Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Cancelling Erroneous Proposals

The main reason for doing it this way was that I wanted to make sure the Assessor had an active role in the cancellation, because otherwise it's easy to miss. When I was Assessor I found it near-impossible to keep up with the discussion surrounding votes in real-time, and generally just counted

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Cancelling Erroneous Proposals

Actually, I'm worried about the other direction, given the Assessor's unique position at being able to be the first to benefit from an adopted proposal. Scenario: Player proposes something. Player realizes that, if it passes, a really bad scam is possible. Player issues cancellation notice.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Cancelling Erroneous Proposals

Other than implementation error what's a worst case scenario - assessor kills eir own proposal that "needs" to pass for some game reason, meaning someone else can propose it (up to 2-week delay)? Doesn't seem like a big source of abuse. One simple option is require it to be done with Support

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Cancelling Erroneous Proposals

Clarification: I mean, what should happen? Right now the answer is clear that the Assessor gets to deal with eir own cancellation motion, which may not be the best idea. Jason Cobb On 7/27/19 1:35 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: Sorry that I didn't think of this earlier, but what happens when the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 1:25 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > 4. Any player CAN create a gift in eir possession by announcement. > > 5. A player CANNOT create a gift by any means. On further thought, this version might end up being IRRELEVANT. A judge might say "gifts are a contract currency entirely

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Publish/Announce definition fix

It's probably not a bad idea, but I think there's a lot of judicial precedent on what exactly counts for messages, and I wouldn't want to accidentally nuke that. Although I'm sure you know a lot more about that than I do, so I'd love help (from anyone) codifying the precedent here. Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

Doing it by proposal is better for two reasons, one I get moneeey and two I think ratifying something objectively untrue should only be done in real emergencies, which is not so here On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 9:22 AM Rebecca wrote: > I retract the second "spaceships" > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

I’d prefer to add them all back to the pool as a batch (it feels cleaner). So R. Lee, if you still want to do this by proposal, I’d prefer it if you’d retract the new one and just let me reinsert the old. -Aris On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 7:00 PM D. Margaux wrote: > R Lee- I think you could

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

R Lee- I think you could accomplish the same outcome quicker by ratifying the space ships into existence without objection On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 6:33 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > The promotor can put the old one back up for a vote again (once), since > the outcome was FAILED QUORUM. > > Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal pool CoE

On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 2:02 PM James Cook wrote: > > On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 07:02, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > You're right. I was waiting for the dust to settle before trying to > > sort things out. Does the following look correct? > > > > Also, feel free to just withdraw "no power is all

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal pool CoE

On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 07:02, Aris Merchant wrote: > You're right. I was waiting for the dust to settle before trying to > sort things out. Does the following look correct? > > Also, feel free to just withdraw "no power is all powerful" if you > want to; it would simplify things a bit in some

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal AI Fix

Is there a judgment on whether a proposal can have an adoption index of "none"? The one CFJ I can think of was on elections, nothing to do with proposals. G. initiated a proposal with AI="none". As far as I know, nobody challenged that, and, if adopted, it would have some interesting effects

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal AI Fix

The current standing judgements AFAICT are "ain't broke - don't fix". This relies on assuming "no AI" == "AI='none'" but two judges have agreed with that reading. On 7/1/2019 11:32 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: I don’t think this is a great idea. It seems like a rather large addition of rule text

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal AI Fix

I think it's good to prohibit "none" from being an AI for a proposal - it makes it easier to reason about the rest of the Rules that touch proposals, and it might make bugs less likely for later changes that touch AIs - you don't have to think about proposals having an AI of "none" (even if an

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Regulated actions reform

Oh, I didn't even think of forbiddenness as being a property. Attempt #3: When a binding entity explicitly defines an action, describes the possibility of performing an action, or describes the methods by which an action can be performed, it creates an action that is distinct from

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Regulated actions reform

There’s a slight problem with that wording. It doesn’t have to purport to define or describe it, it just has to do so. Purporting to define or describe something would be saying “I describe X”. Also, you’ve got to make sure you phrase it in a way that allows entities to refer to actions defined by

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Regulated actions reform

I think you're right about the first sentence. I believe it made more sentence in v0, where there was some context about defining actions. The intent was to basically say that, when a binding entity creates an action (either by explicit definition, or by describing its properties), it "owns"

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Regulated actions reform

On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 04:33, Jason Cobb wrote: > Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a binding entity CAN only > require or forbid an action that it does not define; it CANNOT > modify anything else about the action in any way. I don't understand this part. As far as I can tell,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Regulated actions reform

Okay, I've done to v2 what I already did to v0: kill the scope creep. It was much less extreme this time, but I realized that the scope creeped into contract safety. This version is basically just fixing interpretation and expanding some useful clauses to apply to more than just the Rules.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Regulated actions reform

I think the main issue with contracts is that there are fairly complex desires for what we want them to do. The changes to R1742 ensure that they can prohibit/require anything that the Rules define, which I think is desirable. If that's all we wanted contracts to be able to do, then that would

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Regulated actions reform

In large part, it’s the whole thing together. It feels like a complex set of changes across multiple rules. The fact that such a change is necessary suggests that the entire approach is inelegant. In general, the best approaches to solving problems require relatively few rule changes, and it feels

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Regulated actions reform

Thanks! Responses inline again. Jason Cobb On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:57 PM Jason Cobb wrote: A contract CAN define and regulate the following actions, except that the performance of them must include at least clearly and unambiguously announcing the performance of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Regulated actions reform

It’s getting to the point where this is feeling inelegant again, which is usually a very bad sign. -Aris On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:57 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > Here's v2 for further comment. Since we've got a while before the next > distribution, I'll leave it up for much longer. > > omd: any of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Regulated actions reform

On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:57 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > A contract CAN define and regulate the following actions, except > that the performance of them must include at least clearly and > unambiguously announcing the performance of the action: What does it mean to "define" an

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Regulated actions reform

Here's v2 for further comment. Since we've got a while before the next distribution, I'll leave it up for much longer. omd: any of your previous comments that I did not specify a resolution for are resolved as WONTFIX (I think it's just inextricable conditionals and not regulating matters of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Rule 2479 Cleanup

Sorry! Will do. Jason Cobb On 6/22/19 9:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: Note from the Office of the Promotor: Please don't use the > style quote formatting again. It makes text formatting a nightmare, and stops me from wrapping lines. -Aris On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 5:01 PM Jason Cobb wrote:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Rule 2479 Cleanup

Note from the Office of the Promotor: Please don't use the > style quote formatting again. It makes text formatting a nightmare, and stops me from wrapping lines. -Aris On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 5:01 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > Oh, I meant to make it say "player" instead of "person who plays the >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Regulated actions reform

I think it's okay, given that that clause has an explicit "To the extent specified by the Rules". Jason Cobb On 6/22/19 1:00 AM, omd wrote: On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:55 PM Jason Cobb wrote: Contracts CAN require or forbid actions that are defined in other binding

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Regulated actions reform

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:55 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > > >> Contracts CAN require or forbid actions that are defined in > >> other binding entities. To the extent specified by the Rules, > >> contracts CAN define or regulate other actions. Any actions that > >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation

But messes are more fun... On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 2:55 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Done right, it might remove net text. Things that are obvious and > known by all should not be codified; the record will show you that > this is no so such thing. Implicit

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:44 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > > I wasn't intending to refer to that definition. By "game-defined > > action" I simply mean an action which is defined by the game, i.e. > > which exists as a platonic entity because of a definition found in the > > rules. I admit this

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation

Done right, it might remove net text. Things that are obvious and known by all should not be codified; the record will show you that this is no so such thing. Implicit doctrines create messes. They have their place, but they should be codified and made binding law. -Aris On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Regulated actions reform

Thanks! Responses inline. Jason Cobb On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:03 PM Jason Cobb wrote: Contracts CAN define new actions. These actions CAN only be sequences of actions that are game-defined, but may include conditionals, repetition, and other similar constructs.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:26 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > This leaves it undefined what a game-defined action is. In particular, > the new version of the rules leaves it unclear whether it's possible to > attempt to do something that's not defined by the rules but which would > change the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation

I would oppose this because of my usual opposition to rules that state things that are obvious and known by all, the fact that I am Oath-bound to vote AGAINST proposals that add net text, and the fact that rules are not fun and implied doctrines are very fun. On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 2:33 PM Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation

I wasn't intending to refer to that definition. By "game-defined action" I simply mean an action which is defined by the game, i.e. which exists as a platonic entity because of a definition found in the rules. I admit this could be made more explicit. Without defining "game-defined", arguably

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:33 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > This leaves it undefined what a game-defined action is. > It was a term of art that my proposal would have created. Just > incorporating my definition here doesn't work as it was "An action is > game-defined if and only if it is a regulated

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation

This leaves it undefined what a game-defined action is. It was a term of art that my proposal would have created. Just incorporating my definition here doesn't work as it was "An action is game-defined if and only if it is a regulated action of some binding entity." That obviously doesn't help

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation

There should likely at least be a reference to recordkeepor information. If this gets included, could your proposal clearly resolve CFJ 3740 in the new Ruleset, please? Jason Cobb On 6/22/19 12:26 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 21:20 -0700, omd wrote: Proposal:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Rule 2479 Cleanup

Instead of this: > The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose >Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by announcement. I would recommend moving "by announcement" like so: > The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, by announcement > impose

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ruleset Ratification

e's right though - having those R101/R1698 up front in their own section is a better intro to the whole spirit of the thing than what I had. On 3/3/2019 9:34 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: Looks like I put it as the second rule when I did my big reorganization after becoming Rulekeepor. It wasn’t

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ruleset Ratification

Looks like I put it as the second rule when I did my big reorganization after becoming Rulekeepor. It wasn’t a drastic change, though—G has it as the sixth. Gaelan > On Mar 2, 2019, at 9:29 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > > On another note, whose idea was it to put rule 1698 as the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ruleset Ratification

> Indeed, but I thought I'd point it out so that people were aware. > > In general, rule 1698 triggers should be avoided as much as possible. > The problem is that it (intentionally) defeats Agora's existing > mechanisms for ensuring that we know what the gamestate is; it's better > to have an

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ruleset Ratification

On Sun, 2019-03-03 at 05:16 +, James Cook wrote: > On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 05:23, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk > wrote: > > That said, there is a possible failure state: if every player has at > > least 13 Blots, and nobody has any Ribbons, the adoption of a proposal > > within four weeks would

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Proposal Versions

I understand the proposal is flawed but Telnaior is space-bullying me and this fixes my problem. On 2/5/19 3:28 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: I’m against the Space bullying thing because I believe it’s more interesting if that was achieved via contracts and such. (Our own Geneva Convention of a sort,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Birthdays II

On Tue, 18 Dec 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote: > I feel like the first one is more of a birthday—the day you first became > a part of Agora is a lot more momentous than the last time you were> > involved in some deregistration scam (or even the last time you came back). > As for unknown birthdays,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Birthdays II

I feel like the first one is more of a birthday—the day you first became a part of Agora is a lot more momentous than the last time you were involved in some deregistration scam (or even the last time you came back). As for unknown birthdays, maybe we could fall back to date of first message to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Birthdays II

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: Using the Registrar's monthly report, my Agoran birthdays would be: 4-Feb-01, 14-Jul-03, 23-Feb-07, 27-Oct-07, 19-Jun-08, 4-May-09, 29-Oct-09, 18-Oct-11 and 25-Aug-17. You may want to use "day e most recently registered" or "day e first registered"?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Birthdays II

On Sat, 15 Dec 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > Enact a new rule entitled "Birthday Gifts", power=1, with the text: > It is considered to be a player's Agoran Birthday when on the > Agoran day e registered, if it is also a different Agoran year. > Exactly once each time it is a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Birthdays II

I thought that might have been the case. I wasn't sure what to say, really, because I didn't want to make you look stupid, but I didn't want the proposal to fail for no good reason :P On 12/15/2018 5:02 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: ATMunn: I pasted the wrong thing and that's why it's the same.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Coauthors deserve something.

No. I don't really actually care about this proposal. I just thought of it on a whim and this week was slow. On 12/15/18 2:56 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: The traditional objection raised against this is that it encourages schemes where one lists someone as a coauthor in exchange for them doing

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Birthdays II

Or, you could just say “on each anniversary of eir registration”, which is a lot clearer, IMO. -Aris On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 1:52 PM ATMunn wrote: > I think that's the exact same as the first one? Sorry if I wasn't clear. > I wasn't making a suggestion of what it should be changed to, I was >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Birthdays II

I think that's the exact same as the first one? Sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't making a suggestion of what it should be changed to, I was showing the weirdness. I think just getting moving the "if" to before the "when" should work. On 12/15/2018 4:22 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: pf On

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Birthdays II

I retract the last one and submit this one: Title: Happy Birthday To You Author: Trigon Coauthors: ATMunn AI: 1 Enact a new rule entitled "Birthday Gifts", power=1, with the text: It is considered to be a player's Agoran Birthday when on the Agoran day e registered, if it is

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Let's do some space

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Perform the following action for each player, iterating over them in order of the days of the year (1 January to 31 December) on which they most recently registered, breaking ties in order of the times at which they most recently registered. [Does

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Quick proposals

Should clarify that this doesn’t include year. Like the idea. Gaelan > On Nov 9, 2018, at 7:02 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > it is > the exact date e did so

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Quick proposals

The word players is is plural, the word eir is singular. -Aris On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 7:02 PM Reuben Staley wrote: > I submit the following proposal: > > - > Title: Happy Birthday To You > Author: Trigon > Coauthors: > AI: 1 > > Enact a new rule entitled "Birthday Gifts", power=1, with the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Quick proposals

On Saturday, November 3, 2018 2:41 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: > * Having a Thesis pass peer-review and be granted a Degree based > on its merit: 20 shinies Apparently we call these "coins" now. -twg

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Quick proposals

Invariably, I have made a mistake in the following proposal. So I'm asking for contributions before submitting it. - Title: Reinstituting Rewards AI: 1 Author: Trigon Coauthors: [ COMMENT: For those of you who know that I really liked the rewards system from last year, this shouldn't

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Quick proposals

Once again, Ørjan is correct. I retract my most recently submitted proposal and submit the following one: - Title: High-level asset verbs AI: 3 Author: Trigon Coauthors: [ COMMENT: This terminology is ripped from the coins rule and applies to all assets. I really like this one. ] Amend

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Quick proposals

On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote: Is this really what you want? Gaelan On Nov 1, 2018, at 3:37 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: 2. For each office, if a single player held that office for 16 or more days in the previous month and no unforgivable fines were levied on em for

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Quick proposals

Is this really what you want? Gaelan > On Nov 1, 2018, at 3:37 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > 2. For each office, if a single player held that office for 16 or > more days in the previous month and no unforgivable fines were > levied on em for eir conduct in that office during

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Quick proposals

Retracting doesn't un-pend it, it removes it from the proposal pool. See rule 2350, the last paragraph: "The author of a proposal in the Proposal Pool CAN remove (syn. retract, withdraw) it from the Pool by announcement." On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 00:17 Gaelan Steele wrote: > Pending’s gone, so can

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Quick proposals

Pending’s gone, so can you retract? Gaelan > On Oct 31, 2018, at 10:41 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > Right you are, Ørjan. I retract the two proposals I have most recently > submitted and instead submit the following two: > > - > Title: Only proposals should be distributed > AI: 1 >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Slow your quorum

Yes that occurred to me too. I think if this proposal is adopted the quorum will basically always be 2. On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 8:50 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, Edward Murphy wrote: > > > I submit the following proposal and destroy the minimum amount of paper > > required to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Minimalist Contracts v2

You never pended it, but you most certainly created it, which adds it to the proposal pool. To quote your message "I create and intend to Rubberstamp in my capcity as Notary without 3 objections the following proposal." -Aris On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:38 PM Ned Strange wrote: > > I never

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

Yeah that's right, I've certainly come across that distinction playing games like magic: the gathering. But there is still a difference which there isn't here. In that game, if you play a card that you can't, it goes back to your hand. If you cheat, you get kicked out of the store. The cards

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

Sure that works too. I just think CAN is way overloaded so I prefer very distinct redirections with distinct names, but that's a style thing. Regardless, main point is that you need to amend R2466. Impossible versus Illegal is a distinction common to boardgames, though it's not often

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

Can't we just amend rule 2466 "If the rules mean that someone CAN act on behalf". Obviously this allow/permit language is troubling because the illegality/impossibility distinction we have is really just not used in the English language in general. You could say "parking here is not permitted" but

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

I wanted to emphasize the CAN issue here because it actually leads to the opposite result of what you want! R2466 says if a rules 'allows' someone to act on behalf... that they CAN by announcement [with these results]. The current R2532 directly references this text by using 'is allowed' to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > If we're going with the penalties transfer option, it probably makes sense > to say somewhere that the class of crime committed is equal to the one that > the person acted on behalf of was induced to commit. > > -Aris It might be easiest to do this

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

If we're going with the penalties transfer option, it probably makes sense to say somewhere that the class of crime committed is equal to the one that the person acted on behalf of was induced to commit. -Aris On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 6:15 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > The

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

If that's true in general, then people aren't culpable for contracts that allow others to break the rules on their behalf. I don't really think that's fair, -Aris On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 4:44 AM Corona wrote: > Perhaps there should be something explicitly saying

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Blot Expansion v2

When we last had shambling entities we had a rule that any punishments for crimes transferred to the master. Worth doing. On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > Oh, dang it, forgot to hand incense out to existing players. Without > objection, I'm going to make it non-zombie players only,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Learn from our friends

On Sun, 1 Apr 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote: > I retract the proposal “Cross-Polination". (Side note: I have five ribbons, > so if I did > have a scam against the proposal process, the festival wouldn’t have helped). Yeah I counted Ribbons - it was mainly in case your listed BlogNomic coauthors

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Learn from our friends

On Sun, 2018-04-01 at 16:17 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote: > Now that April Fools Day is over (in UTC, anyway), I would like to > make clear that I have no intention of voting for this proposal. The > caution probably warranted, however. It'd probably make more sense to withdraw the proposal, in

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Learn from our friends

Oh for the love of the light. Good one, you had me worried there. Are you actually going to retract it so we can stand down the disruptive anti-scam measure (e.g. the festival)? -Aris On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 4:17 PM Gaelan Steele wrote: > Now that April Fools Day is over (in

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: PAoaM Patch v4

Many things were broken. See, for instance, this [1] thread (~20 emails), this [2] message, this [3] message, and this [4] message (last one fixed separately). In short, this proposal ensures all of the enacted rule are actually enacted with the right text, and then fixes all of the other bugs we

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Hopefully routine fixes

On Sun, 24 Dec 2017, ATMunn wrote: > When would a player not be eligible for being assigned a CFJ? Later in the same paragraph of - the caller and the barred person are ineligible.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ribbon Auctions

(Still skimming through a-d messages from my walkabout period, still have 20 Nov through 30 Nov left.) ATMunn wrote: >> I'm also uncomfortable with having the Ribbon rule mention Shinies; >> it's intended to work long-term even if the ruleset changes beneath >> it. I wouldn't know how to do

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] ADoP rule fix

On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 at 12:36 ATMunn wrote: > I'm aware that there's already a rule that says that the ADoP tracks > Complexity, but the purpose of this proposal was to have that in two places > so future ADoPs don't make a mistake by not realizing that it needs to be >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Everything is fine

Oh yeah, I just meant _a_ win. Record it however you wish. On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > > I create the following proposal. Everything is fine. This is not an > attempt > > to win the Order of the Occult

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ribbon Auctions

I don't think Black would necessarily be a "scam ribbon". One could obtain the Black Ribbon by a completely honest proposal - they would just have to incentivize other players to vote for it. True, the "incentive" may take the form of money, but also endorsements on other votes etc. I'm for

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ribbon Auctions

I wouldn't know how to do this without mentioning Shinies. I'm alright if this doesn't pass; it's my first real controversial proposal, and I feel that having proposals fail here and there is no less a part of Agora, or any Nomic, than having them pass. On 11/17/2017 8:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

Oh my bad, I missed that you fixed that. On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 at 18:06 Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 at 02:24 VJ Rada wrote: > > > I create the following > > > > Title: Really minor fixes > > > > This appears to duplicate everything. >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

Judgment is actually spelled correctly in rule 991. I believe both spellings are actually correct; however "judgment" seems to be preferred. However, the name of the rule does use "Judgement," so it might still be good to do what you did to keep things consistent. On 11/14/2017 2:25 AM, VJ

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Rules are repealable now

It's not in the list of things to which Cleanup Time applies. On Tue, Nov 7, 2017, 01:45 VJ Rada, wrote: > "You're missing a full stop and a capital letter." > > I'm not missing a capital actually. It's a cont​inuation of a sentence, and > the other bullet points are also

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Rules are repealable now

"You're missing a full stop and a capital letter." I'm not missing a capital actually. It's a cont​inuation of a sentence, and the other bullet points are also sans capital. I'm not spending 2 shinies to fix a full stop, sorry. This is something easily fixable by the rulekeepor via Cleanup Time.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Rules are repealable now

Better to be fully explicit about a textual change here rather than risking it failing due to ambiguity. On Tue, Nov 7, 2017, 01:42 Alex Smith, wrote: > On Tue, 2017-11-07 at 17:31 +1100, VJ Rada wrote: > > I create the following and pend it w/ shinies > > > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Community Chest Repeal

I retract Community Chest Repeal and submit and pend the following. Title: Community Chest Repeal AI: 2 Text: Repeal rule 2508, "Community Chest" Amend rules 2510 "Such is Karma" and 2511 "Karmic Balance" in numerical order by replacing any instances of the phrases "the Community Chest" and "The

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Community Chest Repeal

On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 at 00:53 VJ Rada wrote: > Do I have to say them seperately? > Or specify an order. Rule 105 specifies that they must happen serially, not simultaneously, and that any ambiguity (in this case, as to order) causes the rule change to fail. Usually, for

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Deregistration Less Stupid

Agoran Consent includes Without Objection anyway - 1 support vs 0 object is a pass no matter the level of consent required. On 2017-10-31 22:37, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: What I am saying is continue to allow it without objection, in addition to the allowance for Agoran Consent.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Deregistration Less Stupid

What I am saying is continue to allow it without objection, in addition to the allowance for Agoran Consent. On 10/31/2017 07:36 AM, Madeline wrote: > Without Objection is how it is now (and people who object to > deregistering ANYONE keep that from working as intended), 2 Agoran > Consent seems

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Deregistration Less Stupid

Without Objection is how it is now (and people who object to deregistering ANYONE keep that from working as intended), 2 Agoran Consent seems a little... too easy? 3 is how much you'd need to do it by proposal, and given that Agoran Consent is a little easier than that anyway it seems fitting

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] FV Restoration

I point the finger at Aris for failing to distribute the below proposal. On 10/29/2017 3:34 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: I missed this. I'll distribute it with my proposal pool, which may be a little late (please don't point a finger at me anyone), but should be coming out in the next ~24 hours.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] FV Restoration

Just noting that my policy, unlike o's, is to keep track more closely of missed obligations, and I now am aware of this possible one. I cannot see myself imposing anything other than a green card here, however. On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Aris Merchant

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

I retract the proposal "Way More Controversial Version of the Above" for real this time. On 10/26/2017 8:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: NttPF. -Aris On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:53 PM, ATMunn wrote: Ah. I retract the below proposal. I didn't pend it anyway, and

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

It is certainly a restricted action. It modifies information I'm required to recordkeep, and it is enabled by the rules. -Aris On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:06 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > Retraction of Proposals is not informal! > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Publius Scribonius

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

Thank you, I have checked the ruleset and you are correct. I thought that it was not required to be by announcement, but I was incorrect. On 10/26/2017 09:06 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > Retraction of Proposals is not informal! > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

Retraction of Proposals is not informal! On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > But retraction is itself informal. > > > On 10/26/2017 08:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: >> NttPF. >> >> -Aris >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at

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