Re: DIS: Re: BUS: salary equalisation
This one's a really good idea in principle: last time we tried it, someone who believed in free proposals whipped up a "anyone can act on my behalf to support creating/pending a proposal" contract. Not sure if it's worth making exceptions to act-on-behalf for such things or if that becomes too clumsy? On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote: > Proto: create proposals with 1 support. Supporter SHOULD check the proposal > against [list of common mistakes we keep somewhere] > > Gaelan > > > On Nov 1, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > When I wrote Paydays (I think I drafted that text), I purposefully wanted > > Speaker to be a sinecure with a salary, as a perk for winning. > > > > Aside: I really hate the lack of pending, and just plopping proposals in > > the pool without review (including mine). Watching the proposals in the > > last couple weeks has really just turned me off trying to participate in > > that process. YMMV. > > > > > >> On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > >> Hold up, were you even around when we had shinies? Are you just an Agoran > >> History nerd? This seems like a mistake only a person who joined before > >> your time cold have committed. > >> > >> On Nov 1, 2018 10:30, "Timon Walshe-Grey" wrote: > >> > >> I submit the following proposal: > >> > >> // > >> Title: With not very much responsibility comes fewer shinies > >> Adoption index: 2.0 > >> Author: twg > >> Co-authors: > >> > >> Amend rule 2559, "Paydays", by changing the text "For each office" to > >> "For each office that has official duties". > >> > >> // > >> > >> > >> -twg > >> > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: salary equalisation
That really wasn't the point to take away from that message, but okay. On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 11:39 ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Thu, 2018-11-01 at 11:37 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote: > > Even simpler: players can submit proposals but a different person has > > to pend them, after checking for mistakes. Oh, and it has to be an > > active player. > > Given that pending isn't in the rules at the moment, the dependent > action version is likely simpler. > > Pending is /safer/, though, because it allows the proposal to be > validly distributed even if the pending went wrong, meaning less > uncertainty about the gamestate if the Promotor makes a mistake. > > -- > ais523 > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: salary equalisation
On Thu, 2018-11-01 at 11:37 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote: > Even simpler: players can submit proposals but a different person has > to pend them, after checking for mistakes. Oh, and it has to be an > active player. Given that pending isn't in the rules at the moment, the dependent action version is likely simpler. Pending is /safer/, though, because it allows the proposal to be validly distributed even if the pending went wrong, meaning less uncertainty about the gamestate if the Promotor makes a mistake. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: salary equalisation
Even simpler: players can submit proposals but a different person has to pend them, after checking for mistakes. Oh, and it has to be an active player. On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 11:32 Gaelan Steele wrote: > Proto: create proposals with 1 support. Supporter SHOULD check the > proposal against [list of common mistakes we keep somewhere] > > Gaelan > > > On Nov 1, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > When I wrote Paydays (I think I drafted that text), I purposefully wanted > > Speaker to be a sinecure with a salary, as a perk for winning. > > > > Aside: I really hate the lack of pending, and just plopping proposals in > > the pool without review (including mine). Watching the proposals in the > > last couple weeks has really just turned me off trying to participate in > > that process. YMMV. > > > > > >> On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > >> Hold up, were you even around when we had shinies? Are you just an > Agoran > >> History nerd? This seems like a mistake only a person who joined before > >> your time cold have committed. > >> > >> On Nov 1, 2018 10:30, "Timon Walshe-Grey" wrote: > >> > >> I submit the following proposal: > >> > >> // > >> Title: With not very much responsibility comes fewer shinies > >> Adoption index: 2.0 > >> Author: twg > >> Co-authors: > >> > >> Amend rule 2559, "Paydays", by changing the text "For each office" to > >> "For each office that has official duties". > >> > >> // > >> > >> > >> -twg > >> > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: salary equalisation
Proto: create proposals with 1 support. Supporter SHOULD check the proposal against [list of common mistakes we keep somewhere] Gaelan > On Nov 1, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > When I wrote Paydays (I think I drafted that text), I purposefully wanted > Speaker to be a sinecure with a salary, as a perk for winning. > > Aside: I really hate the lack of pending, and just plopping proposals in > the pool without review (including mine). Watching the proposals in the > last couple weeks has really just turned me off trying to participate in > that process. YMMV. > > >> On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: >> Hold up, were you even around when we had shinies? Are you just an Agoran >> History nerd? This seems like a mistake only a person who joined before >> your time cold have committed. >> >> On Nov 1, 2018 10:30, "Timon Walshe-Grey" wrote: >> >> I submit the following proposal: >> >> // >> Title: With not very much responsibility comes fewer shinies >> Adoption index: 2.0 >> Author: twg >> Co-authors: >> >> Amend rule 2559, "Paydays", by changing the text "For each office" to >> "For each office that has official duties". >> >> // >> >> >> -twg >> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: salary equalisation
When I wrote Paydays (I think I drafted that text), I purposefully wanted Speaker to be a sinecure with a salary, as a perk for winning. Aside: I really hate the lack of pending, and just plopping proposals in the pool without review (including mine). Watching the proposals in the last couple weeks has really just turned me off trying to participate in that process. YMMV. On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > Hold up, were you even around when we had shinies? Are you just an Agoran > History nerd? This seems like a mistake only a person who joined before > your time cold have committed. > > On Nov 1, 2018 10:30, "Timon Walshe-Grey" wrote: > > I submit the following proposal: > > // > Title: With not very much responsibility comes fewer shinies > Adoption index: 2.0 > Author: twg > Co-authors: > > Amend rule 2559, "Paydays", by changing the text "For each office" to > "For each office that has official duties". > > // > > > -twg >
