Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Legislative Dominance
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 16:20 -0400, Quazie wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: By the way, I really, really, really, really don't think that Cards and Notes (in current complexity) should exist at the same time. -G. I believe notes should die. Or, notes should become cards, and all note cards should expire the day after agora's birthday. As far as I can tell, there's a rough a-d consensus that Notes should be killed the day after Agora's Birthday and replaced with something different. Cards would make quite a good something different, IMO. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 18:56 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: Manuel Lanctot wrote: I register. ~Manu I award Manu a White Ribbon. Fails, e's been a player before. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Proto: Just my opinion
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Quazie quazieno...@gmail.com wrote: I feel like distributions are currently really hard to parse as it is when there are tons of proposals, this proto would potentially increase the length of distributions N fold, where N is the number of players. Its scammable in that a paragraph has no space, so I could give a very lengthy opinion on each proposal that comes through, leading distributions to be held up by the size restrictions placed on the forums. Well, I was hoping people would restrain themselves to short paragraphs, but 100 words works too, and perhaps man. Hopefully in most cases an opinion would just be a sentence or so-- breaks 6 Months Long Service or potential scam or unbalanced in favor of Betas, etc.
Re: DIS: Proto: Just my opinion
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:26 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: Well, I was hoping people would restrain themselves to short paragraphs, but 100 words works too, and perhaps man. Hopefully in most cases an opinion would just be a sentence or so-- breaks 6 Months Long Service or potential scam or unbalanced in favor of Betas, etc. In deference to Quazie, 10 words might suffice. All one has to do is put in enough information to enable someone to find the (hopefully more detailed) arguments in the archives. -- Taral tar...@gmail.com Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Legislative Dominance
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:40 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: As far as I can tell, there's a rough a-d consensus that Notes should be killed the day after Agora's Birthday and replaced with something different. Cards would make quite a good something different, IMO. Sounds good to me. -- Taral tar...@gmail.com Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Legislative Dominance
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Quazie quazieno...@gmail.com wrote: I submit the following proposal entitled And then there was silence, AI=2 please, with the following body: Repeal rule 2126 the day after agora's birthday. Unless this is retroactive to the last birthday, that's a no-op (except, apparently, in Blognomic where an anonymous rule would be created)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Legislative Dominance
Quazie wrote: I submit a new proposal entitled And then there was silence. ai=2 with the following body: proposal Append the following to R2126: The day after agora's birthday 2009 this rule repeal's itself. /proposal Rules 2228 and 2229 also need to be updated.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Legislative Dominance
Quazie wrote: I retract the above proposal. I submit a new proposal entitled And then there was silence. ai=2 with the following body: proposal Append the following to R2126: The day after agora's birthday 2009 this rule repeal's itself. /proposal I will only vote for this if something else is proposed to replace them. Goethe's card proposal is not sufficient as it doesn't reward good behavior much.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: a better way to phase out notes
2009/5/14 Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com
I submit the following AI-2 Proposal entitled Party Time
{{
Amend Rule 2126, removing:
(6) During Agora's Birthday, a player CAN spend Notes forming
the melody Happy Birthday (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or
a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of
Musicianship,
and renumbering the following sections.
Create a new Power 2 rule entitled Hats with the following text:
Party Hats are a class of fixed assets, tracked by the
Conductor. Party hats can only be created as described in
this rule.
A player CAN spend Notes forming the melody Happy
Birthday (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or a translation
thereof) to create a Party Hat in eir own possession.
During Agora's Birthday, a player CAN destroy a Party Hat
in eir own possession to satisfy the Winning Condition of
Celebration.
[[Creates a way for players saving Notes for a long time to win on
Agora's Birthday without making us wait a month and a half to replace
Notes, although people who are close to having the required Notes will
probably want to hold up completely replacing them for a little while
unless the replacement introduces a new way to get a Hat with a
transition of existing Notes to partially fulfill the new
requirements.]]
}}
I think it's good, but maybe we should only be able to create one party hat
each. Some people will have a lot of wins otherwise...
