DIS: Re: BUS: [ADoP] More elections

Oh crap. I forgot to become a candidate for notary, didn’t I? Alexis, if you want notary, you can have it. I won’t stop you. But I’ll be honest: I’m more than a bit frustrated that I screwed this up, and I kind of want the office back, or at least a proper election. Gaelan > On Feb 23, 2020,

DIS: CFJ 3813 proto-judged FALSE

CFJ 3813 asks us whether Agora is a contract. As noted by the caller, CFJ 3706 (Feb 9-14, 2019) asked a similar question. It was judged TRUE by G. As I see it, the questions before me are: 1) Was CFJ 3706 judged correctly? 2) Has there been a change in circumstances since then that would affect

DIS: RFC: Cc/Bcc as a mechanism to notify officers

Recently, we’ve seen a trend of using subject lines such as [attn: notary] to notify officers of actions they need to track. I believe this is broadly a good idea, but it has a few problems: - It makes subject lines even more unwieldy, and either obscures the actual message subject line (if

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

Oh, my bad—your reply put the thread on top of my inbox and I assumed both messages were recent. Gaelan > On Feb 14, 2020, at 12:10 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 12:02 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: >> >

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

CoE: I judged this one at https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg35645.html . I’m forwarding this to G., because I haven’t received replies to several of my recent messages and I’m worried they’re

Re: [attn: promotor again] BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer

. Gaelan > On Feb 12, 2020, at 10:32 PM, James Cook wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at 07:34, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: >> I submit this proposal: { >> Title: Calls with Memoranda >> AI: 2 >> Co-authors: Aris, G, Alexis >> >> Create a

Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft Rerenumbered Index

This is missing two of my proposals, which I admittedly submitted rather late—maybe you intended to distribute them next week? Here they are, in case you missed them: { Title: Calls with Memoranda AI: 2 Co-authors: Aris, G, Alexis Create a new Power-2 rule titled “Administrative Opinions”: {

[attn: promotor again] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer

resolve CFJs initiated by someone else. Of course, if there’s any controversy, someone can object and we go through the normal CFJ system.] Gaelan > On Feb 9, 2020, at 3:24 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Here’s another proto: { > Title: Calls with Memoran

DIS: Re: BUS: Election Intents

I started to implement some rulekeepor automation a while back. I was getting really fancy, (manually) converting proposals to a machine-readable format and automatically applying them to the ruleset. I might finish that up and take up Rulekeepor, but I’m not sure. Gaelan > On Feb 9, 2020,

Re: DIS: [cotc] state of the cfj archives

> On Jan 24, 2020, at 2:01 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > (with that wonderful currently-missing technology: search) For what it’s worth, I used grep against a clone of your archive on GitHub (AgoraNomic/cases) while researching my last CFJ, and it worked quite well.

Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer

Yep, https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Ruleset-Viewer > On Feb 9, 2020, at 4:01 PM, omd via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 1:11 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: >> FYI, for anyone in need of a more up-to-date ruleset, my online ruleset >

Re: DIS: [proto] Standard Model of Agoran Economics

> On Feb 9, 2020, at 3:06 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Proto-Proposal: Standard Model of Agoran Economics > (AI = 2) > > [Reintroduce diversification of currencies. Probably needs tweaking.] > > Amend Rule 2483 (Economics) to read: > > The following are

Re: [attn: promotor] BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer

to become the judgment for the case. The Arbitor SHOULD NOT assign a judge to a case while proceedings to Administratively Close it are ongoing. } } Gaelan > On Feb 9, 2020, at 3:01 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 17:59, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > mailto:agor

[attn: promotor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer

I mean, didn’t we just do that, without any explicit rule at all? All we need is an informal policy that we go with the officer’s interpretation unless a CfJ decides otherwise. Alternatively, here’s a lightweight attempt to implement memoranda, either as an alternative to the above informal

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer

For the record, the CSS here is applied using CSS Modules [0], which randomizes class names in order to avoid conflicts between classes of the same name defined in different places. It normally uses an alphanumeric string, but it has an option for doing emoji instead, so why the hell not? Also,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A Modest Proposal

> On Feb 8, 2020, at 2:32 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 at 17:22, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: >> >> Seems reasonable. Minor thing: it would be nice if this had a self-repeal >> provision. >> >

DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer

FYI, for anyone in need of a more up-to-date ruleset, my online ruleset viewer (https://agora-ruleset.gaelan.me) is based on the Rulekeepor’s GitHub repository, so it may be (and is, at the moment) more up to date than the latest SLR. Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: [Attn Promotor] Four proposals

> On Feb 9, 2020, at 12:37 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-business > wrote: > > Proposal: Switch Responsibility Responsibility > (co-author = Alexis, chamber = Efficiency) > > Amend Rule 2603 (Switch Responsibility) by appending this text: > > The ADoP CAN appoint a player to such an

DIS: [Notary] Report available online

FYI, the notary’s report is now available online, in HTML and text forms, at https://agoranomic.org/Notary/. It’s hooked up my own records, so it’ll update as soon as I update those, even if I haven’t published a report yet. Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer becomes a uroborus

Assuming this goes undisputed, I’ll assume that this interpretation is correct for my reports. Gaelan > On Feb 8, 2020, at 1:04 PM, Tanner Swett via agora-discussion > wrote: > > I doubt that this really does anything. Presumably, "one party" means "one > person who is a party"; there's no

DIS: Re: BUS: A Modest Proposal

Seems reasonable. Minor thing: it would be nice if this had a self-repeal provision. Gaelan > On Feb 8, 2020, at 1:15 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business > wrote: > > Proposal: RtRW Reschedule (AI=1) > {{{ > Amend Rule 2327 (Read the Ruleset Week) by adding the following paragraph: > { >

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: A quirk in the CFJ archives

I Grumble Very Loudly, withdraw *that* CFJ, and submit the following one, now wrapped at 68 (and, as an additional safety, uses ES6’s ` strings which should work across lines): { G really ought to make sure the string (window.location. href.includes('?'))?window.location.href= `

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Thesis Committee for twg

Oh, wonderful ruleset, always ready with another surprise just as you start to believe you understand all its intricacies. Gaelan > On Jan 30, 2020, at 8:58 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 23:48, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussi

Re: DIS: A quirk in the CFJ archives

> On Jan 30, 2020, at 8:20 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > On 1/30/2020 7:27 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: >> During research for CFJ 3888, I discovered that there appears to have >> been a bug ... somewhere in the history. >> >> From the (arbitrarily

DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Thesis Committee for twg

Wait, I’m curious about the legal basis for this conditional intent—I’ve never seen something like it before. I guess there’s an argument to be made that the “announcement of intent” required by 2595/1 could be subject to conditions? Gaelan > On Jan 30, 2020, at 7:37 PM, Alexis Hunt via

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8308-8321

> On Jan 30, 2020, at 6:29 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official > wrote: > > 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 7,

Re: DIS: [Proto-Proposals] The beginnings of reform

Love the concept—I imagine many players (including me) had some vague plan of writing this up at some point. Feedback inline. Gaelan > On Jan 25, 2020, at 5:32 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion > wrote: > > This proto marks the beginning of my quests for reform in two large > areas of

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Weekly report

> On Jan 29, 2020, at 5:35 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business > wrote: > > Gaelan wrote: >> NOTARY'S REPORT OF JANUARY 29 2020 > > Ooh, just occurred to me you don't have a Ministry set! That probably > wants doing. I reckon Economy probably fits best, since the Ministries > rule

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Deputisation timeliness

What about different mechanisms? I think we have rules where the officer CAN do it by announcement, but everyone else needs CONSENT. Gaelan > On Jan 29, 2020, at 1:49 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business > wrote: > > On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 18:03, Jason Cobb via agora-business < >

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Help with Forgotten Announcements, Support Improvements

> On Jan 29, 2020, at 1:46 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business > wrote: > > Proposal: On Possibility (AI=1) > {{{ > Enact a new power-1 rule entitled "Default Mechanisms" reading as follows: > { > If the Rules other than this one, as a whole, provide that a person CAN > perform an action,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines

> On Jan 29, 2020, at 8:25 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 2:23 AM omd via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:07 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion >>

Re: DIS: The Very Worst Thing That Could Possibly Happen (Attn. Distributor)

Speaking of which, last I checked, the link (at the top of the mailman archive) to download the full archive is broken. In terms of your actual thesis, it’s worth mentioning that mail-archive.org would also have to go down (although I’m not sure how far it’s history

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines

This is a good point. Suggested reword: { The singular non-gendered pronoun is "e" in the nominative, and "em" in the accusative. Do not use "he/him/his," or "she/her/her,” or “they/them/their” as a singular pronoun when referring to a person of unknown gender. } Personally, I’m vaguely of the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Shortening of name

My Agoran name shall be now Gaela+n, where “a+” represents the letter a repeated n times, where n is one more than the maximum number that would fit in whatever table the name is included in. (Kidding, of course) Gaelan > On Jan 25, 2020, at 7:31 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion

DIS: [CFJ] Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8280-8286

H. Arbitor: I’d just like to make sure this CFJ gets processed—I forgot to tag the subject line, so it may have slipped through the cracks. Gaelan > On Jan 19, 2020, at 8:42 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > If there exists a rule 2604, then I perform the following actions: { [This >

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8287-8307

> On Jan 24, 2020, at 12:49 AM, omd via agora-business > wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 7:23 PM Aris Merchant via agora-official > wrote: >> 8287 twg 2.0 Blot Stabilisation > FOR >> 8288 omd 1.0 Glitteral > FOR >> 8289 Alexis

Re: DIS: Proto-corporation: the TCC Corporation

Like the idea! Feedback inline Gaelan > On Jan 23, 2020, at 8:36 PM, Tanner Swett via agora-discussion > wrote: > > It's never too late to try to found a company which aspires to take > over the world. > > { >## Bylaw 1: Definition > >This contract is named "the TCC Corporation".

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A rejoinder

I object. Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 23, 2020, at 5:29 PM, Tanner Swett via agora-business > wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 7:34 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business > wrote: >> Oh, also: I cause Warrigal to receive a Welcome Package. >> >> -Aris > > Many thanks! My understanding is

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] A degree of inefficiency

I think my (misleading named) “too intense” scam from February of this year might be relevant. The gist of that was that the rules at the time required that declarations of intent be conspicuous and, *independently*, that intents had to be announced four days before performing the action.

Re: DIS: [Proto] Zombie voting package

> On Jan 18, 2020, at 8:34 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Proposal: Zombie voting package (AI=3) > {{{ > Amend Rule 683 (Voting on Agoran Decisions) by appending the following > paragraph: > {{ > The above notwithstanding, at the end of the voting period for an Agoran >

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3784, 3785, and 3785.5 judged FALSE

Congratulations, this made me chuckle. I’d give you a karma for it, but unfortunately I’ve already used my notice this week. Gaelan > On Jan 17, 2020, at 9:33 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business > wrote: > > Judge's Arguments for CFJs 3784 and 3785, as well as the whimsically >

Re: DIS: [Drafts] Administrative Law

Sent from my iPhone >> On Jan 17, 2020, at 7:08 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion >> wrote: >  > >> On 1/16/2020 7:45 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: >> Create the following power 3.0 rule entitled "The Reset Button": >> >> An officer CAN, without 3 objections, pursuant

Re: DIS: Contract Patency v3

I’ll volunteer for notary. Gaelan > On Jan 16, 2020, at 8:50 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > wrote: > > They're just so minimal and lightweight that getting rid of them feels > like a tragedy. > > Also, any takers for Notary? > > -Aris > >> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 8:31 PM James

Re: DIS: Proto: Interesting Chambers v3

Feedback inline. Gaelan > On Jan 16, 2020, at 7:54 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Trigon's "Interesting Chambers" idea got a great deal of popular support > and doesn't deserve to be dropped solely because e left us, so I've > updated it to incorporate all the

DIS: [CFJ, Proposal] Re: OFF: [Registrar] End of January zombie auction

I transfer 22 coins to Agora; Agora automatically transfers me Rance. OR DOES IT? CFJ: Rance’s master switch is set to Gaelan. Arguments: 1885/9: For the purpose of such a auction, to transfer a zombie to a player is to set that zombie's master switch to that player. 2551/3: When

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] January Zombie Auction

I bid 22 coins. Gaelan > On Jan 13, 2020, at 11:45 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business > wrote: > > On 1/12/20 5:31 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote: >> I bid 20 coins. >> >> Gaelan > > I bid 21 coins. > > -- > Jason Cobb >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] kamikaze

What if we set the maximum dynamically, such as by setting it to “no more than 50% of total voting strength.” That has the benefit of not needing constant adjustment, and also serves as an anti-scam measure. Gaealn > On Jan 13, 2020, at 11:13 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: >

DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] kamikaze

This doesn’t really do all that much—default voting strength is 3 and max is 5, so it’s a little under a double vote. Maybe we need to increase the range of allowed voting strengths? Gaelan > On Jan 12, 2020, at 8:44 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: > > > I submit the following

DIS: Proto: Bureaucratic Power

I create the following proposal: { Title: Bureaucratic Power AI: 2 Author: Gaelan Create a power-2 rule titled “Bureaucrats” with the following text: { Each rule is said to have an “affinity” for each office, an integer equal to the sum of any points awarded by the following clauses: * 1 point

Re: DIS: [draft] procedural ratification

Like the idea. Few thoughts: If I create the contact {Gaelan SHALL publish a Tailor’s report weekly}, does this let me issue memoranda about ribbons? Also, this may be a minority view, but I believe scams are part of the game, and we shouldn’t make a habit of reverting them by default. Of

Re: DIS: [Draft] Contract Patency v2

First of all, I haven’t looked through all of the original thread, so let me know if something’s already been discussed to death. I’m aware that I’m suggesting some big changes late in the game, and I’m not *that* unhappy with the proposal as it stands, so I would probably vote FOR even as it

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8277-8279

Yeah, the rules need to handle open-ended contracts better IMO. Contracts are written as entities that can gain and lose members at will, but there’s no clear way to bootstrap a contract. Gaelan > On Jan 8, 2020, at 12:34 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business > wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Jan 2020

Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft

Neither your votes, nor the promotor report, were to the public forum. Additionally, I ask that you reconsider your vote on 8281. I don’t have a force-through scam up my sleeve, and I would like to find out if my scam works. As far as I know, the rule should be fairly harmless. Gaelan > On

Fwd: DIS: ratifying honour etc.

Oops, this somehow ended up being a reply to just Aris. In the future, please avoid cc’ing me if possible—I have rules configured to dump all Agora messages in a folder, and ccing directly to me breaks that. Begin forwarded message: > From: Gaelan Steele > Date: January 8, 2020 at 11

Re: DIS: ratifying honour etc.

I’m intrigued by the idea. I’m a little concerned that it’s TOO vague—are these rulings CFJ-like (a means of agreeing on what happened platonically, but with no actual platonic effect) or ratification-like? How is arbitrariness and capriciousness defined/judged? What about “official area of

DIS: Forgotten proto collection

I just went through my email archives looking for old protos that, AFIAK, never got passed, but look interesting. That list is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fwkCVGpETexQtCkD3fxiP0jk5gtSQj0pDwxUXBmxhTA/edit#

Re: DIS: Proto: Fool Season

Sorry, forgot to address this in my other email. I *think* "If, during Fool Season, this rule would be amended, repealed, or otherwise made ineffective, Fool Season ends” at power 4 would succeed in preventing repeal, but I’m not sure. Gaelan > On Jan 7, 2020, at 9:37 PM, AIS523--- via

Re: DIS: Proto: Fool Season

take precedence over the rules of the subnomic always do.” Gaelan > On Jan 7, 2020, at 9:37 PM, AIS523--- via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-01-07 at 21:31 -0800, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: >> Title: Fool Season > [snip] >> If so, whic

DIS: Proto: Fool Season

{ Title: Fool Season AI: 4 Author: Gaelan Create a power-4 rule titled “Fool Season”: { Fool Season is a period of time beginning on April 1, and ending on April 14, or when an instrument with power 2 or greater states that it ends. [Do I need to clarify when on those days it begins/ends?]

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8277-8279

TTtt goddamn PF Gaelan > On Dec 31, 2019, at 9:39 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > >> On Dec 28, 2019, at 3:43 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official >> wrote: >> >> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8277-8279

> On Dec 28, 2019, at 3:43 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official > wrote: > > 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 3,

Re: DIS: Pinpointing end of list outage (was BUS: Might as well try)

Thanks for the very informative message! Out of curiosity, is there any reason From munging needs to be off for non-Gmail hosts, specifically Fastmail (who probably shows up in your log as messagingengine.com)? I saw you mention that they bounced messages from the EC2 server, but it’s unclear

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: precedence scam?

Both of my drafts used the same definition. Cobb’s version did switch to another one. Gaelan > On Dec 29, 2019, at 4:48 PM, omd via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 5:17 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: >> So, starting with a trivi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: precedence scam?

So, starting with a trivial case, I think it’s pretty clear that a player registering does not constitute a “change in the ruleset,” even though it affects the functioning of rules with regard to that person. My goal was word the rule such that it under the same case. However, an argument could

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: precedence scam?

2/29/2019 11:31 AM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote: >> Create a power-0.1 rule titled "Nothing to see here, Rule 1030,” with the >> following text: { >> This rule takes precedence over all rules, including That One Rule, the >> provisions of That One Rule notwithsta

DIS: An apology ("resigning" rulekeepor)

A few weeks ago I mentioned that I was working on taking Rulekeepor. I’ve been busier than I expected (college applications… what’s with UW’s November deadline?), and haven’t put out a report yet. I’ve probably slowed down Agora a fair bit through that delay, and for that I’m sorry. That being

DIS: Proto-tournament: Nomaoic

[TL;DR: Nomic, but the ruleset isn’t published and proposals are private. The intention is that you’d make your proposal, and share the next with just enough people to get a majority voting for it.] Initial Set of Rules Immutable Rules 101. All players must always abide by all the rules then in

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8253-8265

I note that I’m actively working on producing an updated ruleset—if anyone is doing the same, please get in touch so we can avoid duplicating work. Gaelan > On Nov 3, 2019, at 8:57 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > I find that the Agoran decisions on whether to adopt proposals 8257 and 8259 > were

Re: DIS: Proto: review period

players at least claim they checked it before submitting proposals, but maybe it’d work as just an unofficial document (or an official one that players only SHOULD read). Gaelan > On Nov 3, 2019, at 12:00 AM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 6:03 PM Gaelan Steel

Re: DIS: Proto: review period

We used to have the same system—the Promotor COULD start a decision on any proposal, but was PROHIBITED to do so on non-pended ones. AFIAK, people were happy with that system. Gaelan > On Nov 1, 2019, at 12:33 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > That replaces ossification with a situation where

Re: DIS: Proto: review period

Replies inline. Gaelan > On Oct 31, 2019, at 5:38 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > On 10/31/19 8:28 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: >> { >> Amend rule 2350 “Proposals” as follows: >> * replace “A player CAN create a proposal by announcement“ with “A player >> CAN creat

DIS: Proto: review period

{ Amend rule 2350 “Proposals” as follows: * replace “A player CAN create a proposal by announcement“ with “A player CAN create a proposal With 23 Hours Notice.” * after the list, add a new paragraph: “Additionally, a player CAN, but SHALL NOT, create a proposal by announcement, specifying the

DIS: In defense of 8259

I’m getting quite a few AGAINST votes on my proposal 8259 ("Clean up your own mess, without making a bigger one”), and not quite sure about why. The proposal’s a bit confusing, so maybe there’s confusion about what it does? I’ll attempt to clarify: The proposal creates an *imposed* office for

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Encouraging Democracy Through Capitalism or Who Pays Subs Full Wages Anyway

Ah. You mentioned something about having the ruleset in XML (of course, you mentioned that right after I parsed everything…), and I assumed that was part of some automation. Gaelan > On Oct 28, 2019, at 4:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On 10/28/2019 3:06 PM, Gaelan Steele w

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Encouraging Democracy Through Capitalism or Who Pays Subs Full Wages Anyway

Heh, it’s pretty standard. It happened with Rulekeepor too: G had some some sort of ruleset automation, which to be fair wasn’t public. I parsed his FLR into YAML and wrote the new code in Ruby. Alexis kept the YAML format and rewrote the code in Haskell, of all things. Trigon kept the YAML,

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8253-8264

Votes inline. Gaelan > On Oct 26, 2019, at 11:31 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > 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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Encouraging Democracy Through Capitalism or Who Pays Subs Full Wages Anyway

/contracts, with the “actual” license on the code remaining BSD or whatever.) Gaelan > On Oct 26, 2019, at 6:16 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > On 10/26/19 8:53 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: >> TL;DR: No “officeholders”; anyone can do a job if it hasn’t been done yet >> that {week,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Encouraging Democracy Through Capitalism or Who Pays Subs Full Wages Anyway

019 at 15:23, Gaelan Steele wrote: >> To be honest, I’m not sure I see the point. In my experience interim >> incumbents nearly always win elections, and most modern Agoran offices have >> very little power anyway. All I really see this doing is punishing those who >> t

Re: DIS: jobs

I seem to recall that manually typing “BUS:” before message subjects prevents the mailing list from changing messages at all, solving some of these issues. Gaelan > On Oct 26, 2019, at 9:55 AM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" > wrote: > > On Sat, 2019-10-26 at 16:23 +,

Re: DIS: jobs

I could set up a mail rule to forward you everything from *@protonmail.com to the Agora lists. Depending on how that forwarding works, it might get past the filter. Gaelan > On Oct 26, 2019, at 8:36 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > On Saturday, October 26, 2019 3:22 PM, Nch wrote: >> I'm

Re: DIS: jobs

I am also considering taking up the role, but I’m happy to leave it to you. Or we could set up some sort of contract (grumbles about having to study up on Agoran contract law these days) to share the workload? Gaelan > On Oct 26, 2019, at 8:19 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > On Saturday,

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Encouraging Democracy Through Capitalism or Who Pays Subs Full Wages Anyway

To be honest, I’m not sure I see the point. In my experience interim incumbents nearly always win elections, and most modern Agoran offices have very little power anyway. All I really see this doing is punishing those who take up work that’s not being done. Gaelan > On Oct 26, 2019, at 5:43

DIS: Re: BUS: protective ratification

Does this ratify that no other wins/titles exist? If so, I’m inclined to object. Gaelan > On Oct 25, 2019, at 8:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >  > (just in case) > > I intend, without objection, to ratify the Herald's Monthly Report (patent > titles and their holders) published on Sept 22,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ -- Is ais523 a player?

Also, even after ais noted that they knew they weren’t registered, I still didn’t realize that it was a registration attempt—I assumed it would be some scam involving the “right now” and some sort of retroactive registration. Gaelan > On Oct 22, 2019, at 11:37 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Democracy

I had no idea that it was supposed to be a registration attempt until I saw others discussing it, so I think it’s a stretch to say it was reasonably {clear, ambiguous}. Gaelan > On Oct 22, 2019, at 5:14 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > > On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 00:06 +, James Cook

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Why Not All Of Them?

A few comments inline. Gaelan > On Oct 20, 2019, at 6:35 PM, Nch wrote: > > Since we're spitballing ideas anyway right now... > > I intend to, after some time for review, submit the following proposal, > "Roulette Gaming", with AI=1: > > Enact a power-0.6 rule titled "Roulette Gaming" with

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fwd: [Herald] Subgame-in-a-Rule contest vote open!

Ooh, how do we define local time? Some possibilities I see: 1) A time zone switch, with some reasonable timeout for switching it. Could be a little annoying if someone’s going to a substantially different time zone for a few days. 2) The time zone where the player currently physically is—I

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Clean up your own mess

to > worry about whether each one causes too many wins). > > -G. > > On 10/20/2019 2:40 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: >> Bleh. >> I note that holding a potentially-infinite number of offices would be an >> amusing punishment for lazy rule-writing, but conclud

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Popularity* Contest v2

> On Oct 20, 2019, at 9:11 AM, Nch wrote: > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >>> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 10:56 AM, Jason Cobb >>> wrote: >> Sorry, I know this isn't a proto anymore, but I think this may still be >> broken. >>> On 10/20/19 11:23 AM, Nch wrote: >>> I submit the

DIS: Proto: tagged paragraphs

Create a power-3 rule entitled "Tagged Paragrpahs" with the following text: { For the purposes of this rule, "paragraphs" are sections of rules seperated by two or more newlines. A paragraph within a rule is known as a "tagged paragraph" if it begins with a in square brackets, and that number

Re: DIS: Proto: Interesting Chambers v2

Few nits that AFIACT have gone unpicked: > On Sep 25, 2019, at 11:36 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > G. expressed support of this proposal, and others expressed support of eir > ideas for reform, so I'm taking that as a sign that I should continue my work > on this proposal. > > - > Title:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8251-8252

My apologies. Gaelan > On Oct 12, 2019, at 2:23 PM, Edward Murphy wrote: > > Jason Cobb wrote: > >>> On 10/12/19 5:17 PM, Edward Murphy wrote: >>> and cause my zombie to endorse me on each. >> This is INEFFECTIVE. Gaelan used to be your zombie, but e has flipped eir >> Master to emself. >

Re: DIS: Something vaguely interesting

I’ve got a vaguely similar, if less comprehensive, set of keywords used for links in my online ruleset viewer. I’m not in front of a computer at the moment, but it’s somewhere in the GitHub org. Gaelan > On Oct 10, 2019, at 9:15 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > Hey all, > > I've created

DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Mother, May I? Fix

Oh Lordy. POSSIBLE is a requirement for the following: 2154/53 - SHALL requirement to end unresolved elections 2160/20 - Deputization 2466/1 - Acting on behalf 2574/3 - SHALL requirement to resolve zombie-maintainance intents Luckily, I think that POSSIBLE is obvious enough that it works even

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Unoffical contest: subgame in a rule

Little bit of lint: - Your switches don’t specify officers so get tracked by the Registrar. You need to specify that Watch Role is tracked by the Watchman, and that Look Target is untracked. (If it were tracked, the Watchman would need to publish its values, which I think defeats the point.) -

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8251-8252

Votes inline. Also I flip my master switch to myself, I guess. Gaelan > On Oct 6, 2019, at 7:56 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > 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

DIS: Re: OFF: Another zombie auction

I bid a coin as well. Gaelan > On May 9, 2019, at 6:54 AM, James Cook wrote: > > I initiate a zombie auction, with the following lots (each zombie a > separate lot) ordered as follows (highest-bid first): > > 1. V.J. Rada > 2. Telnaior > 3. L > 4. Baron von Vaderham > > Agora is the

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8174A and 8175

Votes inline Gaelan > On Apr 28, 2019, at 2:19 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > 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 3,

DIS: Re: BUS: Email Weirdness Etc

I received it as well (Fastmail here). > On Apr 28, 2019, at 1:53 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > I haven't gotten this email yet [1]. It shows up in the archive, but > not in my inbox. Is anyone else having this problem? > > Also, I don't believe the decision on who should be Prime Minister

Re: DIS: Office Apportionment

I’d be willing to take up an office in a week or two (after AP tests), but I’m unfortunately too busy at the moment. > On Apr 27, 2019, at 7:38 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > We need to decide who will take which offices. Currently we need a new > ADoP, Arbitor, Assessor, Astronomor, Clork,

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >