BUS: Re: Proposal - Unradiance
There doesn't seem to be a cost to giving people more options like this, so
I'll just give this a shot too:
I create and submit the following Proposal:
Title: Unradiance v2
AI: 1.0
Author: Yachay
Co-Authors: None
{
>From rule 2657, remove "* Being the author of a proposal that takes
effect, at the instant it finishes taking effect: 4 (must specify
proposal number)"
}
On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 3:19 PM Yachay Wayllukuq
wrote:
> I create and submit the following Proposal:
>
> Title: Unradiance
> AI: 1.0
> Author: Yachay
> Co-Authors: None
>
> {
>
> Repeal Rule 2657
>
> }
>
>
>
>
BUS: Re: [Proposal] strength to the people
Third time's the charm? I withdraw my proposal Populist Priming. I submit the following proposal: -- Title: A Populist PM AI: 2 Author: G. Coauthor: Janet Amend Rule 2451 (Executive Orders) by appending the following list item: - Proxy (Assessor): The Prime Minister specifies another active player. A player's voting strength on an ordinary referendum is increased by 4 for each time Proxy was specified for em in its voting period. --
BUS: Re: [Proposal] strength to the people
[Since we're going through an extra-pedantic period on R105...] I withdraw my proposal Populist Priming and submit the following proposal: -- Title: Populist Priming AI: 2 Author: G. Amend Rule 2451 (Executive Orders) by appending the following list item: - Proxy (Assessor): The Prime Minister specifies another active player. That player's voting strength on every ordinary referendum in its voting period is increased by 4. --
BUS: Re: [Proposal] An exercise in patience
> On Jul 1, 2022, at 8:12 PM, secretsnail9 wrote:
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {
> Title: Stacking Stones
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: secretsnail
> Co-authors:
>
> Enact a new rule with title "Balancing Act" and the following text:
> {
>
> "Stone Above" is a stone switch with possible values of any stone and none
> (default).
>
> A stone's props are any stones that have that stone or any of that stone's
> props as a their value of Stone Above.
>
> If a stone's Stone Above is ever one of its props, its Stone Above is set to
> none.
>
> A stone that has 3 or more props is immune.
>
> When a stone is wielded, for each of that stone's props, the wielder CAN
> cascade that prop by announcement in the same message, specifying any values
> needed to interpret the prop's effects.
>
> When a stone is cascaded, the Rule defining that stone applies the effects in
> that stone's scroll.
>
> A player CAN set the Stone Above of a stone they own to another stone they
> own, with 14 days notice.
>
> }
>
> --
> secretsnail
I withdraw the above proposal.
I submit the following proposal:
{
Title: Stacking Stones v1.1
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: secretsnail
Co-authors:
Enact a new rule with title "Balancing Act" and the following text:
{
"Stone Above" is a stone switch tracked by the Stonemason with possible values
of any stone and none (default).
A stone's props are any stones that have that stone or any of that stone's
props as a their value of Stone Above.
If a stone's Stone Above is ever one of its props, its Stone Above is set to
none.
A stone that has 3 or more props is immune.
When a stone is wielded, the wielder CAN cascade one of that stone's props by
announcement in the same message, specifying any values needed to interpret the
prop's effects.
When a stone is cascaded, the Rule defining that stone applies the effects in
that stone's scroll.
A player CAN set the Stone Above of a stone they own to another stone they own,
with 13 days notice, provided e has not set a Stone Above switch in the past 14
days.
[Note intents expire after 14 days.]
}
I submit the following proposal:
{
Title: Pebble Throwing
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: secretsnail
Co-authors:
Enact a new rule with title "Take Aim" and the following text:
{
A player CAN throw a specified stone e owns at another specified stone (the
target) that has at least 1 prop, by announcement. When e does so, the thrown
stone is transferred to Agora, eir score is increased by the number of props
the target has, and then all of those props have their Stone Above set to none.
}
}
--
secretsnail
BUS: Re: (proposal) I LOVE SPAGHETTI
On 9/17/2021 12:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I may close this offer early by announcement > (to meet the 4-day publication minimum for rule changes, if > there are any in the clauses). hm, slight modification: I can't guarantee that I will post the final clause document in time to meet the 4-day rule change requirement entirely within the voting period. If you submit a rule change I'll remind you of that before taking your money :). (Here's the clause, from R105): A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise take effect.
BUS: Re: [proposal] The Name of the Win Cards [attn. Promotor]
On 6/6/21 15:27, Jason Cobb wrote:
> I submit (but do not pend) the following proposal (stolen from Trigon
> with permission):
>
> Title: The Name of the Win Cards
>
> Adoption index: 3
>
> Author: Jason
>
> Coauthors: Trigon
>
> {
>
> In ascending numerical order, amend each enacted rule by
> case-insensitively replacing, as a single amendment per Rule:
>
> * "Victory Card" with "Win Card"
> * "Victory Point" with "Winsome"
> * "Extra Vote" with "Votive"
>
>
> [This introduces more whimsy into the asset names and means that Voting
> Card and Victory Card are no longer both VCs.]
>
> }
>
I submit the following proposal (stolen from Trigon with permission) and
pay a fee of one pendant to cause it to become pending:
Title: The Name of the Win Cards v2
Adoption index: 3
Author: Jason
Coauthors: Trigon
{
In ascending numerical order, amend each enacted rule by
case-insensitively replacing, as a single amendment per Rule:
* "Victory Card" with "Win Card"
* "Victory Point" with "Winsome"
* "Extra Vote" with "Votive"
Win Card balances are hereby set to what Victory Card balances were at
the time immediately before this proposal began taking effect.
Winsome balances are hereby set to what Victory Point balances were at
the time immediately before this proposal began taking effect.
Votive balances are hereby set to what Extra Vote balances were at the
time immediately before this proposal began taking effect.
[This introduces more whimsy into the asset names and means that Voting
Card and Victory Card are no longer both VCs.]
}
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: Re: [proposal] more warranty work
Actually, acting too quickly, apologies to H. Promotor Aspen. Thought there was a text issue, but not really. I hereby submit a proposal with the same specifications as the proposal I created below. On 9/4/2021 1:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I withdraw this proposal. -G. > > > On 9/4/2021 1:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> [I'll pay to pend this one after any comments come in]. >> >> >> I submit the following proposal, "another device defect", AI-1: >> >> --- >> Amend Rule 2655 by replacing: >> responsible for building and maintaining the Device. >> with: >> responsible for building, tracking, and maintaining the Device. >> >> and by deleting: >> This intent announcement counts as the Mad >> Engineers's weekly report. >> >> [with the reporting duty for the device status added, by default a weekly >> switch value report, we no longer need this intent to count as a report to >> get the weekly report reward. The intent is still part of "weekly duties" >> but not the report.] >> --- >>
BUS: Re: [proposal] more warranty work
I withdraw this proposal. -G. On 9/4/2021 1:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > [I'll pay to pend this one after any comments come in]. > > > I submit the following proposal, "another device defect", AI-1: > > --- > Amend Rule 2655 by replacing: > responsible for building and maintaining the Device. > with: > responsible for building, tracking, and maintaining the Device. > > and by deleting: > This intent announcement counts as the Mad > Engineers's weekly report. > > [with the reporting duty for the device status added, by default a weekly > switch value report, we no longer need this intent to count as a report to > get the weekly report reward. The intent is still part of "weekly duties" > but not the report.] > --- >
BUS: Re: [Proposal] The Great Rollback
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 3:46 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > > I submit the following proposal. IIRC all the changes I've made since > the last draft were stylistic. > > -Aris > -- > Title: The Great Rollback > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Aris > Co-author(s): G. I pay a pendant to pend this proposal. -Aris
Re: BUS: Re: (proposal)
I vote FOR Proposal 8493. On 2020-09-04 18:17, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > I demonstrate the following rulebending form: > - > > Every valid ballot on the referendum to adopt Proposal 8493 [quoted below] > that has a vote of AGAINST or that evaluates to AGAINST is hereby withdrawn. > > - > > -G. > > On 8/28/2020 11:20 AM, nix via agora-business wrote: >> On 8/28/20 1:09 PM, nix via agora-business wrote: >>> On 8/28/20 11:17 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: I submit the following proposal, "Minor Adjustments", AI-3: --- Increase the power of Rule 2633 (Rulebending) to 3. --- >>> I issue the cabinet order Manifesto, distributing the above proposal. (I >>> don't think I can assign it an ID, the Promotor has to I believe). The >>> valid votes are FOR, AGAINST, PRESENT, as well as conditional votes. The >>> assessor is the vote collector on this decision. >>> >>> -- >>> nix >>> Prime Minister, Webmastor >>> >> If this failed because I forgot some essential parameters then I do the >> following: >> >> I issue the cabinet order Manifesto, distributing the above proposal. (I >> don't think I can assign it an ID, the Promotor has to I believe). For this >> decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the voting method is >> AI-majority, and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a >> valid vote, as are conditional votes). The author is G., the AI is 3. There >> are no co-authors, the class is democratic. >> >> Sorry about the messy distribution, I missed the essential parameters >> requirement when I was checking the rules. >> -- Falsifian
