Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ready Proposals

On 6/20/2020 1:49 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/20/20 8:50 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 6/20/20 7:20 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: >>> This may be the programmer in me speaking, but I don't think it's a good >>> idea to couple these two values

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ready Proposals

On 6/20/20 8:50 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/20/20 7:20 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: >> This may be the programmer in me speaking, but I don't think it's a good >> idea to couple these two values together. I think it will be easier in >> the future if rules can look at

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ready Proposals

On 6/20/20 7:14 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/20/20 12:23 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 6/19/20 11:20 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >>> You wrote a proposal designed specifically to only be used for narrow >>> patches and then immediately claimed authority to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ready Proposals

On 6/20/20 8:02 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >> We have a fundamental philosophical difference. I do not think patches >> should require a payment to be distributed. I want them to be >> distributable without a fee. I don't particularly mind the author >> still getting a reward for it, but

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ready Proposals

On 6/20/20 12:01 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:21 PM nch via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > On 6/19/20 11:06 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > On the other hand, I'd prefer not to have someone run against me > in an >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ready Proposals

On 6/20/20 7:20 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > This may be the programmer in me speaking, but I don't think it's a good > idea to couple these two values together. I think it will be easier in > the future if rules can look at whether a proposal is distributable vs > whether it is

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ready Proposals

On 6/20/20 12:23 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/19/20 11:20 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >> You wrote a proposal designed specifically to only be used for narrow >> patches and then immediately claimed authority to use it because, in >> your arguments, literally any rule text

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ready Proposals

On 2020-06-19 23:37, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: Rule 1623/11 Disinterested Proposals A Proposal may be Interested or Disinterested. Each Proposal is Interested when made. The Proposer of a Proposal may cause it to become Disinterested, without objection, but

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ready Proposals

On 2020-06-19 23:01, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: The larger problem here is that I think proposals are essentially a volunteer effort. Charging people for them seems to me rather like charging people to hold offices. [1] It's community service. Why would you charge people for

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ready Proposals

On 6/19/2020 9:06 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:> Without objection is a really high standard. My rule of thumb is that if > something requires without objection approval, someone will object. They > may even object for no reason, because they don't like the idea of a > proposal

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ready Proposals

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:21 PM nch via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/19/20 11:06 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > On the other hand, I'd prefer not to have someone run against me in an > > election on the platform "vote for me and I'll pend all your > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ready Proposals

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:33 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:23 PM nch via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On 6/19/20 11:20 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >> > You wrote a proposal designed

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ready Proposals

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:23 PM nch via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/19/20 11:20 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > You wrote a proposal designed specifically to only be used for narrow > > patches and then immediately claimed authority to use it because,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ready Proposals

On 6/19/20 11:20 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > You wrote a proposal designed specifically to only be used for narrow > patches and then immediately claimed authority to use it because, in > your arguments, literally any rule text impacts the rulekeepor and > therefore the rulekeepor can

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ready Proposals

On 6/19/20 11:06 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 8:54 PM nch via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > On 6/19/20 10:36 PM, nch via agora-business wrote: > > Amend R2622, "Pending Proposals", to read in full: > > > >    

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ready Proposals

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 8:54 PM nch via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/19/20 10:36 PM, nch via agora-business wrote: > > Amend R2622, "Pending Proposals", to read in full: > > > > Ready Method is an untracked proposal switch with possible values > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch

On 6/19/2020 11:26 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/19/20 1:53 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> Sure, it's all relative exchange ranges, I agree. But there's a fixed >> point because they're both the cost of "pending 1 proposal". If that >> costs 1 Pendant or 4

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch

On 6/19/20 1:53 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Sure, it's all relative exchange ranges, I agree. But there's a fixed > point because they're both the cost of "pending 1 proposal". If that > costs 1 Pendant or 4 Blot-B-Gones, that's a hard ceiling on an exchange > rate between the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch

On 6/19/2020 10:16 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: > On Friday, 19 June 2020, 16:24:06 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Not part of arguments: lol when I voted against this it was because it >> lacked the basic checks (e.g. dependent action or something). Regardless >> of CFJ outcome you

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch

On Friday, 19 June 2020, 16:24:06 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > Not part of arguments: lol when I voted against this it was because it > lacked the basic checks (e.g. dependent action or something). Regardless > of CFJ outcome you all have now fixed the price of pending at 4

