On 11/3/24 17:10, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 11/3/24 4:50 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:
>
>> I intend, without objection, to clean Rule 2695 (The Veblen) by
>> replacing "Abusrdor," with "Absurdor,".
> P9172 should have already fixed this
>
> https://www.mail-archive.co
On 10/13/24 17:15, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote:
> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 9184
>
>
> IDTitle Result
> ---
> 9184 Ratification fix ADOPTED
The replied-to resolution purports to resolve the referendum on P9184
and e
On 9/22/24 21:16, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> To what end? Is it really that much more burdensome to look up the last
> resolution and calculate 2/3 of the voters than to look at a weekly report?
Oops, rereading this, it came off much more aggressively than I meant it
to. I
On 9/22/24 16:15, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:
> [I had these sitting around from an old RtRW but never got around to
> fleshing them out.]
>
> Proto-Proposal: Track quorum
> (AI = 3)
>
> Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) to read:
>
>Each Agoran decision has a quorum, a number set when
On 9/22/24 19:05, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 9/22/24 6:50 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> On 9/22/24 17:27, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
>>> I deputize as prime minister to appoint myself as speaker.
>>
>> I temporarily deputize as Prime Minister to appoint snai
On 9/17/24 20:46, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> {
> Title: Crystal Improvements?
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: 4st
> Co-authors: Mischief, Janet
>
> [This is intended to simplify crystals for me, reduce the disincentives,
> and increase the speed of crystallization, whilst still encoura
On 9/17/24 16:48, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 3:23 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>>> 9183~ snail 1.0 Creation Crystals
>> AGAINST. I continue to not like crystals.
>>
>>
> Do you have any sug
On 9/15/24 16:38, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote:
> Agora had the other 7 stones. Agora can't own spendies, though, so the
> Lost and Found Department ends up with those.
It only grants Spendies to *players* who own stones, so neither Agora
nor L&FD get anything.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor,
On 9/9/24 15:07, 4st nomic via agora-official wrote:
> Masonry: Falsifian, Murphy, R. Lee, ais523 (x2), Murphy, Janet
> Musicianship: ais523, omd, Tiger, Wooble, Zefram, snail
CoE: snail's win should be listed under Masonry.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor
On 9/8/24 00:38, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Sun, 2024-09-08 at 00:32 -0400, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On 9/7/24 21:47, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
>>> Create a new power 2 rule, "Megaphones":
>>> {{{
>>> Megap
On 9/7/24 21:47, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
> Create a new power 2 rule, "Megaphones":
> {{{
> Megaphones are fungible assets. The Assessor is the recordkeepor
> of Megaphones. The creation, destruction and transfer of
> Megaphones is secured.
>
> Each player's voting
On 9/7/24 20:18, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
>> 9171* Kate, Murphy, Janet,4st 3.0 Rationalizing Recordkeepors
>> v1.2
> AGAINST, broken – this requires all players to produce a weekly report
> about their own hats (because the rule saying that they need not do so
> is insufficiently powerf
On 9/7/24 13:15, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote:
> Create a rule titled "Jockeying for Status" with power 2 reading:
>
>At all times a Power Grab is in exactly one of the following
>categories: pending, fulfilled, terminated.
This should be a secured untracked switch.
>
On 9/2/24 18:19, Kiako via agora-discussion wrote:
> With the end of stones nigh, I was doing some brainstorming for a
> possible new system to introduce (though I know there's value in
> allowing no systems to be present for a bit.)
>
> The following system is similar to stones, but simplified,
On 9/3/24 17:40, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 9/3/24 3:03 PM, Kiako via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On 9/3/24 7:28 AM, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> however, if a Power Grab specifies zero Stamps this fee is
>>> automatically considered paid.
>> Do fee-based actions not alre
On 9/1/24 19:00, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote:
> Amend rule 2528 (Voting Methods) by replacing "thereof." with
> "thereof)." and inserting a paragraph break immediately after the
> replaced string.
