On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-06-07 at 13:37 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Alex Smith wrote:
>>> What about a sort of proposal that can't be made democratic, but can't
>>> do anything but award wins? That would let people mess around with all
>>> the ordinary-proposal tricks wi
On Sun, 2009-06-07 at 13:37 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Alex Smith wrote:
> > What about a sort of proposal that can't be made democratic, but can't
> > do anything but award wins? That would let people mess around with all
> > the ordinary-proposal tricks without making things too hairy.
>
> All th
On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 12:08 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> (And you'd need to include both the Rubberstamper and the wielder of the
>>> veto in the 3). It's actually been a long time since we've had a proposal
>>> that people on both side
On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 12:08 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> (And you'd need to include both the Rubberstamper and the wielder of the
>> veto in the 3). It's actually been a long time since we've had a proposal
>> that people on both sides have used the various
Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 12:08 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 11:32 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The only risk I see is that reducing quorum when the number of active
>
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 12:08 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 11:32 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>> The only risk I see is that reducing quorum when the number of active
> >>> players stays high up
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:33, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I personally find that most proposal distributions I could care less
> about. I do tend overall to play Agora for the contract sub-games and
> not for the rule-making system. That doesn't mean I'm not in
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:33, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Benjamin Caplan
> wrote:
>> The idea is that there would be some people that aren't interested in
>> being legislators, but are interested in other parts of the game
>> (judging, contract subgames, etc.) I refer
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> Actually, the last dictatorship proposal forced through by scam (as
> opposed to a proposal which was itself a scam) was done by setting three
> voting limits up to 8 at the last minute of a proposal, swamping all the
> other votes. The WoV didn't have a cha
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 12:08 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 11:32 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>> The only risk I see is that reducing quorum when the number of active
> >>> players stays high up
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 12:18 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Again, all this only comes out when a proposal is out there that's
> really a faction-based attempt (e.g. enough members on each side for
> procedural move and counter-move to matter). Town Fountain was one
> like this. The last such ones (e
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> The only risk I see is that reducing quorum when the number of active
>> players stays high ups the conspiracy attempt: in the words of a past
>> wise agoran, "quorum describes the minimum size for a legislative
>> conspiracy."
>
>
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> Plus, we don't really have much gameplay at the moment.
Er, compare to the business archives for all of September or October 2006.
-G.
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 11:32 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> The only risk I see is that reducing quorum when the number of active
>>> players stays high ups the conspiracy attempt: in the words of a past
>>> wise agora
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 11:32 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> The only risk I see is that reducing quorum when the number of active
>> players stays high ups the conspiracy attempt: in the words of a past
>> wise agoran, "quorum describes the minimum size for a l
Ed Murphy wrote:
> Pavitra wrote:
>> The idea is that there would be some people that aren't interested in
>> being legislators, but are interested in other parts of the game
>> (judging, contract subgames, etc.) I refer again to the analogy with
>> Posture: a person can be an active participant w
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 11:32 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The only risk I see is that reducing quorum when the number of active
> players stays high ups the conspiracy attempt: in the words of a past
> wise agoran, "quorum describes the minimum size for a legislative
> conspiracy."
Which, given the
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Benjamin Caplan
wrote:
> The idea is that there would be some people that aren't interested in
> being legislators, but are interested in other parts of the game
> (judging, contract subgames, etc.) I refer again to the analogy with
> Posture: a person can be an act
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>>> Legislature is a player switch with values Quoredupon and Unquoredfor
>>> (default). A player CAN flip eir Legislature to Unquoredfor by
>>> announcement. A player CAN flip eir Legisla
Pavitra wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>>> Legislature is a player switch with values Quoredupon and Unquoredfor
>>> (default). A player CAN flip eir Legislature to Unquoredfor by
>>> announcement. A player CAN flip eir Legislature to Quoredupon by
>>> su
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> Legislature is a player switch with values Quoredupon and Unquoredfor
>> (default). A player CAN flip eir Legislature to Unquoredfor by
>> announcement. A player CAN flip eir Legislature to Quoredupon by
>> submitting a valid ballot
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 14:03 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I know it's unimaginable now; but in past we've gone through slow periods
> > with many fewer distributions (even none for two months). It's slowing
> > down now due to distributabili
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I know it's unimaginable now; but in past we've gone through slow periods
> with many fewer distributions (even none for two months). It's slowing
> down now due to distributability. To prevent us from all suddenly being
> able to all make eac
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Legislature is a player switch with values Quoredupon and Unquoredfor
> (default). A player CAN flip eir Legislature to Unquoredfor by
> announcement. A player CAN flip eir Legislature to Quoredupon by
> submitting a valid ballot on an Agoran Decision.
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> Maybe we should be permitted to make people inactive by support (rather
>>> than w/o objection) if they have not voted for N months or M propos
Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> Maybe we should be permitted to make people inactive by support (rather
>>> than w/o objection) if they have not voted for N months or M proposals.
>>
>> As long as
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Maybe we should be permitted to make people inactive by support (rather
>> than w/o objection) if they have not voted for N months or M proposals.
>
> As long as you can flip yourself b
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Maybe we should be permitted to make people inactive by support (rather
> than w/o objection) if they have not voted for N months or M proposals.
As long as you can flip yourself back to Active by announcement, it
wouldn't matter much either w
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 13:55 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> Activity is just for quorum.
And officer obligations. And judging.
Making someone inactive is a good way to shield them from obligations if
they've left the lists for a while. Likewise, inactivating yourself (and
resigning offices, if neces
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 07:32 -0500, Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > Maybe we should instead make quorum depend on the number of people who
> > actually voted last time round (like B used to), rather than messing
> > with inactivation?
>
> One can be
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 15:22 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> Someone attempts to inactivate you.
>> (A) Start participating
>> (B) Let it happen
>> (C) Just object without justification for eternity, inflating quorum.
>>> C
>
> Maybe we should instead make quor
ie a non acting active person just inflates quorum
On 2009-06-04, Elliott Hird wrote:
> I mean, the only non-possibility thing.
>
> On 2009-06-04, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Elliott Hird
>> wrote:
>>> Activity is just for quorum.
>>> On 2009-06-04, Kyle Marek-Spartz wr
I mean, the only non-possibility thing.
On 2009-06-04, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Elliott Hird
> wrote:
>> Activity is just for quorum.
>> On 2009-06-04, Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
Maybe we should instead make quo
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> Activity is just for quorum.
> On 2009-06-04, Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> Maybe we should instead make quorum depend on the number of people who
>>> actually voted last time round (like B
Activity is just for quorum.
On 2009-06-04, Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> Maybe we should instead make quorum depend on the number of people who
>> actually voted last time round (like B used to), rather than messing
>> with inactivation?
>
> One
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> Maybe we should instead make quorum depend on the number of people who
> actually voted last time round (like B used to), rather than messing
> with inactivation?
One can be active without voting.
Kyle Marek-Spartz - KDØGTK
On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 15:22 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> Someone attempts to inactivate you.
> (A) Start participating
> (B) Let it happen
> (C) Just object without justification for eternity, inflating quorum.
> > C
Maybe we should instead make quorum depend on the number of people who
actually v
Someone attempts to inactivate you.
(A) Start participating
(B) Let it happen
(C) Just object without justification for eternity, inflating quorum.
> C
On 2009-06-03, Christian Julius wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 6:25 AM, comex wrote:
>>
>> I intend, without objection, to make Siege inactive.
2009/6/3 Geoffrey Spear :
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Christian Julius wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 6:25 AM, comex wrote:
>>>
>>> I intend, without objection, to make Siege inactive.
>>
>> I object to making Siege inactive.
>
> Can we inactivate by proposal?
I don't see why not.
--
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Christian Julius wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 6:25 AM, comex wrote:
>>
>> I intend, without objection, to make Siege inactive.
>
> I object to making Siege inactive.
Can we inactivate by proposal?
40 matches
Mail list logo