BUS: Re: (proposal)
I demonstrate the following rulebending form: - Every valid ballot on the referendum to adopt Proposal 8493 [quoted below] that has a vote of AGAINST or that evaluates to AGAINST is hereby withdrawn. - -G. On 8/28/2020 11:20 AM, nix via agora-business wrote: > On 8/28/20 1:09 PM, nix via agora-business wrote: >> On 8/28/20 11:17 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >>> I submit the following proposal, "Minor Adjustments", AI-3: >>> --- >>> >>> Increase the power of Rule 2633 (Rulebending) to 3. >>> >>> --- >> I issue the cabinet order Manifesto, distributing the above proposal. (I >> don't think I can assign it an ID, the Promotor has to I believe). The >> valid votes are FOR, AGAINST, PRESENT, as well as conditional votes. The >> assessor is the vote collector on this decision. >> >> -- >> nix >> Prime Minister, Webmastor >> > If this failed because I forgot some essential parameters then I do the > following: > > I issue the cabinet order Manifesto, distributing the above proposal. (I > don't think I can assign it an ID, the Promotor has to I believe). For this > decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the voting method is > AI-majority, and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a > valid vote, as are conditional votes). The author is G., the AI is 3. There > are no co-authors, the class is democratic. > > Sorry about the messy distribution, I missed the essential parameters > requirement when I was checking the rules. >
Re: BUS: Re: (proposal)
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 11:20 AM nix via agora-business wrote: > > On 8/28/20 1:09 PM, nix via agora-business wrote: > > On 8/28/20 11:17 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > >> I submit the following proposal, "Minor Adjustments", AI-3: > >> --- > >> > >> Increase the power of Rule 2633 (Rulebending) to 3. > >> > >> --- > > I issue the cabinet order Manifesto, distributing the above proposal. (I > > don't think I can assign it an ID, the Promotor has to I believe). The > > valid votes are FOR, AGAINST, PRESENT, as well as conditional votes. The > > assessor is the vote collector on this decision. > > > > -- > > nix > > Prime Minister, Webmastor > > > If this failed because I forgot some essential parameters then I do the > following: > > I issue the cabinet order Manifesto, distributing the above proposal. (I > don't think I can assign it an ID, the Promotor has to I believe). For this > decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the voting method is > AI-majority, and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a > valid vote, as are conditional votes). The author is G., the AI is 3. There > are no co-authors, the class is democratic. > > Sorry about the messy distribution, I missed the essential parameters > requirement when I was checking the rules. I point my finger at nix for failure to specify quorum above, in violation of Rule 879. -Aris
Re: OFF: Re: BUS: Re: (proposal)
I vote FOR On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 11:02 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 8/28/2020 12:28 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 11:10 AM nix via agora-business < > > agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > >> On 8/28/20 11:17 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > >>> I submit the following proposal, "Minor Adjustments", AI-3: > >>> --- > >>> > >>> Increase the power of Rule 2633 (Rulebending) to 3. > >>> > >>> --- > >> > >> I issue the cabinet order Manifesto, distributing the above proposal. (I > >> don't think I can assign it an ID, the Promotor has to I believe). The > >> valid votes are FOR, AGAINST, PRESENT, as well as conditional votes. The > >> assessor is the vote collector on this decision. > > > > > > This is Proposal 8493. > > > > I vote FOR 8493. On behalf of D. Margaux, I vote FOR 8493. > > [Note to D. Margaux, you have to transfer a talisman to reanimate]. > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: OFF: Re: BUS: Re: (proposal)
On 8/28/2020 12:28 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote: > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 11:10 AM nix via agora-business < > agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On 8/28/20 11:17 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >>> I submit the following proposal, "Minor Adjustments", AI-3: >>> --- >>> >>> Increase the power of Rule 2633 (Rulebending) to 3. >>> >>> --- >> >> I issue the cabinet order Manifesto, distributing the above proposal. (I >> don't think I can assign it an ID, the Promotor has to I believe). The >> valid votes are FOR, AGAINST, PRESENT, as well as conditional votes. The >> assessor is the vote collector on this decision. > > > This is Proposal 8493. > I vote FOR 8493. On behalf of D. Margaux, I vote FOR 8493. [Note to D. Margaux, you have to transfer a talisman to reanimate].
Re: BUS: Re: (proposal)
I wrote: nix wrote: On 8/28/20 11:17 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: I submit the following proposal, "Minor Adjustments", AI-3: --- Increase the power of Rule 2633 (Rulebending) to 3. --- I issue the cabinet order Manifesto, distributing the above proposal. (I don't think I can assign it an ID, the Promotor has to I believe). The valid votes are FOR, AGAINST, PRESENT, as well as conditional votes. The assessor is the vote collector on this decision. I vote AGAINST. Disambiguation due to first distribution attempt being questioned: I vote AGAINST each referendum on this proposal.
Re: BUS: Re: (proposal)
On 8/30/20 1:39 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: > nix wrote: > >> On 8/28/20 11:17 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >>> I submit the following proposal, "Minor Adjustments", AI-3: >>> --- >>> >>> Increase the power of Rule 2633 (Rulebending) to 3. >>> >>> --- >> >> I issue the cabinet order Manifesto, distributing the above proposal. (I >> don't think I can assign it an ID, the Promotor has to I believe). The >> valid votes are FOR, AGAINST, PRESENT, as well as conditional votes. The >> assessor is the vote collector on this decision. > > I vote AGAINST. As do I. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: BUS: Re: (proposal)
nix wrote: On 8/28/20 11:17 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: I submit the following proposal, "Minor Adjustments", AI-3: --- Increase the power of Rule 2633 (Rulebending) to 3. --- I issue the cabinet order Manifesto, distributing the above proposal. (I don't think I can assign it an ID, the Promotor has to I believe). The valid votes are FOR, AGAINST, PRESENT, as well as conditional votes. The assessor is the vote collector on this decision. I vote AGAINST.
Re: OFF: Re: BUS: Re: (proposal)
I vote AGAINST On 8/28/20 12:28 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote: > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 11:10 AM nix via agora-business < > agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On 8/28/20 11:17 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >>> I submit the following proposal, "Minor Adjustments", AI-3: >>> --- >>> >>> Increase the power of Rule 2633 (Rulebending) to 3. >>> >>> --- >> I issue the cabinet order Manifesto, distributing the above proposal. (I >> don't think I can assign it an ID, the Promotor has to I believe). The >> valid votes are FOR, AGAINST, PRESENT, as well as conditional votes. The >> assessor is the vote collector on this decision. > > This is Proposal 8493.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: (proposal)
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 10:31 AM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 28, 2020, at 5:17 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > I submit the following proposal, "Minor Adjustments", AI-3:
> > ---
> >
> > Increase the power of Rule 2633 (Rulebending) to 3.
> >
> > ---
> >
> >
> > I pay a pendant to pend the below proposal ("Please stand by").
> >
> > On 8/24/2020 7:25 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>
> >> I submit the following proposal, "Please stand by", AI-1:
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Create a rule, "Please Stand By", with the following text:
> >>
> >> Normal service will resume shortly.
> >>
> >> ———
>
> I submit the following proposal, "nope", AI-1: {
> Repeal rule 2633.
> }
I refer this proposal to the Ministry of Legislation.
Re: OFF: Re: BUS: Re: (proposal)
On 8/28/2020 3:28 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote: On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 11:10 AM nix via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: On 8/28/20 11:17 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: I submit the following proposal, "Minor Adjustments", AI-3: --- Increase the power of Rule 2633 (Rulebending) to 3. --- I issue the cabinet order Manifesto, distributing the above proposal. (I don't think I can assign it an ID, the Promotor has to I believe). The valid votes are FOR, AGAINST, PRESENT, as well as conditional votes. The assessor is the vote collector on this decision. This is Proposal 8493. I vote PRESENT on Proposal 8493. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary and Speaker of Agora :)
Re: OFF: Re: BUS: Re: (proposal)
On 8/28/2020 12:28 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote: On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 11:10 AM nix via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: On 8/28/20 11:17 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: I submit the following proposal, "Minor Adjustments", AI-3: --- Increase the power of Rule 2633 (Rulebending) to 3. --- I issue the cabinet order Manifesto, distributing the above proposal. (I don't think I can assign it an ID, the Promotor has to I believe). The valid votes are FOR, AGAINST, PRESENT, as well as conditional votes. The assessor is the vote collector on this decision. This is Proposal 8493. I vote against.
Re: BUS: Re: (proposal)
On 8/28/20 2:20 PM, nix via agora-business wrote: > On 8/28/20 1:09 PM, nix via agora-business wrote: >> On 8/28/20 11:17 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >>> I submit the following proposal, "Minor Adjustments", AI-3: >>> --- >>> >>> Increase the power of Rule 2633 (Rulebending) to 3. >>> >>> --- >> I issue the cabinet order Manifesto, distributing the above proposal. (I >> don't think I can assign it an ID, the Promotor has to I believe). The >> valid votes are FOR, AGAINST, PRESENT, as well as conditional votes. The >> assessor is the vote collector on this decision. >> >> -- >> nix >> Prime Minister, Webmastor >> > If this failed because I forgot some essential parameters then I do the > following: > > I issue the cabinet order Manifesto, distributing the above proposal. (I > don't think I can assign it an ID, the Promotor has to I believe). For this > decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the voting method is > AI-majority, and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a > valid vote, as are conditional votes). The author is G., the AI is 3. There > are no co-authors, the class is democratic. > > Sorry about the messy distribution, I missed the essential parameters > requirement when I was checking the rules. > Assessorial opinion: The first distribution is INEFFECTIVE due to failure to specify class. The second distribution is EFFECTIVE. -- Jason Cobb
Re: BUS: Re: (proposal)
> On Aug 28, 2020, at 7:20 PM, nix via agora-business > wrote: > > On 8/28/20 1:09 PM, nix via agora-business wrote: >> On 8/28/20 11:17 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >>> I submit the following proposal, "Minor Adjustments", AI-3: >>> --- >>> >>> Increase the power of Rule 2633 (Rulebending) to 3. >>> >>> --- >> I issue the cabinet order Manifesto, distributing the above proposal. (I >> don't think I can assign it an ID, the Promotor has to I believe). The >> valid votes are FOR, AGAINST, PRESENT, as well as conditional votes. The >> assessor is the vote collector on this decision. >> >> -- >> nix >> Prime Minister, Webmastor >> > If this failed because I forgot some essential parameters then I do the > following: > > I issue the cabinet order Manifesto, distributing the above proposal. (I > don't think I can assign it an ID, the Promotor has to I believe). For this > decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the voting method is > AI-majority, and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a > valid vote, as are conditional votes). The author is G., the AI is 3. There > are no co-authors, the class is democratic. > > Sorry about the messy distribution, I missed the essential parameters > requirement when I was checking the rules. > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Webmastor > > (That was NttPF, but I should also phrase it less ambiguously, so:) I vote AGAINST. Gaelan
Re: BUS: Re: (proposal)
On 8/28/20 1:09 PM, nix via agora-business wrote: > On 8/28/20 11:17 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >> I submit the following proposal, "Minor Adjustments", AI-3: >> --- >> >> Increase the power of Rule 2633 (Rulebending) to 3. >> >> --- > I issue the cabinet order Manifesto, distributing the above proposal. (I > don't think I can assign it an ID, the Promotor has to I believe). The > valid votes are FOR, AGAINST, PRESENT, as well as conditional votes. The > assessor is the vote collector on this decision. > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Webmastor > If this failed because I forgot some essential parameters then I do the following: I issue the cabinet order Manifesto, distributing the above proposal. (I don't think I can assign it an ID, the Promotor has to I believe). For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional votes). The author is G., the AI is 3. There are no co-authors, the class is democratic. Sorry about the messy distribution, I missed the essential parameters requirement when I was checking the rules. -- nix Prime Minister, Webmastor
Re: BUS: Re: (proposal)
On 8/28/20 11:17 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > I submit the following proposal, "Minor Adjustments", AI-3: > --- > > Increase the power of Rule 2633 (Rulebending) to 3. > > --- I issue the cabinet order Manifesto, distributing the above proposal. (I don't think I can assign it an ID, the Promotor has to I believe). The valid votes are FOR, AGAINST, PRESENT, as well as conditional votes. The assessor is the vote collector on this decision. -- nix Prime Minister, Webmastor
Re: BUS: Re: (proposal)
TTttPF
> On Aug 28, 2020, at 6:30 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> I submit the following proposal, "nope", AI-1: {
> Repeal rule 2633.
> }
>
> I submit the following proposal, "nopenopenope", AI-3: {
> Repeal rule 2633.
> }
>
> I'll pend these unless there's a consensus this is bad sportsmanship.
>
> Gaelan
BUS: Re: (proposal)
I submit the following proposal, "Minor Adjustments", AI-3:
---
Increase the power of Rule 2633 (Rulebending) to 3.
---
I pay a pendant to pend the below proposal ("Please stand by").
On 8/24/2020 7:25 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I submit the following proposal, "Please stand by", AI-1:
> ---
>
> Create a rule, "Please Stand By", with the following text:
>
> Normal service will resume shortly.
>
> ---
>
BUS: Re: Proposal: Upvotes
at 4:32 PM, omd wrote: Proposal: Upvotes (AI=1) I retract this proposal, since it seems like G.’s proposal (or something along its lines) has wider support.
BUS: Re: [Proposal] Agora the karma bank
I pay a pendant to make the below proposal pending. -G. On 7/5/2020 3:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I submit the following Proposal, "Agora the karma bank", > AI-1, coauthor omd: > > > > [First, a partial reset. People with negative karma are mostly zombies > or people with fairly old sins; worth a full forgiveness/reset. People > with positive karma have generally done good things more recently - a > partial reset for them, akin to the just-passed July releveling. Agora > is balanced one last time so we can start counting total positivity or > negativity from here on out.] > > Each person with positive karma has eir karma set to half its current > value, rounded up. > > Each person with negative karma has eir karma set to 0. > > Agora's karma is then set such that the sum of all Karma values in the > game equals 0. > > > Amend Rule 2510 (Such is Karma) by deleting: > > 4. Not result in Agora's karma moving farther away from 0. > > and by replacing its last paragraph with: > > At the beginning of each quarter, the Karma of every person is > halved (rounding towards 0). > > [It's still an exchange of karma, but you can take freely from Agora. > Everybody's karma decays every quarter, but Agora's karma isn't reset > to zero-sum, therefore Agoran's karma is an inverse measure of our > overall positivity/negativity over time.] > > >
BUS: Re: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On 6/9/2020 9:05 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: Forgot the initialization. I withdraw the above proposal. I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling B", AI-1: Create a power-1 rule, "The General Store", with the following text: Barrels are a currency tracked by the Coopor (an office) in eir monthly report. A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels. A bargain is a specification consisting of a title, a payout (a number of barrels between 1 and 10), and a tender (a list of 6 or more rules-defined card types; a type may be repeated, with each repeat being a separate element on the list). A player CAN cash out a specified bargain that's "on the barrel", by announcement, provided that, in the same message, e paid cards (possibly spread over multiple sets) to successfully earn rules- defined products, and those cards match all of the cards types in that bargain's tender. The payment of a particular card instance can only match a single tender element for the single cashing out of a bargain. When a player cashes out a bargain on the barrel, e earns the payout for that bargain. The Coopor CANNOT cash out a specific bargain in the 14 days after putting that bargain on the barrel. Create a power-1 rule, "Bargains on the Barrel", with the following text: If there are fewer than four bargains on the barrel, the Coopor CAN put a bargain on the barrel with notice. If there are fewer than eight bargains on the barrel, the Coopor CAN put a bargain on the barrel with 3 support. The Coopor CAN take a bargain off the barrel without N objections, where N is the number of months, rounded up, since that bargain was last placed on the barrel. Within 14 days after winning an election for Coopor, the Coopor CAN take any bargain off the barrel with notice. The Coopor's monthly report includes a list of all bargains on the barrel. E SHOULD publish such a list whenever e adds or removes a bargain from the barrel. There are no bargains on the barrel. G. is hereby made Coopor. An election for Coopor is hereby initiated.
BUS: Re: Proposal: Edit Lime
I retract this proposal, by the way On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:56 PM Rebecca wrote: > Fair warning, I'm probably going to spam the forums with proposals this > week as it will become extremely difficult to create proposals in a short > period of time. > > I create this proposal (the rationale for it is that coauthor and author > are now distinct things, and that's even more so after the sets proposal > passes, and i want to strike a balance between writing proposals and > constructively commenting on those of others) > > Title: Lime Juice > AI: 3 > Text: Amend rule 2438 "Ribbons" by editing the paragraph beginning with > "Lime" to read > > Lime (L): A person qualifies for a Lime Ribbon if three or more > proposals adopted in the preceding 7 days had that person as an > author or coauthor, as long as at least one such proposal had that > person as a coauthor > > > -- > > From R. Lee > -- >From R. Lee
BUS: Re: [proposal] quick zombie auction fix
[Grammar fix] I withdraw "zombie auction fix" from the Proposal Pool. I submit the following Proposal, "zombie auction fix 1.1", AI-2: Amend Rule 1885 (Zombie Auctions) by replacing: For the purpose of such a auction, to transfer a zombie to a player is to set that zombie's master switch to that player. with: For the purpose of such a auction, to transfer a zombie to a player is to set that zombie's master switch to that player, and Agora CAN perform such transfers of the appropriate lots to auction winners. and by inserting a line break immediately before the resulting text so that it is a new paragraph. Amend Rule 2551 (Auction End) by deleting "at will".
BUS: Re: [proposal] kamikaze
I withdraw the below proposal - I'll wait and see if raising the max on its own is accepted, before re-proposing. On 1/12/2020 8:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I submit the following proposal, "of what use honor", AI=2: > > > > Create a Power=2 Rule, "Sacrifice", with the following text: > > The Shogun CAN sacrifice eir honour by publishing a valid Notice > of Honour that decreases eir own honour by one, while in the > same message clearly specifying a decision to adopt a proposal > that is in its voting period. The Shogun's voting strength is > on that decision is increased to its maximum possible within the > rules, provided the option identified on eir valid ballot on the > decision is AGAINST. > > [an emergency proposal stop, via a sacrifice of honour.] > > >
BUS: Re: [Proposal] citation expansion
I withdraw the below proposal (will work on suggested edits). On 1/12/2020 7:40 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I submit the following Proposal, AI=3, "no fake CFJs needed": > > > Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing this text: > > 3. Initiate an inquiry case regarding the truth of the claim > (if the subject is actually a matter of law), or cite a > relevant existing inquiry case. > > with this text: > > 3. Initiate a CFJ regarding the truth of the claim (if the > subject is actually a matter of law), or cite an existing > CFJ or other public process that has a reasonable > expectation of resolving the matter of controversy. > > [ > Inspired by this from Falsifian: >> I respond to my own CoE by calling a CFJ: "In December, I flipped o's, >> Bernie's and Rance's master switches to Agora". I intend to withdraw >> that CFJ soon, but first I want to use it again for a similar CoE on >> this week's report (to be published soon). > > The "cite an existing CFJ" requirement can lead to dummy CFJs with no > purpose - e.g. i there's a Proposal that's fixing things, that could be > cited too. The "reasonable expectation" mirrors the language of R217. > ] > > > >
BUS: Re: Proposal: Why Not All Of Them?
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, October 20, 2019 8:35 PM, Nch wrote:
> Since we're spitballing ideas anyway right now...
>
> I intend to, after some time for review, submit the following proposal,
> "Roulette Gaming", with AI=1:
>
> Enact a power-0.6 rule titled "Roulette Gaming" with the following text {
>
> If a rule with power less than the power of this rule declares itself a
> "Roulette Game Rule" in its text, all other parts of its text are null and
> void unless this rule states otherwise.
>
> Roulette Arrow is a singleton switch, tracked by the Registrar, with possible
> values of all Roulette Game Rules and null.
>
> When a player wins due to the text of a Roulette Game Rule, the Roulette
> Arrow is flipped to null.
>
> The Registrar CAN flip the Roulette Arrow to null without objection.
>
> If the Roulette Arrow is flipped to null the Registrar CAN, by announcement,
> flip it to any Roulette Game Rule. E SHOULD flip it to one by randomly
> selecting one from all possible options.
>
> The text of a Roulette Game Rule is valid and in effect as long as the
> Roulette Arrow switch is flipped to it.
>
> }
>
> ---
> Nch
I withdraw this proposal (ATTN: promotor). I need to think of a more elegant
and clear implementation.
BUS: Re: [Proposal] two true zombies
Oh phoo, I forgot to specify power=3 for the High Zombie. I retract my proposal The High Zombie. I submit the following proposal, The High Zombie, AI-3: Create a Power=3 Rule titled "Boo!!" with the following text: Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, one week after this rule is repealed, it is reenacted. On 10/20/2019 5:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I submit the following proposal, The Low Zombie, AI-1: Create a Rule titled "Boo!" with the following text: One week after this rule is repealed, it is reenacted. I submit the following proposal, The High Zombie, AI-3: Create a Rule titled "Boo!!" with the following text: Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, one week after this rule is repealed, it is reenacted.
Re: BUS: Re: [proposal] Regulated actions reform
Ugh that should say "withdraw" not "with draw".
If I have not done so already, I withdraw the proposal that I submitted
that has the title "Regulated actions reform".
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 1:13 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I with draw the proposal that I submitted that has the title
"Regulated actions reform".
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 12:03 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Seeing no objections, I submit the following proposal:
Title: Regulated actions reform
Author: Jason Cobb
Adoption Index: 3.1
Coauthors: Aris, G., omd
{
Amend Rule 2493 ("Regulations") as follows:
Append the following text to the first paragraph: "Regulations are
binding."
Amend Rule 1742 ("Contracts") as follows:
Append the following sentence to the first paragraph: "Contracts
are binding."
Append the following paragraph after the paragraph beginning
"Parties to a contract governed by the rules":
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.
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 meet these criteria are regulated by the contract. Any
actions that do not meet these criteria are not regulated by
the contract.
Replace the paragraph beginning "A party to a contract CAN" and
the following list with the following text:
A contract CAN define and regulate the following actions,
except that the performance of them must include at least one
announcement:
* Acting on behalf of a party to the contract.
* Revoking destructible assets from the contract.
* Taking liquid assets from the contract.
* The creation, transfer, and destruction of any asset for
which the contract is the backing document.
Amend Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions") to read:
An entity is binding if and only if the Rules designate it as
such. The Rules as a whole is an entity that is binding.
An action is regulated by a binding entity if: (1) the entity
directly and explicitly defines, limits, allows, enables, permits,
forbids, or requires its performance; (2) the entity describes the
circumstances under which the action would succeed or fail; or (3)
the action would, as part of its effect, modify information for
which the entity requires some player to be a "recordkeepor"; or
(4) the Rules state that the action is regulated by the entity.
The above notwithstanding, if the Rules state that an action is
not regulated by an entity, the action is not regulated by that
entity.
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.
The set of actions that are regulated by an entity is the entity's
set of regulated actions.
An action that is regulated by a binding entity CAN only be
performed as described by the entity, and only using the methods
explicitly specified in the entity for performing the given
action. The entity SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe
actions that are not regulated by it.
An action is game-defined if and only if it is a regulated action
of some binding entity.
Retitle Rule 2125 to "Binding Entities".
Set the power of Rule 2125 to 3.1.
}
Jason Cobb
On 6/21/19 12:37 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Here's an updated version to fix some of the issues in the first
version:
Changes:
- G.'s suggestion ("regulation-creating entity" ->
"regulation-creating")
- Regulation-creating -> binding
- Fixing omd's issue
- Replacing the last paragraph and list of Rule 1742 to permit
contracts to regulate their own assets
If I see no serious concerns, I'll submit this as a proposal soon.
{
Amend Rule 2493 ("Regulations") as follows:
Append the following text to the first paragraph: "Regulations
are binding."
Amend Rule 1742 ("Contracts") as follows:
Append the following sentence to the first paragraph: "Contracts
are binding."
Append the following paragraph after the paragraph beginning
"Parties to a contract governed by the rules":
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.
Contracts CAN require or forbid actions that are defined in
other binding entities. Only as specified by the Rules,
contracts CAN define or regulate other actions. Any actions
that meet these criteria are regulated by the contract. Any
actions that do not meet these criteria are not regulated by
BUS: Re: [proposal] Regulated actions reform
I with draw the proposal that I submitted that has the title "Regulated
actions reform".
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 12:03 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Seeing no objections, I submit the following proposal:
Title: Regulated actions reform
Author: Jason Cobb
Adoption Index: 3.1
Coauthors: Aris, G., omd
{
Amend Rule 2493 ("Regulations") as follows:
Append the following text to the first paragraph: "Regulations are
binding."
Amend Rule 1742 ("Contracts") as follows:
Append the following sentence to the first paragraph: "Contracts
are binding."
Append the following paragraph after the paragraph beginning
"Parties to a contract governed by the rules":
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.
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 meet these criteria are regulated by the contract. Any
actions that do not meet these criteria are not regulated by
the contract.
Replace the paragraph beginning "A party to a contract CAN" and
the following list with the following text:
A contract CAN define and regulate the following actions,
except that the performance of them must include at least one
announcement:
* Acting on behalf of a party to the contract.
* Revoking destructible assets from the contract.
* Taking liquid assets from the contract.
* The creation, transfer, and destruction of any asset for
which the contract is the backing document.
Amend Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions") to read:
An entity is binding if and only if the Rules designate it as
such. The Rules as a whole is an entity that is binding.
An action is regulated by a binding entity if: (1) the entity
directly and explicitly defines, limits, allows, enables, permits,
forbids, or requires its performance; (2) the entity describes the
circumstances under which the action would succeed or fail; or (3)
the action would, as part of its effect, modify information for
which the entity requires some player to be a "recordkeepor"; or
(4) the Rules state that the action is regulated by the entity.
The above notwithstanding, if the Rules state that an action is
not regulated by an entity, the action is not regulated by that
entity.
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.
The set of actions that are regulated by an entity is the entity's
set of regulated actions.
An action that is regulated by a binding entity CAN only be
performed as described by the entity, and only using the methods
explicitly specified in the entity for performing the given
action. The entity SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe
actions that are not regulated by it.
An action is game-defined if and only if it is a regulated action
of some binding entity.
Retitle Rule 2125 to "Binding Entities".
Set the power of Rule 2125 to 3.1.
}
Jason Cobb
On 6/21/19 12:37 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Here's an updated version to fix some of the issues in the first version:
Changes:
- G.'s suggestion ("regulation-creating entity" -> "regulation-creating")
- Regulation-creating -> binding
- Fixing omd's issue
- Replacing the last paragraph and list of Rule 1742 to permit
contracts to regulate their own assets
If I see no serious concerns, I'll submit this as a proposal soon.
{
Amend Rule 2493 ("Regulations") as follows:
Append the following text to the first paragraph: "Regulations
are binding."
Amend Rule 1742 ("Contracts") as follows:
Append the following sentence to the first paragraph: "Contracts
are binding."
Append the following paragraph after the paragraph beginning
"Parties to a contract governed by the rules":
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.
Contracts CAN require or forbid actions that are defined in
other binding entities. Only as specified by the Rules,
contracts CAN define or regulate other actions. Any actions
that meet these criteria are regulated by the contract. Any
actions that do not meet these criteria are not regulated by
the contract.
Replace the paragraph beginning "A party to a contract CAN" and
the following list with the following text:
A contract CAN define and regulate the following actions,
except that the
BUS: Re: [Proposal] Attainable Karma
Oh, right, I pend the two proposals that I submitted in the past 5 minutes. -Aris On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 6:51 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > > Title: Attainable Karma > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: > > [We were expecting at least a few players to be in these bands, but > currently, none are. This proposal fixes that by lowering the threshold > to something more consistent with our experience.] > > Amend Rule 2510, Such is Karma, by changing the text > > "- Any player with a karma of 7 or greater is a Samurai. > >- Any player with a karma of -7 or less is an Gamma." > > to read > > "- Any player with a karma of 3 or greater is a Samurai. > >- Any player with a karma of -3 or less is an Gamma."
BUS: Re: [Proposal] Restraining Bolt, Billy Mays Here
I pay Agora 1 sh. apiece to pend the proposals “Restraining Bolt” and “BILLY MAYS HERE”. -o signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
BUS: Re: Proposal: Granular Payday (v3)
I pay 10 shinies to pend Granular Paydays (v3). On 05/03/17 21:11, Nic Evans wrote: > I withdraw the proposal titled 'Granular Paydays (v2)' I submit the > following proposal. > > Title: Granular Paydays (v3) > Adoption Index: 1 > Author: nichdel > Co-author(s): Aris, o, G. > > [v3: added the clarification of 'duty-fulfilling' reports] > > [v2: Changed the switches to be natural, fixed not specifying what > offices are paid, and deleted a typo that suggested the report was paid > instead of the player.] > > Flip the Payrate of every office to 2. > > Amend 2484 (Payday) to read, in full: > > Payrate is a natural office switch, tracked by the ADoP, with a > default value of 2. Report Rate is a natural office switch, > tracked by the ADoP, with a default value of 2. > > [Add in Report Rate, which can be adjusted by-office.] > > At the start of each month, if Agora's Balance is not 0 or less, > Agora SHALL pay each player 10 shinies. > > [Nothing changed here.] > > Immediately afterward, for each duty-fulfilling report published > last month (in chronological order of publication), Agora SHALL > pay the publisher of the report the Report Rate for the office > the report is associated with unless paying would leave Agora's > balance at a negative value. > > [Pay out for published reports before offices, in a way similar to how > offices are paid. It's very important to note that, if Report Rates > were not equal, it'd be possible to pay the 1st and 3rd reports but not > the 2nd, if the 2nd would make Agora's balance negative but the 3rd > would not.] > > Immediately afterward, for each office (first in ascending order > of Payrate, then in descending alphabetical order of office > name), Agora SHALL pay the holder of the office that office's > Payrate value unless paying would leave Agora's balance at a > negative value. > > [This paragraph is rewritten to hopefully be more clear, but it is > functionally the same except for changing '0 or less' to 'negative'.] > > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Proposal: Expedition
On Oct 28, 2014, at 4:09 PM, omd wrote: On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Tanner Swett tannersw...@gmail.com wrote: A rule which purports to allow a person (a special deputy) to perform an action via special deputisation for an office thereby allows them to perform the action by announcement, as long as You're missing deputisation's as if e held the office clause, although I guess it may not be necessary in this case. Hum dum. I withdraw the proposal quoted above. I submit yet another proposal with a title of Speedliness and an adoption index of 3: Amend Rule 2160 Deputisation by appending the paragraphs A rule which purports to allow a person (a special deputy) to perform an action via special deputisation for an office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e held the office, as long as (a) it would be POSSIBLE for the special deputy to perform the action, other than by special deputisation, if e held the office, and (b) the special deputy, when performing the action, announces that e is doing so by special deputisation. Special deputisation is not a type of deputisation, and therefore does not generally have the effects that deputisation has. Enact a rule titled Expediting Proposals, with power 3: A player CAN expedite a proposal whose adoption index is at most 1.5, in a message containing the character string [Expedition] in the subject line, (a) by specially deputising for the Promotor to distribute the proposal, if it has not been distributed; or (b) by announcement, otherwise. If, in an Agoran Decision to adopt a proposal, the strength of AGAINST is zero, and the proposal was expedited at least 7 days earlier, then any player CAN specially deputise for the Assessor to resolve the decision. —the Warrigal
BUS: Re: Proposal: Expedition
On Oct 26, 2014, at 9:38 PM, Tanner Swett wrote: I submit a proposal with a title of Speedliness and an adoption index of 3: I withdraw this proposal, and submit the following very similar proposal, also titled Speedliness and also having an adoption index of 3: Amend Rule 2160 Deputisation by appending the paragraphs A rule which purports to allow a person (a special deputy) to perform an action via special deputisation for an office thereby allows them to perform the action by announcement, as long as (a) it would be POSSIBLE for the special deputy to perform the action, other than by special deputisation, if e held the office, and (b) the special deputy, when performing the action, announces that e is doing so by special deputisation. Special deputisation is not a type of deputisation, and therefore does not generally have the effects that deputisation has. Enact a rule titled Expediting Proposals, with power 3: A player CAN expedite a proposal whose adoption index is at most 1.5, in a message containing the character string [Expedition] in the subject line, (a) by specially deputising for the Promotor to distribute the proposal, if it has not been distributed; or (b) by announcement, otherwise. If, in an Agoran Decision to adopt a proposal, the strength of AGAINST is zero, and the proposal was expedited at least 7 days earlier, then any player CAN specially deputise for the Assessor to resolve the decision. —the Warrigal
BUS: Re: Proposal: Scorekeepor Reports
I retract the following proposal: -- Proposal: Scorekeepor Reports (Adoption Index=9.9) Append the following to Rule 2420 (Score): The Scorekeeper's weekly report includes a list of the scores of all of the players. -- -Henri
BUS: Re: Proposal 7395
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote: I submit a proposal, titled Seventy-Three Ninety-Five: In Rule 2367 Messy Statements, replace inaccurate and incorrect with nonsensical and meaningless. I withdraw this proposal, and submit an otherwise-identical proposal with an AI of 3. —Machiavelli
BUS: Re: Proposal
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:13 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: Proposal: Let Golems vote (AI=3) I retract this proposal, I don't like it anymore.
BUS: Re: proposal
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:07 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: Proposal: I have no idea what I was thinking with the original proposal Amend Rule 2352 (The Ambassador) by appending: The Ambassador CAN act on behalf of Agora with Agoran Consent; such actions SHOULD be consistent with Agora's wishes. I retract this proposal.
BUS: Re: Proposal: War
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 02:36, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.comwrote: Proposal: War (AI = 2) Hostility is a switch for subsets of players of size 2 tracked by the Scorekeepor, with values peace (default) and war. Any player CAN, with notice, declare war on any other player. Any player CAN make peace with any other player with that player's Support. Whenever points are created in a player's possession (but not when the rules describe points as being recreated), a number of points equal to the number of points e just gained divided by the number of players e is at war with, rounded down, are destroyed in the possession of each player e is at war with. Whenever a player's point total reaches zero by this method e CANNOT become at war with any other player for 21 days the rest of this rule notwithstanding, e CANNOT gain any points for 14 days rules to the contrary notwithstanding, and then finally, one moment after eir score became zero, e becomes at peace with all other players. I retract the proposal War and submit the following proposal: Proposal: War (AI = 2) Create a new Rule, entitled War, with the following text: Hostility is a switch for subsets of players of size 2 tracked by the Scorekeepor, with values peace (default) and war. Any player CAN, with notice, declare war on any other player. Any player CAN make peace with any other player with that player's Support. Whenever points are created in a player's possession (but not when the rules describe points as being recreated), a number of points equal to the number of points e just gained divided by the number of players e is at war with, rounded down, are destroyed in the possession of each player e is at war with. Whenever a player's point total reaches zero by this method e CANNOT become at war with any other player for 21 days the rest of this rule notwithstanding, e CANNOT gain any points for 14 days rules to the contrary notwithstanding, and then finally, one moment after eir score became zero, e becomes at peace with all other players.
BUS: Re: Proposal, CFJ
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:56 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: I call for judgement on the following statement: The Promotor SHALL a proposal titled 'People are People' within four days. I accidentally a verb. I retract that CFJ and CFJ on the following statement, submitting the same arguments and evidence as last time: The Promotor SHALL distribute a proposal titled 'People are People' within four days.
BUS: Re: Proposal: Better Degree Awarding
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: Proposal: Better Degree Awarding (AI = 1, II = 1) Amend Rule 1367 (Degrees) in the following ways: Change the text reading: - Each player's voting limit on the decision is thrice what their voting limit would have been on an ordinary decision initiated at the same time as this one, plus five for each degree e held at that time (the high limit is so as to allow a player to cast votes for different titles and ensure that an inappropriate title is not awarded). to read: - Each player's voting limit on the decision is one. Add the following text to the bulleted list: - Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the outcome of the decision is the highest degree such that more than half of the valid votes selected that degree or a lower degree. If no such degree exists, the outcome is FAILING GRADE. End Proposal I spend one erg to make the above proposal Distributable. I retract the above proposal and submit the following proposal: Proposal: Better Degree Awarding (AI = 1, II = 0) Amend Rule 1367 (Degrees) in the following ways: Change the text reading: - Each player's voting limit on the decision is three, plus five for each degree e held at that time (the high limit is so as to allow a player to cast votes for different titles and ensure that an inappropriate title is not awarded). to read: - Each player's voting limit on the decision is one. Add the following text to the bulleted list: - Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the outcome of the decision is the highest degree such that more than half of the valid votes selected that degree or a lower degree. If no such degree exists, the outcome is FAILING GRADE. End Proposal I make the above proposal Distributable.
BUS: Re: Proposal: Restrict Card Destruction Window
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
Proposal: Restrict Card Destruction Window (AI = 2, II = 1) {
Amend the first paragraph of Rule 2262 from
When a judge judges an interested case within its time limit, e
earns a draw from the Deck of Justice. These Draws are tracked
by the CotC. If a judge's judgement is OVERTURNED on appeal, one
justice on the appeals panel CAN destroy one Justice card e
indicates in the judge's possession by announcement.
to
When a judge judges an interested case within its time limit, e
earns a draw from the Deck of Justice. These Draws are tracked
by the CotC. If a judge's judgement is OVERTURNED on appeal, one
justice on the appeals panel CAN, in a timely fashion, destroy
one Justice card e indicates in the judge's possession by
announcement.
[Under the previous wording a justice on an appeals panel could
theoretically wait years, possibly until the original judge drew a
rare card, to destroy a card he earned from the original judgement.
Under this wording, he may only take that action with 7 days.]
I play Distrib-u-Matic to make the above proposal Distributable.
BUS: Re: Proposal: Free Parking
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 13:31, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
I submit the following:
Free Parking
AI: 2
II: 1
I withdraw the proposal Free Parking from the pool. I submit the
following proposal:
Free Parking
AI: 2
II: 1
{
In R2262, add the following to the list of cards in the Deck of Justice:
{{
* Free Parking - Choose one fixed / transfer-restricted asset OR three
other assets owned by the Lost and Found Dept. Those assets are
transferred to you. This takes precedence over any rule which would
restrict or prevent the transfer of that asset.
}}
Upon the adoption of this proposal set the Frequency of Free Parking to 2.
}
BUS: Re: Proposal: Audit Cleanup
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 15:34, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote: I submit the following proposal: Audit Cleanup AI: 2 II: 1 I play Distrib-u-Matic to make this proposal distributable. BobTHJ
BUS: Re: Proposal: Kill it with fire
I wrote: Proposal: Kill it with fire Terminate the contract known as Points Party at the time this proposal was submitted. I play Distrib-u-Matic to make the above proposal distributable. Well, crap. H. Majority Leader ais523, would you please veto this when it comes up for vote, so Rule 2198 won't block it?
BUS: Re: Proposal: Hand Limit Remodel
I withdraw my proposal Hand Limit Remodel from the pool and submit
the following instead. I play Distrib-u-Matic to make it distributable:
Hand Limit Remodel v3
AI: 3
II: 1
{
Append to the numbered list in R1728 (Dependent Actions), bullet item a):
{{
4) With Notice.
}}
and replace:
{{
(if the action depends on objections)
}}
with:
{{
(if the action depends on objections or notice)
}}
Append to the numbered list in R2124 (Agoran Satisfaction):
{{
(4) The action to be performed is With Notice.
}}
Replace the text of R2259 with:
{{
Every entity has an integer Hand Limit (default 7 for first-class
players, 3 for contests, 0 for all others). Changes to Hand Limit are
secured. If an entity's Hand Limit would be set to a number less than
0, it is instead set to 0. The Accountor's report includes a list of
all entities whose Hand Limit is set to a non-default value.
Any entity CAN audit itself by announcement. When an active player is
audited that player gains one Rest for each rule-defined card e owns
in excess of eir hand limit (minimum 0). When any other entity is
audited X random cards that entity owns are destroyed, where X equals
the number of card that entity owns minus eir hand limit (minimum 0)..
}}
Append to the list of cards in R2261 (The Deck of Change):
{{
Supersize Me - Specify an entity. That entity's Hand Limit is increased by 1.
Shrink Potion - Specify an entity. That entity's Hand Limit is
decreased by 10% (rounded up).
}}
Append to the list of cards in R2262 (The Deck of Justice):
{{
Penalty Box - Specify an entity. When you play this card you CAN audit
that entity With Notice (you must have previously declared intent as
per other rules), so long as you do so in the same message as playing
this card and that entity has not been audited since you declared
intent.
}}
Upon the adoption of this proposal set the Frequency of cards as follows:
Supersize Me - 30
Shrink Potion - 10
Penalty Box - 5
}
BUS: Re: Proposal: Banks
I withdraw my proposal Banks from the pool and submit the following
instead, playing Distrib-u-Matic to make it distributable:
Banks v2
AI: 2
II: 1
{
Create a new rule titled Banks (Power=2) with the text:
{{
A Bank is a public contract whose purpose includes facilitating a
means of asset exchange between players. Any party to a contract CAN cause that
contract to become a Bank without three objections. Any player CAN
cause a Bank to cease to be a Bank without three objections. A Bank
may own any rule or contract defined asset regardless of any
restrictions placed upon ownership of that class of asset, unless the
asset's backing document specifically excludes Banks from owning that
asset. Any player CAN transfer a non-fixed asset to a Bank (as
permitted by that Bank's contract), however if the transfer of an
asset is permitted
by its backing document but restricted in some means those
restrictions still apply. A Bank CAN transfer any assets it owns (as
permitted by that Bank's contract) to any entity which is able to own
that asset (subject to any restrictions imposed on the transferring of
that asset by its backing document). If the transferring of an asset
would cause a secondary effect to occur, that effect is nullified if
the asset is transferred to or from a Bank.
}}
In R2179 (Points) replace:
{{
Players generally CAN transfer points they own to other players,
subject to the restrictions that no more than 5 points can be
transferred this way to any one player, nor from any one player,
per week.
}}
with:
{{
Entities CAN transfer up to a total of 5+5i points they own to other
entities that are capable of owning points each week.
}}
}
BobTHJ
BUS: Re: Proposal: Office Rewards/Penalties Revision
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 13:56, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Office Rewards/Penalties Revision
I retract the above proposal and submit the below proposal instead.
Then I play Distrib-u-Matic to make it distributable:
Office Rewards/Penalties Revision v2
AI: 2
II: 1
{
In R2143 (Official Reports and Duties) after the sentence:
{{
Any information defined by the rules as part of an office's
report, without specifying which one, is part of its weekly
report.
}}
append to the same paragraph:
{{
Failure of the holder of an office to perform any duty required of
that office within the alloted time is the Class-N crime of Tardiness,
where N in the Interest Index of that office.
}}
In R2258, if the following text exists:
{{
At the beginning of each
week, each holder of a high-priority office who completed a non-
empty set of duties in the prior week earns a number of draws
from the deck indicated by the switch equal to the interest
index for the office. At the beginning of each month, each
holder of a low-priority office who held the office for 16 or
more days in the prior month earns a number of draws from the
deck indicated by the switch equal to the interest index of the
office.
}}
or the following text exists:
{{
At the beginning of each
week, each holder of an office with a weekly report who published
that report in the previous week earns a number of draws from the
deck indicated by the switch equal to the interest index for that
office. At the beginning of each month, each holder of an office
without a weekly report who held the office for 16 or more days in
the prior month earns a number of draws from the deck indicated by
the switch equal to the interest index of the office.
}}
Replace it with:
{{
At the beginning of each week, each holder of an office earns a number
of draws from the deck indicated by the switch equal to the interest
index for that office.
}}
}
BUS: Re: Proposal: Reduce Card Complexity v2
I withdraw my proposal entitled Reduce Card Complexity v2 and submit
the following instead:
Reduce Card Complexity v3
AI: 2
II: 2
{
[Synopsis: Consolidates the Government, Change, and Justice into one
deck under a new recordkeepor. Reduces the number of cards drawn.
Consolidates card types by combining powers. Re-defines hand limits.]
Re-title R2258 (Decks, Draws, Salaries) to The Deck of Agora and
replace it's text with:
{{
The Dealor is an office. The Deck of Agora is a deck of cards tracked
by the Dealor.
At the end of each week each player earns a number of draws from the
Deck of Agora equal to the sum of all the following:
* The highest Interest Index among offices e held for the entire
duration of that week (if any, or 0 of none)
* The highest Interest Index among cases e judged on time during that
week (if any, or 0 if none)
* The highest Interest Index among proposals e authored that were
adopted during that week (if any, or 0 if none)
* Five if e is first-class and registered during that week.
The Deck of Agora consists of the following cards listed by Title
followed by Exploit:
Debate-o-Matic - Specify an ordinary non-fillibustered proposal.
Choose one: That proposal becomes democratic OR Veto that proposal OR
Rubberstamp that proposal.
Lobbyist - Increase the caste of a player you specify (other than
yourself) by one.
Local Election - Decrease the caste of a player you specify (other
than yourself) by one.
No Confidence - Initiate an election for an Office you specify for
which no election is currently in progress.
Distrib-u-Matic - A proposal that you indicate becomes distributable
Committee - A proposal that you indicate becomes undistributable
Presto! - Indicate an entity and a card held by that entity. The card
is transferred to you.
Absolv-o-Matic - A rest possessed by the player you name is destroyed.
Stool Pidgeon - A rest is created in the possession of a first-class
player you name provided no one has named the same player in playing
this card in the last 72 hours.
Supersize Me! - Increase the Hand Limit of a specified player by 1.
Shrink Potion - Decrease the Hand Limit of a specified player by 1.
}}
Replace the text of R2259 (Basic Hand Limits) with:
{{
A player's Hand Limit is an integer value (default 8). If a player's
Hand Limit would ever be set to a value less than 3 it is instead set
to 3. The Dealor's report SHALL include a list of all non-default Hand
Limits.
If a player owns a number of cards from the Deck of Agora equal to or
greater than eir Hand Limit and would earn a draw from the Deck of
Agora, instead e earns no draw from the Deck of Agora. This rule takes
precedence over any rule which would cause a player to earn a draw
from the Deck of Agora.
}}
[NOTE: Bootstrapping provisions below]
Upon adoption of this proposal, each card from the deck of Change,
Government, or Justice held by a player whose name matches the name of
a card from the Deck of Agora is destroyed and a corresponding card
from the Deck of Agora is created in the possession of the same
player.
Set the frequency of each card in the Deck of Agora equal to the
frequency of the corresponding card with the same name in the deck of
Change, Government, or Justice.
Repeal R2260, R2261, and R2262.
Upon the adoption of this proposal BobTHJ becomes the holder of the
office of Dealor. The IADoP CAN and SHALL initiate an election for the
office of Dealor as soon as possible.
}
BUS: Re: Proposal: Flexible Hand Limits
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 00:08, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Flexible Hand Limits
I withdraw this proposal. I submit the following revised proposal:
Flexible Hand Limits
AI: 2
II: 1
{
Replace the text of R2259 (Basic Hand Limits) with:
{{
Each player has a non-negative integer value Hand Limit (default 15).
The Hand Limit of each player is tracked by the Registrar. If a
player's Hand Limit would ever be set below 3, it is instead set to 3.
Hoarding is a player switch with values of Modest (default) and
Greedy, tracked by the Accountor. Any player CAN by flip another
player's (the hoarder) Hoarding to Greedy by announcement if the
hoarder owns more cards than eir Hand Limit.
As soon as possible after the beginning of each week, the Accountor
CAN and SHALL for each player whose Hoarding switch is Greedy:
1. Create N rests in that player's possession (where N equals the
number of weeks the player has been penalized by the Accountor this
way consecutively - including this week, squared)
2. If the player is inactive, destroy three random non-Position cards
in that player's possession.
3. If the player owns less cards than eir Hand Limit, flip that
player's Hoarding to Modest.
}}
Add the following to the list of cards in R2262 (Deck of Justice):
{{
Supersize Me! - Specify a player. That player's Hand Limit is increased by 1.
Shrink Potion - Specify a player. That player's Hand Limit is
decreased by 5% (rounded up).
}}
Upon the adoption of this proposal set the frequency of the card
Supersize Me! to 20; Set the frequency of the card Shrink Potion
to 10.
}
BUS: Re: Proposal: An Election Issue
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Aaron Goldfeinaarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: Historically, when Agoran decisions were to be initiated to determine the holder of the office and there was only one candidate, e would be installed into office. Recently, when an amendment was passed that made the valid options PRESENT and the candidates, then, provided there is at least one candidate, there are at least two valid options. Thus, elections can never be resolved early due to this bug (which I have overlooked until now). Additionally, there is an issue where candidates cease to be candidates during the voting period. As a result, in the current Janitor election I am the only candidate (Tiger withdrew his nomination and Quazie ceased to be active); however, I cannot resolve the decision immediately due to this fact. Thus, I submit the following proposal. Proposal: An Election Issue (AI = 2, II = 1) In Rule 2154 (Election Procedure), immediately after the sentence reading: The set of candidates can change after the decision is initiated. add the following sentence: If the number of candidates falls below two, PRESENT ceases to be a valid option. End Proposal I intend, without objection, to make the above proposal Distributable. -Yally Having received no objections, I do so.
BUS: Re: Proposal: No More Distributability
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Aaron Goldfeinaarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: Proposal: No More Distributability (AI = 2, II = 2) Amend Rule 1607 (The Promotor) to read: The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing proposals. The Promotor CAN and MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal Pool at any time. The Promotor's weekly duties include the distribution of each proposal that has been in the Proposal Pool since the beginning of that week. For an Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal, the following are essential parameters: a) Its author (and co-authors, if any). b) Its interest index. Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Promotor. The Promotor's report includes a list of all proposals in the Proposal Pool. [This is the exact same version as before the recent Distributability amendment.] End Proposal I intend, with three support, to make the above proposal Distributable. I act on behalf of coppro to support this. I act on behalf of Pavitra to support this. I act on behalf of zeckalpha to support this. Having received sufficient support, I make this proposal distributable.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Proposal: No More Distributability
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote: Aaron Goldfein wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Aaron Goldfeinaarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: Proposal: No More Distributability (AI = 2, II = 2) Amend Rule 1607 (The Promotor) to read: The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing proposals. The Promotor CAN and MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal Pool at any time. The Promotor's weekly duties include the distribution of each proposal that has been in the Proposal Pool since the beginning of that week. For an Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal, the following are essential parameters: a) Its author (and co-authors, if any). b) Its interest index. Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Promotor. The Promotor's report includes a list of all proposals in the Proposal Pool. [This is the exact same version as before the recent Distributability amendment.] End Proposal I intend, with three support, to make the above proposal Distributable. I act on behalf of coppro to support this. I act on behalf of Pavitra to support this. I act on behalf of zeckalpha to support this. Having received sufficient support, I make this proposal distributable. Fails, you can't act on behalf of zeckalpha (try allispaul instead). Oops. I've confused the new players. I act on behalf of allispaul to support this. Having received sufficient support, I make this proposal distributable.
Re: BUS: Re: Proposal: Eliminate Annoying Judge Requirements
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 23:18, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Yally wrote: On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com mailto:aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: Proposal: Eliminate Annoying Judge Requirements (AI = 2, II = 1): Amend the paragraph of Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) reading: When a judicial question on culpability is judged after a number of rests have been created in the Accused's possession due to the associated notice, the judge CAN and SHALL destroy any such rests by announcement as soon as possible. to read: When a judicial question on culpability is judged after a number of rests have been created in the Accused's posession due to the associated notice, those rests are destroyed. End Proposal -Yally I intend, with three support, to make this proposal distributable. I support. support. BobTHJ
BUS: Re: Proposal: Eliminate Annoying Judge Requirements
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.comwrote: Proposal: Eliminate Annoying Judge Requirements (AI = 2, II = 1): Amend the paragraph of Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) reading: When a judicial question on culpability is judged after a number of rests have been created in the Accused's possession due to the associated notice, the judge CAN and SHALL destroy any such rests by announcement as soon as possible. to read: When a judicial question on culpability is judged after a number of rests have been created in the Accused's posession due to the associated notice, those rests are destroyed. End Proposal -Yally I intend, with three support, to make this proposal distributable.
Re: BUS: Re: Proposal: Eliminate Annoying Judge Requirements
Yally wrote: On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com mailto:aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: Proposal: Eliminate Annoying Judge Requirements (AI = 2, II = 1): Amend the paragraph of Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) reading: When a judicial question on culpability is judged after a number of rests have been created in the Accused's possession due to the associated notice, the judge CAN and SHALL destroy any such rests by announcement as soon as possible. to read: When a judicial question on culpability is judged after a number of rests have been created in the Accused's posession due to the associated notice, those rests are destroyed. End Proposal -Yally I intend, with three support, to make this proposal distributable. I support.
BUS: Re: Proposal: Reworking the Anarchist
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.comwrote: Proposal: Reworking the Anarchist (AI = 1, II = 3) The Anarchist's proposals are rarely accepted. This proposal proposes two changes, both of which serve the purpose of having the Anarchist's proposals actually be accepted. First, the Anarchist is given the power to select the rules e wishes to repeal rather than having to randomly select some (which will often net em with having rules that nobody wants to repeal). Second, it gives the Anarchist the power to submit other relevant changes, so as not to leave the rules in disarray if any of eir proposals are to be accepted. These changes should dramatically increase the adoption rate of the Anarchist's proposals. Amend Rule 2216 (The Repeal-o-Matic) to read: The Anarchist is an office; its holder is responsible for proposing the repeal of rules. The Anarchist's weekly duties include picking one or more rules and submitting proposals to repeal those rules. The Anarchist SHOULD include in eir proposals other relevant changes so as not to break the rule set. The Anarchist SHALL NOT submit a proposal to repeal a rule for which e already submitted a proposal to repeal within the last month. The adoption index of each of the Anarchist's proposals is equal to the maximum power of the rule e is to amend. End Proposal I retract the above proposal and submit the following proposal. Proposal: Reworking the Anarchist (AI = 1, II = 3) The Anarchist's proposals are rarely accepted. This proposal proposes two changes, both of which serve the purpose of having the Anarchist's proposals actually be accepted. First, the Anarchist is given the power to select the rules e wishes to repeal rather than having to randomly select some (which will often net em with having rules that nobody wants to repeal). Second, it gives the Anarchist the power to submit other relevant changes, so as not to leave the rules in disarray if any of eir proposals are to be accepted. These changes should dramatically increase the adoption rate of the Anarchist's proposals. Amend Rule 2216 (The Repeal-o-Matic) to read: The Anarchist is an office; its holder is responsible for proposing the repeal of rules. The Anarchist's weekly duties include picking one or more rules and submitting proposals to repeal each of those rules. The Anarchist SHOULD include in eir proposals other relevant changes so as not to have negative effects on the Rules. The Anarchist SHALL NOT submit a proposal to repeal a rule for which e already submitted a proposal to repeal within the last month. The adoption index of each of the Anarchist's proposals is equal to the maximum power of the rule e is to amend. The Anarchist's monthly report includes a list of the titles and texts of the proposals e submitted as part of eir weekly duties in the preceding month. End Proposal -Yally
BUS: Re: Proposal: Reserve Fora
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.comwrote: Proposal: Reserve Fora (AI = 2) So that no player sends an announcement in the reserve fora (which many will likely not receive because nobody pays attention to the reserve fora) in lieu of the commonly used public fora, this proposal creates a new class of fora. Amend the paragraph in Rule 478 (Fora) reading Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar. to read: Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Reserve, Discussion, and Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar. Amend the paragraph in Rule 478 (Fora) reading A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent to a reserve forum if all public fora are not functional, or sent to all players and containing a clear designation of intent to be public. A person publishes or announces something by sending a public message. End proposal. Oops. I retract my most recently submitted proposal, and submit the following proposal. Proposal: Reserve Fora (AI = 2) So that no player sends an announcement in the reserve fora (which many will likely not receive because nobody pays attention to the reserve fora) in lieu of the commonly used public fora, this proposal creates a new class of fora. Amend the paragraph in Rule 478 (Fora) reading Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar. to read: Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Reserve, Discussion, and Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar. Amend the paragraph in Rule 478 (Fora) reading A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent to all players and containing a clear designation of intent to be public. A person publishes or announces something by sending a public message. to read: A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent to a reserve forum if all public fora are not functional, or sent to all players and containing a clear designation of intent to be public. A person publishes or announces something by sending a public message. End proposal.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Proposal: Reserve Fora
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 12:03, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent to a reserve forum if all public fora are not functional, or sent to all players and containing a clear designation of intent to be public. A person publishes or announces something by sending a public message. A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent to a reserve forum or to all players if the sender reasonably believes no public forum to be available and functional. BobTHJ Alright, I like that. I again retract my most recently submitted proposal and submit the following proposal: Proposal: Reserve Fora (AI = 2, coauthor BobTHJ) So that no player sends an announcement in the reserve fora (which many will likely not receive because nobody pays attention to the reserve fora) in lieu of the commonly used public fora, this proposal creates a new class of fora. Amend the paragraph in Rule 478 (Fora) reading Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar. to read: Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Reserve, Discussion, and Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar. Amend the paragraph in Rule 478 (Fora) reading A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent to all players and containing a clear designation of intent to be public. A person publishes or announces something by sending a public message. to read: A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or, if the sender reasonably believes no public forum to be available and functional, sent via a reserve forum or directly all players containing a clear designation of intent to be public. End Proposal
BUS: Re: Proposal: Democracy When Reasonable
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.comwrote:
Proposal: Democracy When Reasonable (AI = 2, II = 0)
{
Change the text of rule 2142, Support Democracy from:
A player CAN, with 2 support, change an ordinary decision to be democratic.
to:
A player CAN, with 2 support, change an ordinary decision to be democratic
provided the voting of the people has not already commenced
}
As the author of this proposal, Democracy When Reasonable, I would like to
remove it from the proposal pool on account of the fact that a similar one
was recently submitted, of which I was previously unaware.
-Yally
BUS: Re: Proposal: Activate the PRS
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit the following proposal:
Activate the PRS
AI: 1
II: 1
{
Upon the adoption of this proposal the contract known as the Points
Relay Service becomes a contest with BobTHJ as its contestmaster
}
I withdraw the above-reference proposal. I submit the following
replacement proposal (to fit the recent change to contests):
Activate the PRS
AI: 1
II: 1
{
Upon the adoption of this proposal the contestmaster of the contract
known as the Points Relay Service is flipped to BobTHJ
}
BobTHJ
BUS: Re: Proposal
On Nov 14, 2007 9:56 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I submit the following proposal, titled Contracts are a subset of agreements (II=0): I retract Contracts are a subset of agreements, and I submit the following proposal, also titled Contracts are a subset of agreements (II=0): Amend Rule 2136 (Contests) by replacing each instance of the word agreement with contract. -root
BUS: Re: Proposal: earned citizenship
Not in the discussion forum, you don't.
... I *check* this now. Every time. How did this happen?
Oh, well.
I withdraw my proposal earned citizenship from
the proposal pool. I submit the following proposal, earned
citizenship/1 at AI=2:
{{{
BobTHJ and root are coauthors of this proposal.
Amend rule 2156 by replacing the text The BVLOP of a first-class
player is four, and the BVLOP of any other player is zero. with The
BVLOP of a player is zero.
Amend rule 2126 by replacing the last sentence with:
When one or more players win the game, each player's VVLOP is set to
eir BVLOP, and each player with more than four VCs loses all but four
VCs of their choice. A player who is to lose VCs in this way SHALL
indicate eir choice by announcement as soon as possible, and CANNOT
spend VCs until e does so.
If, after the aforementioned win but before the announcement of eir
choice, the player in question would lose VCs by any mechanism other
than this paragraph, then the loss is delayed until one second after
the VC loss required by this paragraph takes place.
}}}
BUS: Re: Proposal: Simplify quorum
I retract my proposal Simplify quorum and submit the following corrected version. Proposal: Simplify quorum (AI = 2, please) Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) to read: Quorum for an Agoran decision is 5, unless a) this is larger than the number of eligible voters with a positive voting limit on that decision, in which case quorum is that number; or b) the decision is whether to approve a dependent action, in which case quorum is zero.
