Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting CFJs

On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 10:13 -0500, Jacob Arduino wrote: > Indeed I retract You need to post the retraction to a public forum (typically agora- business). Actions in agora-discussion don't work. -- ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting CFJs

Indeed I retract On Nov 27, 2018 09:48, "Kerim Aydin" wrote: You may wish to retract these CFJs: if everyone agrees you were right (well-spotted, btw) and Gaelan has changed eir votes so the issue is moot, no need to litigate. On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote: > CFJ: Gaelan's second

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting CFJs

You may wish to retract these CFJs: if everyone agrees you were right (well-spotted, btw) and Gaelan has changed eir votes so the issue is moot, no need to litigate. On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote: > CFJ: Gaelan's second ballot on Proposal 8136 is invalid. > Supporting statement:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting CFJs

No, it's standard to fail second ballots when people forget to retract their first one. That's why the last sentence of R683 defines "changing" a vote, so voters can use that term as a shorthand - but you still have to use it explicitly. On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote: > My second

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting CFJs

My second CFJ states re: 8138, not 8136. These might be too nitpicky, but I'd rather deal with it now than see you disenfranchised for something silly. On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:26 AM Gaelan Steele wrote: > Bah, do we need to explicitly retract votes? For clarity: I retract any > previous

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: Per Rule 879, failing to state quorum is illegal but does not invalidate the decision. Although failing to state quorum is not quite the same thing as stating it incorrectly, so I'm not sure Rule 879 actually _says_ that it's not invalidated.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

I thought it was something like that. It seems I did vote for it. On 4/29/2018 5:06 PM, Ned Strange wrote: If you voted for G's recent proposal you are eligible On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:45 AM, ATMunn wrote: I know, I was referring to what the proposal/scam was. On

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

If you voted for G's recent proposal you are eligible On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:45 AM, ATMunn wrote: > I know, I was referring to what the proposal/scam was. > > > On 4/29/2018 2:33 PM, Corona wrote: >> >> Nothing in particular is specified in the rule, in practice it's

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

I know, I was referring to what the proposal/scam was. On 4/29/2018 2:33 PM, Corona wrote: ​Nothing in particular is​ specified in the rule, in practice it's for scamming/passing a proposal to that effect. ~Corona On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 8:17 PM, ATMunn wrote:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

On Sun, 2018-04-29 at 20:33 +0200, Corona wrote: > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 8:17 PM, ATMunn > wrote: > > Alright. Am I eligible for one of those by the way? I forget what > > thing let people get them. > > Nothing in particular is specified in the rule, in practice it's

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

​Nothing in particular is​ specified in the rule, in practice it's for scamming/passing a proposal to that effect. ~Corona On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 8:17 PM, ATMunn wrote: > Alright. Am I eligible for one of those by the way? I forget what thing > let people get them. >

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

Alright. Am I eligible for one of those by the way? I forget what thing let people get them. On 4/29/2018 12:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I vote ATMunn for Tailor. ATMunn - you can deputize for the job. I'm about 99% sure that the only ribbons since the Feb report were this week's black ones.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

Yeah I did that when I was ADoP. It's an easy mistake to make. On 4/29/2018 4:23 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: Per Rule 879, failing to state quorum is illegal but does not invalidate the decision. -Aris On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 1:15 AM Ned Strange wrote: Also you

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

Sorry! I'm still traumatized by the brief period where I had to initiate Agoran Decisions. On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > Per Rule 879, failing to state quorum is illegal but does not invalidate > the decision. > > -Aris > > On Sun,

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

Per Rule 879, failing to state quorum is illegal but does not invalidate the decision. -Aris On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 1:15 AM Ned Strange wrote: > Also you forgot to state the quorum, so this is no Agoran Decision at all. > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:15 PM, Ned

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on a lot of things

On 2017-10-30 15:16, Aris Merchant wrote: On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 9:13 PM Telnaior > wrote: I vote: FOR 7931 FOR 7932 (this is way cooler than a victory election) FOR 7933 AGAINST 7934 (why are we turning into a literature club

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on a lot of things

On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 9:13 PM Telnaior wrote: > I vote: > > FOR 7931 > FOR 7932 (this is way cooler than a victory election) > FOR 7933 > AGAINST 7934 (why are we turning into a literature club I'm awful at poems) > FOR 7935 (but you might want to make the revision limit

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting in other elections

Sorry, I was much more on top oif it last week than this week. All of that is noted. On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Another note: > > It used to be that you had to officially "change" your vote (R683), or > retract first, or later ballots

