Re: DIS: DRAFT proposal: Real Estate

I’ve opted not to bolt this to the nascent Assets proposal, but would heartily recommend rewriting it to fit once Assets lands. Please pay close attention to the auction rules, which are a bit shaky, and to the change to You Can’t Take It With You. I’ve moved the departed-player cleanup to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: To-Do List

On Thu, 2017-04-27 at 22:07 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: > Is it time to do away with the distinction? I appreciate the idea > that proposals should be submitted for consideration before they’re > submitted for voting, but with Agora this small, that appears to > happen through proto-proposals,

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: 蘭亭社's highest allowable budget

I have no ill against you barring me, just that I wasn't familiar with the procedure. 天火狐 On 27 April 2017 at 22:04, Owen Jacobson wrote: > That’s pretty much it. You’re best-placed to actually provide insight into > the truthiness of the statement, which is why I barred you:

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Payday (Apr 2017)

On Apr 27, 2017, at 7:02 PM, Sprocklem S wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Nicholas Evans wrote: >> You're registrar (via deputization). When the month rolls around, announce >> intent to deregister everyone who hasn't posted in the last month.

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: To-Do List

On Apr 27, 2017, at 6:12 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > I submit the following proposal if it has no formatting errors and its > passage would create two new rules: > > {{{ > Title: Agora's To-Do List > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author:

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: 蘭亭社's highest allowable budget

That’s pretty much it. You’re best-placed to actually provide insight into the truthiness of the statement, which is why I barred you: I’m actually trying to figure out how Agora as a whole interprets the 蘭亭社 charter. Having you step in and answer directly somewhat defeats the purpose. -o >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mint Chocolate

How much more malleable? Before we enacted the Shiny Supply Level rule, it was possible for any player to adjust Agora’s balance by proposal, with AI=1. The rule doesn’t modify that much, but it increases the minimum Adoption Index to AI=2 (the rule itself is Power 2). I’m skeptical of

Re: DIS: Proto-proposal: real estate

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 5:40 PM Owen Jacobson wrote: > Sure, I can do that. > > -o > > Good. Oh, sorry, one other thing. There are several places in your proposal where you allow actions. You probably want to make it clear that people can do those things _by announcement._

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Payday (Apr 2017)

Objection noted. The current list stands as follows: As registrar, I hereby announce intend to deregister each of aranea, Charles, Henry, Roujo, Sci_Guy12, Tekneek, Yally, and Zachary Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:41 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: >

Re: DIS: Proto-proposal: real estate

> On Apr 27, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: >> >> I'd say N needs to be more than 3. Maybe somewhere between 5 and 10? I'd >> recomend going with

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Payday (Apr 2017)

An early proto of what became this economy included taxes, but I think it was scraped because of the logistical overhead. Ideas I considered at the time: -A tax on players' wealth (wouldn't stop players from hording shinies in orgs) -A tax on organizations' wealth (would require weird budget

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Payday (Apr 2017)

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Nicholas Evans wrote: > You're registrar (via deputization). When the month rolls around, announce > intent to deregister everyone who hasn't posted in the last month. Once you > deregister them, that will free up their shinies. > Is there any

DIS: Re: BUS: AAaAA Voting Session

Proto-Proposal Idea: Each player has a switch, the Value of which can be one of: the set of all active players or None. A player may flip their Grudge switch to a player once a month. A player may flip their Grudge switch to None at any time. All players have their switch initially set to None

Re: DIS: Proto-proposal: real estate

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > I'd say N needs to be more than 3. Maybe somewhere between 5 and 10? I'd > recomend going with about 7 to start us off. I'd also suggest allowing new > estates to be created without amending the rule.

Re: DIS: Assets proto-proposal, v2

On Thu, 27 Apr 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 22:56 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > Reenact rule 2166, Assets (Power = 2), with the following text: > > > > Is there a meaningful distinction between re-enacting a rule and > > creating a rule? > > Rule history is something that

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly report

> I would like to point out that I am not an office (in the recent events > section of the report). > 天火狐 No Player is an Office (CFJ 1895).

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Payday (Apr 2017)

Mine wasn't - but PSS's was - I couldn't really object as a maybe not player On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 09:52 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Were those messages to a public forum? > > -Aris > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Quazie wrote: > >

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Payday (Apr 2017)

Both warrigall and ais523 have sent messages in the past month - so i think you can't do that to em? On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 02:58 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > As registrar, I hereby announce intend to deregister ais523, aranea, > Charles,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: 蘭亭社's highest allowable budget

On Thu, 2017-04-27 at 02:43 -0400, Josh T wrote: > I am confused by the wording "barring 天火狐", and seek clarification > on the issue. When you call a CFJ, you can choose one player who will not be able to judge that CFJ; that's called "barring a player". Normally you do that if the CFJ is about

Re: DIS: Assets proto-proposal, v2

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > Some diagnostic questions, to help me figure out how I want to structure the > proposed rules for Estates: > > The class “owner” isn’t constrained. I’d love to see some limits, to prevent > cyclic ownership structures and

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: 蘭亭社's highest allowable budget

I am confused by the wording "barring 天火狐", and seek clarification on the issue. 天火狐 On 27 April 2017 at 00:27, Owen Jacobson wrote: > I CFJ, barring 天火狐, on the statement > > 蘭亭社's highest allowable budget for a single player is 50. > > I present no arguments,

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Free Agency

This certainly makes agencies more interesting to make - no conditional powers feels pretty restrictive. On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 23:24 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Title: Free Agency > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: Aris > Co-author(s): ais523 > > > Amend Rule 2467,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bankruptcy

I am pleased to announce that by DIS activity (the most favorable metric) we have had the highest monthly activity (479 KB) since August 2013 (585 KB). No doubt this metric is flawed for a bunch of reasons, and the month isn't over yet, but still, keep up the good work (i.e. please everyone don't

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mint Chocolate

By my math it's one payday (or less, if we fill some of the vacant offices; or more, if Quazie is ultimately not a player). -o > On Apr 27, 2017, at 2:01 AM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > Sure that's enough? I'd tend to go with 1500, although admittedly the >

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mint Chocolate

Sure that's enough? I'd tend to go with 1500, although admittedly the inflation is worrying. -Aris On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > This is not a sustainable fix, Agorans. I’m only going to submit this once, > and I’ll actively block further attempts