Re: DIS: Draft: Spending Fix

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: So overall, I'm a bit concerned with the separate uses of "pay" and "spend" given that they now function differently and spend includes destruction. For example, if someone says "I pay 1 AP to " then it would technically fail, because "pay" is

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report (revision 2)

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: On Oct 11, 2017, at 12:17 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: As Secretary, I flip the Floating Value to 20. On Oct 11, 2017, at 12:29 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: As Secretary, I flip the Floating Value to 22. On Oct 11,

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3572 assigned to o

While the rules do not specifically define “an announcement of intent”, rule 478 (“Fora”) defines what it means to announce something: A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent to all players and containing a clear designation of intent to be public. A rule can also

DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] October Estate Auction

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: win-by-robbing-Agora proposal (that was intended as a real proposal, not just a scam vessel; if that proposal doesn’t exist, I create it with the text and attributes from the original message), but (barring a bug/typo) Hm you only have to "specify"

Re: DIS: Re: Agency: PPE

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, Reuben Staley wrote: Yeah, but in my question, I kind of meant before they were even created, though I see the confusion because of my non-explicit wording... Gosh, now I feel like such a hypocrite, criticising the wording of a rule then being ambiguous with mine... Before

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7908-7921

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: For the record, I’ve been re-wrapping rules as I touch them. Looking at the ruleset now, however, I’m not sure if I’ve been indenting to the right width… Well I'm not sure which ones you've fixed, so... The standard used to be something like 75

Re: DIS: Draft: Crime Improvements v2

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: A person SHALL NOT deliberately, by eir explicit, positive, and restricted action aid, abet, or induce the violation of the rules by another person; when e does so, e commits the Class-3 Crime of Being an Accessory. A person never is never an

DIS: Re: BUS: Actions

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017, Josh T wrote: Seeing the recent report reminds me that I never resolved the quoted intention, and I do so now. I think you're too late - there's a general 14 day limit on dependent actions. Greetings, Ørjan.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Superintendent] Weekly Report

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: Nothing prevents me from issuing a weekly report including the full text of agencies. I therefore pledge to do so as long as I am superintendent. There have been no changes to agencies this week. NOTE: The portion of this report referring to the agencies Ben

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Trouble with agencies

shment, "G: Overlord of Dunce"}} Don't worry about it affecting rules, it doesn't. On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: On Thu, 2017-09-28 at 09:24 +0200, Ørjan Johansen wrote: [snip] As others have mentioned, this kind of ratification

Re: DIS: Congratulations everyone!

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: Agora-Discussion traffic last month was 6 MB, significantly more than our previous record of 2 MB from May. In addition to this, Agora-Business traffic was a record setting 2 MB. Although these records only go back to July 2013 (when archive gzip'ing

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: It’s not the format that’s the problem. Many clients display the date a message was received, not the Date: of the message itself, when showing dates in message lists. Mine (Mail.app, macOS Sierra, up-to-date on patches) does this. *Sigh* well, at

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote: Far too powerful, given how difficult it can be for some clients to display anomalous Date: headers. Could lead to some interesting time paradoxes, too (given that changing the gamestate as though the message were sent at some other time than the time the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Sun, 1 Jan 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: Far too powerful, given how difficult it can be for some clients to display anomalous Date: headers. For example, this message's Date: header claims that it was sent on Jan 1st, 2017. I thought you meant "anomalous" as in weird format, yours looks

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote: "The Date: header of an emailed public message constitutes a self-ratifying claim that the message was sent at the indicated time.” Far too powerful, given how diffi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: So the TDOC precedent was set long ago in a very different ruleset. I've always been of the opinion that we should go with the Date: header, and the knowledge that it can be forged for tiny advantage be dealt with by some kind of crime (e.g. "if the

Re: DIS: voting strength question

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: However, what keeps non-players from voting is in R683: An entity submits a ballot on an Agoran decision by publishing a notice satisfying the following conditions: [...] 2. The entity casting the ballot (the voter) was, at the

DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: [I think I did the CoE part of this message already, but I'm being very clear here to be sure]. You cut that _very_ close to a week. And because of an erroneous clock setting in Nichdel's computer, quite likely not on the side you intended. Mail

Re: DIS: Another UTF-8 question (for o or someone else)

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: Could someone look at the index for cases: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/ And tell me why Ørjan's name displays correctly in CFJ 3565, but not in CFJ 3470? The first case involves a quoted message including 天火狐's CJK nick, and so

Re: DIS: I think I fixed the rulesets

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: I believe the rulesets on GitHub are now accurate. If something is still wrong, please speak up before I publicly embarrass myself again. :) Still no farming in sight in the SLR there. Also, sneaking a peek at the HLR, rule 2496 looks misformatted.

DIS: Re: BUS: I attempt to Declare A NEW ERA

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: I withdraw my objection. I support the above-quoted intent. This cannot be continued though: A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the same type of

DIS: Re: BUS: 🎵Spooky Scary Skeletonsð沁ｵ

Yep, as well as a weekly Silly Person (ideally appointed by the previous one) to make them. Greetings, Ørjan. On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: Were Silly Proposals a game concept at that point? Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset

shortly after the last SLR. Greetings, Ørjan. On Fri, 29 Sep 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote: This is also missing the farming stuff, which was one of several things someone else complained was missing in the _previous_ Ruleset. (That's the one thing I recall. I didn't save the message.) Greetings

DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset

This is also missing the farming stuff, which was one of several things someone else complained was missing in the _previous_ Ruleset. (That's the one thing I recall. I didn't save the message.) Greetings, Ørjsn. On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET [snip]

DIS: Re: BUS: 🎵Spooky Scary Skeletons🎵

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: From the archives (by memory): AN INSANE PROPOSAL IS A PROPOSAL IN ALL CAPS. VOTES FOR AN INSANE PROPOSAL ARE SECRET AND CANNOT BE DISCUSSED, EVEN IN PRIVATE. IF NOT A SINGLE FOR VOTE IS CAST FOR AN INSANE PROPOSAL, THE PROPOSERS WIN THE GAME. Good

DIS: Re: BUS: Spooky Scary Skeletons

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: - Title: Terrifying Proposals Reward - Content: The victor of the "The Terrifying Proposals" Proposal Competition, once ever via this effect, can gain 3 Stamps from Agora by announcement. I get really queasy about proposals having non-instantaneous

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Guaranteed Stampage

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: On Sep 28, 2017, at 3:09 AM, Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote: On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote: Enact a Power 1 rule titled "Stamp Wins" with the following text: If a player owns 10 stamps with different Creater

DIS: Re: BUS: Trouble with agencies

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: To avoid committing fraud I hereby specify that the document I am attempting to ratify is inaccurate to the extent that no such agency exists. Oh, I made a typo in the below ratification as well. I object to that ratification and intend to, without objection,

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Guaranteed Stampage

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote: Enact a Power 1 rule titled "Stamp Wins" with the following text:    If a player owns 10 stamps with different Creaters, none of which    have Agora as its Creater, e CAN win by announcement. Doing so    destroys the specified stamps. Specified where?

DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] Experimental Bench procedure

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: Experimental procedure for assigning CFJs. You can just tell me what Court you want to be on. Favoring still works of course. Comments welcome. Is this allowed by the "reasonably equal opportunities to judge" clause? Greetings, Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Fixing Fingers

, Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote: On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: I create and pend with 1 shiny the following Title: Two Words AI: 1.7 Text: In rule 2478, Vigilante Justice, add the word "either" after the words "shall conclude the investigation by" but befo

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Fixing Fingers

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: I create and pend with 1 shiny the following Title: Two Words AI: 1.7 Text: In rule 2478, Vigilante Justice, add the word "either" after the words "shall conclude the investigation by" but before the colon. Also, before the words "if e believes that no rules

Re: DIS: Re: CFJ (Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7899-7904)

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: If you just say "I vote as G. does" that to me reads like voting the same as my current vote, which wouldn't change if I changed my current vote. I don't think there's anything in "I vote as G. does" that makes it sound conditional. Hm, that leaves the

Re: DIS: Screw all of this

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: I _still_ did not receive this message. You're cursed. How long before we notice someone has been playing for years, but we've never received eir messages... Greetings, Ørjan.

