Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agora Weekly Advertisement Pledge
Good point. I forget how the pledge rules work; am I allowed to withdraw this pledge now? On 12/9/2018 8:44 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I believe it is not reasonably possible for you to know whether there is a person who meets these conditions, and if so, who it is, unless you have been keeping meticulous records of all previous transfers of coins to you. Does that mean the pledge is INEFFECTIVE? Or EFFECTIVE but impossible to violate? Or are you already violating it, or unable to avoid violating it on December 16? I have no idea. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, December 10, 2018 1:38 AM, ATMunn wrote: I pledge that if there is a person who meets all following conditions before 16 December 2018, I will place the text e wishes to advertise in the December 16 Agora Weekly newspaper. Conditions: -Is active -Has transferred a total number of coins to ATMunn that is at least 10 -Has transferred more coins to ATMunn than any other person -Has submitted a text that e wishes to advertise
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agora Weekly Advertisement Pledge
On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 01:44 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > I believe it is not reasonably possible for you to know whether there > is a person who meets these conditions, and if so, who it is, unless > you have been keeping meticulous records of all previous transfers of > coins to you. > > Does that mean the pledge is INEFFECTIVE? Or EFFECTIVE but impossible > to violate? Or are you already violating it, or unable to avoid > violating it on December 16? I have no idea. It's fairly easy to determine whether the /last/ condition holds, so some people would need to start submitting adverts to make the situation unclear. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Agora Weekly Advertisement Pledge
I believe it is not reasonably possible for you to know whether there is a person who meets these conditions, and if so, who it is, unless you have been keeping meticulous records of all previous transfers of coins to you. Does that mean the pledge is INEFFECTIVE? Or EFFECTIVE but impossible to violate? Or are you already violating it, or unable to avoid violating it on December 16? I have no idea. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, December 10, 2018 1:38 AM, ATMunn wrote: > I pledge that if there is a person who meets all following conditions > before 16 December 2018, I will place the text e wishes to advertise in > the December 16 Agora Weekly newspaper. > > Conditions: > -Is active > -Has transferred a total number of coins to ATMunn that is at least 10 > -Has transferred more coins to ATMunn than any other person > -Has submitted a text that e wishes to advertise
DIS: Agora Weekly: Volume I, Issue 01
(I meant to publish this on the 9th, but time got away from me. It's still Sunday in my timezone...) AGORA WEEKLY Volume I 10 December, 2018 No. 01 AGORANS DEVELOP NEW SPACE TECHNOLOGY Recently, Agora has started to look to a new frontier: space. For some reason, though, all people really seem to want to do is fight space battles. Several weeks ago, discussion began of how to construct spaceships, and of the new laws that would need to be enacted to prevent utter chaos. More recently, one Agoran in particular, twg, has taken it upon emself to further refine and develop the technology of spaceships. It seems that it may not be long before Agora 'can into space,' as some say. The technology is still only in a prototype stage at the moment, though. YOUR AD HERE Do you have something you want advertised? Something you want lots of Agorans to know about? Well, for the price of only 10 coins, you could have whatever you like placed right here in this paper. See the accompanying agora-business message for details. PROPOSAL RESULTS IDAuthor(s) Title Result 8133 Trigon Proposals aren't worth *that* much ADOPTED 8134 G. The judge switch ADOPTED 8135 twg, D. MargauxBlot Decay (Reprise) REJECTED 8136 V.J. Rada I hate myself REJECTED 8137 Aris, twg, Trigon Uncorrecting Rewards ADOPTED 8138 twgAccess to contracts' assetsREJECTED Data from Assessor's latest report. MASS VICTORY DENIED Due to the lack of inactivity earlier this week, D. Margaux announced an intent to declare victory by apathy. There was the twist that anyone who wanted could send a simple message and be included in the joint victory. The intent was objected to on Saturday, though. CURRENT OFFICES Office Holder[1] Since Last Election - ADoP Murphy 2018-01-182018-01-18 ArbitorD. Margaux 2018-10-202018-11-25 Assessor twg2018-07-192018-09-14 Distributoromd2018-06-15(never)[3] Herald G. 2018-09-212018-09-21 Prime Minister ATMunn 2018-10-302018-11-25 Promotor Aris 2016-10-212017-09-21 Refereetwg2018-11-012018-11-25 Registrar ATMunn 2018-11-142018-11-25 Rulekeepor Trigon 2018-10-142018-11-25 SpeakerD. Margaux 2018-10-282014-04-21 [3] Tailor twg2018-08-022018-09-14 Treasuror twg2018-06-242018-06-24 [1] * = Interim office (vacant or holder not elected) [2] Vacant since this date [3] Currently imposed Data from ADoP's latest report.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy
I also wanted to test whether my statement of “I’m apathetic” was made at the right time. It was in the same message as the intent, so was it simultaneous with the intention? Or was it stated between “now” and the execution of the intent, as required by the intent? > On Dec 9, 2018, at 7:40 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Yes, I guessed as much. Would have been interesting to CFJ. > > And if your attempt _hadn't_ succeeded, would Jacob Arduino's TTttPF have > counted? We may never know. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Monday, December 10, 2018 12:37 AM, Kerim Aydin >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Personally I was going to test (with that particular phrasing) whether >> merely quoting the original message counted. >> >>> On Sun, 9 Dec 2018, D. Margaux wrote: >>> >>> No, nothing specifically in mind about that. That’s just how my phone >>> renders quote marks for some reason. On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 7:19 PM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: Now that this has been defused: D. Margaux, did you have anything in mind about curved vs. straight quotes in mind with this? i.e., "I’m apathetic" working where "I'm apathetic" would not? -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, December 6, 2018 6:20 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > Very clever. I'm sure one of the long-timers will object to it just on > principle, but I’m apathetic, at least! :) > (NB This is not Faking: I am actually extremely tired and lacking in > motivation this evening.) > -twg > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Thursday, December 6, 2018 3:13 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> Things have been pretty quiet this week. Some might say apathetic. >> I intend without objection to declare apathy specifying all players >> who, between now and the time of declaration, have sent a public message >> that includes the phrase, “I’m apathetic.” > >> I’m apathetic. -- D. Margaux > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy
Yes, I guessed as much. Would have been interesting to CFJ. And if your attempt _hadn't_ succeeded, would Jacob Arduino's TTttPF have counted? We may never know. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, December 10, 2018 12:37 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Personally I was going to test (with that particular phrasing) whether > merely quoting the original message counted. > > On Sun, 9 Dec 2018, D. Margaux wrote: > > > No, nothing specifically in mind about that. That’s just how my phone > > renders quote marks for some reason. > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 7:19 PM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > > > > Now that this has been defused: D. Margaux, did you have anything in mind > > > about curved vs. straight quotes in mind with this? i.e., "I’m apathetic" > > > working where "I'm apathetic" would not? > > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > On Thursday, December 6, 2018 6:20 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Very clever. I'm sure one of the long-timers will object to it just on > > > > principle, but I’m apathetic, at least! :) > > > > (NB This is not Faking: I am actually extremely tired and lacking in > > > > motivation this evening.) > > > > -twg > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > On Thursday, December 6, 2018 3:13 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Things have been pretty quiet this week. Some might say apathetic. > > > > > I intend without objection to declare apathy specifying all players > > > > > who, between now and the time of declaration, have sent a public > > > > > message > > > > > that includes the phrase, “I’m apathetic.” > > > > > > > > > I’m apathetic. > > > > > > -- > > > D. Margaux
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy
Personally I was going to test (with that particular phrasing) whether merely quoting the original message counted. On Sun, 9 Dec 2018, D. Margaux wrote: > No, nothing specifically in mind about that. That’s just how my phone > renders quote marks for some reason. > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 7:19 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > Now that this has been defused: D. Margaux, did you have anything in mind > > about curved vs. straight quotes in mind with this? i.e., "I’m apathetic" > > working where "I'm apathetic" would not? > > > > -twg > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Thursday, December 6, 2018 6:20 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey > > wrote: > > > > > Very clever. I'm sure one of the long-timers will object to it just on > > principle, but I’m apathetic, at least! :) > > > > > > (NB This is not Faking: I am actually extremely tired and lacking in > > motivation this evening.) > > > > > > -twg > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > On Thursday, December 6, 2018 3:13 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > > > > > Things have been pretty quiet this week. Some might say apathetic. > > > > I intend without objection to declare apathy specifying all players > > who, between now and the time of declaration, have sent a public message > > that includes the phrase, “I’m apathetic.” > > > > I’m apathetic. > > > > > > -- > D. Margaux >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy
No, nothing specifically in mind about that. That’s just how my phone renders quote marks for some reason. On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 7:19 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Now that this has been defused: D. Margaux, did you have anything in mind > about curved vs. straight quotes in mind with this? i.e., "I’m apathetic" > working where "I'm apathetic" would not? > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Thursday, December 6, 2018 6:20 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey > wrote: > > > Very clever. I'm sure one of the long-timers will object to it just on > principle, but I’m apathetic, at least! :) > > > > (NB This is not Faking: I am actually extremely tired and lacking in > motivation this evening.) > > > > -twg > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Thursday, December 6, 2018 3:13 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > > Things have been pretty quiet this week. Some might say apathetic. > > > I intend without objection to declare apathy specifying all players > who, between now and the time of declaration, have sent a public message > that includes the phrase, “I’m apathetic.” > > > I’m apathetic. > > > -- D. Margaux
DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy
Now that this has been defused: D. Margaux, did you have anything in mind about curved vs. straight quotes in mind with this? i.e., "I’m apathetic" working where "I'm apathetic" would not? -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, December 6, 2018 6:20 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Very clever. I'm sure one of the long-timers will object to it just on > principle, but I’m apathetic, at least! :) > > (NB This is not Faking: I am actually extremely tired and lacking in > motivation this evening.) > > -twg > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Thursday, December 6, 2018 3:13 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Things have been pretty quiet this week. Some might say apathetic. > > I intend without objection to declare apathy specifying all players who, > > between now and the time of declaration, have sent a public message that > > includes the phrase, “I’m apathetic.” > > I’m apathetic.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset -- December 7
Has anyone pointed out this error yet: > * Having a Thesis pass peer-review and be granted a Degree based >on its merit: 20 shinies.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset -- December 7
On Sun, 9 Dec 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Sun, 9 Dec 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > What about something like this? > > > >* Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. For each office, > > this reward can only be claimed for the first weekly report > > published in a week and the first monthly report published in a > > month. > > That seems clear, although I have a nagging doubt about "what if there's > something severely wrong with the first one?" That sounds like the "when is a report so incomplete/out-of-date that it's not a report?" question that comes up from time to time, but is rare enough that it can be taken up on a case-by-case basis? (and I think there's a few precedents there). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset -- December 7
On Sun, 9 Dec 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: What about something like this? * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. For each office, this reward can only be claimed for the first weekly report published in a week and the first monthly report published in a month. That seems clear, although I have a nagging doubt about "what if there's something severely wrong with the first one?" Greetings, Ørjan. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, December 8, 2018 6:17 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Sat, 8 Dec 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Unfortunately I believe this fails, because you have already claimed a reward this week for publication of the SLR (even though the SLR you claimed the reward for was published last week). That sounds rather annoying - e basically cannot synchronize the rewards back without missing a report. * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. This reward can only be claimed once per office per week for a weekly report and once per office per month for a monthly report. Rephrasing the rule so that it clearly applies the "once per *" to the timing of the report rather than the claim is a bit awkward. The following is ambiguous between the current reading and the more flexible one: * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. This reward can only be claimed for one weekly report per office per week and for one monthly report per office per month. I think the following should work: * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. This reward can only be claimed for one weekly report per office published in a week and for one monthly report per office published in a month. Greetings, Ørjan. [Narrowly avoid quoting entire ruleset]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset -- December 7
What about something like this? * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. For each office, this reward can only be claimed for the first weekly report published in a week and the first monthly report published in a month. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, December 8, 2018 6:17 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Sat, 8 Dec 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > Unfortunately I believe this fails, because you have already claimed a > > reward this week for publication of the SLR (even though the SLR you > > claimed the reward for was published last week). > > That sounds rather annoying - e basically cannot synchronize the rewards > back without missing a report. > > * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. This reward can > only be claimed once per office per week for a weekly report and > once per office per month for a monthly report. > > Rephrasing the rule so that it clearly applies the "once per *" to the > timing of the report rather than the claim is a bit awkward. The > following is ambiguous between the current reading and the more flexible > one: > > * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. This reward can > only be claimed for one weekly report per office per week > and for one monthly report per office per month. > > I think the following should work: > > * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. This reward can > only be claimed for one weekly report per office published in a > week and for one monthly report per office published in a month. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. > > [Narrowly avoid quoting entire ruleset]
