On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 3:07 AM Reuben Staley wrote:
>
>
> This idea has been stewing for a long time, and this is the rough draft
> of a proposal that captures my initial thoughts somewhat.
>
> I am putting this out there be
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 10:02 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> On 9/8/19 12:57 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Here's another draft, sorry for the inconvenience.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > ---
> > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
>
Here's another draft, sorry for the inconvenience.
-Aris
---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 5, the voting method is AI-maj
On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 4:16 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 9/3/19 7:08 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > I am a little unclear on exactly how this works, but I don't think
> ratifying a report can change anyone's Citizenship if it's not reporting on
> Citizenship in the first place. The most you could
Looks like this is it at the moment; am I missing something?
-Aris
---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 4, the voting method
On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 9:40 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On 9/1/2019 9:11 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 at 17:11, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> On 9/1/2019 8:06 AM, James Cook wrote:
> >> >Whenever a player has not done so in the past 4 days, e CAN
> >> >Commune with th
On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 9:13 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> On 9/2/19 12:11 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > Aris suggested it's unnecessary [0]. I thought the reasoning was that
> > an action conditioned on indeterminate information (e.g. about the
> > future) can't meet the standard for "by announcement". Do
On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 4:32 PM Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> On 9/1/19 5:21 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > On 9/1/19 5:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> Also curious why twg and Jason Cobb voted against it? Is there something
> >> wrong with the idea that I wholly missed a discussion about?
> >
> > I linked F
On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 12:34 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I submit the following Proposal, "there's a WILL", AI=3:
>
> -
>
> Amend Rule 2152 (Mother, May I?) by appending the following
> paragraph:
>
>9. WILL: If a rule states that a person WILL perform an action
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 9:35 AM James Cook wrote:
>
> I vote as follows.
>
> > ID Author(s)AITitle
> > ---
> > 8215A G. 1.7 recusal simplification
FOR
> > 8216A R. Lee
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 9:44 AM James Cook wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 06:04, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > The proposal pool is currently empty.
>
> The authors of the following proposals may want to submit copies of
> them if they are still relevant.
>
> Form
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 2:08 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> On Monday, August 26, 2019 3:50 AM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Behold! A draft! I imagine that angels somewhere must be singing right
> > about now. I wouldn't be su
Behold! A draft! I imagine that angels somewhere must be singing right
about now. I wouldn't be surprised if I missed something, given how
long it's been; corrections would be greatly appreciated. After this
distribution, normal proposal services are expected to resume. I'm
really, really sorry for
I’ve started recovering from my health problems. Unfortunately, as anyone
who’s dealt with mental illness can tell you, it can take weeks or months
to fully recover, even once you’re on the right track. So here are the
conclusions I’ve come to.
There’s no way I can run the contest, I’ll be handing
It is held in abeyance from its inception to 48 hours after the end of
the suspension period. You can just act as if it hasn't started till
then.
-Aris
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 10:09 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
> But does tolling mean to stop the clock or to simply suspend the effects of
> the eliminatio
Anyone see any obvious errors or omissions in this?
Aris
Pontefix Maximus
---
[Apologies for how long this took and for any errors. I've been busy for
the last few days with a combination of work and health problems. I wanted
to get something out.]
Rankings:
Fasifian- +2.2
Jason Cobb - +
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 12:01 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> This rule is dedicated to the AGORAN SPIRIT OF THE GAME.
>
>
> Please let it be enacted that, after some contestants have been
> eliminated, each message in which a rule enacted shall contain praise to
> at least one eliminated contestant; the
On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 9:51 PM James Cook wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 14:53, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > On 8/4/19 2:57 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > > I submit myself to the Agoran Gods! I submit the following rule to the
> > > contest:
> > >
> > > {
> > >
> > > I dedicate this rule to ARCAS.
> > >
>
On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 11:35 PM James Cook wrote:
>
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 03:38, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > 2. Variety. Contributions that move things in a new direction shall be
> >rewarded. Contributions that merely repeat things that have come
> >before
On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 10:31 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 8/4/19 1:23 AM, James Cook wrote:
> >Whenever a player has not done so in the past 4 days, e CAN
> >Commune with the Wheel by announcement, specifying Rock, Paper or
> >Scissors. A player CAN Reach into the Past by an
Hello all!
OOC: I technically have everything ready, and could start the
tournament literally right now. That said, I'm going to be driving
home from a vacation tomorrow, and wouldn't have the time to get
things started properly. So I'm thinking to wait till tomorrow
evening.
IC: Agora is shroude
Here's a draft. While I obviously can't declare a deadline under the
current rules, it would be highly appreciated if people could refrain
from changing things for the next 24 hours or so.
-Aris
---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, a
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:49 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> 8/2/19 4:42 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Does this do the trick?
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > ---
> > CoE: The last Proposal Pool left out several proposals.
> >
> > Accepted. Revision: At ~20:45:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:46 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Aris wrote:
> > * I'd prefer an award of coins along with a SHOULD encouraging the Herald
> > to give the patent title of "Time Lord"
>
> Every other subgame has "win = Champion" (method of win could be noted
> as "Time Lord"). But not sure wh
Does this do the trick?
-Aris
---
CoE: The last Proposal Pool left out several proposals.
Accepted. Revision: At ~20:45:03 UTC Jul 28, when the last non-revision proposal
pool report was published, the proposal pool contained the following proposals:
Author(s)AITitle
---
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 8:04 AM James Cook wrote:
> > That's a good point. Maybe we could add "as long as the announcement
> > is not conditioned on anything". It's possible that R478's requirement
> > that "by announcement" actions must be unambiguous would imply this
> > anyway.
> >
> > --
> >
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 3:44 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 7/30/19 9:51 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 02:31, Edward Murphy wrote:
> >> I vote as follows. Also, not sure what the difficulties were here, but
> >> in any case, how would people feel about multiple distributions per wee
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 7:56 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Please reply to this thread to indicate interest in judging.
>
> We've had people favor cases lately that are technically "uninterested" by
> my tracking, and also people technically "interested" dropping cases. So
> time for a refresh.
>
> I
I'm not sure this needs a new office. Would the Rulekeepor be okay
with taking this on? (If we do decide to pass it, which I'm neutral on
ATM.)
-Aris
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 7:17 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: The Editor
>
> AI: 1
>
> Text:
>
> {
>
> [Commen
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 5:07 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> Or what about this:
>
> ///
> {
> Adopt a proposal with AI and other characteristics minimally sufficient to
> give full effect to its terms, providing as follows:
>
> { The gamestate and ruleset are changed to what they were on 31 July
>
Technically, they’re not in use as patent titles, and there’s no reason to
believe that the old patents titles have been removed. Still, this is an
interesting problem.
-Aris
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:21 PM Rebecca wrote:
> your frozen ephemera section should remove "shogun" and "honorless wor
s to end up forgotten and another waiting period to be
> required.]
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/24/19 6:57 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > I intend, Without 3 Objections, to enact the following as the
> > regulations for this year's Birthday Tournament.
> >
> > 0.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 8:19 AM James Cook wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 06:57, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > First off, I’m very happy you published this. It’s very interesting and it
> > adds a lot to the discourse. I will now proceed to state why I think it’s a
> >
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 9:06 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Proto for time protection (a homage to B Nomic):
>
> Amend Rule 1698 (Agora Is A Nomic) by replacing its first paragraph
> with:
>
>Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable
>combination of actions by players t
Cook wrote:
> Two responses inline...
>
> On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 20:20, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On 7/28/2019 1:03 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > That may be a reasonable point; I know that tends to be a weakness in
> > > my proposals, although I tried pre
(P.S Sorry everyone for top-posting.)
-Aris
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 11:51 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> First off, I’m very happy you published this. It’s very interesting and it
> adds a lot to the discourse. I will now proceed to state why I
Precedent (or at least game custom) says that you can’t condition an action
on whether something is LEGAL. The reason is that SHALLs are often used for
things that are hard to calculate (e.g. faking), and so such conditions
make the gamestate ambiguous.
-Aris
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 9:08 PM Jaso
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 2:38 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On 7/28/2019 2:29 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > 8226: summary has "Contractual Delimitation" by Aris, text has
> "Cancelling
> > Proposals" by twg.
> >
> > There is no "Contractual Delimitation" in the text section, and
> "Cancelling
> > Proposal
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 12:52 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On 7/28/2019 12:41 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Like, forgive me if I'm missing something, but in light of that
> > provision I don't see how this could also be broken?
> >
> > Also, did you
Like, forgive me if I'm missing something, but in light of that
provision I don't see how this could also be broken?
Also, did you ever write that time security proto or come up with a
list of changes that would be satisfactory?
-Aris
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 12:21 PM Aris Merch
rency, etc (no CANs, acts-on-behalf). A private contract only binds
> >> actions through SHALLs. Only parties to a private contract can point the
> >> finger at other parties; non-parties lack standing to do that.
> >>
> >> - Public contracts have the various abil
ed
>
> - Does this by tying public contracts to regulations, and the
> promulgation thereof.
>
> =G.
>
> On 7/28/2019 11:41 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > I already withdrew my original proposal, so the first clause is a no-op.
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> >
>
You say "(0, +1)" when I think you mean "(-1, 0, +1)"
-Aris
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 10:56 AM Edward Murphy wrote:
>
> Proposal: Three-dimensional space
> (AI = 1)
>
> Amend Rule 2588 (Sectors) to read:
>
>Sectors are entities. Each Sector has an ID number, which is an
>ordered li
ot;.
> >
> > This may be intentional, but I don't know.
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> > On 7/24/19 6:57 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > I intend, Without 3 Objections, to enact the following as the
> > > regulations for this year's Birthday Tou
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:59 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On 7/24/2019 4:56 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> > Although actually, I think the "put it back exactly the same" clause means
> > that even the momentary destruction of Agora wouldn't fall afoul of the
> > higher power rules
>
> I wholly disagree, and
agree to.
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 9:43 AM Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This doesn't work. It possibly tries to destroy Agora, which is
> > impossible due to power constraints. Since you said "all contracts",
>
I propose we make it better by repealing it. (Half joke.)
Okay, seriously though, spaceships are a bad idea. It doesn't make any
sense at all for them to be assets. Just make their switches player
switches and have done with it.
-Aris
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 9:45 PM Rebecca wrote:
> that's why
Could you maybe shorten that title? It's really, really long.
-The Office of the Promotor
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 3:27 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 10:22 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 5:17 AM, Jason Cobb
> > wrote:
> > > Actually, I w
This doesn't work. It possibly tries to destroy Agora, which is
impossible due to power constraints. Since you said "all contracts",
if you can't destroy one, you fail to destroy all of them. Try
"destroy each contract..."
-Aris
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:11 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
> I create the fol
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 3:33 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:03 PM Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> >
> > While I'm at it, I've made myself "Eir Supreme Eminence, The Pontifex
> > Maximus and Grand Inquisitor". The inquisitor bit migh
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:03 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> While I'm at it, I've made myself "Eir Supreme Eminence, The Pontifex
> Maximus and Grand Inquisitor". The inquisitor bit might give
> contestants some ideas on a possible direction they can take this...
&g
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:41 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> On 7/22/19 6:39 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > On Monday, July 22, 2019 9:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> I confirm (in public here) that there is a contract with at least 2
> >> parties, known as NSC.
> > Can you point out in which message(s
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:32 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> On 7/22/19 5:26 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > 7. If, after a challenge as above, the judge finds that continuation
> >from the contested rule is Nearly Impossible and not Completely
> >Impossible, e can
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:48 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:44 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:27 PM Aris Merchant
> > wrote:
> > > 14. The theme of the contest is the worship, in proper form, of
> > &
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:44 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:27 PM Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > 14. The theme of the contest is the worship, in proper form, of
> > the Agoran Gods; the Appropriate Punishment of those Heretics and
> >
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 1:42 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> On 7/22/19 4:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Ahh. You're demonstrating that vulnerability involving private
> > contracts, that make sense.
>
> But I thought contracts required two parties...?
>
They do, but n
Ahh. You're demonstrating that vulnerability involving private
contracts, that make sense.
-Aris
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 1:39 PM Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> I transfer 10 coins from NSC.
>
> On 7/22/19 2:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > to NSC.
> >
> > On Mon, Ju
To whom, exactly?
-Aris
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 1:22 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I transfer 10 coins to NSC.
>
> -G.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:15 AM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:04 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>>
>> On 7/21/2019 1:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 8:59 AM James Cook
>>
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:00 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On 7/21/2019 6:18 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> > MASSIVE SMH
>
> Not from me - too many CFJs to process recently. Someone else can do one
> if
> they like. I don't need to stay Herald. -G.
