Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8655-8656

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 3/20/2022 6:58 PM, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 3/20/22 20:53, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On Mon, 2022-03-21 at 01:48 +, nix via agora-business wrote:
>>> On 3/20/22 05:03, Aspen via agora-official wrote:
 ID  Author(s)   AITitle
 ---
 8655&   Jason, nix  1.0   Restricted Petitions
 8656&   Jason   1.0   Mathematical de-notation
>>> On both proposals I vote: FOR unless someone has voted unconditionally
>>> against, in which case I unconditionally vote AGAINST.
>> Is this a conditional vote, or a conditional action?
>>
>> If it's meant to be a conditional vote (and it looks like one), I don't
>> think you can conditionally make an unconditional vote.
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>>
> 
> It is intended to be a conditional vote. I see no reason it doesn't work
> as such, but I agree the "unconditionally" part might not do anything.
> 

Since "unconditionally AGAINST" is not a valid vote, and R2127 explicitly
requires resolving to valid votes, the "unconditionally" may have the
effect of turning it into a PRESENT.

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8655-8656

[nix via agora-discussion]

On 3/20/22 20:53, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-03-21 at 01:48 +, nix via agora-business wrote:
>> On 3/20/22 05:03, Aspen via agora-official wrote:
>>> ID  Author(s)   AITitle
>>> ---
>>> 8655&   Jason, nix  1.0   Restricted Petitions
>>> 8656&   Jason   1.0   Mathematical de-notation
>> On both proposals I vote: FOR unless someone has voted unconditionally
>> against, in which case I unconditionally vote AGAINST.
> Is this a conditional vote, or a conditional action?
>
> If it's meant to be a conditional vote (and it looks like one), I don't
> think you can conditionally make an unconditional vote.
>
> --
> ais523
>

It is intended to be a conditional vote. I see no reason it doesn't work
as such, but I agree the "unconditionally" part might not do anything.

--
nix
Herald

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8655-8656

[ais523 via agora-discussion]

On Mon, 2022-03-21 at 01:48 +, nix via agora-business wrote:
> On 3/20/22 05:03, Aspen via agora-official wrote:
> > ID  Author(s)   AITitle
> > ---
> > 8655&   Jason, nix  1.0   Restricted Petitions
> > 8656&   Jason   1.0   Mathematical de-notation
> 
> On both proposals I vote: FOR unless someone has voted unconditionally
> against, in which case I unconditionally vote AGAINST.

Is this a conditional vote, or a conditional action?

If it's meant to be a conditional vote (and it looks like one), I don't
think you can conditionally make an unconditional vote.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: (@Referee) BUS: A finger

[ais523 via agora-discussion]

On Sun, 2022-03-20 at 19:38 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> On 3/20/22 18:13, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
> > I point my finger at Jason for violating rule 2143, committing the
> > Class 2 Crime of Tardiness, via failing to perform the Rulekeepor's
> > weekly duties in the week of 7 March 2022.
> > 
> > [We haven't had the SLR published for two weeks now, so it seems like
> > time to bring out the fingers.]
> > 
> 
> Admitted, but I've generally only been publishing SLRs after assessments
> (trying for within a week after it) and nobody's suggested they have a
> problem with it until now? I'm happy to actually publish weekly if
> people want that.

It probably isn't a huge deal – it's the sort of thing you only notice
if you go to find the SLR, realise there hasn't been one recently, and
then have to wonder how out-of-date the one you find is. (It could also
be a problem for new players playing via email – idling for a week is
intended to be enough to find all the critical reports.) It's also
worth noting that the Ruleset changes most weeks as a consequence of
Mad Engineer experiments (generally in irrelevant ways, although a
"stale" ruleset did end up mattering recently because it caused me to
accidentally mis-order list items within the Device rule).

There was a big batch of proposals enacted this week, so the need for
an SLR is a little higher than usual. Additionally, having an up-to-
date ruleset (ideally the online FLR, which is my usual source) ASAP
would be very helpful for me because it affects my Mad Engineer rule
randomization roll; I currently have it automated, but if the published
Rulesets are out of date with respect to which rules exist, I have to
do it manually because if the dicebot is misinformed as to which rules
exist, it will roll a dice with the wrong number of sides and thus
cause my entire Mad Engineer weekly action to be invalid.

(As a side note, it's probably to your benefit to publish the SLR every
week regardless, as doing so would get you Officer duty pay.)

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Weekly Report 400

[Trigon via agora-discussion]

El 20/03/2022 a las 23:26, Trigon via agora-official escribió:


   FORBES FOUR HUNDRED
   or   
    TREASUROR'S WEEKLY REPORT



Woo, one hundred reports!

In other news, PLEASE check this one for errors. The likelihood that I 
messed this one up are staggeringly high, so if ANYTHING doesn't look 
right, it is very likely inaccurate. I've had a very tiring weekend, so 
I'm very much not at my best.


Thank you.

--
Trigon

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

 ¸¸.•*¨*• Play AGORA QUEST





I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.
I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this