--
-Tiger
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: a better way to phase out notes
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: I think it's good, but maybe we should only be able to create one party hat each. Some people will have a lot of wins otherwise... Seems unlikely; it takes 25 notes to play Happy Birthday, and only 4 players have 50 or more. I don't believe any of them have the right mix of notes to do it twice right now, although it's possible a couple of them could manage to get the right notes. I don't really see a benefit to winning multiple times, though, especially if we assume leftover notes will probably get converted to something else useful when they go way, like VCs did.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: a better way to phase out notes
2009/5/14 Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: I think it's good, but maybe we should only be able to create one party hat each. Some people will have a lot of wins otherwise... Seems unlikely; it takes 25 notes to play Happy Birthday, and only 4 players have 50 or more. I don't believe any of them have the right mix of notes to do it twice right now, although it's possible a couple of them could manage to get the right notes. I don't really see a benefit to winning multiple times, though, especially if we assume leftover notes will probably get converted to something else useful when they go way, like VCs did. Okay. It felt like there wore more people that could do it, like, a bunch of times, but then it's okay. -- -Tiger
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: a better way to phase out notes
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
I submit the following AI-2 Proposal entitled Party Time
{{
Amend Rule 2126, removing:
(6) During Agora's Birthday, a player CAN spend Notes forming
the melody Happy Birthday (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or
a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of
Musicianship,
and renumbering the following sections.
Create a new Power 2 rule entitled Hats with the following text:
Party Hats are a class of fixed assets, tracked by the
Conductor. Party hats can only be created as described in
this rule.
A player CAN spend Notes forming the melody Happy
Birthday (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or a translation
thereof) to create a Party Hat in eir own possession.
During Agora's Birthday, a player CAN destroy a Party Hat
in eir own possession to satisfy the Winning Condition of
Celebration.
[[Creates a way for players saving Notes for a long time to win on
Agora's Birthday without making us wait a month and a half to replace
Notes, although people who are close to having the required Notes will
probably want to hold up completely replacing them for a little while
unless the replacement introduces a new way to get a Hat with a
transition of existing Notes to partially fulfill the new
requirements.]]
}}
I like this in that we can always have a party-hat rule and just
modify how to get hats.
DIS: Re: BUS: Forming the IBA
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:16 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: }} I initiate a Motion to Amend the IBA, with the following amendment: ... parties. If this contract is ever not a player, any person CAN act on its behalf to intend to register and CAN act on its behalf to register. AGAINST, I don't see the point. Must be a player to become a Farmer, which is required to own Crops. OTOH, I'd be in favor of amending the AAA contract to not limit ownership of crops and WRVs to Farmers or Players. (I'd be against changing the Lands requirement, since transferring Lands to a non-Farmer so as to keep qualifying for Subsidy would be annoying.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Legislative Dominance
On Thu, 14 May 2009, Quazie wrote: I submit the following proposal entitled And then there was silence, AI=2 please, with the following body: Repeal rule 2126 the day after agora's birthday. Please retract this. It's most appropriate to do this in combination with the new thing, that is, in a proposal that exchanges notes for cards (so those of us not planning to hum a tune don't have our savings wiped out). Also, are you sure that a proposal can take effect and have delayed effect like this (without creating a rule that repeals R2126 and then self-repeals at the appropriate time?) -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Legislative Dominance
On Thu, 14 May 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: Quazie wrote: I retract the above proposal. I submit a new proposal entitled And then there was silence. ai=2 with the following body: proposal Append the following to R2126: The day after agora's birthday 2009 this rule repeal's itself. /proposal I will only vote for this if something else is proposed to replace them. Goethe's card proposal is not sufficient as it doesn't reward good behavior much. That was a proto mainly for card definitions and mechanics. TODO: - Create low level cards that let you do the same things that notes do. - Allow cards to be earned through (some subset of the way notes are earned). -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: a better way to phase out notes
On Thu, 14 May 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: [[Creates a way for players saving Notes for a long time to win on Agora's Birthday without making us wait a month and a half to replace Notes, although people who are close to having the required Notes will probably want to hold up completely replacing them for a little while unless the replacement introduces a new way to get a Hat with a transition of existing Notes to partially fulfill the new requirements.]] }} This doesn't help either against destroying notes early, if someone's been planning the win for a while but still needs a few more weeks of notes. Why complicate things and what's the hurry? I personally don't support any repeal of notes before the birthday. -G.
