On Sun, 1 Apr 2012, Elliott Hird wrote:
The problem with really-unbalanced voting systems is that people tend
to democratise as soon as there's any controversy. It would be nice to
have a way to prevent cheap voting scams in an emergency without
having it be easy enough to do regularly.
On Sun, 1 Apr 2012, omd wrote:
Here's a vague proposal: There are N named tokens, which grant both +2
voting limit and additional ruble income (to add a bit of permanence);
every so often, tokens are returned to the LFD and auctioned off for
rubles.
s/named tokens/type of golem/
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
The problem with really-unbalanced voting systems is that people tend
to democratise as soon as there's any controversy. It would be nice to
have a way to prevent cheap voting scams in an emergency without
FSX wrote:
I register.
NttPF
On 2 April 2012 17:17, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
You could just say that democratisation requires 2 Agoran Consent or summat.
I'm pretty sure you can't get 2 Agoran Consent for anything.
On Mon, 2 Apr 2012, Tanner Swett wrote:
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
The problem with really-unbalanced voting systems is that people tend
to democratise as soon as there's any controversy. It would be nice to
have a way to prevent
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 15:58, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Actually, er, unless I'm missing it, there's currently no way of
making a proposal democratic, unless it's specified as democratic
upon submission. So Agora's fairly safe from Democracy right now.
Oh good. I was worried
On 2 April 2012 20:58, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Actually, er, unless I'm missing it, there's currently no way of
making a proposal democratic, unless it's specified as democratic
upon submission. So Agora's fairly safe from Democracy right now.
Yes, but it's probably a bad
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:00 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Giving COMMUNITY SERVICE or APOLOGY would
violate rule 101, as far as I can tell, due to harassing non-players.
Rule 101 states that penalties shall not unduly harass a non-player
if e wishes to ignore the game, so I
On Mon, 2 Apr 2012, Tanner Swett wrote:
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:00 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Giving COMMUNITY SERVICE or APOLOGY would
violate rule 101, as far as I can tell, due to harassing non-players.
Rule 101 states that penalties shall not unduly harass a
10 matches
Mail list logo
