Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Notice of Honour] Wait! Wait! I'm still using it!

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business]

On 11/19/20 11:36 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote:
> It was a very fun 27 minutes though
> 
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 5:30 PM Lucidiot via agora-business <
> agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 19/11/2020 17:03, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
>>>
>>> Wait, wait! We can go full circle!
>>>
>>> This is a Notice of Honor
>>>
>>> +1 Falsifan (because I want to go the whole round around)
>>> -1 Lucidiot (because this is a sacrifice I am willing to take)
>>>
>>> Now we're back to where we started.
>>>
>>
>> Heh.
>>
>> This is a Notice of Honour:
>>
>> +1 Falsifian (for honouring me)
>> -1 CuddleBeam (for dishonouring me)
>>
>> --
>> ~lucidiot
>>
>>

This is a Notice of Honour:
+1 Lucidiot (Agoran Press)
-1 Cuddlebeam (Penalizing a new person)

-- 

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate
Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[nch via agora-business]

On 6/30/20 9:41 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/30/20 8:51 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> This is a notice of honour.
>>
>> -1 Jason for attempting to resolve the fix proposal too early, opening a
>> scam opportunity
>>
>> +1 nch for not taking advantage of that opportunity
>>
>> --
>> Jason Cobb
>>
> This is a notice of honour.
>
> +1 Jason for trying eir best to counterscam and being a fun opponent
>
> -1 nch for undeserved honour from Jason
>
> --
> nch
> Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
>
>
TTttPF

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Rebecca via agora-business]

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 11:13 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion  wrote:

> NttPF
>
> > On Mar 30, 2020, at 19:16, Rebecca via agora-discussion <
> agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:38 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-business <
> > agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >> +1: Jason for putting to rest a piece of ancient history
> >> -1: Aris for abusing a motion to reconsider to extend a deadline
> >>
> >> -Alexis
> >>
> >
> >  +1 Jason
> > -1 Aris
> >
> > Reasons are the same as Alexis, above
> > --
> > From R. Lee
>

This is a notice of honour
> +1: Jason for putting to rest a piece of ancient history
> -1: Aris for abusing a motion to reconsider to extend a deadline
>
> -Alexis
>

  +1 Jason
-1 Aris

Reasons are the same as Alexis, above
-- 
>From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Aris Merchant]

Next time, just try to communicate a bit more clearly. :)

Notice of Honor:
-1 G. (unclear communication)
+1 omd (serving as our Distributor)

Now we're both at 0, which seems equitable somehow.

-Aris
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 9:14 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
>
> I think we're just interpreting things differently:  when a proposal is
> "added back" to the proposal pool, you give it the priority of its original
> number, while I was assuming that if other proposals were added to the
> pool in the mean time, those should have priority.
>
> In this case, it turned out that your ordering happened to favor proposals
> you were keen on, that I didn't want to pass.
>
> Where this matters:  I thought about resubmitting a "Coins->Points"
> name change proposal that could take effect before the "coin reduction"
> proposals, thus rendering them ineffective.  But if those quorum-failing
> proposals always jump the queue, that removes this strategy.
>
> Anyway:  I almost added that we haven't had a good "karma storm" (lots
> of people sniping each others' karma) in a long time.  It's a good way
> to blow off steam (and smooth things over :) ) without really damaging
> anyone - though the zombies doing karma really amplifies it I guess!
> I'm cool (even if you do another round of karma on me :P ).
>
>
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > To the public forum:
> >
> > I haven’t reordered proposals to favor one over another any time I can
> > remember. If I have done so recently (in the last few months), please point
> > it out, and I pledge that I will state, publicly, whether or not the
> > reordering was an attempt at deliberate manipulation. I make every effort
> > to be scrupulously fair with my actions in the office of the Promotor. I’ve
> > done a few pranks (that thing with Cuddlebeam last year comes to mind), but
> > nothing I didn’t consider ethical. On every occasion upon which I have been
> > offered a bribe to distribute proposals in a certain way, I have refused
> > it. I’m trying very hard not to take personal offense at that allegation,
> > given that this is a game and we appear to only be having a
> > misunderstanding.
> >
> > I believe that if a proposal fails quorum, it should be voted upon again,
> > so that the people of Agora can state their views on it. I have attempted
> > to make that possible. If you disagree, that’s your right, but I’m only
> > trying to be helpful. If you believe that the attempts at lowering quorum
> > are inadvisable, that is a disagreement best worked out through the
> > proposal process.
> >
> > With hope that we can smooth this over,
> > Aris
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 8:40 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > > -1 G. (complaining about proposals being readded while resisting any
> > > > attempt to lower quorum or otherwise resolve the problem of them failing
> > > > quorum)
> > >
> > > Quorum is working as intended.  The only "problem" is that some people
> > > don't accept a result as a result, to the point that they are using their
> > > Office in self-interest by distributing proposals out of the order that
> > > they were placed in the pool, to favor proposals that they like.
> > >
> > > Might as well jump in though.
> > >
> > > Notice of Honour:
> > > -1 Aris (because really, I feel like it).
> > > +1 CuddleBeam (because I'm tired of seeing that name at the bottom).
> > >
> > >
> > > On behalf of Gaelan, I publish this following Notice of Honour:
> > >
> > > Notice of Honour
> > > -1 Aris (because Gaelan may or may not feel like it).
> > > +1 V.J. (or VJ) Rada, because eir name is confusing enough to be
> > > listed in two different ways within the Registrar's Report, and
> > > I like that.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Edward Murphy]

