DIS: Re: BUS: Yes Minister
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 2:55 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Becoming a candidate fails, as the election has not yet been initiated. > oops, that makes sense
DIS: Re: BUS: Yes we can lift
On Sun, 2023-11-26 at 16:52 -0500, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > On 11/26/23 16:52, Agora amdw42 via agora-business wrote: > > I, Ben, push the boulder > > This fails, as you are not a player. You need to register first, e.g. by > sending "I register as a player" to agora-business. This sort of thing has become very common recently, possibly due to confusion between "register for the mailing lists" and "register as a player". I wonder if it'd be possible to reduce the confusion with, say, updates to the website? -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Yes, Prime Minister
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 18:20, Edward Murphy wrote: > > Proposal: Yes, Prime Minister > (AI = 2, co-author = Gaelan) > > Amend Rule 2193 (The Registrar) by removing this text: Should be 2139. -- - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Yes, Prime Minister
G. wrote: On 10/20/2019 11:20 AM, Edward Murphy wrote: > Proposal: Yes, Prime Minister > (AI = 2, co-author = Gaelan) > > Amend Rule 2193 (The Registrar) by removing this text: > > The Registrar is also responsible for tracking any switches, > defined in a rule, that would otherwise lack an officer to track > them, unless the switch is defined as untracked. > > Amend Rule 2423 (First Among Equals) by appending this text: > > The Prime Minister is responsible for tracking any switches > defined by the rules, not defined as untracked, and not defined > as tracked by another officer. Ugh. I really dislike this one. Prime Minister should be a "perk" office and tying it to tracking a bunch of switches doesn't seem appropriate at all. In general, it's just plain Bad Form to propose a new subgame that the proposer dumps on another officer. Of course it is, but IMO it's Worse Form to dump them on the Registrar who actually has important work to do, whereas making Prime Minister a perk office with occasional annoying duties still fits the theme. Still, alternative fix coming up.
DIS: Re: BUS: Yes, Prime Minister
On 10/20/2019 11:20 AM, Edward Murphy wrote: > Proposal: Yes, Prime Minister > (AI = 2, co-author = Gaelan) > > Amend Rule 2193 (The Registrar) by removing this text: > >The Registrar is also responsible for tracking any switches, >defined in a rule, that would otherwise lack an officer to track >them, unless the switch is defined as untracked. > > Amend Rule 2423 (First Among Equals) by appending this text: > >The Prime Minister is responsible for tracking any switches >defined by the rules, not defined as untracked, and not defined >as tracked by another officer. Ugh. I really dislike this one. Prime Minister should be a "perk" office and tying it to tracking a bunch of switches doesn't seem appropriate at all. In general, it's just plain Bad Form to propose a new subgame that the proposer dumps on another officer. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: yes
Ugh why am I still a player now I can't do the obligatory "am I a player or not" CFJ On 2019-01-30 01:32, Madeline wrote: I vote: yes On 2019-01-29 23:37, Cuddle Beam wrote: I create the following proposal: ---*--- Title: yes Content: yes ---*---
DIS: Re: BUS: yes
I vote: yes On 2019-01-29 23:37, Cuddle Beam wrote: I create the following proposal: ---*--- Title: yes Content: yes ---*---
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Yes I did change key
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 20:48 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: >> 2009/5/13 Alex Smith : >> > On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 15:35 +0100, Alex Smith wrote (in agora-business): >> >> I flip my Key to G. >> > >> > I CoE against the latest Conductor's Report; my key is G, not D. My Note >> > holdings shown are also incorrect because I was awarded the wrong pitch >> > of notes. >> > >> Admitted. I might revise again later tonight, or I'll just wait for >> next week. Or wait, does not posting a revision count as not >> "completing the non-empty set of weekly duties for an office" when it >> comes to note gains? > > The CoE rules require you to post a revision ASAP. I'm not sure if next > week's report can count as the revision, thouhg. Game custom is that it counts, but I think this is irrelevant to the notes. Posting the revision is an obligation created by the CoE, not a weekly duty.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Yes I did change key
2009/5/13 Alex Smith : > On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 20:48 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: >> 2009/5/13 Alex Smith : >> > On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 15:35 +0100, Alex Smith wrote (in agora-business): >> >> I flip my Key to G. >> > >> > I CoE against the latest Conductor's Report; my key is G, not D. My Note >> > holdings shown are also incorrect because I was awarded the wrong pitch >> > of notes. >> > >> Admitted. I might revise again later tonight, or I'll just wait for >> next week. Or wait, does not posting a revision count as not >> "completing the non-empty set of weekly duties for an office" when it >> comes to note gains? > > The CoE rules require you to post a revision ASAP. I'm not sure if next > week's report can count as the revision, thouhg. > > -- Well, as long as it contains the necessary information, the revision should be able to count as next week's report. -- -Tiger
DIS: Re: BUS: Yes I did change key
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 20:48 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > 2009/5/13 Alex Smith : > > On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 15:35 +0100, Alex Smith wrote (in agora-business): > >> I flip my Key to G. > > > > I CoE against the latest Conductor's Report; my key is G, not D. My Note > > holdings shown are also incorrect because I was awarded the wrong pitch > > of notes. > > > Admitted. I might revise again later tonight, or I'll just wait for > next week. Or wait, does not posting a revision count as not > "completing the non-empty set of weekly duties for an office" when it > comes to note gains? The CoE rules require you to post a revision ASAP. I'm not sure if next week's report can count as the revision, thouhg. -- ais523
