On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 12:08 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 11:32 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The only risk I see is that reducing quorum when the number of active
players stays high ups the
Alex Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 12:08 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 11:32 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The only risk I see is that reducing quorum when the number of active
players stays high
On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 12:08 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
(And you'd need to include both the Rubberstamper and the wielder of the
veto in the 3). It's actually been a long time since we've had a proposal
that people on both sides have used the various
On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
Alex Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 12:08 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
(And you'd need to include both the Rubberstamper and the wielder of the
veto in the 3). It's actually been a long time since we've had a proposal
that people on both sides have used
On Sun, 2009-06-07 at 13:37 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
Alex Smith wrote:
What about a sort of proposal that can't be made democratic, but can't
do anything but award wins? That would let people mess around with all
the ordinary-proposal tricks without making things too hairy.
All that would
On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
On Sun, 2009-06-07 at 13:37 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
Alex Smith wrote:
What about a sort of proposal that can't be made democratic, but can't
do anything but award wins? That would let people mess around with all
the ordinary-proposal tricks without
On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 15:22 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
Someone attempts to inactivate you.
(A) Start participating
(B) Let it happen
(C) Just object without justification for eternity, inflating quorum.
C
Maybe we should instead make quorum depend on the number of people who
actually voted
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Maybe we should instead make quorum depend on the number of people who
actually voted last time round (like B used to), rather than messing
with inactivation?
One can be active without voting.
Kyle Marek-Spartz - KDØGTK
Activity is just for quorum.
On 2009-06-04, Kyle Marek-Spartz zeckal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Maybe we should instead make quorum depend on the number of people who
actually voted last time round (like B used to), rather than
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
Activity is just for quorum.
On 2009-06-04, Kyle Marek-Spartz zeckal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Maybe we should instead make quorum depend on the
I mean, the only non-possibility thing.
On 2009-06-04, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
Activity is just for quorum.
On 2009-06-04, Kyle Marek-Spartz zeckal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:30
ie a non acting active person just inflates quorum
On 2009-06-04, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
I mean, the only non-possibility thing.
On 2009-06-04, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 15:22 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
Someone attempts to inactivate you.
(A) Start participating
(B) Let it happen
(C) Just object without justification for eternity, inflating quorum.
C
Maybe we should instead make quorum depend on
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 07:32 -0500, Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Maybe we should instead make quorum depend on the number of people who
actually voted last time round (like B used to), rather than messing
with inactivation?
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 13:55 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
Activity is just for quorum.
And officer obligations. And judging.
Making someone inactive is a good way to shield them from obligations if
they've left the lists for a while. Likewise, inactivating yourself (and
resigning offices, if
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Maybe we should be permitted to make people inactive by support (rather
than w/o objection) if they have not voted for N months or M proposals.
As long as you can flip yourself back to Active by announcement, it
wouldn't
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Maybe we should be permitted to make people inactive by support (rather
than w/o objection) if they have not voted for N months or M proposals.
Sean Hunt wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Maybe we should be permitted to make people inactive by support (rather
than w/o objection) if they have not voted for N
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Maybe we should be permitted to make people inactive by support (rather
than w/o objection) if they have
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
Legislature is a player switch with values Quoredupon and Unquoredfor
(default). A player CAN flip eir Legislature to Unquoredfor by
announcement. A player CAN flip eir Legislature to Quoredupon by
submitting a valid ballot on an Agoran Decision.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I know it's unimaginable now; but in past we've gone through slow periods
with many fewer distributions (even none for two months). It's slowing
down now due to distributability. To prevent us from all suddenly being
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 14:03 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I know it's unimaginable now; but in past we've gone through slow periods
with many fewer distributions (even none for two months). It's slowing
down now due
Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
Legislature is a player switch with values Quoredupon and Unquoredfor
(default). A player CAN flip eir Legislature to Unquoredfor by
announcement. A player CAN flip eir Legislature to Quoredupon by
submitting a valid ballot on an
Pavitra wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
Legislature is a player switch with values Quoredupon and Unquoredfor
(default). A player CAN flip eir Legislature to Unquoredfor by
announcement. A player CAN flip eir Legislature to Quoredupon by
submitting a
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
Legislature is a player switch with values Quoredupon and Unquoredfor
(default). A player CAN flip eir Legislature to Unquoredfor by
announcement. A player CAN flip eir Legislature to
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 11:32 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The only risk I see is that reducing quorum when the number of active
players stays high ups the conspiracy attempt: in the words of a past
wise agoran, quorum describes the minimum size for a legislative
conspiracy.
Which, given the
Ed Murphy wrote:
Pavitra wrote:
The idea is that there would be some people that aren't interested in
being legislators, but are interested in other parts of the game
(judging, contract subgames, etc.) I refer again to the analogy with
Posture: a person can be an active participant without
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 11:32 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The only risk I see is that reducing quorum when the number of active
players stays high ups the conspiracy attempt: in the words of a past
wise agoran, quorum describes the minimum size for a
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 11:32 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The only risk I see is that reducing quorum when the number of active
players stays high ups the conspiracy attempt: in the words of a past
wise agoran, quorum
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
Plus, we don't really have much gameplay at the moment.
Er, compare to the business archives for all of September or October 2006.
-G.
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
The only risk I see is that reducing quorum when the number of active
players stays high ups the conspiracy attempt: in the words of a past
wise agoran, quorum describes the minimum size for a legislative
conspiracy.
As I
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 12:18 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Again, all this only comes out when a proposal is out there that's
really a faction-based attempt (e.g. enough members on each side for
procedural move and counter-move to matter). Town Fountain was one
like this. The last such ones (e.g.
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 12:08 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 11:32 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The only risk I see is that reducing quorum when the number of active
players stays high ups the
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
Actually, the last dictatorship proposal forced through by scam (as
opposed to a proposal which was itself a scam) was done by setting three
voting limits up to 8 at the last minute of a proposal, swamping all the
other votes. The WoV didn't have a chance
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:33, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Benjamin Caplan
celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
The idea is that there would be some people that aren't interested in
being legislators, but are interested in other parts of the game
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:33, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
I personally find that most proposal distributions I could care less
about. I do tend overall to play Agora for the contract sub-games and
not for the rule-making system. That
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Christian Julius thesi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 6:25 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend, without objection, to make Siege inactive.
I object to making Siege inactive.
Can we inactivate by proposal?
2009/6/3 Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Christian Julius thesi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 6:25 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend, without objection, to make Siege inactive.
I object to making Siege inactive.
Can we inactivate
Someone attempts to inactivate you.
(A) Start participating
(B) Let it happen
(C) Just object without justification for eternity, inflating quorum.
C
On 2009-06-03, Christian Julius thesi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 6:25 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend, without
39 matches
Mail list logo