Re: DIS: proto: losing conditions

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: A Checkered Card is a type of Card that is appropriate for violations of the rules that directly and substantially result in a Win. When a Checkered Card has been issued and not been the subject of an open CFJ for seven days, [the win

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Such is karma

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Reuben Staley wrote: If the majority of players are convinced to attack someone then there will not be enough people to punish the full attacking group. But if they're a majority, then they can just pass a proposal anyhow. Greetings, Ørjan.

Re: DIS: proto: losing conditions

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: It may be valuable to have some actions (voting on a Decision, for example) be automatically disqualifying for some short amount of time (2 hours or so) to help prevent timing scams. Won't work because of the time gap between end of voting and

Re: DIS: proto: losing conditions

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: Proto: "losing conditions" Seems this isn't really popular, but I'll point out a couple bugs anyhow: When the Rules state that a person or persons win the game, and those persons are not Disqualified from winning as described by the

DIS: Re: BUS: Such is karma

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: While the Karma of the Community Chest is not equal to 0, the Herald CAN and SHALL publish a Notice of Honour specifying the Community Chest as a gainer or loser in place of a player; to be valid, it must be specified such that

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: I have started working on an economic simulation. *Channeling Nick Bostrom...* Greetings, Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: If you don’t specifically call my attention to it, I can say with a straight face that I believe that there are no unpunished violations, but once someone brings it to my attention, that would be a lie. There's a certain Bayesian problem here: If an

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: assigned to _a_ judge, singular, implies or dictates only one judge at once. I don't think it does, especially in the context of the last part of the sentence. It's perfectly readable as just an existential. When a CFJ is open and assigned to a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: Oh sorry, I confused certiorari with the "without 3 objections" method in R991. Folks, if someone end up wanting to call a CFJ on this, make an Agency for me with this exact purpose and I can have it called and assigned in the same message. You'll need

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: I have aimed to make this response as concise as possible. 我反对。我反对。 Like others, I'm doubtful that this works, but possibly for a different reason. Although you may have many enough "我反对"s, _each_ of them is an action that is ambiguous as to

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: ===Metareport=== Your tables are horribly misaligned. I suggest using a programming editor that can actually handle monospace text. (And don't use tab characters.) Greetings, Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Quazie wrote: To be honest - I only did it cuz I'm unsure if subject line only actions, even if noted by the rules, even work. I really cannot see why giving effect to subject lines shouldn't work when a rule (2463) _explicitly_ mentions it. I still don't think rule

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: This is Cuddlebeam-esque and I'm ashamed of myself. But I will now copy and paste "Without objection, I intend to win by apathy", until there is thousands of copies of that text, each of which is a seperate action. Under the precedent of several CFJs,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: Oh yeah, I'm late on my ADoP report. By notifying you here it makes it probably illegal to list that you believe no un-remedied rules violations have occurred the preceding week. So you might have to use your fifth summary judgement. Hm, an actual

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: Title: Make Your Home Shine Author: o Co-authors: CuddleBeam, Ørjan, V.J Rada AI: 1.7 Ratify the following statement: { The only pledge owned by o was created on Aug 23, 2017. } You need AI >= 3 for ratification. Greetings, Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: Do you want this distributed with this weeks distributions? That's a still buggy version, so probably not. Greetings, Ørjan. -Aris On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: Ugh, I missed a pledge, and I’m not sure

DIS: Re: BUS: QAZ is out

On Wed, 20 Sep 2017, Quazie wrote: 24 hours having passed, QAZ has been revoked. Now that this is done, explain what could've been done to stop this? Um, you need to do the actual action. With Notice is a dependent action, not automatic at the end of the period. Greetings, Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Assessing Votes

On Wed, 20 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote: Due to a stressful trip coming up this weekend and the size of the There was a part of my brain that expected the rest of the message to contain "I deregister". Greetings, Ørjan.

