On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> And it's not retroactive zeroing, it's just judging a week later whether
> the account was zero. The two questions "did the action take place" and
> "what were the resulting ergs" are just being answered late.
Ah, but according to your wordin
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I think this is too harsh and also too permissive. Most often, this
> will happen by mistake, and if pointed out within a few days, it's better
> to just call it a null-op. It's too permissive in that, if at any time
> we count on high fees t
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
> - If a player purports to pay a fee, and e CANNOT do so only by reason of
> having too few ergs, the action takes place anyways and all eir ergs
> are destroyed. This is platonic.
> - After it's discovered, the player gains two Resistors. This is Pragmat
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Hmm, I think that whole paragraph was early (the first?) self-ratification
>> before self-ratification existed; just making it self-ratifying would work
>> partly. But part of this was to specify that if
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> We need some type of system, as not all points of confusion are
> settled via discussion leading to mutual agreement. Outsourcing
> it to a contract could be interesting, though...
>
Also, this gave me an idea about the fees' self-ratifications
Wooble wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Self-ratification goes back at least as far as Rule 352:
>>
>> http://agora.qoid.us/rule/352
>>
>> Not less than once a week, the Speaker shall post the current
>> scores of all Players to the mailing lists, making hi
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> coppro wrote:
>
>> On 01/11/2010 05:34 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Also, I think I'll tackle judicial reform this week. That section of
the rules is a mess.
>>>
>>> What do you have in mind? I may as well get a head start pondering
>>> possib
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Hmm, I think that whole paragraph was early (the first?) self-ratification
> before self-ratification existed; just making it self-ratifying would work
> partly. But part of this was to specify that if this happened, we at
> least zeroed out
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Self-ratification goes back at least as far as Rule 352:
>
> http://agora.qoid.us/rule/352
>
> Not less than once a week, the Speaker shall post the current
> scores of all Players to the mailing lists, making his best
> efforts t
coppro wrote:
> On 01/11/2010 05:34 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Also, I think I'll tackle judicial reform this week. That section of
>>> the rules is a mess.
>>
>> What do you have in mind? I may as well get a head start pondering
>> possible code revisions.
>
> No clue. I've even been playing with
G. wrote:
> Hmm, I think that whole paragraph was early (the first?) self-ratification
> before self-ratification existed;
Self-ratification goes back at least as far as Rule 352:
http://agora.qoid.us/rule/352
Not less than once a week, the Speaker shall post the current
scores of a
On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 17:13 -0700, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > Title: Cabinet Secretary.
> > Position: the Cabinet Secretary CAN rubberstamp an ordinary,
> > non-filibustered decision in its voting period by indicating the
> > decision; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the cont
On 01/11/2010 05:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Quorum has, in all my play, never once been used for actual vote
manipulation.
Well I did late month for the court case... I remember a period of play
(back in the hazy 2002-2004 period) where the speaker had this power and
used it lots (part of bringi
On 01/11/2010 05:34 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Also, I think I'll tackle judicial reform this week. That section of
the rules is a mess.
What do you have in mind? I may as well get a head start pondering
possible code revisions.
No clue. I've even been playing with the idea of throwing out the ide
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, comex wrote:
> But not announce what the fee is?
Full confession: "Fees" is stolen directly from R1941/1-3 (it's all right, I
wrote part of it :) ). Collective wisdom was, like maxivote, it was better/
convenient to let people just say "I pay the fee to do X" and have it
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> To perform a fee-based action, a Player (the Actor) who is
> otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e
> is performing the action and announce that there is a fee for
> that action.
But not announce wha
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Ed Murphy wrote:
> coppro wrote:
>
>> Also, I think I'll tackle judicial reform this week. That section of
>> the rules is a mess.
>
> What do you have in mind? I may as well get a head start pondering
> possible code revisions.
If you reset rests so I don't have to catch up
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> The Power Station Manager (PSM) is a high-priority office and the
>
> We don't have high-priority offices any more. If memory serves, we
> told you this last time you proposed a major change.
In my defense I actually knew that here:
>> P f
coppro wrote:
>> Create the following Rule, Fee-based actions, power-2:
>>
>> - A player CAN increase eir voting limit on a specified
>>decision to adopt a proposal in its voting period by 2Q, by
>>paying a fee of Q, provided this does not increase eir
>>voting limit a
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Proto: new system
> [Keeps major arcana, puts in basic fee-based system]
>
> Create the following rule, Energy, power-2:
>
> Ergs are a class of fixed assets and a measure of each Player's
> energy; to increase or decrease an entity
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Ergs are a class of fixed assets and a measure of each Player's
>> energy; to increase or decrease an entity's energy is to change
>> the number of ergs in eir possession. Ownership of Ergs is
>> restricted to players.
>
> Let's get
> Ergs are a class of fixed assets and a measure of each Player's
> energy; to increase or decrease an entity's energy is to change
> the number of ergs in eir possession. Ownership of Ergs is
> restricted to players.
Let's get the basic framework into place first, but
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Title: Minister without Portfolio.
> Position: The Minister without Portfolio CAN become holder of a
> specified vacant elected office by announcement, unless e is
> prevented from holding that office on an ongoing basis.
W
23 matches
Mail list logo
