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

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 18:53 ATMunn wrote: > When? I couldn't find the message. > E purported to deputize for Herald to award Champion, but whether or not that worked is dependent on the CFJ currently assigned to me.

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3608 FALSE

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 17:39 VJ Rada wrote: > Imminence switches are power 1, the thing that states OPs shall always > be pending is power 1 but claims precedent over all rules to the > contrary. This judgement does not speak to that issue or indeed any > issue. I intend with 2 support to file a

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7982-7988

> > > >> On 11/26/2017 10:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > >>> This time's economy is indeed the first time we've ever charged for > CFJs > > >>> in history, I'm going with the spirit of the experiment but just as > happy to > > >>&g

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7982-7988

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 15:20 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I vote: > > > 7982* V.J. Rada 1.7 Referee Reform Fix V.J. Rada 1 > sh. > AGAINST. Don't understand logic of Arbitor ban. > Because the Arbitor can take over investigations at the Referee.

DIS: Re: BUS: I iniitiate a clork election

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 15:15 VJ Rada wrote: > I initiate an election of the type mentioned in the title. > This fails; you did not become a candidate.

DIS: Re: BUS: An Indulgent CFJ

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 06:21 Alex Smith wrote: > Gratuitous arguments (made without reading forwards in the thread, so > apologies if they've already been made): The mere fact that you seem to > have come to a paradoxical conclusion here implies the "If…" > conditional in the proposal is too ambi

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7982-7988

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 21:56 Gaelan Steele wrote: > Honestly, I’m not sure there’s any reason we should cater to non-players. > If you want to play the game, be a player. > > Gaelan > I'm inclined to agree with this in general, but CFJs are a notable exception, because otherwise deregistration s

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Clork] Weekly Report

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 21:04 VJ Rada wrote: > A document is only doubted when there's a CoE or a CFJ specifically > identifying and disputing the document. A pending CFJ from before a > report does not dispute it. > No, but it's a reportor's responsibility and prerogative to interpret the rules

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bid

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 19:57 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe we should compile a list of the best judgements to read. The FLR annotations are supposed to be that, but they've been ferociously unmaintained.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bid

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 19:31 Kerim Aydin wrote: > My memory is that there are a few out there, that amount to "if it's > within a reasonable effort for the typical Agoran to resolve a conditional > with information available at the time of the attempt, it works." I'll > try to hunt the archive t

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bid

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 19:22 Kerim Aydin wrote: > Well, if you read only the Rules, you'd wonder why everyone keeps doing > things with if/then clauses, because strictly speaking there's nothing > that allows them, and the Fora clause on "announcement" pretty much > implies that conditionals don'

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bid

ension, conditionals) are a convenience but not one that can be used abusively. On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 19:04 Corona wrote: > I thought about including a simple backup clause, but I ran out of time. > > On 11/26/17, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 18:58 Coro

DIS: Re: BUS: Bid

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 18:58 Corona wrote: > The following 5 paragraphs apply to all actions taken in this message, > other text to the contrary notwithstanding: > I'm willing to argue that most of this message fails due to being too complicated to resolve, but I'm gonna sit this one out and let

Re: DIS: Anyone want to be interim Referee?

Anyone at all? Perhaps one of the candidates for Referee? I will resign the office before any further obligations come due; I'm not willing to do the work and am only holding onto it to deny it from VJ. On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 18:56 Alexis Hunt wrote: > I don't actually. >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: An Indulgent CFJ

from when you called it? > > On 11/26/2017 1:12 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > I spend a shiny to create the following contract, entitled "No > > Self-Indulgence": > > {{{ > > Alexis SHALL NOT pend any proposal e authored. > > Alexis CAN revoke this con

Re: DIS: Web Rulesets updated

Yes, but that will take longer; HTML is not my forte. On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 at 12:41 ATMunn wrote: > Thank you, H. Rulekeepor. > > Any plans to update the HLR? > > On 11/25/2017 12:37 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > At https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/slr.txt and > > htt

DIS: Web Rulesets updated

At https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/slr.txt and https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr.txt.

