> On Nov 6, 2016, at 4:47 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> Are you sure we want shame on green cards? The whole point of green cards is
> that they can be given when no punishment is warranted. The way the rules are
> set up is to require cards, but to allow green cards as a way to avoid
> pun
I like the basic idea. I tend to agree with the other about the
substance, and I'm not much good on technicalities. I do have some
worries about the proposal system, and I would be totally against any
such restriction on CFJs or the like.
A few things about proposals. There was proposal recently,
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:26 PM nichdel wrote:
> On 11/04/2016 08:05 PM, ais523 wrote:
> > The largest problem is that you haven't specified an officer to track
> > the switches.
> Woops, lost it in editing. Meant to be the Secretary.
> > Currencies typically need to have multiple dimensions so th
On 11/04/2016 08:05 PM, ais523 wrote:
The largest problem is that you haven't specified an officer to track
the switches.
Woops, lost it in editing. Meant to be the Secretary.
Currencies typically need to have multiple dimensions so that a varying
exchange rate can be set up between them.
Out
On 11/04/2016 08:05 PM, ais523 wrote:
The largest problem is that you haven't specified an officer to track
the switches.
Woops, lost it in editing. Meant to be the Secretary.
Currencies typically need to have multiple dimensions so that a varying
exchange rate can be set up between them.
Out
On Oct 28, 2016, at 10:00 AM, Luis Ressel wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 22:46:13 -0400
> Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
>> On Oct 26, 2016, at 12:00 PM, Luis Ressel wrote:
>>
>>> the map "t |-> max(14,t+2)" is applied
>>
>> Oh, come on.
>
> What? I attempted to write this in natural language, but
On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 00:40:03 -0700
Aris Merchant wrote:
> Am I the only one who doesn't understand what this even means? Best
> guess is t+2 to a maximum of 14, but the internet isn't that clear
> on this. I think map may have different meanings in different fields
> (math, programming)? There ha
On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 22:46:13 -0400
Owen Jacobson wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2016, at 12:00 PM, Luis Ressel wrote:
>
> > the map "t |-> max(14,t+2)" is applied
>
> Oh, come on.
>
What? I attempted to write this in natural language, but it'd have
taken at least two full lines. There's a reason why
> On Oct 26, 2016, at 12:00 PM, Luis Ressel > wrote:
>
> the map "t |-> max(14,t+2)" is applied
>
>
> Am I the only one who doesn't understand what this even means? Best guess
is t+2 to a maximum of 14, but the internet isn't that clear on this. I
think map may have different meanings in different
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 10:57:16 -0700 (PDT)
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Some possibly useful generalization:
>
> A boolean switch is a switch with values True and False. A
> positive boolean switch has a default of True; a negative
> boolean switch has a default of false.
Thanks,
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016, Luis Ressel wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 18:00:58 +0200
> Luis Ressel wrote:
>
> > and the map "t |-> max(14,t+2)" is applied to eir Ribbon
> > Threshold.
>
> Btw, I'm aware it hasn't been defined anywhere what "applying a map"
> actually means, but it seemed l
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> What’s the protocol here? Resubmit with (A) a fixed Subject: header and (B)
> AI=3?
Don't worry about subject header; just retract and then propose anew
(can have the same name, but a courtesy is to add a "v2" or similar
for clarity).
For everyone
On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 00:59 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> Re-reading rule 106 suggests that the power of the proposed or
> amended rule is the minimum AI for the proposal, is this the only
> condition I missed last time around?
You're missing rule 2140, which is really the heart of the Power
syste
> On Sep 15, 2016, at 12:50 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> Title: FOR Require Intent on Ballots
>> Adoption index: 1.0
>> Author: o
>> Co-author(s):
>>
>> Replace the text of rule 683 'Voting on Agoran Decisions' with:
>
> Rule 683 is power-3, so this n
Ørjan Johansen writes:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Jack Henahan wrote:
>
>> I believe cygneus is an adjective meaning "swan-like". Cantus Cygnei,
>> then, would be "Song of the swan-like things",
>
> It would mean "swan-like songs", surely? There is no genitive there,
> unlike with "cygni". (That
On 08/10/2016 08:16 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Jack Henahan wrote:
I believe cygneus is an adjective meaning "swan-like". Cantus Cygnei,
then, would be "Song of the swan-like things",
It would mean "swan-like songs", surely? There is no genitive there,
unlike with "cygni
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Jack Henahan wrote:
I believe cygneus is an adjective meaning "swan-like". Cantus Cygnei,
then, would be "Song of the swan-like things",
It would mean "swan-like songs", surely? There is no genitive there,
unlike with "cygni". (That would be "Cantus Cygneorum", perhaps.
I believe cygneus is an adjective meaning "swan-like". Cantus Cygnei,
then, would be "Song of the swan-like things", whereas Cantus Cygni
would be "swan's song".
A more classically poetic translation might be "carmen cygni".
Ørjan Johansen writes:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, nichdel wrote:
>
>>
Also, has Agora tried approval voting lately? I think it's snazzy.
—the Warrigal
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:22 PM, omd wrote:
>> (d) If the valid options are ordered lists of preferences, the
>> outcome is decided using instant-runoff voting. In case
>> multiple valid preferences tie for the lowest
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:10 PM, omd wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 6:15 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>> I thought (and Wikipedia agrees) that IRV stages without a majority winner
>> (which includes any with a top tie) choose (one or more) losers, not a
>> winner.
>
> Ah, yes. Thinko.
>
Honestly
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 6:15 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> I thought (and Wikipedia agrees) that IRV stages without a majority winner
> (which includes any with a top tie) choose (one or more) losers, not a
> winner.
Ah, yes. Thinko.
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-07-15 at 19:43 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, omd wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > > > Alternatively, you're trying to take the minimum of 4 and an undefined
> > > > value. I'd have thoug
On Wed, 2015-07-15 at 19:43 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, omd wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > > Alternatively, you're trying to take the minimum of 4 and an undefined
> > > value. I'd have thought the most sensible resolution of this situation
>
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, omd wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-07-15 at 21:52 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote:
> >> The last ratified ruleset was published on April 7, 2014. Since then,
> >> the following proposals have been adopted without having had an
> >> adopti
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-07-15 at 21:52 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> The last ratified ruleset was published on April 7, 2014. Since then,
>> the following proposals have been adopted without having had an
>> adoption index specified upon submission:
>
> I th
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> > I think it’s time we allow HTML reports. I submit this proposal:
>
> Argh, please don't. Since I access my old NVG account only through ssh, I use
> a terminal-based mail reader (alpine), and although
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Second one was far too easy, people won in a month, and didn't really
> have to try that hard.
>
> Not exactly a "bad ending", just not much of a game second time around.
>
> -G.
Additional context: Thanks to a minor scam to get me one of th
On Tue, 5 May 2015, Luis Ressel wrote:
> On Tue, 05 May 2015 09:06:43 +0100
> Alex Smith wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2015-05-01 at 13:03 +0200, Luis Ressel wrote:
> > > I submit the following proposal [Only change: Add "or all but one"
> > > in the first line]:
> >
> > We tried that before. It didn't
On Tue, 05 May 2015 09:06:43 +0100
Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-05-01 at 13:03 +0200, Luis Ressel wrote:
> > I submit the following proposal [Only change: Add "or all but one"
> > in the first line]:
>
> We tried that before. It didn't end well.
>
Could you be more specific? How did it not
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 19:49:13 -0400
omd wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Luis Ressel wrote:
> > his monthly report, whose values are the subsets of the set of
>
> eir!
>
Sorry, I tend to forget about that Spivak slang. I'm having a hard
enough time trying not to switch back and
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 09:35:55 -0600
Sprocklem wrote:
> On 2015-04-17 09:07, Luis Ressel wrote:
> > Amend Rule 2162 (Switches) by replacing the paragraph
> >
> >c) Optionally, exactly one office whose holder tracks
> > instances of that switch. That officer's report includes the value
> >
> How many people are ready to restart right now?
I am, barring any unforeseen circumstances.
--
Sprocklem
On Sat, 7 Mar 2015, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 00:48 -0500, omd wrote:
> > If, within the past seven days, at least eight distinct humans
> > have declared themselves ready, then all those humans are
> > registered, all other players are deregistered, and the Rece
On 31 October 2014 00:14, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2014, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>
>> The Rulekeepor, Speaker and Prime Minister each have a
>> spending power of 2. The Promotor has a spending power of
>> 4.
>>
>> Changes to imminence and spending power both are se
On 30 October 2014 19:05, omd wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
> wrote:
>> I retract the proposal "Restricted distribution". I submit the
>> following proposal (an edited version):
>
> Still contains the "swich" typo. Regarding the attributes thing,
> since this proposal
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> Is there a reason you didn't just say "in Rule 1023 'Common Definitions',
> change 'within 7 days' to 'within 4 days'"?
>
> --the Warrigal
Yeah, I could have done that... *facepalm*
-Henri
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014, Eritivus wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 19:49 +, omd wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
> > > I had a vague memory of a rule which said that a CAN without mechanism
> > > was treated as CAN by announcement, but there is no such rule. Was
> > > the
On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 19:49 +, omd wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
> > I had a vague memory of a rule which said that a CAN without mechanism
> > was treated as CAN by announcement, but there is no such rule. Was
> > there ever? Anyway, I will fix.
>
> IIRC there was a
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> Would anything important be lost by changing "Once a proposal is
> created, none of its attributes can be changed" to "Once a proposal is
> created, none of these attributes can be changed"? (The previous
> paragraph is the list of attribut
On 27 October 2014 20:59, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
> wrote:
>> The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal
>> Pool at any time. The Promotor SHALL not distribute proposals
>> which are not pending.
>
> SHALL NOT
Oops, tha
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:25 PM, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Benjamin Schultz
> wrote:
> > The Marker Dates are SEMI annual -- every half year. BI annual means
> every
> > two years. I hate hate HAET it when people use bi- to mean semi-.
> Please
> > amend your Proposal bef
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Benjamin Schultz
wrote:
> The Marker Dates are SEMI annual -- every half year. BI annual means every
> two years. I hate hate HAET it when people use bi- to mean semi-. Please
> amend your Proposal before I run you over with a bitruck.
I did look it up beforeh
On Oct 26, 2014, at 10:51 PM, omd wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
>> Amend Rule 2160 "Deputisation" by appending the paragraph
>>
>> A rule which purports to allow a person to specially deputise
>> under particular circumstances thereby makes it POSSIBLE fo
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Eritivus wrote:
I guess the power of rules enacted by illicit fast track ratification
actually can't be more than 3, since the fast track rule has power 3?
So not as worrisome as I thought.
If you want to make higher-powered rules
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Eritivus wrote:
> I guess the power of rules enacted by illicit fast track ratification
> actually can't be more than 3, since the fast track rule has power 3?
>
> So not as worrisome as I thought.
If you want to make higher-powered rules but can get a power-3 proposal
thro
On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 19:51 +, Eritivus wrote:
> I guess the power of rules enacted by illicit fast track ratification
> actually can't be more than 3, since the fast track rule has power 3?
>
> So not as worrisome as I thought.
A Power-3 rule can do anything, though, because the Power restri
I guess the power of rules enacted by illicit fast track ratification
actually can't be more than 3, since the fast track rule has power 3?
So not as worrisome as I thought.
On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 18:33 +, omd wrote:
> That it ignores the AI=1 requirement is accidental, but probably not
> important. If someone makes an obviously deficient fast track
> attempt, that's what a Claim of Error is for.
Sure, I just don't have a feel for how likely it is that skilled
Rid
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Eritivus wrote:
> The "self-ratifying" clause seems worrisome, because it is not obvious
> to me that it requires the conditions in the first paragraph (AI=1, 7
> days notice, etc) to be satisfied.
That ratification can occur regardless of any failures in the actu
Suppose I send the following message, having sent no previous relevant
messages (i.e. no previously published intent).
I hereby fast track the following proposal:
Proposal: Eritivus Regnat
AI: 4
Create a new Power-4 Rule titled "Eritivus Regnat":
Eritivus CAN cause this
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> On 21 October 2014 18:42, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> >> On 21 October 2014 18:28, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Am I reading this wrong or does this allow any proposal to be adopted
> >> > with 2 support?
y ongoing decision on whether to
>adopt it is immediately cancelled (without being resolved).
--Message d'origine--
De: Kerim Aydin
À: Me
À: Agora Nomic discussions (DF)
Objet: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Fast Track
Envoyé: 21 oct. 2014 18:47
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, khoyobeg...@gmai
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, khoyobeg...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Is there a need for a vote count if there are no objections (AGAINST votes)
> > to a proposal ?
>
> SCAM:
> If there's a proposal you and 2 others don't like, fast-track it,
> then kill it with an ob
On 21 October 2014 18:42, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>> On 21 October 2014 18:28, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Am I reading this wrong or does this allow any proposal to be adopted
>> > with 2 support? Where's the actual vote count?
>> >
>>
>> With
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, khoyobeg...@gmail.com wrote:
> Is there a need for a vote count if there are no objections (AGAINST votes)
> to a proposal ?
SCAM:
If there's a proposal you and 2 others don't like, fast-track it,
then kill it with an objection. Repeat indefinitely.
Is there a need for a vote count if there are no objections (AGAINST votes) to
a proposal ?
--Khoyo
-Original Message-
From: Kerim Aydin
Sender: "agora-discussion" Date: Tue,
21 Oct 2014 09:28:28
To: Agora Discussion
Reply-To: "Agora Nomic discussions \(DF\)"
Subject: DIS: Re: BUS: P
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> On 21 October 2014 18:28, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > Am I reading this wrong or does this allow any proposal to be adopted
> > with 2 support? Where's the actual vote count?
> >
>
> With 2 support and 0 objections, yes; that's how I read it too
On 21 October 2014 18:28, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Am I reading this wrong or does this allow any proposal to be adopted
> with 2 support? Where's the actual vote count?
>
With 2 support and 0 objections, yes; that's how I read it too.
--
Tiger
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:43 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> It was TtDF.
>
> There is nothing saying you can't withdraw an intent to a DF.
There is very little reason to believe you can. Or in any other
forum, as your arguments mention, but especially discussion fora...
Are you trying to get away with
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:39 PM, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Sean Hunt
> wrote:
>> I CFJ: {{omd withdrew an intent in the quoted message.}}
>>
>> Arguments: The rules do not specify a mechanism for withdrawing intents.
>
> It was TtDF.
There is nothing saying you can't withdra
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I CFJ: {{omd withdrew an intent in the quoted message.}}
>
> Arguments: The rules do not specify a mechanism for withdrawing intents.
It was TtDF.
Incidentally, I don't think the rule actually works. It refers to
"highest voting strength among
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 7:04 PM, Luis Ressel wrote:
> At first, all players request Basic Discount, A Personalised Shopping
> Experience, and Half-Hearted Attempt At A Win. These have redeem costs
> of -1, 0 and 2, respectively. That means only total redeem costs of -1,
> 0, 1 or 2 are possible. An
On Sun, 2014-08-31 at 16:59 -0600, Sprocklem wrote:
> On 2014-08-31 16:53, Luis Ressel wrote:
> > Remark: As I noted on the -discussion list, I think the replacement
> > text represents the current situation anyway.
> >
> I believe the rule was changed to how it is currently with the intention
> t
On 2014-08-31 17:06, Luis Ressel wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 16:59:25 -0600
> Sprocklem wrote:
>
>> On 2014-08-31 16:53, Luis Ressel wrote:
>>> Remark: As I noted on the -discussion list, I think the replacement
>>> text represents the current situation anyway.
>>>
>> I believe the rule was chan
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 16:59:25 -0600
Sprocklem wrote:
> On 2014-08-31 16:53, Luis Ressel wrote:
> > Remark: As I noted on the -discussion list, I think the replacement
> > text represents the current situation anyway.
> >
> I believe the rule was changed to how it is currently with the
> intention
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014, Henri Bouchard wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:49 PM, omd wrote:
> > But your anecdote suggests that you approach writing differently, so I
> > suppose my intentions here don't work for you. This makes me curious
> > where other players fall on the spectrum...
I would s
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:49 PM, omd wrote:
>
> See, it doesn't work that way for me. Not being able to vote is in
> itself obnoxious, both for the player and the game - the former
> because it feels like a form of exclusion/isolation, rarely merited by
> rule violations, the latter because Agora
G. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Henri Bouchard wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
wrote:
P.S: Oh, and AGAINST, by the way. I don't see why that would be
needed. All it does is getting rid of Yet Another Fun, Quirky Thing
From Agora, and unless I've missed some conver
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Henri Bouchard wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
> wrote:
> >
> > P.S: Oh, and AGAINST, by the way. I don't see why that would be
> > needed. All it does is getting rid of Yet Another Fun, Quirky Thing
> > From Agora, and unless I've missed some c
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
wrote:
>
> P.S: Oh, and AGAINST, by the way. I don't see why that would be
> needed. All it does is getting rid of Yet Another Fun, Quirky Thing
> From Agora, and unless I've missed some conversation somewhere, I
> didn't see any justification f
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
wrote:
> P.S: Oh, and AGAINST, by the way. I don't see why that would be
> needed. All it does is getting rid of Yet Another Fun, Quirky Thing
> From Agora, and unless I've missed some conversation somewhere, I
> didn't see any justification for
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
> P.S: Oh, and AGAINST, by the way. I don't see why that would be
> needed. All it does is getting rid of Yet Another Fun, Quirky Thing
> From Agora, and unless I've missed some conversation somewhere, I
> didn't see any justification for it.
The
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Henri Bouchard wrote:
> Because of this it is a pain to try to identify the author of a
> message if they didn't sign their message and their email name is not
> their "name".
Well... you could have required that the author be identified in some
way in the message,
Too Long ; Didn't Read
-- Khoyo
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
wrote:
>
> It's Jonathan or Jo, not Jon. =P
>
> You get used to it after a while. Sure, people go by different names
> at different time, just like my friends call me
> Roujo/Jo/Jonathan/Rouillard depending on the friend and on who's
> around. In
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Henri Bouchard wrote:
> The reason I proposed Mandatory Identification was because some people
> have Agoran names differing from their e-mail names. For example,
> xx1122334455 signs his messages with "LiberonScien" yet his e-mail
> name is "xx1122334455", and Jon'
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 5:10 PM, omd wrote:
>
> The present identification rule is annoying enough without having to
> be mean about it.
>
> - offering marked displeasure
What is annoying about Mandatory Identification? You simply type
"-omd" at the end of your messages, and that's all you need to
Here. I'll do it.
-the Registrar
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> If I am the Herald, and sign a report, 'the Herald', am I breaking
> a Rule right now?
>
> I'd do so and make a test case, but I'm not an officer at the moment.
> Anyone want to try?
>
No, that would not be a violation of the rules right now.
ok.
On Sat, 7 Jun 2014, Henri Bouchard wrote:
> Is it required that we always have a win condition?
No, but if you're not interested, you can always just ignore
it as long as other people find it worthwhile.
On Jun 7, 2014 4:05 PM, "Henri Bouchard" wrote:
>
> Is it required that we always have a win condition?
>
> -Henri
>
No. But I am Scorekeepor and Herald because of it, and many recent
proposals came about as an attempt to garner points.
Is it required that we always have a win condition?
-Henri
On Sat, 7 Jun 2014, Henri Bouchard wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > What (to you) would make it interesting?
>
> Something more creative than just accumulating points over time.
> Something that requires more thought than holding the most offices and
> proposing t
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> What (to you) would make it interesting?
Something more creative than just accumulating points over time.
Something that requires more thought than holding the most offices and
proposing the most proposals.
-Henri
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 17:09 -0400, omd wrote:
> On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Fool wrote:
> > Soul personal manager.
>
> From your post I can't tell whether you realized this, but it's a pun;
> I am analogizing transferring the most important benefit of being a
> person in a nomic - the right
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Fool wrote:
> Soul personal manager.
>From your post I can't tell whether you realized this, but it's a pun;
I am analogizing transferring the most important benefit of being a
person in a nomic - the right to vote - to selling one's soul.
Luckily this one comes w
Rule 2143
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Henri Bouchard wrote:
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:47 PM, omd wrote:
>> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Henri Bouchard wrote:
>>> Proposal: Scorekeepor Reports (Adoption Index=9.9)
>>>
>>> Append the following to Rule 2420 (Score):
>>>
>>> The Scor
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:47 PM, omd wrote:
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Henri Bouchard wrote:
>> Proposal: Scorekeepor Reports (Adoption Index=9.9)
>>
>> Append the following to Rule 2420 (Score):
>>
>> The Scorekeeper's weekly report includes a list of the scores of
>> all of the
On 5/6/14 at 8:07pm, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 6:18 PM, omd wrote:
> > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
> > wrote:
> >> I object, for semi-obvious reasons.
> >
> > Me too, as my identity should be clear from the From line.
>
> I'm in favor, because I real
On 5/6/14 at 5:48pm, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 17:42 -0400, Henri Bouchard wrote:
> > I propose the following:
> >
> > --
> >
> > Proposal: Mandatory Identification
> >
> > Create a new Rule, titled "Mandatory
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 6:18 PM, omd wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
> wrote:
>> I object, for semi-obvious reasons.
>
> Me too, as my identity should be clear from the From line.
I'm in favor, because I really want to see all the IRC people sign
every one of their mes
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
wrote:
> I object, for semi-obvious reasons.
Me too, as my identity should be clear from the From line.
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 5:04 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> This leaves me a little confused as to how an intentionally unfair
> judgement system would work, at least for inquiries (it's clear how it
> would work for criminal cases). What sort of power does an unfair judge
> have on the game? Confusing p
On Sun, 2014-04-13 at 23:01 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 11:01 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > scshunt wrote:
> >
> > judicial functions to a new office (maybe not the Clerk... the Arbitor
> >> or something. This would remove the connotation of impartiality that
> >> Murphy gave the
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 11:01 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> scshunt wrote:
>
> judicial functions to a new office (maybe not the Clerk... the Arbitor
>> or something. This would remove the connotation of impartiality that
>> Murphy gave the Clerk). Then we can look at figurehead reform once
>>
>
> Oh,
scshunt wrote:
judicial functions to a new office (maybe not the Clerk... the Arbitor
or something. This would remove the connotation of impartiality that
Murphy gave the Clerk). Then we can look at figurehead reform once
Oh, so it's all /my/ fault. I see how it is. :)
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> My Next Big Idea was Officers' Policies:
>
> 1. Loosen up Rules restrictions on Officers. Allow Promotor to
> decide which proposals to distribute for example, as long as none
> sits for longer than (say) 3 weeks. CotC more flexible in app
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > With this clause, making assumption automatic, I would't do a one-off
> > deputization.
> >
> > Suggestion: make it opt-in, not opt-out (the deputy CAN take over the
> > office if e does so in the me
1001 - 1100 of 2071 matches
Mail list logo