I would be prepared to step forward as delegate. Full d
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:04 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On 7/21/2019 1:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 8:59 AM James Cook
> wrote:
> >>
> >> CoE: The Proposal Pool is not empty. I think it still contains my
> >> "Police
I'd be opposed to that. People might start bribing others for Karma,
which defeats the purpose of the system.
-Aris
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 4:37 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
> Very much worth keeping imo, but maybe it should have consequences like a
> win at some point - once a year maybe?
>
> On Mon, Ju
I like the system too. I think it might be more fun if we made it very
slightly more game relevant. I had an idea for that a little while
ago:
Once every X period, the Shogun can issue a memorandum, stipulating
recommendations for the good of the good of the game (e SHOULD not use
this for eir per
I’m strongly considering objecting, as I’d prefer to go the other way. What
do others think?
-Aris
On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 9:54 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> I intend, without Objection, to clean Rule 105 by replacing all
> instances of the string "reenact" with the string "re-enact".
>
> Jason Cobb
>
Personally, I’d just make them all lower case (apart from the “Agoran”) and
have done with it. My reasoning is that people can be consistent about
using lower case, but I doubt we could get them to consistently use upper
case.
-Aris
On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 10:55 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> A clea
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 7:33 AM D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jul 18, 2019, at 8:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >> 8195A Aris, omd, Jason Cobb 3.0 Timeline Control Ordnance v2
> > AGAINST. Very much not keen on timeline control given the
> > sensitivity of our game to time (one of the ways to
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 11:08 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 11:05 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
> ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 22:58 -0400, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 11:05 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 22:58 -0400, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > It doesn’t matter; the rules define instances of a currency owned by
> > the same person as completely fungible.
>
&g
It doesn’t matter; the rules define instances of a currency owned by the
same person as completely fungible.
-Aris
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 9:45 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 18:21 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I pay a fee of one coin to de
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 2:21 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On 7/14/2019 7:56 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > I'm just curious on whether or not my reading of the Rules is correct
> here.
> > If I was to submit a proposal and specify the AI as something that needs
> to
> > be evaluated, say "the power of [s
Just a heads up to everyone: I’m traveling at the moment, so the report
will be delayed. I was hoping to finish it up quickly today, but I had less
time than I thought I would and people keep creating tons of uproposals.
So, I’ll try to get it out as soon as I can, but that may take a bit.
-Aris
And now you see why we never ratify the FLR.
-Aris
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 2:02 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Okay. I was going to try something nefarious with this, but I guess I can't
> then. On Rule 2517, the annotations list the rule as being enacted, and
> then repealed, without being re-enacted,
They are not. Nothing in the SLR or FLR is self-ratifying. Customarily, we
ratify the SLR from time to time by proposal in order to ensure we
accurately understand the ruleset. This is done by explicit proposal so
that people have an opportunity to check it and prevent scams. However, the
FLR is ne
With all of the proposals that are in the pool at the moment, errors
seem likely. Any and all help would be greatly appreciated.
-Aris
---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the
t;
> On 7/12/19 9:45 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > We do trust you, and it would be great to keep Agoran stuff consolidated.
> > We don’t worry much about adding people as members to the org. In fact, I
> > just invited you. :)
> >
> > -Aris
>
I strongly suspect that R. Lee is intending to veto part of this
proposal, thereby creating mayhem. I apologize to em if this is not in
fact the case.
-Aris
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 9:49 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
> I create and pend the following proposal
>
> Title: SMH @ Herald
> AI: 1
> Text: 1. Halve
You cannot make a post on behalf of a zombie to a public forum; it is
explicitly forbidden my the acting on behalf rule.
-Aris
On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 5:56 PM Rebecca wrote:
> by precedent you can do anything like that on behalf of a zombie including
> just making a post to a public forum
>
> O
The acting on behalf rule is intended to generally specify that an
announcement on behalf of someone is treated like an announcement by that
person. Do you know of some reason that might not work?
-Aris
On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 5:28 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> I just noticed that, according to
We do trust you, and it would be great to keep Agoran stuff consolidated.
We don’t worry much about adding people as members to the org. In fact, I
just invited you. :)
-Aris
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 10:32 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Clarification: I would need at least collaborator status on the Ass
I’d prefer to add them all back to the pool as a batch (it feels cleaner).
So R. Lee, if you still want to do this by proposal, I’d prefer it if you’d
retract the new one and just let me reinsert the old.
-Aris
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 7:00 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> R Lee- I think you could accompl
On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 2:02 PM James Cook wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 07:02, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > You're right. I was waiting for the dust to settle before trying to
> > sort things out. Does the following look correct?
> >
> > Also, feel
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 3:36 PM omd wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 7:52 AM James Cook wrote:
> > Withdraw Rule 2597 (Line-item Veto).
>
> Why that rule? It's only a few months old; there are a lot of other
> rules that are much more stale.
It’s never been used, and IMO it’s more annoying tha
this didn't go to the PF and didn't see an informal
> response/revision (sorry if I missed it).
>
> CoE: the Proposal Pool is not empty, it contains the proposal noted
> below.
>
> On 7/1/2019 10:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Accepted, revision: The AI of proposal 8197 is none, but the AI of the
> > decision on whether to adopt that proposal is 1.0.
> >
> > -Aris
>
>
o adopt a proposal is resolved, if
> > >the outcome is ADOPTED, then the proposal in question is adopted,
> > >and unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is
> > >set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, and
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 2:55 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:08 AM Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > As it is, we
> > have defaults that are either often broken (1.0 AI) or terribly bad
> > practice and as likely as not to annoy everyone (empty title). Mak
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:08 AM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:00 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:57 AM Aris Merchant
>> wrote:
>> > > > 8201 Aris 3.0
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:00 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:57 AM Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > > > 8201 Aris 3.0 Just Make Them Write It Out
> > > AGAINST. The fix above (8200) does a better job at the fix.
> > >
> &g
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 7:40 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I vote as follows. I act on behalf of Telnaior to vote as follows.
>
>
> > IDAuthor(s) AITitle
> >
> ---
> > 8196 Jason Cobb, Falsifian 1.7 Perfe
What would people feel about bringing that requirement back? I’d make it a
Class 1 crime, not committable more than once in a week, and with
exceptions for emails sent primarily in an official or judicial capacity.
-Aris
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 10:07 PM Rebecca wrote:
> People should, as used to
with a non-numeric adoption
> index, and this might be the one opportunity (although there might be
> precedent that I don't know about).
>
> I wasn't aware of the history, though (and I see that G. already got a
> win from ribbons), so I change my vote to AGAINST.
>
&g
lly CoE an
> omission, only finger point an untimely one.
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:00 PM Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > *OH.* Whoops. Yeah, it's good. For some reason (maybe because the
> > number was the same? my error i
obb wrote:
>
> The link I pasted was (my attempt at) sending it to the public forum. Is
> replying and setting the to address to agora-business not enough?
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/1/19 10:55 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Roger on the proposal, and again, I'm sorry. It's
c forum here [0].
>
> [0]:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-July/040745.html
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/1/19 10:48 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > NttPF.
> >
> > On the merits, accepted, with my sincere apologies. I could patch
You're very much welcome. I'm glad I've helped. You remind me a lot of
myself as a new player. :) Good luck in your future endeavors, and
never be afraid to ask for help if you need it.
-Aris
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:36 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> I pay 5 coins to Aris for all of the help that e h
quot;
> here [0].
>
>
> [0]:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-June/040719.html
>
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/1/19 9:55 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> >
If
> you went into a burger king and said "i want this burger with 1/2 of an
> extra pickle" the employee would say "we cannot cut these pickles in half,
> but we will give you one extra pickle, the default number of extra pickles"
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:28
do, they
> don't say "you didn't say which options you wanted, no food for you",
> they serve up the default.
>
> On 7/1/2019 3:31 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > I’d propose a different theory. Mine is cleaner and simpler, but I’m not
> > entirely sure which
Switches need to specify a default value or they have a default value
of "null", which has the same problem.
-Aris
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:27 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> You could just state that
>
> > "none" is not a valid value for the adoption index of proposals.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/23/1
t
> the rules do provide a mechanism for creating a proposal, for naming
> authors etc, and none of that has to be rewritten.
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:24 AM Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It is possible that you’re correct. Ho
an incorrect AI should be allowed to succeed
> because an AI is optional. In my opinion only mandatory requirements should
> be made to be met for something to succeed.
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:31 AM Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I’d
601 - 700 of 2209 matches
Mail list logo