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

onius Scholasticus > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > > > > > On Nov 25, 2017, at 12:35 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > > On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 at 12:31 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > > p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > >> CoE: Both the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] ADoP rule fix

On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 at 12:36 ATMunn wrote: > I'm aware that there's already a rule that says that the ADoP tracks > Complexity, but the purpose of this proposal was to have that in two places > so future ADoPs don't make a mistake by not realizing that it needs to be > in the report. > > Although

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

On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 at 12:31 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > CoE: Both the Rulekeepor and Rule Changes have the number 105. The Rulekeepor has ID 1051.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] ADoP rule fix

On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 at 12:28 ATMunn wrote: > I create and AP-Pend the following proposal. > > Title: ADoP Obligation Clarification > AI: 1 > Author: ATMunn > > Amend rule 2138, "The Associate Director of Personnel", by adding the > following list item to the end: > 4. The Complexity of ea

DIS: Re: BUS: (Unofficial) FLR COE

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 at 20:22 Alexis Hunt wrote: > These were unrelated; PDCW was left out of the index which actually > generates the ruleset (I want to fix this, but haven't yet); 7934 for rule > 2531 was just a typo, it was supposed to say 7964. > I've now added preca

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Herald Election Decision Initiation (for real this time, hopefully...)

On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 at 20:52 ATMunn wrote: > right. > I vote for {Corona, PSS} and FOR the campaign proposal.

Re: DIS: Logo?

Does anyone know it for the ruleset? On Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 22:53 Owen Jacobson, wrote: > Does anyone know the licensing and copyright situation around the Agora > logo at ? > > -o > >

Re: DIS: PAoaM v3: Not rushed this time and also better in general

ate ideas > how the underlying stuff (eg spending or justice or contracts) should > work and *all* of them are in construction or repair right now- that's > hard to build systems with, so I'll just enjoy what comes along with > parties and stop trying to run along behind with th

Re: DIS: PAoaM v3: Not rushed this time and also better in general

I'm kind of surprised parties passed, to be honest. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 14:04 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I see this concern and this is why I am waiting on my courts overhaul. I > wish that fewer people were perpetrating their major pla

Re: DIS: Re: URGENT! SCAM ALERT! ALL HANDS ON DECK! SCAM INCOMING! SCAM WARNING! SCAM WARNING!

A timing scam is generally any sort of scam or even just a regular action which needs to be performed at a precise time to work. The purest form, I'd say, is doing something in between two other things being done in an unexpected way; Alex has a particularly great example that I can't recall. On W

Re: DIS: test message please ignore

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 19:57 Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2017-11-23 at 11:45 +1100, Madeline wrote: > > > Telnaior| > > > 天火狐 | > > > Trigon | > > > > > Telnaior| > > > 天火狐 | > > > Trigon | > > > > > Telnaior| > > > 天火狐 | > > > Trigon | > > According

DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 18:58 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I support. But, Corona deserves more credit, the way I read it we would > have had to bend the rules because I missed the next blatant clause. > Fair point; thanks Corona!

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 18:57 ATMunn wrote: > The transfer failed, as Alexis had already acted on your behalf to pay the > fine. > Assuming the Blue Card worked at all, yes.

DIS: Anyone want to be interim Referee?

I don't actually.

DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 18:49 VJ Rada wrote: > Good, I'm glad o. This Blue Card is legal, but the penalty is not > effective. I call an urgent CFJ with the statement: A blue card can > only have a penalty imposed in shinies. > > Alexis and PSS are and should be obviously disqualified...I bar Telna

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

use of a scam, so what? > They > > become the Speaker, and the game moves on. > > > > On 11/22/2017 3:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > >> On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: > >>> Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 16:53 VJ Rada wrote: > it wasn't going to be rule-breaking (was pledge-breaking). I did > actually commit 3,000 infractions and give myself 3,000 actual cards. > just gmail sucks. thaks obama. > That's still rule-breaking. So it doesn't actually end up helping you out. Yo

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 15:52 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +0000, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to > > > call sufficient CFJs. Given

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 16:45 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is it worth CFJing then? It's certainly intended to be the former, and the > serial comma is only required in lists, right? > > -Aris > Probably. I shiny-CFJ {The Door CAN generally be Slammed on a player af

