On Thursday, November 1, 2018 2:01 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> (Remove this comment before publishing the report!)
Drat.
-twg
rent, you just have to meet the qualifications.
>
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 01:45 Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > No way to take it back now, but for future reference, awarding someone a
> > (non-grey) ribbon against eir will is not necessarily a boon, because it
> > makes
I appreciate you've just spent a lot of time writing it _out_ of the proposal,
but I actually preferred the system where spaceships were assets, like someone
else (I think Gaelan?) mentioned on the previous draft. It makes extensibility
much easier because we can say things like
Spaceships
of Honour
> +1 twg (reminding us)
> -1 Trigon (a little less helpful then twg here :P )
>
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> > Technically, any player can award any other player a ribbon e has earned.
> > I'm not going to do that, though. I award myself a V
No, not that I know of. As I recall, there was some discussion about making one
a while ago (for precisely this reason - it's intimidating to new players). But
it never came to anything.
In my opinion, these are the most important things to know (other people feel
free to disagree / chip in):
‐‐
On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 12:48 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey
wrote:
> I object, on the basis that you are the Speaker and could do this
> unilaterally by resigning, so this is clearly part of some sort of scam, even
> though I don't know what it is.
>
> -twg
>
> ‐‐
inger at Cuddle Beam for violating No Faking by attempting an
> action e knew to be INEFFECTIVE in the message below.
>
> > On Oct 28, 2018, at 6:42 PM, Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I award myself a Platinum ribbon.
> >
> > > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at
The following players earned Violet Ribbons for participating in PAoaM and can
still claim them up until Saturday:
ATMunn
Corona
G.
Trigon
(I internally debated with myself about whether to remind you, but my
fairness-loving side won out.)
-twg
This is what I thought as well, but G. seems to be saying that it's possible
Trigon and D. Margaux are _both_ the judge of CFJ 3672. I'm a bit hazy on the
details. Maybe wait for G. to give eir opinion before doing anything?
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 12
This randomly occurred to me recently.
Rule 869/44 indicates that a dead organism is not a person, because it is not
capable of thinking. So if an organism who was a player died, e would cease to
be a person and COULD NOT be a player any longer. But this is not the same as
"deregistering", beca
; for the Arbitor/Referee combo (and wanted to make it clear now why).
>
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > No need. Demanding Resignation vacates all the player's officers, not just
> > the ones making em Overpowered, so my own announced intent w
No need. Demanding Resignation vacates _all_ the player's officers, not just
the ones making em Overpowered, so my own announced intent works for these too.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, October 29, 2018 3:23 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> D. Margaux is both Arbitor and Refer
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 10:31 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> To the contrary, it is a dependent action—dependent on notice.
Nope. R2472/2 says:
If a player is Overpowered, any player CAN Demand Resignation from
em by announcement, provided e has announced intent do to so
between f
les seem to only allow for contacts to allow acting on
> behalf.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Oct 28, 2018, at 3:00 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> > I grant permission for any person except D. Margaux to act on my behalf to
> > Demand Resignation from D. Margaux
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 10:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> So here’s the scam—I think that nothing prevents me from objecting to this
> intent multiple times, every 48 hours, and thereby preventing Agora from
> ever becoming satisfied with it.
Yes there is, which is that Demanding Resignation is
"Trust no one" has already been adopted as Proposal 8105. Of course that
doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't accidentally submitted again!
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 7:11 AM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Does this list of proposals look complete and accurate t
...here's another idea I've been toying with for a while:
This document is a contract between twg (the "Game Master" or "GM") and one or
more other parties (the "Competitors"). Any player can become a Competitor and
any Competitor can cease to be a party to this contract. The GM cannot cease to
I’m not a zombie.
>
> > On Oct 27, 2018, at 7:33 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> >
> > COIN BALANCES
> >
> > ==
> >
> > Rules summary:
> >
> > - You earn coins when your proposal is adopted; when you judge a
Well, none of the report actually self-ratifies at the moment because of the
bug I pointed out last week, but zombie status wouldn't do anyway, no.
I'll fix this for next week's report and publish it as a revision to this one.
Sorry Gaelan.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, O
The first time I read it I assumed the exact opposite, so it's definitely
ambiguous.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 7:31 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> I would read it to mean that the change in verdict does not operate
> retroactively to affect any game actions
twg wrote:
> The CFJ is something that I'd been toying with for a while as a potential scam
> idea. I hadn't tried using it properly because I'm actually pretty sure it
> doesn't work. ''I intend to Declare Apathy Without Objection, specifying
> myself." is found in a message and then someone else
Good idea! Minor comments on the second one:
> A player who is not the auctioneer of an existing Auction
> specified by this rule CAN, by announcement, initiate an auction
> with emself as the auctioneer The lots, minimum bid, and currency
> of the Auction shall be set by said player.
- This says
Bugger, got my time zones mixed up. This was, of course, judged at 10:24, not
11:24.
This is my first ever CFJ judgement - please do not hesitate to say if I got
something wrong.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, October 18, 2018 10:24 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey
wrote
I'm sorry, I hadn't realised CFJ 3664 had already been assigned (I remembered
favouring it but thought the assignment was one of the things we were waiting
on Murphy for). I'll aim to publish the judgement later today.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, October 18, 2018 1:22 AM
On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 1:56 AM, Reuben Staley
wrote:
> Okay so overall, this is a decent idea, but I don't really want to play
> this version of it. Why? It suffers from Boilerplate Syndrome. This is a
> feature of proposed new minigames where the core mechanics are too
> lightweight for
e the issues are very intermingled. (Can’t be me because I
> called the CFJs.)
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 5:10 PM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
>
> > Hmm. For some reason this feels like a build-up to a scam. Oh well, let's
> > see what happens.
> > -twg
>
wledge about game custom.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 12:25 AM, Alex Smith
wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 00:18 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > CFJ, barring G.: "In the quoted message, G. objected to at least one
> > intent
(Unofficial - I don't believe it's actually possible to submit an official
apology until after the Referee has imposed the Cold Hand of Justice (if,
indeed, a Finger is Pointed at all). Though I could be wrong?)
I'm sorry I missed the Treasuror report last week (and, to a lesser extent, the
Hum
Hmm. For some reason this feels like a build-up to a scam. Oh well, let's see
what happens.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, October 15, 2018 7:24 PM, D Margaux wrote:
> I CFJ the following three statements, and suggest to the Arbitor that they
> should probably be assigned t
G. wrote:
> It is no longer a contract, because no one agrees to it, which is basic
> to the definition of "contract". So it cannot own assets.
R1742 actually gives a definition of "contract":
Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may
make an agreement among themse
Very nice! I believe this would work if there were anything in the rules to
suggest that a terminated contract cannot own assets. :)
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 11:42 PM, Kerim Aydin
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote:
>
> > I have sent
Oh come on. I just wanted to see if anything interesting would happen.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 8:48 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> I object.
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 4:31 PM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
>
> > I intend
I act as follows:
>
> Notice of Honour:
> -1 twg (for making someone a zombie who was clearly returning.
> That's just obnoxious.)
> +1 ATMunn (welcome back!
>
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, October 6, 2018 6:30 PM, Reub
I wish I had a zombie at the moment so I could give you karma for this.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Friday, October 5, 2018 2:17 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I suspect "Oatbreaking is per se prohibited by law" is trivially false,
> because I don't think that breaking oats is inherentl
the Point Installation Act to pass. Or is there some reason that
> wouldn’t occur in that situation?
>
> > On Oct 2, 2018, at 2:33 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> > That reply was in response to D. Margaux's similar CoE, not yours. I
> > pr
That reply was in response to D. Margaux's similar CoE, not yours. I properly
responded to your CoE by citing the appropriate CFJ.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 6:29 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
&g
27;s no
> game uncertainty that will propagate from this CoE outside the coin
> holdings of myself and D. Margaux.
>
> [This is true for 8080 as well, but I don't want to CoE that one -
> it will be Adopted either way, and the uncertainty would propagate
> to everyone's
self and D. Margaux.
> > [This is true for 8080 as well, but I don't want to CoE that one -
> > it will be Adopted either way, and the uncertainty would propagate
> > to everyone's coin holdings in the mean time].
> >
from itself
to you.)
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 4:47 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 2:29 PM, D Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I cause the contract between me and G entitled the First Bank of Agora to
>
On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 2:29 PM, D Margaux wrote:
> I cause the contract between me and G entitled the First Bank of Agora to
> transfer to me a number of coins equal to the number of coins that I have
> previously transferred to that contract.
By what rule-defined mechanism do you cause the
Unfortunately this wouldn't converge the gamestate because, if these actions
succeed, your location is now different to what it was before.
I don't believe they do succeed, though (and I see Trigon has made the same
decision in eir Cartographor report just now), because even if the contract is
Good attempt at a scam. I had already anticipated it, however, and I think you
will find you'd rather have submitted to the currency revaluation.
If anyone spots the booby-trap, please don't point it out. I want the delicious
satisfaction of seeing their reactions when it activates. c:
-twg
‐
Generally I think you're right about "automatic" actions, but changing the list
of parties is something R1742/18 specifically says can happen automatically:
"A contract may be modified, including by changing the set of parties, by
agreement between all existing parties... For the purposes of thi
But whether or not they are in a contract has no bearing on anything at all
until they decide to do something contingent on its text. Contracts are
untracked.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, September 30, 2018 8:22 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> The contract could say:
>
> “Nobody
Looking at CFJ 1215, I believe this fails _even if the contract allows you to
do that_, because I, the relevant recordkeepor, don't have the necessary
information to determine what your action's effect would be.
That's why I revealed the text of my contract with Aris before using its
provision
Only the owner of a facility can pay its upkeep (R2560), so your second attempt
is INEFFECTIVE regardless of whether or not your first attempt is.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, September 29, 2018 12:34 PM, D Margaux
wrote:
> I pay 1 apple to move to (-1, 2). I pay 1 appl
Aargh. I _want_ to favour these CFJs but I will be out of the country for a
week or so starting Wednesday and can't guarantee I'll be able to judge them in
a timely fashion. :(
(I'm not expecting anyone to do anything about it, I just wanted to express
general frustration.)
-twg
‐‐‐ Orig
wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > I would like to request that nobody CoE the resolution of proposal 8089,
> > because it wouldn't change the outcome of the decision and would have a
> > knock-on effect on this distribution's quo
Correct as far as I can tell, but if you wait until I've resolved proposal
8093, there'll be another 12 proposals to vote on.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, September 16, 2018 7:32 AM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> I'm under the impression that no proposals were submitted by anyon
ntent still hanging around with the possibility of
> somehow complicating things.
>
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 4:51 PM Reuben Staley reuben.sta...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> > I also object
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 14:39 Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> >
>
anomic.org/msg44545.html
Looking at the copies of my own messages that I have received from the list, it
appears this header is causing the problem:
Reply-To: Timon Walshe-Grey , "Agora Nomic discussions
\(DF\)"
However, I don't know why the list server is adding it - I've checked and it
certainly isn't there when it leaves my email provider.
-twg
Oh, but I did get this one. How bizarre.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 9:15 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey
wrote:
> Just wanted to mention that I haven't actually received copies of any of my
> own messages, to any forum, today - the most recent
Just wanted to mention that I haven't actually received copies of any of my own
messages, to any forum, today - the most recent one was "Re: BUS: Land stuff"
yesterday, when I moved to (-2, 2). I have received everyone else's messages,
though. Anyone else having the same thing happen?
-twg
dered Bad Form/Sportsmanship
> around here to judge something with this degree of self-interest. If you
> assign it to yourself, I'd be tempted to call a second CFJ with the same
> statement, with the note "please ignore twg's precedent, e should have
> recused emself".
&g
I mean, at least you're not the one who turned your loom into some sort of
weird monument-like thing...
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, 10 September 2018 03:38, Reuben Staley
wrote:
> Understood. Boy do I hate being wrong.
>
> On Sun, Sep 9, 2018, 21:37 Tim
On Monday, 10 September 2018 03:28, Reuben Staley
wrote:
> Second one is denied since it was already white when you tried to turn it
> gray and therefore INEFFECTIVE.
I don't believe that matters? Rule 2003 says:
3. 2 apples to set Land Type of a Land Unit which e owns to any
La
TTttDF
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, 10 September 2018 00:46, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Crap, you're right. I even wrote the resolution message, just never clicked
> send. My bad.
>
> -twg
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Monday, 10
I make quorum 4. Voters on proposal 8089 were Aris, G., Murphy, Trigon, twg and
Kenyon, making 6 valid ballots.
Also, Aris, it would be helpful if you could redistribute proposals 8082-8089,
except 8086 which doesn't exist. (8077A-8081A haven't met quorum yet either,
but the CFJ on whether you
think, is publish the SLR and then immediately resign as
Rulekeepor, but I'm not entirely clear whether that would work to relieve me of
the obligation to publish the FLR too.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, 9 September 2018 21:03, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
On Sunday, 9 September 2018 17:48, D Margaux wrote:
> I cause nichdel pay 3 apples to stake a land claim to (-3, 1) with
> land type Black.
>
> I cause nichdel to transfer the land at (-3, 1) to D. Margaux.
>
> I cause nichdel to pay 1 apple to move to (-2, 1).
These three actions fail; zombies c
o I PMed em).
>
> On Sat, 1 Sep 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > I intend, with Agoran Consent, to award the Badge "Badge of Accidental Loom
> > Destruction" to myself, Trigon and Corona. I find it an extraordinary
> > coincidence that three players hav
Reminder: We still need one more vote on this before tomorrow morning, since G.
correctly pointed out that D. Margaux's vote doesn't count.
Trigon, please remember we've established that you have a zombie (Quazie).
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 26, 2018 3:04 P
(2,-1)
> 2 stones for orchard at (2,-2)
> 3 steel for loom at (3,1)
> 1 lumber and 1 stone for farm at (1, -2)
> 2 lumber for orchard at (-2,0)
> 2 stones for mine at (-3,0)
> 4 stones for orchard at (-4,0)
> 4 stones for orchard at (-5,0)
>
> ~Corona
>
>
NttPF!!
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 30, 2018 7:58 AM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> I bid 1 more than the most recent bid on the last auction I bid on.
> Everyone, I’m sorry about being late at, well, everything. I’ve been
> extraordinarily busy. The game seems to be moving prett
x27;s vote as e was not a player
> when the decision was distributed (R683).
>
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > Thank you everyone, we do now have enough votes to pass quorum.
> > However, I will hold off on actually resolving the decision until Aris h
Thank you everyone, we do now have enough votes to pass quorum.
However, I will hold off on actually resolving the decision until Aris has done
the next distribution, because otherwise quorum for _that_ distribution will
rise again. And I think we've had more than enough quorum troubles recently
t old CFJs are here:
> > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/
> > But updating those in the FLR is definitely an optional extra. Very much
> > optional.
> > On Sat, 25 Aug 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> >
> > > I've been looking into the
the Rules, but, under R217, such an absurdity affords no reason to
> ignore the text of R2499.
>
> (Am I doing this right? :-) )
>
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 6:34 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
>> I submit and pend the following proposal:
>>
>>
t; sure as heck not knowledgeable enough about CFJs to do so.
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 25, 2018, 16:22 Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>>
>>> I've been looking into the possibility of taking over Rulekeepor, in the
>>> absence of any other willing candidate, and hav
I've been looking into the possibility of taking over Rulekeepor, in the
absence of any other willing candidate, and have been looking through your
ruleset generation system.
One thing I'd like to ask (to everyone, not just you) is whether the inclusion
of major CFJs in the Full Logical Ruleset
nently sensible - imagine if there were
two simultaneous votes on the same proposal and they had different results!),
not that it could only be redistributed once ever.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 25, 2018 10:45 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> I resolve the most recent Agoran
There's a far more straightforward argument for this not working as a
registration message: it was sent to agora-discussion, which is not a public
forum. (Though I admit I did check the most recent Registrar report on
agora-official to check that G. hadn't sneakily reclassified it as a public
f
That seems like a precedent with an interesting story behind it. What happened?
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 25, 2018 5:47 AM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:36 PM Alex Smith ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2018-08-24 at 22:30 -0700, Aris
Thank you! However, your attempt to vote PRESENT on proposal 8086 is
INEFFECTIVE because proposal 8086 never existed due to a mistake in a Promotor
report. Its replacement is proposal 8089.
Quorum update:
ID Voting endsTitleUnder quorum
--
Thank you! However, your attempt to vote PRESENT on proposal 8086 is
INEFFECTIVE because proposal 8086 never existed due to a mistake in a Promotor
report. Its replacement is proposal 8089.
Quorum update:
ID Voting endsTitleUnder quorum
--
ayday.
Of course, I suppose we could always remove the definition as a switch for now,
for simplicity, and re-add it in the event that such an occasion does arise.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 20, 2018 3:10 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-08-19 at 20:29 +0000, Timo
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 19, 2018 8:35 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Blah blah blah, you know the drill. Proposals 8077-8088, except proposal 8086
> (which apparently doesn't exist), are one or two votes short of quorum and the
> following slackers haven&
I suppose I could do the second one for you via Kenyon, but that's a bit
exploitative of the zombie rules, even for me.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 19, 2018 6:24 AM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Notice of Honor:
> -1 to Aris, for making many errors in the last PDP
> +1 to Trigo
I have been drafting a proto. I haven't finished it yet, but this is the main
part:
//
Enact a rule "Land Prestige", of power 2.0, with the following text:
Land Prestige is an integer person switch tracked by the Herald.
[
In hindsight, I should have phrased that to say "the most recent Agoran
Decisions to adopt each of proposals 8077-8081". Oh well.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 13, 2018 8:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I vote FOR proposal 8085.
I noticed that too. I rather suspect that, in a previous iteration of the
rules, gratuitous arguments were something the rules said people COULD submit;
and the old-timers are all used to that system and send them to the public
forum by force of habit.
I don't have any arguments to add myself.
This time, not only did I not get the confirmation email, but it hasn't shown
up on mail-archive.com either... Hmm. Please confirm if you receive this via
DIS (I'm sending it directly to Aris as well).
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 12, 2018 8:08 AM, Timon Walshe-G
If you wait another ~24 hours to assign a judgement, the last Treasuror report
will self-ratify your facilities into existence regardless of the outcome of
the case, and you won't have a conflict of interest any more.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 12, 2018 7:20 AM, Aris Merch
Yeah, even worse, I've found myself panicking because I _haven't_ counted the
proposals I'm pending and can't remember how many I have left. (This was
another reason for submitting things via Kenyon.)
I would vote FOR this in its current state, but I would prefer it if the class
of the crime we
Sorry. I did mean to go over these again but haven't got around to it yet.
If I were to resubmit them they would probably have slightly amended text
anyway.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 10, 2018 5:41 AM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> As Promotor, I remove the following proposals
In the full-text-of-proposals section, proposal 8085's title is incorrect.
Also, you missed the proposal Kenyon submitted here:
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg32486.html
Otherwise, it looks good to me!
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 10, 2018 6:4
Actually, the previous batch was resolved _after_ this batch was distributed,
so I believe quorum is only 5 at the moment. It will be higher (at least 7)
when the current batch is resolved.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 8, 2018 7:51 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> The old prec
and only if e is active, has not staked a land
> claim in the current month, and has not won a land auction in
> the current or previous month. When e stakes a land claim, the
> unit's land type is set to the land type of eir choice, then is
> transferred to em, then e moves onto th
Sorry, only just noticed this - you changed "force-feed" to "feed" in one place
but missed the other occurrence.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 4, 2018 5:16 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
> I feel I've given ample time to submit notes on this version.
>
> I withdraw my proposal ent
Ah, I see the confusion now - this is in fact the previous batch of proposals
(8066-8076, not 8077-8081). Sorry.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 3, 2018 10:58 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
> AttPF
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > From: Publius Scribonius Schola
already voted.
>
> --
>
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 6:34 PM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
>
> > Quorum on the Agoran Decisions to adopt Proposals 8077-8081 is 14.0, but
> > there are only 6 valid
Yes and yes, so unfortunately you can't start auctions by contract any more.
Not that that would necessarily be the best method, anyway - I imagine you
wouldn't have any use for the funds you'd collect. Perhaps some sort of lottery
(making a pledge to choose the winner fairly)? If it helps, I be
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 1, 2018 5:17 PM, Corona wrote:
> Wait... aren't zombies banned from bidding? How does this work?
>
> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
>
> > On July 30, 2018 9:45 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@tim
Doesn't include G.'s land grants (proposal 8064).
Also, may I suggest allowing people to destroy apples and corn to increase _any
player's_ EP? Makes zombie movement less of a faff.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On July 31, 2018 11:16 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
> This is something I've
Worth a try!
I bid 118 coins in each of Auctions 2-5.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On July 29, 2018 9:03 PM, Corona wrote:
> I bid 80 coins in each of Auctions 2-5.
>
> On Sunday, July 29, 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
>
> > I withdraw my bids on ea
V.J. Rada didn't vote in the most recently resolved batch of proposals, and all
the ones before that have self-ratified already, so there is no effect on
proposals. Don't know what it means for officer elections, though - Murphy can
probably say more definitively.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Messag
Proposal 8072 changes processing facilities' upkeep costs from 3 coins to 3
steel.
We really need a Rulekeepor, don't we.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On July 26, 2018 9:20 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I pay the following upkeep costs for the indicated facilities:
>
> > E (+3, -2) R
NttPF, not that it actually makes any difference to anything now anyway.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On July 26, 2018 9:06 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
> I hereby ratify the following document, having received no objection,
> as intended:
> {
> The quorum on each of th
e's much
> ambiguity to begin with.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 3:21 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > I submit the following proposals. I pend the proposal "Patchy McPatchface".
> >
> > I do also intend to pend the two "From each ac
tes now are valid if and only if the voting period has been
>
> extended, so their validity for determining quorum in the next batch will be
>
> uncertain...
>
> (Personally I'm abstaining on purpose so I'm decidedly not humiliated).
>
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2018
301 - 400 of 458 matches
Mail list logo
