Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

On Tue, 30 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: > I don't know if this was clear, but the intent of the proposal was > to avoid people getting "stuck" with CFJs they don't wish to judge. > Under this proposal, the only people bothered by a frivolous CFJ > are ais523 and anyone interested in judging

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

I don't know if this was clear, but the intent of the proposal was to avoid people getting "stuck" with CFJs they don't wish to judge. Under this proposal, the only people bothered by a frivolous CFJ are ais523 and anyone interested in judging (assuming others don't mind skipping over the DIS

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

I might be in favor of a change such as`CFJs SHOULD be initiated in a newly named thread, beginning with [CFJ]` so fewer CFJs get `lost` That might make things easier to get a small handle on? On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 1:48 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Since I mentioned it

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

Since I mentioned it in a recent message, thought I'd offer some specific comments. When I had the whole Arbitor job (assign and report), the largest obstacle was formatting the cases at the beginning (collecting them into a big case log and formatting the random conversations into arguments,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal Competition: Treat Agora Right Good Forever

I think we've found a couple of holes in the current ruleset that need patching (I personally have a list of 6 proposals that should go in) I think we've found a couple of places we have some issues: 1 - Maybe we are overworking our officers. 2 - We have many registered players that have made no

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal Competition: Treat Agora Right Good Forever

Erm, funny phrasing given a lack of something is the opposite of a mess :). But if that's the understanding, no worries! I'm concerned at jumping to reforms; for example, the judicial reform proposal IMO seems to be the opposite of reform, by imposing a bunch of structure that won't actually

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal Competition: Treat Agora Right Good Forever

I feel like 'No game play' is a valid mess to be cleaned up. On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:56 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Um, can you specify what "messes" you see that are actually needing clean > up by > rules changes, rather than just being a bit of high-traffic and new

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal Competition: Treat Agora Right Good Forever

I think expanding the economy with a stock market is the best course of action right now. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On May 30, 2017, at 3:54 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Um, can you specify what "messes" you see

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal Competition: Academia

I agree we need something to do, but maybe we need a base proposal that we all agree on before we have a competition towards making that thing better. It seems valid to 'clean up the mess' by giving us something to do (So I don't feel like my new proposal competition suggestion blocks an academic

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] State of the Union

That is the change I have made. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Quazie wrote: > Suggestion: > > For the agency the responsible person is the head. For an organization the > responsible person is either defined by the organization, or

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] State of the Union

Suggestion: For the agency the responsible person is the head. For an organization the responsible person is either defined by the organization, or the player with the highest budget switch if not defined. On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 03:15 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

I like this proposal. It fixes the problem of growing caseloads for judges while still ensuring that important CFJs (those that multiple people have an interest in) get judged. However this proposal does not address the problem of growing caseload for Arbitor and recordkeeping of CFJs. The

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] State of the Union

I like this revision because it seems to have closed the loopholes of the last one. However, one issue I see is if the member of the Organization leaves, it is unclear what occurs. For your ease, I have compiled my suggested revisions below: Create the power-1.5 rule “Internal State” with this

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

I like this, but I think also adding procedural DISMISSALS without objection would be a helpful addition. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On May 30, 2017, at 2:41 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > Bah. > > I retract “Judicial Reform.”

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] State of the Union

I retract “State of the Union." I create this AI-1.5 proposal “State of the Union v2” by Gaelan, PSS and Aris: < Create the power-1.5 rule “Internal State” with this text: { An Agency or Organization’s Internal State is state that is defined by the Agency or Organization’s text (Power or

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

I retract “Judicial Reform.” I create the AI-2 proposal “Judicial Reform v2” by Gaelan, Aris and Quazie with the following text: < Amend R991 “Calls for Judgement” by replacing the last paragraph with { “Judge Status” is a player switch tracked by the Arbitor in eir monthly report, with valid

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

The Academia Proposal Contest is there so perhaps have two levels of Judges? Casual and High/Pro/Superior? Make a Judge-Degree? (Can just be a CFJ test) I definitely think newcomers can handle the more mundane CFJs like CFJ: "can I do this?" *Judge points to a rule, sometimes even two.* "Yes

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 6:17 PM Gaelan Steele wrote: > On May 29, 2017, at 6:04 PM, Aris Merchant < > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Missing a close parenthesis. Why do we need None? Surely any player > could occasionally want to judge a case, so the distinction

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

> On May 29, 2017, at 6:04 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > Missing a close parenthesis. Why do we need None? Surely any player > could occasionally want to judge a case, so the distinction seems > unnecessary. Fair. > I'd also make Wide the default, although

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] State of the Union

I mean, you can just ratify anything without objection. This doesn't really create a new avenue for going around formal procedure. Gaelan > On May 28, 2017, at 2:21 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: > > I don’t like that it is

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Sequential Numbering

I like just reenacting the old one as it allows us to further test reenactments. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Sequential Numbering

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Thu, 25 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: >> I create the proposal “Sequential Numbering” by Gaelan, AI 1: < >> Create the rule “Sequential Numbering,” power 1: { >> >> When the Rulekeepor adds a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: fast resolution 2.0

2.0 isn't "greater than" 2.0. I think you want "greater than or equal to 2.0." -Aris On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > I retract “Fast Resolution.” > > I create this proposal "Fast Resolution, now weaker" by Gaelan with AI 3 { > > Amend rule 107

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: fast resolution 2.0

I retract “Fast Resolution.” I create this proposal "Fast Resolution, now weaker" by Gaelan with AI 3 { Amend rule 107 “Initiating Agoran Decisions” by replacing { The voting period lasts for 7 days. The minimum voting period for a decision with at least two options is five days. } with {

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: fast resolution 2.0

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:05 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > I create this proposal "Fast Resolution" by Gaelan with AI 3.1 { > > > > Create rule "Fast Resolution" (Power 3.1) { > > > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

I just set up an account for Nomic: PubliusScriboniusScholasticus, could I get that added. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:57 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > Yup. I’ve got something pretty close to the SLR generating from YAML files; > that’ll be on

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

Yes. I intend to deputize as soon as the SLR becomes overdue (is it? I thought G. said it wasn’t, but I thought it was). > On May 17, 2017, at 7:59 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > >> On May 17, 2017, at 10:57 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: >> >> Yup. I’ve got

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

> On May 17, 2017, at 10:57 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > Yup. I’ve got something pretty close to the SLR generating from YAML files; > that’ll be on GitHub soon as well. I registered the AgoraNomic organization, > and am happy to give any other officials access. I request

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

Yup. I’ve got something pretty close to the SLR generating from YAML files; that’ll be on GitHub soon as well. I registered the AgoraNomic organization, and am happy to give any other officials access. Gaelan > On May 17, 2017, at 6:19 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > >> On May

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

> On May 17, 2017, at 12:41 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > Very well. I retract my proposal, replacing it with an informal request that > if someone has a machine-readable record they use to generate their report, > they publish it. We shouldn’t expect that to be 100% accurate

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

I concur with o and in my thoughts, the automation would always conform to the game, not the other way around. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 11:10 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > On May 16, 2017, at 12:46 PM, Kerim Aydin

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

On May 16, 2017, at 12:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > An issue I see is things like fluidity of translation; it would require that > we > be VERY strict on things like nicknames. May I recommend reading Allison Parrish’s “Programming is Forgetting”

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

What is the standard way to implement a subgame? Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Tue, 16 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > >> I've long thought that if an action has a sufficiently well-defined >> format, we should

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

On Tue, 16 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote: I've long thought that if an action has a sufficiently well-defined format, we should define a machine-readable format for it and have that action taken by posting that machine-readable string to a PF, rather than by announcement; this is mostly to make it

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

I would be very interested in designing what could begin as a sub-game and depending on how we like it, it may become a major part around this idea. I will work on a proposal on this and a would definitely run for this office. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 2:23 PM,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 11:17 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > I'm a tad worried that this idea is getting close to an entirely > automated system. Anything we come up with has to be opt in only, with > no penalty for not joining. It can't even become a standard > expectation, otherwise we may go the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Tue, 16 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote: >> On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 09:14 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > That said, if an officer figures out a way for some transactions to be >> > truly >> > automated (e.g. enter a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

On Tue, 16 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: > What are the rules for determining the source of a message? Could we have > a web-based form for transferring currency that simultaneously updated the > records and sent an email to the PF "in the name of" whoever was doing the > transferring? If a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Quazie wrote: > It'd be better if a machine did it so everyone can play. > > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:50 AM Nic Evans wrote: >> >> On 05/16/2017 11:53 AM, Alex Smith wrote: >> > On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 09:46 -0700, Kerim

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

It'd be better if a machine did it so everyone can play. On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:50 AM Nic Evans wrote: > On 05/16/2017 11:53 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 09:46 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> An issue I see is things like fluidity of translation; it

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

On 05/16/2017 11:53 AM, Alex Smith wrote: On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 09:46 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: An issue I see is things like fluidity of translation; it would require that we be VERY strict on things like nicknames. If someone entered something like that but left the period off my nickname (G

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

I don't think "machine readable" needs to be defined any more clearly for now—it's a SHOULD, so if you wanted to ignore the rule you'd be perfectly fine anyway. What are the rules for determining the source of a message? Could we have a web-based form for transferring currency that

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 09:46 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > An issue I see is things like fluidity of translation; it would require that > we > be VERY strict on things like nicknames.  If someone entered something like > that > but left the period off my nickname (G instead of G.), it would be

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

On Tue, 16 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 09:14 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > That said, if an officer figures out a way for some transactions to be truly > > automated (e.g. enter a transaction on a website and it gets logged and sent > > to the PF), I'm all for that. > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 09:14 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > That said, if an officer figures out a way for some transactions to be truly > automated (e.g. enter a transaction on a website and it gets logged and sent > to the PF), I'm all for that. I've long thought that if an action has a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

On Mon, 15 May 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > Append the following text to Rule 2143: > > In addition, officers SHOULD provide their reports in a > machine-readable format. This machine-readable report > SHOULD be available on the World Wide Web, and officers SHOULD >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The Lazarus State (revision 2)

You know, I remember my rationale for removing that, and now that it’s been a day or so, I’m not sold on it. Basically: no extant organization is set up to handle Shinies that aren’t paid in very carefully, and I can’t see anyone setting up orgs that are so designed. However, that’s wrong in

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] The Lazarus State (revision 2)

That would be much better. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:49 AM, nichdel wrote: > 'Other tham emself'. Also, why not allow heirs to be organizations? > > Original message > From: Owen Jacobson > Date: 5/3/17

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Granular Payday (v2)

On Tue, 2 May 2017, Nic Evans wrote: > An earlier draft specified 'ratified reports' but then you need to track > ratification date because proposals in the last week of a month wouldn't > get paid until next month. I also considered 'undoubted' which would > stop your plot but it wouldn't stop

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Granular Payday (v2)

On May 2, 2017, at 7:05 PM, Nic Evans wrote: > An earlier draft specified 'ratified reports' but then you need to track > ratification date because proposals in the last week of a month wouldn't > get paid until next month. I also considered 'undoubted' which would > stop your

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Granular Payday (v2)

An earlier draft specified 'ratified reports' but then you need to track ratification date because proposals in the last week of a month wouldn't get paid until next month. I also considered 'undoubted' which would stop your plot but it wouldn't stop someone, namely the secretary, from publishing

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Granular Payday (v2)

On Tue, 2 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > Maybe we should move that back into the ruleset. We purposefully got rid of a bunch of rules interpretation guidance stuff that were basically close-enough-to-common-sense that most/many people would interpret it that way anyway,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Granular Payday (v2)

Maybe we should move that back into the ruleset. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Tue, 2 May 2017, Nic Evans wrote: >> Payrate is currently defined, so my intent was to flip the >> currently-defined payrate

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Granular Payday (v2)

On Tue, 2 May 2017, Nic Evans wrote: > Payrate is currently defined, so my intent was to flip the > currently-defined payrate because I suspect changing the default doesn't > change already set ones (if we interpret them as being set to '5' and > not to 'default'). If the new switch is

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Granular Payday (v2)

Payrate is currently defined, so my intent was to flip the currently-defined payrate because I suspect changing the default doesn't change already set ones (if we interpret them as being set to '5' and not to 'default'). If the new switch is considered separate from the old switch (since I changed

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Granular Payday (v2)

On Tue, 2 May 2017, Quazie wrote: > Question: Are proposals implemented instantaneously or piecemeal?  I would > assume you'd want to flip the switches after they are defined? They are implemented in written order, top-to-bottom. So yes, attempting to flip a switch before it was defined

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Granular Paydays

I'll add that in the morning when I also correct some typos (already turned off the computer). Original message From: Owen Jacobson Date: 5/2/17 00:08 (GMT-06:00) To: Agora Nomic - Discussion Subject: DIS: Re: BUS:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Agoran Education Rethink

I will investigate that change before pending the proposal. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Mon, 1 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> Persons wanting a degree MUST request >> a mentor

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Agoran Education Rethink

Thank you. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote: > "The mentor" instead of "The menter", presumably. > > ~ Roujo > > > On Mon, May 1, 2017, 18:45 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Agoran Education Rethink

"The mentor" instead of "The menter", presumably. ~ Roujo On Mon, May 1, 2017, 18:45 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > What should that say? > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > > On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 3:22 AM, Owen Jacobson

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Agoran Education Rethink

What should that say? Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 3:22 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> The menter SHOULD > > In addition to the adoption index issue already raised, you’ve got a typo > here. > > Otherwise, this looks good! > > -o >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Assets

Yes, indeed. -Aris On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 10:07 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > On Apr 30, 2017, at 12:29 AM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > >> I >> >> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 8:46 PM, Aris Merchant >> wrote: >>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Assets

On Apr 30, 2017, at 12:29 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > I > > On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 8:46 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: >> I propose this, and will pend it tomorrow unless there are corrections. >> >> {{Title: Assets >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Assets

Good catch. I'll add that. -Aris On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > I’d very much like to see nichdel’s points about destruction of Shinies > addressed. Otherwise, this is great; I’d likely vote for it. > > Maybe > > Shinies cannot be destroyed, except

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Pend Tickets (revision 1)

Not to the public forum, I'm afraid. Thank you! -Aris On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 8:19 PM Owen Jacobson wrote: > I withdraw the below-quoted proposal. > > -o > > > On Apr 29, 2017, at 10:54 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > > I submit the following proposal. > > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: To-Do List

Public forum might help. On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 4:28 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I hereby pay 4 shinies to pend this proposal. > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Publius Scribonius

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: To-Do List

On Thu, 2017-04-27 at 22:07 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: > Is it time to do away with the distinction? I appreciate the idea > that proposals should be submitted for consideration before they’re > submitted for voting, but with Agora this small, that appears to > happen through proto-proposals,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mint Chocolate

How much more malleable? Before we enacted the Shiny Supply Level rule, it was possible for any player to adjust Agora’s balance by proposal, with AI=1. The rule doesn’t modify that much, but it increases the minimum Adoption Index to AI=2 (the rule itself is Power 2). I’m skeptical of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mint Chocolate

By my math it's one payday (or less, if we fill some of the vacant offices; or more, if Quazie is ultimately not a player). -o > On Apr 27, 2017, at 2:01 AM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > Sure that's enough? I'd tend to go with 1500, although admittedly the >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Economic Flexibility

On 01/14/2017 01:40 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: Any player’s or organization’s balance, I think? Oh yeah, might as well protect both while we're at it. In effect, Supply Level is a singleton switch, tracked by the Secretary, whose only possible value is 1000. Let me make sure I understand

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Simple Economy, round 2 (this time, for sure!)

On Nov 22, 2016, at 2:41 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > Or, if you want it sooner, I can rush it through, but it won't have the usual > formatting. No, no rush. Thanks, though - I appreciate the offer. -o

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Simple Economy

Owen Jacobson wrote: I’d love to see the ACU retired, or reworked, in light of this; giving ACU members the ability to control the ACU’s accounts by expending their credit balances might be interesting. I might spin up a fractional reserve bank organization, if I can find suitable investment

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Shame

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > Are you sure we want shame on green cards? > Shame, I recall, is the opposite of honor. So it should be on purple cards. OscarMeyr, obscurely referencing a mid-80s CRPG

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Shame

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 4:48 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: Are you sure we want shame on green cards? The whole point of green cards is that they can be given when no punishment is warranted. The way the rules are set up is to require cards, but to allow green cards

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Shame

The Office of the Promotor would also like to express official thanks for your fabulous formating. It makes my life so much easier! :) -Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Shame

> On Nov 6, 2016, at 4:47 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > Are you sure we want shame on green cards? The whole point of green cards is > that they can be given when no punishment is warranted. The way the rules are > set up is to require cards, but to allow

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Simple Economy

I like the basic idea. I tend to agree with the other about the substance, and I'm not much good on technicalities. I do have some worries about the proposal system, and I would be totally against any such restriction on CFJs or the like. A few things about proposals. There was proposal

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Simple Economy

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:26 PM nichdel wrote: > On 11/04/2016 08:05 PM, ais523 wrote: > > The largest problem is that you haven't specified an officer to track > > the switches. > Woops, lost it in editing. Meant to be the Secretary. > > Currencies typically need to have

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Simple Economy

On 11/04/2016 08:05 PM, ais523 wrote: The largest problem is that you haven't specified an officer to track the switches. Woops, lost it in editing. Meant to be the Secretary. Currencies typically need to have multiple dimensions so that a varying exchange rate can be set up between them.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Simple Economy

On 11/04/2016 08:05 PM, ais523 wrote: The largest problem is that you haven't specified an officer to track the switches. Woops, lost it in editing. Meant to be the Secretary. Currencies typically need to have multiple dimensions so that a varying exchange rate can be set up between them. Out

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal season

On Oct 28, 2016, at 10:00 AM, Luis Ressel wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 22:46:13 -0400 > Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> On Oct 26, 2016, at 12:00 PM, Luis Ressel wrote: >> >>> the map "t |-> max(14,t+2)" is applied >> >> Oh, come on. > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal season

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 00:40:03 -0700 Aris Merchant wrote: > Am I the only one who doesn't understand what this even means? Best > guess is t+2 to a maximum of 14, but the internet isn't that clear > on this. I think map may have different meanings in different

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal season

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 22:46:13 -0400 Owen Jacobson wrote: > On Oct 26, 2016, at 12:00 PM, Luis Ressel wrote: > > > the map "t |-> max(14,t+2)" is applied > > Oh, come on. > What? I attempted to write this in natural language, but it'd have taken at least

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal season

> On Oct 26, 2016, at 12:00 PM, Luis Ressel > wrote: > > the map "t |-> max(14,t+2)" is applied > > > Am I the only one who doesn't understand what this even means? Best guess is t+2 to a maximum of 14, but the internet isn't that

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal Season Pt II

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 10:57:16 -0700 (PDT) Kerim Aydin wrote: > Some possibly useful generalization: > > A boolean switch is a switch with values True and False. A > positive boolean switch has a default of True; a negative > boolean switch has a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal season

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016, Luis Ressel wrote: > On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 18:00:58 +0200 > Luis Ressel wrote: > > > and the map "t |-> max(14,t+2)" is applied to eir Ribbon > > Threshold. > > Btw, I'm aware it hasn't been defined anywhere what "applying a map" > actually

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: require

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, Owen Jacobson wrote: > What’s the protocol here? Resubmit with (A) a fixed Subject: header and (B) > AI=3? Don't worry about subject header; just retract and then propose anew (can have the same name, but a courtesy is to add a "v2" or similar for clarity). For

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: require

On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 00:59 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: > Re-reading rule 106 suggests that the power of the proposed or > amended rule is the minimum AI for the proposal, is this the only > condition I missed last time around? You're missing rule 2140, which is really the heart of the Power

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: require

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 12:50 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> Title: FOR Require Intent on Ballots >> Adoption index: 1.0 >> Author: o >> Co-author(s): >> >> Replace the text of rule 683 'Voting on Agoran Decisions' with: > > Rule

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Clearer Registrar Responsibilities

Ørjan Johansen writes: > On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Jack Henahan wrote: > >> I believe cygneus is an adjective meaning "swan-like". Cantus Cygnei, >> then, would be "Song of the swan-like things", > > It would mean "swan-like songs", surely? There is no genitive there, > unlike

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Clearer Registrar Responsibilities

On 08/10/2016 08:16 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Jack Henahan wrote: I believe cygneus is an adjective meaning "swan-like". Cantus Cygnei, then, would be "Song of the swan-like things", It would mean "swan-like songs", surely? There is no genitive there, unlike with

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Clearer Registrar Responsibilities

I believe cygneus is an adjective meaning "swan-like". Cantus Cygnei, then, would be "Song of the swan-like things", whereas Cantus Cygni would be "swan's song". A more classically poetic translation might be "carmen cygni". Ørjan Johansen writes: > On Wed, 10 Aug 2016,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 6:15 AM, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote: I thought (and Wikipedia agrees) that IRV stages without a majority winner (which includes any with a top tie) choose (one or more) losers, not a winner. Ah, yes. Thinko.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:22 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: (d) If the valid options are ordered lists of preferences, the outcome is decided using instant-runoff voting. In case

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:10 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 6:15 AM, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote: I thought (and Wikipedia agrees) that IRV stages without a majority winner (which includes any with a top tie) choose (one or more) losers, not a winner.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

Also, has Agora tried approval voting lately? I think it's snazzy. —the Warrigal

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal AI review

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, omd wrote: On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: On Wed, 2015-07-15 at 21:52 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote: The last ratified ruleset was published on April 7, 2014. Since then, the following proposals have been adopted without having had an

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal AI review

On Thu, 16 Jul 2015, Alex Smith wrote: On Wed, 2015-07-15 at 19:43 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, omd wrote: On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: Alternatively, you're trying to take the minimum of 4 and an undefined value. I'd have

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal AI review

On Wed, 2015-07-15 at 19:43 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, omd wrote: On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: Alternatively, you're trying to take the minimum of 4 and an undefined value. I'd have thought the most sensible resolution of this

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PROPOSAL: Into the 21st century

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, Gaelan Steele wrote: I think it’s time we allow HTML reports. I submit this proposal: Argh, please don't. Since I access my old NVG account only through ssh, I use a terminal-based mail reader (alpine), and although it

<    5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   >