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2500 assigned to Rodlen
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2500 == CFJ 2500 == A player who does not deregister in the interval becomes a Senator exactly 1440 (60 * 24) hours after e registers. Gratuitous arguments: I'd argue for FALSE based on Goethe's evidence. The phrase continuously for the immediately preceding sixty days seems to refer to each day as an epochal entity, as distinct from within 7 days which reads more naturally as a time span consisting of 7 24 hour periods as measured from the specified event. I believe referring to days vs. Agoran days is a red herring; certainly game custom is that a high priority officer doesn't violate the rules by publishing eir report on Monday of one week and then on Tuesday of the next week, even though there's a week in the non-epoch sense during which no report was published.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: a better way to phase out notes
On Thu, 14 May 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote: This doesn't help either against destroying notes early, if someone's been planning the win for a while but still needs a few more weeks of notes. Why complicate things and what's the hurry? I personally don't support any repeal of notes before the birthday. -G. Actually, how does the following two-phase compromise sound: - Implement card mechanics now with cards replacing prerogatives (i.e. only a small number of unique cards) giving us a chance to spot implementation bugs in basic mechanics. But don't repeal notes. - After the birthday, repeal notes and add economic cards (earnable, spendable, otw usable). -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: a better way to phase out notes
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote: This doesn't help either against destroying notes early, if someone's been planning the win for a while but still needs a few more weeks of notes. Why complicate things and what's the hurry? I personally don't support any repeal of notes before the birthday. -G. Actually, how does the following two-phase compromise sound: - Implement card mechanics now with cards replacing prerogatives (i.e. only a small number of unique cards) giving us a chance to spot implementation bugs in basic mechanics. But don't repeal notes. - After the birthday, repeal notes and add economic cards (earnable, spendable, otw usable). -Goethe I like this idea. We can also add economic cards early, but make it illegal to distribute them while notes exist?
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2500 assigned to Rodlen
On Thu, 14 May 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2500 == CFJ 2500 == A player who does not deregister in the interval becomes a Senator exactly 1440 (60 * 24) hours after e registers. Gratuitous arguments: I'd argue for FALSE based on Goethe's evidence. The phrase continuously for the immediately preceding sixty days seems to refer to each day as an epochal entity, as distinct from within 7 days which reads more naturally as a time span consisting of 7 24 hour periods as measured from the specified event. I believe referring to days vs. Agoran days is a red herring; certainly game custom is that a high priority officer doesn't violate the rules by publishing eir report on Monday of one week and then on Tuesday of the next week, even though there's a week in the non-epoch sense during which no report was published. Indeed, by the old R459, the phrase the preceding 60 days is phrased as an independent entity (e.g. the 60 Agoran days) while for 60 days prior would be a span (60 24-hour intervals). -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: [IBA] Actions Report
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:43, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: I initiate a Motion to Amend, specifying the following amendments (in diff format). The eligible voters are the parties to the contract, the options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT, and I am the vote collector. I vote FOR the Motion to Amend. I vote FOR all IBA motions on which I have not yet voted. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Banking for non-Farmers
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend, without 3 Objections, to make the following changes to the
AAA contract:
{{
In Section 4, remove Ownership of Crops is restricted to Farmers.
In Section 10, remove Ownership of Water Rights Vouchers is
restricted to Farmers.
}}
Could we restrict it to people? Players? Something?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Banking for non-Farmers
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Quazie quazieno...@gmail.com wrote: Could we restrict it to people? Players? Something? Players wouldn't solve IBA's issue. On the other hand, I probably don't want to have to track what crops some random person transferred to a small teacup in orbit around the Sun. Hmm. Players and Partnerships? That would also avoid people transferring crops to Hillary Clinton while not requiring a bank to get Agoran Consent to register to set up shop.
