I wrote:
=Metareport=
You can find an up-to-date version of this report at
http://zenith.homelinux.net/adop/report.php
Date of last report: 2024-05-19
Date of this report: 2024-05-21
Whoops, actually 2024-05-25. (The report-generating script uses the date
of the most recent event
ais523 wrote:
On Sun, 2024-05-19 at 15:09 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:
ais523 wrote:
particular, if a contract would be given a Rest (the equivalent of a
Blot), every member of the contract would be given a Rest instead.
the Insulator (equivalent of today's Referee
ais523 wrote:
particular, if a contract would be given a Rest (the equivalent of a
Blot), every member of the contract would be given a Rest instead.
the Insulator (equivalent of today's Referee) was required to report
the Fugitive status.
For those wondering how "Rest" and "Insulator" fit
wunst wrote:
Am 13.05.24 um 01:00 schrieb ais523 via agora-discussion:
On Sun, 2024-05-12 at 15:32 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-business
wrote:
Proposal: No apathetic apathy
Amend Rule 2465 (Victory by Apathy) by appending this text:
A player SHALL NOT announce intent to Declare
Janet wrote:
When a document is to be ratified, the publication time is the instant
at which the document to be ratified was published. The truth time of
the document is the instant at which the document specifies that it was
true, if any, or the publication time otherwise. Ratification of a
Janet wrote:
I previously wrote:
PROPOSALS
=
PROPOSAL 9068 (Agora of Empires)
AUTHOR: Yachay Wayllukuq
CLASS: ORDINARY
FOR (2): Murphy%, Yachay Wayllukuq%
AGAINST (2): Aris%, Janet+
PRESENT (2): juan$, snail^
BALLOTS: 6
AI (F/A): 10/14 (AI=1.0)
POPULARITY: 0.000
OUTCOME: REJECTED
4st wrote:
CoE: I destroyed the crystals in L
NttPF. (If you already TTttPF'd then ignore this, I'm just catching up
on a-d first as usual.)
Gaelan wrote:
I proto-submit the following proposal: {
Title: Officially Official (and Backuply Backup)
Authors: Gaelan
AI: 1
Create a power-1 rule titled “Forum Purposes”, with the following
text: {
Purpose is a public forum switch, with values Business (default),
Janet wrote:
... Okay, so it turns out I can't read and "denial" isn't by
announcement (I could have sworn it was at some point, but I can't find
that). So the above probably did not discharge my duty.
Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification), in part (according to the latest SLR,
modulo all existential
nix wrote:
On 3/14/24 15:08, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 3:53 PM nix via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
On 3/11/24 17:41, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
CFJ: There exists a rule 105.
I number this CFJ 4069. I assign CFJ
te:
On Sun, 2024-03-10 at 15:38 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion
wrote:
If so, and if Kate indeed gained five Ribbons on 2023-08-31, and no
one else gained as many, then:
* Only Kate's vote counted on any proposal resolved after 230.
* Only Kate's support counted on any tabled act
nix wrote:
I assign CFJ 4059 to Murphy.
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg45651.html
("As a result of the 2023 Agoran't Birthday Tournament, Murphy won the
game.")
Draft judgement:
Without performing an exhaustive analysis of the Agoran't archives, I'm
assuming
Aris wrote:
Erm... that CFJ doesn't do what you want it to. CFJs are supposed to be
statements, not questions, and interpreting something out of context is
different from interpreting it in context.
At one point we did legislate that, for CFJs asking yes/no questions, a
judgement of
Janet wrote:
On 3/4/24 13:19, Goren Barak via agora-business wrote:
ѣѧѤѴ ѩќѹѩ,
Ѳ ћѧђѤѺ ѝѦђёѹѰ њѲ ѨѐѩєѰ ѓ ·њѧѯ ѯ ·ќѹѧѯ
ё ѳњѡѧђё, ѮѲё "Ѳ ѳњѡѧђё ё ѝѦђёѹѰ њѲ ѨѐѩєѰ"
ќѫћњѲ ѩќѹѩ
Transliterated from the Shavian alphabet to standard English:
{
Hello Agora,
I declare victory by apathy for Ben and
Janet wrote:
On 3/3/24 16:24, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:
9068~ Yachay 1.0 Agora of Empires
FOR (without 2 objections is a reasonable guard against trivial
wins, other issues can be ironed out later)
That's not the only method to amend. There's also a "by
Yachay wrote:
An Imperial can, by announcement, win the game without 2 objections if the
Empireworld shows that ey have accomplished at least 3 extraordinary feats
in the fictional world that the Empireworld describes since ey last won the
game in this way. This rule does not describe what
4st wrote:
Right, but I'm not happy to accept the gamestate we're currently playing in.
