I believe it was my idea, from when we were cleaning up some minigame
re-enactment (I think it was PAoAM), so that we could converge the rules
without worrying about whether or not the original proposal actually worked or
not. AFIAK it hasn’t been used since, although I think it needs to stay
I disagree with your disagreement—it’s good to be able to trust our officers
when we need to, but I see no reason to do so unnecessary. There are, of
course, situations where it’s good to use the CAN but SHALL NOT, such as
pending proposals, because it provides an escape hatch for broken stuff.
That clarifies, I wasn't sure if you meant "undoing the win" as a process
we tried to write up into a rule to work by Consent or something, or whether
you meant doing it "manually" by writing a proposal that says "D. Margaux
didn't win and these effects are undone". Manually it is.
I think a
I’m a tad confused about what you’re asking. What I meant was to declare
the win prospectively void (i.e. make it so that the proposition that e won
becomes false, even though it used to be true) and then remove the
Speakership, Champion title, and any influence gained, each by a specific
By "undo the win" do you mean a consent process on some level? Or a
platonic nullification of the win (trying to draft the latter is what caused
all the issues).
On 1/30/2019 3:47 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
FTR, my preferred remedy for this situation would be to undo the win and
any
Huh - I've never seen that used and forgot or didn't know it existed. I
meant it in the wholly informal sense of "now the coin balances are the same
regardless of how I got there".
On 1/30/2019 2:50 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
It’s not clear if you meant for it to be one, but this isn’t a
You're honestly not the only one who does things like that, don't worry
about it too much and don't force yourself to do things you aren't
enjoying :)
It certainly helps in Agora to be able to commit longer-term, but
shorter stays are very welcome too and it's definitely not like some
games
FTR, my preferred remedy for this situation would be to undo the win and
any consequences of it and then pass a rule saying that a person CANNOT win
if doing e does it by violating a rule. For good measure, I’d add to the
ruleset somewhere that deliberate rulebreaking for personal gain is
STRONGLY
I disagree with this in principle. This isn’t a loophole, it’s a matter of
trust. We should be able to trust our officers not to deliberately flout
the rules. We have social conventions for a reason.
-Aris
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 3:37 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> I submit this proposal:
>
> Title:
It’s not clear if you meant for it to be one, but this isn’t a convergence in
the rules sense—you need to designate it as one with 3 Consent.
Gaelan
> On Jan 30, 2019, at 1:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Coin Convergence:
> I earn 5 coins for judging CFJ 3698.
>
> On 1/30/2019 1:16 PM,
On 1/30/2019 1:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:16 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
3697 called 20 January 2019 by D. Margaux, currently unassigned: "D.
Margaux won the game by politics in this message."
Since this is the first win attempt with these rules, I'll need to step
through
On Wed, 2019-01-30 at 13:57 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> So, in the past we've played with rules text to add something like "if a
> rules violation is found to be instrumental in a win, the win fails, rules
> to the contrary notwithstanding". But somehow we never added it - and I
> sort of
So, in the past we've played with rules text to add something like "if a
rules violation is found to be instrumental in a win, the win fails, rules
to the contrary notwithstanding". But somehow we never added it - and I
sort of remember that various wordings and processes we tried to come up
> On Jan 30, 2019, at 1:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I wouldn't feel that you had to wait
> more than say 48 hours before resorting to an arbitrary/random assignment
> (And if you want, as a policy, to encourage more frequent favoring, that's
> totally cool but you'll probably have to remind
On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:16 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> I assign these CFJs to G., as the first and only player to have expressed
> any interest in judging them.
Just to note, lately (since you've joined) people have favored more than
usual I think - common practice is to favor if you're *really*
If the referee is the main interested party, the caller need do nothing,
other than possibly barring the referee from being the judge using the
existing barring clause.
Still, the original rule actually had more process, and I streamlined it in
this submission, but I wasn't sure if I was
So remember like 2 weeks ago when I said I would catch up on Agora over
the weekend or something? And then I didn't?
So yeah... I feel like I go through these "interest cycles," where I
find out about a thing, get really interested in it for a while, then
kinda start getting bored, and
FWIW, I think this is ineffective because it does not specify the resolver
> On Jan 30, 2019, at 12:14 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> I spend 3 energy to move to sector (4->5 5->6 6->7).
>
> I initiate a space battle with twg.
>
> Contract under rules should twg accept: the parties SHALL, in
This seems like a good idea in principle, but as drafted I think it
opens up the possibility for abuse in cases where the Referee is an
interested party. What about a proposal that did the following -- (1)
permits the Arbitor to recuse emself, naming another willing player to
act as Arbitor,
If you want it quickly at this point I could turn the discussion comments I
made into a judgement today (don't want to hog all the judging or anything
but don't mind doing so).
On 1/29/2019 8:31 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
Does any player favour resolving the CFJs relating to my politics scam? I’m
20 matches
Mail list logo
