oh I *totally* misread the transparent ribbon rule when I went
for it last and didn't see this subtlety. Nice one, and hopefully
I didn't mess up anyone's strategies.
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Yes, but if you don't already own the ribbon before earning it, there is a
>
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
it marginally more difficult to qualify for a transparent ribbon in the future.
You already have one, but ATMunn and Corona don't. (Nor does
Pending’s gone, so can you retract?
Gaelan
> On Oct 31, 2018, at 10:41 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> Right you are, Ørjan. I retract the two proposals I have most recently
> submitted and instead submit the following two:
>
> -
> Title: Only proposals should be distributed
> AI: 1
>
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
Retracting doesn't un-pend it, it removes it from the proposal pool. See
rule 2350, the last paragraph:
"The author of a proposal in the Proposal Pool CAN remove (syn. retract,
withdraw) it from the Pool by announcement."
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 00:17 Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Pending’s gone, so can
Actually, that's false. You don't have to award yourself five ribbons to
get Transparent, 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
Yes, but if you don't already own the ribbon before earning it, there is a
longer time period in which it counts towards the transparent ribbon.
For example:
Day 1 12:00: You earn a violet ribbon, but don't qualify for it because you
already have one. The earning of the violet ribbon begins to
It's cool that you want to vote again, but you unfortunately have voting
strength 0 since you have 3 or more blots.
On another note, you're a zombie so if you intend to seriously get back
into the game, you should probably flip your matter switch.
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 16:10 Rebecca wrote:
>
Hold up, were you even around when we had shinies? Are you just an Agoran
History nerd? This seems like a mistake only a person who joined before
your time cold have committed.
On Nov 1, 2018 10:30, "Timon Walshe-Grey" wrote:
I submit the following proposal:
When I wrote Paydays (I think I drafted that text), I purposefully wanted
Speaker to be a sinecure with a salary, as a perk for winning.
Aside: I really hate the lack of pending, and just plopping proposals in
the pool without review (including mine). Watching the proposals in the
last
On Thursday, November 1, 2018 2:01 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> (Remove this comment before publishing the report!)
Drat.
-twg
yeah but this isn't a scam just a self-own lol.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 9:22 AM Reuben Staley
wrote:
> You and Cuddles both have an unbelievable track record of ridiculous
> CFJs called because of your actions.
>
> On 11/01/2018 03:37 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> > I pledge that I am indeed a
Gratuitous:
There may be a meta-faking here.
Pledges are to perform or not perform actions, pledging that you are someone
or something isn't pledging an action (yes, "to be" is a verb, but I still
argue that a state of being isn't an action in this sense).
So this fails to make a pledge, so
Damn well in three weeks I'll see you again with voting strength lol.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 3:02 AM Reuben Staley
wrote:
> It's cool that you want to vote again, but you unfortunately have voting
> strength 0 since you have 3 or more blots.
>
> On another note, you're a zombie so if you intend
I'm not going to do it, but now I kind of want to intentionally break a
minor rule just to see what apology words I have to use.
On 11/1/2018 11:43 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
Nobody else having expressed interest, I deputise for the Referee to Impose the Cold Hand
of Justice by levying a
On 11/1/2018 4:05 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
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
I had wondered if that might be a problem. Don't know how exactly how to
fix it though.
On 10/31/2018 9:36 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, ATMunn wrote:
Imminent Sector is an singleton switch, tracked by the Spacekeepor,
defaulting to 1. Every time a player receives
You and Cuddles both have an unbelievable track record of ridiculous
CFJs called because of your actions.
On 11/01/2018 03:37 PM, Rebecca wrote:
I pledge that I am indeed a 26-year-old woman named Jenny Johnson.
The pledge I made above is true.
I point a finger at myself for oathbreaking and
Huh, I was sure I awarded myself one last night after seeing the post. I
guess I didn't.
On 11/1/2018 1:46 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Oh foo, I award a Violet ribbon to each of the below-indicated persons
who doesn't have one yet.
Notice of Honour
+1 twg (reminding us)
-1 Trigon (a little less
Is this really what you want?
Gaelan
> On Nov 1, 2018, at 3:37 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> 2. For each office, if a single player held that office for 16 or
> more days in the previous month and no unforgivable fines were
> levied on em for eir conduct in that office during
Once again, Ørjan is correct. I retract my most recently submitted
proposal and submit the following one:
-
Title: High-level asset verbs
AI: 3
Author: Trigon
Coauthors:
[ COMMENT: This terminology is ripped from the coins rule and applies to
all assets. I really like this one. ]
Amend
Purely accidental. I hit send too early, thought I had successfully prevented
it from actually sending, added the 3rd CFJ, sent it again, then saw I sent it
twice. So, sorry all.
> On Nov 1, 2018, at 8:11 PM, ATMunn wrote:
>
> Any reason why you sent this twice (once with the last CFJ and
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Is this really what you want?
Gaelan
On Nov 1, 2018, at 3:37 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
2. For each office, if a single player held that office for 16 or
more days in the previous month and no unforgivable fines were
levied on em for
On Fri, 2 Nov 2018, Rebecca wrote:
I expunge a blot from myself
Looking at the recent blot history, someone should remind Murphy e might
want to start doing this too.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 2:54 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
Date of this weekly report: 2018-11-01
Date
Any reason why you sent this twice (once with the last CFJ and one without)?
On 11/1/2018 6:01 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
On Oct 31, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
I CFJ: "Gaelan transferred a coin to me today."
This is CFJ 3678. I assign it to Murphy.
On Nov 1, 2018, at 5:45
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, ATMunn wrote:
I had wondered if that might be a problem. Don't know how exactly how to fix
it though.
You could move either the increment or the Section setting to the other
rule.
Incidentally, this would also imply that it now subtly matters in which
order Welcome
That really wasn't the point to take away from that message, but okay.
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 11:39 ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-11-01 at 11:37 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > Even simpler: players can submit proposals but a different person has
> > to
This one's a really good idea in principle: last time we tried it, someone
who believed in free proposals whipped up a "anyone can act on my behalf
to support creating/pending a proposal" contract. Not sure if it's worth
making exceptions to act-on-behalf for such things or if that becomes too
Proto: create proposals with 1 support. Supporter SHOULD check the proposal
against [list of common mistakes we keep somewhere]
Gaelan
> On Nov 1, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> When I wrote Paydays (I think I drafted that text), I purposefully wanted
> Speaker to be a
Even simpler: players can submit proposals but a different person has to
pend them, after checking for mistakes. Oh, and it has to be an active
player.
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 11:32 Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Proto: create proposals with 1 support. Supporter SHOULD check the
> proposal against [list
On Thu, 2018-11-01 at 11:37 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Even simpler: players can submit proposals but a different person has
> to pend them, after checking for mistakes. Oh, and it has to be an
> active player.
Given that pending isn't in the rules at the moment, the dependent
action version
31 matches
Mail list logo