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting in other elections

You're still the arbitor, obviously. On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 4:51 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > Sorry, I was much more on top oif it last week than this week. All of > that is noted. > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> Another

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting in other elections

Another note: It used to be that you had to officially "change" your vote (R683), or retract first, or later ballots didn't count. I'm not sure there's a precedent that just saying "I vote..." works if you've already cast a vote, although in this case maybe the parenthetical gives enough

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting in other elections

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > Before I resolve them, I will vote in the elections for Rulekeepor, > Surveyor, Referee, Tailor, Superintendent, Promotor and Arbitor. For > all of the above except Tailor, I vote for the incumbent. For Tailor I > vote Quazie. > > (Originally I endorsed G

DIS: Re: BUS: voting and status

On Fri, 2014-10-24 at 12:03 -0500, Chester Mealer wrote: I deregister and vote yes on all matters which I am able. Chester Mealer Were you a player /before/ doing that? If not, this is hilarious. If yes, this is also hilarious, but for a different reason. -- ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013, Charles Walker wrote: On 24 Jun 2013, at 18:37, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: This sort of three-fold action/house concept (Proposals, Voting, and Justice) with separate currencies was carried over into Cards, but I think over time, the paid systems have

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Mon, 24 Jun 2013, Charles Walker wrote: On 24 Jun 2013, at 18:37, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: This sort of three-fold action/house concept (Proposals, Voting, and Justice) with separate currencies was carried over into Cards, but

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 11:02 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: Had to go back and refresh my memory again! There was no official thing as concurrent, automatic trades. I'd say 99% was done on a handshake deal. I personally don't have any memory of anyone breaking a handshake deal on purpose, and

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

On 19 June 2013 22:05, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: 3. Massive Economic System (1999-2002); What was this like? In particular, what made it so massive compared to more recent economies that I've seen? -- Walker

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013, Charles Walker wrote: On 19 June 2013 22:05, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: 3. Massive Economic System (1999-2002); What was this like? In particular, what made it so massive compared to more recent economies that I've seen? Heh, I think I'll defer this

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

On 24 Jun 2013, at 16:24, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Mon, 24 Jun 2013, Charles Walker wrote: On 19 June 2013 22:05, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: 3. Massive Economic System (1999-2002); What was this like? In particular, what made it so massive compared to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013, Charles Walker wrote: I'm amazed the game could support many different currencies and the secondary (never mind tertiary and quartenary) markets. I think that modern day Agora isn't active enough for that, but maybe if you build it, they will come. In Feb 2001 Agora

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

On 24 Jun 2013, at 18:37, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: This sort of three-fold action/house concept (Proposals, Voting, and Justice) with separate currencies was carried over into Cards, but I think over time, the paid systems have become more about buying general specific actions

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

On 24 Jun 2013, at 18:37, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: In Feb 2001 Agora was Slashdotted (just via high-placed comment). I think it doubled in two weeks, and peaked a little while later in the 30+ players (IIRC, maybe I'm exaggerating). The new players (like me) as a cohort

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

ehird wrote: On 19 June 2013 20:12, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Anyone joining before #6 is an old hand I think, I mean, if you suffered through the contract wars you are my brother... well, except ehird... Hah! My plan all along was to destroy the UNDEAD! And it worked!

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

On 19 Jun 2013 06:30, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: As an aside, I find it funny that I still think of Roujo as a new player, despite the fact that e has been playing for two and a half years now and that only two players have last registered longer ago. I still think of myself

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 Jun 2013 06:30, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: As an aside, I find it funny that I still think of Roujo as a new player, despite the fact that e has been playing for two and a half years now

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, omd wrote: On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 Jun 2013 06:30, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: As an aside, I find it funny that I still think of Roujo as a new player, despite the fact that e has

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I sometimes think of everyone who registered after me (6 years ago) as a newbie. Of course we have at least one player who played Agora's spiritual predecessor and made vaguely precedential posts 15 years before that,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

On 19 Jun 2013, at 20:12, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, omd wrote: On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I sometimes think of everyone who registered after me (6 years ago) as a newbie. Of course we have at least one player

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I'd love to hear players' views on what causes these eras (if you don't think they are just arbitrary labels), or rather what makes a particular system stable enough to make it last that long. Does Agora simply

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Charles Walker wrote: On 19 Jun 2013, at 20:12, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Heh. Was thinking about it just now, I personally classify players by era: 1. Nomic World (to 1993); 2. Agora but departed pre-2001 (when I joined, maybe Murphy has more

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, omd wrote: http://agoranomic.org/propgraph/pg.html Well, yes. Yes you have.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, omd wrote: http://agoranomic.org/propgraph/pg.html Well, yes. Yes you have. Incidentally, just fixed that graph to deal with H. Former Promotor Machiavelli's crazy Unicode subject lines.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote: It's a mystery for me. I don't know what made the first Cards successful and the second one die. Reading omd's comments I'm going to throw out one answer to this one: When you have a dedicated recordkeepor who keeps on top of (effectively gamemasters)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: Meanwhile, VCs all reset whenever anyone's voting limit becomes high enough. It /is/ possible to get a win via VCs (although we should reintroduce a Clout rule so that it can be done via a method less disruptive than knocking

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

On 19 June 2013 20:12, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Anyone joining before #6 is an old hand I think, I mean, if you suffered through the contract wars you are my brother... well, except ehird... Hah! My plan all along was to destroy the UNDEAD! And it worked!

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Alex Smith wrote: I'm not sure how typical or atypical I am of Agoran players, but it seems reasonable that there are other people with similar mindsets to me. I know that economies with no reset buttons and lifetime accumulation are often considered unfair, but if an

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, omd wrote: Distribution fees suck. I think distribution fees only work if they're high enough that people genuinely take time and proto everything, and maybe reach out to opponents before finalizing, so their final proposal is just right. Low fees are mostly a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: voting golems

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012, omd wrote: On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Hm.  I note that the phrase 'First-class player means a player who is a first-class person.' was deleted from the ruleset (by you I it looks like!) in 2008.  That leaves it only

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: voting golems

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Ordinary is at least one counterexample that comes to mind.  (In addition to the common meaning of ordinary, as least one scam IIRC depended on the confusion between ordinary decision (correct) and ordinary proposal

DIS: Re: BUS: voting golems

On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:       The eligible voters on a decision with an adoption index are       those entities that were active first-class players at the start       of its voting period.  Setting or changing an entity's voting       limit

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: voting golems

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012, omd wrote: On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:       The eligible voters on a decision with an adoption index are       those entities that were active first-class players at the start       of its voting period.  Setting or

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting

Spitemaster wrote: Proposal: Dictatorship Scam FOR x 12 In future, please quote the proposal numbers.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting

Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: Arguments: Purported resolutions of Agoran decisions are self-ratifying? What if they are via an act-on-behalf that is platonically uncertain? Do they still self-ratify, even if the purported resolution

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Thus forcing me to attempt to use a scam before it's been j remind me to vote on such proposals in the future to avoid these quorum games. though I probably would have voted AGAINST, as it's not nice to counter by

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting

ais523 wrote: On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 16:30 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: I vote FOR on the decision on whether to adopt proposal 6514. Thus forcing me to attempt to use a scam before it's been judged whether it worked or not (Murphy could resolve the proposal as ADOPTED right now, AFAICT),

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting

On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 09:51 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: ais523 wrote: On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 16:30 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: I vote FOR on the decision on whether to adopt proposal 6514. Thus forcing me to attempt to use a scam before it's been judged whether it worked or not (Murphy

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting

comex wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Thus forcing me to attempt to use a scam before it's been j remind me to vote on such proposals in the future to avoid these quorum games. though I probably would have voted AGAINST, as it's not nice

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting

coppro wrote: ais523 wrote: On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 16:30 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: I vote FOR on the decision on whether to adopt proposal 6514. Thus forcing me to attempt to use a scam before it's been judged whether it worked or not (Murphy could resolve the proposal as ADOPTED right

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting CFJ

comex wrote: On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Aaron Goldfeinaarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: I CFJ on the following sentence. I cast a vote in the recent Promotor election. Trivially TRUE, you cast an invalid vote. I sit up. I become Hanging. I thought it was trivially FALSE at first,

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If possible, I submit the following votes. If one or more votes is not possible for me to submit, I submit those votes which are possible. You know, on ordinary proposals (I believe Zefram's distributions have a column

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting limit

pikhq wrote: I spend 2B and 1K to increase my VVLOP by one. I'm interpreting different colors in Rule 2126 as requiring each VC in the set to be a different color from any of the others in that set, so this is ineffective.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting limit

On Thursday 22 November 2007 20:04:46 Ed Murphy wrote: pikhq wrote: Fine. I spend 2B VCs to create 200B marks. I spend 1K VC to create 100K marks. These don't work, either. The Marks rule only allows you to convert Marks to VCs voluntarily; to convert VCs to Marks, you have to arrange