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

Interestingly, this message is not in my normal font, but it is different from the font the report was in. The font of this message isn't even monospace for some reason. On 4/28/2018 4:56 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote: For some reason, this report and many of

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8033-8041

it matters because of the quorum for next week. can't have conditional quorum. On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 5:21 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Actually nvm I don't care all that much - I withdraw this CFJ. > > Interestingly, this leave the CoE kinda in limbo. I've done

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

On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: You might see the same weirdness with this message, since I'm also using Alpine, although the terminal version. Indeed that also got a weird header. In the terminal Alpine, there's a Posting Character Set option to override the autodetection.

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

On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote: For some reason, this report and many of your other reports show up in a weird font for me. Does this happen to other people? Not to me (my terminal window only has the one font), but I suspect it has something with the Referee report's Content-Type:

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: doesn't THIS apply to "pay" without a destination?

On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > So if another rule says "you can do X by paying [without > > destination]", then since paying for it is an attempt to decrease > > your balance, that's a pretty strong implication that you do it > > by

DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report

For some reason, this report and many of your other reports show up in a weird font for me. Does this happen to other people? On 4/28/2018 4:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: The Police Blotter

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

Huh - I've been using Forward on each past report and lightly editing, it seems that method adds a little whitespace to the left of any already- indented lines each time and the tables have been creeping rightwards... of whitespace to the beginning On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: >

DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: Players (19) (by Rule 869, Persons with 'Registered' Citizenship, z=zombie) Player Contact Registered -- --- --

DIS: Re: BUS: boo!

On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, Corona wrote: Yeah, might as well piggyback on this scare. I award myself a black ribbon. I act on behalf of Quazie to award em a black ribbon for the purpose of satisfying eir scare debt, flipping eir Boo Lien switch to FALSE. By the last Tailor Report of 12 Feb, Quazie

DIS: Re: BUS: boo!

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: On behalf of omd, omd awards emself a black ribbon in order to satisfy eir scare debt (flpping eir boo lien switch to FALSE). By the last Tailor Report of 12 Feb, omd already has a black ribbon. Greetings, Ørjan.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: doesn't THIS apply to "pay" without a destination?

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: So if another rule says "you can do X by paying [without destination]", then since paying for it is an attempt to decrease your balance, that's a pretty strong implication that you do it by destroying it. And if you pay someone else, you're not doing

Re: DIS: Nerf Zombies

I thought of that. In some ways that would be preferable, but they're an interesting system that hasn't been around that long. When it gets closer to October (presuming we don't get rid of it sooner), we should maybe come up something where we could create a timed repeal, and then make delaying it

Re: DIS: Protos on github

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I don't know if this will turn out to be useful, but I've put a protos repo > on our github: > https://github.com/AgoraNomic/protos > > I've put in there an Assets start-of-proto. Right now, it's a copy of the

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: doesn't THIS apply to "pay" without a destination?

Nope. Indestructible assets can only be destroyed by a rule "other than this one" to catch exactly this kind of problem. -Aris On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:18 PM, Corona wrote: > Hmm, does this mean you can arbitrarily destroy indestructible assets by > attempting to

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: doesn't THIS apply to "pay" without a destination?

​Hmm, does this mean you can arbitrarily destroy indestructible assets by attempting to transfer them to nobody in particular? ~Corona On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 12:20 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Ok I looked up competent authority and see how it works in this > context.