DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Second Revised S:R

On Oct 23, 2017, at 6:43 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > -- > > Rule 2497/3 (Power=1) > Floating Value > > Floating Value is a natural singleton switch, tracked by the >

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Weekly Report

> On Oct 25, 2017, at 9:16 AM, ATMunn wrote: > > CoE: I'm pretty sure I paid Alexis 2 shinies. So you did, in two separate transactions. I’ll publish a revision shortly. > Also, another question: I tried to buy a stamp previously, however this did > not show up here.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

> On Oct 25, 2017, at 3:26 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: > > The other thing to note is that he was previously a player and continued > to take player-like actions. Additionally, he stated that he had > observed his inclusion in the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

On Oct 25, 2017, at 3:02 PM, Nic Evans wrote: > 3) It's ethically squicky to some people (myself included). > > 3a) It's tempting to think players in a game will be more 'unethical' > because it's, well, a game. But players seem to act fairly high-minded > in routine play,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

> On Oct 25, 2017, at 10:41 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> On Oct 25, 2017, at 12:30 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> >>> I cause Agora to make the following payments, which I believe can be >>> uniquely

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer loves halloween

You are warned that this contains links, which will appear in the distribution. -Aris On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > I create the following Proposal and pend it with 1 AP: > > Title: Spoopy Agorans > Content: > > * Amend "Emotion is a player switch,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

sneak in the word "subtle", they'll never see it coming On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Josh T wrote: > To put it in other words, "If you were assigning words/phrases that other > people have to sneak into proposals without arousing other people's > suspicion, what

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

To put it in other words, "If you were assigning words/phrases that other people have to sneak into proposals without arousing other people's suspicion, what do you think are reasonable choices?" The idea is that *I* have an idea of what I intend to assign as words/phrases, but this might not be

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

I'm not really sure what is meant by the first question. On 10/26/2017 9:34 PM, Josh T wrote: For the purposes to provide everyone involved with a fun game, I would like to ask those interested to partake in a voluntary anonymous survey so I have an idea of what people are expecting. I will

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

For the purposes to provide everyone involved with a fun game, I would like to ask those interested to partake in a voluntary anonymous survey so I have an idea of what people are expecting. I will probably be making word/phrase lists on Saturday after I resolve my intent to amend the contract so

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Asset Auctions

I've been working on it some today, and I've made a lot more progress. I think it's probably somewhere from 50% to 75% done. It should be done in the next day or two. On 10/25/2017 9:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, ATMunn wrote: I hadn't previously thought of including that in

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

I retract the proposal "Way More Controversial Version of the Above" for real this time. On 10/26/2017 8:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: NttPF. -Aris On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:53 PM, ATMunn wrote: Ah. I retract the below proposal. I didn't pend it anyway, and

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

It is certainly a restricted action. It modifies information I'm required to recordkeep, and it is enabled by the rules. -Aris On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:06 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > Retraction of Proposals is not informal! > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Publius Scribonius

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

Thank you, I have checked the ruleset and you are correct. I thought that it was not required to be by announcement, but I was incorrect. On 10/26/2017 09:06 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > Retraction of Proposals is not informal! > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

Retraction of Proposals is not informal! On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > But retraction is itself informal. > > > On 10/26/2017 08:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: >> NttPF. >> >> -Aris >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

But retraction is itself informal. On 10/26/2017 08:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > NttPF. > > -Aris > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:53 PM, ATMunn wrote: >> Ah. I retract the below proposal. I didn't pend it anyway, and obviously >> nobody will vote for it. >> >> >> On

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3580 assigned to G.

Just going to mention for no reason at all that I'm a pretty friendly person On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 2:37 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > The find 9 friends step might be the main obstacle. > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:36 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > Gotta admit I've

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

NttPF. -Aris On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:53 PM, ATMunn wrote: > Ah. I retract the below proposal. I didn't pend it anyway, and obviously > nobody will vote for it. > > > On 10/25/2017 9:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> >> Needs to be AI-3 to work. >> >> On Wed, 25 Oct

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3580 assigned to G.

Gotta admit I've considered finding 9 friends and making them register and buy stamps. It's not prohibited (only flooding "to increase voting strength" is), if I did it fast enough I wouldn't be stopped, and it would be the stupidest win ever. On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Kerim Aydin

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3580 assigned to G.

So that's why they're a protected action in contracts! On 2017-10-27 11:29, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: I mean, if you have the power to pass any power 4 rule and wanted to troll, I doubt that this strangeness would be the first objective. Repealing all rules would

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3580 assigned to G.

The find 9 friends step might be the main obstacle. On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:36 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > Gotta admit I've considered finding 9 friends and making them register > and buy stamps. It's not prohibited (only flooding "to increase voting > strength" is), if I did it

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3580 assigned to G.

