Re: DIS: Re: Wards

There is a significant possibility that implementing that system would cause infinite exponential inflation. If we could control that, it sounds workable. -Aris On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:43 PM VJ Rada wrote: > Why do we not just have Agora just be infinitely rich and tie

Re: DIS: Re: Wards

Why do we not just have Agora just be infinitely rich and tie floating values on how much was spent (now meaning destroyed) in the last week? Higher floating value if more was spent, lower if less was. Or the other way around. I'm not a wizard. Whichever corresponds to the current system. On Tue,

Re: DIS: Re: Wards

The problem is that between the CFJ judgement rewards and Basic income, if say PSS went mad and called 90 CFJs, 90 of those shinies would be redistributed, and then 180 would eventually be given to the judges of those CFJs, if they claimed their rewards. With proposals also, given that most of

Re: DIS: Re: Wards

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > On Oct 31, 2017, at 1:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Um, ok, I was about to continue the thread after looking at the > > SLR, and I can't find (in most recent SLR) where the Floating > > Value is changed? Am I missing a

Re: DIS: Re: Wards

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:11 PM Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > On Oct 31, 2017, at 12:42 AM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, 31 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > >> Well, I'll agree about welcome packages. However, the report rates are >

Re: DIS: Re: Wards

On Oct 31, 2017, at 1:11 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > Other than mechanical issues, I’m starting to think that Passive Income might > actually work, and that if we can improve the reliability and durability of > those transactions, we might be able to reduce rewards slightly

Re: DIS: Re: Wards

> On Oct 31, 2017, at 1:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > Um, ok, I was about to continue the thread after looking at the > SLR, and I can't find (in most recent SLR) where the Floating > Value is changed? Am I missing a conceptual change that happened? I

Re: DIS: Re: Wards

Um, ok, I was about to continue the thread after looking at the SLR, and I can't find (in most recent SLR) where the Floating Value is changed? Am I missing a conceptual change that happened?

Re: DIS: Re: Wards

> On Oct 31, 2017, at 12:42 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Tue, 31 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: >> Well, I'll agree about welcome packages. However, the report rates are >> actually >> pretty reasonable. They do tend to accumulate for players with a lot of >>

Re: DIS: Re: Wards

I just suggested that welcome packages were double what they should be, yes. But basic officers should get ~50% above baseline activity for offices that are worth doing - that's where they are now. I agree - some offices aren't worth keeping around but start by pruning offices (and getting

Re: DIS: Re: Wards

There are like 20 reports. That's 400 bucks a month from Agora. Welcome packages are 50 a player. All Agora's revenue from CFJs and proposals is pretty much paid right back in rewards for judging and pending. And half of all revenue is taken and given to poor players. Agora has to be shelling out

Re: DIS: Re: Wards

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > Well, I'll agree about welcome packages. However, the report rates are > actually > pretty reasonable. They do tend to accumulate for players with a lot of > offices, > but for those (including me) with onky a few offices, they're actually pretty

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Treasuror] Passive Income

The once per payment thing is good by the way, because it stops Agora from piling up debt forever. -Aris On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 9:00 PM Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > On Oct 30, 2017, at 11:23 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > > > > If I pay agora all o' my shinies, will

Re: DIS: Re: Wards

Well, I'll agree about welcome packages. However, the report rates are actually pretty reasonable. They do tend to accumulate for players with a lot of offices, but for those (including me) with onky a few offices, they're actually pretty low. Also, I feel like your rate slider doesn't scale quite

Re: DIS: Re: Wards

> On Oct 31, 2017, at 12:09 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 at 00:02 Kerim Aydin > wrote: > On Tue, 31 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > > The wealthy people are wealthy _because_ of exorbitant report rates > >

Re: DIS: Re: Wards

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 at 00:02 Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Tue, 31 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > > The wealthy people are wealthy _because_ of exorbitant report rates > > and welcome packages. > > Well what the heck do you expect them to do with the funds - you can > only pend so

Re: DIS: Re: Wards

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > The wealthy people are wealthy _because_ of exorbitant report rates > and welcome packages. Well what the heck do you expect them to do with the funds - you can only pend so many proposals and its nuts to make them cheaper the more Agora needs money.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Treasuror] Passive Income

> On Oct 30, 2017, at 11:23 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > > If I pay agora all o' my shinies, will the actual payments go through? No, I only get to do it once per payment. If you like, though, I can give you a list of how those distributions _should_ have gone, and you can check

