On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
avpx wrote:
Since I can no longer bring myself to care about the hundreds of random
messages sent to the various forums (no offense), I set my posture to supine
Fails, you're standing.
Rule 1871 says, A player CAN flip eir
On Sunday 20 July 2008 13:40:14 Quazie wrote:
Proposal: Left in a lull
--
Add the following to R1922:
(h) Left in a Lull, to be awarded to any player who, after at least
6 months of activity, suddenly stops playing agora. This patent title
shall be awarded by the Registrar after a player
On Sunday 13 July 2008 09:37:16 Ben Caplan wrote:
Might be a good idea for the RBoA to set an exchange rate for pesos.
Since there has been no activity in my economics contract, I don't really
know. I'd like there to just be on contract handling these things. Perhaps we
should try to merge our
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/7/10 Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2008/7/10 Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2008/7/10 Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2008/7/10 Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2008/7/10 Nick Vanderweit [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I agree
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I retract my previous proposal with this title. (I forgot to update
caste initialization to match Ivan Hope's non-linear scale.)
Proposal: Some players are more equal than others
(AI = 2, II = 2, please)
OscarMeyr and Ivan
On Tuesday 01 July 2008 21:38:56 Ed Murphy wrote:
http://zenith.homelinux.net/acronyms/
Suggested improvements welcome.
That appears to be a helpful guide, especially for newcomers. Perhaps a few
contract-based acronyms? You could put them in another section if you like.
For example, AAA and
On Tuesday 01 July 2008 16:23:22 Ian Kelly wrote:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Nick Vanderweit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Coauthors to this proposal are doopy, pikhq, Chester Mealer, and Murphy.
I join the following, which becomes a contract as soon as doopy agrees to
it (he's sort
In my Agoran Economics contract (which can only get off the ground if people
*join*), I say that only a player may be a corporation. However, a
partnership can only exist if it does not have the same basis as another
player, per rule 2144 (Limited Partnerships). Now, I'd expect and hope it to
I don't see the point. For a government, bribes are bad. But our game
of Agora is based around the concepts of scamming, bribing, and being
a sneaky little twerp. People should be allowed to vote however is
necessary or advantageous to them.
avpx
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit the following propoasl, AI-2, entitled Overtime:
--
Overtime
Amend R2187 by appending the following:
If no players have won by High Score in the
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://eso-std.org/~ais523/notary-report
If you click that in a web browser, you'll get a nice HTMLCSS version
of the Notary
proto-report. (Why is ehird writing this? Well, I wrote the script
that converts the text
Coauthors to this proposal are doopy, pikhq, Chester Mealer, and Murphy
Agoran Economics
1. The title of this contract is Agoran Economics.
2. Any person may join or leave this contract at any time by announcement.
3. This contract is public.
4. Changes may be made to this
So, CFJ 2006 has never been resolved, as it was assigned to comex and
I'm pretty sure he's not around anymore. Even though it's not
essential, it sure would be nice to get a judgment on this precedent.
What should we do?
avpx
Hmm. . . Maybe you should hold off on it? I've been thinking heavily
about an entire economic system for Agora, including a stock exchange
and a fungible currency, as well as a treasury and salaries. I'll try
to write it up soon; right now I'm very tired. When I do, I'll
definitely include some of
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Nick Vanderweit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm. . . Maybe you should hold off on it? I've been thinking heavily
about an entire economic system for Agora, including a stock exchange
, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Nick Vanderweit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Woops. Even so, would it overlap anything in effect *now* if I created
an entire currency system for Agora, complete with a stock exchange
and treasury?
Oh, the Bank of Agora, partnerships
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where does the rest go?
The Treasury contains the rest, per the section describing it.
9. Upon a player leaving, his holdings in Pesos are destroyed.
Just restrict ownership of pesos to players, and let the Assets rule
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
another idea, clearly not a proposal yet
Agoran Stock Market
1. This contract is known as the Agoran Stock Market.
2. This contract creates a currency known as SMDs which are fungible.
3. This contract creates a
5. This contract defines a position called SEC member, when a player joins
this contract if there are fewer than five SEC member e becomes a SEC
member.
I don't like this part. I'd definitely prefer a system where
*everyone* has a say rather than it being a race to become an SEC
member.
snip
On Tuesday 17 June 2008 16:48:00 Ed Murphy wrote:
cdm014 wrote:
I was under the impression only one player could fill an office.
But offices can be (and have been) filled by partnerships.
Yeah, I'd definitely go with an office for that. But I like the idea.
avpx
On Tuesday 17 June 2008 13:53:39 Alexander Smith wrote:
Seeing what's happened to B Nomic recently (apparently almost
everything since last December has been illegal due to
specifying SHALL rather than SHALL and CAN), I think it's
probably a good idea to have some way to fix Agora if things
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 14 June 2008 8:38:19 ihope wrote:
So what is it that you need to do that the rules have the power to
prevent you from doing, and do not allow you to do? I'm taking out
scammable paragraphs and replacing them with
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 16 June 2008 10:13:14 ihope wrote:
Hmm, yes, you're probably right about the contract-defined actions
thing. I would rather have a sentence or two stating that the
gamestate can only be changed as the rules allow
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 16 June 2008 2:22:56 Quazie wrote:
I submit the following proposal entitled A win of monstrous
proportions with the following text:
---
Upon the adoption of this proposal The barlog, Large Luigi the
Beholder,
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:50 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about making statements to the DF that I haven't taken the time to
carefully evaluate for truthfulness? Or, for that matter, making jokes
to the DF (see CFJ
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I join the AAA.
I request subsidization.
I create a Digit Ranch (land #89) with a Seed of 1 and three WRV in
woggle's possession.
I create a Mill
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Nick Vanderweit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I join
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ivan Hope wrote:
Well, this is not what I'm used to. I thought roleclaiming and public
voting (which entails bandwagons) were nice aspects of the game.
Well, you can certainly /imply/ that you (have a certain role / will
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 11:23 PM, George Roberts
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hereby register under the name 'doopy'.
Welcome.
avpx
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend to create the following contract with Ivan Hope:
{This is a public contract. Parties to this contract may not perform
any action.}
ehird
This has interesting implications; one cannot leave, for that is an
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/6/14 Nick Vanderweit [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This has interesting implications; one cannot leave, for that is an
action. And inaction is still doing nothing, which is itself an
action. So really, if you join this contract
The transfer tax would, as has been formerly stated, go into paying
salaries to officers, and the tax rate would be variable to find a
certain sweet spot where the money is moving around a lot and lots
of trade is occurring. I'd say it'd go by percentage to people who did
their reports on time and
Could someone explain this to me? I vaguely recall something about a
former rule that made discussion of voting on these things illegal,
but that rule no longer exists, right?
avpx
2008/6/6 Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING PROPOSAL (TITLE: AGORA) (AI=1, II=1):
{{{
AGORA
Since I've been thinking a lot about proposals I could submit that
might benefit Agora, I decided I'd throw an idea out there for you
guys to give me feedback.
My idea is an official currency, the Napier, abbreviated Np, which is
the base-10 log of its worth. 2 Np is worth 10x as much as 1 Np
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You couldn't talk about it, in public or private (that's the
unenforcable part), and all
So should I just write up a proto-proposal for an ordinary linear
numerical system of currency with the proposed ideas (transfer tax,
etc)?
avpx
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 9:36 PM, Nick Vanderweit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well here's an idea. We could use a linear currency, with colors
representing place values. For example, we could go ROYGBIV for the
values
Hello, Agora.
I recently had a really serious family emergency occur, and I've been
pretty traumatized since. If someone wouldn't mind deputizing for my
position, or if you'll all wait for my Mad Scientist duties, that'd be
really great.
Honestly, I've just been far too preoccupied to deal with
Whoops, I meant append, not amend.
I'll get right on that.
avpx
On Feb 10, 2008 7:13 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 10, 2008 9:01 PM, Nick Vanderweit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit the following proposal, titled, Rrrargh!, with AI=1 and II=0:
Amend rule 2193 to say
Hey, all. I wanted a more reliable way to generate random rules than
with my brain, so I went ahead and wrote a quick python script to do
it for me, which I thought you might as well be able to see. It uses
the Linux /dev/urandom device, so the random numbers are very good and
trusted. It picks
I like actually readable code. Perl makes me want to vomit.
avpx
On Feb 1, 2008 4:31 PM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick Vanderweit wrote:
Hey, all. I wanted a more reliable way to generate random rules than
with my brain,
$ perl -we '@r=grep{/^Rule \d/};[EMAIL PROTECTED
I thought about it, but thought this one was funnier.
avpx
On Feb 1, 2008 4:42 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 1, 2008 6:35 PM, Nick Vanderweit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As my official duties as Mad Scientist, I submit the following proposal
(AI=3):
Nice rule, but why did you
I also seem to have screwed up majorly on part d.
avpx
On Feb 1, 2008 4:46 PM, Nick Vanderweit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought about it, but thought this one was funnier.
avpx
On Feb 1, 2008 4:42 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 1, 2008 6:35 PM, Nick Vanderweit [EMAIL
As the Mad Scientist, can I submit a proposal in which the text I
append replaces an adjective / noun pair, or can I just strictly
replace a single noun and leave the adjectives intact? I want to
submit the following proposal:
Append the following text (from rule 2034) to rule 2193:
A Monster
Ugh. Should I keep it as public Monster or not?
avpx
On Feb 1, 2008 8:06 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 1, 2008 7:57 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We've had past judgements that a modified X is a wholly different thing
than an unmodified X. For example, a Limited
I also leave the Brainfuck Golf contest for the same reason. With
school starting back up, I'll doubtfully have time to complete the
contests.
avpx
On Jan 7, 2008 1:15 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I leave the Brainfuck Golf contest. Sorry, not enough time.