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

> > -Aris > > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:38 PM VJ Rada wrote: > > > >> My most recent deregistration was with my consent? It was back in > august. > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Aris Merchant > >> wrote: > >> >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies alone. On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 15:34 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > Thus, I think the corr

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7973-7880

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 00:20 Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > >> 7880* ATMunn, [5] 1.0 [6] Alexis 1 > AP > > AGAINST. If you deserve it, claim it right away. > > Three of the reward conditions may be triggered by _other_ peo

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Herald election

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 at 21:00 Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, Corona wrote: > > > Also, what is the point of campaign proposals? (Except for proposing > > overpowered powers for yourself and ensuring nobody else gets them) > > Seems like tying a proposal coming into force to your bein

DIS: Re: BUS: (Unofficial) FLR COE

These were unrelated; PDCW was left out of the index which actually generates the ruleset (I want to fix this, but haven't yet); 7934 for rule 2531 was just a typo, it was supposed to say 7964. On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 at 20:37 Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 at 20:33 VJ Rad

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Somehow This Got Through

The text in the proposal is correct, I believe. As it exists, the award is for the first vote each week; as you have it, it would be for the second and each subsequent vote each week. On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 at 19:45 Telnaior wrote: > I create the following Proposal and spend an AP to pend it: > > T

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7965-7972

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 at 18:39 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > I resolve the decision(s) to adopt proposal(s) 7965-7972 below. > Note that you're required to award Favours for the proposals that passed after the one that enacted them.

Re: DIS: can contracts actually do officer stuff?

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 at 12:28 Kerim Aydin wrote: > So in the hideously-overwrought, "I'd rather deregister than play > this" contract rules, am I reading it right that I can't contract > out Officer duties as act-on-behalf actions because they're > "protected"? That's how I read it anyway. > Tha

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (Unofficial) FLR COE

I missed it :( On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 at 21:07 Madeline wrote: > I said this ages ago and no one believed me! > > > On 2017-11-21 12:33, VJ Rada wrote: > > "Rule 2531/0 (Power=1.0) > > Referee Accountability > > History: > > Enacted by Proposal 7934 "Poetry Duel Challenge Writ" (天火狐), Nov 06, > >

DIS: Re: BUS: (Unofficial) FLR COE

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 at 20:33 VJ Rada wrote: > "Rule 2531/0 (Power=1.0) > Referee Accountability > History: > Enacted by Proposal 7934 "Poetry Duel Challenge Writ" (天火狐), Nov 06, > 2017" > > Obviously, it was not enacted by that proposal. The actual rule > "Poetry Duel Challenge Writ" is listed

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7973-7880

n Johansen > wrote: > > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > > 7974* V.J. Rada3.0 [2] Really minor fixes V.J. Rada 1 > AP > >>> > >>> FOR. Note that some of these may be Rulekeepor typos; I will do my best > >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3597 judged FALSE

On Sun, Nov 19, 2017, 18:29 Kerim Aydin, wrote: > > Subject to an asset's backing document: > > - The owner of an asset CAN, by announcement, destroy it. > > - The owner of an asset CAN, by announcement, transfer it to > >another entity, provided that entity can own the ass

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3597 judged FALSE

I think I needed to fix some typos that ATMunn pointed out, but I'd be happy if someone else did it for me. On Sun, Nov 19, 2017, 17:08 Kerim Aydin, wrote: > > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > > I note here that "by paying", > > another phrase used throughout the rules, has similar

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7973-7880

Nttpf On Sun, Nov 19, 2017, 04:34 VJ Rada, wrote: > Surely surely surely "3?" means 3. I meant it to mean as such. > > On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Aris Merchant < > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran > > Decision

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

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 at 21:43 ATMunn wrote: > Unofficial CoE: Miscelaneous is spelled wrong, it should be miscellaneous. Noted, but I want to redo these categories anyhow.

Re: DIS: CoE on FLR

Fixed, thanks. On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 at 16:05 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > (In discussion so unofficial): > > Missing whitespace in R869, likely from re-wrapping: > CANNOT otherwise bind a person to abide by any agreementwithout > > > >

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

a Trust Token to *C*. > > On 11/16/17, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET > > > > > > Agora > > > &g

DIS: Re: BUS: Dumb proposal

e > did neither within the time given. > > On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > I object. > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017, 17:07 VJ Rada, wrote: > > > > > I object and intend to call in the pledge with Agoran consent. > > > &g

Re: DIS: Politician Naming

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 at 20:10 Alex Smith wrote: > On Fri, 2017-11-17 at 20:07 -0500, ATMunn wrote: > > I've come up with 1 politician name for each political party: > > > > Official Raving Monster Looney Party - Weird Al > > Just to note, this was (and maybe still is, but it used to be much > bigg

Re: DIS: Re: BUS:

That's not up to date (sorry), the most recent version of the ruleset is https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-November/012066.html On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 at 16:55 Corona wrote: > Oh wait, that's about the Community Chest, which has a different shiny > balance th

DIS: Re: BUS: changing intents

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 at 15:29 Kerim Aydin wrote: > I withdraw all my previous objections to deregistering players. > > I support all intents to deregister players that have been published > in the past 14 days. > Now that 24 hours have passed, the intent to deregister Murphy is resolvable, but ha

Re: DIS: Proto: Asset Simplification

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 at 09:27 ATMunn wrote: > I like the idea, the assets rule is very complicated and weird right now. > Comments below. > > > Change the power of Rule 2166 (Assets) to 2, then amend it to read as > > follows: > >An asset is an entity that is a member of a class defined

Re: DIS: Note on updated rulesets

That's a fair point; I might be able to use the existing SLR/FLR links on that page to set it up as a stopgap. On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 at 22:48 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > I'll gladly provide anyone a copy of my then-up-to-date rul

DIS: Proto: Asset Simplification

Rule 2166 is enormous, unwieldy, and hard to follow. This intent of this proposal is to make it easier to understand and remove text that isn't used. It's easy enough to re-enact relevant text later if needed, but r Only a proto for now, because it requires coordination with a number of proposals

DIS: Note on updated rulesets

I'll gladly provide anyone a copy of my then-up-to-date ruleset, until I get web publication working again at which point I hope to remember to keep the website up to date whenever I update a local copy. Probably slightly higher priority than that is getting the headers back (indicating date, last

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Joining the fun

take Arbitor, if no one wants it, but I will not do so happily. I > >> agree with the sentiment and I plan to disengage from the economy and > >> hoarde shinies until it is fixed. > >> > >> On 11/16/2017 09:03 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > >>> On Thu, 16 No

DIS: Re: BUS: Joining the fun

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 at 20:56 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Thu, 16 Nov 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > None of these succeeded, as Agora only had 40 sh. by the time Alexis > > tried it. However, I think G. has a good point. With that in mind: > > > > * I pay Alexis 29 >

DIS: Re: BUS: Joining the fun

Is Agora still at 40 shinies? On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 at 20:24 Owen Jacobson wrote: > On Nov 16, 2017, at 7:40 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > I destroy my stamp for 59 shinies. > > > On Nov 16, 2017, at 10:00 AM, ATMunn wrote: > > > I also destroy my stamp, causing Ago

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Weekly Report: 11-14-17

It does. The repeal proposal failed. On Thu, Nov 16, 2017, 15:05 VJ Rada, wrote: > The position no longer exists. > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 1:26 AM, ATMunn wrote: > > > Haven't? You were elected on 2017-11-06, and I think the office was > vacant > > before that. > > > > > > On 11/16/2017 12:0

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Notes for proposals 7948-7953, 7957-7962

No, but meh. On Thu, Nov 16, 2017, 19:02 ATMunn, wrote: > Did you mean to send this to two mailing lists? > > On 11/16/2017 5:29 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 at 17:29 Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > >> Note that 7957-7962 were resolved before

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7948-7953

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 at 18:12 Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2017-11-16 at 23:05 +0000, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > I deregister Ienpw III, Bayushi, and ProofTechnique, with 3 Agoran > > Consent, > > resolving Telnaior's intent to do so. G., ATMunn, V.J Rada, and I > > su

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Notes for proposals 7948-7953, 7957-7962

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 at 17:29 Alexis Hunt wrote: > Note that 7957-7962 were resolved before 7948-7953, due to a resolution > error. > > And by this I mean 7961; 7962 was resolved several days later.

DIS: Coordination of annotations

I would like to get more annotations into the FLR, but I do not have the time to go through CFJs and prepare them. G., are you going to continue suggesting annotations in a place that is easy for me to see? Or should judges do that?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

Oh my bad, I missed that you fixed that. On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 at 18:06 Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 at 02:24 VJ Rada wrote: > > > I create the following > > > > Title: Really minor fixes > > > > This appears to duplicate everything. >

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 at 02:24 VJ Rada wrote: > I create the following > > Title: Really minor fixes > This appears to duplicate everything.

DIS: Re: BUS: SLR COE

Fixed, thanks. On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 at 21:41 VJ Rada wrote: > The Moots rule in the recent SLR contains before it this text "Amend > Rule 911 (Motions and Moots) by replacing its first 2 paragraphs with: > > If a judgement has been in effect for less then seven days and has > not been

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's my birthday!

It used to be that claiming your White right away made sense, but now, you should hang onto it since it makes Transparent easier. On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 at 12:40 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 09:25 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > As a coun

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Weekly Report: 11-14-17

gt; In which case CoE: The office of Tailor is not interim. > > > > > > On 2017-11-14 14:33, Alexis Hunt wrote: > >> I'm pretty sure it isn't. I won a Tailor election after taking over. > >> > >> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 at 22:15 Madeline wrot

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Weekly Report: 11-14-17

I'm pretty sure it isn't. I won a Tailor election after taking over. On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 at 22:15 Madeline wrote: > How did Tailor become interim ALREADY when the last election was a month > ago? > > > On 2017-11-14 13:44, ATMunn wrote: > > [I think I'm going to start including dates in the subj

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ

Which reminds me I need to work on the web publication. On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 at 21:16 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > https://github.com/alercah/ruleset/commit/201a163c824e65887964602985dda72012ec9183 > > Ooooh. *very* useful... > > > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ

https://github.com/alercah/ruleset/commit/201a163c824e65887964602985dda72012ec9183 On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 at 21:09 VJ Rada wrote: > It was a campaign proposal named "Card Reform and Appealability" > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > > > > > Which proposal# was it I'd be i

Re: DIS: Rulekeepor Candidate's Notes

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 at 16:43 Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > - On various occasions, rulekeepors combined multiple changes made by a > > > single proposal into one change in the history. Rule 1681 is clear that > > > each Rule Chan

DIS: [Rulekeepor] Notes on proposals 7948-7953, 7957-7961

> 7951* G. 1.0 Zombie Auctions G. OP [2] Re-enacts rule 1885 with power 1. G., do you have the history of this rule available someplace?

Re: DIS: Rulekeepor Candidate's Notes

On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 at 00:27 Alexis Hunt wrote: > Here are some notes I've observed in going through the FLR history data to > clean it up: > > - Proposal 7729 was listed as being authored by Henri in one proposal and > Tiger in another. I've listed this as "Tiger

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3594 assigned to Telnaior

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 at 18:56 Madeline wrote: > We have our current ordering for a reason - it's the easiest to read, > which is hard enough to handle sometimes with how the ruleset gets. > > I probably wouldn't want to have it ordered by power all the time (or > even as a regular requirement), bu

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7965-7972

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 at 18:50 VJ Rada wrote: > I vote > NttPF > > 7971* V.J. Rada, [4] 3.0 Cleanup Time V.J. Rada 2 sh. > FOR (Remember your pledge, Alexis) > Absolutely; the pledge is only valid if it passes, however.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3594 assigned to Telnaior

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 at 18:52 Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote: > > I'd really love to see a ruleset ordered by power, so we can see if it > still > > works at every step down the ladder. The intent I get from the precedent > rules > > are that the power 4 rules should all

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Poetry Duel Challenge Writ

https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-November/012035.html On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 at 02:40 Madeline wrote: > On 2017-11-12 18:39, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 at 02:32 Telnaior wrote: > > > >> While I'm at it, I use

