Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

I've actually been meaning to ask you this for a while Ørjan, and now seems like a decent time to do so (i don't mean to be rude or w/e obv). What's the story behind your watching of Agora? Because it seems like you were around in like 1993 and have been watching quite actively for several years?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote: Can we just never give you any in-game power ever again But it's so fun to watch! Greetings, Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7965-7972

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: immediately after". And participation favours are misspelled, so I believe they are unawardable at this time. I don't believe Agora cares about trivial spelling errors. (May also apply to Trigon's Æther comment.) Greetings, Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

yea don't award me a patent title for being a bad player. only diff between me and cuddlebeam is that most of my scams are non-frivolous. i mean if i won more than once (i have won once with the "with objection" stuff), with stuff like this, maybe. @aris: nah i'm actually cool w/ everything right

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: I pay V.J. Rada 10 shinies for the clever scam. H. Herald candidates, would you consider giving out Scamster for this? I don't think e ever actually won off a scam, but e's come close so many times that e deserves the accolade. Petard hoister.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

(I should probably stop being a jerk, sorry) On 2017-11-22 17:28, Madeline wrote: Well you're not the referee anymore :3 On 2017-11-22 17:24, VJ Rada wrote: I'm the referee, that would be illegal, I could card y'all etc. obviously the correct play would have been to do this JUST before the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

Well you're not the referee anymore :3 On 2017-11-22 17:24, VJ Rada wrote: I'm the referee, that would be illegal, I could card y'all etc. obviously the correct play would have been to do this JUST before the beginning of an agoran week. but the message seemingly STILL hasn't sent, so that

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

you know what else? you know what the hell else? this is one day before i would have got a green ribbon for referee. ugh. most of my horrible scam attempts are come up with on my really boring busride home, maybe i should take up drawing or something. On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:24 PM, VJ Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

I'm the referee, that would be illegal, I could card y'all etc. obviously the correct play would have been to do this JUST before the beginning of an agoran week. but the message seemingly STILL hasn't sent, so that would have been hard. On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Madeline

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

It's not even that clever, we talked about it before the proposal was officially submitted and agreed that as it would never actually work, hopefully no one would waste their time attempting it. I support the intent to call in the pledge, as fingers were indeed pointed explicitly contrary to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

In addition, any other favour-granting officer (such as me) could do EXACTLY the same thing to stop you from becoming the advisor of anyone. On 2017-11-22 17:04, VJ Rada wrote: Expedition is still 7 day voting period! Balloons automatically are created at the beginning of each agoran week

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

Expedition is still 7 day voting period! Balloons automatically are created at the beginning of each agoran week (next monday). So it would have worked. On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Madeline wrote: > For the record, it wouldn't have worked. None of favours, influence, or >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

For the record, it wouldn't have worked. None of favours, influence, or advising are secured, and with the power of expedition we could get the proposal through before you won on balloons. On 2017-11-22 16:58, VJ Rada wrote: i'm s pissed that i lost the easiest win in the history of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

i'm s pissed that i lost the easiest win in the history of easy wins because of emails. On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:58 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > i mean yeah ok. not exactly standing for re-election here. > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Madeline

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

i mean yeah ok. not exactly standing for re-election here. On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Madeline wrote: > Can we just never give you any in-game power ever again > > > > On 2017-11-22 16:52, VJ Rada wrote: >> >> Ah... the favours don't work because it looks like agora

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

Can we just never give you any in-game power ever again On 2017-11-22 16:52, VJ Rada wrote: Ah... the favours don't work because it looks like agora hasn't received the message causing them yet. No surprise, it's _very long. Unfortunately, I can't award them again when the message DOES go

DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

Ah... the favours don't work because it looks like agora hasn't received the message causing them yet. No surprise, it's _very long. Unfortunately, I can't award them again when the message DOES go through because I'M NOT THE FUCKING REFEREE. CLAAASSIC RADA LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

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

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 00:20 Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > >> 7880* ATMunn, [5] 1.0 [6] Alexis 1 > AP > > AGAINST. If you deserve it, claim it right away. > > Three of the reward conditions may be

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

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: 7880* ATMunn, [5] 1.0 [6] Alexis 1 AP AGAINST. If you deserve it, claim it right away. Three of the reward conditions may be triggered by _other_ people's actions, so this is not always possible, and Agora has a

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

If we made it a few a month, I think existing systems (zombies, deregistration) would be able to handle the wealth collection problem. It's worse to have a few people exploiting a system than to have the off chance that a few people might slip through. I agree with G. that 2 a week is way too

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

Doesn't Rule 2240 imply the opposite of your argument? In a conflict between clauses of the same Rule, if exactly one claims precedence over the other, then it takes precedence; otherwise, the later clause takes precedence. Greetings, Ørjan. On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin

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

I should mention: while using the Æ symbol is cute and all, it's likely that it would rack up a few CFJs about whether you're referring to Aether or something else entirely that doesn't exist. On 11/21/2017 1:38 PM, Corona wrote: Sorry for the walls of text; if you don't understand anything,

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

On 11/21/2017 8:12 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: On Nov 21, 2017, at 4:06 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Owen Jacobson > wrote: On Nov 19, 2017, at 7:19 PM, Reuben Staley

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

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 7:25 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote: > > I (or anyone else, really) can invite you to the AgoraNomic GitHub org, > but > > from there it might be kind of difficult. > > Have I been invited? (kaydin). > > If I'm

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

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote: > I (or anyone else, really) can invite you to the AgoraNomic GitHub org, but > from there it might be kind of difficult. Have I been invited? (kaydin). If I'm already got a github repo of the CFJ website up, is it simple matter to have it show up as

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: Informal Reportor Report (per contract)

y'all can just pay agora one shiny before you publish your weekly report to avert this. On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> On Nov 21, 2017, at 9:11 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: >> >> On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, Josh T wrote: >>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: Informal Reportor Report (per contract)

> On Nov 21, 2017, at 9:11 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, Josh T wrote: > >>> Economic Chaos >>> The supply value massively increased due to a money printing proposal, but >>> something else went up as well. That thing: the floating value. Now

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

> On Nov 21, 2017, at 4:06 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Owen Jacobson > wrote: >> >> On Nov 19, 2017, at 7:19 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: >> >>> Re-enact rule 1994/0

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

Luckily they're not meaningfully different and the 2nd version will ratify minutes after the first then! On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > >> I made a fixed version. CoE denied. > > > This too may cause the original

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

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: I made a fixed version. CoE denied. This too may cause the original version to self-ratify, since there's no longer a doubt tied to it. Greetings, Ørjan.

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

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: first of all, in my next ADoP report, should I just note this as one report or a report and a revision? There was no formal CoE or anything so probably just one. If you don't formally CoE it, then the first version could self-ratify, with the formatting

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

On Tue, 2017-11-21 at 21:41 -0500, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > On Nov 21, 2017, at 9:37 PM, ATMunn > > wrote: > > > > Clinton isn't even a first name. When I came up with that name, I > > wasn't specifically referring to Hillary. > > So yeah, Spivak would be better here. >

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

> On Nov 21, 2017, at 9:37 PM, ATMunn wrote: > > Clinton isn't even a first name. When I came up with that name, I wasn't > specifically referring to Hillary. > So yeah, Spivak would be better here. As the Politicians are legal fictions and not persons, wouldn’t

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

Clinton isn't even a first name. When I came up with that name, I wasn't specifically referring to Hillary. So yeah, Spivak would be better here. On 11/21/2017 9:01 PM, VJ Rada wrote: I spend my five Participation favours (which are SUL favours) to influence The Drunk Clinton. I become her

DIS: Here we go again (was Re: BUS: Ayyyyy favours)

> On Nov 21, 2017, at 7:49 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > > Economic favours cost 1 shiny right now. I believe I currently hold 5 > shinies and 560 bills. I trade 200 of those bills for 20 shinies and > use those 20 shinies to buy 20 economic favours. > > I also trade the other 5 of

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

I spend 4 legislation favours to influence Clinton. I spend 1 favour to influence Bob. I advice both Clinton and Bob. On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Madeline wrote: > Defaulting to Spivak is probably the best choice. > Two issues: > 1) SUL favours are Legislation favours

DIS: Re: BUS: Ayyyyy favours

> On Nov 21, 2017, at 7:49 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > > Economic favours cost 1 shiny right now. I believe I currently hold 5 > shinies and 560 bills. I trade 200 of those bills for 20 shinies and > use those 20 shinies to buy 20 economic favours. > > I also trade the other 5 of

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

Defaulting to Spivak is probably the best choice. Two issues: 1) SUL favours are Legislation favours (though you do indeed have five of them) 2) You can only spend favours on Row Echelon politicians in even amounts. On 2017-11-22 13:01, VJ Rada wrote: I spend my five Participation favours

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: Informal Reportor Report (per contract)

Everything is free! Free! Free economic favours leading to copy and paste wars! Free stamps! Free...uh... yeah that's pretty much all of consequence. On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, Josh T wrote: > >>> Economic Chaos

DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: Informal Reportor Report (per contract)

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, Josh T wrote: Economic Chaos The supply value massively increased due to a money printing proposal, but something else went up as well. That thing: the floating value. Now everything is 1: horrifically expensive and 2: Agora has no money because of stamps. Will

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Herald election

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 at 21:00 Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, Corona wrote: > > > Also, what is the point of campaign proposals? (Except for proposing > > overpowered powers for yourself and ensuring nobody else gets them) > > Seems like tying a proposal coming

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Herald election

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, Corona wrote: Also, what is the point of campaign proposals? (Except for proposing overpowered powers for yourself and ensuring nobody else gets them) Seems like tying a proposal coming into force to your being elected will lower the chances of either happening; players who

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

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 10:29 PM Owen Jacobson wrote: > I intend, with Agoran Consent, to destroy the contract isnack 2.0. On Nov 21, 2017, at 5:57 PM, ATMunn wrote: > I support and do so. r. 2728 (“Dependent Actions”): 2. If the action is to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7965-7972

Oh fair fair point actually, yeah. The question then becomes: did you break that rule. Yeah, retract that CFJ. On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > I can through the "The following officers CAN by announcement award

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7965-7972

I can through the "The following officers CAN by announcement award Favours in the listed Parties" at the beginning of the rule. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Nov 21, 2017, at 8:48 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > > I note two things. >

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7965-7972

You might want to do each seperately, as they are seperate issues. On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:55 PM, ATMunn wrote: > I AP CFJ on the following statement: > > In the below quoted message, PSS awarded favours. > > > On 11/21/2017 8:41 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

DIS: Re: BUS: I become a party to the Order of the Occult Hand

> On Nov 21, 2017, at 3:40 PM, Corona wrote: > > What the subject says There are fairly tight constraints on subject-line-only actions, and I believe that under CFJ 3590 this may not have succeeded: >> 5. Does the message text infer the type of action that can

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

Ah, makes sense. Thanks for the clarifications. On 11/21/2017 8:34 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: On Nov 21, 2017, at 8:30 PM, ATMunn wrote: So when publishing report revisions, even if things changed between the original report and the revision, all that has to be

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

> On Nov 21, 2017, at 8:30 PM, ATMunn wrote: > > So when publishing report revisions, even if things changed between the > original report and the revision, all that has to be changed is the thing in > the CoE? In this case V.J pointed out the CoE close enough to the

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

I really had no idea what I was doing either. I mostly just copied stuff from the old ADoP repo into a new one, changed some text, and had o help me with confusing Git stuff. :P On 11/21/2017 8:29 PM, Madeline wrote: I would have absolutely no idea what I'm doing, so~ On 2017-11-22 12:25,

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

So when publishing report revisions, even if things changed between the original report and the revision, all that has to be changed is the thing in the CoE? I was never really sure how this works. On 11/21/2017 8:28 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: On Nov 21, 2017, at 9:25 AM, ATMunn

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

I would have absolutely no idea what I'm doing, so~ On 2017-11-22 12:25, ATMunn wrote: I (or anyone else, really) can invite you to the AgoraNomic GitHub org, but from there it might be kind of difficult. You'd have to make your own repo for the Clork, make an index.md or index.html file,

DIS: Re: BUS: (Unofficial) FLR COE

I received this message twice. You sent it to a-d, but Cc'd a-b, so that could have something to do with it. On 11/21/2017 8:22 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: These were unrelated; PDCW was left out of the index which actually generates the ruleset (I want to fix this, but haven't yet); 7934 for rule

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

I (or anyone else, really) can invite you to the AgoraNomic GitHub org, but from there it might be kind of difficult. You'd have to make your own repo for the Clork, make an index.md or index.html file, and then fiddle around with submodules to get the header to work. (if you do end up doing

DIS: Re: BUS: (Unofficial) FLR COE

These were unrelated; PDCW was left out of the index which actually generates the ruleset (I want to fix this, but haven't yet); 7934 for rule 2531 was just a typo, it was supposed to say 7964. On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 at 20:37 Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 at 20:33 VJ

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Favours

Has to be explicit, and it trips at the end of the week. On 2017-11-22 12:08, VJ Rada wrote: Oh I have to explicitly advise? I thought the person w/ the most was automatically the advisor. I advise Mccarthy, Kingpin and Aristotle. On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Madeline

DIS: Re: BUS: Favours

On 2017-11-22 11:59, VJ Rada wrote: I use 10 of my PLA favours on Joseph "Stealin'" Mccarthy, 8 PLA favours on Xi Kingpin and 2 PLA favours on Aristotle. Don't forget to Advise Politicians once you have the most influence over them.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Somehow This Got Through

The text in the proposal is correct, I believe. As it exists, the award is for the first vote each week; as you have it, it would be for the second and each subsequent vote each week. On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 at 19:45 Telnaior wrote: > I create the following Proposal and spend an

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's get this party started!

" e SHALL award that player 2 Favours in the Party holding Participaiton." y'all spelled participation wrong. no comment on how or whether this actually breaks participation favours. On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:42 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > Haha awesome. Three favours a week in

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's get this party started!

Haha awesome. Three favours a week in Justice for free: pretty powerful imo. On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:38 AM, ATMunn wrote: > I like how Aristotle is Drunk. > > On 11/21/2017 7:26 PM, Telnaior wrote: >> >> In accordance with the rule "Get This Party Started", I do the

DIS: Re: BUS: Let's get this party started!

I like how Aristotle is Drunk. On 11/21/2017 7:26 PM, Telnaior wrote: In accordance with the rule "Get This Party Started", I do the following: I create 20 politicians as follows: PLA - Platonic Isolationists 1. Aristotle 2. Joseph "Stealin'" McCarthy 3. Boris Eatstumuch 4. Xi Kingpin NPR -

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7965-7972

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 at 18:39 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > I resolve the decision(s) to adopt proposal(s) 7965-7972 below. > Note that you're required to award Favours for the proposals that passed after the one that enacted them.

DIS: Re: BUS: What happened to this proposal

It wasn't to public forum, it's all good. My fault. On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:46 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > This was created and pended with shinies on 9 Nov, don't think it was > ever distributed. If I didn't pend it or it was self-ratified away, I > now pend and create the

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7965-7972

nttpf On 11/21/2017 06:43 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > I award myself a Red Ribbon > for 7969 and an Orange Ribbon for 7970 > > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: >> I resolve the decision(s) to adopt proposal(s) 7965-7972

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

This could be resolved by making it be assets "controlled" by a player and have that set by an officer with some appeals process. On 11/21/2017 03:54 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > My problem with having fixed assets per player per week is that that > will cause massive accumulation of wealth on the

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

On 11/21/2017 2:59 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: [snip] Amend rule 2516 by replacing it in full with: At the beginning of the Agoran week, the Treasuror CAN and SHALL cause Agora to create in: "create in" is an awkward phrasing. Could you change it somehow? Probably. 1.

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

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > On Nov 19, 2017, at 7:19 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > >> Re-enact rule 1994/0 (Power=2) "Ownership of Land" with the text: >> >> Any existent Land for which ownership has not been explicitly

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

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > >> Also, keeping shinies around as a way to pay for things might > >> discourage people from investing in the new economy,

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

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote: > My problem with having fixed assets per player per week is that that > will cause massive accumulation of wealth on the part of inactive > players. I believe I've mentioned this before in this thread, > actually. I did want to give everyone the same

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

My problem with having fixed assets per player per week is that that will cause massive accumulation of wealth on the part of inactive players. I believe I've mentioned this before in this thread, actually. I did want to give everyone the same amount of assets a week, but I was scared that

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

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: >> Also, keeping shinies around as a way to pay for things might >> discourage people from investing in the new economy, because what's >> the point in getting paper if you can

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

Sorry for the walls of text; if you don't understand anything, I'll be happy to clarify. About it being rushed - A reform that could singlehandedly determine the (un)balance of Agora will never be prepared enough, if we want to release it in a (kind of) timely manner. That's why we should

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

My idea about actions is less about the specific places, but just having different actions cost different amounts, based off of the previous action you did. So, calling a CFJ after just having called a CFJ would cost less than submitting a proposal after just calling a CFJ. On 11/21/2017 02:59

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

I agree with this intepretation, but I believe it is problematic and should be fixed. On 11/21/2017 01:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I shiny-CFJ on the following statement: > > G. CAN assign this CFJ to emself by announcement. > > > ARGUMENTS > > Rule 991 last paragraph paraphrases as

Re: DIS: base currency discussion

You could also increase welcome packages over time or tie winning conditions and such to the amount of time playing or have inflation-controlled currencies independent for each player based off of usage and receipt of the currencies. I think that the first or second would be easiest by the final

Re: DIS: can contracts actually do officer stuff?

I concur. On 11/21/2017 12:30 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 at 12:28 Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> So in the hideously-overwrought, "I'd rather deregister than play >> this" contract rules, am I reading it right that I can't contract >> out Officer duties as

DIS: Re: BUS: [Agoran Credit Union]

I become a party. On 11/21/17, ATMunn wrote: > Oops, report, not repor. > > If the below action of claiming a reward failed, I claim a reward of 5 > shinies for my recent ADoP *report*. > > On 11/21/2017 9:34 AM, ATMunn wrote: >> I become a party to the ACU, and destroy

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

On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > 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

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

Indeed, public land is crucial to the system. In v4 I am thinking of implementing a special clause that allows the Cartographor to promulgate a list of Land Units (and accompanying facilities) that are not changed by normal capture rules, can't be auctioned, and can only be Public. On Sun, Nov

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

Actually, I never claimed my welcome package so... No, I'm teasing. I really did intend to add a clause making everyone eligible for welcome packages, but I just forgot to. I really need to write a list of things I need to implement into the next version. Also: HOLY CRAP you guys keep on talking

Re: DIS: can contracts actually do officer stuff?

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 at 12:28 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > So in the hideously-overwrought, "I'd rather deregister than play > > this" contract rules, am I reading it right that I can't contract > > out Officer duties as

Re: DIS: base currency discussion

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > Inflation: the game could actually just be a fun game in itself. Like > "race to 1 billion" type thing. In real-life economies, controlled inflation can be fine. In standard boardgames, everyone racing in an inflationary economy is fine. It ends up being

Re: DIS: can contracts actually do officer stuff?

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 at 12:28 Kerim Aydin wrote: > So in the hideously-overwrought, "I'd rather deregister than play > this" contract rules, am I reading it right that I can't contract > out Officer duties as act-on-behalf actions because they're > "protected"? That's how

DIS: can contracts actually do officer stuff?

So in the hideously-overwrought, "I'd rather deregister than play this" contract rules, am I reading it right that I can't contract out Officer duties as act-on-behalf actions because they're "protected"? That's how I read it anyway.

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

On 11/21/2017 3:28 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: [snip] 1. Flip the Land Type of every unit of land that is not directly connected to a unit of Aether or is not connected by its own land type to a unit of Aether to You forgot to exclude (0,0).

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: base currency discussion

Will "not" be exempt, not that it matters since the contract doesn't exist now. On 2017-11-21 22:07, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: Why will it be exempt? On 11/21/2017 04:24 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: On Nov 21, 2017, at 4:14 AM, Telnaior wrote: On 2017-11-21

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: base currency discussion

Why will it be exempt? On 11/21/2017 04:24 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> On Nov 21, 2017, at 4:14 AM, Telnaior wrote: >> >> On 2017-11-21 19:57, Owen Jacobson wrote: >>> Incidentally, I think the distribution rules, fiddly though they are, are >>> actually working as intended,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Agoran Credit Union]

> On Nov 21, 2017, at 5:17 AM, Madeline wrote: > > ...Wait, so what stops me from taking a 45-shiny loan then using my bills to > withdraw everything else in the ACU and cease being a party? Not gonna do it > because it's a cool idea that I don't want to wreck, but… Oh,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Agoran Credit Union]

> On Nov 21, 2017, at 5:17 AM, Madeline wrote: > > ...Wait, so what stops me from taking a 45-shiny loan then using my bills to > withdraw everything else in the ACU and cease being a party? Not gonna do it > because it's a cool idea that I don't want to wreck, but… The

DIS: Re: BUS: [Agoran Credit Union]

...Wait, so what stops me from taking a 45-shiny loan then using my bills to withdraw everything else in the ACU and cease being a party? Not gonna do it because it's a cool idea that I don't want to wreck, but... On 2017-11-21 21:13, Telnaior wrote: Sure, that works for me. I cause TAHC to

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: base currency discussion

>I'm going to transfer that shiny to Aris as an apology for the blatant >plagiarism. We've already found (informally, but w/ no noted dissent) that the phrasing "I'm going to do this" or "I will do this" is insufficient for a by announcement action. Also, I dread to think what my D alignment

Re: DIS: base currency discussion

> On Nov 21, 2017, at 4:00 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > Inflation: the game could actually just be a fun game in itself. Like > "race to 1 billion" type thing. I knew I used bignums for a reason. -o signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: base currency discussion

Inflation: the game could actually just be a fun game in itself. Like "race to 1 billion" type thing. On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > On Nov 19, 2017, at 1:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> 2. Is fairly granular/divisible (I

Re: DIS: base currency discussion

On Nov 19, 2017, at 1:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > 2. Is fairly granular/divisible (I mean, we count our monthly salaries > and costs in 10s or 100s of units, not 1s). So people can use small > fractions of "pend units" or "CFJ units" to trade and auctions can turn > on

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

The judgement's statement that the shiny is mine is dicta: absolutely no relevance to the case's statement. Call another CFJ. On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> On Nov 19, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun,

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

On Nov 19, 2017, at 7:19 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > Re-enact rule 1994/0 (Power=2) "Ownership of Land" with the text: > > Any existent Land for which ownership has not been explicitly > changed belongs to Agora. > > Land belonging to Agora is called