--
Eris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Also, it seems to me that, since the difference is so thin, and the
rules do not cover it, it would be valid to count spending as a loss.
avpx
On Dec 24, 2007 11:40 AM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 24 December 2007 11:36:04 Nick Vanderweit wrote:
I retract my previous
it.
Murphy, I don't see why you could cause yourself to spend the
Treasury's pesos. Only the Treasuror can handle this.
More feedback, please!
Avpx
On Dec 22, 2007 5:27 PM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick Vanderweit wrote:
Any player may spend N pesos to cause another player to gain .75*N
pesos
to the currency system, and
perhaps improve it. If you guys could help me out with it by giving
suggestions, I feel like we really could make the game more lively.
Avpx
On Dec 23, 2007 4:10 PM, Nick Vanderweit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry if I was not clear. Perhaps you all can help me revise
First off, thanks a lot for your very helpful suggestions!
Okay, about the multi-colored VCs. Thing is, as much as this
encourages people to do different things in order to get different
colors of VCs, I feel like, as Treasuror, one could cause the Treasury
to give out different amounts of pesos
Perhaps the proposal is a bit redundant. Rule 2166 does specify that
the recordkeepor of an asset can create that asset, and that by
default, it would go to the Bank. This simplifies it immensely.
Perhaps something would be needed to say, however, that pesos cannot
be created by the recordkeepor
By the way, I really don't see a problem with creating the Treasury. I
mean, though the Bank exists, it does only in a limited sort of way: a
place that, by default, assets go. I'm looking for a place that
behaves sort of like a player, in that pesos can be transferred
to/from it in a way
I CFJ on this. Spending anything, IMO, though not synonymous, is very
similar to losing it, and, though the difference seems to pop out
after thinking about it a bit, it's really not covered under the rules
at all.
avpx
On Dec 24, 2007 12:05 AM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick Vanderweit
-win scenario, but the contracts allow the
transfer of currency itself to be a more flexible affair.
If VCs and Marks are rule-defined, then I see no reason why this shouldn't be.
Avpx
On Dec 22, 2007 4:54 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 22, 2007 6:25 PM, Nick Vanderweit [EMAIL PROTECTED
You say there are elephants over there. However, in this rule, there
are elephants only in the cardinal directions. Thus, there is a
conflict here.
Perhaps you are trying to win by paradox?
avpx
On Dec 9, 2007 7:17 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I create the following proposal:
Wow, I feel really dumb. Five elephants. . . One is at the default
location. . . Got it. . .
avpx
On Dec 11, 2007 6:56 PM, Nick Vanderweit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You say there are elephants over there. However, in this rule, there
are elephants only in the cardinal directions. Thus
I join Brainfuck Golf.
On Dec 10, 2007 6:25 AM, Iammars [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I join Brainfuck Golf
On Dec 9, 2007 4:41 PM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I join Brainfuck Golf.
-zefram
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
5358:FOR
5359:AGAINST
5360:FORx4
5361:FORx4
5362:FORx4
5363:FOR
5364:FOR
5365:AGAINSTx4
5366:AGAINSTx4
5367:AGAINSTx4
5368:AGAINSTx4
5369:AGAINSTx4
5370:FOR
5371:FORx4
5372:FORx4
On Dec 11, 2007 6:05 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5358 D1 2Murphy 1 is 1
FOR
5359 D1 2
, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Nick Vanderweit wrote:
I just really don't like VCs. They work in annoying ways, cannot be
easily traded, and it seems like we need a real currency again. Would
you guys be interested in making that work?
Oh sure, there were many good
I object.
On Dec 7, 2007 9:05 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
Without 3 objections, I intend to make Agora's Toy a contest.
I object. This has nothing to do with a contest and no reason to be one.
-Goethe
Hey all. As I look more and more at the currency in Agora, I notice
how screwed up it is. VCs disappear and appear, and it doesn't
demonstrate how real-world currency works. Personally, I think a
less-regulated, free-market sort of currency would be cool. For
reference, see what I've done with
I just really don't like VCs. They work in annoying ways, cannot be
easily traded, and it seems like we need a real currency again. Would
you guys be interested in making that work?
Nick
On Dec 6, 2007 9:30 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
It
According to rule 106:
A Proposal with an Adoption Index of less than 2 is Ordinary. All
other Proposals are Democratic.
This seems fine and all, except that the powers of the Wielder of Veto
describe (2019):
The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary proposal in its voting
period by announcement;
We ought to at least craft up a specific fix. Wouldn't it be as simple
as saying that once the adoption index is set in the initial proposal,
a later increase in the adoption index cannot make it democratic?
avpx
On Nov 25, 2007 3:20 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
avpx wrote:
64 matches
Mail list logo
