Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

Oh huh, I thought I had written "private direct channel of communication" and on double-checking I appeared to had not done that. Admittedly, that could still be ambiguous on the second point, so I should go clarify this. Anything amiss by saying "A private direct channel of communication, for the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, Josh T wrote: > Could you explain why you feel it necessary to define "private", is the > common > English definition not sufficient on some regard? It's a bit ambiguous in the common definition. - A "private" group could include more than 1 other person by common

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

Could you explain why you feel it necessary to define "private", is the common English definition not sufficient on some regard? I believe that it is beyond my ability to draft to adequately restrict such divulgences to the judicial cases where it is needed, since it might open up the avenue of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

I'm a bit wary of it. If my suggestion about requiring proposals to have some votes is implemented, the proposals will probably all be real proposals. If there are only a few more of them, than I'm just doing my regular job (not that I'd object to a proper pay raise). If the contract ends up

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

What do people think about giving some of the Pot to the Promotor? If so, what is a reasonable amount? 天火狐 On 28 October 2017 at 19:02, Alex Smith wrote: > On Sat, 2017-10-28 at 15:44 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > > I didn't consider that. They do have to bury it so

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

On Sat, 2017-10-28 at 15:44 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > I didn't consider that. They do have to bury it so people don't know > which proposal it is, don't they. Sigh. I'd argue that the best fix here is simply to increase the pend fee. Doubling it (to 2 AP or twice the current number of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

Sorry Aris! It's also worth considering that people don't have to do it in one week, so that might be a silver lining. 天火狐 On 28 October 2017 at 18:44, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I didn't consider that. They do have to bury it so people don't know > which

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

I didn't consider that. They do have to bury it so people don't know which proposal it is, don't they. Sigh. -Aris On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 3:42 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > Yeah, I'm predicting several proposals from every party, absolutely. So > it'll be a tough week for Aris in

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

Yeah, I'm predicting several proposals from every party, absolutely. So it'll be a tough week for Aris in that capacity. On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Sat, 2017-10-28 at 15:37 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > > I'm not Notary, just Promotor and

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

Oh. That makes sense. It's still probably going to be a bigger problem for o than me though. -Aris On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Sat, 2017-10-28 at 15:37 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: >> I'm not Notary, just Promotor and Regkeepor. I think you

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

On Sat, 2017-10-28 at 15:37 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > I'm not Notary, just Promotor and Regkeepor. I think you mean o. I > pay o 5 shinies to thank em for taking the job. The contract in question is hardly changing, but it strongly encourages players to write proposals. So the prediction is

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

For keeping track of contracts? Surely a little bit of bookkeeping is worth interesting gameplay. As far as I understand it, the Notary only has to keep track of who is party to the Occult Hand, the Treasurer needs to keep track of the Pot, and I have to do everything else. 天火狐 On 28 October

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

sneak in the word "subtle", they'll never see it coming On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Josh T wrote: > To put it in other words, "If you were assigning words/phrases that other > people have to sneak into proposals without arousing other people's > suspicion, what

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

To put it in other words, "If you were assigning words/phrases that other people have to sneak into proposals without arousing other people's suspicion, what do you think are reasonable choices?" The idea is that *I* have an idea of what I intend to assign as words/phrases, but this might not be

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

I'm not really sure what is meant by the first question. On 10/26/2017 9:34 PM, Josh T wrote: For the purposes to provide everyone involved with a fun game, I would like to ask those interested to partake in a voluntary anonymous survey so I have an idea of what people are expecting. I will

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

For the purposes to provide everyone involved with a fun game, I would like to ask those interested to partake in a voluntary anonymous survey so I have an idea of what people are expecting. I will probably be making word/phrase lists on Saturday after I resolve my intent to amend the contract so

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

NttPF. I posted the intent to amend. I'm heading to bed though, so if I missed things let me know and I'll amend to fix it ASAP. 天火狐 On 26 October 2017 at 00:19, VJ Rada wrote: > I become a party to the Order. > > I will wager if you change the party/participant thing. > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

@ais: While in principle I don't disagree, I would like to see an implementation that addresses your concerns. Think of this implementation as a prototype for now. @Alexis: That would be a good idea, yes. If there are any other holes that would benefit from being patched up I would appreciate it