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

do we do literally anything other than semantic hair-splitting? we sure don't do any actual gameplay On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 4:37 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 7/6/2019 10:29 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> Ok, this is a ridiculous level of semantic hair-splitting even for > Agora, > >> sorry. > >

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

Agreed. Get Outlook for Android From: agora-discussion on behalf of Rebecca Sent: Sunday, July 7, 2019 11:26:15 AM To: Agora Nomic discussions (DF) Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette do we do literally anything

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8180-8187

On 7/7/2019 10:23 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: I deputise for Assessor to perform the following actions: Thanks for doing this! Couple things I noted: - in P8184 you use "accepted" instead of "adopted". - My voting strength is 4 due to being PM. - by my count, these proposals were distributed

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: July Zombie Auction

Sorry, I don't think Tarhalindur can do that, but you can do it yourself: " A zombie's master CAN flip that zombie's master switch to Agora by announcement." On Sun., Jul. 7, 2019, 06:23 Rebecca, wrote: > I act on behalf of Tarhalindur to flip eir master switch to Agora. > > I bid 2 coins. > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3751

On Sat., Jul. 6, 2019, 21:15 Kerim Aydin, wrote: > > On 7/5/2019 9:21 PM, James Cook wrote: > > On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 04:18, James Cook wrote: > >> I judge CFJ 3751 FALSE. > > > > However, I think the answer to the question Murphy was trying to ask > > is TRUE. The message in G.'s gratuitous

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8180-8187

[Intentionally NTTPF. This is a draft assessment of Proposals 8180-8187. I'm posting this to agora-discussion first so that (a) someone else can steal this if they want to be Assessor, and (b) to get any errors caught before this gets submitted. I recognize that Assessor is probably not the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal pool CoE

On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 07:02, Aris Merchant wrote: > You're right. I was waiting for the dust to settle before trying to > sort things out. Does the following look correct? > > Also, feel free to just withdraw "no power is all powerful" if you > want to; it would simplify things a bit in some

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd

On Sun, 7 Jul 2019 at 21:12, Aris Merchant wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 3:36 PM omd wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 7:52 AM James Cook wrote: > > > Withdraw Rule 2597 (Line-item Veto). > > > > Why that rule? It's only a few months old; there are a lot of other > > rules that are

DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Fixing base values of crimes

On Sun, 7 Jul 2019 at 10:53, Jason Cobb wrote: > I withdraw this proposal ("Sane crime base values, please") because it > conflicts with Falsifian's proposal, and I might want to find a way to > allow R. Lee to vote for it. > > Jason Cobb Sorry, I missed that. I haven't been closely following

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8180-8187

On 7/7/2019 12:09 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: - Is the voting strength of the ballot evaluated when the decision is resolved or when the voting period ended? (I operated under the assumption that you had strength 3 because you weren't PM when the voting period closed (or if you were, I have got my

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal pool CoE

On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 2:02 PM James Cook wrote: > > On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 07:02, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > You're right. I was waiting for the dust to settle before trying to > > sort things out. Does the following look correct? > > > > Also, feel free to just withdraw "no power is all

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8180-8187

On 7/7/2019 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: It's actually "evaluated continuously", in that it's whatever value it has when the actual voting is assessed. (the text is R955's "the voting strength is... the voting strength of the voter" which is whatever it is at a particular moment). Yes it

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd

On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 3:36 PM omd wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 7:52 AM James Cook wrote: > > Withdraw Rule 2597 (Line-item Veto). > > Why that rule? It's only a few months old; there are a lot of other > rules that are much more stale. It’s never been used, and IMO it’s more annoying

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd

Are you looking at Rule 2350 ("Proposals"), which is the only place I see that wording ("remove (syn. retract, withdraw)")? I was looking at Rule 105 ("Rule Changes"), which does not define "withdraw". Jason Cobb On 7/7/19 5:05 PM, James Cook wrote: The rule says "remove (syn. retract,

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8180-8187

I had no idea that Agora was so indecisive :). I honestly think I would prefer the last one - but it sounds like it might make the Assessor's life not super fun. Jason Cobb On 7/7/19 3:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 7/7/2019 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: It's actually "evaluated continuously",

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd

The rule says "remove (syn. retract, withdraw)". On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 15:54, Jason Cobb wrote: > > This may be a bit nit-picky, but I don't believe "withdraw" is defined > for rules, only "repeal". > > Jason Cobb > > On 7/6/19 10:52 AM, James Cook wrote: > > On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 14:38, James

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

On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 17:20, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On 7/6/2019 6:56 AM, James Cook wrote: > > On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 15:11, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> On 7/2/2019 6:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >>> [Quick! While it's still current!] > >>> > >>> Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) > >> > >> By