DIS: Re: BUS: Brakes tapping II
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I submit the following proposal, Tap the Brakes, AI-2 please: coauthor: ais523 [Proposals cost something from 2000-2007, were free since then. It affected the speed of play and the care people took in proto-ing proposals. Free makes sense when there are fewer players, but with multiple players, care and coordination through support is better.] Amend Rule 1607 (The Promotor) by replacing: 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. with: Distributability is a proposal switch tracked by the Promotor, with values Undistributable (default) and Distributable. In a given Agoran week, the Promotor CAN and SHALL, as part of eir weekly duties, distribute any proposal that is in the Proposal Pool and was Distributable at the beginning of that Agoran week. The Promotor CAN but SHALL NOT, in a given Agoran week, distribute a any proposal that is in the Pool but was Undistributable at the beginning of that Agoran week. A player CAN flip a specified proposal to Distributable with 3 Support, or by spending 1 Note. A player CAN flip a specified proposal to Undistributable by spending 3 Notes. All proposals in the proposal pool when this proposal takes effect are hereby flipped to Distributable (free first round). [Note: progressive costs for each flip don't work very well, as one can just start over with another identical proposal, promoting proposal-carpet-bombing as a strategy. For now, this makes undistributable-making a pay-for option only, we can revisit the balance with the new economic system. The 'with support' option might be temporary as well.] This means that i set up a cron job to make my controversial proposals distributable just before the week begins.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Banking for non-Farmers
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 12:15, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Quazie quazieno...@gmail.com wrote: Could we restrict it to people? Players? Something? Players wouldn't solve IBA's issue. On the other hand, I probably don't want to have to track what crops some random person transferred to a small teacup in orbit around the Sun. Hmm. Players and Partnerships? That would also avoid people transferring crops to Hillary Clinton while not requiring a bank to get Agoran Consent to register to set up shop. I thought the asset rule restricted ownership to persons? BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Brakes tapping II
On Thu, 14 May 2009, Quazie wrote: This means that i set up a cron job to make my controversial proposals distributable just before the week begins. Sure if you want, no-one bothered to do that before (same system) but just like any other rule where time limits matter, a quick hand or cron job can give some advantage. I considered making it whatever is distributable at distribution time but that gives far, far too much power to the promotor. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Brakes tapping II
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2009, Quazie wrote: This means that i set up a cron job to make my controversial proposals distributable just before the week begins. Sure if you want, no-one bothered to do that before (same system) but just like any other rule where time limits matter, a quick hand or cron job can give some advantage. I considered making it whatever is distributable at distribution time but that gives far, far too much power to the promotor. -Goethe whatever is distributable at the beginning of a week and was distributable 24 continuous hours prior?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Banking for non-Farmers
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: I thought the asset rule restricted ownership to persons? Nope. It doesn't even restrict recordkeepors to persons. I don't think any other rule uses entity more often.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Brakes tapping II
On Thu, 14 May 2009, Quazie wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2009, Quazie wrote: This means that i set up a cron job to make my controversial proposals distributable just before the week begins. Sure if you want, no-one bothered to do that before (same system) but just like any other rule where time limits matter, a quick hand or cron job can give some advantage. I considered making it whatever is distributable at distribution time but that gives far, far too much power to the promotor. -Goethe whatever is distributable at the beginning of a week and was distributable 24 continuous hours prior? I don't like that, just adds bookkeeping for limited gain. There's no reason to give those who would make something undistributable a free day in which to act, tilts the balance too much. Frankly, the make undistributable can only delay and it's expensive to use, so I suspect it will be of rare use anyway (that's from past practice). Still, we can re-adjust the balance along with the new currency system when it comes along. -Goethe
DIS: Agoran-Recognition-Proto
I submit a proto-proposal entitled Agora-recognition AI = 2 with the following body: proposal Create a rule with Power=2 with the following text: For a person to be an Agora-Recognized person one of the following must be true: a) The person is part of a Player's Basis b) The person was once an Agora-Recognized Person c) The person's basis consists of at least one Agora-Recognized person Replace the following in R 2166: An asset generally CAN be transferred by its owner to another entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing document. with An asset generally CAN be transferred by its owner to an Agora- Recognized person by announcement, subject to modification by its document. [Now assets can't be transfered to Hillary Clinton] /proposal
Re: DIS: Agoran-Recognition-Proto
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Quazie quazieno...@gmail.com wrote: I submit a proto-proposal entitled Agora-recognition AI = 2 with the following body: proposal Create a rule with Power=2 with the following text: For a person to be an Agora-Recognized person one of the following must be true: a) The person is part of a Player's Basis b) The person was once an Agora-Recognized Person c) The person's basis consists of at least one Agora-Recognized person Replace the following in R 2166: An asset generally CAN be transferred by its owner to another entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing document. with An asset generally CAN be transferred by its owner to an Agora- Recognized person by announcement, subject to modification by its document. [Now assets can't be transfered to Hillary Clinton] /proposal Also Replace The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any) defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document. That entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class and their owners. This portion of that entity's report is self-ratifying. with The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the Agora-Recognized Person (if any) defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document. That recordkeepor's report includes a list of all instances of that class and their owners. This portion of that recordkeepor's report is self-ratifying.
Re: DIS: Agoran-Recognition-Proto
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Quazie quazieno...@gmail.com wrote: Also Replace The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any) defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document. That entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class and their owners. This portion of that entity's report is self-ratifying. with The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the Agora-Recognized Person (if any) defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document. That recordkeepor's report includes a list of all instances of that class and their owners. This portion of that recordkeepor's report is self-ratifying. I'd love to require assets to have a recordkeepor and to require at least monthly reports while we're at it.
DIS: Re: BUS: Rule Refactor for rules I think we don't need.
Quazie wrote: I submit a proposal AI=2 entitled Why are these two office rules? I submit a proposal AI=2 entitled Can't we all win in one place with I submit an AI = 2 proposal entitled One less game rule with the Because the rules you would eliminate don't need to be protected at Power=2. In particular, the specific ways of achieving Winning Conditions were recently depowered (to make caste more important), while Rules 2186 (stating that Losing Conditions override Winning Conditions) and 2229 (defining the only Losing Condition that currently exists) remain at Power=2.
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Banking for non-Farmers
Wooble wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: I thought the asset rule restricted ownership to persons? Nope. It doesn't even restrict recordkeepors to persons. I don't think any other rule uses entity more often. This is even useful on occasion; for instance, Enigma is not a person, but it owned a Medal for quite a while. -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Banking for non-Farmers
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 14:16, Alexander Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: Wooble wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: I thought the asset rule restricted ownership to persons? Nope. It doesn't even restrict recordkeepors to persons. I don't think any other rule uses entity more often. This is even useful on occasion; for instance, Enigma is not a person, but it owned a Medal for quite a while. So make it overridable. Ownership of assets is restricted to players, former players, and the members of their bases, unless otherwise specified by the asset's backing document. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution 6275-6300 Report
6299 First-class Only D 2.0 1 Yally AGAINST. I'd be willing to let PNP try again personally... PNP can still run for office, e just can't vote. Otherwise, as it is, Quazie is effectively voting twice.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2494 assigned to Quazie
I opine AFFIRM in CFJ 2494, accepting the arguments of Appellants Murphy and Goethe. Pavitra signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2494 assigned to Quazie
Benjamin Caplan wrote: I opine AFFIRM in CFJ 2494, accepting the arguments of Appellants Murphy and Goethe. Pavitra NttPF
DIS: Re: BUS: [Cookie Jar] Report
Pavitra wrote: I guess 20 proposals and 30 CFJs. You already did, about 2 days earlier.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution 6275-6300 Report
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote: 6299 First-class Only D 2.0 1 Yally AGAINST. I'd be willing to let PNP try again personally... PNP can still run for office, e just can't vote. Otherwise, as it is, Quazie is effectively voting twice. Oh, there's a more comprehensive solution, I submit the following proposal, Active Partnerships Only, AI-2 please: --- Amend Rule 2145 (Partnerships) by replacing: A public Legalistic partnership whose basis contains at least two persons is a person, and SHALL act as specified by itself. with: A public Legalistic partnership whose basis has contained at least three active first-class players simultaneously at some point in the past seven days is a person, and SHALL act as specified by itself. [The past seven days means that if someone goes unexpectedly on hold or deregisters out of pique, the partnership has time to try to come up to numbers]. --- -Goethe Please don't kill HP2!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Brakes tapping II
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2009, Quazie wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2009, Quazie wrote: This means that i set up a cron job to make my controversial proposals distributable just before the week begins. Sure if you want, no-one bothered to do that before (same system) but just like any other rule where time limits matter, a quick hand or cron job can give some advantage. I considered making it whatever is distributable at distribution time but that gives far, far too much power to the promotor. -Goethe whatever is distributable at the beginning of a week and was distributable 24 continuous hours prior? I don't like that, just adds bookkeeping for limited gain. There's no reason to give those who would make something undistributable a free day in which to act, tilts the balance too much. Frankly, the make undistributable can only delay and it's expensive to use, so I suspect it will be of rare use anyway (that's from past practice). Still, we can re-adjust the balance along with the new currency system when it comes along. -Goethe I'm still very much opposed to the flip to undistributable. As much as I like the system, I don't think I can vote in favor so long as that clause remains in.
DIS: Re: BUS: HP2 linked
Quazie wrote: I perform the following actions on behalf of hp2: hp2 I submit the following linked CFJs on behalf of Hp2: Human Point Two is the caller of this CFJ OscarMeyr is a caller of this CFJ Quazie is a caller of this CFJ /hp2 All ineffective. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by a first-class person (Rule 591), thus CANNOT be initiated by a non-first-class person (Rule 2125, section c).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution 6275-6300 Report
Why not kill a shill partnership? On 2009-05-15, Quazie quazieno...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote: 6299 First-class Only D 2.0 1 Yally AGAINST. I'd be willing to let PNP try again personally... PNP can still run for office, e just can't vote. Otherwise, as it is, Quazie is effectively voting twice. Oh, there's a more comprehensive solution, I submit the following proposal, Active Partnerships Only, AI-2 please: --- Amend Rule 2145 (Partnerships) by replacing: A public Legalistic partnership whose basis contains at least two persons is a person, and SHALL act as specified by itself. with: A public Legalistic partnership whose basis has contained at least three active first-class players simultaneously at some point in the past seven days is a person, and SHALL act as specified by itself. [The past seven days means that if someone goes unexpectedly on hold or deregisters out of pique, the partnership has time to try to come up to numbers]. --- -Goethe Please don't kill HP2!
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2500 assigned to Rodlen
In Thu, 14 May 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: Rodlen wrote: CFJ 2500 Judgment: FALSE. Yes, yes we do. See my recent judgment on CFJ2501. I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgment. Wooble's arguments as used by judge Rodlen do not conflict with yours in CFJ 2501. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2500 assigned to Rodlen
Kerim Aydin wrote: In Thu, 14 May 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: Rodlen wrote: CFJ 2500 Judgment: FALSE. Yes, yes we do. See my recent judgment on CFJ2501. I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgment. Wooble's arguments as used by judge Rodlen do not conflict with yours in CFJ 2501. -G. You are correct. However, the answer to Do we need to consider the difference between regular and Agoran days? is yes.
DIS: Re: BUS: Forming the IBA
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 5:35 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: A person CAN deposit an asset by transferring it to the IBA; e then gains the Effective Rate in zorkmids. The Effective Rate for a deposit is its Rate, multiplied by a value depending on the number of previous deposits made in the same week with the same Executor, and rounded to the nearest integer: You know, the original Bank of Agora allowed fractional rates, and depositing many of something at once would allow taking advantage of this, so that even very small assets could be deposited for whatever they're worth. Under this system of integer deposits, you pretty much just hope that the value of a zorkmid is a fraction of the value of anything worth depositing. --Tom
Re: DIS: Card Proto
Kerim Aydin wrote: Create the following Rule, The Cabinet, power 2: The following are defined unique position cards classes of the Government party: Title: Default Officeholder. Position: The holder of Default Officeholder CAN become holder of a vacant elected office by indicating the Office, unless e is prevented from holding that office on an ongoing basis. Title: Default Justice. Position: Whenever the Clerk of the Courts assigns a judicial panel, e SHALL assign one with the Default Justice as a member, unless no such panel is eligible to be so assigned. Suggest: move Default Justice to government and rename it the Chief Justice; the shadow minster for the Default Justice is the Attorney General, who can appeal with 1 less support, 1 more objection, or 0.5 less Agoran Consent than otherwise. The shadow minister for the Default Officeholder is the Default Casestealer, who CAN, once per week by announcement, steal a case that has not yet been assigned an ID number and act as if e held the office of CotC for that case. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: HP2 linked
Quazie wrote:
I CFJ on the following statement In a message sent on may 14th, in
which Quazie acted on behalf of Human Point Two, CFJs were initiated
Evidence: CFJ 2050
Gratuitous evidence: The message in question: {
I perform the following actions on behalf of hp2:
hp2
I submit the following linked CFJs on behalf of Hp2:
Human Point Two is the caller of this CFJ
OscarMeyr is a caller of this CFJ
Quazie is a caller of this CFJ
/hp2
}
Gratuitous arguments: {
It is unclear whether Quazie's I perform the following actions
refers to (a) causing Human Point Two to CFJ on its own behalf,
(b) CFJing on behalf of Human Point Two, or (c) both; thus, the
whole thing should be thrown out for ambiguity.
}
Also, it appears that I never did fix up the CotC DB for CFJs
2050 (called by ais523 not Arnold by its own precedent) or 2019
(valid by the precedent of CFJ 2050). Before I do so, does anyone
remember whether these were overturned by proposal?
