Re: DIS: PAoaM v3: Not rushed this time and also better in general

Another random late night thought: why not give everyone a free piece of unoccupied land in the welcome package? It would give them a way to start participating in the new economy, rather than having to wait to win an auction. One of my biggest concerns with the idea to make estates an economic

Re: DIS: PAoaM v3: Not rushed this time and also better in general

On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote: >> On 11/19/2017 5:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:> On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley >> wrote: >> > > Title: Putting Agora on a Map v3 >> > > Author: Trigon >> > > Co-Authors:

DIS: Re: BUS: Red Card to V.J. Rada

I slap Rada with a cold trout, I was looking forwards to the scammed purchase!!! Aaagh lol! On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 3:19 AM, ATMunn wrote: > I support. > > > On 11/19/2017 5:13 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 2:11 PM, VJ Rada

Re: DIS: PAoaM v3: Not rushed this time and also better in general

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote: Maybe the plan is to make Corona and I the richest players :P (I don't think I ever got to claim my welcome package?) I don't think there's any time limit for doing so, if you can catch Agora when it has enough Shinies. Greetings, Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7973-7880

Thankfully the expedition only needs to back to last year, when the ruleset was ratified. On Sun, Nov 19, 2017, 20:40 VJ Rada, wrote: > I'm simply taking the current ruleset as authoritative and realizing that > nobody's exactly going on a decade-old digging expedition to

Re: DIS: PAoaM v3: Not rushed this time and also better in general

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote: > On 11/19/2017 5:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:> On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley > wrote: > > > Title: Putting Agora on a Map v3 > > > Author: Trigon > > > Co-Authors: Aris, ATMunn, G., o, VJ Rada > > > > Just to be clear; you're consciously getting rid

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7973-7880

I'm simply taking the current ruleset as authoritative and realizing that nobody's exactly going on a decade-old digging expedition to fix the typos. You're right, I could have phrased a bit better. But the worst that happens is that, when the rulekeepor miraculously checks all typos in my fixes,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Everything is fine

Oh yeah, I just meant _a_ win. Record it however you wish. On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > > I create the following proposal. Everything is fine. This is not an > attempt > > to win the Order of the Occult

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7973-7880

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: 7974* V.J. Rada3.0 [2] Really minor fixes V.J. Rada 1 AP FOR. Note that some of these may be Rulekeepor typos; I will do my best to investigate and determine which ones are. Some of the changes are equivalent to "replace text A with

Re: DIS: PAoaM v3: Not rushed this time and also better in general

Comments: On 11/19/2017 07:19 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > This is still pretty rough around the edges with the new mechanics. > > Title: Putting Agora on a Map v3 > Author: Trigon > Co-Authors: Aris, ATMunn, G., o, VJ Rada > AI: 2 > > [ Version 3: So this is Go + Settlers of Catan + some RPG

DIS: Re: BUS: Attempt to call in a pledge

Reason? On 11/19/2017 07:59 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> On Nov 19, 2017, at 7:00 PM, VJ Rada wrote: >> >> I made a pledge to publish a weekly report detailing pledges that should be >> retracted. Ironically, I didn't this week. I therefore intend to call in >> that pledge w/

Re: DIS: PAoaM v3: Not rushed this time and also better in general

Alternatively, though starting everyone with a welcome package is probably a good idea, it seems clear the intention is to start by working on the public land (you don't need to have coins to build the facilities, and anyone can take from public land) and use the resources you get from there

Re: DIS: PAoaM v3: Not rushed this time and also better in general

I should add :) The officer thing is a personal preference. But the circular coin thing - I'm just wearing my game designer hat and really failing to see how it will work, I feel like I'm either missing something (which is very very possible, I miss key lines all the time!) or it's broken...

Re: DIS: PAoaM v3: Not rushed this time and also better in general

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote: > Title: Putting Agora on a Map v3 > Author: Trigon > Co-Authors: Aris, ATMunn, G., o, VJ Rada Just to be clear; you're consciously getting rid of shinies, and making it so you need Land to make Coins, but you need Coins to buy land. I'm really asking

DIS: PAoaM v3: Not rushed this time and also better in general

This is still pretty rough around the edges with the new mechanics. Title: Putting Agora on a Map v3 Author: Trigon Co-Authors: Aris, ATMunn, G., o, VJ Rada AI: 2 [ Version 3: So this is Go + Settlers of Catan + some RPG mechanics now. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out. Also:

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Everything is fine

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > I create the following proposal. Everything is fine. This is not an attempt > to win the Order of the Occult Hand which everyone has forgotten about > apparently. Disclaimer: The previous sentence is probably false > > Title: Everything is fine > AI: 2 >

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Everything is fine

Pls it's their annual charity marathon and it's so great https://desertbus.org/ On 2017-11-20 11:14, VJ Rada wrote: ​I transfer one shiny to telnaior for proving my theory about strangely overlapping esoteric nerd culture correct. And no, I haven't watched any of their stuff (with the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fingers

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > >I disagree because of the fact that this is a game. While we have a fair > >notion of ethics/justice here, principled voting is hindered by the > generally > >feeling on one side of "it's just a game and what e did is no big deal and > >was kinda cool why

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > Yeah that's a good explanation that makes sense. I retract my intent (is > this possible again?) No. That's by design. In the past we had "scamming" where someone who really *didn't* want the action done would announce intent, gather support, then just

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3597 judged FALSE

On Sun, Nov 19, 2017, 18:29 Kerim Aydin, wrote: > > Subject to an asset's backing document: > > - The owner of an asset CAN, by announcement, destroy it. > > - The owner of an asset CAN, by announcement, transfer it to > >another entity, provided

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3597 judged FALSE

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > Because V.J. Rada did not pay 1011 shinies as a single action, eir purchase > > failed, and this CFJ is FALSE. E retains all of eir shinies, because they > > did > > not in the end accomplish their clearly stated goal. > > I intend, with two

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3597 judged FALSE

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > I think I needed to fix some typos that ATMunn pointed out, but I'd be > happy if someone else did it for me. ok, I started in on that. Corrected mostly, but here's a spot I don't know what you intended: > Subject to an asset's backing document:

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

Alright, so, the idea of it was that the sentence made two claims. Claim 1 was (hopefully obviously by now) false. The question I got stuck on was whether or not Claim 2 was predicated on Claim 1 - in other words, would Claim 2 be invalidated simply by Claim 1 also being invalidated? The

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fingers

>I disagree because of the fact that this is a game. While we have a fair >notion of ethics/justice here, principled voting is hindered by the generally >feeling on one side of "it's just a game and what e did is no big deal and >was kinda cool why should I bother to vote to punish" and on the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fingers

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > > Right now our pledge system is based on bills of attainder (or more > > correctly bills of pains and penalties), rather than justice. > > A further note: seperation of powers is a terrible, terrible, terrible idea > in a system in which the legislative

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3597 judged FALSE

I think I needed to fix some typos that ATMunn pointed out, but I'd be happy if someone else did it for me. On Sun, Nov 19, 2017, 17:08 Kerim Aydin, wrote: > > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > > I note here that "by paying", > > another phrase used

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fingers

> Right now our pledge system is based on bills of attainder (or more > correctly bills of pains and penalties), rather than justice. A further note: seperation of powers is a terrible, terrible, terrible idea in a system in which the legislative power is exercised by everybody and the judicial

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > That's fine by me, yes. Everyone has periods of high activity and > inactivity (well, I'm very active haha) and night court as a concept just > encourages giving more cases to yourself. I mainly invented it because, when I took over as Arbitor, there were

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fingers

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 2:20 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > > > I support: I didn't pay for the Estate. > > > > > > Pledges are great right now! I love them. The "explicit restatement" rule > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fingers

It's better than the punishment for literally every other offense, which is basically the King delivering judgement (3 times a week on eir own initiative and the rest when called upon by only one person) with no opportunity for defense. If we get comprehensive criminal CFJs, we can ditch current

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fingers

On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 2:20 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > > I support: I didn't pay for the Estate. > > > > Pledges are great right now! I love them. The "explicit restatement" rule > > should be removed though. > > I agree I prefer a

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Judge Court[***] Recent > - --- > G. Night3556, 3567, 3563, 3579, 3580, 3582, 3595, 3596 > PubliusNight3558, 3561, 3574, 3576, 3591 > Corona Night > o Day 3568, 3565,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fingers

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > I support: I didn't pay for the Estate. > > Pledges are great right now! I love them. The "explicit restatement" rule > should be removed though. I agree I prefer a lightweight, straightforward, relatively easy-to-track (and free!) option instead of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fingers

I support: I didn't pay for the Estate. Pledges are great right now! I love them. The "explicit restatement" rule should be removed though. On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > You didn't explicitly restate the reasons, so that failed.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fingers

You didn't explicitly restate the reasons, so that failed. Also, that requirement is silly. Is everyone willing to just replace pledges with a special kind of contracts? -Aris On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 2:07 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > I support. > > > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:05

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3597 judged FALSE

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > I note here that "by paying", > another phrase used throughout the rules, has similar connotations of a single > payment. On the other hand, if a rule used the past tense ("has paid") then it > could be as many separate payments as the player liked.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3595 assigned to G.

Nah that was probably just a fake assertion that's pretty wrong, actually. It's probably fine. On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > > ​o: "cool cool, everything is completely fine *cries*" > > > > I think if that

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3595 assigned to G.

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > ​o: "cool cool, everything is completely fine *cries*" > > I think if that rule were interpreted as written: to ban any action not > explicitly specified, it would break a whole lot of things. The current case aside, what else would it break? Keep in

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3595 assigned to G.

On reflection, I think we're fine. I'm going to wait for comments, but then I'll file a Motion and add the following to my judgement: The way the Duel is written, "remit" could mean just "quit" but also "return the funds" (two very different meanings of the word "remit"). So it's a perfectly

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3595 assigned to G.

​o: "cool cool, everything is completely fine *cries*" I think if that rule were interpreted as written: to ban any action not explicitly specified, it would break a whole lot of things. On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017,

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3595 assigned to G.

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Unfortunately for the cleverness of the rule, I find that Rule 2166 is > explicit in defining “pay” as transferring “to another entity”. So, “to > pay” without a recipient isn’t a mechanism explicitly defined in the > rules. This may have worked in the

DIS: friendly note to new-ish judges

On "unwritten precedent" (that used to be written, but is now buried in precedent somewhere) is that, unless there is a good reason not to do so, we tend to judge Truth or Falsity of CFJs based on the facts at the time the CFJ was called (i.e. ignoring changes that happened between the calling

Re: DIS: The land reforms I kept on talking up

On 11/19/2017 8:32 AM, ATMunn wrote: Again, I haven't read anybody else's comments, so some stuff may have been repeated, but here I go: On 11/19/2017 1:57 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: Okay, here we go with round 2. This is looking like Go and Settlers of Catan were mixed into one game. What

Re: DIS: The land reforms I kept on talking up

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote: > > It makes sense for > > ore to bars (and can they at least be coins? we're not Sparta), > > Okay fine. Coins it is. If we can address the larger currency discussion before going further, it would be much appreciated. I, for one, don't want to

Re: DIS: The land reforms I kept on talking up

On 11/19/2017 1:20 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: What else are you putting under "and such"? Nothing, I just wanted to make myself sound smarter. Where did CFJs go? Oh, right. CFJs probably should cost

Re: DIS: The land reforms I kept on talking up

On 11/19/2017 1:10 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:57 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: Okay, here we go with round 2. This is looking like Go and Settlers of Catan were mixed into one game. What could possibly go wrong? I'm pretty sure I got all of the

Re: DIS: The land reforms I kept on talking up

On 11/19/2017 12:43 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: So I should just have the first two paragraphs plus the little "changes are secured" thing? Yep. In fact, you really shouldn't need even the changes are secured.

Re: DIS: The land reforms I kept on talking up

Welp. Turns out that throwing together another draft of your proposal in 30 minutes just so that there will be one and posting it at midnight does not result in a very well-thought out proposal. On 11/19/2017 12:33 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: quick comments: -You get rid of shinies then have

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Initiating Decisions Correctly

I guess a vote of PURPLE might not count towards quorum in that case. I don't remember if giving out humiliating reminders require the ballot cast to be valid. Either way, my sentiment is met. 天火狐 On 19 November 2017 at 00:05, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Mon, 6 Nov 2017,

Re: DIS: The land reforms I kept on talking up

The current auctions proposal already allows auctions to be conducted in any currency, as Trigon mentioned. On 11/18/2017 11:05 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: Okay, so here's my plan: I love this. A few suggestions.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7973-7880

Nttpf On Sun, Nov 19, 2017, 04:34 VJ Rada, wrote: > Surely surely surely "3?" means 3. I meant it to mean as such. > > On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Aris Merchant < > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the

DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

Yay I'm not the newbie anymore! The list of Writs of FAGE seems like something better tracked by the Herald. It invokes the same feeling of "I wonder what happened in that part of Agora's history" that the Herald seems to be all about. On 2017-11-19 22:26, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7973-7880

Surely surely surely "3?" means 3. I meant it to mean as such. On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal >

Re: DIS: Politician Naming

Senator John Johnson. Not a pun, but a character from a play I just watched. -Aris On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Sat, 18 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote: > >> Since the party proposal is set to be passing, I'd like to get some good >> pun names brought

Re: DIS: The land reforms I kept on talking up

On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > >> What else are you >> putting under "and such"? > > > Nothing, I just wanted to make myself sound smarter. Where did CFJs go? >> The alternative, which would be more complex and more >> interesting, but also more

Re: DIS: The land reforms I kept on talking up

On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:57 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > Okay, here we go with round 2. This is looking like Go and Settlers of Catan > were mixed into one game. What could possibly go wrong? > > I'm pretty sure I got all of the mechanics I wanted in there, but it's >