What if, by ratification, we reset all Spaaace and Politics switches to
their default values before suspending?
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 8:08 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I vote AGAINST 8177.
> I act on behalf of Telnaior to vote AGAINST 8177.
>
> As commented earlier, I was knocked out of space ear
Actually, there's an interesting question - if the rules have "no force
or effect" do they continue to define the entities, switches, etc.?
I don't think they do[*], which would mean that when they came back into
force the switches would be "newly created" and in default.
[* the rules must defi
Did I have an equal chance, as Tailor?
On 5/20/2019 6:41 AM, Edward Murphy wrote:
D. Margaux wrote:
Another CoE for most recent ADOP report—by ratification, twg wasn’t an
officer at the time of this dice roll. So omd wasn’t chosen from among all
officers; he was chosen from among all office
D. Margaux wrote:
I also CoE that omd is not the comptrollor because G. was Tailor, and
wasn’t in the dice roll.
Huh. I have no idea how I missed that one. I don't /think/ I did it
ahead of updating the database for G.'s deputisation.
I had an argument for "retroactively give twg's slot to G.
Proto: Stones
[Reason: we need more things to auction. And vaguely topical.]
New Rules to be created:
Stones
A Stone is a unique indestructable liquid asset defined by the
Rules. To define a stone, the definition must include:
(i) The unique Name of the stone;
(ii
> I apologize if this message comes through as a duplicate. I sent it earlier
> then received a message that my mailing list membership had been disabled.
I received the message the first time. If you're ever unsure, you can
check the mailing list archives, linked to from
https://agoranomic.org/
I really like this idea, actually. My only initial concern is that the
Power Stone may be too powerful.
On 5/20/2019 10:48 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Proto: Stones
[Reason: we need more things to auction. And vaguely topical.]
New Rules to be created:
Stones
A Stone is a unique indestr
> [* the rules must define a switch for it to exist, and a rule with no
> force or effect includes no force or effect for its definitions - note
> R1586 is only power-2 so this "no force or effect" clause would overrule
> R1586. So if the switch doesn't exist while the rule is suspended, it is
> r
On 5/20/2019 8:59 AM, James Cook wrote:
[* the rules must define a switch for it to exist, and a rule with no
force or effect includes no force or effect for its definitions - note
R1586 is only power-2 so this "no force or effect" clause would overrule
R1586. So if the switch doesn't exist wh
On 5/20/2019 10:31 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:> On 5/20/2019 8:59 AM, James Cook
wrote:>> I can't see anything other than the third>> paragraph of R1586
implying that a generic entity is destroyed when>> its defining rule goes
away, and I don't think it applies in this case>> since this isn't an a
> R217 covers this via the precedent initially set in CFJ 1500, asserts
> that words go back to having their common language meaning when not
> defined by the rules. Amusingly, CFJ 1500 covered the exact word
> "politician" (and if we had to respect that ancient and entirely
> different meaning, t
On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 12:08, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I vote AGAINST 8177.
> I act on behalf of Telnaior to vote AGAINST 8177.
>
> As commented earlier, I was knocked out of space early on, as have
> others. Willing to sit out of a subgame this long, but not through
> a whole revival.
Separate ques
> On May 20, 2019, at 4:31 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> I intend without objection to ratify the following document as true at the
> time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
>
> { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules” have
> the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8
On 5/20/2019 1:16 PM, James Cook wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 12:08, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I vote AGAINST 8177.
I act on behalf of Telnaior to vote AGAINST 8177.
As commented earlier, I was knocked out of space early on, as have
others. Willing to sit out of a subgame this long, but not throu
On 5/20/2019 1:12 PM, James Cook wrote:
I imagine there must be precedent where old rules defining entities
have been re-enacted, and the players assumed no such entities existed
immediately after the re-enactment. Maybe that's enough to favour the
interpretation that no sectors exist when the
3 is currently the default, so it's only an increase of 2 actually.
-Aris
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 8:45 AM ATMunn wrote:
> I really like this idea, actually. My only initial concern is that the
> Power Stone may be too powerful.
>
> On 5/20/2019 10:48 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > Proto: Stones
You're missing this from the same rule:
"An election is contested if it has two or more candidates at the end
of the nomination period, and uncontested otherwise. For a contested
election, nominations close at the end of the poll's voting period.
For an uncontested election, nominations close at t
17 matches
Mail list logo