Re: DIS: Re: Wards

The wealthy people are wealthy _because_ of exorbitant report rates and welcome packages. On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > I disagree. We need to increase rates and institute a wealth tax. The > problem is those who aren't working but

DIS: Re: BUS: [Treasuror] Passive Income

If I pay agora all o' my shinies, will the actual payments go through? On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> On Oct 30, 2017, at 11:07 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> >> Wed, 25 Oct 2017 02:18:37 ? Aris paid Agora 1 sh. > > The players with the

Re: DIS: Re: Wards

I disagree. We need to increase rates and institute a wealth tax. The problem is those who aren't working but have money built up that they aren't using, not the working class Agorans who toil away preforming useful functions. The fact certain past Reportors have slacked off is no reason to

Re: DIS: Re: Wards

> On Oct 30, 2017, at 10:53 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > > How does Agora have no money? There were 32 proposals last week > > We really need to decrease reward amounts. Have hard jobs: Rulekeepor, > Treasuror be 5, all the way down to like reportor as 1. Distributions,

Re: DIS: Re: Wards

How does Agora have no money? There were 32 proposals last week We really need to decrease reward amounts. Have hard jobs: Rulekeepor, Treasuror be 5, all the way down to like reportor as 1. On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > The following rewards (at

DIS: Re: Wards

The following rewards (at least; I think I got ‘em all, but if I missed one, let me know) failed due to lack of funds: On Oct 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I claim a 5-shiny reward for my most-recent Arbitor weekly report. On Oct 30, 2017, at 5:32 PM, VJ

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Shiny Transfer

Worth noting this probably wouldn't have gone through after all? On 2017-10-30 20:37, VJ Rada wrote: (if it accepts shinies) On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Telnaior wrote: I transfer one shiny to the contract "Judicial Activism: the Contract". This leaves me with 48

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7931-7947

I just wanted to mention that for my Silly Proposal, I kind of was busy and I just wrote something which I wouldn't mind getting passed, but I'm not super attached to. If it passes, I am certainly capable of making it into a full mechanic, but honestly we've a lot of activity recently and we might

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's Try This Again

Because at AI 1 it will change one example of Agronomist to Surveyor, but not all of them. It will make the Surveyor track the farm rate. On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Madeline wrote: > So then who cares what the result is? :P > > > > On 2017-10-31 12:55, VJ Rada wrote: >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7931-7947

I actually just replied to the proposal that you did make. On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 1:01 PM, ATMunn wrote: > I did make a proposal fixing an issue with Emotions and one with Silliness, > but not Medals of Honour. > > > On 10/30/2017 9:32 PM, VJ Rada wrote: >> >> I surely

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's Try This Again

So then who cares what the result is? :P On 2017-10-31 12:55, VJ Rada wrote: You have, but my agronomist propoisal does not work, so I reccommend voting AGAINST it. On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Telnaior wrote: I vote: FOR 7931 FOR 7932 (this is way cooler than a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7931-7947

I did make a proposal fixing an issue with Emotions and one with Silliness, but not Medals of Honour. On 10/30/2017 9:32 PM, VJ Rada wrote: I surely remember you creating a new proposal with that fixed. Maybe I'm hallucinating. On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 12:31 PM, ATMunn

DIS: Re: BUS: Let's Try This Again

You have, but my agronomist propoisal does not work, so I reccommend voting AGAINST it. On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Telnaior wrote: > I vote: > > FOR 7931 > FOR 7932 (this is way cooler than a victory election) > FOR 7933 > AGAINST 7934 (why are we turning into a

Re: DIS: [Promotor] Revised Draft

Oh here's you fixing that typo once but not twice! Oh dear! On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:03 AM, ATMunn wrote: > 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

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7931-7947

I surely remember you creating a new proposal with that fixed. Maybe I'm hallucinating. On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 12:31 PM, ATMunn wrote: > On 10/30/2017 8:54 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> >> I vote as follows: >>> >>> 7932* ATMunn, [1]1.0 A Reward for Obedience v5

DIS: Re: BUS: Claiming Rewards

> On Oct 29, 2017, at 3:47 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: > > For each of the reports of the Registrar, Rulekeepor, or Assessor that I > have published today, if possible I claim a reward for their publication > of 5 shinies. For the record:

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: A Fearmongor's Halloween - braaains