The replaced string is no longer in the rule, so what does it mean to
insert a paragraph b
On 9/1/24 02:58, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote:
> THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
So... is this sufficient under the new reporting standard? This isn't
labeling the report as the "Rulekeepor's weekly report".
Same question goes for the FLR/ACORN.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor
On 8/29/24 03:49, Oliver Nguyen via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {{{
>
> Title: Crystal liquidation
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: oliver.n
> Co-author(s): 4st
>
> Amend Rule 2685 "Crystals" by inserting the following text after the end of
> the rule:
>
> {
> Once
On 8/28/24 12:27, Lily Long via agora-discussion wrote:
> I object to this, and all future motions to declare Apathy in which I am
> not specified.
So, unfortunately this was sent to agora-discussion, so it doesn't do
anything. Additionally, even if it was sent to agora-business, you can't
object
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 11:22 AM Oliver Nguyen via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I think e intended to create a new intent to declare Apathy, not resolve
> the previous one, which you objected to.
E likely did, but e didn't write it as an intent.
On 8/27/24 11:23,
On 8/23/24 23:32, Aris via agora-business wrote:
> I am genuinely sorry I'm changing my votes so much. I voted before I had
> solid opinions on everything and have been updating them as I develop my
> own thoughts. I usually try to wait a bit, but then I end up not voting at
> all.
You don't need
On 8/20/24 13:40, juan via agora-business wrote:
> 9162: At the flip of a coin, FOR if heads, AGAINST if tails.
> 9163: At the flip of a coin, FOR if heads, AGAINST if tails.
> 9164: At the flip of a coin, FOR if heads, AGAINST if tails.
These are indeterminate and will resolve to PRESENT.
--
J
Proposal 9154 has just re-introduced one of my pet peeves into the
ruleset: the phrase "CAN publish". It is unclear what this actually
means, and it appears to be attempting to redefine "publish", which is
already defined in Rule 478. This potentially even presents R2125
concerns, though I doubt a
On 7/29/24 16:55, Mischief via agora-business wrote:
>> 9150~ Janet 1.0 *sigh*
> AGAINST due to...
>
>> The Veblen is a unique indestructible fixed asset tracked by the
>> Abusrdor
>
>
> I suspect that's too much to clean via R2221 so we'd need another
> proposal
On 7/28/24 20:04, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:
> Janet wrote:
>
>> On 7/24/24 19:14, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
>>> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause the office of Prime Minister to
>>> become vacant.
>> I support and do so.
> Ineffective, snail already did.
>
That i
On 7/28/24 19:53, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2024-07-28 at 16:25 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> Gratuitous:
>>>
>>> * Jaff has been Speaker since April.
>>>
>>> * On or about June 4, ais523 won (Paradox, Zen, High Score).
>>>
On 7/24/24 00:36, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> So, "an action ordinarily reserved for an office-holder as if e held the
> office"
> is duty.
Ah, sorry, I meant *list item* 1.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
On 7/24/24 00:13, 4st nomic wrote:
> Sure, but duty is not the term used in the deputisation rule.
What I'm calling the "duty" is the requirement to perform the action
referred to by paragraph 1 of R2160.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
On 7/24/24 00:08, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> I'm confused. What do you mean?
>
> 2) It would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,
> other than by deputisation, if e held the office.
> You said it was not possible to appoint snail to Speaker.
>
>5) A time
On 7/23/24 23:17, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 8:09 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 23, 2024 10:46 PM, 4st nomic via agora-business
>> wrote:
>>
>> The rules require the Prime Minister to appoint a speaker
Sorry, testing email setup.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
On 7/14/24 16:24, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:
> Proposal: Pragmatic quarters
> (AI = 2, co-author = Mischief)
>
> Amend Rule 2555 (Blots) by replacing this text:
>
>At the beginning of each quarter, half (rounded down) of each
>fugitive's blots are destroyed.
>
> with th
On 7/13/24 17:28, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote:
> Proposal 9136 reads, in part:
>
>> Amend Rule 2691 ("Sortition Procedure") by, as a single amendment,
>> replacing the pargraph
>> {
>> At the beginning of each quarter, the ADoP CAN by announcement, and
>> SHALL in a timely manner, initiate
On 7/13/24 22:09, Matt Smyth via agora-business wrote:
> I object.
I think this fails, as it isn't clear which intent (or both) is being
objected to.
Also, can I ask why?
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
On 7/13/24 20:57, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> For the purposes of the geologist, has the rule been amended with no
> changes, or no amendment made at all?
I read this as the whole thing failing (so no amendment was performed).
However, neither has to be recorded in the history under C
On 7/12/24 17:09, Mischief via agora-business wrote:
> Proto: ("No Indestructible Promises" AI=2.2)
>
> [This allows the owner of a promise to destroy it and explicitly defines
> "revoke" as a synonym for destroy
>
> Also, is there any reason for a creator to take eir own promise but not
> destro
On 7/8/24 16:46, Mischief via agora-business wrote,:
> On 7/8/24 9:01 AM, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
>
>> Please increase the complexity of the office to 1, if there is ever a
>> redraft. Otherwise, I'll petition the ADoP later, so its ok.
> I didn't include it in the proposal because complex
On 7/6/24 06:55, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 7/6/24 12:28 AM, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On 7/1/24 18:48, Mischief via agora-official wrote:
>>> I deputise as Collector to publish the following report.
>>
>> I don't think you need t
On 7/6/24 12:02, Agora amdw42 via agora-business wrote:
> I reach for the minty stone
>
> Should the above stone be not reachable I reach for the radiance stone
>
> Should the above stone be not reachable I reach for the hot potato stone
>
> This is intended to reach for the stones in the order of
On 7/1/24 18:48, Mischief via agora-official wrote:
> I deputise as Collector to publish the following report.
I don't think you need this bit anymore.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
On 6/30/24 19:51, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote:
> Amend Rule 2691 ("Sortition Procedure") by, as a single amendment,
> replacing the pargraph
> {
> At the beginning of each quarter, the ADoP CAN by announcement, and
> SHALL in a timely manner, initiate a sorition for each sortitioned
> off
On 7/5/24 22:50, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote:
> As issues were identified with this draft, I object.
>
*sigh*
I sincerely apologize for continuing to OFF-post. I would think I would
know how to Agora by now, but apparently I don't :P.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
On 7/3/24 16:29, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote:
>The Veblen Cost is a secured switch with values of positive
>integers and a default of 1.
"singleton switch".
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
On 7/1/24 11:25, Agora amdw42 via agora-discussion wrote:
> I vote as follows:
>> 9134~ snail, ais523 1.0 It takes two
> FOR
>> 9135~ snail 1.0 Ammo Store
> AGAINST
>> 9136~ Janet, Kate, Mischief 3.0 Sorting out sortition
> FOR
>> 9137~ Quadrantal, Aris
On 6/30/24 21:00, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote:
> I made some adjustments to the highest number game, focusing more on
> strategy than trying to come up with enormous numbers. Please let me know
> what you think! I'll hold off on initiating if anyone tells me to.
>
> I intend, without 3 ob
I will not be becoming an option in the ongoing Stonemason sortition.
Anybody who wants to be Stonemason should feel free to do so.
If the sortition does not select a new Stonemason, I will resign after
P9136 (presumably) passes.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
On 6/30/24 17:59, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Sun, 2024-06-30 at 11:34 -0400, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote:
>> 5. Any anniversary, monthly anniversary, or quarterly anniversary that
>> would otherwise occur on a day of the month that does not exist
>> (after considering
On 6/30/24 11:35, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote:
> On 6/30/24 11:34, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote:
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> Title: Time for some clarifications
>>
>> Author: Janet
>>
>> Coauthors:
>>
>> Adoption index: 2.0
>>
>> {
>>
>> Amend Rule 1023 ("Agoran Time")
On 6/28/24 03:10, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
> {{{
> Title: Ammo Store
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: snail
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Enact a new Rule with title "Ammo Store" and the following text:
>
> {
> Each player CAN grant emself 1 bang by paying a fe
On 6/22/24 22:45, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote:
> //
> ID: 9123
> Title: Anniversaries
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Mischief
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend rule 1023 (Agoran Time) by appending:
>
>5. Any anniversary,
On 6/20/24 22:19, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote:
> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 9114-9119
> =
>
> IDTitle Result
> --
> 9114 Grind Stone ADOPTED
> 9115 Lode Stone REJECTED
> 9116 A friendly gam
On 6/3/24 19:05, Matt Smyth via agora-discussion wrote:
> My wielding of the minty stone failed, right? Because snail had wielded it
> three days prior?
It would have failed if you had owned the stone, yes.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
On 6/1/24 17:25, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/1/24 3:57 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>
>> Actually, the fee-based actions rules don't have any special cases for
>> negative values, and you can't destroy a negative number of assets. So I
>> think if the required fee is neg
On 5/25/24 22:11, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> In an effort to reduce the ruleset, what if we offload things that only
> affect the officer of a report, or rather, leave the specifics of mechanics
> to the officer that tracks it?
>
> I submit the following proposal:
> {
> Title: Geologist
On 5/24/24 02:44, juan via agora-official wrote:
> ===
> Registrar: juan Birthday Announcement
> 2024-05-24
> ===
>
On 5/2/24 10:15, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> Joint awards are a normal thing in real life, and the announcement would
> be pretty much identical to that intent. I really don't see any
> specificity issue.
I originally read, and still read, the intent as intending to award a
separate title t
On 5/1/24 13:19, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> I intend to award Employee of the Year to snail and Janet.
>> I object, sorry. I think these need to be phrased as separate intents.
>>
> I don't think that's true. The rule text says awardable to "the
> persons", plural. Nothing indicates it can
On 4/29/24 22:30, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I vote as follows:
>> 9102~ juniper 1.0 An Overpowering Proposal
> AGAINST
>
>
>> 9103~ juniper 1.0 Dictator Takes the Quorum
> AGAINST
As requested:
I have voted against these because I don't want t
On 4/20/24 23:59, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> Here's a draft to cleanly separate the ratification of documents and
> statements, with an eye towards fixing the proposal ratification bug
> that ais523 pointed out. (I don't think this itself would fix it, since
>
On 4/23/24 00:55, mqyhlkahu via agora-discussion wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Janet (randomnetcat) responded to our Declaration of Intent to Push the
> Boulder[1] with the following[2]:
>
>> this is *very* close to accidentally being a tabled intent under R1728 rather
>> than actually pushing the bolder.
>
On 4/23/24 00:21, mqyhlkahu via agora-business wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We formally declare our intent to perform the following action(s):
> {{{
> In accordance with [1], we announce that we Push the Boulder, thereby
> increasing its Height by 1.
>
>[1] Rule 2683/1 (Power=0.5)
> }}}
>
>
On 4/22/24 01:56, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 22/04/2024 06:41, mqyhlkahu via agora-discussion wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> We received the following response to Our Registration[1]:
>>> Hello! I cause the above-registering person to receive a welcome package.
>> We would like
On 4/22/24 01:41, mqyhlkahu via agora-discussion wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We received the following response to Our Registration[1]:
>> Hello! I cause the above-registering person to receive a welcome package.
> We would like to ask what a 'welcome package' is.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>[1]
> https://ma
On 4/21/24 22:43, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
>> Spending Stone: As the Stonemason, I don't want to incentivize massive
>> numbers of wieldings in the same message because that increases my
>> workload.
>>
> This one doesn't make sense, the stones would probably be wielded anyways,
> a
On 4/21/24 20:11, Matt Smyth via agora-discussion wrote:
> I edit the proposal as such:
>
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, 9:41 am Matt Smyth via agora-business, <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> {{{
>> Title: An Overpowering Proposal
>> Adoption Index: 1.0
On 4/21/24 18:04, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 3:12 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>>> 9099~ snail 2.0 Quantum Superstone
>> AGAINST
>>
>>
>>> 9100~ snail 2.0 Spending Sto
On 4/18/24 08:26, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> I think crystal poaching is fine: it's competitive teamwork! I've poached
> Janet for example. Perhaps coauthors need to be rewarded also?
I mean, I wasn't thrilled by that. I think it's reasonable to want to
reap the rewards from your own
Here's a draft to cleanly separate the ratification of documents and
statements, with an eye towards fixing the proposal ratification bug
that ais523 pointed out. (I don't think this itself would fix it, since
the R2034 would still need to be updated to include explicit statements
about the attribu
On 4/14/24 12:41, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> Enact a new Power = 2 rule titled "Sortition Procedure" with the
> following text:
>
> At the beginning of each quarter, the ADoP CAN by announcement, and
> SHALL in a timely manner, initiate a sorition for each sortitioned
> office if
On 4/7/24 03:25, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote:
> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 9073-9086
> =
>
> IDTitle Result
> -
> 9073 In case of unexpected nonplayerhood
I am planning to use the new Vacations rule to take a Vacation from my
three offices (Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason) over the month of May.
If anybody would like to be a Delegate for any of those offices, please
let me know! I would be happy to provide instruction on how my
automation (for Asse
On 4/8/24 18:42, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> I object
> The possessive and the plural are not typos
The full context:
> Amend R2578 to read in full:
>
> A fungible asset is one where two instances of it are considered
> equivalent if they have the same owner, for the purposes
On 4/8/24 18:45, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> I object on secondary grounds that rule 2578 "currencies" does not contain
> "entities"
It does as a result of a resolved proposal, I just noticed it while
working on the (unpublished) updated ruleset.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor,
On 3/30/24 06:38, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
>> 9074* Janet 3.0 Close enough
> AGAINST: the "must include" here seems wrong, what happens if it
> doesn't? Some nomics would read this as creating a legal fiction that
> the ruleset contains revision numbers, even if it doe
On 3/25/24 18:10, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 3/16/24 22:08, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> So, a potential point of disagreement here is what *exactly* this
>> standard is requiring. Importantly, I think it's unclear whether the
>> requirement for the "specification of the method
On 3/22/24 14:35, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote:
>
> Rule 2689/0 (Power=3.0)
> Offices
>
> Delegate is an Office switch with possible values of "None" and
> any active player, and default value of "None". Del
On 3/24/24 17:56, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:
> Well, I for one am confused. What was this even /intended/ to do? It
> appears to fail to resolve anything, due to ambiguity. Or was it
> intended as "I already published a corrected resolution, now I'm
> just quoting said correction in
On 3/17/24 20:19, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote:
>
>> On Mar 16, 2024, at 5:38 PM, nix via agora-business
>> wrote:
>>
>> I assign CFJ 4056 to Gaelan.
> Some preliminary thoughts; arguments on any of these points (or any points I
> missed) are welcome.
>
> The argument for TRUE is, bro
On 3/18/24 01:14, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 3/17/24 22:14, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
>> What evidence do you have that rule numbers and Id numbers are the same?
>> Because arguing that this case is false has definitive disastrous effects,
>> so is
On 3/17/24 22:14, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> What evidence do you have that rule numbers and Id numbers are the same?
> Because arguing that this case is false has definitive disastrous effects,
> so is there another way to judge this case outside of those two options?
The earliest F
On 3/17/24 20:19, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote:
> - Snail’s dictatorship rule “Public Speaking” had at least power 3.
> - Proposal 23n’t was adopted. (messages 324)
> - The proposal was correctly distributed, despite “23n’t” allegedly not
> being
> a valid ID number
On 3/16/24 22:37, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
>> Also, per precedent, this has to say "with ownership wholly restricted
>> to players and contracts" (or similar), otherwise it doesn't override
>> the default of being ownable by Agora.
> What precedent? That's an unusual way to use defaults.
W
On 3/16/24 22:17, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> Here's a proto, let me know what you think:
>
> {
> Title: Spendies
> Author: nix
> Co-Authors:
> AI: 2
Idea seems fine? I'm pretty bad at judging economies though.
The obligatory copy-editing follows:
> [Spendies are simple. We all start wit
On 3/14/24 17:46, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> PLEASE NOTE, unfortunately, no mechanism is actually provided for the
> Rulekeepor to officially assign numbers to rules, and as the Rulekeepor
> must track rule/ID numbers, this means it is a game action and is REGULATED
> under the 2020 ru
On 3/13/24 16:16, Janet Cobb wrote:
> On 3/12/24 18:48, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
>> This is related to CFJ 4072, but you don't need to be familiar with all
>> of the arguments there.
>>
>> I just want everyone's reading on one (crucial) element. R105 requires
>> an "unambiguous and clear spe
On 3/12/24 18:48, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> This is related to CFJ 4072, but you don't need to be familiar with all
> of the arguments there.
>
> I just want everyone's reading on one (crucial) element. R105 requires
> an "unambiguous and clear specification of the method to be used for
> c
On 3/12/24 14:39, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-03-12 at 14:29 -0400, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> Or, in the alternative, based on the authority Rule 2125, Rule 2471
>> prohibits sending a message with certain attributes, and that is what
>> the infraction is. So, th
On 3/10/24 19:01, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 5:45 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2024-03-10 at 15:38 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion
>> wrote:
>>> If so, and if Kate indeed gained five Ribbons
On 3/3/24 17:22, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> Would this perhaps allow it to merit a non-AGAINST vote? My fingers are
> crossed.
I'll think about it, but I'm still concerned about the CFJ load.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
On 3/4/24 01:01, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-03-04 at 00:57 -0500, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On 3/4/24 00:48, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
>>> I wield the Anti-Equatorial Stone, specifying the Recursion Stone (the
>>> Power Stone
On 3/4/24 00:48, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-03-04 at 00:40 -0500, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote:
>> THE BILLBOARD ROCK CHART (STONEMASON'S WEEKLY REPORT)
>>
>> Stone Mossiness Owner Last Wielded Immune?
>> --- - --
On 3/3/24 16:30, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:
> Janet wrote:
>
>> On 3/3/24 16:24, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:
9068~ Yachay 1.0 Agora of Empires
>>> FOR (without 2 objections is a reasonable guard against trivial
>>> wins, other issues can be ironed out
On 2/27/24 11:30, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 2/27/24 09:49, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
>> I petition the Herald to deny reviewing my thesis nor accept it as a thesis.
>> Ample time was given for players to review it, and no reviews were provided.
>> If players don't care about th
On 2/18/24 17:39, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:
> nix wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/24 19:07, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>>> So, we've discovered on Discord a potential issue that could have
>>> wide-ranging effects. Consider the four-day rule as stated in the
>>> (purported) Rule 105/2
On 2/15/24 12:54, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 9:44 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/24 12:41, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
>>> I submit the following proposal:
>&g
On 2/15/24 12:41, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
> {
> Title: No Taxation Without Representation
> Adoption Index: 2.0
> Author: 4st
> Co-author(s):
>
> [Currently, democratic proposals can pass even if the quorum is much lower
> than the number of active pla
On 2/14/24 20:16, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> Counterarguments/Gratuitous arguments TRUE:
>> 1. Does text specify a rule change?
>> 2. If so, is it unambiguous what the text of the rule to be enacted is?
>> As to 1, the text makes no mention of a "rule", only "enact[ing]"
>> something.
On 1/27/24 10:44, 4st nomic via agora-official wrote:
> HERETOFORE, let it be known, I am become Herald!
> WHENCE I thusly deputize as Herald
> TO publish the following December (and January) report.
> WHEREBY snail hath lacked in eir duties
> WHICH expired nearly two fortnites ago.
>
>
> SINCE the
1 - 100 of 282 matches
Mail list logo