Right, I agree with the platonists that the gamestate is wrong and that
ratification is wrong, just... definitely not in the same sense of wrong.
Wrong as in it feels wrong, whether or not anything is
nix wrote:
On 2/15/24 19:07, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
So, we've discovered on Discord a potential issue that could have
wide-ranging effects. Consider the four-day rule as stated in the
(purported) Rule 105/23:
{
A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless
Janet wrote:
So, I don't think basing quorum on Activity is a good idea at all, and
there's no obvious change (to me) that would avoid these problems.
Whereas quorum is currently based on a specific type of activity (voting
on other recent decisions), which seems a lot more appropriate.
juan wrote:
The 27th of October of 2023
is
Murphy's 16th Agoran Birthday!
Actually that was my third registration; I confirm that the following
registrations were also me:
(v) Murphy (<
Janet wrote:
I also initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the Prime
Minister election.
* The Vote Collector is the ADoP (me).
* The valid options are the candidates (Janet, nix, and any others
who become candidates by end of voting).
* The voting method is
ais523 wrote:
9048* nix, 4st, snail 3.0 It's been 4+ years, Agora. 4+
YEARS.
AGAINST. Proposal result ratification appears to be broken in the
ruleset being ratified (and thus probably the current ruleset) – this
is one of the things I check for when it comes to doing ruleset
4st wrote:
Here are the crystals and their owners (geologist required monthly report)
Weekly, actually. (R2162 section 3, and R2685 doesn't specify otherwise)
Ben wrote:
I agree that 1 would need to be clarified, building off what nix said, since
you could declare yourself inactive and active again to flip a switch.
I think that was intended to count; the idea wasn't "find the one
super-obscure thing that counts", it was "find literally anything
Gaelan wrote:
9038~ Murphy 1.0 Ratify the Ruleset Week
PRESENT - not sure how I feel about this. I worry an explicit SHALL to
propose ruleset ratification at a given time runs the risk of rushing us
into ratification without proper due diligence first? It seems like, at
Janet wrote:
To address some of the holes that befell Agoran't:
{
Add (somewhere? enact a new rule? at power 2 or 3?):
{
A Rule that purports to designate an action as "unforceable" thereby
designates that a player NEED NOT comply with any provision of any Rule
that requires or forbids em
4st wrote:
I couldn't find these three players (so far, maybe I can't find more):
Douglas Hofstadter, General Chaos, Troublemaker At Large
and Ørjan is listed differently.
General Chaos, Kelly (1996), and Kelly (1997-1999) are a single person.
Ørjan / Oerjan (1995, 1996, 1996-2000) are a
4st wrote:
Operating solely off the registrar's report, then, there could probably be
some notations to players that are c/o or otherwise proxies: so the
registrar could have some corrections on their report that have gone
unnoticed for quite some time, and I have taken those to be fact due to
4st wrote:
CoE: the proposal pool lacks my proposals submitted October 9th.
NttPF
juan wrote:
Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-06-26 13:08]:
"Why should this be in the rules?" is a valid question. Putting
something in the rules means that everybody has to pay attention to it,
lest it change out from under them to actually do something, and that
people (like me) have
snail wrote:
I vote as follows in the prime minister election: [snail]
This vote was ineffective, as voting was not yet open.
4st wrote:
I deputise as Prime Minister to appoint G to the office of Speaker.
