Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

ius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017, if it is > still possible. > > > On 10/22/2017 12:14 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > Huh, you're right, I could have sworn I saw them there... > > > > Rulekeepor is de

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

hink every other office is OK? > > > > And regarding the uploading: I certainly haven't uploaded my weeklies > > to the website and nobody's really noticed. I think none of them are > > really in date rip. Except, obviously, uploading the ruleset is > > important. > > &

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada wrote: > We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs. > The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been keeping them up to date. https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2909 is the original

DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:42 Telnaior wrote: > Found it :D > Alexis gains a Karma for being helpful, Gaelan loses a Karma for being > slack on reporting (I think he's Rulekeepor?) > E is. I believe this fails, however, for not clearly specifying it is a notice of honour?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

f someone could explain or link to where it was > set up, that might be helpful... > > > On 2017-10-22 13:25, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > This is a Notice of Honour: Cuddle Beam loses a Karma for blocking > > standard culling of inactive players, and Telnaior gains a Karma for > > coming back with vigour. >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Apology

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 21:53 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Actually, given that this makes things more interesting... I SH-CFJ (or > AP-CFJ if the action would otherwise fail due to lack of shinies) "If there > were currently a power 3.9 rule purpoting to allow any

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

Easy enough for people to do that now with contracts, I think. On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 20:42 ATMunn . wrote: > This might be a good place to start, but it's certainly way too long in > itself. I don't really like the (a) (b) (c) etc. way that this is written. > > Another

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 20:00 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Yes the differences are (1) not everyone is on the list, and (2) the GWtoO > is a recordkeepor, not the chooser of promotions and (3) it very much a > sub-part of > the economy, not a standalone game, especially the

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 19:48 Kerim Aydin wrote: > I'm personally working on an Oligarchy proposal. For those who haven't > been > under an Oligarchy, this works as follows: > > 1. Players can be Oligarchs. There's a pyramidal hierarchy. Current > draft > has 4

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ribbon fix

holly of possible/impossible. But sure if you > think so. > > > On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > I don't think that it matters given that it's not capitalized. The > normal interpretation principles here would mean a value which is not > valid, I think.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ribbon fix

SHALL or SHALL NOTs > associated > with owning ribbons I can't see the situation where it would be ILLEGAL...? > > (I think you mean "if a player's Ribbon Ownership has an impossible value") > > On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > Proposal: Ribbon Preservati

DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 at 15:06 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > ais523 callforjudgement at yahoo.co.uk [1] 20 Mar 11 > I thought ais deregistered.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7922-7929

NttPF On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 at 18:42 ATMunn . wrote: > I change my vote as follows: > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 9:30 AM, ATMunn . wrote: > >> Oops, I accidentally sent before I was finished. Here is the my full vote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at

Re: DIS: Quick question about rule 1728

Nope, read the rest of the rule. This rule only provides a definition of what those terms mean; it does not apply anywhere where the terms aren't used. We used to have a rule implying that you could weaken the conditions (e.g. perform independent actions dependently, or perform an action with

Re: DIS: What's the deal with the ADoP election?

G. raised the question of what happened to the ongoing elections, given that my proposal changed the election rules without a proviso to continue the ongoing ones. Then VJ pointed out that e had failed to initiate the decision correctly (e had left out the valid options, per rule 107 this

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] A Reward for Obedience

Looking it over again, I see three potential other issues: - A player does not stop becoming eligible at the end of the month. I would say "eligible for a Medal of Honour that month", to avoid this. - If a player incorrectly announces eligibility, this could invalidate the entire vote later. Not

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Proposal Pool (revised)

. On Mon, Oct 16, 2017, 04:11 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > No, there were not as of the effective date of the proposal being revised. > > > On 10/16/2017 12:04 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > Oh, also, just in case, to sto

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ratification (Quasi-Resolution of PM and ADoP Elections)

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 at 02:04 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I recommend a green card. Given the preceding a-d discussion, this was > clearly an accidental omission and not an attempt at fraud. > > -Aris > > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:02 PM, VJ Rada

Re: DIS: Important note to Assessor and Promotor

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 at 01:24 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > > 7922* Alexis 3.0 Clarity Act Alexis 1 AP > > > > H. Assessor, H. Promotor: > > Proposal 7922 tinkers with the definition of ballots and

DIS: Revised High-Power Cleanup

Revised based on feedback. Proposal: High Power Cleanup (AI=3, coauthors=G, PSS) {{{ Text in square brackets is not a substantive part of this proposal and is ignored when it takes effect. Amend Rule 105, bullet 2 to read "When a rule is repealed, it

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Proposal Pool (revised)

n is implied to be that of the original report. > > -Aris > > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 9:04 PM Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Oh, also, just in case, to stop self-ratification: CoE: there are more >> proposals in the Proposal Pool than just these. >> >> >&

DIS: Re: BUS: Ratification (Quasi-Resolution of PM and ADoP Elections)

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 at 00:06 VJ Rada wrote: > I intend to ratify the document contained in curly braces. > {Just now, ATMunn won an election for ADoP. Just now, Alexis won an > election for Prime Minister}. > > If anyone's interested, here's a vote-count. > > PM > Three first

Re: DIS: Re: election end discussion

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 at 20:24 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Actually, retroactively replacing an Officeholder is ugly. Better version: > > The following document is ratified: > { > [winner] has just now won an election for Prime Minister. > [winner] has just now won an

Re: DIS: eval()

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 at 20:45 Gaelan Steele wrote: > There are many places where Agora essentially calls eval(T), where T is > some text from a player. This includes: > > The rules, of course > Proposals > Regulations > Other powered instruments (do we have any of those lying

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

Oct 15, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I withdraw it; I had some revisions to do and it isn't ready. > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 18:27 Aris Merchant, > > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

It's not that I want to ratify a scam but, rather, I would have done a minor scam affecting the outcome and may yet do so if there's another election; if the result is imposed by ratification, I would not get that opportunity. On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 18:29 ATMunn ., wrote:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Proposal Pool (revised)

d request the mercy of the Referee for > this error, noting that it was an inadvertent mistake. > > -Aris > > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I Point a Finger at Aris, alleging that e failed to distribute the > proposal > &g

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

I would possibly object to that, as I had a scam planned but didn't fire it as a result of the decisions being invalid; I wouldn't support ratifying if it would have made a difference. On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 17:56 Kerim Aydin, wrote: > > > Actually, maybe the easiest

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 21:17 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote > No, there definitely is a problem with giving rule permission for > people to define arbitrary things that could be paradoxical. Both > organizations and agencies, which this replaces, have similar >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 22:28 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Regulations are not dangerous, certainly not "very dangerous". > Regulations only work at the power of their parent rule, and can only > do what their parent rule says they can do. This is the first of >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 21:57 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Why not keep the birthday tournament. It existed before regulations. > It is kept, in its original form as part of 2464.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

Oh that's just a typo. On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 21:55 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > After rereading it, I don't understand the need for both a "to" and a > "for". I think either would work on its own. > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >

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

Heads up to the Promotor: this CoE is unresolved. On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 at 07:21 Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: > CoE: my proposal "Clarity Act" is not listed as being in the Proposal > Pool, which it is because you did not distribute it. > > On Sun, Oct

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 19:02 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Amend Rule 105, bullet 3 by appending "Unless specified otherwise by the > > re-enacting instrument, a re-enacted rule has power equal to the power it > > had at the time of its repeal (or power 1, if

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 19:54 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Sat, 14 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > Set the power of all entities other than Rules, Regulations, and this > Proposal to 0. > > > > [This is a general cleanup that catches re

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 03:30 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote > # 1 Cleanup & Miscellaneous > # 1.1 Gamestate Cleanup > > Destroy each organization. > We used to have a rule that made this sort of thing not necessary (Definition and Continuity of Entities). Reenacting

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] A Reward for Obedience

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 11:50 ATMunn . wrote: > Title: A Reward for Obedience > Author: ATMunn > Co-Author(s): > AI: 1 > > Create a new power-1 rule titled "Badges of Honor" > Nit: I prefer Honour :P > { > Badges of Honor are an indestructible, player-owned asset.

DIS: Re: BUS: can we can't we can we can't we

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 15:48 Kerim Aydin wrote: > I submit this Proposal, AI-3, "Can or can't we?" (pending to wait for > comments): > > -- > [The rules are unclear/silent on whether "CAN, SHALL, MAY"

DIS: Re: BUS: Stamps are cool

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 11:30 ATMunn . wrote: > I just figured out what the purpose of stamps is. I hadn't realized it > before; I must have just not looked very closely at that section of the > rules. > > I buy a stamp by transferring 1 shiny to Agora. > Stamps cost 2

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] ADoP and Prime Minister Elections

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 09:49 ATMunn . wrote: > Oh, wow, thanks guys. I should have guessed that Agorans were friendly > enough towards new players to do something like that. > I retract my vote for ADoP and vote for myself. > (Quick question that should be answered in a

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Moot begins for CFJ 3568

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 at 17:00 Kerim Aydin wrote: > I initiate an Agoran Decision to resolve the Moot on CFJ 3568. > For this decision, the vote collector is the Arbitor and the > valid options are AFFIRM, REMAND, and REMIT. Quorum is 5. > I vote REMAND.