> On Oct 29, 2017, at 3:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > This switch is of course the zombie's Boo Lien switch. BOooOoOooOoOo. Boo I say. Well played. -o signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Rulekeepor Election Agoran Decision

ATTN: Assessor On 10/30/2017 9:03 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: On Oct 28, 2017, at 10:42 AM, ATMunn wrote: As per my duties as ADoP, I hereby initiate the Agoran Decision to select the winner of the Rulekeepor election. For this decision, the vote collector is the

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7931-7947

>AGAINST. “In the 7 days of an Agoran month” is nonsense. With the obvious fix, >I’d likely vote for it: it’s a neat mechanic and ties in nicely with others. I think this has been fixed and distributed in a fixed way in the new distribution. You also missed about five proposals or so, the ones

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: JA;tC

Matched a-d, exceeded both a-b and a-o. This is absurd. I mean, I'm a big fan of activity (let's not repeat the Great Lull after the holidays), but have you seen how long my Promotor reports are getting? -Aris On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:04 PM VJ Rada wrote: > I already

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: JA;tC

I already resaid it, yep. Also just commemorating here that we somehow matched or exceeded last month's activity. This activity is stupid high right now. On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > NttPF. > > On 10/30/2017

DIS: Re: BUS: JA;tC

I support. On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > I intend to destroy JA:tC with 2 Agora Consent, on the basis that it has > been judged INEFFECTIVE. > > -Aris > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 4:58 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: JA;tC

NttPF. On 10/30/2017 08:01 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > I support. > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Aris Merchant > wrote: >> I intend to destroy JA:tC with 2 Agora Consent, on the basis that it has >> been judged INEFFECTIVE. >> >> -Aris >> >> On Mon, Oct 30,

DIS: Re: BUS: JA;tC

It literally does nothing as judged by CFJ and has been found to be destroyable by the notary. Come on. On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > I object. > > On 10/30/2017 04:14 PM, VJ Rada wrote: >> I'm sorry, I intend to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgments of CFJs 3587 & 3588

Okay, now it looks fine in your quote so I suppose I'll take it. Though then there's the line "Does the further provision of" which just cuts off for... some reason. On 2017-10-31 10:53, VJ Rada wrote: I actually see absolutely no difference between the start and the end. I mean, I'm using

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgments of CFJs 3587 & 3588

I actually see absolutely no difference between the start and the end. I mean, I'm using the "100% do not use this" gmail client so don't really take my view into consideration. On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Madeline wrote: > Is the formatting on this messed up towards

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgments of CFJs 3587 & 3588

Is the formatting on this messed up towards the end for anyone else? Not sure what happened there. On 2017-10-31 04:17, Alexis Hunt wrote: These cases revolve around the interpretation of the following contract: {  Any player may become a party to this contract by announcement. This

Re: DIS: Party Proclamation

The idea is that it wouldn't be a popularity contest. It would be more of an alliance/bribery/backstabbing/roleplaying kind of mini game. We would pretend we were actually all fanatically loyal to the Party, and accuse others of not being loyal. But there would also be an opportunity for contracts

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Regkeepor] ACORN

I don't think e ever resolved the intent. -Aris On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 6:29 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > Didn't o promulgate a regulation setting the weekly contract limit at 3? > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Aris Merchant > wrote: >> The

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Surveyor Election Campaign Proposal Distribution

I vote in favour of proposal 7954. On 10/30/2017 09:38 AM, ATMunn wrote: > Doing it correctly this time! > Note: If you've already voted, you'll have to vote again. > > As the nomination period of the Surveyor election is over, and there > was only one candidate, o, the election is uncontested. >

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report (revision 1)

I destroy each of my own pledges except for the one which begins "I pledge not to make thread titles". Obviously any pledges I have made since my intent are not destroyed. On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 8:54 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > I also intend to destroy o's Dawsburgen pledge without

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Surveyor Election Campaign Proposal Distribution

>(PRESENT is always a >valid vote, as are conditionals) ? Looks to me like they are mentioned. On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 2:47 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > This one still fails to mention conditionals, unfortunately. > > This is a Notice of Honour: > I lose a Karma for introducing

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

Oh huh, I thought I had written "private direct channel of communication" and on double-checking I appeared to had not done that. Admittedly, that could still be ambiguous on the second point, so I should go clarify this. Anything amiss by saying "A private direct channel of communication, for the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SLR CoEs

Honestly, I'm not sure about this at all, never have been. The first sentence of R2201 is the only one that mentions self-ratification in that rule. And it could be moved to the end of the rule, or another rule, without affecting the meaning. The rest of the rule reads, perfectly clearly,

DIS: Re: BUS: SLR CoEs

Technically no response is required for any of them. On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 at 14:32 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > [From the desk of the Fearmongor's rule-parser]. > > CoE: The latest published SLR by PSS is missing a rule number > for The Agoran Newspaper in the correct

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, Josh T wrote: > Could you explain why you feel it necessary to define "private", is the > common > English definition not sufficient on some regard? It's a bit ambiguous in the common definition. - A "private" group could include more than 1 other person by common

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

Could you explain why you feel it necessary to define "private", is the common English definition not sufficient on some regard? I believe that it is beyond my ability to draft to adequately restrict such divulgences to the judicial cases where it is needed, since it might open up the avenue of

Re: DIS: The Trigonian Short Logical Ruleset of 2017-10-29

It's not something to prevent; it's a consequence of the file format. See RFC 3676 if you're curious. On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 at 14:07 Reuben Staley wrote: > Is there any way I can prevent this in the future? > > Additionally, your other error stands. If I'm elected, I will

Re: DIS: The Trigonian Short Logical Ruleset of 2017-10-29

Is there any way I can prevent this in the future? Additionally, your other error stands. If I'm elected, I will make sure to include the revision in my SLRs. On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > Ahh, it's because it's format=flowed, and the raw view doesn't

Re: DIS: The Trigonian Short Logical Ruleset of 2017-10-29

Ahh, it's because it's format=flowed, and the raw view doesn't try to reformat it. That makes sense. On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 at 13:59 Reuben Staley wrote: > That's not just 2483. It's all of them, dependent on how you're > viewing it. Measure the left margin on whatever

Re: DIS: The Trigonian Short Logical Ruleset of 2017-10-29

That's not just 2483. It's all of them, dependent on how you're viewing it. Measure the left margin on whatever viewer you're using. It appears that some viewers replaced my 6-space margins with 7-space margins. I don't know why this happened or how to prevent it, but my raw text file has 6 spaces

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Agronomist Election Agoran Decision Initiation and Campaign Proposal Distribution

NttPF and also the wrong thread. On 10/30/2017 11:48 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 at 21:58 ATMunn > wrote: [that's a really long subject line, any ideas on how I could shorten it?] As per my duties as ADoP, I

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Surveyor Election Campaign Proposal Distribution

This one is the old one. I guess I shouldn't have made the new ones have the same subject line... On 10/30/2017 11:47 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: This one still fails to mention conditionals, unfortunately. This is a Notice of Honour:  I lose a Karma for introducing such a silly pedantic bug into

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of 7931-7953

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 at 03:03 VJ Rada wrote: > These votes are overridden if the contract JA:tC makes any of them > illegal. Any illegal vote is overridden by PRESENT, unless that is > also illegal, in which case I

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of 7931-7953

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 at 03:03 VJ Rada wrote: > These votes are overridden if the contract JA:tC makes any of them > illegal. Any illegal vote is overridden by PRESENT, unless that is > also illegal, in which case I do not vote. > I think this disclaimer either doesn't work at

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3586 Judgement

Hm, ok. I totally missed that typo. On 10/29/2017 11:06 PM, Telnaior wrote: The custom of "TTttPF" (This Time to the Public Forum) and its standards are laid out in CFJ 3523, which this case is very similar to. The precedent established there clearly states that the precise form of the phrase

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Shiny Transfer

Is it in the best interest of the game to have a constantly functioning uncertainty machine with no clear positive application? On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Madeline wrote: > Why wouldn't it? It has to in order to continue existing, and it's clearly > in the best interests

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Shiny Transfer

Why wouldn't it? It has to in order to continue existing, and it's clearly in the best interests of the game to have a contract that works for the best interests of the game continue existing. On 2017-10-30 20:37, VJ Rada wrote: (if it accepts shinies) On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 8:33 PM,

DIS: Re: BUS: Shiny Transfer

(if it accepts shinies) On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Telnaior wrote: > I transfer one shiny to the contract "Judicial Activism: the Contract". > > This leaves me with 48 shinies, and the contract 1. > -- >From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Party Proclamation