Re: DIS: test

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: This worries me. Is there something in the SLR that is incorrect? Given that your scam doesn’t work, I see little harm in you sharing. The last paragraph of rule 2491 is duplicated. I don't see how that allows any scam though... Greetings, Ørjan.

Re: DIS: test

I received it too (but already deleted it, after briefly seeing if I could spot anything funny in the headers but I didn't), what's wrong with it? Greetings, Ørjan. On Mon, 18 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: I received this, but I concur with Aris this could be a problem. I

DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] The Lint Screen

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: I create the proposal “The Lint Screen” with AI 1 by Gaelan: {{{ Create a rule “The Lint Screen” with Power 1: {{ The Lint Screen is a singleton switch, tracked by the Promotor with possible values including all lists of text. The default value is an

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3557 judged FALSE

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: Just when I think I've resolved all the problems. *sigh* I file a motion to reconsider CFJ 3557, and invite arguments about why exactly I shouldn't just rule that CAN (or SHALL) implies "by announcement" whenever it makes sense. Seems like a perfectly

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: Amend rule 2450 ("Pledges") to read, in full: { Pledges are an indestructible fixed asset. Ownership of pledges is restricted to persons. The Referee is the recordkeepor of pledges. Creating, destroying, modifying, and

Re: DIS: [Proto] IRV formalization

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: Create a new rule, “Instant Run-Off Voting”, with power ??? and the following text: When the voting method for an Agoran Decision is instant run-off, then, for that decision, a valid ballot consists of exactly one of the following: * PRESENT. *

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: I publish the following ADoP weekly report. The alignments are rather out of whack here (and not just the one with Japanese in). Greetings, Ørjan. Informal Measures Consolidation (number of filled offices over number of officeholders):

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Come What May

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: Sorry I was wondering whether to use it for elections or just for reports. I pledge to do what Orjan said. Thank you. Greetings, Ørjan.

Re: DIS: [Draft] Make Your Home Shine, or, Contracts On The Cheap

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: Title: Make Your Home Shine Author: o Co-authors: CuddleBeam AI: 1.7 For the purposes of clarity, no existing pledge is intended to carry over into this system, and this proposal does not imply the creation of any assets corresponding to existing

Re: DIS: Proto: Banking and Bonds

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: As a suggestion, it might be good to add that there is a Newbie Funding reserve, something like this?: The Newbie Funding Reserve are the shinies that are contained within Agora's balance level of 0 and 50. Agora cannot make any transfer to grant

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Come What May

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: I initiate an election for the office of Agronomist, as no election for this office has happened in the last 90 days (r. 2145). I stand for >>election for this office, but if a player who has no offices would like the job, I would prefer that Agorans vote

DIS: Re: BUS: Retracting my CoE

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: I retract my recent CoE. The latest secretary's report is NOT a tissue of lies. Carry on. As far as I can tell, there is still no general allowance for retracting actions. Greegins, Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Rewards

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: Is it possible to use the "any player may assign an unassinged CFJ to emself without three objections" rule? Doesn't work because it's not unassigned. We even had a recent CFJ that people don't stop being judges by being deregistered (as Sprocklem just

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7876-7898 [sic]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: Rule 1551: "When a public document is ratified, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified to what it would be if, at the time the ratified document was published, the gamestate had been minimally modified to make the ratified