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Poetry Duel Challenge Writ

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 at 02:32 Telnaior wrote: > While I'm at it, I use an Action Point to initiate a Call for Judgement > on the statement "A player does not need to pay any shinies in order to > remit under the rule Poetry Duel Challenge Writ", and bar 天火狐 from the > case. > > Also... I can't fin

Re: DIS: the next great rules format flame war

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 at 14:55 Kerim Aydin wrote: > H. Rulekeepor, do you prefer one whitespace or two whitespaces following > a full stop? > Personally, one. But more than anything else, I'd rather be consistent; if there's any consensus on how I should format spacing between sentences, I'll foll

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Notes on Proposal 7964

On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 at 23:21 VJ Rada wrote: > Title: Cleanup Time > AI: 3 > Coauthor: Alexis > Text: Amend rule 2430 "Cleanup Time" by removing the list and > replacing it with the text > {1. Changing the capitalization of a word, except to or from all caps, > and/or > 2. Changing visual formatt

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3591 assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

ing that the decision was "resolved as indicated" does ratify the > resolution option of X, but *additionally* ratifies that the decision > was "resolved as indicated"; that is, by a particular Decision announcement > with specified votes (and by the facts of the ann

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3591 assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

fy itself as a resolution and per Rule 208, changes > > to the gamestate take effect upon resolution. Additionally the > > specification of item 3 in Rule 2034 implies that other gamestate > > changes do not self-ratify. > > > > On 11/08/2017 06:29 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: &

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3591 assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

outcome, existence of the decision, and if it was a proposal, adoption > ratify. Decisions are different in the way that they ratify. > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > > > > > On Nov 7, 2017, at 10:11 PM, Alexis Hunt w

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3591 assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 21:39 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > I judge CFJ 3591 FALSE because Rule 208 reads "The vote collector for an > unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve it by announcement, indicating > the outcome." Given that the decision was n

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

Double checked; you were a coauthor of all of those. On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 22:01 VJ Rada wrote: > Yeah, I managed to give myself one for authoring 3 proposals and then > nobody noticed and it's still in the report haha. That's pretty funny. > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Alex Smith > wrote

Re: DIS: Backing Documents?

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 20:39 VJ Rada wrote: > From rule 2166, "Assets" > > "An asset is an entity defined as such by a (a) rule, (b) authorized > regulation, (c) group of rules and/or authorized regulations (but if > such regulations modify a preexisting asset class defined by a rule or > another

DIS: Rotating the Bench

Please move me to the Weekend Court; not sure I can handle a major judgment ATM and want to have more time to focus on Rulekeepor.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Referee Stuff

Ahhh. On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 16:43 VJ Rada wrote: > No I removed those intentionally. > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > Except there are already limits on how often finger pointing can happen. > > > > On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 16:39 VJ Rada wro

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Referee Stuff

Except there are already limits on how often finger pointing can happen. On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 16:39 VJ Rada wrote: > Yo, I found an obvious problem: The Referee can impose infinite cards > by pointing fingers. I create the following and pend it with Shinies. > > Title: Referee Reform Fix > AI:

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Referee Stuff

H. Promotor, can you please assign IDs to this proposal and the one I expedited? Thanks. On Tue, Nov 7, 2017, 05:38 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > I resolve the decision(s) to adopt proposal(s) 7954-7956 below. > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Rules are repealable now

llet points are also sans capital. > > I'm not spending 2 shinies to fix a full stop, sorry. This is something > easily fixable by the rulekeepor via Cleanup Time. > > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > Better to be fully explicit about a te

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Rules are repealable now

Better to be fully explicit about a textual change here rather than risking it failing due to ambiguity. On Tue, Nov 7, 2017, 01:42 Alex Smith, wrote: > On Tue, 2017-11-07 at 17:31 +1100, VJ Rada wrote: > > I create the following and pend it w/ shinies > > > > Proposal: Obvious fix > > Co-author

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Elections and Proposal 7954-7956

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 at 21:35 ATMunn wrote: > I know, but a CoE prevents the entire message from self-ratifying. It's > fine now that you accepted the CoE. > Agoran decisions, if correctly resolved, take effect immediately. They only self ratify that, if they were incorrect, they were correct afte

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >