On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 12:44 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 3 Dec 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
What if you just let the author distribute an urgent proposal? As it is, the
urgent proposal requires two more Distrib-u-Matics and only says that the
Promotor SHOULD distribute it in four days.
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 5:29 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 12:44 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 3 Dec 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
What if you just let the author distribute an urgent proposal? As it
is, the
urgent proposal requires two more
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, ais523 wrote:
I'm open to the idea, but when I previously (a long while ago) suggested
that persons should be allowed to distribute their own proposals at
times, the general opinion was chaos in ID numbers, vote collection,
mistaken distributions that are canceled because
The 6 days saved (21 - 15) aren't enough to make a difference imo. I
also don't think fast tracked proposals should require cards if
they're going to be an emergency thing-- there might be a problem with
the card rules or we might not have enough distrib-u-matics (e.g.
hostile Dealor
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, comex wrote:
The 6 days saved (21 - 15) aren't enough to make a difference imo. I also
don't think fast tracked proposals should require cards if they're going to
be
an emergency thing-- there might be a problem with the card rules or we might
not have enough
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, comex wrote:
The 6 days saved (21 - 15) aren't enough to make a difference imo. I also
don't think fast tracked proposals should require cards if they're going to
be
an emergency thing-- there
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 4, 2009, at 10:49 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com
wrote:
How about a super-fast-track where you can make an Urgent proposal
take effect with AI*2 Agoran Consent without distributing it at all?
No.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 4, 2009, at 10:14 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
And it's up to 28 days depending on when it's submitted in relation
to the beginning of the week, so time is cutting between 1/3 and 1/2.
It serves two purposes: it's still a long time between bugs
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 06:45 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
One general mechanism, allow N for crimes to be non-negative instead of
positive, and define lateness here to be a class-0 crime. This means the
default penalty is 0, deputisation works, but if the officer delays
because e is obviously
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, ais523 wrote:
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 06:45 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
One general mechanism, allow N for crimes to be non-negative instead of
positive, and define lateness here to be a class-0 crime. This means the
default penalty is 0, deputisation works, but if the
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, comex wrote:
On Dec 4, 2009, at 10:14 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
And it's up to 28 days depending on when it's submitted in relation
to the beginning of the week, so time is cutting between 1/3 and 1/2.
It serves two purposes: it's still a long time
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 08:35 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, ais523 wrote:
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 06:45 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
One general mechanism, allow N for crimes to be non-negative instead of
positive, and define lateness here to be a class-0 crime. This means the
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 08:39 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
It's fine to ditch Distributionality in slow periods. If we're worried
about a deluge of poorly-thought proposals, a limit of proposals you can
make distributable in a week is plenty of medicine (So: not ditch but limit).
IMO the main
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, ais523 wrote:
We don't /have/ a functioning trading economy; I suspect the right to
propose just isn't valuable enough that people can be bothered to trade
it. (Also, the changes to voting don't really help, because people seem
not to have the current vote limit rules in
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 08:55 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, ais523 wrote:
We don't /have/ a functioning trading economy; I suspect the right to
propose just isn't valuable enough that people can be bothered to trade
it. (Also, the changes to voting don't really help, because
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 4, 2009, at 11:46 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
it. (Also, the changes to voting don't really help, because people
seem
not to have the current vote limit rules in their minds like they did
with Caste and with VVLOP.)
Just give it time and
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 4, 2009, at 11:11 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
Ouch. Breaking rules with a 0 punishment is still breaking the rules,
unless we have another rule saying that's specifically allowed.
Ah, philosophy. Straw poll: suppose we had a crime for which
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, comex wrote:
On Dec 4, 2009, at 11:11 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Ouch. Breaking rules with a 0 punishment is still breaking the rules,
unless we have another rule saying that's specifically allowed.
Ah, philosophy. Straw poll: suppose we had a crime
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Of course, it raises the question of whether a 0-rest penalty is a
penalty for the purpose of R101...
Is DISCHARGE a penalty for the purpose of R101? I would have assumed so,
but of course common sense counts for little in the world of nomic.
signature.asc
Description:
c. wrote:
How about you CAN distribute a
proposal with 4 support; the usual information requirements (essential
parameters etc) are relaxed to SHALLS to avoid problems, and instead
of a number you use a GUID.
Not a literal GUID, I hope. I suggest the distributor SHOULD provide a
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
How about you CAN distribute a
proposal with 4 support; the usual information requirements (essential
parameters etc) are relaxed to SHALLS to avoid problems, and instead
of a number you use a GUID.
Not a literal GUID,
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I submit the following proposal, Fast Track, AI-2:
---
[Adds an urgent catagory]
In Rule 1607 (The Promotor) replace:
Distributability is a
2009/12/3 Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu:
I submit the following proposal, Fast Track, AI-2:
(...)
Amend Rule 2261 (The Deck of Change) by replacing:
* Distrib-u-Matic - Indicate an Undistributable proposal. That
proposal becomes Distributable. Or play
G. wrote:
The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal in the Proposal Pool
at any time. In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL, as
part of eir weekly duties, distribute any proposal that is in
the Proposal Pool and was Distributable at the beginning of that
24 matches
Mail list logo