I believe this actually was effective even if not overdue, as Prime
Minister was vacant. (If for some reason it was ineffective, then
please let me know; that would also mean that snail remains Speaker.)
juan wrote:
Edward Murphy via agora-discussion [2023-06-18 13:38]:
But, based on this proto alone, the Equality switch doesn't do anything
either (e.g. grant radiance). And there's a strong implication that
Policies /should/ do something more, but no context for what that
something might
4st wrote:
Left and Right are player switches that can have a value of any player,
defaulting to emself. Once each week, each player CAN, by announcement,
either set eir Left to any player, or set eir Right to any player.
Left and Right are tracked by the Lorax.
A player CAN reach a player on
4st wrote:
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 5:41 AM juan via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
I would really love some feedback.
--
EQUALITY (Power 1.0)
For the purposes of this rule, a Player Property is
nix wrote:
On 5/17/23 16:45, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
My radiance is 100 or more (specifically 100). The announcement in the
previous sentence causes me to win the game.
If I can do so (based on the current moot, which is leaning towards
yes), I award ais623 the title of Champion.
ais523 wrote:
On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 21:32 +0100, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 13:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business
wrote:
I informally risk being guilty of favoritism 7 days from now, by
saying that the combination of CFJ calling and parenthetical reminder
nix wrote:
On 5/19/23 11:50, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
I'd much rather take the route of trying to get the Radiance/Stamps
system functional again, than of trying to repeal it. (Stamps in
particular are one of the most powerful "new player perks" we've seen,
and I suspect that that's
snail wrote:
I wield the radiance stone. (Woah! So cool!)
(Wait! Oh my gosh! it's)
I reach for the Recursion stone.
(with a steel chair)
As $DEITY is my witness, that rule is broken in half!
Proto-Proposal: More Factors
(AI = 3)
Amend Rule 217 (Interpreting the Rules) by replacing this text:
When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules
takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or
unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom,
nix wrote:
On 4/23/23 18:45, Edward Murphy via agora-official wrote:
I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the Assessor
election.
* The Vote Collector is the ADoP.
* The valid options are the candidates (currently 4st, Janet).
* The voting method is instant runoff.
nix wrote:
On 5/1/23 15:05, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
When you do a job manually for a while, you start to use shortcuts, get
faster, streamline, then maybe join a couple of steps using a bit of code…
there’s really no sharp line between “automation” and plain old
“experience” -
nix wrote:
But it's also worth noting that the very original Agora doesn't seem to
have played as platonically as we currently do; ie, an accepted mistake
would be treated as the reality of the game often-times, without need
for some ratification process. There's another thesis, Vanyel's
4st wrote:
Not sure if this is intended, but for festivity, we can't set it to the
maximum ever, so any player who is 1 away from laudable is going to be
festive.
(given the standard definition of "exclusive" and "greater than or equal"
in that rule.)
This is adequately covered by R2480:
nix wrote:
Honestly just kinda curious what people use, but I figured it might also
just be helpful to have more clarity. I'll compile the results in a week.
{
2023 Agora Nomic Technology and Accessibility Poll
--
For each question please
juan wrote:
Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion [2023-03-09 15:12]:
On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 5:05 AM juan via agora-discussion
wrote:
On thing your recent Fingerprints proposal got me wanting to try is
pre-planned moves with cards - that is, you have to commit to "these
are my next three card
Janet wrote:
EXPERIMENT 00075 RULE SELECTION
As selected on Discord #botspam, the rule for this week is Rule 2327
("Read the Ruleset Week"). I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the
best of my knowledge, the process used in this selection had the correct
distribution.
Please send
juan wrote:
Here's the new version:
{
A Fingerprint for a document (the Plaintext) is a document that could
not have been reasonably created without knowledge of the Plaintext, and
which is related to the Plaintext in such a way that one could not
reasonably produce another document related to
ais523 wrote:
(Also, nkep feels like it fits into this sort of framework somehow, but
I'm not sure how.)
For those unfamiliar, "nkep" was basically the "I floop" concept
combined with private-agreement shenanigans. A search of the CFJ
archive turns up the following, there were probably some
Proto-Proposal: Schrodinger's Dice
(co-author = ais523)
Amend Rule 2505 (Random Choices) by replacing this text:
The selecting person SHOULD make the selection method
public, and SHOULD use a method for which the final probability
distribution can be readily
Janet wrote:
On 2/5/23 19:18, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Limited tracking
(AI = 3)
Amend Rule 2162 (Switches) by replacing "other instances are at their
default value" with "other tracked instances are at their default
value".
Amend Rule 26
Proto-Proposal: Limited tracking
(AI = 3)
Amend Rule 2162 (Switches) by replacing "other instances are at their
default value" with "other tracked instances are at their default
value".
Amend Rule 2606 (Proposal Classes) by replacing this text:
Proposals created since the enactment of
Proto-Proposal: Yes, Prime Minister
(AI = 3)
Amend Rule 2139 (The Registrar) by replacing "The Registrar is an
office;" with "The Registrar (syn. Minister of Domestic Affairs) is an
office;".
Amend Rule 1607 (Distribution) by replacing "The Promotor is an office;"
with "The Promotor (syn.
Rule 869 (How to Join and Leave Agora): What would count as "duly
harassment"?
Rule 2679 (Restrictions on Participation): Either change the definition
of "unwelcome" to "if and only if", or change the securing of
"designations of unwelcomeness" to "other designations". Also, maybe be
more
Janet wrote:
EXPERIMENT 00071 RULE SELECTION
As selected on Discord #botspam, the rule for this week is Rule 2575
("The Distributor"). I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the
best of my knowledge, the process used in this selection had the correct
distribution.
Please send
nix wrote:
I added a new page to the website, intended to give people an idea of
what to do after they join. Any feedback appreciated:
https://agoranomic.org/play.html
Vote on Proposals: May want to explain PRESENT as "you just count toward
the minimum number of voters", and endorse as "you
Janet wrote:
On 1/22/2023 1:55 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
On 1/22/23 12:42, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:
Janet wrote:
[Currently, I'm effectively locked out of owning any actually useful
stone without setting a Dream, which isn't really fair. If I attempt
I wrote:
=Metareport=
You can find an up-to-date version of this report at
http://zenith.homelinux.net/adop/report.php
Date of last report: 2023-01-15
Date of this report: 2023-01-20
Unofficial CoE, accepted: "Date of this report" should have been
2023-01-22.
(The script that
Janet wrote:
EXPERIMENT 00070 RULE SELECTION
As selected on Discord #botspam, the rule for this week is Rule 2630
("The Administrative State"). I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the
best of my knowledge, the process used in this selection had the correct
distribution.
Please send
Janet wrote:
[Currently, I'm effectively locked out of owning any actually useful
stone without setting a Dream, which isn't really fair. If I attempt to
Is this actually true? I thought that had something to do with auctions,
which were repealed about a month ago, and any rule or regulation
Janet wrote:
EXPERIMENT 00069 RULE SELECTION
As selected on Discord #botspam, the rule for this week is Rule 2641
("Wielding Stones"). I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the
best of my knowledge, the process used in this selection had the correct
distribution.
Please send
Janet wrote:
EXPERIMENT 00068 RULE SELECTION
As selected on Discord #botspam, the rule for this week is Rule 2556
("Penalties"). I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the
best of my knowledge, the process used in this selection had the correct
distribution.
Please send suggestions if
Janet wrote:
[Currently, I'm effectively locked out of owning any actually useful
stone without setting a Dream, which isn't really fair. If I attempt to
Is this actually true? I thought that had something to do with auctions,
which were repealed about a month ago, and any rule or regulation
Janet wrote:
EXPERIMENT 00067 RULE SELECTION
As selected on Discord #botspam, the rule for this week is Rule 2201
("Self-Ratification"). I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the
best of my knowledge, the process used in this selection had the correct
distribution.
Please send
Janet wrote:
EXPERIMENT 00066 RULE SELECTION
As selected on Discord #botspam, the rule for this week is Rule 2478
("Justice"). I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the
best of my knowledge, the process used in this selection had the correct
distribution.
Please send suggestions if you
snail wrote:
The Horsened's Final Standings Report! Winning calculations and state
immediately before the race began anew.
Here's a quick and dirty Javascript animation of the full race:
http://zenith.homelinux.net/horse_race1.html
Displaying additional events is left as an exercise for
I wrote:
Coins were converted to score bonuses, roughly 25 per boatload,
I thought that sounded unusually high. Looks like I somehow botched my
arithmetic, and it was instead roughly 1 point per 25 boatloads.
Coin and stamp balances were reverted to mid-November values.
Coins were converted to score bonuses, roughly 25 per boatload, then
repealed, along with coin awards:
* Monthly base income
* Adopted proposals / ratio of votes in favor
* Judging CFJ on time (replaced with +2 score)
*
Janet wrote:
EXPERIMENT 00064 RULE SELECTION
As selected on Discord #botspam, the rule for this week is Rule 1607
("Distribution"). I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the
best of my knowledge, the process used in this selection had the correct
distribution.
Please send suggestions
Janet wrote:
EXPERIMENT 00063 RULE SELECTION
As selected on Discord #botspam, the rule for this week is Rule 2415
("Badges"). I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the
best of my knowledge, the process used in this selection had the correct
distribution.
Please send suggestions if you
Janet wrote:
EXPERIMENT 00062 RULE SELECTION
As selected on Discord #botspam, the rule for this week is Rule 2677
("Etiquette"). I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the
best of my knowledge, the process used in this selection had the correct
distribution.
Please send suggestions if
Jason wrote:
EXPERIMENT 00061 RULE SELECTION
As selected on Discord #botspam, the rule for this week is Rule 2585
("Birthday Gifts"). I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the
best of my knowledge, the process used in this selection had the correct
distribution.
Please send suggestions
Jason wrote:
EXPERIMENT 00060 RULE SELECTION
As selected on Discord #botspam, the rule for this week is Rule 1023
("Agoran Time"). I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the
best of my knowledge, the process used in this selection had the correct
distribution.
Please send suggestions if
Jason wrote:
EXPERIMENT 00059 RULE SELECTION
As selected on Discord #botspam, the rule for this week is Rule 2632
("Complexity"). I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the
best of my knowledge, the process used in this selection had the correct
distribution.
Please send suggestions if
G. wrote:
[A nice historical question for the occasion!]
The below CFJ is CFJ FOUR THOUSAND (4000). I assign it to Murphy.
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4000
=== CFJ 4000 ===
It is round 2,098.
ziproot wrote:
FALSE: One section of "Performing Tabled Actions" says "A rule
purporting to allow a person to perform a tabled action allows em to do
so by announcement, if, considering only intents for that action/method
combination." Purporting is not defined anywhere, so a common sense
Regarding the recent troubles, and in particular Anti-Cleisthenes's
Cantus Cygneus:
In one sense, nothing new has happened. Rules whose effects clearly
include "Players can be deregistered via proposal" have been on the
books for a long time. The reasons could be anything from "repeal
corporate
Proto-Proposal: Lucid dreaming
(AI = 2, co-author = ziproot)
[Converts " Dreamer" to a switch, adds whitespace to the list
of Mindsets and their effects, and generally cleans up wording.
Includes changes based on ziproot's recent proto.]
Change the title of Rule 2675 (Dream of Wandering) to
juan wrote:
On 9/1/2022 6:40 AM, juan via agora-business wrote:
secretsnail9 via agora-official [2022-08-31 18:57]:
DREAMOR'S MONTHLY REPORT
All active players have a mindset of Dream of Wandering.
All active players are Sleeping Dreamers.
--
secretsnail
CoE: My mindset is Dream of
Jason wrote:
On 8/31/22 20:13, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
I submit the following proposal
Title: Extermination
Author: Jason
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 1.0
{
Each of the following rules is repealed, in ascending numerical order by ID:
* Rule 2660 (Birds)
* Rule 2661 (Permits)
juan wrote:
Jason Cobb via agora-discussion [2022-08-29 13:23]:
We now have a player who is directly responsible for three FAGEs. I
believe that it's time we discuss a mechanism similar to the one below.
Title: Unfortunately
Author: Jason
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 3.0
{
Amend Rule 869 by
4st wrote:
I think my concern here is that current subgames and play is asset-based.
No matter what the bribe is, it is already taking away from other players,
which is equivalent to bullying, just hidden.
Giving people coins increases the amount a boatload is,
thus reducing the amount of
Jason
I respond to each petition that I am required to respond to as follows:
"No. For more information please reread this response.".
Proto: Don't.
secretsnail wrote:
On 7/24/2022 2:04 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 3:57 PM Edward Murphy via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
In any case, the differences of opinion seem intractable at this point;
best to just leg
secretsnail wrote:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 6:16 PM Edward Murphy via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
Yes, you can create/submit a proposal by announcement. That doesn't mean
you can create *the same* proposal multiple times
I'd like a better explanation as
On 7/17/2022 3:46 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
On Jul 17, 2022, at 4:31 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion
wrote:
secretsnail wrote:
This is my main issue with the judgement; it seems perfectly fine to create
something multiple times in natural language. We do
secretsnail wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 8:07 PM Edward Murphy via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
I think the Unit of Flotation is still 104, in which case these expand
to:
* 5 boatloads of coins -> 520 coins
* 10 boatloads of coins -> 1040 coins
* 15
secretsnail wrote:
This is my main issue with the judgement; it seems perfectly fine to create
something multiple times in natural language. We do that all the time with
coins, which are fungible, we create something that already exists.
No, we create instances of a class of entities, where
ais523 wrote:
What rules-defined effect does that have? Rule 2350 talks about both
"creating" and "submitting" proposals, with almost everything caring
about the creation rather than the submission. It also explicitly gives
a mechanism for doing the creation, but there's no mechanism available
Jason wrote:
At the beginning of each week, each player who intended to change
eir Magic Levels, announces the values of what they were
changing eir Magic Levels to.
A player that fails to do so by the end of the week fails to intend
to change eir magic levels.
Players only announce things by
secretsnail wrote:
On Sun, Jun 26, 2022 at 4:29 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
secretsnail wrote:
On Jun 22, 2022, at 3:58 PM, Forest Sweeney
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 1:06 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
secretsnail wrote:
For each player in the below list, I appoint em to the office of The Speaker,
in order of the list.
ais523
CreateSource
cuddlybanana
duck
G.
Gaelan
Jason
juan
Madrid
Murphy
nix
R. Lee
Trigon
4st
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZS5uzHidIM
nix wrote:
I submit the following proposal:
{
Title: Has Beens
Author: nix
Co-authors: secretsnail, G., Madrid, 4st, Jason "cat" Cobb
AI: 3
Amend R103 by replacing:
If the office of Speaker has been held continuously by the same
person for 90+ days, then any player CAN
4st wrote:
I create a new promise with the text, "If possible, the author votes FOR on
the proposal of the bearer's choice. The author will not rescind this vote
of their own will.", hereby referred to as my promise to support.
Probably should reissue this promise with the second sentence
G. wrote:
On 6/12/2022 9:35 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
CFJ: "The entity at one point known as Rule 2658 is a Rule."
CFJ: "The entity at one point known as Rule 2658 has performed at least
one amendment of a Rule."
CFJ: "The entity at one point known as Rule 2658 has been
secretsnail wrote:
When the horses run, each player gains 1 hoof, movement resolves, and then
if any horses have a Race Position of 16 and a Race Place of none, those
horses win the race in alphabetical order of their names.
"those horses cross the finish line"
When the race ends:
Add
ais523 wrote
CFJ, barring Jason: I won the game by Taking Over The Economy today.
We therefore need to interpret what it means for the device to have a
judge assigned. I can see three main possibilities: either there isn't
any way for this to occur, and thus the Device is never in a state of
Proto-Proposal: Weekly privileges
(AI = 3)
[Loosely based on the old Ergs system, basically a currency that was
reset weekly. Repeals or otherwise cleans up some loose ends overlooked
by R2658.]
Create a rule titled "Weekly Privileges" with Power 2 and this text:
Each player CAN do one
nix wrote:
Amend R2138 "The Associate Director of Personnel" by appending:
4. For filled offices, the percent of reports that have been
published in a timely fashion since either this clause was added
to the rules or the last change in officeholder for the office,
G. wrote:
8672* Murphy 3.0 Inclusivity
AGAINST. Thought about this for a good bit. I'm not convinced that
"reasonable" shouldn't stay wholly contextual/common law - we're accepting
a lot of complex multipart moves that I'd call "reasonable for a
well-informed officer
1 - 100 of 273 matches
Mail list logo
