Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Boilerplate!

coppro wrote: > comex wrote: >> I submit the following Proposal (AI=3, II=0) and make it Distributable: >> Boilerplate! >> { >> Create a new Power-3 rule reading: >> >> When an eligible voter on an Agoran decision attempts to cast >> ballots without explicitly specifying the number of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deprioritize History

On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > Again, the proposal doesn't eliminate the history, it only moves it > from monthly to weekly. It's not pertinent and it really isn't > changing that much. Personally I'd rather not see offices have both a weekly and monthly report for not g

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deprioritize History

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Oh I do apologize Yally... wasn't the Registrar's report monthly for a > while anyway?  Did it move back to weekly on purpose, or accidentally > with the various priority changes (at least a year or two ago, the full > history was in fact onl

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deprioritize History

Oh I do apologize Yally... wasn't the Registrar's report monthly for a while anyway? Did it move back to weekly on purpose, or accidentally with the various priority changes (at least a year or two ago, the full history was in fact only reported monthly IIRC). -G. On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, comex w

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deprioritize History

Oh I do apologize Yally... wasn't the Registrar's report monthly for a while anyway? Did it move back to weekly on purpose, or accidentally with the various priority changes (at least a year or two ago, the full history was in fact only reported monthly IIRC). I'd give you a prop from me but I d

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deprioritize History

G. wrote: > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote: >> Proposal: Deprioritize History (AI = 1, II = 1) > > Anyone have a No Confidence card (and why do I always have an > overwhelming desire to have one when Yally holds an office? If > elected as Registrar I will maintain this record regardle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deprioritize History

The proposal would just move it to a monthly report, you realize... Sent from my iPhone On Nov 12, 2009, at 7:54 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote: Proposal: Deprioritize History (AI = 1, II = 1) Anyone have a No Confidence card (and why do I always have an

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: minor office shinkage (fwd)

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 2:00 PM, comex wrote: > On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> ps.  the system is not just to give the defendant the time to declare >> emself guilty; it's so e gets the time to consider and post eir defense >> of innocence (with some officer help, it's possi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: minor office shinkage (fwd)

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > ps.  the system is not just to give the defendant the time to declare > emself guilty; it's so e gets the time to consider and post eir defense > of innocence (with some officer help, it's possible for the case to go > from calling through to se

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: minor office shinkage (fwd)

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: >> Let's just get rid of NoVs altogether and initiate criminal cases >> directly from offenses, and giving the accused the additional option >> of judging their own case GUILTY/SILENCE with at least as many

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: minor office shinkage (fwd)

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > Let's just get rid of NoVs altogether and initiate criminal cases > directly from offenses, and giving the accused the additional option > of judging their own case GUILTY/SILENCE with at least as many Rests > as the power of the rule or GUILTY/TIME OUT. ps.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: minor office shinkage (fwd)

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > Let's just get rid of NoVs altogether and initiate criminal cases > directly from offenses, and giving the accused the additional option > of judging their own case GUILTY/SILENCE with at least as many Rests > as the power of the rule or GUILTY/TIME OUT. Sur

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Free Parking

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:35 PM, ais523 wrote: > On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 09:43 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Alex Smith >> wrote: >> > Strongly disagree with this one, it makes Wins by Renaissance much >> much easier. (Potentially Championship too, if a Medal some

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Free Parking

On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 09:43 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Alex Smith > wrote: > > Strongly disagree with this one, it makes Wins by Renaissance much > much easier. (Potentially Championship too, if a Medal somehow ends up > in the L&FD, say if a Champion's Contest

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Free Parking

Alex Smith wrote: Strongly disagree with this one, it makes Wins by Renaissance much much easier. (Potentially Championship too, if a Medal somehow ends up in the L&FD, say if a Champion's Contest terminates while it still has one.) Aw. -coppro

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Free Parking

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > Strongly disagree with this one, it makes Wins by Renaissance much much > easier. (Potentially Championship too, if a Medal somehow ends up in the > L&FD, say if a Champion's Contest terminates while it still has one.) How many Indigo ribbons

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Punish Walker

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Charles Walker < charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Aaron Goldfein > wrote: > > With this mild punishment, e may learn that such annoying actions are > > not within the spirit of the game. > > Do you seriously think this is

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Dependent Actions During Lull

>> Can't the sentence in the brackets be phrased to be a little more easy >> to understand? > > Ok. > > I retract the above proposal and submit the following one: > Thanks. -- -Tiger

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Flowers for Wooble

Ed Murphy wrote: Walker wrote: Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think it would be a lot easier for the new Promotor to catch up on Distributability of you stopped using conditional Distrib-u-matic spends. Ssh, I'm trying to overload the system. (Seriously, though, there are only 9

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Flowers for Wooble

Walker wrote: > Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think it would be a lot > easier for the new Promotor to catch up on Distributability of you > stopped using conditional Distrib-u-matic spends. Ssh, I'm trying to overload the system. (Seriously, though, there are only 9 active first-c

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Chamber (Caste Replacement)

Murphy wrote: > Walker wrote: > >>       Chamber is a proposal switch, possessed only by proposals which >>       are in the proposal pool or have an ongoing Agoran Decision to >>       adopt them, tracked by the Promotor, with values Green >>       (default), Red and Purple. In the same message in

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Ratification of disclaimered documents

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > comex wrote: >> >> asset creation and destruction have the same weight?  What if widgets >> are a class of position cards and a rule (over which R1551 takes >> precedence) says they can't be created? > > This one at least, is clear. R1551 takes p

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Ratification of disclaimered documents

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Again, these are arguably problems with the current version of the > rule as well.  It might well be better to specify that any portion of > the gamestate disclaimered in the document doesn't change. I would vote for this-- something like "the g

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Ratification of disclaimered documents

c. wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: >> [If e.g. a report saying "X has either Y or Z widgets" is ratified, then >> if X had Y widgets, then e still does; if X had Z widgets, then e still >> does; if X had neither Y nor Z widgets, then that needs to be sorted out >> by ot

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Ratification of disclaimered documents

comex wrote: asset creation and destruction have the same weight? What if widgets are a class of position cards and a rule (over which R1551 takes precedence) says they can't be created? This one at least, is clear. R1551 takes precedence. -coppro

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Chamber (Caste Replacement)

coppro wrote: > Ed Murphy wrote: >> Also, oi, another revision to the Assessor scripts (albeit a >> minor one). > > I do not believe that the effect on a programmer's ability to program > the game state should be a valid reason why Agora should choose to > support/oppose a given rules change. I

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Chamber (Caste Replacement)

Ed Murphy wrote: Also, oi, another revision to the Assessor scripts (albeit a minor one). I do not believe that the effect on a programmer's ability to program the game state should be a valid reason why Agora should choose to support/oppose a given rules change. I haven't taken it into accou

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No Rest Multiplication

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: > BobTHJ wrote: >> This was in the rule originally, not sure when it got edited out >> (perhaps it was done so intentionally as a pre-cursor to ais523's >> solitude scam?). > > *looks*  Proposal 6431 (coppro), August 18. It was not a part of the sc

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No Rest Multiplication

BobTHJ wrote: > On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 06:46, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> I submit the following AI-2 proposal, "No Rest Multiplication": >> {{ >> In Rule 2262, replace: >> * Stool Pigeon - Indicate a player who has not been >>indicated for this card within the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Three-tier voting limits

Ed Murphy wrote: Wooble wrote: On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Roger Hicks wrote: With as easy as it is to democratize and/or veto a proposal using cards why not just make all proposal-decisions ordinary by default? Because then when someone breaks dependent actions you can just submit N+1 hi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Three-tier voting limits

Wooble wrote: > On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Roger Hicks wrote: >> With as easy as it is to democratize and/or veto a proposal using >> cards why not just make all proposal-decisions ordinary by default? > > Because then when someone breaks dependent actions you can just submit > N+1 high-AI p

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Three-tier voting limits

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Roger Hicks wrote: > With as easy as it is to democratize and/or veto a proposal using > cards why not just make all proposal-decisions ordinary by default? Because then when someone breaks dependent actions you can just submit N+1 high-AI proposals where N is the n

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Kill it with fire

On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 16:20, Ed Murphy wrote: > BobTHJ wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 07:37, Ed Murphy wrote: >>> Proposal:  Kill it with fire >>> (AI = 2, please) >>> >>> Terminate the contract known as Points Party at the time this >>> proposal was submitted. >>> >>> >> Wouldn't this fail du

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Kill it with fire

BobTHJ wrote: > On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 07:37, Ed Murphy wrote: >> Proposal: Kill it with fire >> (AI = 2, please) >> >> Terminate the contract known as Points Party at the time this >> proposal was submitted. >> >> > Wouldn't this fail due to the retroactive effect? Why not just > terminate as of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 09:58, Sean Hunt wrote: > Roger Hicks wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 09:48, Sean Hunt wrote: >>> Audits are Too Severe (AI=2, II=1) >>> {{{ >>> Amend Rule 2259 by replacing >>>      Any entity CAN audit itself by announcement. When an active >>>      player is audited that

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

Roger Hicks wrote: > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 09:48, Sean Hunt wrote: >> Audits are Too Severe (AI=2, II=1) >> {{{ >> Amend Rule 2259 by replacing >> Any entity CAN audit itself by announcement. When an active >> player is audited that player gains one Rest for each >> rule-defined car

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: NOV Cleanup

Ed Murphy wrote: > Also, it's one more Platonic delayed-effect for the Insulator to track. Who said it has to be Platonic? "Any player CAN create N rests in the ninny's possession, provided that the case in question in unappealable and that no player has already done so for that case." Or even "A

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: NOV Cleanup

BobTHJ wrote: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 16:43, Ed Murphy wrote: >> BobTHJ wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 16:15, Ed Murphy wrote: BobTHJ wrote: > The "with N support" mechanism for NOVs is very messy. This proposes > to replace that with a simple "with support". It also rem

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: NOV Cleanup

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 16:43, Ed Murphy wrote: > BobTHJ wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 16:15, Ed Murphy wrote: >>> BobTHJ wrote: >>> The "with N support" mechanism for NOVs is very messy. This proposes to replace that with a simple "with support". It also removes the >>> This would

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: NOV Cleanup

c. wrote: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Roger Hicks wrote: >> True, but the problem with the 5-lights scam was not the NOV >> publication. It was the ability to publish, contest, CFJ, and sentence >> all in the same message. The with N support 'fix' for NOV publication >> attacked the wrong p

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: NOV Cleanup

BobTHJ wrote: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 16:15, Ed Murphy wrote: >> BobTHJ wrote: >> >>> The "with N support" mechanism for NOVs is very messy. This proposes >>> to replace that with a simple "with support". It also removes the >> This would allow the CotC or Justiciar to launch a successful >> fiv

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: NOV Cleanup

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Roger Hicks wrote: > True, but the problem with the 5-lights scam was not the NOV > publication. It was the ability to publish, contest, CFJ, and sentence > all in the same message. The with N support 'fix' for NOV publication > attacked the wrong problem. There ar

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: NOV Cleanup

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 16:15, Ed Murphy wrote: > BobTHJ wrote: > >> The "with N support" mechanism for NOVs is very messy. This proposes >> to replace that with a simple "with support". It also removes the > > This would allow the CotC or Justiciar to launch a successful > five-lights scam with ju

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

coppro wrote: > Ed Murphy wrote: >> coppro wrote: >> >>> 6. NEED NOT: Failing to perform the described action does not >>> violate the rule in question. >> Note that this has a similar quirk to MAY. Consider: >> >> Rule 5001, Power=1: X MAY NOT Y. >> Rule 5002, Power=2: X MAY

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

Ed Murphy wrote: > coppro wrote: > >> 6. NEED NOT: Failing to perform the described action does not >> violate the rule in question. > > Note that this has a similar quirk to MAY. Consider: > > Rule 5001, Power=1: X MAY NOT Y. > Rule 5002, Power=2: X MAY Y. > > Rule 5003,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

2009/8/24 Sean Hunt : > Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: >> 2009/8/24 Sean Hunt : >>> I submit the following proposal: >>> >>> Want Not Need Not Rnd. 2 (II=1, AI=3) >>> {{{ >>> In rule 2152, add the following bullet to the list: >>>      6. NEED NOT:  Failing to perform the described action does not >>>    

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Banks

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 15:03, Ed Murphy wrote: > BobTHJ wrote: >> Any player CAN transfer a non-fixed asset to a Bank (as >> permitted by that Bank's contract) regardless of rules prohibiting the >> transfer of assets, however if the transfer of an asset is permitted >> by its backing document but

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Hand Limit Remodel

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:37, Pavitra wrote: > It feels like it's duplicating much of the logic of NoVs. And I don't > like the separation between creating and closing audits. > > Maybe this would be a good time to add With N (Days) Notice to R1728(a). > A person CAN, under certain secured circums

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Hand Limit Remodel

Roger Hicks wrote: > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:05, Pavitra wrote: >> Roger Hicks wrote: >>> Hand Limit Remodel >> >> I don't like it. It's messy, unweildy, and the mandadory monthly audits >> shouldn't be in there. >> > Monthly audits could be removed. What do you find to be particularly > messy o

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Hand Limit Remodel

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:05, Pavitra wrote: > Roger Hicks wrote: >> Hand Limit Remodel > > I don't like it. It's messy, unweildy, and the mandadory monthly audits > shouldn't be in there. > Monthly audits could be removed. What do you find to be particularly messy or unwieldy? It's no longer than

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Reduce Card Complexity

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: > FWIW, this is why I haven't taken Greetor. I'm already doing one office > (Ambassador) unpaid due to having a higher-II office with the same > priority already (IIRC Cards has changed that, but I'm having problems > trying to keep track of that). Cards you get

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Reduce Card Complexity

On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 14:35, Pavitra wrote: > ais523 wrote: >> On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 14:27 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 13:16, C-walker >>> wrote: >>> > So if I hold two II 3 offices and complete all of their duties, I get >>> > only 3 cards, and if I have an office for

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Reduce Card Complexity

ais523 wrote: > On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 14:27 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 13:16, C-walker >> wrote: >> > So if I hold two II 3 offices and complete all of their duties, I get >> > only 3 cards, and if I have an office for which I complete no duties >> > whatsoever, I am stil

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Reduce Card Complexity

On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 14:27 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 13:16, C-walker > wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Roger Hicks wrote: > >> I remove my proposal "Fixing Hand Limits" from the pool. I submit the > >> following proposal: > >> > >> Reduce Card Complexity > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Reduce Card Complexity

On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 13:16, C-walker wrote: > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Roger Hicks wrote: >> I remove my proposal "Fixing Hand Limits" from the pool. I submit the >> following proposal: >> >> Reduce Card Complexity > >> At the beginning of each week each player >> earns a number of draws

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Flexible Hand Limits

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:54, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > 2009/7/28, Roger Hicks : >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 00:53, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: >> >> Each player has a non-negative integer value Hand Limit (default 15). >> >> The Hand Limit of each player is

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Flexible Hand Limits

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:52, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Just some comments on these options: > >> 1. Destroy extras - The current system. If you have too many cards the >> extras are randomly destroyed. This requires a lot of extra work on >> the Dealors part, and also makes it difficult for player

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Flexible Hand Limits

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: > I was thinking along similar lines (see my Court Jester proposal) I like this your implementation: [from the SLR archives: * Caption: Hot Potato Quota: 1 Elements: Persistent Exploit: Transfer this Card to another entity. If

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Flexible Hand Limits

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:59, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: >> I guess I don't see the issue. The events that generate draws (officer >> salaries, player salaries, judging, winning elections, adopted >> proposals) are few enough that players can fairly easily track

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Flexible Hand Limits

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: > I guess I don't see the issue. The events that generate draws (officer > salaries, player salaries, judging, winning elections, adopted > proposals) are few enough that players can fairly easily track what > draws are owed to them and take this into accoun

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Flexible Hand Limits

2009/7/28, Roger Hicks : > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 00:53, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: > >> Each player has a non-negative integer value Hand Limit (default 15). > >> The Hand Limit of each player is tracked by the Registrar. If a > >> player's Hand Limit would

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Flexible Hand Limits

Just some comments on these options: > 1. Destroy extras - The current system. If you have too many cards the > extras are randomly destroyed. This requires a lot of extra work on > the Dealors part, and also makes it difficult for players to 'store > up' cards for certain purposes. > > 2. Preve

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Flexible Hand Limits

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:40, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: >> Would your opinion of this proposal change if criminal penalty for >> exceeding your hand limit were changed to a monthly offense (instead >> of weekly), perhaps with an increased penalty? > > My sugges

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Flexible Hand Limits

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:23, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: >> I disagree. If you are worried about extra deals just prior to week's >> end it is a simple matter to play out a few cards in advance so you're >> not flirting with your Hand Limit. However, I am open t

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Flexible Hand Limits

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: > Would your opinion of this proposal change if criminal penalty for > exceeding your hand limit were changed to a monthly offense (instead > of weekly), perhaps with an increased penalty? My suggestion would just be to apply a Rest directly without invokin

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Flexible Hand Limits

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: > I disagree. If you are worried about extra deals just prior to week's > end it is a simple matter to play out a few cards in advance so you're > not flirting with your Hand Limit. However, I am open to another > option if someone can find a better one. Her

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Flexible Hand Limits

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Roger Hicks wrote: > Would your opinion of this proposal change if criminal penalty for > exceeding your hand limit were changed to a monthly offense (instead > of weekly), perhaps with an increased penalty? I prefer this to any of the other options you have presen

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Flexible Hand Limits

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 00:53, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: >> Each player has a non-negative integer value Hand Limit (default 15). >> The Hand Limit of each player is tracked by the Registrar. If a >> player's Hand Limit would ever be set below 3, it is instead s

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: NOV ID numbers

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 15:48, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > Roger Hicks wrote: >> I submit the following proposal: >> >> NOV ID Numbers >> AI: 2 >> II: 1 >> { >> Append the following to R2230: >> {{ >> Valid NOVs have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Insulator. >> }} >> } >> >> BobTHJ > > I don't thin

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Card Lottery

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: >> And also, if you hold the set of three, don't you instantly win >> three times? > > No, because of how exploits work. If you hold a set of three you must > play one to activate it's exploit which destroys the played card and > in turn destroys the other t

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Card Lottery

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 13:23, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: >> Cleanup Procedure: For each other basic >> deck one such corresponding Ball card is destroyed. > > Oh, er, problem with this one.  How is the destroyed card selected? > Oops, that should read "one such

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Card Lottery

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: > Considering some balls will be destroyed by hand limits, and players > being unwilling to trade balls, wins should occur around every 3 > months which seems to be good timing for a win condition (contrast win > by high score and ribbons, this would seem to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Card Lottery

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 13:17, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: >> Upon the adoption of this proposal set the Frequency of Government >> Ball, Change Ball, and Justice Ball to 1. > > One win for every 100 cards at the current dealing rate?  What's > the point?  One way

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: R101 Safety Net

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, comex wrote: > On Jun 24, 2009, at 6:20 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Oh ps., if this is part of another method for sticking this through, there's >> an old precedent that says "reasonable time" for response when unspecified >> is >> a minimum of 4 days (precedent said that, giv

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: R101 Safety Net

Sent from my iPhone On Jun 24, 2009, at 6:20 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Oh ps., if this is part of another method for sticking this through, there's an old precedent that says "reasonable time" for response when unspecified is a minimum of 4 days (precedent said that, given Agoran culture and

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: An Election Issue

Benjamin Caplan wrote: > Aaron Goldfein wrote: >> Proposal: An Election Issue (AI = 2, II = 1) >> >> In Rule 2154 (Election Procedure), immediately after the sentence reading: >> >> The set of candidates can change after the decision is >> initiated. >> >> add the following sent

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Clarify conditional votes

Pavitra wrote: > While you're at it, you might change "during the voting period" so it > can't mean "throughout the entire voting period". Bah, the Note's already been spent. If this passes, would the Janitor please change it to "at some point during the voting period"?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Creative Offices

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote: >>   The Janitor is a creative office; >>   The Anarchist is a creative office; > > They both seem destructive rather than creative... Perhaps creative > destruction. > The Anarchist is creative used correctly. The Janitor isn't m

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No More Distributability

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > As far as I can see, the flips I covered in my previous post are all > that matters. Between the time it was published and the time it was > made undistributable, it was made distributable at least once, through > support. If it was also inc

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No More Distributability

2009/6/15 Geoffrey Spear : > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:28 AM, Jonatan > Kilhamn wrote: >>> Note to Conductor: this probably means that my attempt to spend 3 >>> notes to make this undistributable failed. >>> >> What intent is e talking about here? As far as I can see, the proposal >> was published,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No More Distributability

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:28 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: >> Note to Conductor: this probably means that my attempt to spend 3 >> notes to make this undistributable failed. >> > What intent is e talking about here? As far as I can see, the proposal > was published, made distributable through support,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No More Distributability

2009/6/15 Geoffrey Spear : > On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> I transfer one prop from myself to CotC Murphy for not getting all my ducks >> in a row before the CFJ: >> >> Another gratuitous argument on my most recent CFJ: >> >> There was indeed at least one proposal that

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Reasonable contestmaster rewards

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 02:16, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 15:20 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote: >> Proposal: Reasonable contestmaster rewards >> AI: 1 >> II: 1 >> { >> Remove the second paragraph of R2234. Append the following to the >> first paragraph of R2234: >> {{ >> Upon making such an

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Attitude

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Paul VanKoughnett wrote: > On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:53 AM, Alex Smith wrote: >> On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 21:44 -0700, Charles Reiss wrote: >>> On 6/1/09 6:13 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: >>> > On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:33 AM, comex >> > > wrote: >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: s/object/either

On Sat, 2009-06-06 at 16:04 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > Goethe wrote: > > > On Sat, 6 Jun 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: > >> A player CAN flip a specified proposal to Distributable with > >> 3 support, or without objection, or by spending 1 Note. > > > > Why bother with distributability then. -

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: s/object/either

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: > Goethe wrote: >> On Sat, 6 Jun 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: >>> A player CAN flip a specified proposal to Distributable with >>> 3 support, or without objection, or by spending 1 Note. >> >> Why bother with distributability then. -G. > > To avoid going t

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: s/object/either

Pavitra wrote: > I support. NttPF

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: s/object/either

Goethe wrote: > On Sat, 6 Jun 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: >> A player CAN flip a specified proposal to Distributable with >> 3 support, or without objection, or by spending 1 Note. > > Why bother with distributability then. -G. To avoid going through the motions for proposals that no one e

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: IADoP CAN and SHALL

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Sgeo wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:32 PM, comex wrote: >>      A player CAN flip a specified proposal to Distributable by >>      spending 1 Note. >> >> I spend a G# note to make this Distributable.  I flip my key to G. >> > I really don't like this. It makes it difficult

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: IADoP CAN and SHALL

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Sgeo wrote: > I really don't like this. It makes it difficult for new players to > start submitting proposals, No. It means that new players have to convince someone else to make their stuff Distributable. -- Taral "Please let me know if there's any further troub

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: IADoP CAN and SHALL

On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Sgeo wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:32 PM, comex wrote: > > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, 26 May 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > >>> Aaron Goldfein wrote: > Proposal: IADoP CAN and SHALL (AI = 2, II = 1): > > >>> I

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Nicked Off

On Thu, 28 May 2009, Taral wrote: > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Roger Hicks wrote: >> Selecting a nickname that contains more than 20 characters, or more >> than two non-alphanumeric characters is the class 5 crime of Mentally >> Assaulting an Officer, unless at the same time as the selecti

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Nicked Off

On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 14:22 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote: > I don't see how this restricts R101it says the chosen nick shall > be used to identify the player, but it doesn't limit what else can be > used to identify the player. Well, if you're interpreting the shall that way round, then it would b

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Nicked Off

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 13:25, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 28 May 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: >> As soon as possible after registering for the first time a player CAN >> and SHALL select a unique nickname to be used by Agora in the >> identification of that player on official documents. That nickn

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Nicked Off

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 28 May 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: >> As soon as possible after registering for the first time a player CAN >> and SHALL select a unique nickname to be used by Agora in the >> identification of that player on official documents. That nic

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: IADoP CAN and SHALL

On Wed, 27 May 2009, comex wrote: > Proposal: 3 support is boring Crossed in the mail (still wrong AI). Oh well I paid for the other one ;). -G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: IADoP CAN and SHALL

coppro wrote: > Ed Murphy wrote: >> coppro wrote: >> >>> Aaron Goldfein wrote: Proposal: IADoP CAN and SHALL (AI = 2, II = 1): In Rule 2154 (Election Procedure), after the sentence reading: Any player CAN, with Support, initiate an election for a speci

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: IADoP CAN and SHALL

Ed Murphy wrote: > coppro wrote: > >> Aaron Goldfein wrote: >>> Proposal: IADoP CAN and SHALL (AI = 2, II = 1): >>> >>> In Rule 2154 (Election Procedure), after the sentence reading: >>> >>> Any player CAN, with Support, initiate an election for a >>> specified elected office for w

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Referential votes default to PRESENT

Pavitra wrote: > Ed Murphy wrote: >> Proposal: Referential votes default to PRESENT >> >> Amend Rule 2127 (Conditional Votes) by replacing each instance of: >> >> that voter's valid votes on that decision. >> >> with: >> >> that voter's valid votes on that decision, or PRESENT otherwi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Half-rests

On Tue, 19 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 15:07 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: >> Proposal: Half-rests >> (AI = 2, please) >> >> Amend Rule 2166 (Assets) by appending this text to the paragraph >> defining currencies: >> >> If a currency's backing document defines a positive i

<    9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   >