This raises an interesting question: can you get around No Faking by doing
something that appears to do something, but due to a technicality, turns out to
be unregulated? Would No Faking even cover that in the first place? If not,
should it?
Gaelan
> On Oct 23, 2018, at 10:41 AM, Kerim Aydin
No objection if it’s a large fee. I can distribute one proposal easily;
honestly, the thing that takes the most time is finding all of them.
-Aris
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 7:49 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> We've had success historically with Urgent proposals
>
> A player CAN flip a proposal
> to
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 6:31 PM D Margaux wrote:
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 2018, at 7:29 PM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Because I think it’s important to know why a verdict is assigned. I
> > disagree with your assertion that the major concern is the
Okay. Revised plan:
The Adjudicator CAN assign any verdict, SHALL assign an appropriate
verdict, and SHOULD assign the correct veridicr and list all other
appropriate verdicts. If a verdict is believed to be incorrect, any player
can change it to be what they think is correct after completing
Yes. But I think this should be enforced with at most a SHOULD. I think
this is a reasonable place where the Adjudicator can determine eir
preferred style, and I think they should have the flexibility to do so.
The way it is written, I can literally reach back to any act for the past
We've had success historically with Urgent proposals
A player CAN flip a proposal
to Urgent by paying a fee that is split between the Promotor and
Assessor. Promotor must distribute the proposal in 4 days. Assessor
must assess within 4 days of end of voting period. If not done before
Right. That’s the point. Sorry for not making this clear earlier. Saying
that it’s more than 14 days old doesn’t set any precedent, and in general I
think the merits should be addressed if possible. That’s why I was talking
about precedents earlier. For instance, I don’t want a case to be decided
As an example, one of the easiest things to determine is whether
something happened 14+ days ago. However Justified, Inculpable, or
Unaware have (historically) been more subject to CFJs. This would
force someone to send a case to CFJ to determine if it fit one of
those more complicated
On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 6:10 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I'm not sure about this proliferation of verdicts. In a previous system,
> > many of your categories are actually done in the Sentencing phase.
> > E.g. "Guilty/not guilty" was a finding of
> On Oct 24, 2018, at 7:29 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> Because I think it’s important to know why a verdict is assigned. I
> disagree with your assertion that the major concern is the disposition of
> the instant case. The precedent set for future cases is also crucially
> important. It's
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 6:10 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Overall this is nice! Haven't read others' comments so don't know if
> these have come up, but just a couple points.
>
> > Create a new Power 1.7 Rule entitled "Guilt", with the following text:
> >
> > The correct verdict is the first
Overall this is nice! Haven't read others' comments so don't know if
these have come up, but just a couple points.
> Create a new Power 1.7 Rule entitled "Guilt", with the following text:
>
> The correct verdict is the first appropriate listed verdict. A
> verdict is appropriate if and
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 5:56 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > The reason I am so reluctant to drop this exception is twofold. In part,
> it
> > is because I have a general dislike of exceptions. They make everything
> > messier, and if you use them often
On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> The reason I am so reluctant to drop this exception is twofold. In part, it
> is because I have a general dislike of exceptions. They make everything
> messier, and if you use them often enough you start including them in spots
> where you don’t need
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 5:20 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Create a new Power 3.0 rule, entitled "Required Actions", with the
> following
> > text:
>
> I really don't think this is a good idea, for two reasons. First, this:
> > without evident bad
On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Create a new Power 3.0 rule, entitled "Required Actions", with the following
> text:
I really don't think this is a good idea, for two reasons. First, this:
> without evident bad faith,
gives rise to meta-CFJs on whether it was done without
> > Amend Rule 991, Calls for Judgement, by appending as a new paragraph at the
> > end of the rule
> >
> > "If a person, otherwise required to take a given action, refrains from
> > doing
> > so while awaiting the outcome of a CFJ relevant to eir ability
> > or obligation to take the
I agree. However, distribution is _really_ hard to accelerate well.
Other than the fact that ID numbers become a pain to deal with,
there's also the fact that small distributions don't tend to meet
quorum. I don't see any barrier to making it easier to assess
proposals though. Does someone who's
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 3:51 PM D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 2018, at 6:27 PM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> However, a
> >>> player SHALL NOT make a accusation of which e believes the Defendant
> >>> not to be guilty without explaining emself in
> On Oct 24, 2018, at 6:27 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>>> However, a
>>> player SHALL NOT make a accusation of which e believes the Defendant
>>> not to be guilty without explaining emself in the same message; to do so
>>> is the Class-5 Crime of Witch-Hunting.
>>
>> This is ambiguous—it
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 6:03 AM D Margaux wrote:
> I think this is a great revision. Some comments for your consideration
>
> For appeals, we could use the same reconsideration and moot process as for
> CFJs, and
> potentially use the same rule.
I'd really prefer to keep appeals simple for now.
On Wed, 2018-10-24 at 10:11 -0400, D. Margaux wrote:
> I’m considering proposing a rule that would enable proposals to be
> ADOPTED through dependent actions. The idea is that a player could
> announce intent to ADOPT a proposal with X support, where X is the
> number of players who by voting FOR
Especially when pending is free, I think we have a lot of buggy
proposals go into the pool, and the proofreading really doesn't
happen until a quorum-enforced group put on their voting hats
and look closely before voting. I think the formality of that
process is useful.
*However* I don't
(If you're on a Mac and using the US-International or ABC International
keyboard layout, it's Option-a a. If you're on Linux, it's Compose - a.
On 2018-10-20 10:02, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
Welcome to Agora, Hālian! I cause Hālian to receive a Welcome Package.
(Note to self, and other players
I’m considering proposing a rule that would enable proposals to be ADOPTED
through dependent actions. The idea is that a player could announce intent to
ADOPT a proposal with X support, where X is the number of players who by voting
FOR could cause the proposal to be ADOPTED if all active
I think this is a great revision. Some comments for your consideration
For appeals, we could use the same reconsideration and moot process as for
CFJs, and
potentially use the same rule.
> Amend Rule 2152, "Mother, May I?", by appending at the end of the first
> paragraph the text
> "Every
I must have missed that one. It's included now.
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 19:01 D. Margaux wrote:
> I think the current ruleset is missing the amendment from proposal 8090
> below. Just wanted to flag for the next FLR/SLR.
>
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Timon Walshe-Grey
>
27 matches
Mail list logo
