DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar Election
On 6 April 2011 21:24, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: This message serves to initiate the Agoran Decision to choose the holder of the Registrar office. The eligible voters are the active first-class players, and the vote collector is the IADoP. The valid options are: Walker, G., ais523 I vote for ais523, mostly because Walker's last report was in a horrible Base64 encoding. Since that time I have saved a UTF-8 version, so please don't let that influence your vote. (Unless maybe it was such a horrible encoding that I don't deserve the office.) -- Charles Walker
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar Election
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Ed Murphy wrote: Inaction is not action. And if this was triggered by an Agoran Consent success, then I'd argue that only the player completing the process would be on the hook. Here's the simplest case: (1) Someone proposes the report be published with consent. Someone objects, and that objection killed the effort just before time limit, so that objection (an actual action) caused the president to break the rule. The rule talks about causing the President to perform an ILLEGAL action. Arguably, failing to publish a report is not an illegal action, since it's an inaction. —Tanner L. Swett
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar Election
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Ed Murphy wrote: Wooble wrote: I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause the President to intend to deputize to publish the Registrar's report. I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause the President to deputize for the Registrar to publish the Registrar's report. [snip] Causing the President to perform an ILLEGAL action is the Class-6 crime of Misleading the Leader. Personally, I was waiting for an Agoran Consent failure to publish a report so that we could see if all Agorans who didn't support could be found guilty of this. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar Election
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Ed Murphy wrote: scshunt wrote: On 11-03-19 02:57 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: The Speaker CAN, by announcement, cause the President to take an action that is not otherwise IMPOSSIBLE. If there is no Speaker, then the player who was most recently Speaker (if any) CAN, by announcement, cause the President to take an action that it SHALL take. Why does the IMPOSSIBLE restriction apply only to the first sentence? The President being required to do impossible actions seems rare enough not to worry about it until a specific example comes up. (The any first-class player clause doesn't include the IMPOSSIBLE bit either.) The purpose of the IMPOSSIBLE is that, without it, the CAN means that the Speaker can supersede any CANNOT of lower precedence. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar Election
G. wrote: Causing the President to perform an ILLEGAL action is the Class-6 crime of Misleading the Leader. Personally, I was waiting for an Agoran Consent failure to publish a report so that we could see if all Agorans who didn't support could be found guilty of this. -G. Inaction is not action. And if this was triggered by an Agoran Consent success, then I'd argue that only the player completing the process would be on the hook.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar Election
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Ed Murphy wrote: G. wrote: Causing the President to perform an ILLEGAL action is the Class-6 crime of Misleading the Leader. Personally, I was waiting for an Agoran Consent failure to publish a report so that we could see if all Agorans who didn't support could be found guilty of this. -G. Inaction is not action. And if this was triggered by an Agoran Consent success, then I'd argue that only the player completing the process would be on the hook. Here's the simplest case: (1) Someone proposes the report be published with consent. Someone objects, and that objection killed the effort just before time limit, so that objection (an actual action) caused the president to break the rule. [I'm not arguing for this interpretation exactly, I'm saying that I was waiting to see if it produced some interesting court cases on causality of action versus inaction].
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar Election
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On 11-03-19 02:57 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: The Speaker CAN, by announcement, cause the President to take an action that is not otherwise IMPOSSIBLE. If there is no Speaker, then the player who was most recently Speaker (if any) CAN, by announcement, cause the President to take an action that it SHALL take. Why does the IMPOSSIBLE restriction apply only to the first sentence? The President being required to do impossible actions seems rare enough not to worry about it until a specific example comes up. (The any first-class player clause doesn't include the IMPOSSIBLE bit either.) The purpose of the IMPOSSIBLE is that, without it, the CAN means that the Speaker can supersede any CANNOT of lower precedence. But it only applies to the first sentence; if we had contracts, the Speaker could easily be required to do something impossible, triggering the second.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar Election
The probability of the job almost certainly not getting done if the President holds it aside, will publishing a report this week change your mind? On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 09:31, Jonathan Rouillard jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote: I also vote for The President. Sorry Yally. =P ~ Roujo On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: This message serves to initiate the Agoran Decision to choose the holder of the Registrar office. The eligible voters are the active first-class players and the vote collector is the IADoP. The options for Registrar are Yally and The President. I vote for The President.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar Election
On 11-03-19 02:57 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: The Speaker CAN, by announcement, cause the President to take an action that is not otherwise IMPOSSIBLE. If there is no Speaker, then the player who was most recently Speaker (if any) CAN, by announcement, cause the President to take an action that it SHALL take. Why does the IMPOSSIBLE restriction apply only to the first sentence? Sean
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar Election
scshunt wrote: On 11-03-19 02:57 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: The Speaker CAN, by announcement, cause the President to take an action that is not otherwise IMPOSSIBLE. If there is no Speaker, then the player who was most recently Speaker (if any) CAN, by announcement, cause the President to take an action that it SHALL take. Why does the IMPOSSIBLE restriction apply only to the first sentence? The President being required to do impossible actions seems rare enough not to worry about it until a specific example comes up. (The any first-class player clause doesn't include the IMPOSSIBLE bit either.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar Election
On 11-03-19 03:30 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: The President being required to do impossible actions seems rare enough not to worry about it until a specific example comes up. (The any first-class player clause doesn't include the IMPOSSIBLE bit either.) What about the Agoran Consent or without objection version? scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar Election Resolution
On 06/13/2010 05:07 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: coppro wrote: I hereby resolve the election for Registrar; votes were as follows: Murphy E Wooble = Wooble Wooble = Wooble Wooble wins with 2 votes to whatever and remains Registrar. CoE: Either it failed quorum or the voting period was doubled. (This does not affect the identity of the Registrar.) Denied, TTttPF -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar Election Resolution
coppro wrote: On 06/13/2010 05:07 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: coppro wrote: I hereby resolve the election for Registrar; votes were as follows: Murphy E Wooble = Wooble Wooble = Wooble Wooble wins with 2 votes to whatever and remains Registrar. CoE: Either it failed quorum or the voting period was doubled. (This does not affect the identity of the Registrar.) Denied, TTttPF No it wasn't.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar Election Resolution
On 06/13/2010 05:07 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: coppro wrote: I hereby resolve the election for Registrar; votes were as follows: Murphy E Wooble = Wooble Wooble = Wooble Wooble wins with 2 votes to whatever and remains Registrar. CoE: Either it failed quorum or the voting period was doubled. (This does not affect the identity of the Registrar.) A proposal with only one option cannot fail quorum. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar Election
On 06/06/2010 01:55 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: coppro wrote: This message serves to initiate the Agoran Decision to decide the holder of the office of Registrar. For this Decision, the eligible voters are all the active first-class players, each with a voting limit of one. The Intergalactic Associate Director of Personnel Interplanetary. Thanks, looks like I forgot to update this script when the proposal passed. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar Election
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote: On 5/21/09 9:03 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: I initiate an Agoran decision to decide the holder of the Registrar office. The eligible voters are the active players, the vote collector is the IADoP, and the options are Wooble, Yally, and PRESENT. I vote conditionally, endorsing the candidate who loses the election. -- C-walker, who clearly intends this message to be public. I don't think this will work as the candidate who loses the election won't be known until the votes are tallied. You could instead vote for the candidate with the least votes.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar Election
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.eduwrote: On Thu, 21 May 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: Aaron Goldfein wrote: I initiate an Agoran decision to decide the holder of the Registrar office. The eligible voters are the active players, the vote collector is the IADoP, and the options are Wooble, Yally, and PRESENT. I find it insulting, insulting I tell you, to my fine and historical past contributions that Kelly is the only person listed as having left in a Writ of FAGE. I vote Wooble. -Goethe To list any others would be downright misleading; e's the only one who never returned.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar Election
On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 09:32 -0400, Quazie wrote: Wooble is how i vote. Lowercase i? Are you gwen in disguise? -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar election
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 15:43 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: ais523 wrote: I took on Registrar because nobody else seemed to want it, but I'm not too attached to it really. It's not even as if I get anything for doing it (as both Notary and Mad Scientist earn me the same pitch of note). Apart from forum scams, of course, but I doubt there will be many more of those for a while now we have rule 2213 to stop them. Is Registrar that hard? It pretty much just involves tracking citizenship and activity (as opposed to B's Registrar, who tracks all player properties). I haven't pursued it because CotC and Assessor are still a sizable workload (and because I've done it before). No, it isn't. That's both why I was surprised that nobody else seemed to want it, and why I was willing to take it on. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar election
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 17:06 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: I actually considered nominating myself when I saw the options, but I'd have to wait for the current election to end. Besides, the Monster might actually make an interesting Registrar. Would the Monsterkeepor be required to publish report on time on behalf of the Registrar? -G. I think the Mad Scientist would be required to act on behalf of the Monster to publish on time (publishing a report is something the Monster SHALL do if it's an officeholdor). There isn't an obvious Monsterkeepor, although we have a CFJ on that at the moment; at least, nobody's published an SLM for ages. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar election
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:52 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the Mad Scientist would be required to act on behalf of the
Monster to publish on time (publishing a report is something the Monster
SHALL do if it's an officeholdor). There isn't an obvious Monsterkeepor,
although we have a CFJ on that at the moment; at least, nobody's
published an SLM for ages.
I publish the following SLM:
{
There is only one Monster, which is Rule 2193.
}
The report is short, logical, and describes the set of Monsters.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar election
comex wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:52 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the Mad Scientist would be required to act on behalf of the
Monster to publish on time (publishing a report is something the Monster
SHALL do if it's an officeholdor). There isn't an obvious Monsterkeepor,
although we have a CFJ on that at the moment; at least, nobody's
published an SLM for ages.
I publish the following SLM:
{
There is only one Monster, which is Rule 2193.
}
The report is short, logical, and describes the set of Monsters.
Everyone together, now:
__ _ ____
| \| |_ _| ___ \ | |
| \ | | _| |_ _| |_ | | \ \ | |
| |\ \ | | |_ _| |_ _| | |___/ / | |__
| | \ \ | | | | | | | / | __|
| | \ \| | | | | | | | | |
| | \ | | | | | | | | |
|_|\__| |_| |_| |_| |_|
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar election
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If a Player registers, e should take responsibilities. I vote Bayes. I shudder at the thought of what Bayes might do with the Registrar's report... -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar election
On Tuesday 14 October 2008 04:07:28 pm Ian Kelly wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If a Player registers, e should take responsibilities. I vote Bayes. I shudder at the thought of what Bayes might do with the Registrar's report... Nothing we can't CoE if necessary.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar election
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 17:24 -0400, comex wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ais523 the Monster ehird Bayes A choice between ehird and ais523? I vote for Goethe. You'd better vote for the Monster if you don't want Bayes to end up having to do it, those are the only real contenders at the moment. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar election
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 3:24 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ais523 the Monster ehird Bayes A choice between ehird and ais523? I vote for Goethe. I actually considered nominating myself when I saw the options, but I'd have to wait for the current election to end. Besides, the Monster might actually make an interesting Registrar. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar election
On 14 Oct 2008, at 22:05, Kerim Aydin wrote: If a Player registers, e should take responsibilities. I vote Bayes. Say that to $EVERY_PARTNERSHIP_HERE. Btw, if Bayes gets elected e will deregister and Seyab will pop up. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar election
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 15:28 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 3:24 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ais523 the Monster ehird Bayes A choice between ehird and ais523? I vote for Goethe. I actually considered nominating myself when I saw the options, but I'd have to wait for the current election to end. Besides, the Monster might actually make an interesting Registrar. I took on Registrar because nobody else seemed to want it, but I'm not too attached to it really. It's not even as if I get anything for doing it (as both Notary and Mad Scientist earn me the same pitch of note). Apart from forum scams, of course, but I doubt there will be many more of those for a while now we have rule 2213 to stop them. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar election
On 14 Oct 2008, at 22:41, Charles Reiss wrote: Bayes could just resign. Wouldn't that be easier? -woggle Oh. ... Yea. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar election
ais523 wrote: I took on Registrar because nobody else seemed to want it, but I'm not too attached to it really. It's not even as if I get anything for doing it (as both Notary and Mad Scientist earn me the same pitch of note). Apart from forum scams, of course, but I doubt there will be many more of those for a while now we have rule 2213 to stop them. Is Registrar that hard? It pretty much just involves tracking citizenship and activity (as opposed to B's Registrar, who tracks all player properties). I haven't pursued it because CotC and Assessor are still a sizable workload (and because I've done it before).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar election
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ais523 wrote: I took on Registrar because nobody else seemed to want it, but I'm not too attached to it really. It's not even as if I get anything for doing it (as both Notary and Mad Scientist earn me the same pitch of note). Apart from forum scams, of course, but I doubt there will be many more of those for a while now we have rule 2213 to stop them. Is Registrar that hard? It pretty much just involves tracking citizenship and activity (as opposed to B's Registrar, who tracks all player properties). I haven't pursued it because CotC and Assessor are still a sizable workload (and because I've done it before). Not at all. Especially when you have other offices that require tracking those anyway. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar election
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: I actually considered nominating myself when I saw the options, but I'd have to wait for the current election to end. Besides, the Monster might actually make an interesting Registrar. Would the Monsterkeepor be required to publish report on time on behalf of the Registrar? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar election
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: On 14 Oct 2008, at 22:05, Kerim Aydin wrote: If a Player registers, e should take responsibilities. I vote Bayes. Say that to $EVERY_PARTNERSHIP_HERE. Sure. No worries. I agree. If any partnership is nominated when e doesn't want to be e should decline the nomination, that's a responsibility. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar election
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: I actually considered nominating myself when I saw the options, but I'd have to wait for the current election to end. Besides, the Monster might actually make an interesting Registrar. Would the Monsterkeepor be required to publish report on time on behalf of the Registrar? -G. I don't know about the Monsterkeepor, but the Mad Scientist would. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar election
On 15/10/2008, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: On 14 Oct 2008, at 22:05, Kerim Aydin wrote: If a Player registers, e should take responsibilities. I vote Bayes. Say that to $EVERY_PARTNERSHIP_HERE. Sure. No worries. I agree. If any partnership is nominated when e doesn't want to be e should decline the nomination, that's a responsibility. -Goethe We tried but it was too late
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar election
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: On 15/10/2008, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If a Player registers, e should take responsibilities. I vote Bayes. Say that to $EVERY_PARTNERSHIP_HERE. Sure. No worries. I agree. If any partnership is nominated when e doesn't want to be e should decline the nomination, that's a responsibility. -Goethe We tried but it was too late It's not too late. It's possible to step down during the election (isn't it?) -G.
