DIS: Re: BUS: I attempt to Declare A NEW ERA

I object, also because of Trust Tokens. On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 5:56 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I object because of Trust Tokens. > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > > > > > On Sep 28,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I attempt to Declare A NEW ERA

"The speaker has the power to use the Super-Special Weekly Speaker Veto (SSWSV). Agora is not satisfied with any intent if the speaker uses eir SSWSV and objects to that intent. The Speaker can only use the SSWSV once a week. Once the Speaker has used the SSWSV on an intent, an identical or

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I attempt to Declare A NEW ERA

That makes it useless because someone can re-post the intent right after the speaker uses eir objection (in principle it's about the right Amount of usage though). On Fri, 29 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > We could make the speaker have like one a week. Remove it from the > rule its currently in

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I attempt to Declare A NEW ERA

We could make the speaker have like one a week. Remove it from the rule its currently in and add to the rule "The Speaker" something like "The speaker has the power to use the Super-Special Weekly Speaker Veto (SSWSV). Agora is not satisfied with any intent if the speaker uses eir SSWSV and

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I attempt to Declare A NEW ERA

On Fri, 29 Sep 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 at 00:12 Aris Merchant > wrote: > I would. It means that the Speaker has to care enough to maintain eir > veto. If e doesn't, and someone else does care about doing it, e can. >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I attempt to Declare A NEW ERA

On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 at 00:12 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would. It means that the Speaker has to care enough to maintain eir > veto. If e doesn't, and someone else does care about doing it, e can. > It also means that a Speaker can object to something as a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I attempt to Declare A NEW ERA

I would. It means that the Speaker has to care enough to maintain eir veto. If e doesn't, and someone else does care about doing it, e can. It also means that a Speaker can object to something as a player without maintaining eir Speaker veto if e doesn't want to. -Aris On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I attempt to Declare A NEW ERA

Correct of course (I knew how long the period lasted but I thought the veto power...was a veto power). That's rather strange. Would anyone object were the 48 hours bit removed? On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 at 00:01 VJ Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I attempt to Declare A NEW ERA

On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 at 00:01 VJ Rada wrote: > RIP good point. > > As G. is the speaker, the intent is scuppered. G. and Aris objected, > Alexis and nichdel supported. > That's not how dependent actions work. The intent does not get "scuppered"; it remains active (technically

DIS: Re: BUS: I attempt to Declare A NEW ERA

RIP good point. As G. is the speaker, the intent is scuppered. G. and Aris objected, Alexis and nichdel supported. On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Fri, 29 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > >> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to declare a new era,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I attempt to Declare A NEW ERA

> On Sep 28, 2017, at 11:40 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> I withdraw my objection. I support the above-quoted intent. > > This cannot be continued though: > > A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of

DIS: Re: BUS: I attempt to Declare A NEW ERA

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: I withdraw my objection. I support the above-quoted intent. This cannot be continued though: A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the same type of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I attempt to Declare A NEW ERA

I'm not expressing an opinion on the era creation, I don't have a strong preference and I want to see how other votes are flowing, but I do agree with the principle expressed. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Sep 28, 2017, at 9:31 PM, VJ Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I attempt to Declare A NEW ERA

oh sorry, that was in reply to my other post about lowering power. Email threading is confusing sometimes. On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:31 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > Nttpf publius, and you'll want "support" > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I attempt to Declare A NEW ERA

Nttpf publius, and you'll want "support" On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > I agree. > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > > > >> On Sep 28, 2017, at 9:17 PM, VJ Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I attempt to Declare A NEW ERA

I agree. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Sep 28, 2017, at 9:17 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > > Unrelated: It would probs be a good idea to lower the power of lots of > our game mechanics and have it all be like 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 etc,

DIS: Re: BUS: I attempt to Declare A NEW ERA

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 at 21:09 VJ Rada wrote: > I intend, with Agoran Consent, to declare a new era, repealing all > ephemeral rules. > > That is, both of them. Victory by apathy and Trust Tokens. IMO. > they're kind of worthless. Apathy is useless bc if the game is really >

DIS: Re: BUS: I attempt to Declare A NEW ERA

Unrelated: It would probs be a good idea to lower the power of lots of our game mechanics and have it all be like 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 etc, allowing us to use Eras more like what they were probably intended for. On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Nic Evans wrote: > I support. > > > On