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch

goddamn you guys are so bad at making rules that are good, its lucky i rarely care about the rules On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 1:35 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/19/20 11:33 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via > agora-discussion wrote: > > On

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch

On 6/19/2020 8:31 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/19/20 11:21 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >> Not part of arguments: lol when I voted against this it was because it >> lacked the basic checks (e.g. dependent action or something). Regardless >> of CFJ outcome you

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch

On 6/19/20 11:33 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/19/20 11:31 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 6/19/20 11:21 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >>> Not part of arguments: lol when I voted against this it was because it >>> lacked the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch

On 6/19/20 11:31 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/19/20 11:21 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >> Not part of arguments: lol when I voted against this it was because it >> lacked the basic checks (e.g. dependent action or something). Regardless >> of CFJ outcome you all

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch

On 6/19/20 11:21 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > Not part of arguments: lol when I voted against this it was because it > lacked the basic checks (e.g. dependent action or something). Regardless > of CFJ outcome you all have now fixed the price of pending at 4 blots > (more or less).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch

yeah it probably has to be the same message now On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 1:00 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/19/2020 7:40 AM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > > i remember someone called that CFJ in response to the first CFJ i ever > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch

On 6/19/2020 7:40 AM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > i remember someone called that CFJ in response to the first CFJ i ever > called > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3523 Thanks, I didn't remember that! The rule language has changed, though, from (according to those

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch

i remember someone called that CFJ in response to the first CFJ i ever called https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3523 On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 12:28 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/19/2020 7:18 AM, Rebecca via agora-discussion

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch

On 6/19/2020 7:18 AM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > there is a precedent actually that you can bar in a later message without > recalling the CFJ if its "reasonably continuous" or something. Can you point me to that doesn't ring a bell.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch

there is a precedent actually that you can bar in a later message without recalling the CFJ if its "reasonably continuous" or something. On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 12:09 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/19/20 10:06 AM, Kerim Aydin via

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch

On 6/19/20 10:06 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/19/2020 7:03 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >> I CFJ: "Within the past week, Jason committed the crime of Uncertain >> Certification." > thanks! (the reason I didn't right away is I've lost count this week I > think I'm

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch

On 6/19/2020 7:03 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > I CFJ: "Within the past week, Jason committed the crime of Uncertain > Certification." thanks! (the reason I didn't right away is I've lost count this week I think I'm getting close to excess cfj territory).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch

On 6/19/20 9:55 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 6/19/2020 6:39 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >> On 6/19/20 12:36 AM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: >>> Hey nerd, a proposal is only a patch if >>> >>> A player SHALL NOT certify a proposal unless its sole function

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Non-fee based mechanisms for fee-based actions

On 6/19/20 5:54 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > Is "intent to pay that fee" strong enough? It doesn't seem to me as if > that necessarily requires the payment being possible or succeeding. This is the existing wording, and is protected by the next paragraph. --

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Non-fee based mechanisms for fee-based actions

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 03:32, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/18/20 11:29 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > What would the text look like then? (I don't follow how the "invoke" > > phrasing relates to the requirement about specifying zero fee.) > > > I would phrase it

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Non-fee based mechanisms for fee-based actions

On 6/18/20 11:29 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > What would the text look like then? (I don't follow how the "invoke" > phrasing relates to the requirement about specifying zero fee.) I would phrase it as "If a fee-based method to perform an action has a fee of no assets, that

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Non-fee based mechanisms for fee-based actions

> >> If the Rules define a fee-based mechanism to perform an action, but the > >> specified set of assets is the empty set, then the mechanism can be > >> invoked by announcement, but the announcement must include that there is > >> an (empty or 0) fee for the mechanism. > > I'm not sure if the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Non-fee based mechanisms for fee-based actions

On 6/18/20 11:08 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: >> If the Rules associate payment of a set of actions (hereafter the fee > s/actions/assets/ Thanks, fixed on local copy. > >> for the action; syns: cost, price charge) with performing an action, > You lost a comma after "price".