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Test of Confidence

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote: But if you're really that incensed by me playing the game, I'm happy to take my ball and go home. Just say the word. That gave me a vision of "what if deregistrations were as easily triggered as registrations". Greetings, Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7876-7898 [sic]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: 7887* Aris 3.0 SLR Ratification Aris1 sh. AGAINST. I’m strongly pro-ruleset-ratification, as it has not been done since well before I joined the game. However, ratifying that version at this point in the sequence of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Severe email problems

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: I am still interested, but I would like to note to ais, that I did not receive his original message to which you are replying. Ironically ais523 always has problems with your messages being spam filtered, but his email workaround

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7876-7898 [sic]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: Why the switcheroo on university funding? E's circumventing eir own pledge. Not very good at holding a grudge I guess. :P Greetings, Ørjan.

Re: DIS: [Proto] The Lint Screen

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: {{{ The Lint Screen is a singleton switch, tracked by the [Rulekeepor/Promotor] with possible values including all lists of text. The items in theIt SHOULD contain a list of common errors in proposals. "theIt"? Maybe add something about silly

Re: DIS: [very early proto/idea] Inter-Nomic Currency

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: Also, I've found this as a public paste on Pastebin a while ago which suggests that there is another Nomic out there, although I haven't been able to find it (or the coup never happened): https://pastebin.com/dEwyiMRq I've never heard of it but I

DIS: Re: BUS: Shiny Weather

On Sun, 10 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: Determining the weather to be Improving sets the Supply Level 25% higher (rounded down). Determining the Supply Level to be Deteriorating sets the Supply Level 25% lower (rounded up). I think you mispled one "weather" as "Supply Level".

DIS: Re: BUS: Card Reform and Expansion v2

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: Amend Rule 2474, "Green Cards", to read in full: A Green Card is a type of Card that is appropriate for minor, accidental, and/or inconsequential infraction. A Green Card is also appropriate for any infraction for which no other type of Card is

DIS: Re: BUS: Card Reform and Expansion v2

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL investigate the allegation and, in a timely fashion, SHALL conclude the investigation by: - issuing a Card to the pointed-at person by announcement whose reason is rooted in the allegation;

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Restraining Bolt

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: I don't think this one is needed, because the definition of distribution resolves to an Agoran decision initiation, described as a publishing action elsewhere. In fact adding "by announcement" might do more harm than good. It shouldn't do any harm as

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Restraining Bolt

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: {{{ In a timely fashion after the start of June 1 of each year, the Herald SHALL propose a set of Regulations governing a Birthday Tournament for that year; the Herald CAN also delegate the responsibility for creating or

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: Rule 2431 doesn't seem to restrict where specifications can be made. "With Agoran Consent" is sufficient to restrict this to being done via the public fora, because rule 1728 specifies that an action with that constraint can be done by announcement

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: ninja'd *MWAHAHAHA* On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: "Using existing terminology (I hope correctly), an action which CAN be performed, if the rules impose no other constraints, can be done in any way at all" Here's a list (it's quite short) of CANs

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: Nope the text for CAN is this: " CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.". That's all. So this is just mirroring that. If you want to make an argument that you can do anything with a CAN in private, sure. Hm so searching for CAN...

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: MAYS that should be CANS PLEASE READ THIS WE'RE SO FUCKED

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: I looked through every MAY, there's no probs having it imply CAN in all cases. Hm looks like you're right. I guess the need for the opposite is so rare it can just be written more explicitly. Greetings, Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: MAYS that should be CANS PLEASE READ THIS WE'RE SO FUCKED

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: I already looked through these and posted a less elaborate list, although: "A Reward is a specified amount of shinies associated with a Reward Condition. For each time a player meets a Reward Condition, e MAY claim the specified award exactly once within 24

Re: DIS: Shinies and Stamps Omnibus Fix Thread

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: 1a. Whatever fix we undertake should _not_ somehow resurrect actions we had all understood, within the context of that mistaken reading of the rules, to be ineffective or impossible at the time they were performed. There are a few shiny transactions

DIS: Re: BUS: [Thesis] Agoran Offices: Should there be more of them?

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: P.S. Yellow Card apology word lists appear to have the same MAY/CAN bug. I don't think that counts, because "specify" is a common sense ability that persons have naturally. Greetings, Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Floating Intent attempt

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: I intend, without objection, to ratify the following document: { On Mon Sep 4 21:49:56 UTC 2017, the Floating Value was set to 16. } Hm, I've recently been thinking about ratification a bit, and this happens to hit one of my quibbles. When a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: not-buying a not-stamp

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: Rule 2467 may not enable creating Agencies - that's a "MAY", so I'm a bit surprised no one seems to have picked up on this. If "may"s are a problem, amendment, revocation and use is also impossible. This is resolved because of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Thesis] Agoran Offices: Should there be more of them?

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: Proto: Royal Flush When you possess all different card colors, you win the game OK I laughed. Greetings, Ørjan, who never lols though.

DIS: Re: BUS: not-buying a not-stamp

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: I transfer to Agora the Stamp Value, in shinies, to create a Stamp. I know this is very likely impossible, I'm not trying to mislead anyone. But if we ratify everything to what would-have-been, I want my cheap stamp. I'll just note that the currently

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: This appears to be more valid, though I’ll still need to sanity-check it. Notably, several rewards which I had previously thought would be invalidated are instead permitted. I’ve still avoided breaking any proposals or CFJs, but given the duration, I

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: So the mass-stamp destruction scam did work? Even if the MAYs were to be ignored, your attempts still would fail for the other reasons, although Gaelan Steele's attempt might have worked. Greetings, Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Proto: Cards are liquid Assets

A previous economic system included a currency, Blots, which could be spent to resolve penalties early. When I was around, the currency was Indulgences, and Blots were the penalties you could remove with them. (At one point the definition was 1 Blot = -1 Indulgence, but that was changed

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7869-7871

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: "Since the rule now _has_ been assigned a number, does that mean this rule change fails due to ambiguity?" No because "currently" refers to when the proposal was promulgated and it is abundantly clear which rule I mean: there is only one "Rewards" with the

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7869-7871

On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, nichdel wrote: In the rule currently not assigned a number called "Rewards", replace the text {{ * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies.}} with {{ *Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies. This reward can be claimed a maximum of once per office per week

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [QAZ][ADoP] Metareport

NTTPF On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, V.J Rada wrote: I point my finger at Quazie for never resolving this CoE. I accept this CoE. On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 4:29 AM, Nic Evans wrote: On 08/21/17 18:46, Owen Jacobson wrote: Through the mechanism described in the agency “Quazie’s

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Resolving Herald Election

NTTPF On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, V.J Rada wrote: This is not correct. The quorum was 3.0 as the most recently assessed proposal had 5 voters. The outcome is FAILED QUORUM and PSS remains Herald anyway. On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:36 PM, V.J Rada wrote: I deputize for ADoP. I

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Initiating elections.

NTTPF On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, V.J Rada wrote: For the Herald, I vote PSS. For the Prime Minister, I vote for myself. For the ADoP, I vote for myself. For the Reportor, I endorse the first person to vote non-conditionally for a player. On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:51 PM, V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration (of others)

NTTPF Greetings, Ørjan. On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, V.J Rada wrote: Finally I intend to deregister sproklem w/o objection

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Crowdsourcing the reportor (and [Reportor] Report)

quazie (or anyone else) can always state 24 hours notice for amending or destroying the agency in a way that doesn't make me own quazie, but that will still leave a small time window in which I own quazie. On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote: On Wed, 6 Sep

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Crowdsourcing the reportor (and [Reportor] Report)

On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Quazie wrote: I rescind the quoted intent. I retract the quoted intent. I don't think Rule 1728 pays any attention to such retractions. Greetings, Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I take an action

On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: Actually, is being non-registered a requirement to register? Couldn't registered people just... Register again? Wasn't there a CFJ about this recently? Or was that just discussion. Greetings, Ørjan.

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >