Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Backing Documents?

On Tue, 2017-11-07 at 22:41 -0500, Owen Jacobson wrote: > It’s not clear to me that the suggested ambiguity is sufficient to > render a fixed asset transferrable, though. Maybe I’m dense, but the > relevant clauses > > > Pledges are an indestructible fixed asset. > > and > > > An asset generally

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Backing Documents?

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 7:41 PM Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > On Nov 7, 2017, at 10:36 PM, Aris Merchant < > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 7:34 PM Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > >> Pledges are fixed assets (r. 2450, “Pledges”) and therefore cannot be > >> tran

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Backing Documents?

> On Nov 7, 2017, at 10:36 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 7:34 PM Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> Pledges are fixed assets (r. 2450, “Pledges”) and therefore cannot be >> transferred (r. 2166, “Assets”). >> >> -o > > Did you read the surrounding discussion? No, just the ru

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Backing Documents?

On Tue, 2017-11-07 at 22:34 -0500, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > On Nov 7, 2017, at 8:51 PM, Aris Merchant > @gmail.com> wrote: > > > > For each player X except myself (sorry V.J.): > > > > { > > I create a pledge with the text "I shall not transfer pledges, > > unless > > my name is Aris." > > I tra

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Backing Documents?

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 7:34 PM Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > On Nov 7, 2017, at 8:51 PM, Aris Merchant < > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > For each player X except myself (sorry V.J.): > > > > { > > I create a pledge with the text "I shall not transfer pledges, unless > > my name

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Backing Documents?

> On Nov 7, 2017, at 8:51 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > For each player X except myself (sorry V.J.): > > { > I create a pledge with the text "I shall not transfer pledges, unless > my name is Aris." > I transfer that pledge to X. > } Pledges are fixed assets (r. 2450, “Pledges”) and theref

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3591 assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 21:39 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I judge CFJ 3591 FALSE because Rule 208 reads "The vote collector for an > > unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve it by announcement, indic

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract (It's all you, o.)

> On Nov 7, 2017, at 7:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: >> 1: Make transactions from the Head to Agora of exactly 1 shiny, for >> the sole purpose of paying for an Estate. > > Counterarguments: > > We've previously found that if you try to pay for somet

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3591 assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 21:39 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > I judge CFJ 3591 FALSE because Rule 208 reads "The vote collector for an > unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve it by announcement, indicating > the outcome." Given that the decision was n

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3591 assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

If the dates of reports don't ratify, what does? Isn't self-ratification just "this is the case on this date"? On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Note to others: The consequences of this is that when any Decision > results self-ratify, the date on which the Decision was res

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

oh. well, that's pretty impressive. i'm impressed. sorry for being wrong and making you go to that work. On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > Double checked; you were a coauthor of all of those. > > On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 22:01 VJ Rada wrote: > >> Yeah, I managed to give myself o

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3591 assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

Note to others: The consequences of this is that when any Decision results self-ratify, the date on which the Decision was resolved *doesn't* self-ratify. The secondary implication is that, since no other things (like switches) specify that the dates ratify, that the dates of reports also don't

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

Double checked; you were a coauthor of all of those. On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 22:01 VJ Rada wrote: > Yeah, I managed to give myself one for authoring 3 proposals and then > nobody noticed and it's still in the report haha. That's pretty funny. > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Alex Smith > wrote

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

Yeah, I managed to give myself one for authoring 3 proposals and then nobody noticed and it's still in the report haha. That's pretty funny. On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2017-11-08 at 13:40 +1100, VJ Rada wrote: >> So... lime ribbons only work for proposals that you

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

On Wed, 2017-11-08 at 13:40 +1100, VJ Rada wrote: > So... lime ribbons only work for proposals that you are a coauthor, > but not the actual author of, right? I think I got one that I should > not have a while ago (obviously ratified now). Right, it's intended to encourage people to help improve e

DIS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

So... lime ribbons only work for proposals that you are a coauthor, but not the actual author of, right? I think I got one that I should not have a while ago (obviously ratified now). On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > TAILOR'S RIBBON REPORT > -- > > Date of

Re: DIS: Contract proto

No problem. Being appointed as an Author doesn't mean you are one, it just means you CAN become one. On 11/7/2017 9:28 PM, Josh T wrote: Seems fun, but I probably won't want to be an Author until December at least since real life is being busy. 天火狐 On 7 November 2017 at 21:23, ATMunn wrote:

Re: DIS: Contract proto

Ah, I completely forgot to allow players to leave. I'll add that, and maybe change it to either With Notice or Without Objection. On 11/7/2017 9:29 PM, Alex Smith wrote: On Tue, 2017-11-07 at 21:23 -0500, ATMunn wrote: I had this idea for a contract while in the shower last night. I decided to

Re: DIS: Contract proto

On Tue, 2017-11-07 at 21:23 -0500, ATMunn wrote: > I had this idea for a contract while in the shower last night. I > decided to make a quick prototype. I think everything looks good, but > I'll put this here just in case. It allows you to amend the contract unilaterally (with notice), and doesn't

Re: DIS: Contract proto

Seems fun, but I probably won't want to be an Author until December at least since real life is being busy. 天火狐 On 7 November 2017 at 21:23, ATMunn wrote: > I had this idea for a contract while in the shower last night. I decided > to make a quick prototype. I think everything looks good, but I

DIS: Contract proto

I had this idea for a contract while in the shower last night. I decided to make a quick prototype. I think everything looks good, but I'll put this here just in case. Title: "Sherlock Holmes Institute" Any player CAN bec

Re: DIS: Backing Documents?

And it's a good thing, otherwise Agora might have been in some serious trouble. That is, until someone proposed a fix and all was well. On 11/7/2017 9:14 PM, VJ Rada wrote: Yeah, and no judge will choose the dumb option over the non-dumb option, so I think we can all just agree that assets work

Re: DIS: Backing Documents?

Yeah, and no judge will choose the dumb option over the non-dumb option, so I think we can all just agree that assets work, and that lists are silly. On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > I think it's probably ambiguous enough to apply common sense. > > -Aris > > On Tue, Nov 7, 2

Re: DIS: Backing Documents?

I think it's probably ambiguous enough to apply common sense. -Aris On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 6:09 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > I suppose as a counter point you could have a sentence that says "this > is an agreement between Jeff, Johnny, Jackson, Jolene, and Jacqueline > (hereafter 'Parties'). Obviously J

Re: DIS: Backing Documents?

I think the answer is to avoid ambiguous structures. -- Trigon On Nov 7, 2017 7:09 PM, "VJ Rada" wrote: > I suppose as a counter point you could have a sentence that says "this > is an agreement between Jeff, Johnny, Jackson, Jolene, and Jacqueline > (hereafter 'Parties'). Obviously Jeff's a pa

Re: DIS: Backing Documents?

I suppose as a counter point you could have a sentence that says "this is an agreement between Jeff, Johnny, Jackson, Jolene, and Jacqueline (hereafter 'Parties'). Obviously Jeff's a party. And I suppose it's like "A contract is an entity defined as such by one of these things, hereafter its backi

Re: DIS: Backing Documents?

Surely the parenthetical refers to the last item in the list. I mean, if it were another modifying clause (eg: I need a fruit, a vegetable, an omnibus or a piece of chocolate, which must be yellow), it would only refer to the last item in the list. Or in a sentence like "My name is Jeff, I wear a h

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Backing Documents?

Indeed I did. Well, that's good. -Aris On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 5:56 PM VJ Rada wrote: > I transfer my version of that pledge back to Aris. > > I think you've forgotten that breaking the terms of pledges is legal, > only having them called in is illegal. > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Aris

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Backing Documents?

On Tue, 2017-11-07 at 17:51 -0800, Aris Merchant wrote: > For each player X except myself (sorry V.J.): > > { > I create a pledge with the text "I shall not transfer pledges, unless > my name is Aris." > I transfer that pledge to X. > } I was wondering about doing that myself. I'm not sure this

Re: DIS: Backing Documents?

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 20:39 VJ Rada wrote: > From rule 2166, "Assets" > > "An asset is an entity defined as such by a (a) rule, (b) authorized > regulation, (c) group of rules and/or authorized regulations (but if > such regulations modify a preexisting asset class defined by a rule or > another

Re: DIS: Backing Documents?

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 5:39 PM VJ Rada wrote: > From rule 2166, "Assets" > > "An asset is an entity defined as such by a (a) rule, (b) authorized > regulation, (c) group of rules and/or authorized regulations (but if > such regulations modify a preexisting asset class defined by a rule or > anoth

Re: DIS: Backing Documents?

Also "An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement, subject to modification by its backing document.". Therefore we can destroy shinies and pledges by announcement "An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. paid, given) by announcement by its owner to another entity, subject

DIS: Backing Documents?

>From rule 2166, "Assets" "An asset is an entity defined as such by a (a) rule, (b) authorized regulation, (c) group of rules and/or authorized regulations (but if such regulations modify a preexisting asset class defined by a rule or another title of regulations, they must be authorized specifica

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract (It's all you, o.)

(or at least, one of the reasons) On 11/7/2017 8:30 PM, ATMunn wrote: This whole thing is why I want to get my Auctions proposal done as soon as possible... On 11/7/2017 8:29 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: The wording is different enough on Auctions versus typical spend actions that you still have

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract (It's all you, o.)

This whole thing is why I want to get my Auctions proposal done as soon as possible... On 11/7/2017 8:29 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: The wording is different enough on Auctions versus typical spend actions that you still have a good chance IMO... On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: Yup. Now looki

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract (It's all you, o.)

The wording is different enough on Auctions versus typical spend actions that you still have a good chance IMO... On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > Yup. Now looking desperately for infinite-money scams brb. > > > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract (It's all you, o.)

Yup. Now looking desperately for infinite-money scams brb. On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: >> > I don't remember that, but if you say so (and if there was a CFJ on >> > it). I'm happy to acc

Re: DIS: Rotating the Bench

On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > Please move me to the Weekend Court; not sure I can handle a major judgment > ATM and want to have more time to focus on Rulekeepor. Done.

DIS: Rotating the Bench

Please move me to the Weekend Court; not sure I can handle a major judgment ATM and want to have more time to focus on Rulekeepor.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract (It's all you, o.)

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > > I don't remember that, but if you say so (and if there was a CFJ on > > it). I'm happy to accept the card if I have to. > > No don't take my word for it. The argument depends on the pays/paid > grammar and that may

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract (It's all you, o.)

On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > I don't remember that, but if you say so (and if there was a CFJ on > it). I'm happy to accept the card if I have to. No don't take my word for it. The argument depends on the pays/paid grammar and that may have been different for any other case, especially

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract (It's all you, o.)

On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > The Estate Auction wording is: "The winner CAN cause Agora to transfer > the auctioned Estate to emself by announcement, IF E PAYS Agora the > amount of the bid". That's readable and should be read as > non-simultaneous: that is, the winner can get the estate

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract (It's all you, o.)

I don't remember that, but if you say so (and if there was a CFJ on it). I'm happy to accept the card if I have to. On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > That's not the situation I mean. I mean there was a transaction we > tested where someone did something like: > > "I pay 2

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract (It's all you, o.)

That's not the situation I mean. I mean there was a transaction we tested where someone did something like: "I pay 2 shinies to make a stamp; I pay 3 shinies to make a stamp." and it failed to make a 5-shiny stamp (and it didn't come down to exact wording, it was that it was found that you can

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract (It's all you, o.)

You're right on 'spend' though. Spending Shinies needs to be explicitly defined somewhere as transferring them to Agora. I had also thought that this was settled. On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 11:53 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > "(I mean, I'm perfectly ready to go with the interpretation that it works for > you,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract (It's all you, o.)

"(I mean, I'm perfectly ready to go with the interpretation that it works for you, but it also works for everything else and I can pay a 2 Shiny Pend fee by paying 1 shiny now and 1 in a week or something. That's why I was looking for the definitions that I thought we clarified but maybe never did

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract (It's all you, o.)

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > To be clear, I would look back at those recent precedents (I don't offhand > remember which cases or payments) to find the reasons for those judgements > before coming to a conclusion on this one. Both can't be right. (I mean, I'm perfectly ready to go

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract (It's all you, o.)

Well, both can be right. O's interpretation has reversed some transactions where, for example, someone was unable to buy a stamp and said "I transfer 5 shinies to agora to buy a stamp". Those 5 shinies could never have, in any case, led to buying a stamp, so the transaction was reversed on that bas

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract (It's all you, o.)

That's a reasonable common interpretation, I agree. And your argument is plausible. But it's exactly *not* how we interpreted recent transactions. To be clear, I would look back at those recent precedents (I don't offhand remember which cases or payments) to find the reasons for those judgemen

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract (It's all you, o.)

I would disagree. If you said, for example "I'm eating all this fast food for the purpose of gaining 10 kg", that wouldn't be an untrue statement, even if the food was normal-sized and not 10 kilograms heavy. On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, VJ Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract (It's all you, o.)

Yes, nichdel do you have that fixed version (without land) ready for another draft? If you're low on time I can make a draft. (I've got a simple Land version ready for that - not feature creep but replacement). On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote: > I'm not even surprised tbh basic income is a

DIS: Re: BUS: Contract (It's all you, o.)

On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > 1: Make transactions from the Head to Agora of exactly 1 shiny, for > the sole purpose of paying for an Estate. Counterarguments: We've previously found that if you try to pay for something, and fail, the entire transaction fails. So the first attempt to p

DIS: Re: BUS: Contract (It's all you, o.)

I'm not even surprised tbh basic income is a wreck on top of a wreck do we have an economic overhaul yet? pls don't get it delayed due to feature creep we need it ;_; On 2017-11-08 10:49, VJ Rada wrote: I spend 1 shiny to create the following Contract Name: Easy Off Scam: Cleaning Your Mold F

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Referee Stuff

Ahhh. On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 16:43 VJ Rada wrote: > No I removed those intentionally. > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > Except there are already limits on how often finger pointing can happen. > > > > On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 16:39 VJ Rada wrote: > > > >> Yo, I found an ob

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Referee Stuff

No I removed those intentionally. On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > Except there are already limits on how often finger pointing can happen. > > On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 16:39 VJ Rada wrote: > >> Yo, I found an obvious problem: The Referee can impose infinite cards >> by pointing

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Referee Stuff

Except there are already limits on how often finger pointing can happen. On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 16:39 VJ Rada wrote: > Yo, I found an obvious problem: The Referee can impose infinite cards > by pointing fingers. I create the following and pend it with Shinies. > > Title: Referee Reform Fix > AI:

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Referee Stuff

Yo, I found an obvious problem: The Referee can impose infinite cards by pointing fingers. I create the following and pend it with Shinies. Title: Referee Reform Fix AI: 1.7 Text: At the end of rule 2478 "Viglilante Justice", add a new paragraph with the text "The Referee CANNOT Point eir Finger.

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

> On Nov 7, 2017, at 5:56 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: > > Well, you seem to have fixed or broken something about the times of > recent events because they differ from the last report. This is close, but not close enough. Look closely at the differences there and you can proba

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Notes on Proposals 7931-7947, 7954-7956

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017, omd wrote: > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > 7941* Alexis 1.0 HTML Scrubbing Alexis 1 sh. > > > > This does not make any rule changes. I will, however, take it on myself as > > Prime Minister to contact the Distributor to

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7957-7961

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > 7958* G. 2.0 Succession Planning G. OP [1] > > FOR. I like the idea, but I’m not convinced of the implementation: in > particular, is an appointed successor an interim, or a non-interim > holder of an office? I’m voti

DIS: Re: BUS: Draft: [Proposal] Auctions v3

Okay, so I was thinking about what sort of penalty should be incurred for bidding more shinies than you have and still not having them by the end of the auction. My thinking is somehow managing to put an MMI term in there to allow it to be carded, and also adding some sort of fee. The problem with

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

why did I send that to a-b? classic Munn failing to send to the right forum On 11/7/2017 9:21 AM, ATMunn wrote: I think some of the stuff in the reports section is a bit off, specifically, the Tailor's report is not included. That part doesn't self-ratify though, so whatever. On 11/6/2017 9:4

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Dumb proposal

Haha, it's fine. It's partially my fault for overlooking the idea of someone else pending it. On 11/7/2017 4:53 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: I missed the pledge entirely. If it’s called in, I recommend a green card: not eir fault, and only minor gameplay effects. In the event a fine is issued I s

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

I don't even remember what the previous reports looked like, so I'm not getting those 5 shinies. On 11/7/2017 3:59 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: I completely rewrote the software that generates this report this week, but unless you’re very sharp-eyed, you can’t tell. I pledge to pay 5 sh. to the f

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Weekly Report

Oh, okay, sure. I think that might have been in VJ Rada's reports, but I think I deleted it because I didn't know what it was. I'll add it back. On 11/7/2017 9:02 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: The number of filled offices divided by the number of officers. On 11/07/2017 08:59 AM,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Treasuror] Supply Level Adjustment

I've done it before too, and far too many times. On 11/7/2017 4:40 AM, VJ Rada wrote: I revoke the below proposal. Even more classic. A don't insta-pend things lads. On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: On Nov 7, 2017, at 4:18 AM, VJ Rada wrote: god's SAKE classic Ra

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Weekly Report

The number of filled offices divided by the number of officers. On 11/07/2017 08:59 AM, ATMunn wrote: > Consolidation? > > On 11/7/2017 5:42 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> Could you continue to include Consolidation in your reports? >> >> On 11/06/2017 09:41 PM, ATMunn wrote: >>> I'

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Weekly Report

Consolidation? On 11/7/2017 5:42 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: Could you continue to include Consolidation in your reports? On 11/06/2017 09:41 PM, ATMunn wrote: I'm not entirely sure whether this is accurate or not because of the stuff with the Assessor. I'll just say it is. Plea

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Referee Stuff

H. Promotor, can you please assign IDs to this proposal and the one I expedited? Thanks. On Tue, Nov 7, 2017, 05:38 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > I resolve the decision(s) to adopt proposal(s) 7954-7956 below. > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Rules are repealable now

It's not in the list of things to which Cleanup Time applies. On Tue, Nov 7, 2017, 01:45 VJ Rada, wrote: > "You're missing a full stop and a capital letter." > > I'm not missing a capital actually. It's a cont​inuation of a sentence, and > the other bullet points are also sans capital. > > I'm n

Re: BUS: [Registrar] Monthly Deportations (Was: Re: DIS: Shiny Supply Level Fact (attn Treasuror!))

I'm fine with that because now we get more zombies. On 11/07/2017 04:19 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > Sorry Publius buddy, I effed up the Shiny Supply Level, which means I > gotta object to all o' these. I object to each intent in PSS's > message. > > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 7:27 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: >

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

Well, you seem to have fixed or broken something about the times of recent events because they differ from the last report. On 11/07/2017 03:59 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > I completely rewrote the software that generates this report this week, but > unless you’re very sharp-eyed, you can’t tell. >

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Weekly Report

Could you continue to include Consolidation in your reports? On 11/06/2017 09:41 PM, ATMunn wrote: > I'm not entirely sure whether this is accurate or not because > of the stuff with the Assessor. I'll just say it is. Please don't CoE > kthxbye > I was mistaken about how CoEs and self-ratification

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Notes on Proposals 7931-7947, 7954-7956

I concur with o's praise and on the request regarding GPG signatures. On 11/07/2017 01:42 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> On Nov 7, 2017, at 1:08 AM, omd wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: 7941* Alexis 1.0 HTML Scrubbing Alexis 1 sh. >>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Elections and Proposal 7954-7956

Okay, then let me resolve it now. On 11/06/2017 09:34 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 at 21:31 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > wrote: > > I extended the period and I don't believe that I can close the > votes early. > > > You can

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Dumb proposal

I would likely issue a green card, yes. (Is it prejudicial to preview what cards you're gonna give for infractions that haven't happened yet? I guess I'm not the judiciary so *shrugs shoulders*) On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > I missed the pledge entirely. If it’s called in

DIS: Re: BUS: Dumb proposal

That's actually terrible o, because ATMunn pledged to pend it or withdraw it, e can not now pend it, therefore e must withdraw it. I suppose we could just not call it in, but I for one intend to be formalistic. On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 7:21 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> On Nov 6, 2017, at 12:50 PM

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Dumb proposal

I missed the pledge entirely. If it’s called in, I recommend a green card: not eir fault, and only minor gameplay effects. In the event a fine is issued I shall endeavour to pay it. My apologies to ATMunn. -o > On Nov 7, 2017, at 4:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > That's actually terrible o, becau

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Treasuror] Supply Level Adjustment

Sorry for being "super-informal Rada" this week. On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:40 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > I revoke the below proposal. > > Even more classic. > > A don't insta-pend things lads. > > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> >>> On Nov 7, 2017, at 4:18 AM, VJ Rada wrote

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Treasuror] Supply Level Adjustment

> On Nov 7, 2017, at 4:18 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > god's SAKE classic Rada proposing skills. > > I create and pend the following proposal with shinies > > Title: Another Obvious Fix > AI: 2 > Text: Delete from rule 2487 the text "When the Supply level Changes, a > Shiny Releveling event occurs.”

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Treasuror] Supply Level Adjustment

On Nov 7, 2017, at 4:01 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > Yeah, no, you don't actually have to change anything in your recordkeeping > and you met your obligations, but just clearing up when the actual time was. It does mean that a relevelling event occurs instantly whenever someone registers or deregisters

DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report

Wow I'm actually a huge scrub who completely forgot to update the tables and only updated the events section. Luckily, these reports do not self-ratify. On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 6:49 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > I claim a reward, which I miraculously actually receive, of 5 shinies > (and apologize for fo

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Treasuror] Supply Level Adjustment

Yeah, no, you don't actually have to change anything in your recordkeeping and you met your obligations, but just clearing up when the actual time was. On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > On Nov 7, 2017, at 3:56 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > > > Oh, I discovered something. "When

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Treasuror] Supply Level Adjustment

> On Nov 7, 2017, at 3:56 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > Oh, I discovered something. "When the Supply level Changes, a Shiny > Releveling event occurs.". I > think this means that there was an automatic Relevelling event as soon as > my proposal passed and then

DIS: Re: BUS: [Treasuror] Supply Level Adjustment

Oh, I discovered something. "When the Supply level Changes, a Shiny Releveling event occurs.". I think this means that there was an automatic Relevelling event as soon as my proposal passed and then you are also obligated to cause a relevelling event (whic

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Treasuror] Supply Level Adjustment

> On Nov 7, 2017, at 3:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > "When a Shiny Releveling event > occurs, Agora's Balance is > increased or decreased such that all Balances add up to the Supply Level." > > Negative balances f

DIS: Re: BUS: [Treasuror] Supply Level Adjustment

"When a Shiny Releveling event occurs, Agora's Balance is increased or decreased such that all Balances add up to the Supply Level." Negative balances ftw? If there is a current prohibition on negative balances,

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Notes on Proposals 7931-7947, 7954-7956

> > 7956* o 2.0 Farm no More OP OP > > This proposal attempts to repeal several rules, but fails because it attempts > to do them all at once rather than specifying an order, assuming that repeal > does indeed still work. So it does not make any rule chang

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

I think that because there is no requirement that the report be in one message, it probably doesn't need to be. However, there is a requirement that the report contain certain information. It thus seems reasonable that the report is published at the moment its last component is published, and the s

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

> On Nov 7, 2017, at 3:02 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > lmao sorry if accusing you of "alternative facts" is rude, Not at all! I’d prefer that incorrect readings were bought to my attention, because otherwise, how am I to learn? -o signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

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

lmao sorry if accusing you of "alternative facts" is rude, On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > On Nov 7, 2017, at 1:56 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > > >>> The idea of a single “weekly report” or “monthly report" is a > convenience > > for the officer and a modern expectation ove

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

> On Nov 7, 2017, at 1:56 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > >>> The idea of a single “weekly report” or “monthly report" is a convenience > for the officer and a modern expectation overlaid by gameplay convention in > the last couple of years, not a >>matter of the rules. > > Uh this is a bit of alternative