On 5/13/20 2:04 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
The equivalent in Agora would be to have several desirable assets and either
1) restrict who can generate/get each asset without trading or 2) make
generating/getting them an investment where players are encouraged to go deep
on one asset and tr
On 5/12/20 2:31 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
On 5/11/20 3:00 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:
I think that there's a problem subdividing time periods in Agora.
There's not always a clear date where a certain era started and ended.
PAoaM, for instance, entere
On 5/12/20 7:58 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business
wrote:
Since no one else has, I become a candidate. If anyone else would like to
fulfill the duties of this office effectively, let me know and I will
withdraw.
My deputisation earlier this month was fully intended to be a o
d rule? That just
sounds like normal rules with extra steps.
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 5:44 PM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
On 5/12/20 6:13 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote:
Wouldn't this allow you to succ people dry out of the
gt; wrote:
Wouldn't this allow you to succ people dry out of their coins because there
is no limit to how many times you can activate this after an infraction? I
could just say nothing and just attempt it later on but like, this mechanic
would be such a pain in the ass lmao.
On Tue, May
ld be such a pain in the ass lmao.
I believe that the "once" in "any player CAN once" should prevent that
from being a problem.
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 4:11 AM Reuben Staley via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
I submit the following proposal
On 5/11/20 8:48 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
On 5/11/20 10:45 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote:
---
Title: Agora plays table tennis
AI: 0.1
Author: Trigon
Coauthors:
This is either INEFFECTIVE or has an AI of 1.0 under CFJ 3744 because
0.1 is not a valid AI per R1950
On 5/11/20 8:28 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:>> Maybe there could
be an office for Agora academia specifically? The
'Professor'? Has a bi-annual report of all theses, perhaps? Maybe we could
make a campaign to make a timeline of Agora history? I dunno.
For those unfamiliar with what I mean
On 5/8/20 10:01 AM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote:
I have never once got any value out of any form of the newspapers (well
except the ones I intentionally published with no text to get paid lol),
mainly because it's actually a lot easier to catch up on the game by
reading emails than by read
On 5/5/20 7:53 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
I can see your point too and can think of some arguments in support of
it... might be borderline enough for its own CFJ, or maybe up to the
Herald whether it is or not...?
And by that you mean whoever can deputise fastest.
--
Trigon, S
On 5/5/20 7:30 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
On Tue, 2020-05-05 at 19:03 -0600, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:
How is it a game-defined action? It's something that could have been
done by the game rules, rather than something done by a player; and
whether or not it hap
On 5/5/20 6:45 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
Rule 2553: “If a CFJ about the legality or possibility of a game
action”
CFJ 3828: “A recent rule named "A coin award" was enacted, increased
the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.”
I think the CFJ statement is in th
On 5/4/20 11:22 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
Did some spot Ruleset checks based on memory these are the ones I know or
found:
2000 - 2002 Stems, Papyrus, Voting Entitlements, Indulgences, Auctions.
Multiple roles (Scribes, Acolytes, Politicians) to promote trade.
2003 - 2006 Boon
On 5/4/20 11:40 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion
wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 1:38 PM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
Thanks to PSS for eir foresight, and pre-thanks to everyone that does
their part in preservation e
On 5/4/20 11:09 AM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote:
This might already be known but Blob's Thesis Archive [1] appears to have left
this realm. It was not captured on the wayback machine. Luckily, PSS has
captured all of the theses that were stored there [2]. In the future we might
consider cre
On 4/26/20 1:04 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote:
Proposal: Re-Officialization (AI=1, Chamber=Participation)
I don't think I ever mentioned this but I really love this proposal.
{
- Left in a Huff, awardable by the Registrar to any player deregistered by
a Writ of FAGE, where the Cant
As the Speaker of the Illustrious Game of Agora, I hereby announce my
intention to do some public good.
We have no Notary. Not that it matters that much as the Agoran Public
does not seem to be taking much interest in Contracts and Pledges.
Notwithstanding this negligence, I have decided to de
On 4/9/20 8:57 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:> I shall put a license on my
code as well. Probably a BSD or something
else very permissive, and probably not MIT because I do care a little
about attribution of the code. The problem is that everyone has slightly
different thoughts about modificat
On 4/9/20 7:51 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
It appears that most of the code in the Agora GitHub org does not have a
license on it. This potentially represents an issue for future officers
who want to reuse code from current or past officeholders.
Finally! A topic about which I am
On 10/15/19 12:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
This was an interesting loop to look at. I wonder how much of this is
due to rule consolidation? After all, no one sets out to write loops.
For example, Person used to have a standalone Rule (R2150) devoted
entirely to defining a Person (this was when we
On 10/14/19 11:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
But are the dependencies you've identified truly circular? Many rules have
multiple independent clauses that could very well be separated into smaller
rules. If the "circularity" is created by a link to two entirely separate
clauses within a rule, that c
There is a lot of interesting stuff here. I may have more comments in
the future but for now I want to just point out a few things.
On 10/13/19 2:19 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
The clear solution to these problems was to machine-parse the ruleset.
There are two obvious ways to parse the ruleset - clo
On 9/25/19 5:12 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:> I would strongly prefer that
you went all the way in the other
direction, and made it just an office switch, tracked by the ADoP,
that wasn't hardcoded in a rule. It's not part of the core definition
of an office, so it doesn't make any sense to hard code
On 9/25/19 5:26 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
It should be "every proposal", without the either bit. It's less
messy. The way we generally handle proposal switches is just to let
them stick around, with the proposal, on the off chance the proposal
is added to the pool again. Most of the time, that doe
On 9/25/19 2:45 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
On 9/25/19 2:39 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Title: Interesting Chambers v2
AI: 2
Author: Trigon
[Changes:
- Assigned Loyalties to offices.
- Changed voting strength slightly. ]
Create a new rule with title "Interest Groups", power 2, and text
On 9/25/19 2:43 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:> Not *too* bothered at loyal.
But now that you mention it,
"interested" (and interests groups) feels like one of those terms that
has too many definitions/usages so might be confusung. Hmm... Maybe
domains, departments, ministries, or bureaus?
I used "int
On 9/25/19 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 11:36 AM Reuben Staley wrote:
A. Justice: interested in seeing justice served
B. Efficiency: interested in seeing official duties performed
C. Legislation: interested in seeing proposals passed
D
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: Interesting Chambers v2
AI: 2
Author: Trigon
[Changes:
- Assigned Loyalties to offices.
- Changed voting str
With the current buzz about capitalization with regard to dependent
actions, I think it's time we had this discussion for real: how
consistent we are in capitalization, and how consistent ought we to be?
The answer to the first question is simple. We're not consistent at all.
When drafting pro
On 9/17/19 11:56 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Anyway, G. said something about messing with votes[0] and I assumed I'd
throw this out there because I'm not ready to give up on interest groups
as a concept just yet.
I just realized I forgot a footnote.
[0]
https://www.mail-archive
It's been a while since we've had chambers, right?
Anyway, G. said something about messing with votes[0] and I assumed I'd
throw this out there because I'm not ready to give up on interest groups
as a concept just yet.
If you don't know what chambers are, they're an old system in Agora.
Chec
On 9/12/19 12:15 PM, James Cook wrote:> What if, instead of these
balancing rules, each interest group does a
stock (cheque) buy-back every quarter, and the only way to cash in a
cheque between quarters is to sell it to another player?
Specifically:
* Make cheques of each interest group a curre
On 9/10/19 9:43 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I really *do* like the idea of different sectors with different
"performance
values" with currency speculation between them, and the event-constrained
random walk governing the various values (i.e. something
semi-predictable so
an attentive player can trad
On 9/10/19 4:10 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:> I do wonder if maybe "all
the interlocking cogs... turning fine" is part of the problem. In
real-life political systems, things keep changing because people still
feel that they are inadequate or unjust, or because there are current
events that need
On 9/10/19 1:10 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
No comment on the specific proposal yet, but a general comment. I
think we should wait a while before having another mini-game. The last
few we've had have died, not because they were bad ideas, but partly
because of bugs and most of all because there wasn
On 9/9/19 8:34 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
On 9/9/19 10:27 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
I kind of already see proposals as the fastest way to earn money - I
think I've earned more money from proposals than all the other
methods (not a rigorous claim).
With that in mind, does there need to b
On 9/9/19 7:24 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
On 9/9/19 8:24 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Possible ambiguity: "(Casting a vote [...]) on eir own behalf" vs.
("Casting a vote on (all proposals distributed [...] on eir own
behalf)".
What does a proposal distributed on one's
Thanks for the comments.
On 9/9/19 6:45 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
On 9/9/19 6:10 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Create a new rule with title "Cheques", power 2, and text:
Cheques are entities. Each cheque is associated with an interest
group. Cheques associated with the same inte
Title: Cheques and Balances
AI: 2
Author: Trigon
Create a new rule with title "Interest Groups", power 1, and text:
An interest group is an entity defined as such by this rule. Each
interest group has a goal. The following are the interest groups
of Agora and their goals:
On 9/7/19 2:27 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
On 9/7/19 4:19 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
//
ID: 8230
Title: Close the wormhole
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Murphy
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2591 (Spaceships) by replacing this text:
Rule 2591
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 Falsifian's reasoning here:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman
On 8/8/19 8:32 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
On 8/8/19 10:24 PM, Rebecca wrote:
Sorry, to praise a new god
E praised UNICODE in the final paragraph.
Indeed. UNICODE's name was not placed at the end of the list, which I
assume is what confused you, R. Lee.
--
Trigon
I humbly submit that this rule is, in fact, valid, as the first mention
of ERIS was actually in nch's rule here:
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg34767.html
On 8/8/19 6:30 PM, Rebecca wrote:
I humbly submit this rule is invalid. It is dedicated to ERIS, who was
men
I find all these judgements very fitting, O Aris, Supreme Eminence,
Pontifex Maximus!
On 8/7/19 11:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
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 da
I think it is logical to give this responsibility to the Rulekeepor, and
I would take it up. A couple years ago when I was running for Rulekeepor
I had a similar idea, but eventually gave up on it because I figured it
was quite unimportant.
As of writing this, I express complete nonchalance ab
On 7/28/19 4:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:> On 7/28/2019 2:49 PM, Aris
Merchant wrote:
> Incidentally, it’s pretty unlikely that I could persuade y’all to approve
> this, but my life would be way simpler if proposals could only be submitted
> in messages that had “proposal” in the subject line. Cu
The history of spaceship switches:
ATMunn's original proto had spaceships as fixed assets. Several players
suggested replacing them with player switches because it would be easier
that way. Later versions had spaceship switches as player switches. This
was the system we'd decided on until twg
Ah, I see. Thanks for the information.
On 7/22/19 8:27 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Sorry, if you go to https://agoranomic.org/assessor/8202-8214.txt
there's no extra lines.
https://agoranomic.org/assessor/8188A-8195A.txt for the other one.
Jason Cobb
On 7/22/19 10:28 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
It's not *that* big of a deal, but I would really appreciate it if you
didn't add extra space between the lines of the proposals' full text. It
makes implementing proposals a bit easier.
On 7/22/19 7:37 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8202-8214
=
On 7/22/19 8:10 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
On 7/22/19 8:03 PM, Rebecca wrote:
Sector 25: The Star Atop Verka Serduchka as She Majestically Performed
Her
Song "Lasha Tumbai" at the 2007 Eurovision Song Contest
For the benefit of the Agoran populace:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h
On 7/22/19 2:06 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
On 7/21/19 7:26 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: >>The FRC had a rule that
the player who gained the most style points in
the previous round was the Wizard, and other players had to refer to
them only as the Wizard (using any other name would
On 7/21/19 7:26 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:> The FRC had a rule
that the player who gained the most style points in
the previous round was the Wizard, and other players had to refer to
them only as the Wizard (using any other name would end up giving you a
penalty within the game, so the
In the ruleset code and in the annotations it generates, I use
"reenact". If it is changed, I'll just add a dash to the reenactment
template.
On 7/20/19 11:00 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I’m strongly considering objecting, as I’d prefer to go the other way. What
do others think?
-Aris
On Sat, J
, 12:58 PM Reuben Staley
wrote:
No part of any ruleset is self-ratifying.
--
Trigon
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 11:57 Jason Cobb wrote:
Are the historical annotations in the FLR self-ratifying? Asking for a
friend.
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 2:46 AM Reuben Staley
wrote:
THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET
Thes
t; then. On Rule 2517, the annotations list the rule as being enacted, and
> then repealed, without being re-enacted, so there might be something off
> there.
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 12:58 PM Reuben Staley
> wrote:
>
> > No part of any ruleset is self-ratifying.
> >
No part of any ruleset is self-ratifying.
--
Trigon
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 11:57 Jason Cobb wrote:
> Are the historical annotations in the FLR self-ratifying? Asking for a
> friend.
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 2:46 AM Reuben Staley
> wrote:
>
> > THE FULL LOGICAL RULESE
I have to agree with Aris here. It doesn't create any rule conflicts at
all. Besides, is it really that bad if the method has to be approved? I
don't understand why you want to change this part of the rule.
On 6/22/19 1:37 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:16 AM omd wrote:
Or a proposal resolution, for that matter.
On 6/22/19 9:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 6/21/2019 7:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I refuse to use it to help in scams, even when people offer bribes.
It's true - I've tried.
Speaking of which, I'm hoping to see a proposal distribution this week -
t
Is anyone else interested in Rulekeepor right now? If you are, I'm good
with letting an election play out, though I really do enjoy the job.
On 6/21/19 5:31 PM, Rebecca wrote:
I intend to initiate elections for Promotor, Tailor, ADoP and Rulekeepor,
with two support (90 days having passed)
(I
Recuse D. Margaux? What good would that do?
On 6/20/19 10:47 PM, omd wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:37 PM Rebecca wrote:
I would like us all to informally vote TRUE, FALSE, PARADOXICAL, DISMISS or
IRRELEVANT on CFJ 3737, the subject of so much discussion in the other
thread. This would help
And to think this all could have been avoided if people had just kept my
original judgement and take the fall for interpreting the rules so as to
proscribe unregulated actions as they clearly do.
On 6/20/19 8:38 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I think to consider a forbidden interpretation and then expli
Using your interpretation of "limit" would certainly get us out of this
specific case, but it would set some ugly precendent about the word that
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with.
On 6/20/19 6:49 PM, Rebecca wrote:
I agree with omd. Once again, the only good solution is to follow my
interpreta
Either
- Breathing is a regulated action, or
- The contract does not prohibit breathing.
Jason Cobb
On 6/17/19 2:20 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Ah, indeed! So we have our conflict.
I SHALL NOT interpret the rules so as to proscribe unregulated actions.
The contract mandates a proscription on br
an unregulated action without breaking rule
2152.
There really is no way out of this, is there?
On 6/17/19 9:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 6/17/2019 8:10 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Does a "SHALL NOT" really count as "proscription"? I reiterate that,
assuming a player has b
ated Action CAN only be performed as described by the
Rules,and only using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules
for performing the given action. The Rules SHALL NOT be
interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions.
}
Jason Cobb
On 6/16/19 4:45 PM, Reuben Staley wrot
I believe that the problem is that Yahoo does not cooperate with mailman.
Each of Rance's emails has gone directly to my spam folder. When I tried to
join Agora on my Yahoo account, I received similar reports from other
players. It was easier to for me to switch to Gmail that figure out what
was ha
FYI, you don't bid on individual lots, but auctions as a whole. The highest
bidder gets the first lot, the second-highest gets the second, and so on.
Because of this, all the quoted bids may not have worked.
--
Trigon
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019, 06:17 David Seeber wrote:
> I bid 6 coins for publius
>
I could have sworn we had a clause that prevented the cleaning from
affecting the interpretation of the rule at some point. Regardless, omd
is right. This may be covered already. Additionally, since it is without
objection, any issues this may cause would (hopefully) be seen in
advance by the e
Rulekeepor reporting in.
As AIS523 says, there is no perscribed method of ID assignment. I assign
each rule the ID number one greater than the one enacted before it.
Theoretically, I *could* influence the way rules are interpreted in a
very minor way, but I don't see any purpose. The general a
You are not a zombie as of yet, but you're on thin ice.
See this report for details:
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg09312.html
On 5/29/19 2:45 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
Hello Agorans. I hope I’m not a zombie or anything.
--
Trigon
Having looked into the matter further, I can safely say that mistakes
were indeed made. The following is my analysis.
On 5/25/19 3:52 PM, omd wrote:
Just a quick note -
The FLR credits Proposal 7778 (in various places) as:
Amended(21) by P7778 'Instant Runoff Improved' (Alexis), 14 Aug 2014
Thank you for pointing that out. It is through the due diligence of the
players of Agora Nomic that what I report is even remotely accurate.
--
Trigon
On Sat, May 25, 2019, 15:52 omd wrote:
> Just a quick note -
>
> The FLR credits Proposal 7778 (in various places) as:
>
> Amended(21) by P7778
I added the critical character to the YAML file. In this week's SLR, the
error will be fixed.
On 5/22/19 11:33 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
On May 23, 2019, at 1:27 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Well, in order for a cleaning to be valid, it must be a "correction". If there is not
dependent action (in this case
“[cleaning] a rule without objection”).
I’m only relying on rule 2429 for policy, not mechanism. I agree with your
interpretation of how it otherwise applies in isolation.
What have I missed?
-o
On May 23, 2019, at 1:14 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
You are mistaken
You are mistaken as to how the Bleach rule works. It does not mean any
player can change the spacing by way of cleaning, it means that I can
format rules using whatever spacing I want, as long as I respect
paragraph breaks.
If the Bleach rule did work that way, then every rule would be wrapped
This is actually a contract and a tournament, the contract existing
solely to help the iterative design I want to go for here. Here is the
rough draft:
= CONTRACT =
Definitions
- The Lord-Ruler of Arcadia is the player designated as such by this
contract. Currently, Trigon is
My activity in this game is very much reactionary. I generally only
remember to do any of my duties if someone does something to remind me
about them. That's why I haven't done much.
--
Trigon
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019, 13:51 Aris Merchant
wrote:
> I think the immediate cause of the current slowness
Welcome!
If you want to join, all you need say is "I register" and send it to
agora-business.
On 4/5/19 7:57 PM, Bernie Brackett wrote:
I just discovered Nomic through a convoluted series of events, and I
decided to join Agora because it was the only one listed on the wikipedia
article. I've
Oh, another thing. https://agoranomic.org/ruleset is updated now with
the data about February 22nd's rulesets.
On 3/1/19 9:34 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
I worded my response poorly. When I said to check the archives on
agoranomic.org I really meant the mailman archives. The mail-ar
to do not have the requirement -- but don't count on it
changing any time soon because our Honorable Distributor omd only pops
in when the lists are in dire need of attention.
On 3/1/19 8:32 PM, James Cook wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 04:11, Reuben Staley wrote:
The logical rulesets are
to read it more carefully.
>
>
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 04:32, Reuben Staley
> wrote:
> >
> > It also says that the gamestate, excluding the ruleset, is modified to
> what
> > it would have been if the amendment took place. Does this override the
> > amen
It also says that the gamestate, excluding the ruleset, is modified to what
it would have been if the amendment took place. Does this override the
amendment itself?
--
Trigon
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 21:29 James Cook It does say "Rule 2124 is amended...". Why wouldn't that happen? I
> don't think t
I hate to point this out after the distribution, but if I'm correct in my
reading, this does not actually amend the rule. After this passes, won't
intents still be broken?
--
Trigon
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 18:34 D. Margaux Pursuant to the Living Zombie contract, I hereby cause ATMunn to issue the
The logical rulesets are very long documents. Lots of times, the rulesets
slip through because of that. Check the archives on agoranomic.com. When I
get around to updating the ruleset site, it'll also be there.
--
Trigon
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 21:07 James Cook I don't see this message in the publ
On 2/26/19 4:34 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote> Reuben Staley
also wrote:
Along the same line, we have the distribution system of proposals. This goes
along with (1), but is still worth mentioning. In most other Nomics, proposals
are immediately put up for voting since one post can represen
One key trait of Nomic that comes from its main spin as a game built
around rule changes is adaptability. I am of the opinion that, as of
right now, there is no perfect forum on which to play Nomic, but Nomic
can and, with a reasonably wise group of players who each have the
strengths and limit
I was mildly interested, but I was deterred from participation by the early
scam.
--
Trigon
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019, 17:06 Kerim Aydin
> Funnily enough, the last time this was implemented, the same sort of thing
> happened: several people said "this sounds cool", then almost no one played
> and the
This reminds me of a concept I ran across while reading an essay about
Nomic one time called Fork World, where the guiding principle of play is
"no coercion". In Fork World, the group of players who vote against each
rule change and the group of players who vote for are sent to their own,
non-i
Support
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 20:56 James Cook Apathy
>
Someone has to ask the inevitable question: to what extent should
cleaning self-ratify? What if the clause that is to be cleaned shouldn't
even exist? The reality is that some elements of rules are lost when
applying rule changes. Is it fair to say that when a clause mistakenly
left in the rule
d8dcc8184c9160ce7f09a369127580b4
--
Trigon
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 17:22 Madeline 347e6994e340b1887cb464eed0a980f5dd708170f25dd5eda31d318fdc
>
> 1aeb71e07bab1ed854b51a9303d574f3bf086044146fcdfb8f8f4e82951d37eec0aa5939e458c490617
> 614c2970d08d161190fe0a50
> 2012c8d6da48df899382751889975ece9c334fc1
I would say that the reading of the proposal in question would imply an
override of all the amendments since 7815. I haven't been following this
thread so I don't know what a better solution would be.
On 2/18/19 9:21 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 2/18/2019 7:07 AM, James Cook wrote:
The gamestat
===
= = OFFICIAL IMPERIAL STATEMENT = =
===
I will not perform any actions that would unfairly benefit BlogNomic
players coming from an Agoran invasion.
However, if it is decided that one of us should take over BlogNomic and
decl
I'm sorry, but this week has been the busiest and most tiring I've had in
quite a while. I will deliver judgements for all the cases I'm currently
assigned to in a few hours.
On Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 12:48 Kerim Aydin
> Trigon,
>
> Are you actually judging stuff? I know you stepped away from a coup
First off, NttPF.
On 2/9/19 10:09 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
8161 Trigon, Ørjan 3.0 Extend "amend" and “reenact”
AGAINST, because “A repealed rule not in the ruleset identified by its most
recent rule number MUST be specified for reenactment” could be interpreted as
imposing an obligat
CoE: D. Margaux withdrew the Duumvirate proposal in this thread:
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33451.html
On 2/9/19 5:04 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from
h is trivially False if Trigon's is False, but anyways, I
call the following:
"The Ruleset (as a contract) now has 1 coin."
On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 6:44 PM Reuben Staley
wrote:
Upon my first reading, this didn't surprise me that much. It makes sense
that these systems would
Upon my first reading, this didn't surprise me that much. It makes sense
that these systems would look similar because AFAIK Contracts were
actually modeled after the rules. However, then I realized that CFJ 3664
where G. and D. Margaux informally agreed to do something but because it
satisfied
The mistake of conflating retitlings and amendments has been made many
times recently, the most recent being by an experienced player, and one
of the earlier ones breaking a minigame completely. Also, adding
different property changes as separate rule changes is more
time-consuming for your Rul
On 2/8/19 6:56 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
On Feb 8, 2019, at 8:53 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Unfortunately, Markdown is rather limited in the types of lists it implements.
It can do 1., 2., 3., but unless you have an extended markdown, it does not
recognise parenthesized numbers or any kind of
201 - 300 of 673 matches
Mail list logo
