DIS: Re: BUS: (@Rulekeepor) Inconsistent Capitalization

On 2/27/2024 10:23 AM, Kiako via agora-business wrote: [ At some point, "weekly" and "monthly" started getting capitalized, but only in "The Rulekeepor" and "The Stones". It appears that lowercase is the standard, as all other office reports use lowercase and all other stones use lowercase. ]

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Rulekeepor) cleaning

On Fri, 2023-11-17 at 16:21 -0800, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote: > I intend to clean rule 2480 ("Festivals") by replacing > "grater" with "greater". For the intent to work, you need to specify the mechanism, e.g. "I intend without objection to clean…" -- ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Rulekeepor) Commune Repair

On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 9:38 AM secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > > > > On Jun 25, 2023, at 11:20 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > > wrote: > > > > I object. I don’t think this fixes the issue that nix is fixed as > > surveyor, has abandoned the tournament, and can’t be replaced?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Rulekeepor) Clean rule 2675

There's actually two criteria to think about here. One is the criteria for intent announcements (R1728). but the other is the criteria for rule change specifications in R105, specifically: > A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its > full text was published,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Rulekeepor) Clean rule 2675

I don't think that "re-submission" or "editting" intents are a thing but the language seems to refer to just one single possible outcome, even if its not worded precisely. I want this to be good enough to work, but I'm not sure if CfJs are on my side on this. On Thursday, May 18, 2023, beokirby

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Rulekeepor) Clean rule 2675

On 5/18/23 14:44, beokirby agora via agora-discussion wrote: > I re-submit my intent but edited to be replacing " ore " with " or " > > -Beokirby First, this was sent to DIS (agora-discussion), so it doesn't work as an action. Second, the communication standard for intents is extremely high, so

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Rulekeepor) Clean rule 2675

I re-submit my intent but edited to be replacing " ore " with " or " -Beokirby On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 2:38 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/18/23 14:36, beokirby agora via agora-business wrote: > > I intend to clean Rule 2675 ("Dream of

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Rulekeepor) Clean rule 2675

Suggestion: match more text: EG "16 ore" to "16 or" On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 11:38 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/18/23 14:36, beokirby agora via agora-business wrote: > > I intend to clean Rule 2675 ("Dream of Wandering") by replacing "ore" > with

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Rulekeepor) Hey people need to spell right!

On 4/17/23 15:46, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 8:05 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: I intend to, without objection, clean Rule 2553 ("Win By Paradox"), by replacing "judgment" with "judgement". Also, our website

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Rulekeepor/Cleaning) Justice!

On 4/17/23 15:43, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 9:19 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: I intend to, without objection, clean Rule 2675 ("Dream of Wandering") by replacing "onceexpunge" with "once expunge". -- 4st

DIS: Re: BUS: (@rulekeepor) RtRW submissions

On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 2:49 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > > CFJ 831 (called 10 Nov 1995): 'The Date: header of a message is not > > necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.' > > Why is this now inaccurate? We've held that not all Date headers are to > be trusted,

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Rulekeepor) A correction to an FLR annotation

On 2/7/2022 3:34 PM, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > An FLR annotation to rule 1789 references CFJ 1594, whose appeal found > that players could be deregistered in a Writ of FAGE even if there were > no Registrar. > > However, rule 1789 looked a little different at the time – it stated >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [@Rulekeepor] Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent

On 1/6/2022 2:14 AM, Sarah S. via agora-discussion wrote: > Must be noted that I don't think anything whatsoever that's in the FLR that > isn't in the SLR has legal effect Not exactly what scope you're considering "legal effect" but the date on which a rule change was made has legal effect and

DIS: Re: BUS: [@Rulekeepor] Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent

Must be noted that I don't think anything whatsoever that's in the FLR that isn't in the SLR has legal effect On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 6:58 PM ais523 via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, 2022-01-02 at 03:10 +, ais523 via agora-official wrote: > > I intend, with

DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] Tapecutter intent [Patent Title Award]

On 6/27/2020 2:37 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > On 6/23/20 12:01 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >> I intend, with 2 Agoran consent, to award G. the Patent Title of >> Tapecutter for Proposal 8407, "no stinking auction definitions". >> > > Seeing 3 support and no

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR

Well, maybe it would be better to make the Git repository the public forum and maybe have it be hosted not on GitHub to resolve the outside of TDoC and interface questions. On 06/20/2018 05:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Additional gratuity: > > There are currently several people who can push to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR

Additional gratuity: There are currently several people who can push to those links (via GitHub) without the push/overwrite being visible or evident to someone following the link. However, the underlying github repo (not findable from those links) would show the commit history that can be

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR

I, for one, would be willing to experiment with it, if we made sure that there was strict protections both technically and in the rules to avoid tampering or loss of information. On 06/20/2018 05:17 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 17:11 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR

On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 17:11 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > I raised the issue of having a certain GitHub repository as a public > forum and people opposed it because it would not be within the TDoC > of a member and it would break the precedent of mailing lists being > public

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR

I favor this with significant deference to anyone else. On 06/20/2018 03:16 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:10 PM Alex Smith > wrote: > >> On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 12:04 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> The FLR and SLR are up to date (up to Proposal 8052, and including >>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR

I raised the issue of having a certain GitHub repository as a public forum and people opposed it because it would not be within the TDoC of a member and it would break the precedent of mailing lists being public fora. On 06/20/2018 03:32 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 12:23 -0700,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR

Just as some added fun, note that I found an error (in the "last change" date, so not something required to be reported) - I pushed the fix so the current *document* behind the link is not the one it was when I published the links. Probably a moot point but there it is. On Wed, 20 Jun 2018,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:21 PM Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 13:17 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:33 PM Alex Smith > > wrote: > > > For what it's worth, I've opened the FLR in question so you couldn't > > > now change it and have me see the new version

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR

On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 13:17 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:33 PM Alex Smith > wrote: > > For what it's worth, I've opened the FLR in question so you couldn't > > now change it and have me see the new version (and the use of Github as > > an intermediary, who keep backups

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:33 PM Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 12:23 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Well considering I've still got a terminal window open, I could > > change the link contents instantly to anything before most people > > will have seen it. Definitely not out of my

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018, Alex Smith wrote: > Right, the message needs to contain enough context to find the action. > I don't think that's a problem with the message in question, though. So first, I don't think you could argue that I published a Document that contained a report. So for the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR

On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 12:23 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Well considering I've still got a terminal window open, I could > change the link contents instantly to anything before most people > will have seen it. Definitely not out of my TDOC if the content of > those links is the only evidence. > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 12:04 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > The FLR and SLR are up to date (up to Proposal 8052, and including > > revision for the recent CoE on the Treasuror Rule): > > > > https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/slr.txt > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:10 PM Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 12:04 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > The FLR and SLR are up to date (up to Proposal 8052, and including > > revision for the recent CoE on the Treasuror Rule): > > > > https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/slr.txt > >

DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR

On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 12:04 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > The FLR and SLR are up to date (up to Proposal 8052, and including > revision for the recent CoE on the Treasuror Rule): > > https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/slr.txt > https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr.txt > > I'm not publishing them,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset

After looking a bit, I think (1) the person complaining may have been confused about Nichdel's erroneous assessment of Sep 7, or possibly just complaining that the SLR was late. (2) however, the current SLR does not include any of the results from the _correct_ assessment of Sep 12, posted

DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset

This is also missing the farming stuff, which was one of several things someone else complained was missing in the _previous_ Ruleset. (That's the one thing I recall. I didn't save the message.) Greetings, Ørjsn. On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET [snip]

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset

On Fri, 29 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > Another error, this ruleset does not include "Blue cards" and "black > cards" although it does include the rest of the changes from "card > reform and expansion v4" (ok, will hold off dice rolls for a day maybe...)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset

Another error, this ruleset does not include "Blue cards" and "black cards" although it does include the rest of the changes from "card reform and expansion v4" On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > Bleh, I thought I fixed that. Will fix it when off mobile. >

DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset

Error (although not in the rules themselves) "Last Ruleset Ratification: Short Logical Ruleset of 2017-09-26" The ratification happened at that time but the ruleset itself was from December 2016 On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > THE SHORT LOGICAL

DIS: Re: BUS: Rulekeepor

On 24 October 2011 03:27, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: I support and do so, nominating omd. I accept. Wait - I ended up as Rulekeepor too... I missed that :-S (I need to pay more attention to what goes on here,

DIS: Re: BUS: Rulekeepor Election

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Aaron Goldfeinaarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: I initiate an election for Rulekeepor. I nominate myself as Rulekeepor. You need 4 support. -- -c.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Rulekeepor Election

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 8:55 PM, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Aaron Goldfeinaarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: I initiate an election for Rulekeepor. I nominate myself as Rulekeepor. You need 4 support. -- -c. The IADoP's report says that an election hasn't

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Rulekeepor Election

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Aaron Goldfeinaarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: The IADoP's report says that an election hasn't been initiated since May. I guess that's incorrect. The recently-ended election was initiated at the end of July. -- -c.

DIS: Re: BUS: Rulekeepor Election

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Aaron Goldfeinaarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: I initiate an election for Rulekeepor. I nominate myself as Rulekeepor. -Yally Fails; you cannot do so.

DIS: Re: BUS: Rulekeepor Perpetual

On Dec 9, 2007 8:25 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=2338927 I CFJ on the following: The above was a valid vote on the stability of Rulekeepor. Gratuitous evidence: The link in question: (1) had objection in the URL (2) led to a page