Re: DIS: Ruleset typo on the website (ATTN: Rulekeepor)

The list formatting in Rule 2496 is also broken, and a space is missing from the last paragraph of Rule 991. On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 at 21:29 Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: > On the website, in Rule 2231, a space is missing between "in general." and > "As this". >

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

l.com> wrote: > > Yeah G. has already made that argument vociferously, and several > > times. Right now as the CFJs stand, it's good law and recently > > re-affirmed (also with regards to MAY). But you're quite right that > > the precedential underpinnings are shaky. > &

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

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 21:50 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I oppose (not that it does anything). I rather like my judgement. BTW, as > I understand it, SHALL but CANNOT has generally held to be impossible, > except where the situation is somehow the fault of the

DIS: Spending shinies

Is it just me, or is spending a shiny currently undefined?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Pledge Withdrawal

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 20:31 Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 20:28 -0400, ATMunn . wrote: > > Amend rule 2450 by adding the following text at the end: > > { > > If, at any time, a player owns a pledge which is impossible for em to > > break, e CAN withdraw

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

I'm digging into the precedent of the SHALL implies CAN by announcement (e.g. CFJ 3557), and I think it arose by taking various judgments out of place. I'll post a more detailed analysis later. On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 18:22 Josh T wrote: > Good job on noticing the

DIS: Re: BUS: Creating and Revoking Agencies

to remove the text "to Alexis" if it exists. > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 15:50 Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> I intend, with 24 hour

Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

This is yet another example of the I say I do therefore I do fallacy that has plagued Agora for a long time, unless I mistake myself. On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 14:26 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Alex Smith

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

I miss the PNP. Also the President, that was fun. On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 13:49 Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 11:41 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote: > > You appear to be arguing for the e vs it distinction to be used to > > distinguish between persons, as defined

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Reconsidered judgment on CFJ 3569

I'll publish a revised version taking into account ais523's arguments (which thankfully do not affect the conclusion) and correcting typographical errors. On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 13:32 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Wed, 11 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrot

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

If my memory serves, "e" was used to refer to persons, but not to non-person entities that may have person-like characteristics. The Lost and Found Department, for instance, was never referred to with "e" in my memory. On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 13:27 Alex Smith wrote: >

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

A power-1 rule can only amend rules with power at most 1. On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 12:57 ATMunn . wrote: > New proto: > > Title: "Clearing up Language Confusion" [CuLC in short] > Author: ATMunn > Co-Author(s): Alexis > AI: 1 > > Create a power-1 rule titled "The Language

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 10:40 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Don't mind codifying spivak, but it's not it's own language rather (by > Wikipedia definition) "a set of gender-neutral pronouns in English". > I had been intending to bring back the old WO rule cleanup mechanism to

DIS: Ruleset typo on the website (ATTN: Rulekeepor)

On the website, in Rule 2231, a space is missing between "in general." and "As this".

DIS: Re: BUS: Reconsidered judgment on CFJ 3569

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 at 18:16 Alex Smith wrote: > Gratuitous: mathematically, "A is equivalent to B" means the same thing > as "B is equivalent to A", but I'm not at all convinced that the > mathematical wording was meant in this case. The intended meaning to me > seems

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Reconsidered judgment on CFJ 3569

No, only gain. You can specify youself to lose. On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 at 18:27 VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: > You cannot do this. Notices of Honour must specify an "other" player > to lose and gain karma. > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Alexis Hunt <aler.

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

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017, 21:58 Owen Jacobson, wrote: > > > 7920* Gaelan, Aris 1.0 The Lint Screen v2 Gaelan 1 sh. > > PRESENT. I suspect this is impractical, per Alexis’ overarching complaints > about platonic outcomes from subjective judgements. A refund

Re: DIS: argument in support of conditional voting

PRESENT and stays present for the result (breaking > Conditional Votes but still counting as present), or is cast as PRESENT and > becomes clearly identified by its conditional at the time the voting period > ends (not retroactively). > > On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:

Re: DIS: argument in support of conditional voting

I don't have the time to fully go through this right yet, though I know my reconsideration deadline is coming up soon. I will start by saying that the effect of this judgment on trust tokens is potentially unfortunate, but that the point of Nomic is to play the game as written, not the way that we

Re: DIS: Draft: Conditionals and Determinacy v3

re's one complaint I can't think of a good way to > fix (the thing about invalidating loops), but I hope that isn't a > deal-breaker on its own? > > -Aris > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You haven't addressed most of my concer

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agency: PPP

Nope... On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 at 21:23 Gaelan Steele wrote: > *TT*ttPF > > On Oct 9, 2017, at 12:30 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > [updated version; I won’t resolve the first] > I intend, with 24 hours’ notice, to create this agency: > > Title: PPP (Platonic

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

eating a mechanism for it. > > > On 10/09/2017 09:19 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > AGAINST. There are a number of technical errors in this proposal > > (e.g. saying that people CAN do things like destroy a bank without > > providing a mechanism for doing so), but more general

Re: DIS: Draft: Crime Improvements v2

gt; breed paradoxes. I can't find a way to force this specific text to > > produce a paradox though. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > G. is saying that your proposal has a paradox. I haven'

Re: DIS: Draft: Crime Improvements v2

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 at 10:28 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Not all that complex, though one must wait for the right circumstances. > But the circumstances aren't too rare. > We must have different scenarios in mind, then.

Re: DIS: Draft: Crime Improvements v2

that could be taken by players that, under this proposal, would result in paradox. The exact paradox is left as an exercise to the reader. On Mon, Oct 9, 2017, 07:23 Alexis Hunt, <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: > G. is saying that your proposal has a paradox. I haven't read through it > yet,

Re: DIS: Draft: Conditionals and Determinacy v3

You haven't addressed most of my concerns from the last draft, so I will still be strongly voting against, and likely deregistering if it passes. On Mon, Oct 9, 2017, 00:33 Aris Merchant, < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Title: Conditionals and Determinacy v3 > Adoption index: 3.0

DIS: Re: BUS: Agency: PPE

I don't believe this works as you think it does. Agencies can't create obligations on players, only allow them to perform actions. On Mon, Oct 9, 2017, 04:12 Reuben Staley, wrote: > I intend, with 24 hours notice, to create the following agency, which is > enclosed in

Re: DIS: Draft: Crime Improvements v2

G. is saying that your proposal has a paradox. I haven't read through it yet, but I don't think the correct response is to include a victory condition in your rule. On Mon, Oct 9, 2017, 00:58 Aris Merchant, < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 9:45 PM Kerim Aydin

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

CoE: my proposal "Clarity Act" is not listed as being in the Proposal Pool, which it is because you did not distribute it. On Sun, Oct 8, 2017, 23:50 Aris Merchant, < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran > Decision of

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] ADoP and Prime Minister Elections

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 23:27 VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have two ballots as PM. I cast one ballot of {Alexis, VJ Rada} and > one ballot of {VJ Rada, Alexis} > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 8 Oc

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] ADoP and Prime Minister Elections

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 23:20 VJ Rada wrote: > For PM I vote myself. For ADoP I vote Alexis x 1 and myself x 1. > NttPF. Also I think the ordering of your ADoP vote might be slightly ambiguous?

Re: DIS: Re: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Basic Guaranteed Income

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 20:44 ATMunn . wrote: > Why exactly did you remove this? Was it discussed that it should be > removed? > > I don't have a problem with this being removed, I don't really care, I > just don't entirely understand why this was removed. > Regular

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 20:26 Alex Smith wrote: > The minimal gamestate change required to make Quazie the speaker is > that Quazie is now the speaker. We're changing the present, not the > past. Notably, we're not changing /why/ Quazie is the speaker; that's > arguably

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

I think it would revoke G.'s Transparent Ribbon (if indeed it was awarded); if the report had been true and correct, then G.'s attempt to award emself the ribbon would have failed. As a result, the gamestate now would not have a Transparent Ribbon. Ratification generally can (and should, for good

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Clarity Act.

On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 at 01:57 Owen Jacobson wrote: > How does forking this out of the original (and quite old) rule change its > interaction with other rules, under rule 1030 (“Precedence between Rules”)? > I can’t see any obvious differences, but I wanted to draw attention to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Archival disclosure

I believe we've had at least one 12-year old playing on the past, but I believe the honor goes to the President, which was a player from the first instant of its (rule-defined) existence. On Fri, Oct 6, 2017, 09:20 Gaelan Steele, wrote: > I just turned 16 about two weeks ago.

DIS: Re: BUS: PLEASE READ on voting

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017, 10:24 Kerim Aydin, wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > First, I don't want to be assessor past the election, I grabbed the job > mainly because I was guessing quorum would be an issue and I didn't want > my proposals (or ribbon) to languish. I won't be able

Re: DIS: Idea: Regulations Impovement

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017, 01:33 VJ Rada, wrote: > Title: Regulations for all > Author: VJ Rada > AI: 1 > Create a power 1 rule called "Office Regulations" with the text > {{The holder of an office may promulgate regulations regarding the > performance of actions tracked by eir

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017, 02:38 VJ Rada, wrote: > So uh let's self-ratify my ADoP report? Because every election I have > ever resolved didn't work according to this. > It already is? >

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

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 21:52 Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > On Oct 4, 2017, at 9:35 AM, ATMunn . wrote: > > > > Nevermind, I think I had sent that when I didn't understand pf and > such. Your report is just fine. I retract my CoE (if that's possible,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 16:12 Kerim Aydin wrote: > In writing a fix, it's worth noting that this breakage has been > particularly noted > in Instant Runoff elections, where people have been voting with ordered > lists like > (Endorse G., ais523, Alexis). Given that

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: the real reward

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 16:04 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 18:12 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > I award myself a Transparent Ribbon. > > > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 16:01 Kerim Aydin wrote: > Oh, crud. Conditional votes broken entirely? Maybe. > > For history, R2127 used to say in part: >The option selected shall be considered to be clearly identified >if and only if the truth or falsity of the

DIS: Re: BUS: the real reward

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 18:12 Kerim Aydin wrote: > I award myself a Transparent Ribbon. > > (Ultraviolet, Platinum, Orange, Cyan, Blue). > Unfortunately, I think this fails. Rule 2438 states: Orange (O): When a proposal is adopted via an Agoran Decision on

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 01:13 Gaelan Steele wrote: > Get shinies for proposing (and passing) rules that are valid markdown so > that the HLR works better. > Opposed to this.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3568 assigned to o

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 21:23 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > I believe you got it backwards and meant to judge it FALSE. > > > > I also believe that this was an INEFFECTIVE assignment, because for

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3568 assigned to o

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 21:16 Owen Jacobson wrote: > I find this CFJ to be TRUE, following the caller’s arguments exactly. The > alleged claim of error was > > > CoE this is bugging me. > > Sent in response to an attempt to collect a report award, and without any > trivially

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 19:00 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > I CFJ on the following by paying a shiny: > > If grok had not deregistered, e would have issued trust tokens to > > both Aris and G. by eir vote on Proposal 7899. > > > This is CFJ 3569 - I assign it to

Re: DIS: voting strength question

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 16:32 Kerim Aydin wrote: > It looks like *all* entities, anywhere, ever, have a voting strength > of 1 on decisions to adopt proposals, as per here in R2422: > > If not otherwise specified, the voting strength of > an entity

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport mark...9?

Except it *is* late now because it's October. On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 20:42 VJ Rada wrote: > Notably this makes the FLR also not late. Mark 10 let's go. COE: The > FLR isn't late. > > I accept my CoE > > =Metareport= > This report is effective as of 11pm GMT on Sunday

Re: DIS: Criminal appeals/process reform

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 19:01 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Mine is based on the Roman court system and integrates civil and criminal > procedures. > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com This sounds

Re: DIS: Criminal appeals/process reform

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 18:13 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is everyone working on one of these? > To the best of my knowledge, yes.

Re: DIS: Proto: Crime Improvements

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 16:42 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Current phrasing: > "If a person would otherwise win the game, but e broke the rules to do so, > or another person broke the rules to help em win with eir advance > knowledge, and this fact is publicly

Re: DIS: GitHub Request

ocumentation for it on the > internet though. > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > > > > > On Oct 1, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Thanks. Is creating a new repository named 'Tailor

DIS: GitHub Request

Can someone please add me (github.com/alercah) to the GitHub organization so that I can add the Tailor's report? Thanks!

DIS: Question for the Fearmongor

Where are you getting your old rules from? Do you know where to find archives of, say, 2011-era rulesets? Thanks!

Re: DIS: Proto: Crime Improvements

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 03:24 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Amend Rule 2449, "Winning the Game", by appending > > "By definition, a person CANNOT win the game if e broke the rules to do > so, > or if another person broke the rules to help em win with eir advance >

Re: DIS: Draft: Conditionals and Determinacy v2

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 03:28 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Create a power 3.0 rule entitled "Conditionals and Determinacy", with the > following text: > > A conditional is any textual structure that attempts to make a statement > affecting any part or aspect of

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

On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 at 00:12 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would. It means that the Speaker has to care enough to maintain eir > veto. If e doesn't, and someone else does care about doing it, e can. > It also means that a Speaker can object to something as a

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >