Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals (attn Promotor)

wunst wrote: Am 13.05.24 um 01:00 schrieb ais523 via agora-discussion: On Sun, 2024-05-12 at 15:32 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: Proposal: No apathetic apathy Amend Rule 2465 (Victory by Apathy) by appending this text:     A player SHALL NOT announce intent to Declare

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals (attn Promotor)

I think the goal is to make it possible to shoot yourself in the foot with apathy. Intended effect (probably?): 1. A intents apathy 2. nobody objects 3. A has forgotten about intent, does nothing -> infraction But the current phrasing would also make unsuccessful attempts illegal as it says

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals (attn Promotor)

On Sun, 2024-05-12 at 15:32 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: > Proposal: No apathetic apathy > > Amend Rule 2465 (Victory by Apathy) by appending this text: > >    A player SHALL NOT announce intent to Declare Apathy and then >    fail to Declare Apathy before that intent

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Do we need all 3?

On 7/7/22 19:04, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 2022-07-07 at 18:56 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion > wrote: >> On 7/5/22 13:59, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: >>> Repeal Rule 2618 (Promises). >>> >>> Repeal Rule 1742 (Contracts). >>> >>> Repeal Rule 2450 (Pledges).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Do we need all 3?

On Thu, 2022-07-07 at 18:56 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 7/5/22 13:59, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > > > Repeal Rule 2618 (Promises). > > > > Repeal Rule 1742 (Contracts). > > > > Repeal Rule 2450 (Pledges). > > > They all serve different purposes and are

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Do we need all 3?

On 7/5/22 13:59, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > I don't think we do. Let's discuss some options. > > I submit the following proposal: > > { > Title: Option A > Adoption index: 2.2 > Author: secretsnail > Co-authors: > > Repeal Rule 2618 (Promises). > > } > > I submit the following

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Promise Fixes

On 3/14/2021 4:12 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > Title: You Can Only Stack Turtles So High > Adoption index: 2.2 I was concerned about this fix for a couple of reasons, but I was hoping the cfj would be resolved before discussing it further. -G.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Administrative Reforms

> eir's own office's Administrative Regulations. Administrative Regulations Still not quite there : ) eir's

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Moving Forward With Confidence

On Sunday, June 7, 2020 12:30:51 AM CDT Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > I can rephrase it if you prefer? I'm trying to change the social > conventions around motions of new confidence, but I could phrase it > differently if you'd prefer? I think it's bad form to tell people how they

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Moving Forward With Confidence

On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 10:27 PM Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > > I create the following proposal > Title: Thought Police > AI: 1.0 > If the proposal "No Confidence is No Insult" has passed, amend rule 2463 by > removing the last sentence. > Create a power 1 rule entitled "Really?" with the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:55 AM nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > Ok I think these are the newest and current versions of these proposals in the > pool, minus Vote Manipulation. Apologies if I make comments that are redundant > with discussion, the comments on these have gotten a bit sprawling.

Re: Discussion of Honor (was Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process)

On 6/4/2020 12:13 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 7:20 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On 6/3/2020 11:23 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: On 6/3/2020 11:00 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > A player SHALL

Re: Discussion of Honor (was Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process)

On 6/4/2020 12:13 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On the other hand, is it even a good idea to discourage > people from producing unpopular or inadvisable proposals? A proposal, is, > at the end of the day, an option, and can always be voted down. Exactly! So we're agreed that

Re: Discussion of Honor (was Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process)

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 3:13 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 7:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > On 6/3/2020 11:23 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM

Re: Discussion of Honor (was Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process)

On Thursday, June 4, 2020 2:13:33 PM CDT Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > It is in fair part my fault for using proposals rather than protos for > ideas. Ideally, a proposal should signify "this is ready for voting" and a > proto should signify "this is an idea that is ready for

Discussion of Honor (was Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process)

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 7:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/3/2020 11:23 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 6/3/2020 11:00 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process

Ok I think these are the newest and current versions of these proposals in the pool, minus Vote Manipulation. Apologies if I make comments that are redundant with discussion, the comments on these have gotten a bit sprawling. On Thursday, June 4, 2020 1:00:56 AM CDT Aris Merchant via

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process

> [ > As a side note, I've noticed recently there's a bit of divergence about > how people treat the importance of Notices of Honour. I've mostly thought > of NoHs as "expressing mild annoyance" rather than anything more serious > (though sometimes I mis-judge the tone in the justification). But

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process

On 6/4/2020 12:20 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: >> And besides, we already criminalize intent. We do that by making it illegal >> to intentionally lie to mislead. > > That doesn't help much, because that one was also in large part my fault. I like the reform direction R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process

On Thursday, 4 June 2020, 16:06:12 GMT+1, nch wrote: > I've noticed this dichotomy too. I was originally planning to award a victory > card to the person with highest honor every week but I got the impression some > people would be against gamifying honor so I backed down on it. Honour only

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process

On Thursday, June 4, 2020 9:18:52 AM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > [ > As a side note, I've noticed recently there's a bit of divergence about > how people treat the importance of Notices of Honour. I've mostly thought > of NoHs as "expressing mild annoyance" rather than anything

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process

On 6/4/2020 3:20 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:14 AM Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:24 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin via

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process

On 6/3/2020 11:23 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> On 6/3/2020 11:00 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: >>> A player SHALL NOT cast a ballot or induce another person to do so in a >>> way primarily intended to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:48 AM Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > > I create this proposal > > Title: This is not unlike defamation law > AI 1 > Chamber: Justice > Text: Amend rule 2471 "No Faking" so that it states > A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that (1) is a statement of pure >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 3:13 AM Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:24 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 6/3/2020 11:00 PM,

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 2:01 AM Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 9:19 PM Aris Merchant > wrote: > > Title: Properly Prioritized Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege > > Title: Referenda > I retract these proposals. > > I submit the following proposals. > > -Aris >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:14 AM Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:24 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 6/3/2020 11:00

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:24 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: > > > > > > On 6/3/2020 11:00 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > > A player SHALL NOT cast a ballot or

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process

On 6/3/2020 10:36 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 10:04 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> On 6/3/2020 9:19 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:03 PM Aris Merchant wrote: >> >>> proposal when resolving it. Players SHOULD NOT attempt to game

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process

On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 10:36 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 10:04 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > > > On 6/3/2020 9:19 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:03 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > > >> > > > > > proposal when

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process

On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 10:04 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 6/3/2020 9:19 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:03 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > >> > > > proposal when resolving it. Players SHOULD NOT attempt to game popularity. > > > > Can we

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 3:04 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/3/2020 9:19 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:03 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > >> > > > proposal when resolving it. Players SHOULD NOT attempt to

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process

On 6/3/2020 9:19 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:03 PM Aris Merchant wrote: >> > proposal when resolving it. Players SHOULD NOT attempt to game popularity. > Can we be a bit less moralistic about trying to game, well, a game?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process

On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:27 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:02 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business > wrote: > > > > I submit the following proposals. > > > > -Aris > > --- > > Title: Order-Independent Resolutions > > Adoption index: 1.0

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process

On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:24 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 6/3/2020 1:02 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > The player who proposed the proposal with the greatest F/A, as > > defined in rule 955, > > Can I just comment that I think our unofficial style guide

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process

On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:02 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > I submit the following proposals. > > -Aris > --- > Title: Order-Independent Resolutions > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: > > Amend the rule entitled "Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege" > by changing it

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process

On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:24 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/3/2020 1:02 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > The player who proposed the proposal with the greatest F/A, as > > defined in rule 955, > > Can I just comment that I

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process

On 6/3/2020 1:02 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > The player who proposed the proposal with the greatest F/A, as > defined in rule 955, Can I just comment that I think our unofficial style guide should avoid rules referring to other rules by number? (except maybe for one-off

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Onward with bodies of law

On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 22:18, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 11:50 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-business > wrote: > > > > Proposal: Temporary Suspension of Rules (AI=3) > > {{{ > > =Administrative Law Reform. II. Temporary Suspension of Rules= > > > > If no

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Onward with bodies of law

On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 11:50 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote: > > Proposal: Temporary Suspension of Rules (AI=3) > {{{ > =Administrative Law Reform. II. Temporary Suspension of Rules= > > If no proposal entitled "Statutory Instrumentation" has taken effect > in the previous month, this

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Onward with bodies of law

Alexis wrote: In this proposal, "I->S" is to amend a rule within the scope specified by replacing each instance of "an Instrument" with "a statute", and each other instance of "Instrument" with "statute". This is not a case-sensitive match, however, if the text being replaced has a leading

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Onward with bodies of law

On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 at 23:27, Tanner Swett via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020, 14:50 Alexis Hunt via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > [This first proposal is a reform to the core rules defining what rules > > are, with an aim to better supporting

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Onward with bodies of law

On Sat, Feb 29, 2020, 14:50 Alexis Hunt via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > [This first proposal is a reform to the core rules defining what rules > are, with an aim to better supporting subordinate legal documents. The > intent is to enact very little change to the game

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Chamber and Other Fixes

On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 03:50, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > --- > Title: Promotorial Assignment > Adoption index: 2.0 > Author: Aris > Co-author(s): > Chamber: Legislation > > Amend the rule entitled "Proposal Chambers" by adding the text > "If a proposal in the Proposal Pool has its

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions

Several comments: For the sake of consistency with the exiting ruleset, crimes should be in the opposite order. So "Auction announcers SHALL NOT fail to correctly ...; doing so constitutes the Class-9 Crime of Auction Obfuscation". I would appreciate it if you added "willfully". You can't

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions

I've been overly paranoid sometimes and used stuff like "I bid X coins and here's some tasty salt: F71FEC2C0685313F98D883EFFFC36F" On Tue, 3 Jul 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > It's weird, I can't imagine how I would pronounce "SHA". I suspect the cause > is just that I've only ever seen it

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions

It's weird, I can't imagine how I would pronounce "SHA". I suspect the cause is just that I've only ever seen it written down and never actually spoken about it, so I've never _needed_ to pronounce it, but it's actually quite disturbing not being able to sound it in my head like with other

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions

Obviously, it is ess-aych-ay-five-twelve. On Tue, Jul 3, 2018, 08:11 ATMunn wrote: > > On 7/1/2018 8:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: > >> Also > >> add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no > >> Announcer may ever bid on an

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions

On Tue, 3 Jul 2018, ATMunn wrote: > On 7/1/2018 8:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: > > > Also > > > add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no > > > Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing". > > > > This is a massive

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions

There are plenty of hashers online. You can just google "sha hash online" or something like that and there will be a bunch to choose from. Just put in the original text and they should spit out the hash at you, which you can then copy and paste. On 7/1/2018 8:15 PM, Rebecca wrote: I guess

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions

I'd stick to one defined thing such as the SHA hash. I get that just saying "reasonably verifiable method" allows people to be creative, but really what we need is not creativity, it's verifiability. (is that a word?) People can push the limits of "reasonably verifiable", which could become a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions

On 7/1/2018 8:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: Also add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing". This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to completely stay out

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions

I guess instead of SHA hash we could make it "reasonably verifiable method" which could include that or eg, posting a private youtube video of yourself bidding etc. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Rebecca wrote: > Burden of proof is with the bidder to prove it is wrong but criminal > penalty is

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions

Hmm, it's a problem. If you're worried that emails can't be proven, you have to be equally worried that a bidder may lie versus the announcer lying. If we get to the point that a bidder says "I sent you a bid" and the announcer says "no you didn't", where should the burden of proof be? (As

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions

I guess the announcer can't privately email anyone before the auction because they could clearly use such information. I would prefer a non SHA system though for reasons of agoran technical agnosticism/i don't know how to use technlogy. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Rebecca wrote: > very good

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions

very good call. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Oh, and on the flip side, better make it a crime for the announcer to > reveal bids to anyone before the auction is over! > > On Sun, 1 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: >> > Also >> > add

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions

Oh, and on the flip side, better make it a crime for the announcer to reveal bids to anyone before the auction is over! On Sun, 1 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: > > Also > > add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no > > Announcer may

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions

yes because it's the one case where lying is perfectly doable and intentional lying could almost never be distinguished by anyone. class 9 isn't even huge. it's one above intending to ratify without objection incorrect information. fair point on the first one. I would have simplicity reign and

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions

On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: > Also > add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no > Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing". This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: I destroy 20 notes and trade them for shinies. I create and pend with shinies the following two proposals. ITYM "bills". Greetings, Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

Which proposal exactly did you retract, anyway? Both of them? -Aris On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:13 AM, V.J Rada wrote: > I retract the above. > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 6:01 PM, V.J Rada wrote: >> I pend the following w/ AP (I have none left this week,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

i did retract. On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> On Sep 8, 2017, at 11:58 PM, Aris Merchant >> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:01 AM, V.J Rada wrote: >>> I pend the following w/ AP (I have

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

> On Sep 8, 2017, at 11:58 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:01 AM, V.J Rada wrote: >> I pend the following w/ AP (I have none left this week, having called >> a CFJ on my playerhood) >> Title: No messin' with

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:01 AM, V.J Rada wrote: > I pend the following w/ AP (I have none left this week, having called > a CFJ on my playerhood) > Title: No messin' with Stamps > AI: 1 > Amend rule 2498 "Economic Wins" by removing the sentence > "Players MAY, by announcement,

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On 2016-02-04 21:06, Henri Bouchard wrote: > current value plus N. N cannot be less than the credit balance of > the transferer before the transfer occurs. A player can conduct a Am I missing something, or should this be "N cannot be *more* than the credit balance..." -- Sprocklem

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Henri Bouchard wrote: > I submit the following proposals: > > -- > Proposal: Credits > Author: Henri > AI: 1 > > A Credit Transfer of N credits occurs when a player

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Nic Evans wrote: > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Henri Bouchard wrote: >> >> I submit the following proposals: >> >> -- >> Proposal: Credits >> Author:

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

First, a note: these proposals need to be reissued to require Credits v2 to be adopted instead. Also, is there anything preventing me from taking all of someone's credits for missing a minor deadline? > On Feb 3, 2016, at 1:39 PM, Henri Bouchard wrote: > >

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: with For this decision, the valid options are the players. Upon the resolution of this decision, its outcome, if a player, is installed into office, and the election ends. Violates R1006. Proposal: Clairty (AI=1)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 7:20 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: with For this decision, the valid options are the players. Upon the resolution of this decision, its outcome, if a player, is installed into office,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On Mon, 12 May 2014, Sean Hunt wrote: On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 7:20 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: with For this decision, the valid options are the players. Upon the resolution of this decision, its

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: The rules once said some Item could be Decreased by N. I found a scam way to have N come out negative (it wasn't lower bounded). So of course I tried to Decrease the Item by a negative amount and get lots of said Item

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 18:34 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote: Proposal: You deserve it (AI=1.5) {{{ Award to Fool the Patent Title Sociopath. }}} If elected, I promise more uncertainty, chaos, destruction, slaughter, blood Blood BLOOD ... erm. I mean, I accept this nomination. Thank you Sean.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On Mon, 12 May 2014, omd wrote: On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: The rules once said some Item could be Decreased by N. I found a scam way to have N come out negative (it wasn't lower bounded). So of course I tried to Decrease the Item by a

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:10 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: Amend Rule 2389 (Ordinary Chamber) to read: Voting Tokens are a class of assets tracked by the Assessor. Each Voting Token has an ID number and an Expiration Date, upon which it is automatically destroyed. How

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: How about a timer to expiration? Could use a timer, but not much point, since there is no reason for an expiration timer to pause. And I'm a fan of platonic destruction here. You mean pragmatic? I could change it

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:48 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: How about a timer to expiration? Could use a timer, but not much point, since there is no reason for an expiration timer to pause. More flexibility

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: More flexibility this way. What if we want to make the tokens created before the auction with paused timers, so that you know what you're bidding on beforehand? You do know what you're bidding on with this proposal.

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

Create a Power-2 Rule titled Auctions: Don't we already have an auction rule? Can we fix it or get rid of it? When in effect, unless a fine for that case has already been satisfied, the ninny SHALL pay a cost of that amount of currency to satisfy the fine

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: Create a Power-2 Rule titled Auctions: Don't we already have an auction rule? Can we fix it or get rid of it? It was repealed. When in effect, unless a fine for that case has already been satisfied, the ninny

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On 20/07/2013 3:30 PM, omd wrote: On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Foolfool1...@gmail.com wrote: Create a Power-2 Rule titled Auctions: Don't we already have an auction rule? Can we fix it or get rid of it? It was repealed. Just looked, R2393 is in the SLR posted 12 hours ago. Do we

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On 20 Jul 2013 19:10, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: Proposal: Infraction cases (AI=2, PF=25) FOR, but we should review the Classes of current crimes and upgrade a few SHALLs/SHALL NOTs to Crimes. If no one does so next week I'll look into it. Also, do we really need Classes of Crime? Could just

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Max Schutz maxschutz...@gmail.com wrote: i request clarification on ministry listen to the speaker and recycling please The wording is quite clear, in my opinion, so I'm not sure how I could offer clarification besides simply quoting the definitions of some of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

well in the case of recycling i am not sure what a parent title is nor am i sure of how a title in end of itself can be a handicap On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote: On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Max Schutz maxschutz...@gmail.com wrote: i request

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On Tue, 9 Apr 2013, Tanner Swett wrote: I submit a proposal, titled Recycling: Enact a rule, titled Recycling: Any person CAN, by announcement, Recycle a Patent Title e Bears, unless the Patent Title is a Handicap. When this happens, e CAN, by announcement, in the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On Tuesday, April 9, 2013, Max Schutz wrote: well in the case of recycling i am not sure what a parent title is nor am i sure of how a title in end of itself can be a handicap I suggest reading Rule 649, which defines Patent Titles. —Machiavelli

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

i request clarification on ministry listen to the speaker and recycling please On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote: I submit a proposal, titled Recycling: Enact a rule, titled Recycling: Any person CAN, by announcement, Recycle a Patent Title e

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On 25 September 2012 17:27, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: Proposal: Two-way Plutocracy (AI=2) Amend Rule 2375 (Plutocratic Chamber) by replacing: Any entity may spend a Ruble to increase an entity's voting limit on a Plutocratic Decision by 1. with: Any entity may

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, Arkady English wrote: On 25 September 2012 17:27, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: Proposal: Two-way Plutocracy (AI=2) Amend Rule 2375 (Plutocratic Chamber) by replacing: Any entity may spend a Ruble to increase an entity's voting limit on a

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.cawrote: Proposal: Richard Potato Boat (AI=1, Plutocratic) {{{ Enact a new rule reading: scshunt CAN, by announcement, cause this rule to perform a specified Rule Change. }}} -scshunt Too obvious. You can do

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Benjamin Schultz ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: Proposal: Richard Potato Boat (AI=1, Plutocratic) {{{ Enact a new rule reading: scshunt CAN, by announcement, cause this

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 4:58 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: Proposal: unrevive lame pun 1 (Plutocratic) { Repeal Rule 2376 (Props). } Proposal: unrevive lame pun 2 (Aerocratic) { Repeal Rule 2376 (Props). } These do the same thing.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On 08/13/2012 10:33 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: FKA441344 wrote: I submit a proposal with title {No Zero Length Reports}, adoption index 3, and text Create a new rule with title No News Is Some News and this text: If the rules define a report as including a list, then while that

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

FKA441344 wrote: I submit a proposal with title {No Zero Length Reports}, adoption index 3, and text Create a new rule with title No News Is Some News and this text: If the rules define a report as including a list, then while that list is empty, that report includes the fact

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

FKA441344 wrote: Adoption index is a switch possessed by Agoran decisions, whose value is either none (default) or an integral multiple of 0.1 from 1.0 to 99.9. AGAINST. This will result in some players (you know who you are) setting AI that high just because they can. Let

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On 10 April 2012 17:44, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: you know who you are :'(

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On 28 June 2011 20:11, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 2:05 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: Proposal: General costs (AI=3) Amend Rule 1607 (The Promotor) by replacing as a Spending Action with for a cost of 5 points. Why get rid of changing costs as a dependent

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

coppro wrote: The Promotor CAN distribute an Urgent Proposal as soon as possible, unless it ceases to be Urgent in the mean time. Failure to do so is the Class 1 Crime of Lack of Urgency. The Promotor CAN distribute an Urgent Proposal, and SHALL do so as soon as possible

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:47:02 -0700, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: coppro wrote: The Promotor CAN distribute an Urgent Proposal as soon as possible, unless it ceases to be Urgent in the mean time. Failure to do so is the Class 1 Crime of Lack of Urgency. The

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals 6834-41 are probably failing quorum due to succession weirdness

Geoffrey Spear wrote: If I haven't voted yet, I vote AGAINST each proposal from 6834-6841; without a recent referee's report I can't be bothered to figure out who's on my team, and I'm not voting FOR an interested proposal by a non-team-member as a protest against our Honored Speaker messing

  1   2   >