Most people seem to call it Town of Salem these days. *eyeroll* On 2017-10-30 18:05, VJ Rada wrote: You don't own me. Unless I uh... have an agency that I haven't abolished. And most people call it warewolf! Just going for the clear route! On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Madeline

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of 7931-7953

That will have to be CFJd. Which I am not averse to. The more JA;tC CFJs the better. Also, I have backup JA;tCs in case the real one gets invalidated. For example, one which specifically prohibits conduct thought by any judges judging CFJs related to this clause to be a bad idea. On Mon, Oct

Re: DIS: Party Proclamation

And we soon will have Badges of Honour as well. I don't want to come at the same thing from two different directions, one where we vote for a winner each month and one where we vote for heaps of losers. I prefer Badges because they aren't strictly a popularity contest. And it's rather clear who

Re: DIS: Party Proclamation

I don't mind but I feel like we already have Karma for a popularity mechanic On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Exactly. It will be fun! We can accuse people of not treating Agora right > good, or speaking against the party or whatever.

Re: DIS: Party Proclamation

Exactly. It will be fun! We can accuse people of not treating Agora right good, or speaking against the party or whatever. -Aris On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 12:06 AM VJ Rada wrote: > So you just want to vote people off the island reality TV style, > except you want us all to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of 7931-7953

On proposal 7946 you voted "AGANST" when in fact you probably meant "AGAINST" -- Trigon On Oct 30, 2017 1:07 AM, "VJ Rada" wrote: Please explaIn? On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > "AGANST" is not a valid vote :P > > -- >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of 7931-7953

Please explaIn? On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > "AGANST" is not a valid vote :P > > -- > Trigon > > On Oct 30, 2017 1:03 AM, "VJ Rada" wrote: > > These votes are overridden if the contract JA:tC makes any of them > illegal.

Re: DIS: Party Proclamation

So you just want to vote people off the island reality TV style, except you want us all to pretend to be Russians? On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > It's actually inspired by something G. said about a past mini game. I was > thinking

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of 7931-7953

"AGANST" is not a valid vote :P -- Trigon On Oct 30, 2017 1:03 AM, "VJ Rada" wrote: These votes are overridden if the contract JA:tC makes any of them illegal. Any illegal vote is overridden by PRESENT, unless that is also illegal, in which case I do not vote. 7931: FOR

Re: DIS: Party Proclamation

You don't own me. Unless I uh... have an agency that I haven't abolished. And most people call it warewolf! Just going for the clear route! On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Madeline wrote: > You call it werewolf? I'm disowning you. > > > On 2017-10-30 17:40, VJ Rada wrote:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

Alright, CB. Sign me up to your dating service. I'm pretty unethical. On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > You can subtract from me, but not from who I am enabling to game the system > in secret, mwahahaha! > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:15 AM, Telnaior

DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

You can subtract from me, but not from who I am enabling to game the system in secret, mwahahaha! On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:15 AM, Telnaior wrote: > This is a Notice of Honour. > I subtract a Karma from Cuddle Beam for attempting to game the karma > system. > I give a Karma

Re: DIS: Party Proclamation

I hereby proclaim that the illustrious response of the le Maximusest Excellente Cuddle of the Beams is: WHO SMELT IT DEALT IT On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Madeline wrote: > You call it werewolf? I'm disowning you. > > > On 2017-10-30 17:40, VJ Rada wrote: > >> So you

Re: DIS: Party Proclamation

You call it werewolf? I'm disowning you. On 2017-10-30 17:40, VJ Rada wrote: So you want to play warewolf? On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: OFFICIAL PARTY PROCLAMATION The Party has benevolently governed Agora for a long time,

Re: DIS: Party Proclamation

It's actually inspired by something G. said about a past mini game. I was thinking maybe there wouldn't even be actual traitors, just accusations of treason. I think that would make it the most interesting. -Aris On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 11:40 PM VJ Rada wrote: > So you want

Re: DIS: Party Proclamation

So you want to play warewolf? On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > OFFICIAL PARTY PROCLAMATION > > The Party has benevolently governed Agora for a long time, protecting the > interests of the players and the game. Recently, it has come to

DIS: Party Proclamation

OFFICIAL PARTY PROCLAMATION The Party has benevolently governed Agora for a long time, protecting the interests of the players and the game. Recently, it has come to the attention of Party leadership that some persons may be attempting to seditiously defy party authority. This cannot be