DIS: Re: BUS: zombie-related CFJ

Gratuitous Argument: Rule 2466 ("Acting on Behalf") is very clear in its function. When acting on behalf of another, the agent is still the one performing the action. It also explicitly disallows acting on behalf to send a message: "in particular, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another

DIS: Re: BUS: Sillyness

Why would the appointment not work? On 11/12/2017 4:27 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: I submit the following proposal as my silly proposal. I appoint Trigon to be next week's silly person. If the appointment of Trigon failed, I appoint ATMunn to be next week's silly person. -Aris --- Title: Sky

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Reportor] Agora Sky News vol 7

Sure, let me write up something quick. 天火狐 On 12 November 2017 at 21:44, VJ Rada wrote: > I'll take the job by designation if you want. > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Josh T > wrote: > > Oh that's a good idea, a contracted replacement.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract (Designating reportor)

However, I did note and comment against that clause when voting on Contracts, yes. If necessary, we should trim protected actions. On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 2:28 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > ...Yes, that was the CFJ I was thinking of haha. Relevant text is > "Rules to the contrary

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract (Designating reportor)

...Yes, that was the CFJ I was thinking of haha. Relevant text is "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a contract CANNOT compel, forbid, or in any significant way alter, tamper with, or modify the performance of a protected action", which I believe is rather ambiguous and should be read

DIS: Re: BUS: Contract (Designating reportor)

I become a party to the below contract (I may have a CFJ regarding it at some point, because it's me, of course). On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Josh T wrote: > Since I'll be busy and apparently was remiss in doing things in the > upstanding Agoran fashion, on

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract (Designating reportor)

I need to keep an eye out for the Occult Hand anyway so I will be checking my email so this is hopefully functionally equivalent. I did write everything in half an hour, so... 天火狐 On 12 November 2017 at 22:36, Josh T wrote: > This text may also be worthy of a CFJ. >

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3594 assigned to Telnaior

Better we dig it up now while it can still be fixed reasonably safely. On 2017-11-13 11:32, ATMunn wrote: *looks at this whole conversation* what have I done .-. On 11/12/2017 6:26 PM, Madeline wrote: Alternatively, since 1023 ("Agoran Time") specifies only when Agoran Months start, and

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Sillyness

Indeed. Well, not to worry, since this is the first time I've ever been the Silly Person. On 11/12/2017 6:31 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: Someone can't be the silly person if they were already silly in the last two weeks, or if they're not a player. I was being lazy, in a rush, and/or paranoid

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Sillyness

Someone can't be the silly person if they were already silly in the last two weeks, or if they're not a player. I was being lazy, in a rush, and/or paranoid (probably some combination of those). -Aris On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > Why would the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract (Designating reportor)

It definitely shouldn't permit outsourcing. I would not want to allow a contract that allows for someone to deregister a player, or to start a festival. However, the protection of official actions has probably outlived its usefulness. Proto (also fixes an unrelated typo): Title: Contract

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Reportor] Agora Sky News vol 7

Oh that's a good idea, a contracted replacement. Unfortunately, I don't see myself being less busy in the near future so an election is probably in order. Maybe in the new year? That's probably a bit too long given the pace the game is running recently. 天火狐 On 12 November 2017 at 12:27, Kerim

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Reportor] Agora Sky News vol 7

I'll take the job by designation if you want. On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Josh T wrote: > Oh that's a good idea, a contracted replacement. Unfortunately, I don't see > myself being less busy in the near future so an election is probably in > order. Maybe in the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract (Designating reportor)

Won't work, due to my excessive paranoia. See the list of protected actions, item 6. -Aris On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 7:21 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > I become a party to the below contract > (I may have a CFJ regarding it at some point, because it's me, of course). > > > On Mon, Nov

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3594 assigned to Telnaior

*looks at this whole conversation* what have I done .-. On 11/12/2017 6:26 PM, Madeline wrote: Alternatively, since 1023 ("Agoran Time") specifies only when Agoran Months start, and makes no claim about how long they last or even that we always be within one, Rule 2529 ("Medals of Honour")

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7965-7972

Wasn't that Proposal 7962 last week? -Aris On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 4:44 PM, ATMunn wrote: > CoE: I might be missing something, but I'm pretty sure I submitted the fix > for my Medals of Honour proposal. I don't see that here. > > On 11/12/2017 6:24 PM, Aris Merchant

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Reportor] Agora Sky News vol 7

Really we should put a word minimum on the newspaper; there were more activities going on this week and this seems very low-effort to me. I mean, if you can't even report your own Bard award to be "significant or interesting", that's just very limited. Do others have feelings on appropriate

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Reportor] Agora Sky News vol 7

I think the Reportor office is a bit too pragmatic in general. I think some fixing could be done. On 11/12/2017 12:21 PM, ATMunn wrote: I agree. I think e said e was going to be pretty busy for a month or two, but still. Also, the wrapping is messed up. On 11/12/2017 12:14 PM, Kerim Aydin

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Reportor] Agora Sky News vol 7

I agree. I think e said e was going to be pretty busy for a month or two, but still. Also, the wrapping is messed up. On 11/12/2017 12:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Really we should put a word minimum on the newspaper; there were more activities going on this week and this seems very low-effort

Re: DIS: Auctions v4

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > Any player CAN terminate an Auction, by announcement, if the Auction > has > not ended and the Auctioneer of that Auction cannot transfer any item > included in a lot in that Auction. Any in this

Re: DIS: Draft silly proposal

"The Registrar's monthly report includes: For each former player for which the information is reasonably available, the dates on which e registered and deregistered." Dates, but not reasons, no. On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > Is it

DIS: Promotor draft report

Here's my intermittent weekly draft. -Aris --- I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the quorum is 6.0 and the valid options are FOR and

Re: DIS: Auctions v4

My original intent with this was any one item, however I'm not sure what o intended. On 11/12/2017 3:37 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: Any player CAN terminate an Auction, by announcement, if the Auction has

Re: DIS: Auctions v4

On Thu, 9 Nov 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > Changes from v3: To add: "cancel all auctions in progress with no winner". Better to stop and re-start impending (I think??) Zombie auctions, on the new rules then to end up with a weird clash. To add: "If zombie auction rule exists then...

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Can we telegraph this any more clearly?

On Thu, 9 Nov 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > I do think we need to tighten up what it means to pay, and to > spend, Shinies. How’s this for a sketch: > > * Where the rules define an amount of an asset to be paid to a > recipient, any attempt to pay an amount other than the full > amount due

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Reportor] Agora Sky News vol 7

A week or two is fine, for anyone. But more than that e should step down, work out a contracted replacement, or we should just run an election. On Sun, 12 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote: > I agree. I think e said e was going to be pretty busy for a month or two, but > still. Also, the wrapping is

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7948-7953

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > 7950x G. 2.0 B! G. OP [2] > 7951* G. 1.0 Zombie Auctions G. OP [2] > 7952* G. 2.0 It LIVES G. 1 AP Ooh, I

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7948-7953

Dude, I didn't vote present on everything. I'm like 99 % sure of that. On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:00 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > BOO! FAILED BUT ZOMBIE AUCTIONS PASSED UGH. > > what even happens now. > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7948-7953

BOO! FAILED BUT ZOMBIE AUCTIONS PASSED UGH. what even happens now. On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > I resolve the decision(s) to adopt proposal(s) 7948-7953 below. > >

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

Given that there are now 2 day-court people and 5 weekenders, a seemingly bad ratio, whack me on the day court, please (it's not as if I don't call half of CFJs anyway rip). On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > >

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

I also wouldn't mind going onto the Day Court if you consider me suitable. On 2017-11-13 10:03, VJ Rada wrote: Given that there are now 2 day-court people and 5 weekenders, a seemingly bad ratio, whack me on the day court, please (it's not as if I don't call half of CFJs anyway rip). On Mon,

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

Will do and appreciated. (Night gets pretty much the same load as Day except when there's urgent cases, so it's not as uneven as it looks). And yeah - I've noted that your tendency to call a lot means there are fewer that I can assign you to! About half your light load to date is because

DIS: Re: BUS: Silly Parties

It is - Silly Proposals are Official Proposals, which are automatically pending. On 2017-11-13 10:05, Aris Merchant wrote: If "Backed Out the Door" is not pending, I pend it for 1 AP. -Aris On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 2:52 PM, VJ Rada wrote: PF On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

Of course! Also done. On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote: > I also wouldn't mind going onto the Day Court if you consider me suitable. > > > On 2017-11-13 10:03, VJ Rada wrote: > > Given that there are now 2 day-court people and 5 weekenders, a > > seemingly bad ratio, whack me on the day

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Silly Parties

There's a pending CFJ contending that it isn't silly, is the reason e did that. Obviously AP resets in 50 minutes so the conditional has no game impact, and it would be less uncertain to have it pending than not. On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Madeline wrote: > It is -

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Silly Parties

Yeah, but that's disputed and has been CFJed. This way I can't get in trouble for distributing a non-pending proposal. -Aris On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 3:09 PM Madeline wrote: > It is - Silly Proposals are Official Proposals, which are automatically > pending. > > > On

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Silly Parties

By the way, Aris, have you appointed a Silly Person for next week? Just fair notice that that's an obligation. On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:11 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > There's a pending CFJ contending that it isn't silly, is the reason e > did that. Obviously AP resets in 50

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7948-7953

Can you post the full text of what "Boo!" does? On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > Accepted. > > I resolve the decision(s) to adopt proposal(s) 7948-7953 below. > >

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3594 assigned to Telnaior

My instinct here is to say that this rule is attempting to claim that an Agoran Month is seven days long, and also that a player can declare emself eligible during an Agoran Month. The first claim is overridden by Rule 1023 ("Agoran Time"), while the second claim goes untouched - and as we are

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Silly Parties

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > By the way, Aris, have you appointed a Silly Person for next week? > Just fair notice that that's an obligation. Oh yes please do Aris. Rule unfortunately requires a week without a silly person if previous person doesn't name one (was mulling a fix for

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3594 assigned to Telnaior

This is actually pretty urgent to judge because if G. is eligible, that creates an obligation on the Herald that must (and CAN only) be satisfied today or tomorrow. Wheras if e isn't, nobody else is. Otherwise, no comment on the merits. On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Madeline

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Silly Parties

That's fair, yeah, I missed that. On 2017-11-13 10:11, Aris Merchant wrote: Yeah, but that's disputed and has been CFJed. This way I can't get in trouble for distributing a non-pending proposal. -Aris On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 3:09 PM Madeline wrote: It is - Silly

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3594 assigned to Telnaior

Alternatively, since 1023 ("Agoran Time") specifies only when Agoran Months start, and makes no claim about how long they last or even that we always be within one, Rule 2529 ("Medals of Honour") could be interpreted to clarify that an Agoran Month only lasts seven days, and the rest of the

DIS: Re: BUS: Sillyness

I don't think this creates a new rule: rather an endless obligation by proposal. And I'm not sure whether or not it requires a pillar being built in the *actual* sky. On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > I submit the following proposal as

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3594 assigned to Telnaior

That's just taken care of at least. The only other comment I have is that later in the same rule, it says "the first seven days of the month" and the second 7 days, and so the rule may be self-contradictory, in which case by R2240, the later clause beats the earlier clause (same net result).

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3594 assigned to Telnaior

This is definitely not true because we know that common meaning in higher powered rules actually overrides explicit definitions in lower powered rules (yes, this is weird, but it is true under 217 "Definitions in lower-powered Rules do not overrule common-sense interpretations or common

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3594 assigned to Telnaior

Okay, so that'll save us from being doomed to 7-day months at least (it might doom us to 14-day months, but that'd require a particularly circuitous explanation that would probably be in bad faith). On 2017-11-13 10:29, Kerim Aydin wrote: That's just taken care of at least. The only other

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3594 assigned to Telnaior

Also means that any use of Agoran time over power 2 is uh... maybe not entirely valid. Agoran epochs should maybe be power 3.9 or something. On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:37 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > I think we should be more cognizant of that particular clause in 217: > looking @ u

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3594 assigned to Telnaior

I think we should be more cognizant of that particular clause in 217: looking @ u "a 3.9 power proposal overrides all time, despite weeks existing at power 4". On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:35 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > This is definitely not true because we know that common meaning

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3594 assigned to Telnaior

I mean I'd hope it's not always exactly 30 days, but that's good to note as well. Definitely leaning more towards my initial assessment again now, that declaring oneself eligible is simply possible any time (but not particularly helpful if it's after the herald initiates the decision). On

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3594 assigned to Telnaior

I'd really love to see a ruleset ordered by power, so we can see if it still works at every step down the ladder. The intent I get from the precedent rules are that the power 4 rules should all stand without external support, then all the 4+3.9 rules, then all the 3-4 rules, etc. On

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3594 assigned to Telnaior

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > Also means that any use of Agoran time over power 2 is uh... maybe not > entirely valid. Agoran epochs should maybe be power 3.9 or something. > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:37 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > I think we should be more cognizant

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7965-7972

I vote ID Author(s) AI TitlePender Pend fee --- 7965* Trigon 3.0 One pronoun fix Trigon 1 AP FOR: Obviously nobody could conceivably object to this 7966*

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Medal of Honor Decision initiation

No, it doesn't iirc. Valid votes are fixed at the initiation, I'm 90% sure (not 100%). On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Telnaior wrote: > Oh yeah, I was wondering if it'd mean anything but we may as well find out: > > I declare myself eligible for a Medal of Honour. > > Does

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Medal of Honor Decision initiation

Hasn't the "Medal of Honour" fix passed? I don't want it to fail quorum though, you legitemately got no cards last month et cetera. And nobody else jumped in. You shouldn't be punished for that. On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Mon, 13 Nov

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3594 assigned to Telnaior

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 at 18:52 Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote: > > I'd really love to see a ruleset ordered by power, so we can see if it > still > > works at every step down the ladder. The intent I get from the precedent > rules > > are that the

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3594 assigned to Telnaior

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote: > I'd really love to see a ruleset ordered by power, so we can see if it still > works at every step down the ladder. The intent I get from the precedent rules > are that the power 4 rules should all stand without external support, then all > the 4+3.9 rules,

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7965-7972

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 at 18:50 VJ Rada wrote: > I vote > NttPF > > 7971* V.J. Rada, [4] 3.0 Cleanup Time V.J. Rada 2 sh. > FOR (Remember your pledge, Alexis) > Absolutely; the pledge is only valid if it passes, however.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Medal of Honor Decision initiation

In general, nothing prevents valid options from changing during the voting period. For example, in the previous version of elections (before we had a nomination period), the valid options were lists of players. If someone registered midway through an election, they could become valid (and

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3594 assigned to Telnaior

On 2017-11-13 10:54, Alexis Hunt wrote: On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 at 18:52 Kerim Aydin wrote: On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote: I'd really love to see a ruleset ordered by power, so we can see if it still works at every step down the ladder. The intent I get from the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Medal of Honor Decision initiation

I vividly remember resolving a PM election in favour of K, who deregistered midway through the voting period but still one: and I also remember reading the rules quite carefully to support that conclusion (which nobody disputed). That's the only precedent I can recall. On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7965-7972

"I pledge to transfer 5 shinies to the author of the first proposal that gives the Rulekeepor authority, under Cleanup Time, to additionally correct, at least: missing periods at the end of sentences, inconsistently spelled game terminology, and pronoun use (including inappropriate use of Spivak

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3594 assigned to Telnaior

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 at 18:56 Madeline wrote: > We have our current ordering for a reason - it's the easiest to read, > which is hard enough to handle sometimes with how the ruleset gets. > > I probably wouldn't want to have it ordered by power all the time (or > even as a