. and The ADOP SHALL NOT distribute Campaign Proposals for ongoing elections. My argument for the first one is that proposal 7912 contains an ob

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Proposal Pool (revised)

If it isn't self-ratifying, you're not obliged to deal with it, I think. On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 at 00:09 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm probably going to deny this, as there is (I think) a custom that the > effective date of a revision is implied to be that of the o

DIS: Re: BUS: Ratification (Quasi-Resolution of PM and ADoP Elections)

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 at 00:06 VJ Rada wrote: > I intend to ratify the document contained in curly braces. > {Just now, ATMunn won an election for ADoP. Just now, Alexis won an > election for Prime Minister}. > > If anyone's interested, here's a vote-count. > > PM > Three first preference Alexis vo

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Proposal Pool (revised)

I'm probably going to deny this, as there is (I think) a custom that the effective date of a revision is implied to be that of the original report. -Aris On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 9:04 PM Alexis Hunt wrote: > Oh, also, just in case, to stop self-ratification: CoE: there are more > proposals in th

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote: {{{ A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes. It is not possible to for multiple rule changes to occur simultaneously; any attempt to cause multiple rule changes without a statement of the order in which those change

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7922-7929

also, nttpf On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 2:41 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > "The problem here is that deregistration without objection isn’t > cuddlebeam-proof." > > I think you mean everyone-proof! Omd and Murphy can't be deregistered > rn and that's 1/10 of the whole Supply level right there. > > On Mon, Oct

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: [don’t know if anybody else shares this sentiment] Please use mail-archive instead of the built-in mailman archive. I have to dig up my mailman password every time, and it’s a pain. I do. Greetings, Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: election end discussion

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 at 20:24 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Actually, retroactively replacing an Officeholder is ugly. Better version: > > The following document is ratified: > { > [winner] has just now won an election for Prime Minister. > [winner] has just now won an election for ADoP. > } > > After

Re: DIS: eval()

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 at 20:45 Gaelan Steele wrote: > There are many places where Agora essentially calls eval(T), where T is > some text from a player. This includes: > > The rules, of course > Proposals > Regulations > Other powered instruments (do we have any of those lying around?) > Public mes

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7922-7929

"The problem here is that deregistration without objection isn’t cuddlebeam-proof." I think you mean everyone-proof! Omd and Murphy can't be deregistered rn and that's 1/10 of the whole Supply level right there. On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > >> On Oct 15, 2017, at 8:2

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7922-7929

> On Oct 15, 2017, at 8:20 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 > quorum is 8.0 and the valid option

DIS: Re: BUS: E•MO•TION

I mean put it in your list for the next "Cleanup Time" haha. I should have noticed it earlier. On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > Is it capitalized in the proposal? If not, I don’t believe I’m allowed to do > so. > > Gaelan > >> On Oct 15, 2017, at 7:18 PM, VJ Rada wrote: >

DIS: Re: BUS: E•MO•TION

Is it capitalized in the proposal? If not, I don’t believe I’m allowed to do so. Gaelan > On Oct 15, 2017, at 7:18 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > > By the way, Hon. Rulekeepor: in the new emotions rule, "Registrar" > should be capitalized. > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:43 PM, VJ Rada wrote: >> https:/

DIS: Re: BUS: E•MO•TION

By the way, Hon. Rulekeepor: in the new emotions rule, "Registrar" should be capitalized. On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:43 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV5lzRHrGeg > > I change my emotion to melancholy because the enabling proposal, which > I voted against, passed, and becaus

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] A Reward for Obedience

No I think that's an actually good proposal that provides a path to victory that might be conceivable while also incentivising strict rules enforcement. I would likely vote FOR it in its current form. Although that said, perhaps if this comes in Victory Elections should go, for in my opinion they'r

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

Fair. However, submitting a proposal is a way of making it available to pend. You're basically putting it out into the world, and saying that you're ready to have it passed with your name on it. It serves no other intrinsic purpose, and indeed creates extra work for the Promotor. That's why, IMHO,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

If you aren't sure it's ready, you shouldn't pend it! On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 19:08 Aris Merchant, < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > As a general rule, if you aren't sure that something is read it should > be a proto, not a proposal. > > -Aris > > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Alexi

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

It's not that I want to ratify a scam but, rather, I would have done a minor scam affecting the outcome and may yet do so if there's another election; if the result is imposed by ratification, I would not get that opportunity. On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 18:29 ATMunn ., wrote: > ​erm. what is going on

DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

As a general rule, if you aren't sure that something is read it should be a proto, not a proposal. -Aris On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > I withdraw it; I had some revisions to do and it isn't ready. > > > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 18:27 Aris Merchant, > wrote: >> >> I pend thi

Re: DIS: eval()

You want it to work where the players are the input device and Agora regularly checks for changes from the players, but I want it to be that players are the input and change Agora. On 10/15/2017 08:52 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: I’m afraid I don’t get the analogy. Gaelan On Oct 15, 2017, at 5

Re: DIS: eval()

I’m afraid I don’t get the analogy. Gaelan > On Oct 15, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: > > I disagree with this. I think the distinction is that you want Agora to work > like USB, whereas now Agora works like PS/2. > > > On 10/15/2017 08:45 PM, Gaelan Steele wrot

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] A Reward for Obedience

I know that I for one read over it and liked the idea and wasn't sure whether it was would work as is, but didn't have thoughts on how to improve it, therefore I didn't comment. I'm sorry that I wasn't very helpful, but I don't have ideas on how I could be. On 10/15/2017 08:35 PM, ATMunn . wr

Re: DIS: eval()

I disagree with this. I think the distinction is that you want Agora to work like USB, whereas now Agora works like PS/2. On 10/15/2017 08:45 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: There are many places where Agora essentially calls eval(T), where T is some text from a player. This includes: The rules, of

Re: DIS: eval()

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > There are many places where Agora essentially calls eval(T), where T is some > text from a player. This includes: > > The rules, of course > Proposals > Regulations > Other powered instruments (do we have any of those lying around?) > Public

DIS: eval()

There are many places where Agora essentially calls eval(T), where T is some text from a player. This includes: The rules, of course Proposals Regulations Other powered instruments (do we have any of those lying around?) Public messages Orgs Agencies Contracts Old Pledges Conditional votes CFJs

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] A Reward for Obedience

Hopefully this doesn't sound like I'm begging for attention or something, but this seems to have been ignored. I don't mind that much, I'd just like to know what stuff needs improvement. Have people just not noticed it yet, does it really not have much wrong with it, or am I just too impatient? On

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

Oh, ok. Makes sense. On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Sun, 2017-10-15 at 20:26 -0400, ATMunn . wrote: > > Is this new or am I not aware of something? > > The reward's always been there, but only for shiny-pended proposals. > AP-pending used to be a lot more common (but peo

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

On Sun, 2017-10-15 at 20:26 -0400, ATMunn . wrote: > Is this new or am I not aware of something? The reward's always been there, but only for shiny-pended proposals. AP-pending used to be a lot more common (but people tend to spam shiny- pends when Agora's close to broke, because the price is low

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

​erm. what is going on here?​

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

You can't because you pended it with AP. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Oct 15, 2017, at 8:27 PM, ATMunn . wrote: > > TTttPF > > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:26 PM, ATMunn . wrote: > Is this new or am I not aware of something? > > Well, either way

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

Is this new or am I not aware of something? Well, either way, I guess I also claim a reward of two shinies for authoring and pending a passed proposal. On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:16 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > I claim the reward of two shinies for authoring and pending a passed > proposal. > > On Mon,

DIS: Re: election end discussion

Actually, retroactively replacing an Officeholder is ugly. Better version: The following document is ratified: { [winner] has just now won an election for Prime Minister. [winner] has just now won an election for ADoP. } On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Proto ratification statement (t

DIS: election end discussion

Proto ratification statement (this can also be in a proposal): The following document is ratified: { On Mon Oct 15 03:18:27 UTC, [winner] won an election for Prime Minister. On Mon Oct 15 03:18:27 UTC, [winner] won an election for ADoP. } The current (new) rule reads: When a player wins

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Proposal Pool (revised)

reminder to self: Equity is Hard. On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > True. But quorum is 8.0 right now. It has happened (actually twice, > although one of the times ratified away) that proposals distributed on > their own due to an error in the original pool did't meet quorum. > Early

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Proposal Pool (revised)

True. But quorum is 8.0 right now. It has happened (actually twice, although one of the times ratified away) that proposals distributed on their own due to an error in the original pool did't meet quorum. Early in the week I was hoping Gaelan would revise eir proposal, as e said e wanted to. Then I

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Proposal Pool (revised)

In an equity sense, I'd say the significant delay for someone who paid to pend a proposal is worse than the inconvenience of having to reply to two voting messages to vote. On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > If by "the report" you mean the one I just I did, I avoided that > because I'm

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

Lmao no I'm not ratifying a scam for Alexis here if I can help it. On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: >> I would possibly object to that, as I had a scam planned but didn't fire it >> as a result of the decisions being invalid; I wou

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Proposal Pool (revised)

For the sake of clarity, it is my interpretation of the relevant rules that the Promotor is required to distribute all proposals once each week, but not necessarily to distribute _all_ proposals in a given week. I did so last week, with the ones I know about, and will do it again this week. Either

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > I would possibly object to that, as I had a scam planned but didn't fire it > as a result of the decisions being invalid; I wouldn't support ratifying if > it would have made a difference. If we can't agree to a ratification, then I'd attempt it by Prop

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

A little earlier VJ Rada CoE'd that the Decision part of the election never even began (and e was right), so you have to ratify a bit more than the resolution part. On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > Or you could just ratify the resolution of the election. That's even simpler. > > -

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Proposal Pool (revised)

If by "the report" you mean the one I just I did, I avoided that because I'm preparing the next report and its easier for people to vote when everything is in one place. -Aris On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > I would submit, as arguments, that the Promotor was reminded and h

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Proposal Pool (revised)

I would submit, as arguments, that the Promotor was reminded and had the opportunity to avoid the violation by distributing the proposal at the time of the report. On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 17:59 Aris Merchant, < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Very true. I plead guilty and request the m

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Proposal Pool (revised)

Very true. I plead guilty and request the mercy of the Referee for this error, noting that it was an inadvertent mistake. -Aris On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > I Point a Finger at Aris, alleging that e failed to distribute the proposal > identified below as pp3 last week, t

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

Or you could just ratify the resolution of the election. That's even simpler. -Aris On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Actually, maybe the easiest thing is to wait 4 hours for the original > voting period to end (unofficially), tally the votes, and then ratify > the ADoP r

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

I would possibly object to that, as I had a scam planned but didn't fire it as a result of the decisions being invalid; I wouldn't support ratifying if it would have made a difference. On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 17:56 Kerim Aydin, wrote: > > > Actually, maybe the easiest thing is to wait 4 hours for

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

Actually, maybe the easiest thing is to wait 4 hours for the original voting period to end (unofficially), tally the votes, and then ratify the ADoP report with the winners as officeholders and ratify the fact that they were installed via election and the election is over? On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, K

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

I'm fine with it. On 10/15/2017 05:37 PM, VJ Rada wrote: The election was validly initiated. It looks like for four hours or so that we're still in the Nomination Phase: and then if there is more than one candidate we'll go in an election, with the Assessor counting (hope you're ok with that ad

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Terrifying Proposals Reward (revised)

On Sun, 2017-10-15 at 16:42 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > ID: 7915 > Title: Terrifying Proposals Reward > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: CuddleBeam > Co-authors: > > The victor of the "The Terrifying Proposals" Proposal Competition, > once ever via this effect, can gain 3 Stamps from Agora by > ann

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

I'll have a go in a bit. On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > I actually don't know how to properly phrase that under the new Election > rules. > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > I object. > > > > This would take 2 weeks + 4 day objection period + pauses in

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

I actually don't know how to properly phrase that under the new Election rules. On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I object. > > This would take 2 weeks + 4 day objection period + pauses in between. > > If instead you ratify that a decision started back when you said it >

DIS: Re: BUS: Safety Regulations

Darn, typo. I retract Safety Regulations. I submit the following proposal. -Aris --- Title: Safety Regulations v2 Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Aris Co-author(s): Alexis Amend Rule 2493, "Regulations", by * Replacing every instance of the word "instrument" with the words "textual entity"; a

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > I was waiting because I noticed days later and I hoped nobody else did. > > Fun fact: Only one of the Decisions I've initiated was ever valid. > Obviously ratified now but I can't seem to get all four conditions > lmao. Only one person (Alexis) ever noticed,

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

I was waiting because I noticed days later and I hoped nobody else did. Fun fact: Only one of the Decisions I've initiated was ever valid. Obviously ratified now but I can't seem to get all four conditions lmao. Only one person (Alexis) ever noticed, and e didn't this time. I now have a "checklis

DIS: Re: BUS: 愚かな人

Oh dear, I guess I should prepare for this. 天火狐 On 15 October 2017 at 16:22, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I designate 天火狐 to be next week's Silly Person. > > >

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > I now, to a-b, officially "identify" the lack of options noted in my > initiation. > > The ELECTIONS were still initiated (one by G. and one by me) but the > DECISIONS were not. Anyway, if you're right, I think we're worse-off now then if you'd let the De

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

>By the rules of the time, the Decision was initiated correctly. THIS IS NOT TRUE. By the rules of the time, they were initiated wrongly. By the UNAMENDED rules of today (Initiating Agoran Decisions, rule 107), not changed at all by new proposals) they were still wrong. I am taking a quibble with

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgments of 3570-3571. (Was Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3571 assigned to Nichdel)

Gotcha, thanks. On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > E's judging that the document I ratified ratified GOD into existence > but did not change the past to establish BOO. > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > Don't your arguments imply FALSE for CFJ 3571 (the CFJ

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgments of 3570-3571. (Was Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3571 assigned to Nichdel)

E's judging that the document I ratified ratified GOD into existence but did not change the past to establish BOO. On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Don't your arguments imply FALSE for CFJ 3571 (the CFJ statement is > "G: Overlord of Dunce is an Agency.") > > On Sun, 15 O

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgments of 3570-3571. (Was Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3571 assigned to Nichdel)

Don't your arguments imply FALSE for CFJ 3571 (the CFJ statement is "G: Overlord of Dunce is an Agency.") On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote: > I judge CFJ 3570 FALSE. I judge CFJ 3571 TRUE. > > First there's little doubt that "G is Overlord of Dunce" is not an > agency, because the name is i

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 08:54 +1100, VJ Rada wrote: > > And the notice of initiation lacked any set of the valid votes, which > > I wasn't going to point out but now do. Therefore, the Agoran > > Decisions were never initiated. > > Does pointing it out to a

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > Alternatively: the rules of Initiating Agoran Decision state "This > notice is invalid if it lacks any of the following information, and > the lack is correctly identified within one week after the notice is > published: > > The matter to be decided (for exa

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 08:54 +1100, VJ Rada wrote: > And the notice of initiation lacked any set of the valid votes, which > I wasn't going to point out but now do. Therefore, the Agoran > Decisions were never initiated. Does pointing it out to a-d count? I'd recommend an explicit "CoE" to a-b, as

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > The rules now also provide no way for the ADoP to resolve such an > Agoran decision, but the election's initiation stated that the ADoP > was the resolver. I guess the election would sort of dissolve in thin > air if this interpretation was taken. It would b

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

Alternatively: the rules of Initiating Agoran Decision state "This notice is invalid if it lacks any of the following information, and the lack is correctly identified within one week after the notice is published: The matter to be decided (for example, "the adoption of proposal 4781"). A clear i

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

Some thoughts: 1. The new rule says: When an election is initiated, it enters the nomination period Since this wasn't in effect "when the election was initiated", the election couldn't have entered the nomination period. So I'm pretty sure we're not in the nomination period. 2. It's poss

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

I guess this is "an Agoran decision to select the winner of the election (the poll).". The rule provides that "For this decision, the Vote Collector is the Assessor, the valid options are the candidates for that election (including those who become candi

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

I will contradict you. If you asked the question "is a Decision ongoing for these elections" I'd say the answer would be yes. I think we're in the Decision phase. (I'll wait for more discussion before CFJing). On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > If anyone else wants to contradict me on wh

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

The election was validly initiated. It looks like for four hours or so that we're still in the Nomination Phase: and then if there is more than one candidate we'll go in an election, with the Assessor counting (hope you're ok with that added duty PSS) On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Kerim Aydin

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3571 assigned to Nichdel

Wow I can't read today. Carry on. On 10/15/17 16:28, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > The thing you quoted says "with Shinies"...? > > On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote: >> On 10/06/17 14:14, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> [Sorry, I initially missed the second "linked" CFJ in the below message.] >>> >>> > I

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3571 assigned to Nichdel

The thing you quoted says "with Shinies"...? On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote: > On 10/06/17 14:14, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > [Sorry, I initially missed the second "linked" CFJ in the below message.] > > > > > >>> I also call a linked CFJ (yes, I know those don't exist) with Shinies > >>>

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3571 assigned to Nichdel

On 10/06/17 14:14, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > [Sorry, I initially missed the second "linked" CFJ in the below message.] > > >>> I also call a linked CFJ (yes, I know those don't exist) with Shinies >>> with the statement: "G: Overlord of Dunce is an Agency." Did this linked CFJ work? It doesn't say

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 21:17 Aris Merchant > wrote >> >> No, there definitely is a problem with giving rule permission for >> people to define arbitrary things that could be paradoxical. Both >> organizations and agencies, which this replaces

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > 7912* Alexis3.0 Election Campaigns Alexis 1 AP [2] So, um ... anyone want to opine on the status of the PM or ADoP elections?

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

Quorums of 8 again ugh. Stop voting y'all lmao. On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > I resolve the decision(s) to adopt proposal(s) 7908-7921 below. > > > > [This notice resolves the A

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

See inline notes, below: On 10/15/2017 04:18 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: A new contracts version is affixed. -Aris --- Title: Contracts v5 Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Aris Co-author(s): o, G., ais523, Gaelan, 天火狐, CuddleBeam, V.J Rada, Trigon, Alexis, P.S.S. Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#"

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 21:17 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote > No, there definitely is a problem with giving rule permission for > people to define arbitrary things that could be paradoxical. Both > organizations and agencies, which this replaces, have similar > prohibiti

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 22:28 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Regulations are not dangerous, certainly not "very dangerous". > Regulations only work at the power of their parent rule, and can only > do what their parent rule says they can do. This is the first of > seve

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 21:57 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Why not keep the birthday tournament. It existed before regulations. > It is kept, in its original form as part of 2464.

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

I just finished reading this all through. I don't entirely understand all of it, but most of it makes sense. One part that seemed a bit strange and arbitrary is the fact that contracts always cost 1 shiny to create. Is there a reason why this is a fixed value instead of, say, 1/20th of the floating

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3575 judged TRUE

So I'm paying someone a 10% commission to do what I tell them with my own money. Pretty good plan imo. On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 7:52 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > Only if I reregister immediately. I'm basically trying to not have > Alexis steal all my money again while still not tampering with my > agency.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3575 judged TRUE

Only if I reregister immediately. I'm basically trying to not have Alexis steal all my money again while still not tampering with my agency. On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, VJ Rada wrote: >> I claim the reward of 1 shiny for this report.

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

On Sun, 2017-10-15 at 00:07 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote: > Another worrying thought: if we a judge decides that the later > definition should inform what the proposal considers to be a > “contract,” and there’s some bug with the “contract-as-textual- > documents” thing that causes rules to be consid

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

A new contracts version is affixed. -Aris --- Title: Contracts v5 Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Aris Co-author(s): o, G., ais523, Gaelan, 天火狐, CuddleBeam, V.J Rada, Trigon, Alexis, P.S.S. Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets ("[]") have no effect on the behavior of

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

Another worrying thought: if we a judge decides that the later definition should inform what the proposal considers to be a “contract,” and there’s some bug with the “contract-as-textual-documents” thing that causes rules to be considered contracts… Gaelan > On Oct 14, 2017, at 4:36 PM, Kerim

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[don’t know if anybody else shares this sentiment] Please use mail-archive instead of the built-in mailman archive. I have to dig up my mailman password every time, and it’s a pain. Gaelan P.S. omd, if you’re listening: if possible, please remove the requirement for logging in to view archives