On Tue, 2013-12-31 at 20:28 -0500, Henri Bouchard wrote:
How about resetting the entire Agora ruleset?
I dislike full resets, and prefer gradual change. It's better to reset
it a bit at a time.
--
ais523
That would be a better idea.
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Tue, 2013-12-31 at 20:28 -0500, Henri Bouchard wrote:
How about resetting the entire Agora ruleset?
I dislike full resets, and prefer gradual change. It's better to reset
it a bit at a time.
I vote:
FOR Proposal 7611
FOR Proposal 7612
FOR Proposal 7613
-Henri
This does nothing to simplfiy actual game play. One of the charms
of Agora is its record, and this one is fairly self-sustaining, and one
of the big reasons for winning is to add names to the winner role.
The degree-awarding system itself is pretty messy though.
If you want to start true
On Wed, 2014-01-01 at 09:50 -0500, Henri Bouchard wrote:
Proposal: The Initiation of the Great Reset of Agora Nomic
Repeal the following rules:
Rule 649: Patent Titles
Rule 1367: Degrees
Rule 2231: Order of the Hero of Agora Nomic
Rule 2415: Badges
[This
On Wed, 1 Jan 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-01 at 09:50 -0500, Henri Bouchard wrote:
Proposal: The Initiation of the Great Reset of Agora Nomic
Repeal the following rules:
Rule 649: Patent Titles
Rule 1367: Degrees
Rule 2231: Order of the Hero of
Is the ruleset on the berkeley website not updated regularly?:
https://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~charles/agora/current_flr.txt
-Henri
On Wed, 1 Jan 2014, Henri Bouchard wrote:
Is the ruleset on the berkeley website not updated regularly?:
https://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~charles/agora/current_flr.txt
-Henri
It doesn't cover the most recent proposals. Current ruleset is here:
On Wed, 1 Jan 2014, Henri Bouchard wrote:
[This is the start of The Simplification]
Also, just a nitpick: this simplification started with
the recently-passed 'Low-Hanging Fruit', and is continuing with
the 'Just Not Rights' which you might want to take a look at...
and partially inspired
Ah, thank you. So from now on, I'll reference the rulesets that are
sent out in the emails.
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jan 2014, Henri Bouchard wrote:
Is the ruleset on the berkeley website not updated regularly?:
My apologies. We should all be thinking about this, which I bet most
of us are. We just need to face the problem openly, and the fastest
(and probably most risky) road to change would be to accept some
radical changes. Maybe we aren't taking enough risks?
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Kerim
Well, omd proposed a fairly radical reform in October. Proposal 7608
here:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2013-October/010556.html
It got a lot of good response, but failed because it (maybe!) was broken in a
very specific (and easily fixable) way which
On 01/01/2014 12:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
One version I had, that I liked, removed a huge amount of legalese (e.g.
edge cases). That might be a way to go...
Of course, a lot of that stuff is blocking known scams.
On 01/01/2014 12:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
One version I had, that I liked, removed a huge amount of legalese (e.g.
edge cases). That might be a way to go...
Of course, a lot of that stuff is blocking known scams.
Is the ruleset on the berkeley website not updated regularly?:
https://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~charles/agora/current_flr.txt
-Henri
It doesn't cover the most recent proposals. Current ruleset is here:
On Wed, 1 Jan 2014, Pavitra wrote:
On 01/01/2014 12:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
One version I had, that I liked, removed a huge amount of legalese (e.g.
edge cases). That might be a way to go...
Of course, a lot of that stuff is blocking known scams.
Well see, that's just it. A lot of
On Wed, 1 Jan 2014, Henri Bouchard wrote:
Is the ruleset on the berkeley website not updated regularly?:
https://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~charles/agora/current_flr.txt
That's woggle's website. The last updates in that directory are from Sep
13, the same day he resigned Rulekeepor because of
On Wed, 2014-01-01 at 13:59 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
For example, common sense committee procedure says you can't both support
and object to something at the same time. But because someone a while
ago probably CFJed on that, and a judge said well the Rules don't say
you can't, so you can,
On Wed, 2014-01-01 at 14:07 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Example:
MAIN TEXT
When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules,
takes precedence.
Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be
augmented by game custom, common sense,
On Wed, 1 Jan 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-01 at 13:59 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
For example, common sense committee procedure says you can't both support
and object to something at the same time. But because someone a while
ago probably CFJed on that, and a judge said well
On 2014-01-01 5:25 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-01 at 14:07 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Example:
MAIN TEXT
When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules,
takes precedence.
Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be
On Wed, 2014-01-01 at 14:40 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
See, I fundamentally disagree with this. I feel that we've more-or-less
tried to implement an email version of parliamentary voice vote (all in
favor?... opposed?... the ayes have it!) And in that context, supporting
and objecting have
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Except it isn't set up as a vote. For instance, things like withdrawing
objections are possible
You can withdraw votes too. Remember when dependent actions used to
be Agoran decisions? It matched up decently well except for
23 matches
Mail list logo
