DIS: Re: BUS: These declarations of apathy are getting ridiculous
On Sun, 21 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: Any player who consents to be bound by this contract CAN become a party by announcement. Every day at 0:00 UTC, this contract acts on behalf of all its parties to object to each intent to declare apathy. This won't work, as only persons can act on behalf. As I said earlier, Apathy should become way harder once Proposal 8107 passes. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: These declarations of apathy are getting ridiculous
I sent this 8 hours ago. My email is not functioning normally today.
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018, 18:50 Reuben Staley wrote:
> I consent to the following document with the intiention that it become a
> contract:
>
> {
>
> Any player who consents to be bound by this contract CAN become a party
> by announcement.
>
> Every day at 0:00 UTC, this contract acts on behalf of all its parties
> to object to each intent to declare apathy.
>
> }
>
>
> --
> Trigon
>
Re: DIS: Re: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset
I just barely got it too. I wanted to make sure I wasn't the only one who didn't get it. I assumed it just got delayed. On Sun, Oct 21, 2018, 18:16 Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2018-10-22 at 01:10 +0100, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Sun, 2018-10-21 at 18:03 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > I sent this 45 minutes ago, did anyone get it? Also, my commits > > > aren't showing up on the repository; can anyone tell me why that > > > is? > > > > I didn't get it. > > I just received it. Presumably it just got delayed somewhere. (Email is > not actually a real-time communication protocol; it's just that modern > mailservers tend to be so fast that there are rarely delivery delays.) > > -- > ais523 > >
Re: DIS: Re: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset
On Mon, 2018-10-22 at 01:10 +0100, Alex Smith wrote: > On Sun, 2018-10-21 at 18:03 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote: > > I sent this 45 minutes ago, did anyone get it? Also, my commits > > aren't showing up on the repository; can anyone tell me why that > > is? > > I didn't get it. I just received it. Presumably it just got delayed somewhere. (Email is not actually a real-time communication protocol; it's just that modern mailservers tend to be so fast that there are rarely delivery delays.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset
On Sun, 2018-10-21 at 18:03 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote: > I sent this 45 minutes ago, did anyone get it? Also, my commits > aren't showing up on the repository; can anyone tell me why that is? I didn't get it. The Rulesets sometimes hit message length limits. I thought we'd globally increased those for a-o, but we used to only increase them for players holding specific offices; maybe we still do. Re: commits to the repository, I don't know for certain, but some guesses are that you're pushing to the wrong repository or branch and/or not pushing at all. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Deputy] Arbitor Assignments
On Sun, 2018-10-21 at 19:55 -0400, D. Margaux wrote: > Argh. I think I forgot to give a number to the Left/Right CFJ. Is > the standard practice to renumber all of the CFJs so that they are in > chronological order, or is it OK to give it the next available > number? Any thoughts about what the least confusing outcome is? ID numbers are ordered in the order in which the ID numbers were assigned. So just use the next available number. -- ais523
DIS: Re: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset
I sent this 45 minutes ago, did anyone get it? Also, my commits aren't showing up on the repository; can anyone tell me why that is? On 10/21/2018 05:15 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET These rulesets are also online at http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/ Date of last report: 14 Oct 2018 Number of rules currently enacted: 144 Most recent change to this ruleset: Rule 2580 repeals itself, 10 Oct 2018 Highest ID'd rule in this ruleset: 2579 Highest ID'd Proposal Passed: 8102 Highest ID'd Rule Enacted: 2580 [snip] -- Trigon
DIS: Re: BUS: [Deputy] Arbitor Assignments
> On Oct 20, 2018, at 9:05 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > > I think I got all of the unassigned CFJs here. Hope I am doing this right; > please let me know if I made a mistake. Argh. I think I forgot to give a number to the Left/Right CFJ. Is the standard practice to renumber all of the CFJs so that they are in chronological order, or is it OK to give it the next available number? Any thoughts about what the least confusing outcome is?
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: [Prime Minister] Regarding Wins
On Sun, 21 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote: I think that’s what must have happened, because in my email sent folder, it’s not quoted. Does it come out quoted in your inboxes (as distinguished from the website)? If not, interesting question which one is authoritative—the website or our inboxes. I didn't keep that particular message in my inbox, but that's where I've usually seen the quoting for others. Greetings, Ørjan. On Oct 21, 2018, at 11:49 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote: Oh crud. That wasn’t supposed to be in quotes. Looks like I only unquoted the second line of the intent, not both lines. That’s very annoying. I've often seen messages with a first new line after quoted content accidentally quoted like that. I've assumed it's something going wrong when GMail HTML messages get converted to plain text. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: [Prime Minister] Regarding Wins
I think that’s what must have happened, because in my email sent folder, it’s not quoted. Does it come out quoted in your inboxes (as distinguished from the website)? If not, interesting question which one is authoritative—the website or our inboxes. > On Oct 21, 2018, at 11:49 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > >> On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote: >> >> Oh crud. That wasn’t supposed to be in quotes. Looks like I only unquoted >> the second line of the intent, not both lines. That’s very annoying. > > I've often seen messages with a first new line after quoted content > accidentally quoted like that. I've assumed it's something going wrong when > GMail HTML messages get converted to plain text. > > Greetings, > Ørjan.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: [Prime Minister] Regarding Wins
On Sun, 21 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Ah, darn it. (This message best viewed in a fixed-width font.) I don't know whether this would have worked anyway but it would have been amusing. That looked quoted, so I'm pretty sure would be excluded by the principles in G.s recent (although currently reconsidering) judgement. For the record, I'm starting to get burned out on attempts to declare apathy. No more from me for a while. It should become way harder to pull off once Proposal 8107 passes, anyway. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: [Prime Minister] Regarding Wins
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote: Oh crud. That wasn’t supposed to be in quotes. Looks like I only unquoted the second line of the intent, not both lines. That’s very annoying. I've often seen messages with a first new line after quoted content accidentally quoted like that. I've assumed it's something going wrong when GMail HTML messages get converted to plain text. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: [Prime Minister] Regarding Wins
twg wrote: > The CFJ is something that I'd been toying with for a while as a potential scam > idea. I hadn't tried using it properly because I'm actually pretty sure it > doesn't work. ''I intend to Declare Apathy Without Objection, specifying > myself." is found in a message and then someone else says something like "I > object to all announcements of intent to Declare Apathy made by players other > than myself within the past 14 days." - this is something that's happened a > few times before with nobody complaining. Aris wrote: > By the way, I object to each announcement of intent to perform an action > without N objections or with N Agoran consent, where N is a number. Ah, darn it. (This message best viewed in a fixed-width font.) I don't know whether this would have worked anyway but it would have been amusing. For the record, I'm starting to get burned out on attempts to declare apathy. No more from me for a while. -twg
