DIS: Re: BUS: Idling
On 5 January 2011 02:05, Sgeo sgeos...@gmail.com wrote: I object to the intent to make me inactive. Are you ever going to take a game action that isn't objecting to being made inactive?
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset (Part 2 of 2)
On 5 January 2011 07:01, Taral tar...@gmail.com wrote: If there is no objection, yes, it can be raised. I object to 1 megabyte messages; perhaps 512 kilobytes at the maximum?
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset (Part 2 of 2)
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 05:33, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote: On 5 January 2011 07:01, Taral tar...@gmail.com wrote: If there is no objection, yes, it can be raised. I object to 1 megabyte messages; perhaps 512 kilobytes at the maximum? I find this to be a reasonable compromise BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset (Part 2 of 2)
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: I find this to be a reasonable compromise BobTHJ Someone make a proposal? -- Taral tar...@gmail.com Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset (Part 2 of 2)
I'd vote for it.
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
Proposal: All Clogged Up (AI 1, II 0, co-author BobTHJ)
{
H. Distributor Taral is requested to increase the size limit of the
messages sent to the Agora mailing lists hosted at agoranomic.org to
512 kibibytes (524288 bytes).
}
--
Taral tar...@gmail.com
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: Fix Grand Vizier
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: Proposal: Fix Grand Vizier (AI = 2, II = 1, distributable via fee) AGAINST, it's the most interesting position, and e is *supposed* to be powerful.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Heraldry
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 3:58 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: I attempt (modulo possible Holiday weirdness) to bestow favours as possible: I'm treating this as effective; in my reading, the R1769 other event is the beginning of the Gregorian month of January, and the future(-ish; for contemporary interpretations of simultaneous but ordered events) event is the beginning of the Agoran month of January, which is thereby moved to the end of the Holiday.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Heraldry
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 3:58 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: I attempt (modulo possible Holiday weirdness) to bestow favours as possible: I'm treating this as effective; in my reading, the R1769 other event is the beginning of the Gregorian month of January, and the future(-ish; for contemporary interpretations of simultaneous but ordered events) event is the beginning of the Agoran month of January, which is thereby moved to the end of the Holiday. No, it's moved to 72 hours after the end of the Holiday, so one hour from now.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fix Grand Vizier
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 12:12, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: Proposal: Fix Grand Vizier (AI = 2, II = 1, distributable via fee) AGAINST, it's the most interesting position, and e is *supposed* to be powerful. But being able to arbitrarily resign any office is just too much.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fix Grand Vizier
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: Proposal: Fix Grand Vizier (AI = 2, II = 1, distributable via fee) AGAINST, it's the most interesting position, and e is *supposed* to be powerful. But being able to arbitrarily resign any office is just too much. I agree, although I don't think that actually worked anyway.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fix Grand Vizier
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: But being able to arbitrarily resign any office is just too much. I agree, although I don't think that actually worked anyway. Yes, it does, as ais523 pointe out to me. The holder of an elected office CAN resign it by announcement, causing it to become vacant. Although the ordinary language definition of resign is something along the lines of cease to be the holder of the office, that paragraph clearly defines resign as an action that causes an office to become vacant, which just happens to be performable only by the holder of the office. If anyone else did it, it would still cause the office to become vacant.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fix Grand Vizier
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:21 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: But being able to arbitrarily resign any office is just too much. I agree, although I don't think that actually worked anyway. Yes, it does, as ais523 pointe out to me. The holder of an elected office CAN resign it by announcement, causing it to become vacant. Although the ordinary language definition of resign is something along the lines of cease to be the holder of the office, that paragraph clearly defines resign as an action that causes an office to become vacant, which just happens to be performable only by the holder of the office. If anyone else did it, it would still cause the office to become vacant. The rule doesn't specify that the Assessor can resign.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fix Grand Vizier
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:21 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: But being able to arbitrarily resign any office is just too much. I agree, although I don't think that actually worked anyway. Yes, it does, as ais523 pointe out to me. The holder of an elected office CAN resign it by announcement, causing it to become vacant. Although the ordinary language definition of resign is something along the lines of cease to be the holder of the office, that paragraph clearly defines resign as an action that causes an office to become vacant, which just happens to be performable only by the holder of the office. If anyone else did it, it would still cause the office to become vacant. The rule doesn't specify that the Assessor can resign. It doesn't?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fix Grand Vizier
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 7:02 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:21 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: But being able to arbitrarily resign any office is just too much. I agree, although I don't think that actually worked anyway. Yes, it does, as ais523 pointe out to me. The holder of an elected office CAN resign it by announcement, causing it to become vacant. Although the ordinary language definition of resign is something along the lines of cease to be the holder of the office, that paragraph clearly defines resign as an action that causes an office to become vacant, which just happens to be performable only by the holder of the office. If anyone else did it, it would still cause the office to become vacant. The rule doesn't specify that the Assessor can resign. It doesn't? It's not specific at all. It's super-general about which officers can resign.
DIS: Re: BUS: Offices seem meaningless at the moment...
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 18:09 -0600, Aaron Goldfein wrote: On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 18:04, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: I assume Herald. Me too! Alright. I assume the office of Herald. I resign the office of Herald. I initiate an election to decide the holder of the Herald office. I nominate ais523 and Wooble as Herald. Wooble and I weren't arguing about the ownership of the office at all; rather, we were both attempting the same timing scam (vs. someone attempting to crown a new speaker). I have no reason to be Herald /now/. See, one of the issues with no effective standing reward for an office is that just anyone can assume it for the perks; I feel a little guilty doing so, but I had Wooble's permission, and I haven't stolen any other office rewards. (Not to mention that it made no difference in the long run anyway, as it happens.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Offices seem meaningless at the moment...
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 18:22, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 18:09 -0600, Aaron Goldfein wrote: On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 18:04, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: I assume Herald. Me too! Alright. I assume the office of Herald. I resign the office of Herald. I initiate an election to decide the holder of the Herald office. I nominate ais523 and Wooble as Herald. Wooble and I weren't arguing about the ownership of the office at all; rather, we were both attempting the same timing scam (vs. someone attempting to crown a new speaker). I have no reason to be Herald /now/. See, one of the issues with no effective standing reward for an office is that just anyone can assume it for the perks; I feel a little guilty doing so, but I had Wooble's permission, and I haven't stolen any other office rewards. (Not to mention that it made no difference in the long run anyway, as it happens.) -- ais523 That's why I always try to keep the offices I hold Postulated.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Rebellion results
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 18:28, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 18:08, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 00:02 +, ais523 wrote: On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 17:00 -0700, Dice server wrote: 5 The number selected was 5. The List is: # BobTHJ, Tiger, G., Wooble, Tanner L. Swett, ehird, Yally, scshunt, # Murphy, Sgeo, Roujo, Taral, Ienpw III, Keba, Flameshadowxeroshin, # Darth Cliche. As a result of one of the above messages, I gained my third Leadership Token. I redeem three Leadership Tokens to satisfy the Winning Condition of Leadership. (This doesn't require a win announcement, but the preceding sentence is one anyway, and this sentence serves to explicitly label it as one, just in case.) -- ais523 Speaker I crown ais523, which should work even though e's already Speaker. From R204: A Coronation (crowning) occurs when a player announces that a specified player other than the Speaker is crowned as Speaker, I crown Yally, mostly to prevent ehird or BobTHJ from becoming Speaker (which one depends on whether January started a few minutes ago or a few days ago). This fails because ais523 has not been Speaker for 14 days.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Rebellion results
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 18:39, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 18:28, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 18:08, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 00:02 +, ais523 wrote: On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 17:00 -0700, Dice server wrote: 5 The number selected was 5. The List is: # BobTHJ, Tiger, G., Wooble, Tanner L. Swett, ehird, Yally, scshunt, # Murphy, Sgeo, Roujo, Taral, Ienpw III, Keba, Flameshadowxeroshin, # Darth Cliche. As a result of one of the above messages, I gained my third Leadership Token. I redeem three Leadership Tokens to satisfy the Winning Condition of Leadership. (This doesn't require a win announcement, but the preceding sentence is one anyway, and this sentence serves to explicitly label it as one, just in case.) -- ais523 Speaker I crown ais523, which should work even though e's already Speaker. From R204: A Coronation (crowning) occurs when a player announces that a specified player other than the Speaker is crowned as Speaker, I crown Yally, mostly to prevent ehird or BobTHJ from becoming Speaker (which one depends on whether January started a few minutes ago or a few days ago). This fails because ais523 has not been Speaker for 14 days. Nevermind.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Idling
ehird wrote: On 5 January 2011 02:05, Sgeo sgeos...@gmail.com wrote: I object to the intent to make me inactive. Are you ever going to take a game action that isn't objecting to being made inactive? I think e objected to at least one of omd's without-8-objections actions related to eir recent dictatorship.
DIS: Re: BUS: Fix Grand Vizier
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 22:20, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Yally wrote: Proposal: Fix Grand Vizier (AI = 2, II = 1, distributable via fee) Delete the following text from Rule 2255 (The Court): Third Position: Grand Vizier Influence Level: 5 Position: The Grand Vizier CAN perform any action that an officer both CAN and MAY (or SHALL) perform by virtue of holding that office as follows: (a) If the rules specify that the officer CAN perform the action in question by announcement, then the Grand Vizier CAN perform that action With Notice, indicating also that e is acting as Vizier; (b) If the rules specify a dependent action method for the officer performing the action, then the Grand Vizier CAN perform the action using the same dependent action method with notice, indicating also that e is acting as Vizier. And, in that same rule, simultaneously do each of the followin: Replace all instances of the word Fourth with Third. Replace all instances of the word Fifth with Fourth. Replace all instances of the word Sixth with Fifth. [Removes the broken Grand Vizier position and renumbers the other positions accordingly. We don't really need that position, as there are still 5 other unique positions on the list plus speaker, which is still about half of our active player basis] Proposal: Really fix Grand Vizier (AI = 2, II = 1, distributable via fee) If Rule 2255 (The Court) no longer defines the position of Grand Vizier, then amend it to have the same text that it did immediately before it ceased to do so. Amend Rule 2255 (The Court) by appending this text to the section defining the position of Grand Vizier: For the purpose of this action, the Grand Vizier is considered to be the holder of that office. But this still doesn't get around the issue of that Grand Vizier being able to resign any office, among others.
DIS: Re: BUS: Fix Grand Vizier
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Amend Rule 2255 (The Court) by appending this text to the section defining the position of Grand Vizier: For the purpose of this action, the Grand Vizier is considered to be the holder of that office. I don't think this would affect resignation.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fix Grand Vizier
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: But this still doesn't get around the issue of that Grand Vizier being able to resign any office, among others. Fixing the definition of resigning is probably better than getting rid of the Vizier.