On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > I mean, if you have the power to pass any power 4 rule and wanted to > troll, I doubt that this strangeness would be the first objective. > Repealing all rules would be pretty easy. We just rely on > people...not? Nomic-obsessed, extremely clever internet

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3580 assigned to G.

On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, Madeline wrote: > This was a really awesome read, and also we need to bury it as soon as > possible before any lurking trolls make it their new scam objective. It's not any more dangerous than many things, really. R2140 means that Power-3 Instruments can amend Power-4

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3580 assigned to G.

Well, if this is not the most existential-crisis-inducing CFJ judgement ever... On 10/26/2017 6:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: CFJ 3580 statement: "If there were currently a power 3.9 rule purpoting to allow any person to destroy the universe by announcement, without defining the effect of this

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3580 assigned to G.

I mean, if you have the power to pass any power 4 rule and wanted to troll, I doubt that this strangeness would be the first objective. Repealing all rules would be pretty easy. We just rely on people...not? Nomic-obsessed, extremely clever internet trolls whose sole objective is to ruin peoples'

Re: DIS: thesis thoughts

Nothing prevents making multiple intents and only resolving one. On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 at 17:56 Cuddle Beam wrote: > That's... > > A great a idea actually lol. > > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3580 assigned to G.

This was a really awesome read, and also we need to bury it as soon as possible before any lurking trolls make it their new scam objective. On 2017-10-27 09:01, Kerim Aydin wrote: CFJ 3580 statement: "If there were currently a power 3.9 rule purpoting to allow any person to destroy the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2017-10-26 at 13:13 +1100, VJ Rada wrote: > > Actually, I wonder whether or not we should just repeal the Public Forum > > rule? Because there are so many references to Public Fora in the rules, as > > well as Agora is a Nomic being a rule, it

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3580 assigned to G.

I was with you all the way until the last paragraph. Rule 101 states this "Agora is a game of Nomic, wherein Persons, acting in accordance with the Rules, communicate their game Actions and/or results of these actions via Fora in order to play the game. The game may be won, but the game never

Re: DIS: thesis thoughts

That should be a challenge. On 10/26/2017 04:43 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: >>>    Levels were:  AN 150, BN 250, Masters 750, Doctorate 1000 >> lol, our CFJs routinely go above those, we are smurt af. > Actually, it would be a real challenge to write a

Re: DIS: thesis thoughts

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: > >   Levels were:  AN 150, BN 250, Masters 750, Doctorate 1000 > > lol, our CFJs routinely go above those, we are smurt af. Actually, it would be a real challenge to write a thesis that has reasonable content and keep it at 150 or under.

Re: DIS: thesis thoughts

I would rather err on the side of being overly wanting and give an A.N., rather than a M.N. On 10/26/2017 12:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Hi folks, > > I'm still struggling a bit "leveling" Alexis's thesis. By sheer length, > it is clearly more than a B.N. and would fit for Masters. However

Re: DIS: thesis thoughts

I'm all up for amendments to the reward after handing in a provisional ones, if needed. Like, it's not a win or a scam or anything, it's an honest contribution without much of a reward except a superfluous title and good vibes. > Levels were: AN 150, BN 250, Masters 750, Doctorate 1000 lol,

Re: DIS: thesis thoughts

Thanks! I'm thinking of formalizing the results of this discussion into a rule to provide better guidance - so your general thoughts very welcome. Here's a brief history of our standards from 2002 when I joined: - When I joined, there was a word count standard that included a progression

Re: DIS: thesis thoughts

No issues. It would be remiss of me to participate overly much in the discussions of the academy in regards to my own thesis. On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 at 12:56 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > I'm still struggling a bit "leveling" Alexis's thesis. By sheer length, > it

DIS: thesis thoughts

Hi folks, I'm still struggling a bit "leveling" Alexis's thesis. By sheer length, it is clearly more than a B.N. and would fit for Masters. However (wearing my academic review hat, seriously I just got out of a review committee for a RL master's thesis), it's subject matter of the CFJ is

Re: DIS: A Fearmongor's Halloween - braaains

haha this is great, I like it. On 10/25/2017 10:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: [OK, you folks with your forced deregistrations by proposal are rushing me]. PLEASE withdraw those deregistrations. This is a much better idea - Trust me! Draft Proposal, AI-2 (re-enactment for fearmongor):

Re: DIS: Proto: Complete Economic Overhaul

While you're at it, could you rename Economics as Shinies? On 10/25/2017 09:29 PM, Nic Evans wrote: > In the interest of collaborating with everyone else that is working on > econ-related proposals, I'm posting the drafts of my Econ Overhaul as > they get written. Here's the first one. Would