On 1/10/2020 7:30 PM, Falsifian wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 20:25, Alexis wrote:
(and
possibly codifying an approach to "is history part of the game state").
Aris tried to do this in June with eir "Timeline Control Ordnance" [0]
which became Proposal 8195. I don't remember exactly why we
On 1/10/2020 6:53 PM, Falsifian wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 23:12, G. wrote:
>> We've had a couple conversations along similar lines in the last year
>> or two and people were generally positive. Specifically two ideas
>> came up: (1) making each officer the "primary judge" on disputes
>>
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 04:04, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> I recall you mentioning that you would like a
> system where judges could search topic-relevant rules and a few core
> rules instead of potentially anywhere in the ruleset.
Oh right, yes, that would be nice.
I'm confused
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 07:50, David Seeber wrote:
> Oh dear. I seem to be a zombie again
>
> BVV
>
> David Seeber
Not quite. You just avoided it with that message.
- Falsifian
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 at 16:23, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Ørjan wrote:
> > Winning and patent titles can still be lost as a side effect of ratifying
> > a document published before they happen, when that removes a prerequisite
> > for their award.
>
> Oh of course oops - not sure if
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 at 01:24, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Amend rule 2450, "Pledges", by adding at the end of the first paragraph
> "A pledge ceases to exist at the end of its time window."
Do we still need pledges? I think a one-party contract with a
provision that the party
On 1/10/20 9:48 PM, James Cook wrote:
> Is this intended to be along the same lines as Trigon's "Interesting
> Chambers" proto from September? (Subject lines: "Proto for a new
> voting/chamber system" and "Interesting Chambers v2".)
>
> Your proposal is interesting. How did you imagine these being
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 03:32, James Cook wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 04:34, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > A draft report follows.
> >
> > -Aris
> > ---
> > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 20:25, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
> (and
> possibly codifying an approach to "is history part of the game state").
Aris tried to do this in June with eir "Timeline Control Ordnance" [0]
which became Proposal 8195. I don't remember exactly why we voted it
down,
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 at 02:41, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Title: Administrative Adjudication v2
> Adoption index: 3.0
AI can be 2.0 now.
This sounds fun. There could be interesting struggles between
officers. E.g. I could imagine the Treasuror and ADoP arguing over who
gets to
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 19:36, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
> This would also
> have the feature of making an officer's memoranda an election issue.
It would be fun to have something for candidates to debate. I suppose
Aris's v2 proto entails this, since it would allow a new officer to
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 23:12, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
> We've had a couple conversations along similar lines in the last year
> or two and people were generally positive. Specifically two ideas
> came up: (1) making each officer the "primary judge" on disputes
> about their
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 02:37, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 1/7/20 6:10 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> > (2) dividing the ruleset itself so that rule categories
> > are more binding, and rules precedence works as "category then power"
> > (e.g. any rule in the
13 matches
Mail list logo