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Talismans

On 6/16/2020 4:11 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/16/20 6:59 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >>> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a player CAN, by announcement, >>> transfer the talisman for em to emself. >> Could we make this "acting as emself"? Without that,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Talismans

On 6/16/20 6:59 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/16/20 6:45 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >> Alright, final chance for comments. I plan to pend this in about a day. >> >> I submit (but do not pend) the following proposal: >> >> Title: Talismans >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] can you believe nicknames are entirely undefined?

Sorry about that. I've seen both, and as Registrar, I should have asked for clarification. Updated for the next weekly report. - Falsifian On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 13:42, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote: > Please change mine to Cuddlebeam instead of Cuddle Beam. Cuddlebeam is my > real

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] can you believe nicknames are entirely undefined?

On 6/12/20 8:41 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote: > Please change mine to Cuddlebeam instead of Cuddle Beam. Cuddlebeam is my > real Agora name, it's a bit annoying that Cuddle Beam keeps being tossed > around. Your email headers have it as "Cuddle Beam", which is probably where the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] can you believe nicknames are entirely undefined?

Please change mine to Cuddlebeam instead of Cuddle Beam. Cuddlebeam is my real Agora name, it's a bit annoying that Cuddle Beam keeps being tossed around. On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 2:54 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/12/20 12:57 AM, Reuben Staley

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Excess Proposals

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 7:05 AM Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 8:07 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via > agora-discussion wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:44 AM Rebecca via agora-business > > wrote: > > > > > > Sorry I retract that proposal and create

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Excess Proposals

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 8:07 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:44 AM Rebecca via agora-business > wrote: > > > > Sorry I retract that proposal and create the following > > > > Title: Chill 2.0 (ironic edition) > > AI: 2 > > Text: Create

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] can you believe nicknames are entirely undefined?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xvsMFiq-NE On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:59 AM Rebecca via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > agora hasnt had one of these in a LONG time > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 2:57 PM Reuben Staley via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] can you believe nicknames are entirely undefined?

agora hasnt had one of these in a LONG time On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 2:57 PM Reuben Staley via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 2020-06-11 22:49, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 2020-06-11 22:26, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > >> -- From R. Lee > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] can you believe nicknames are entirely undefined?

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 2:49 PM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 2020-06-11 22:26, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > > -- From R. Lee > > Who the heck is "R. Lee"? > > -- > Trigon > true -- >From proposal 8440

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling

On 6/11/2020 1:01 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 12:58 PM James Cook via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >>> In general, defining one method for doing something excludes >> "unregulated" >>> methods from working, but

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 12:58 PM James Cook via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > In general, defining one method for doing something excludes > "unregulated" > > methods from working, but doesn't exclude other regulated methods in the > > rules from working. > > > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling

> In general, defining one method for doing something excludes "unregulated" > methods from working, but doesn't exclude other regulated methods in the > rules from working. > > For example, saying (under certain conditions) that the Herald CAN award > Champion by announcement (Rule 2449) doesn't

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling

On 6/11/2020 12:17 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: >>> In fact, I'm a little worried that associating a fee with winning the >>> game might mean you always need to pay that fee to perform that action. >>> E.g. even if you had 20 more victory cards than anyone else, R2579 would >>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling

On 6/11/20 3:17 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > Why does the wording make a difference? > > I thought my comment applied to the 1,000 Coin rule as well, but > didn't bring it up because that's about to be repealed. > > - Falsifian R2125 permits multiple methods and strongly implies

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling

On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 17:36, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/11/2020 10:12 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > >> On Tuesday, 9 June 2020, 20:16:09 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > >> wrote: > >>> On 6/9/2020 11:21 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling

On 6/11/2020 10:12 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Tuesday, 9 June 2020, 20:16:09 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion >> wrote: >>> On 6/9/2020 11:21 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: > A player CAN

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling

> On Tuesday, 9 June 2020, 20:16:09 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On 6/9/2020 11:21 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: > > > I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: > > >> A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels. > > > This is

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Victory auctions

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:42 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > What is AIAN or DADA? Agora is A Nomic and Defense Against the Dark Arts, our two anti-ossification rules. The former makes it impossible to ossify the game and the later punishes people

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Victory auctions

On 6/10/20 4:42 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote: > What is AIAN or DADA? AIAN: Agora Is A Nomic, Rule 1698 DADA (I thought this was used recently, maybe not): Defense Against the Dark Arts, Rule 2617 -- Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Victory auctions

"Agora Is A Nomic" and "Defense Against the Dark Arts". Two rules that prevent Agora from being unable to be modified. On 2020-06-10 14:42, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote: What is AIAN or DADA? On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:41 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Victory auctions

What is AIAN or DADA? On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:41 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/10/20 4:33 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > > > > Enact the following rule "Rule Infancy": > > An Infant Rule is a Rule that has been added to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Victory auctions

On 6/10/20 4:33 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > > Enact the following rule "Rule Infancy": > An Infant Rule is a Rule that has been added to the Ruleset within the > last 90 days. Persons CANNOT perform a scam that relies on an Infant Rule. > This can only override "CAN"s

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Victory auctions

On 6/10/20 3:33 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: >> Any new system always starts with the scams and exploits and rule > lawyering > > And that's undesirable, yes? Well, good thing we're playing a nomic, so > words basically have magical abstract powers - let's just ban scams on new >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Victory auctions

On 6/10/20 2:34 PM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: > On Wednesday, 10 June 2020, 20:07:05 GMT+1, nch via agora-discussion > wrote: >> I actually meant that out of mild frustration. Sets hasn't started and >> we're about to pass a gameplay tweak meant to 'fix' something that's >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Victory auctions

On 6/10/20 2:48 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Of course, "not writing proposals until the new system is tested" was part > of the reason I voted against transmutation;) In my defense (against my own arguments), the proto for transmutation was sent to a-d before Sets 1.3/1.4 were

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Victory auctions

On 6/10/2020 12:39 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/10/20 2:17 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 6/10/2020 12:06 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >>> On 6/10/20 1:23 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: On 2020-06-10 09:51, nch via agora-discussion

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Victory auctions

On 6/10/20 2:17 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 6/10/2020 12:06 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 6/10/20 1:23 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: >>> On 2020-06-10 09:51, nch via agora-discussion wrote: On 6/10/20 10:46 AM, Publius Scribonius

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Victory auctions

On 6/10/2020 12:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 6/10/2020 12:06 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 6/10/20 1:23 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: >>> On 2020-06-10 09:51, nch via agora-discussion wrote: On 6/10/20 10:46 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > On

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Victory auctions

On 6/10/2020 12:06 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/10/20 1:23 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 2020-06-10 09:51, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >>> On 6/10/20 10:46 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via >>> agora-discussion wrote: On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Victory auctions

> On Jun 10, 2020, at 15:07, nch via agora-discussion > wrote: > >  >> On 6/10/20 1:23 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: >>> On 2020-06-10 09:51, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >>> On 6/10/20 10:46 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via >>> agora-discussion wrote: On Wed,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Victory auctions

On 6/10/20 1:23 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2020-06-10 09:51, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 6/10/20 10:46 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via >> agora-discussion wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 11:44 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business >>> wrote:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Victory auctions

On 2020-06-10 09:51, nch via agora-discussion wrote: On 6/10/20 10:46 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 11:44 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: [Submitting because Sets could be resolved at any time and I want to beat that clock.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Victory auctions

On 6/10/2020 8:45 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/10/20 11:42 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >> [Submitting because Sets could be resolved at any time and I want to beat >> that clock. If there are bugs I will try to withdraw/resubmit in time]. > > > I'm waiting

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Victory auctions

On 6/10/20 10:46 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 11:44 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: >> [Submitting because Sets could be resolved at any time and I want to beat >> that clock. If there are bugs I will try to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 4:29 PM grok via agora-business wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020, 3:06 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > what is ISTIDDIES? > > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 9:59 PM Alex Smith via agora-discussion < > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling

what is ISTIDDIES? On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 9:59 PM Alex Smith via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Tuesday, 9 June 2020, 20:16:09 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On 6/9/2020 11:21 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: > > > I submit the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling

On 6/9/20 3:00 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/9/20 2:14 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >>> Is there any reason this isn't just "A player CAN spend 100 barrels to win >>> the game"? >> tbh, because I was a little bored with that stock phrasing, and the >> reaction to it

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling

On 6/9/20 2:14 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> Is there any reason this isn't just "A player CAN spend 100 barrels to win >> the game"? > tbh, because I was a little bored with that stock phrasing, and the > reaction to it from commenters so far shows that IMO we've got a bit of a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling

On Tuesday, 9 June 2020, 20:16:09 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/9/2020 11:21 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: > > I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: > >> A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels. > > This is unusual

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling

On 6/9/2020 11:21 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: > I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: >> A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels. > This is unusual wording for this, and it looks a lot like it would permit a > player to win the game without

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 12:25 PM nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 6/9/20 11:05 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > > > I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: > > > > > > Create a power-1

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling

On 6/9/2020 9:25 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/9/20 11:05 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >> >> I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: >> >> >> Create a power-1 rule, "The General

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 16:25, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/9/20 11:05 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > > > I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: > > > > > > Create a power-1 rule,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation

On 6/8/2020 11:35 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > I opine that the two situations are completely different. In the "WILL" > situation, the change would break composition. Lol I can be equally passionate and reasoned about WILL (mmm, wait a minute...  ok now I can) but in

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 18:44, James Cook wrote: > On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 18:35, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 6/8/2020 11:12 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 18:35, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > On 6/8/2020 11:12 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 7:26 AM Rebecca wrote: > > >> On

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation

On 2020-06-08 12:17, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: On 6/8/2020 11:12 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 7:26 AM Rebecca wrote: On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:14 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: On 6/7/2020 9:36 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: Amend each of Rule 1023 ("Agoran Time"), Rule

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/8/2020 11:12 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 7:26 AM Rebecca wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:14 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >>> On 6/7/2020 9:36 PM, Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation

On 6/8/2020 11:12 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 7:26 AM Rebecca wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:14 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> On 6/7/2020 9:36 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > Amend each of Rule 1023 ("Agoran Time"), Rule 2496 ("Rewards"), and > Rule 2602 ("Glitter"), in

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 7:26 AM Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:14 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > On 6/7/2020 9:36 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > > >> Amend each of Rule 1023 ("Agoran

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:14 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/7/2020 9:36 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > >> Amend each of Rule 1023 ("Agoran Time"), Rule 2496 ("Rewards"), and > >> Rule 2602 ("Glitter"), in that order, by

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation

On 6/7/2020 9:36 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: >> Amend each of Rule 1023 ("Agoran Time"), Rule 2496 ("Rewards"), and >> Rule 2602 ("Glitter"), in that order, by changing the text >> "in an officially timely fashion" to read "in a stately fashion". This is another case (like my

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Executive Expansion

On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 19:29, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 12:24 PM James Cook via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > > - Imprimatur: The Prime Minister acts on behalf of the vote collector > > > of an Agoran Decision to resolve that decision. > > Also

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Executive Expansion

On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 12:24 PM James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > > - Imprimatur: The Prime Minister acts on behalf of the vote collector > > of an Agoran Decision to resolve that decision. > > It worries me that this doesn't say how the decision is resolved. It still works by the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Executive Expansion

On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 12:20 PM James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > > - Corram Vobis: The Prime Minister enters a specified case, the current > > judgement of which was assigned within the past quarter, into Moot. > > Should that be "Coram Nobis" > They're essentially synonyms used

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?

On 2020-06-06 10:52, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: On 6/6/2020 9:33 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: On Saturday, June 6, 2020 10:18:59 AM CDT ATMunn via agora-business wrote: There's absolutely no way this will pass, but I'm going to try it anyways. Aris, I don't remember

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?

On 6/6/2020 11:16 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > If no one else is interested in preparing a draft for this, I’ll get to it > later this weekend. I think the conversation/proto I was misremembering was the discussion around high crimes and treason, so you're the perfect person...

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?

On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 18:17, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > If no one else is interested in preparing a draft for this, I’ll get to it > later this weekend. Thanks! - Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?

If no one else is interested in preparing a draft for this, I’ll get to it later this weekend. > On Jun 6, 2020, at 13:54, James Cook via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 17:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: >> On 6/6/2020 10:28 AM, James Cook via

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?

On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 17:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/6/2020 10:28 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > >>> This is great! but I'm likely to vote AGAINST unless we get a > >>> crime/infraction distinction and this becomes an infraction, i.e. not > >>> actually

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The dumbest idea I've ever had...?

On 6/6/2020 10:28 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: >>> This is great! but I'm likely to vote AGAINST unless we get a >>> crime/infraction distinction and this becomes an infraction, i.e. not >>> actually against the rules. >> >> Is this something that is currently being proposed, or

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >