Re: DIS: A Fearmongor's Halloween - braaains

lol yes! I support On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:29 AM, Nicholas Evans wrote: > I support. > > On Oct 25, 2017 9:04 PM, "Kerim Aydin" wrote: > >> >> >> [OK, you folks with your forced deregistrations by proposal are rushing >> me]. >> >> PLEASE withdraw

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

NttPF. I posted the intent to amend. I'm heading to bed though, so if I missed things let me know and I'll amend to fix it ASAP. 天火狐 On 26 October 2017 at 00:19, VJ Rada wrote: > I become a party to the Order. > > I will wager if you change the party/participant thing. > >

DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

this is cool as fuck On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Josh T wrote: > I give notice to amend the Order of the Occult Hand no earlier than > October 28th, 2017 in the following manner: > {{{ > In the body of the contract, replace the following text (A), in its >

DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

I become a party to the Order. I will wager if you change the party/participant thing. On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Nic Evans wrote: > I become a party of Order of the Occult Hand. I like the idea > tremendously but there's two qualms: > > * Party and participant are used

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

@ais: While in principle I don't disagree, I would like to see an implementation that addresses your concerns. Think of this implementation as a prototype for now. @Alexis: That would be a good idea, yes. If there are any other holes that would benefit from being patched up I would appreciate it

DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 at 23:46 Josh T wrote: > I create the following contract, titled "Order of the Occult Hand", by > paying Agora 1 Shiny: > Provided you adjust "any part" to require something more along the lines of a word or such, rather than a letter, I would

DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

On Wed, 2017-10-25 at 23:45 -0400, 天火狐 wrote: > I create the following contract, titled "Order of the Occult Hand", > by paying Agora 1 Shiny: This is the sort of contract that I believe should be given funding from Agora's central government (most likely that works towards a win rather than

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

On Thu, 2017-10-26 at 13:13 +1100, VJ Rada wrote: > Actually, I wonder whether or not we should just repeal the Public Forum > rule? Because there are so many references to Public Fora in the rules, as > well as Agora is a Nomic being a rule, it feels like the existence of the > current Public

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

On Wed, 2017-10-25 at 13:47 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > In fact, I'd be more inclined to say this *new* action (now being > unambiguous intent to play) is in fact the Registration message. I thought of that argument. However, is it unambiguous intent to *become* a player *now*? It's more an

Re: DIS: Proto: Complete Economic Overhaul

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 at 23:15 Nic Evans wrote: > The intended specialization is in the not-yet-included Estates sections. > Each player could have only one estate, and each estate would produce > either Pend Tickets or CFJ Tickets (probably with nicer names). Paying for >

Re: DIS: Proto: Complete Economic Overhaul

On 10/25/17 21:50, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > Amend 2445 'How to Pend a Proposal' by replacing the paragraphs > starting with 'a)' and 'b)' with: > >    a) by spending 1 Pending Ticket, OR > > How does one get a Pend Ticket?  > >    b) by paying eir Action Cost in shinies. Eir Action

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

Repealing the rule would probably leave us with a common-law definition of fora that is something like "A place that all Agorans have access to and is regularly used and understood by Agorans as a place game actions are sent to". Discussion fora are not so understood. Changing fora would simply

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > Actually, I wonder whether or not we should just repeal the Public Forum > rule? > Because there are so many references to Public Fora in the rules, as well as > Agora is a Nomic being a rule, it feels like the existence of the current > Public Fora as

Re: DIS: A Fearmongor's Halloween - braaains

I support. On Oct 25, 2017 9:04 PM, "Kerim Aydin" wrote: > > > [OK, you folks with your forced deregistrations by proposal are rushing > me]. > > PLEASE withdraw those deregistrations. This is a much better idea - Trust > me! > > > Draft Proposal, AI-2 (re-enactment for

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

Actually, I wonder whether or not we should just repeal the Public Forum rule? Because there are so many references to Public Fora in the rules, as well as Agora is a Nomic being a rule, it feels like the existence of the current Public Fora as Fora would still be implied. And having the whole

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

Yeah, if we had a significant amount of time and quorum for agoran consent, there would be no point in having it. It does feel odd that you would have to bribe less people to give you a title of your choice if you did it "non-traditionally", though. I mean, it's quite possible without doing

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

Deregistering the players wouldn't destroy Agora. As long as the public forum exists (now *that's* worth protecting), a person CAN still register when there's no players. This would allow the Assessor to resolve the proposal and register and be the only player in the game for the duration

DIS: A Fearmongor's Halloween - braaains

[OK, you folks with your forced deregistrations by proposal are rushing me]. PLEASE withdraw those deregistrations. This is a much better idea - Trust me! Draft Proposal, AI-2 (re-enactment for fearmongor): Re-enact the following Rule (I need to look up the Rule number): Master is a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Madeline wrote: > Isn't it? They seem to be the same in terms of the proportion of people you > need to get on side, it's hard to see how they aren't intended to be similar. > It seems kind of strange that it's easier to award a patent title by making an > AI1.5 proposal

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

Actually, I agree with you. It probably should be 1.5 Agoran Consent. Or 1.4 Consent. On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Madeline wrote: > Isn't it? They seem to be the same in terms of the proportion of people > you need to get on side, it's hard to see how they aren't

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

Is this intended to influence the destroying-the-universe CFJ? This is literally exactly the thing the arguments there were talking about. On 2017-10-26 12:45, ATMunn wrote: For fun, I create the below proposal: Title: Way More Controversial Version of the Above Author: ATMunn Co-Author(s):

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Weekly Report

Thanks. On 10/25/2017 7:16 PM, VJ Rada wrote: Done, I replied to them with "Attn ATMunn" On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:15 AM, ATMunn > wrote: Can you find the messages for those elections? On 10/25/2017 4:19 PM, VJ Rada wrote:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

I was tempted. On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 at 21:53 ATMunn wrote: > Ah. I retract the below proposal. I didn't pend it anyway, and obviously > nobody will vote for it. > > On 10/25/2017 9:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > Needs to be AI-3 to work. > > > > On Wed, 25 Oct

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

Ah. I retract the below proposal. I didn't pend it anyway, and obviously nobody will vote for it. On 10/25/2017 9:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Needs to be AI-3 to work. On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, ATMunn wrote: For fun, I create the below proposal: Title: Way More Controversial Version of the Above

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

Needs to be AI-3 to work. On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, ATMunn wrote: > For fun, I create the below proposal: > > Title: Way More Controversial Version of the Above > Author: ATMunn > Co-Author(s): Telnaior, V.J. Rada > > Deregister all currently registered players. >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Asset Auctions

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, ATMunn wrote: > I hadn't previously thought of including that in my proposal. It's a good > idea, however, so I'll probably add it. You can still post your draft, > though. I'm planning for it to go out in the next distribution so I will submit the proposal that assumes it

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 at 21:40 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > 2. Flipping Officeholder switches isn't secured anywhere > That's a good catch, worth fixing. > Is it? It's still regulated.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Telnaior wrote: > I create the following proposal and use an Action Point to flip its Imminence > switch to pending: I will vote against this because I have a better way to hide these bodies... heh heh... > 1. Rule 649 "Patent Titles" requests stronger consent for

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

Thanks for bringing that to my attention, however, it seems that initiation was NttPF. On 10/25/2017 7:14 PM, VJ Rada wrote: attn ATMunn: Here's me unilaterally initiating an election for an office I hold. Not actually sure if o. has ever become a candidate. Attn o: Probably should do that.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Asset Auctions

I hadn't previously thought of including that in my proposal. It's a good idea, however, so I'll probably add it. You can still post your draft, though. It might work as a temporary solution, as mine will probably still take a bit to finish and will also likely contain some problems (as I still

DIS: Proto: Complete Economic Overhaul

In the interest of collaborating with everyone else that is working on econ-related proposals, I'm posting the drafts of my Econ Overhaul as they get written. Here's the first one. Would love any feedback. # Shinies Amend 2483 'Economics' to read, in full:    Shinies (singular "shiny",

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3580 assigned to G.

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > I think I can miss a nap to provide arguments for what is likely the > most important CFJ in game history. :) Thanks. That was worth the read. I won't ruin the surprise, but safe to say that (I think!) my own ideas on this case won't lead you to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Weekly Report

Done, I replied to them with "Attn ATMunn" On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:15 AM, ATMunn wrote: > Can you find the messages for those elections? > > On 10/25/2017 4:19 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > >> And uh...obviously you should keep track of those, too. >> >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

Attn ATMunn: Here's o initiating a Surveyor election, nobody has stood against em. On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > On Oct 22, 2017, at 12:46 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > > > I intend, in between 2 and 14 days, to deputize for the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

attn ATMunn: Here's me unilaterally initiating an election for an office I hold. Not actually sure if o. has ever become a candidate. Attn o: Probably should do that. On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:49 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > I don't think you can do that any more. IIRC you need to

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3580 assigned to G.

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > >> Actually, given that this makes things more interesting... I SH-CFJ (or > >> AP-CFJ > >> if the action would otherwise

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Asset Auctions

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote: > On 10/25/17 17:47, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, ATMunn wrote: > >> I might not vote for this, as I'm working on a draft for a much more > >> in-depth Auctions proposal. Hopefully I'll post that draft soon, > >> however I haven't had much

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Asset Auctions

On 10/25/17 17:47, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, ATMunn wrote: >> I might not vote for this, as I'm working on a draft for a much more >> in-depth Auctions proposal. Hopefully I'll post that draft soon, >> however I haven't had much time to work on it recently. > Just as a warning,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

On 10/25/17 17:49, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote: >> I favor this case. > Given how many game facts playerhood drives are you able to turn this one > around pretty quickly (within 4 days)? If so I'll assign right away. > > Yes. I actually feel this is pretty

DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote: > I favor this case. Given how many game facts playerhood drives are you able to turn this one around pretty quickly (within 4 days)? If so I'll assign right away.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Asset Auctions

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, ATMunn wrote: > I might not vote for this, as I'm working on a draft for a much more > in-depth Auctions proposal. Hopefully I'll post that draft soon, > however I haven't had much time to work on it recently. Just as a warning, I need to know how auctions work for a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

I disfavour this case. On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 at 18:32 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think the key is a pattern of behaviour resembling consent. If ais523 > had not expressed a pattern of behaviour or engaged in the pattern of > behaviour from the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

I think the key is a pattern of behaviour resembling consent. If ais523 had not expressed a pattern of behaviour or engaged in the pattern of behaviour from the beginning, I would not accept it. On 10/25/2017 04:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > How long after the fact are you comfortable with

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Asset Auctions

On 10/25/17 17:20, ATMunn wrote: > I might not vote for this, as I'm working on a draft for a much more > in-depth Auctions proposal. Hopefully I'll post that draft soon, > however I haven't had much time to work on it recently. Considering the discussion in "Let's talk Economic Realities" I'm

DIS: Re: BUS: Asset Auctions

I might not vote for this, as I'm working on a draft for a much more in-depth Auctions proposal. Hopefully I'll post that draft soon, however I haven't had much time to work on it recently. On 10/25/2017 3:37 PM, Nic Evans wrote: I know there's some talk of wider Estate fixes, but this fixes

Re: DIS: Let's talk Economic Realities

On 10/25/17 16:30, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Secondarily, I'd like to remove actions that require knowing the whole > gamestate (of those currencies) perfectly and fluctuates on a weekly > basis: setting FV in particular. If "the value of everything" changes > with an officer's announcement and

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Weekly Report

Can you find the messages for those elections? On 10/25/2017 4:19 PM, VJ Rada wrote: And uh...obviously you should keep track of those, too. On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:19 AM, VJ Rada > wrote: Hey this isn't a CoE or asking you to publish a

Re: DIS: Let's talk Economic Realities

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote: > In fact, I think this is my vision of a major overhaul: I think converging to exactly the same page here :) "Collection of stamps" mechanics can work nicely as a supplement, we've done those sorts of systems before (Cards and Notes). We could borrow

Re: DIS: Let's talk Economic Realities

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote: > > To be clear, by "let it go" I mean: > > > > - Get rid of stamps. > > - Fix all prices to set levels. > > - Stop worrying about total shiny level, create however many needed. > > - Shinies become the "basic income augmented by officer salaries". > >

Re: DIS: Let's talk Economic Realities

In fact, I think this is my vision of a major overhaul: # The shiny part * Reduce the existing assets to their most basic definitions * Fix all prices to set levels, remove the supply limit, and remove Agora's shiny supply. Simply destroy shinies when they're used. * Insitute a basic shiny

Re: DIS: Questions for Trigon

I'm a bit busy today, but I should be able to make one in the next 24 hours. -- Trigon On Oct 25, 2017 2:50 PM, "Alexis Hunt" wrote: > On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 at 22:53 Reuben Staley > wrote: > >> I'll preface these questions with a story. Earlier this

Re: DIS: Questions for Trigon

On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 at 22:53 Reuben Staley wrote: > I'll preface these questions with a story. Earlier this year, I was > really into Nomic games, and I thought joining Agora would be fun. But, > the big wall of text that was the SLR frightened me and I decided to > stay

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

In fact, I'd be more inclined to say this *new* action (now being unambiguous intent to play) is in fact the Registration message. On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > How long after the fact are you comfortable with accepting evidence of > consent? (obviously this works for any future

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

How long after the fact are you comfortable with accepting evidence of consent? (obviously this works for any future ratification). What if OscarMeyr came back and said - you know back in May and that other CFJ - well actually I consent. On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

Re: DIS: Let's talk Economic Realities

On 10/25/17 14:44, Kerim Aydin wrote: > It doesn't work that way. When everyone's their own specialist, no one is. > Trading for the stamp win condition is up there with trust tokens as a > standalone and fairly useless activity, insufficient to support an economy. [...] > With respect, I

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

However, this action should still be taken into account. On 10/25/2017 04:22 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > This doesn't affect the actual CFJ I called (because, as we all know, > CFJs are judged on the facts of their calling) but THIS might be the > player-like action we need to ratify ais523 in. > > On

DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

This doesn't affect the actual CFJ I called (because, as we all know, CFJs are judged on the facts of their calling) but THIS might be the player-like action we need to ratify ais523 in. On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2017-10-25 at 02:14

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Weekly Report

And uh...obviously you should keep track of those, too. On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:19 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > Hey this isn't a CoE or asking you to publish a new report or anything > like that, but just noting that there's also a surveyor election with o. > the only nominee and

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Weekly Report

Hey this isn't a CoE or asking you to publish a new report or anything like that, but just noting that there's also a surveyor election with o. the only nominee and also a referee election with me trying to unseat o. On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:17 AM, ATMunn wrote: > On

Re: DIS: Let's talk Economic Realities

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote: > > There's nothing wrong with an "abstract stock market" game. But we > > shouldn't > > mistake it for a trading system. > > In a way, the fact that each person's stamps are different makes > everyone a fixed specialist. This was by design. Trading is

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Hon Our Not Ice

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > CB loses an honour for, by objecting to deregistrations, forcing other > players to > effectively become negative-karma-sinks.  I'm vastly amused by this emerging. Back in our ancient (2002-2005?) Karma system, "inactive" players were quickly

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

The "previously-a-player" isn't enough, OscarMeyr was the subject of CFJ 3456 and was a longtime player. Not sure what "player-like" actions you're referring to, non-players have also CFJ'd and commented while they clearly didn't intend to be players. The "observed eir own inclusion" without

Re: DIS: Let's talk Economic Realities

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 at 12:48 Kerim Aydin wrote: > Hi all, I wanted to share some observations on what makes Agoran > economies function, and where we're not quite there yet. These are just > observations from watching systems go by. > > - To get trading, you need

Re: DIS: Let's talk Economic Realities

One thing that would be interesting to try, but for a fixed period of time would be getting rid of officers and implementing IP restrictions to force people to specialize as officers. Then anyone who payed a certain fee for a license could act as an officer. Additionally, privatizing proposals and

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

The other thing to note is that he was previously a player and continued to take player-like actions. Additionally, he stated that he had observed his inclusion in the Registrar's report and had knowingly not CoEed. On 10/25/2017 10:47 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Publius

DIS: Re: BUS: Hon Our Not Ice

On 10/25/17 14:20, Nic Evans wrote: > This is a notice of honour. > > O gains 1 honour, for being the best at what e does. > PSS loses 1 honour for being a contrarian. > Oops, that was meant to be CB, not PSS. I'll fix it next week I guess. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

I should clarify: I'm not trying to do away with methods, informal or formal, that allow individuals to sell votes. I'm just saying that - in the specific context of a discussion on the economy - it will always be a limited, occasional activity and not something to scale trading economies

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

Indeed - whenever I see someone buy a vote, it's a signal to me to read that proposal extra, extra carefully to look for ulterior motives for it passing. On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote: > On 10/25/17 11:52, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > People don't spend to buy others' votes. They just don't.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

On 10/25/17 11:52, Kerim Aydin wrote: > People don't spend to buy others' votes. They just don't. I have > theories as to why, but while I've seen many many people set up contracts, > etc. to sell votes, over years of observed play they rarely make more > than a few shinies here and there.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

I mean, if someone thinks it is better for it to fail and it is in danger of passing, they can buy my vote to make it more likely to fail. We could start giving incentives for people to have the minority opinion when the vote is counted, but I can see how that could be objectionable. It's also a

Re: DIS: Let's talk Economic Realities

On 10/25/17 11:47, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Hi all, I wanted to share some observations on what makes Agoran > economies function, and where we're not quite there yet. These are just > observations from watching systems go by. > > - To get trading, you need SPECIALIZATION and DIVERSE GOODS.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Josh T wrote: > Given that I think VJ Rada is the only person who has purchased a vote in > the whole existence of me selling votes, I am inclined to agree. The issue is that - if the proposal is an actual idea (not a scam or win attempt), people (a) want it to win on its

DIS: Re: BUS: Actions

I might as well jump on the karma train too. The following is a notice of honour: ATMunn recieves 1 karma for being a fantastic active new player, and Ienpw III loses one karma for being inactive. -- Trigon On Oct 25, 2017 11:31 AM, "ATMunn" wrote: I claim a reward of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

Given that I think VJ Rada is the only person who has purchased a vote in the whole existence of me selling votes, I am inclined to agree. Real life tends to get in the way of me carefully considering proposals (that is, I fail to allocate time to the task due to the lack of free time) and I might

Re: DIS: Let's talk Economic Realities

I am working on a proposal and is expecting to proto it probably this weekend. It technically doesn't do any of those things, but I think it is a better starting point for interacting with the economy. 天火狐 On 25 October 2017 at 12:47, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Hi all,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > > That's fair enough, I was mainly thinking of ways like utilising > > contracts and offering wincon progress or selling your vote, and in > > general I feel like people don't really use what's there as much as > > we possibly could?  > > I completely

DIS: Let's talk Economic Realities

Hi all, I wanted to share some observations on what makes Agoran economies function, and where we're not quite there yet. These are just observations from watching systems go by. - To get trading, you need SPECIALIZATION and DIVERSE GOODS. For trading to work, you need the Cost of

Re: DIS: Land Reforms

On Tue, 24 Oct 2017, Reuben Staley wrote: > I'm onboard with this, but I have a few things I'd like to address. Very useful comments, thanks! I'll incorporate/respond to them when I've got a fuller draft.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Weekly Report

That's an issue with Thunderbird. It saves all your drafts and then gets confused and says you sent them all. You didn't. Everyone else just see what you actually hit the send button on. A way to circumvent this that only works if you don't care about potentially losing work you didn't save

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > Actually, when this came up, e made a statement that could have been > consent and I believe G. may have mentioned that he thought it could count. No - not after the fact. The situation that CFJ 3456 allows this to work is is if a

DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > On Oct 25, 2017, at 12:30 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > I cause Agora to make the following payments, which I believe can be > > uniquely decomposed into the individual payments required by “Passive > > Income”: > > > > * 8 sh.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

> I mean, there's currently a vote-buying pledge and a vote-buying contract but nobody's using either. I would like to mention that my vote-buying contract got destroyed when Contracts came into effect, and ATMunn's vote-buying pledge only applies to elections which have already been resolved.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

CoE: ais523 is not a player. On Wed, Oct 25, 2017, 00:30 Owen Jacobson, wrote: > I’m going to do this longhand, to make sure that I get it right. As I read > the rules, if any of the following is incorrect, only the affected > distributions fail. > > Per the rule titled

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Weekly Report

wait, did it? it might just be my client showing it twice... I don't even know anymore On 10/25/2017 9:31 AM, ATMunn wrote: what why did this get sent twice On 10/25/2017 9:16 AM, ATMunn wrote: CoE: I'm pretty sure I paid Alexis 2 shinies. Also, another question: I tried to buy a stamp

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Weekly Report

what why did this get sent twice On 10/25/2017 9:16 AM, ATMunn wrote: CoE: I'm pretty sure I paid Alexis 2 shinies. Also, another question: I tried to buy a stamp previously, however this did not show up here. I won't CoE it, however, because I don't know the action actually succeeded,

Re: DIS: [Promotor] Revised Draft

On 10/24/2017 10:25 PM, VJ Rada wrote: I found a typo. I'm sure this isn't your fault Aris, but attn ATMunn " In the 7 days of an Agoran month, any player CAN declare emself to be eligible for a Medal of Honour by announcement if all of the following are true:" This should say either

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

Not that it matters too much but I don't think you can bar someone a posteriori like that because "When a person initiates a Call for Judgment, e CAN optionally bar one person

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Weekly Report

Thank you, I missed that. On 10/25/2017 06:03 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > That's...what that document says. > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:02 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > wrote: > > CoE: The election for

DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

Actually, when this came up, e made a statement that could have been consent and I believe G. may have mentioned that he thought it could count. On 10/25/2017 03:18 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > By the way, I'm pretty sure that ais523 isn't a player? E was only > made a player by ratification, and CFJ

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

I am not trying to hoard shinies, but I also do not want to just collapse the economy, but if anyone has any interesting contract ideas or things the require shinies, email me and I will probably help out. On 10/25/2017 02:25 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> On Oct 25, 2017, at 1:51 AM, Madeline

Re: DIS: HLR inquiry

Yes, that is correct due to an error in the proposal. On 10/24/2017 10:36 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > Is it true that we have a rule whose title is “Campain Proposals, with power > 3” with power 1? Or is that a scrivener’s error? > > -o > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Weekly Report

That's...what that document says. On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:02 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > CoE: The election for rulekeepor is ongoing and I am interim. > > > On 10/24/2017 10:04 PM, ATMunn wrote: > > I accept all of the CoE's and publish

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Agoran Newspaper Repeal

> On Oct 24, 2017, at 10:40 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > Campaign Proposals are Official Proposals, so they don't need manual pending. Thanks. I read the rules on the subject and came away uncertain; pending both of my campaign proposals was cheap and reliable. -o

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

>That's fair enough, I was mainly thinking of ways like utilising contracts and offering wincon progress or selling your vote, and in general I feel like people don't really use what's there >as much as we possibly could? I completely concur with this. We've had/do have so many systems that would

Re: DIS: HLR inquiry

> On Oct 24, 2017, at 10:42 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-10-24 at 22:36 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> Is it true that we have a rule whose title is “Campain Proposals, >> with power 3” with power 1? Or is that a scrivener’s error? > > Assuming you fix the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

> On Oct 25, 2017, at 1:51 AM, Madeline wrote: > > I'm not the only one who feels like this is a horribly designed rule? For a > start, basic income is designed to overcome the cost of living, which in > Agora is 0. You could also argue its purpose is already fulfilled by