Trigon wrote:


PF

On Sun, Sep 23, 2018, 14:02 Reuben Staley  wrote:


I submit this notice of honor:

-1 to D. Margaux for being a manipulator
+1 to D Margaux for helping debug zombie rules

I call a CFJ: This Notice of Honour causes a player's karma to change by
exactly one and then change back.

Arguments: In standard English, initials can be spelled with periods and
spaces between them, with only periods, with only spaces, or with nothing.
For example:

J. R. R. Tolkien
J.R.R. Tolkien
J R R Tolkien
JRR Tolkien

All four aforementioned names refer to the same person, John Ronald Reuel
Tolkien. Since all players are persons, it follows that initials should be
accepted using any method of separation.

Therefore, "D. Margaux" and "D Margaux" refer to the same person, a person
who registered during April of this year.


This is CFJ 3662. I assign it to D. Margaux.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Reuben Staley]

PF

On Sun, Sep 23, 2018, 14:02 Reuben Staley  wrote:

> I submit this notice of honor:
>
> -1 to D. Margaux for being a manipulator
> +1 to D Margaux for helping debug zombie rules
>
> I call a CFJ: This Notice of Honour causes a player's karma to change by
> exactly one and then change back.
>
> Arguments: In standard English, initials can be spelled with periods and
> spaces between them, with only periods, with only spaces, or with nothing.
> For example:
>
> J. R. R. Tolkien
> J.R.R. Tolkien
> J R R Tolkien
> JRR Tolkien
>
> All four aforementioned names refer to the same person, John Ronald Reuel
> Tolkien. Since all players are persons, it follows that initials should be
> accepted using any method of separation.
>
> Therefore, "D. Margaux" and "D Margaux" refer to the same person, a person
> who registered during April of this year.
>
> This ends my arguments for a frivolous CFJ. I probably did something wrong.
>
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018, 13:26 Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I act on behalf of Tenaior to publish the following notice of honor:
> >
> > -1 D Margaux (manipulating zombies to gain honor)
> > +1 nichdel (being mainipulated)
> >
> > I publish the following notice of honor, which I was about to publish
> > anyway:
> > -1 G. (complaining about proposals being readded while resisting any
> > attempt to lower quorum or otherwise resolve the problem of them failing
> > quorum)
> > +1 D Margaux (helping fix problems by debugging the proposals)
> >
> > -Aris
> > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 12:16 PM D Margaux 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I cause nichdel to issue this Notice of Honour:
> > >
> > > -1 nichdel (having the misfortune of being D. Margaux’s zombie)
> > > +1 D Margaux (for revealing what might be yet another zombie exploit)
> > > --
> > > D. Margaux
> > >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Oct 22, 2017, at 12:27 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> That reminds me, I intend to deputize for referee.

I object.

P.S.S. also reached out to me personally about deputizing for this office. I’m 
content (bordering on eager; it’s a fascinating office) to continue in it, or 
relinquish it, as Agora sees fit, so…

As elections for the office of Referee have not occurred in the last 90 days, I 
initiate an election for the office of Referee. I stand for election. I submit 
no campaign proposal - there are enough crim jus proposals in flight as it is.

-o




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Kerim Aydin]

I withdraw the below CFJ - on reflection I think it's pretty trivial.

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017, if it is
> > still possible.
> 
> I AP-CFJ on the following:  It is currently POSSIBLE for Publius to break the
> terms of the pledge quoted in evidence.
> 
> Arguments:
> 
> E published a pledge to do something on a date that has passed.  However,
> the "if it is still possible" is confusing under the circumstances.  It
> was *not* possible to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19th when
> the pledge was made on Oct 22.  But the "if it is still possible" could
> also apply to making the pledge.  "If it is still possible to pledge
> to deputize on Oct 19, I do so".  But again, is it possible to pledge to
> do something in the past?  (probably...)
> 
> The "currently possible" asks whether the pledge was:
>   - Never made,
>   - Made and broken the moment it was made,
>   - Made and can be broken in the future somehow.
> 
> (note "terms" of the pledge refers to the new pledge rules instituted
> under Proposal 7901).
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017, if it is
> still possible.

I AP-CFJ on the following:  It is currently POSSIBLE for Publius to break the
terms of the pledge quoted in evidence.

Arguments:

E published a pledge to do something on a date that has passed.  However,
the "if it is still possible" is confusing under the circumstances.  It
was *not* possible to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19th when
the pledge was made on Oct 22.  But the "if it is still possible" could
also apply to making the pledge.  "If it is still possible to pledge
to deputize on Oct 19, I do so".  But again, is it possible to pledge to
do something in the past?  (probably...)

The "currently possible" asks whether the pledge was:
  - Never made,
  - Made and broken the moment it was made,
  - Made and can be broken in the future somehow.

(note "terms" of the pledge refers to the new pledge rules instituted
under Proposal 7901).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017, if it is
still possible.


On 10/22/2017 12:14 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Huh, you're right, I could have sworn I saw them there...
>
> Rulekeepor is definitely out of date on SLRs; anyone could deputise
> for it with appropriate notice. They could also start an election,
> perhaps with a campaign pledge to reinstate CFJ annotations?
>
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 00:13 Madeline  > wrote:
>
> I mean... I had noticed :P and the ADoP office itself being in
> confusion
> is really troubling...
>
>
> On 2017-10-22 15:10, VJ Rada wrote:
> > The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since I've
> been
> > a player. I think Gaelan took them out.
> >
> > JDGA: I'm ironically not sure what you can deputize for because I'm
> > late on my ADoP report (and am no longer ADoP) but I think it
> might be
> > just rulekeepor? o hasn't posted in about a week (I've kind of
> missed
> > him already haha) so it seems likely that he might miss this week's
> > report but it would take another week for you to deputize.
> Rulekeepor
> > I think you can next week but not this week (or next month because
> > Gaelan updated the FLR last month but forgot to file it as a
> report).
> > I think every other office is OK?
> >
> > And regarding the uploading: I certainly haven't uploaded my
> weeklies
> > to the website and nobody's really noticed. I think none of them are
> > really in date rip. Except, obviously, uploading the ruleset is
> > important.
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alexis Hunt  > wrote:
> >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada  > wrote:
> >>> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs.
> >>
> >> The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been
> keeping them up
> >> to date.
> >>
> >> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2909 is the
> original
> >> precedent that I'm aware of (fun fact: "Wooble is a player" may
> be the
> >> single most common CFJ text of all time).
> >
> >
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[VJ Rada]

Looks like the rules require me to do so particularly specifying the
action. I intend to deputise for referee for the purpose of publishing
eir weekly report.

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:27 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> That reminds me, I intend to deputize for referee.
>
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:26 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> Yeah, go ahead and deputize if you want, Trigon.
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Reuben Staley  
>> wrote:
>>> I'd be willing to do one or all of these things. I've been around for just
>>> under a month, so I think I know the gist of this game enough by now to have
>>> responsibilities.
>>>
>>> On 10/21/2017 10:14 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:

 Huh, you're right, I could have sworn I saw them there...

 Rulekeepor is definitely out of date on SLRs; anyone could deputise for it
 with appropriate notice. They could also start an election, perhaps with a
 campaign pledge to reinstate CFJ annotations?

 On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 00:13 Madeline > wrote:

 I mean... I had noticed :P and the ADoP office itself being in
 confusion
 is really troubling...


 On 2017-10-22 15:10, VJ Rada wrote:
  > The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since I've
 been
  > a player. I think Gaelan took them out.
  >
  > JDGA: I'm ironically not sure what you can deputize for because I'm
  > late on my ADoP report (and am no longer ADoP) but I think it
 might be
  > just rulekeepor? o hasn't posted in about a week (I've kind of
 missed
  > him already haha) so it seems likely that he might miss this week's
  > report but it would take another week for you to deputize.
 Rulekeepor
  > I think you can next week but not this week (or next month because
  > Gaelan updated the FLR last month but forgot to file it as a
 report).
  > I think every other office is OK?
  >
  > And regarding the uploading: I certainly haven't uploaded my
 weeklies
  > to the website and nobody's really noticed. I think none of them
 are
  > really in date rip. Except, obviously, uploading the ruleset is
  > important.
  >
  > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alexis Hunt > wrote:
  >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada > wrote:
  >>> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs.
  >>
  >> The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been
 keeping them up
  >> to date.
  >>
  >> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2909 is the
 original
  >> precedent that I'm aware of (fun fact: "Wooble is a player" may
 be the
  >> single most common CFJ text of all time).
  >
  >



 
 Virus-free. www.avg.com
 

 <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Trigon
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[VJ Rada]

That reminds me, I intend to deputize for referee.

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:26 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> Yeah, go ahead and deputize if you want, Trigon.
>
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Reuben Staley  
> wrote:
>> I'd be willing to do one or all of these things. I've been around for just
>> under a month, so I think I know the gist of this game enough by now to have
>> responsibilities.
>>
>> On 10/21/2017 10:14 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>>>
>>> Huh, you're right, I could have sworn I saw them there...
>>>
>>> Rulekeepor is definitely out of date on SLRs; anyone could deputise for it
>>> with appropriate notice. They could also start an election, perhaps with a
>>> campaign pledge to reinstate CFJ annotations?
>>>
>>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 00:13 Madeline >> > wrote:
>>>
>>> I mean... I had noticed :P and the ADoP office itself being in
>>> confusion
>>> is really troubling...
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2017-10-22 15:10, VJ Rada wrote:
>>>  > The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since I've
>>> been
>>>  > a player. I think Gaelan took them out.
>>>  >
>>>  > JDGA: I'm ironically not sure what you can deputize for because I'm
>>>  > late on my ADoP report (and am no longer ADoP) but I think it
>>> might be
>>>  > just rulekeepor? o hasn't posted in about a week (I've kind of
>>> missed
>>>  > him already haha) so it seems likely that he might miss this week's
>>>  > report but it would take another week for you to deputize.
>>> Rulekeepor
>>>  > I think you can next week but not this week (or next month because
>>>  > Gaelan updated the FLR last month but forgot to file it as a
>>> report).
>>>  > I think every other office is OK?
>>>  >
>>>  > And regarding the uploading: I certainly haven't uploaded my
>>> weeklies
>>>  > to the website and nobody's really noticed. I think none of them
>>> are
>>>  > really in date rip. Except, obviously, uploading the ruleset is
>>>  > important.
>>>  >
>>>  > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alexis Hunt >> > wrote:
>>>  >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada >> > wrote:
>>>  >>> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs.
>>>  >>
>>>  >> The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been
>>> keeping them up
>>>  >> to date.
>>>  >>
>>>  >> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2909 is the
>>> original
>>>  >> precedent that I'm aware of (fun fact: "Wooble is a player" may
>>> be the
>>>  >> single most common CFJ text of all time).
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> Virus-free. www.avg.com
>>> 
>>>
>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Trigon
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada