Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Fun fact

u have to pay. i would tell you how but nah can't be bothered.

Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Fun fact

And unfortunately, I don't think this CFJ is retractable so the two CFJs should be assigned to the same person. On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:58 PM, V.J Rada wrote: > CFJs can't be assigned to non-players, right? Only judged by them. So, > someone point a finger at ais. ais, give

Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Fun fact

CFJs can't be assigned to non-players, right? Only judged by them. So, someone point a finger at ais. ais, give CB's valid CFJ to someone else. That person, obviously non-players can't be speaker. On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:16 PM, grok (caleb vines) wrote: > > > On Aug 24,

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Fun fact

I replied to it just then, G. The theory is that Quazie has to and can appoint a speaker from within the set of winners. On two occasions (the recent tournament or my Apathy attempt) we might have all won. It might also have been the case that just CB and G are winners, or that CB and G won and

DIS: Re: BUS: Going through the motions (likely frivolous "scam")

I misremembered: I had everyone win by apathy. But here you go, G. The textual theory was based on the fact that the rules that make "without objection" actions have to wait 4 days actually says "with objections". If that worked, it's been fixed (I believe by Aris). If it didn't work, my Minor

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

On Fri, 2017-08-25 at 04:35 +0100, Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 20:02 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > I’ve added some annotations to each section of the online ruleset > > > > (agoranomic.org/ruleset ). They try to > > give a quick summary of each

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 20:02 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote: > I’ve added some annotations to each section of the online ruleset > (agoranomic.org/ruleset ). They try to > give a quick summary of each section, and mention which sections are > important to understand at

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: > I’ve added some annotations to each section of the online ruleset > (agoranomic.org/ruleset). > They try to give a quick summary of each section, and mention which sections > are important to > understand at the beginning. Thoughts? > Gaelan I

Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Fun fact

On Aug 24, 2017 10:15 PM, "Ørjan Johansen" wrote: On Fri, 25 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote: Luckily, your CFJ isn't valid; you can't call a CFJ nowadays without > paying for it. So it hasn't actually been called yet. Also luckily, we > still have some vestiges of the old

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

Incredibly useful. While the information contained in those descriptions can, of course, be gleaned from the rules themselves, they catch the eye and simplify the language in a way that promotes quick understanding. -K On Aug 24, 2017 9:02 PM, "Gaelan Steele" wrote: > I’ve

Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Fun fact

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote: Luckily, your CFJ isn't valid; you can't call a CFJ nowadays without paying for it. So it hasn't actually been called yet. Also luckily, we still have some vestiges of the old officer system in which officers had, in lieu of pay, a certain allowance for

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET I CoE this ruleset, on the basis that it includes Rule 2942, "Scam Reward". That rule was repealed: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28705.html . I would suggest

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

I’ve added some annotations to each section of the online ruleset (agoranomic.org/ruleset ). They try to give a quick summary of each section, and mention which sections are important to understand at the beginning. Thoughts? Gaelan > On Aug 24, 2017, at 7:21 PM,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 19:48 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > My personal opinion on this whole business is that we should get rid of > organizations (no one uses them), but shouldn't eliminate cards. I know the main reason I'm not using them more is that I'm finding it very hard to word Organization

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3555 assigned to grok

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 18:13 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > >> I CFJ on the following (using AP if I am a Player) and barring > >> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: > >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:20 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Fri, 25 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > Likewise, the fix for SHALLs is probably to make them only apply to > > officers, and have a neat list of all the relevant SHALLs in the rule > > defining the office. They

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Fun fact

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: > I CFJ: Cuddlebeam has a Platinum Ribbon. For crying out loud, for someone who wanted things "written down", you sure don't put a lot (read: *any*) effort into arguments. Maybe take an example from most other players? I recommend Dismissal on those

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Nic Evans wrote: > In that regard I agree having a separation between > 'Core' and 'Subsystems' in the rules would be nice. I made a few attempts, while rulekeepor, to try "core and subsystem" re-arrangements. The issue I kept running into was within each individual rule.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

That separation between "core" and "subsytems" would be extremely helpful. The sheer volume of information that makes up the current ruleset is not necessarily a problem, except for when someone is trying to sort through it and put together the pieces for the first time. I think that a main draw

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

On 08/24/17 20:15, Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 19:53 -0500, Nic Evans wrote: >> * We have too many subsystems. It's hard to admit because nearly all of >> them are neat and well designed, but it's just too much in one game at >> once. Do we need three different binding agreements

DIS: Fun fact

Assuming either PSSs announcement or my ratification worked, anyone can use Quazie's agency to appoint themselves speaker. If G's recent CFJ is correct and my ratification didn't work, Cuddle can still do so. -- >From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

I feel that I would rather get a Yellow Card than get Shiny fines since I currently lack a consistent way to earn Shiny. But I support the idea to get something going well, and sideline everything else until it needs to get addressed. I have a few ideas bouncing around, and maybe I should get

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Nic Evans wrote: > This is hard for me because I really want multilateral entities to exist > within an economy, but I do see the point here. At the very least we > should probably scale back the expenditure and bankruptcy mechanics. I > love them but they seem to be mostly

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 19:53 -0500, Nic Evans wrote: > * We have too many subsystems. It's hard to admit because nearly all of > them are neat and well designed, but it's just too much in one game at > once. Do we need three different binding agreements (agencies, pledges, > organizations)?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

On 08/23/17 22:46, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> On Aug 23, 2017, at 11:37 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: >> >> like playing I Want To Be The Guy > Steady on! > > Actually, I broadly agree with your overall thesis. Precedent and history are > _important_, and I think it’s worth

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: tournament results CFJs

On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 17:04 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > (Yet another reason why I'm not the greatest of Arbitors…) > > Well it's not like you're being paid... ;) Indeed. I'm getting more money from Tailor even though it's orders of magnitude easier.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: tournament results CFJs

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > (Yet another reason why I'm not the greatest of Arbitors…) Well it's not like you're being paid... ;)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Remarks and a few actions

At the moment I am planning to give my organization the ability to hold stamps, then give it to them because reasons. As for the other non-stamp related things, I agree that those are things I could do, but since since joining the game I have done none of them, I don't plan on changing that when

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: tournament results CFJs

You should recall them yes: I agree with your interpretation which is different to PSS's. Just add "by tournament" to those statements or w/e it is. On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 14:32 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> On Fri,

DIS: Re: BUS: tournament results CFJs

Notably relevant to the second CFJ is the incident in which I ratified everyone as winners after that date. If that worked, the second one would be FALSE. On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I CFJ on the following, barring Publius Scribonius

Re: DIS: all work and no pay?

On 08/24/17 15:46, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Does the Arbitor get paid at all for doing eir duties? > What about the Assessor? > For Assessor: "Resolving an Agoran Decision for the first time this week: 5 shinies." So only if there is something to resolve.

DIS: all work and no pay?

Does the Arbitor get paid at all for doing eir duties? What about the Assessor?

Re: DIS: "The Ruleset is our Joystick" Proto Proposal / Proto Proposal Competition

On 08/24/17 11:56, Cuddle Beam wrote: > I thought people were over that. I just think it's a poor blueprint to model yourself after, apt as it may be. > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Nic Evans > wrote: > > > > On 08/24/17 10:06, Cuddle

Re: DIS: "The Ruleset is our Joystick" Proto Proposal / Proto Proposal Competition

I thought people were over that. On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Nic Evans wrote: > > > On 08/24/17 10:06, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > I bring up Blognomic a lot tbh but I bring Agora up a lot in Blognomic > too. I strive to improve stuff for both via sharing stuff between them,

Re: DIS: "The Ruleset is our Joystick" Proto Proposal / Proto Proposal Competition

On 08/24/17 10:06, Cuddle Beam wrote: > I bring up Blognomic a lot tbh but I bring Agora up a lot in Blognomic > too. I strive to improve stuff for both via sharing stuff between > them, a bit like how tea was brought from China to Britain and become > super cool stuff in both places.

Re: DIS: "The Ruleset is our Joystick" Proto Proposal / Proto Proposal Competition

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > I bring up Blognomic a lot tbh but I bring Agora up a lot in Blognomic too. > I strive to improve stuff for both via sharing stuff between them, a bit > like how tea was brought from China to Britain and become super

Re: DIS: "The Ruleset is our Joystick" Proto Proposal / Proto Proposal Competition

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Yes, it's easy to find the archive but it's hellish to use. For example, > here: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3289 , there's a > reference to R105 and explains some > important parts about that version of it. > Imagine now that I

Re: DIS: "The Ruleset is our Joystick" Proto Proposal / Proto Proposal Competition

I bring up Blognomic a lot tbh but I bring Agora up a lot in Blognomic too. I strive to improve stuff for both via sharing stuff between them, a bit like how tea was brought from China to Britain and become super cool stuff in both places. Also, it's cool to know that a guide has been made

Re: DIS: "The Ruleset is our Joystick" Proto Proposal / Proto Proposal Competition

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: > However, turning into a dynastic nomic would be too much of a drastic change > I feel, > so I feel like a better solution would be to make "tradition" and "play > custom" EXPLICIT, if we want > to make it matter. Or at least, much more easily

Re: DIS: "The Ruleset is our Joystick" Proto Proposal / Proto Proposal Competition

Yes, it's easy to find the archive but it's hellish to use. For example, here: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3289 , there's a reference to R105 and explains some important parts about that version of it. Imagine now that I raise a CFJ that involves R105. How am I going to find

Re: DIS: "The Ruleset is our Joystick" Proto Proposal / Proto Proposal Competition

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Seeing how obscure basic features of the game can become to be for newcomers > (and current players), > to improve gameplay, I proto-propose the following competition: "The Ruleset > is our Joystick" We used to regularly update a FAQ that did this.

DIS: Re: BUS: tournament results CFJs

Addendum: Reading through Rule 2464 a few times, it looks like the tournament "concluded" for the purposes of that Rule exactly 4 weeks after it started (whether or not it had a winner at the time). Since "Once the tournament is concluded, these regulations cease to have any effect",

DIS: "The Ruleset is our Joystick" Proto Proposal / Proto Proposal Competition

Seeing how obscure basic features of the game can become to be for newcomers (and current players), to improve gameplay, I proto-propose the following competition: "The Ruleset is our Joystick" Our Ruleset is essentially the "joystick" to our game, because it lets you know how you can push and

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

However, I see that as fair because everyone had to go through that at some point. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Aug 24, 2017, at 12:54 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > In the end, Agora is an attention distribution machine. A

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

NttPF. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Aug 24, 2017, at 12:15 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > ...American Online? > > wut lol > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:11 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Thu, 24

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

I support these and would be happy to assist with implementation. Additionally, I would be interested in repealing agencies and replacing them with non-rule-based entities for some interesting CFJs. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Aug 23, 2017, at

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

Once K’s estate is processed, there will be money to pay you. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Aug 23, 2017, at 11:38 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > >> On Aug 23, 2017, at 11:32 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: >> >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

NttPF. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Aug 23, 2017, at 11:32 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > This has been a problem for me too, the game is very gerontocratic. Not rule > or rights-wise, but socially, in unwritten things. > >

DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

Not necessarily, because registration by announcement is time-limited, but there is no limit on other forms of registration. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Aug 23, 2017, at 11:08 PM, Kyle Anderson wrote: > > I hereby

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Moot (again)

Now, I believe o can resolve the intent and enter the judgment moot. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Aug 23, 2017, at 11:01 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Aris Merchant >

DIS: Re: BUS: Moot (plz support)

The CFJ has not yet been mooted. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Aug 23, 2017, at 10:58 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 02:54 +, Aris Merchant wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 7:53 PM Owen Jacobson

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

On Wed, 2017-08-23 at 23:06 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I'm not seeing how Organizations are any different though? > It cloaks things in "appropriate" changes of switches to different > text values, but that's just amending legal codes just the same...? It was meant to be a pragmatised but

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2017-08-23 at 22:34 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say something is > > "different" than contracts.  If it's a "supplementary legal code", it > > described a set of usages to follow.  If that's what