Re: DIS: Judicial Reform

Yellow Cards & Red Cards should absolutely be switched, no question. Yellow Cards are so much stronger. On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > So I think: > > - I was thinking of bringing back rests/blots whatever the name, > - equity suits are a

Re: DIS: Judicial Reform

So I think: - I was thinking of bringing back rests/blots whatever the name, - equity suits are a fair-sized hassle, others may disagree, - I do not want to lose the current flexibility in judicial assignments, random is a pain to manage, - the referee is terribly designed, having fixed blots

Re: DIS: Judicial Reform

On Nov 4, 2017, at 1:13 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > Having one person run your criminal system certainly simplifies things Authoritarianism often does. Anyone who wants efficiency or simplicity out of government should be looked at with extreme suspicion. >

Re: DIS: Request to the Promotor re: ID numbers

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:43 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: >> In my work on the rules history, I discovered that around 1999, it was >> possible to adopt proposals outside the normal

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > Proposal: A Most Ingenious Paradox (AI=1.7) Do you want to pend this? -Aris

Re: DIS: Judicial Reform

We're not exactly doing anything wrong, but our current system is a bit underdeveloped. Our current system struggles with complex contract lawsuits (why did we feel the need to do what we did with pledges?), and is completely unable to handle civil/equity suits. The referee needs to award all

Re: DIS: Judicial Reform

I'd like to know what we're currently doing wrong that 2010-Agora was doing right? On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm getting tired of waiting for others to release judicial reform > proposals, and am considering writing my own. As a

DIS: Judicial Reform

I'm getting tired of waiting for others to release judicial reform proposals, and am considering writing my own. As a loyal member (am I the head?) of the "make Agora 2010 again" party, I suggest reenacting the judicial system here [1] . I'd probably simplify it somewhat, in particular removing

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Estate Auction Bid

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > On Nov 3, 2017, at 10:28 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:52 PM Aris Merchant > wrote: >> >> >> Finally an excuse to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Estate Auction Bid

> On Nov 3, 2017, at 10:28 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:52 PM Aris Merchant > > wrote: > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:11 PM Alex Smith

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Estate Auction Bid

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:52 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:11 PM Alex Smith > wrote: > >> On Sat, 2017-11-04 at 10:39 +1100, VJ Rada wrote: >> > It's already ILLEGAL to not pay it, and it certainly shouldn't be

Re: DIS: Shinies and Stamps Omnibus Fix Thread

>>> 2. I need to draft a proposal that, somehow, ratifies the results of all >>> shiny-related and stamp-related actions since July 30th, when nichdel >>> attempted to create the first stamp. This proposal also needs a catch-all >>> clause to cause it to ratify shiny actions taken after this

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Estate Auction Bid

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:11 PM Alex Smith wrote: > On Sat, 2017-11-04 at 10:39 +1100, VJ Rada wrote: > > It's already ILLEGAL to not pay it, and it certainly shouldn't be > > made IMPOSSIBLE to bid more than you have, because you could gain > > money later. > > In my

Re: DIS: Proto: CEO v2: Now with revamped estates

>Action Cost is a player switch, with possible values of triangular >numbers, and default value of 1. At the beginning of every month, >every player's Action Cost is set to 1. I’m concerned about the burden this places on the Registrar to track and report these values, especially as

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Estate Auction Bid

On Sat, 2017-11-04 at 10:39 +1100, VJ Rada wrote: > It's already ILLEGAL to not pay it, and it certainly shouldn't be > made IMPOSSIBLE to bid more than you have, because you could gain > money later. In my opinion, bidding on an auction should actually require paying the Shinies, but you should

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Estate Auction Bid

It was good until the word "copypasta." Maybe it could be a blockchain! On 11/3/2017 7:58 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: I suggest having the bids then work as a chain of copypasta where, when you add your build, you add your changes to the copypasta with all of the previous bids so that its

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Estate Auction Bid

> On Nov 3, 2017, at 7:58 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > I suggest having the bids then work as a chain of copypasta where, when you > add your build, you add your changes to the copypasta with all of the > previous bids so that its easier to figure out what's going on and

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Estate Auction Bid

when you add your bid* On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > I suggest having the bids then work as a chain of copypasta where, when > you add your build, you add your changes to the copypasta with all of the > previous bids so that its easier to figure out

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Estate Auction Bid

I suggest having the bids then work as a chain of copypasta where, when you add your build, you add your changes to the copypasta with all of the previous bids so that its easier to figure out what's going on and it's just not all buried under messages and withdrawals and loopiness. On Sat, Nov

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Estate Auction Bid

On 11/3/2017 7:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I think the only real solution is that, if the top bidder doesn't pay in time, e ceases to be the winner and the next highest-bidder wins (with a fairly stiff penalty to dissuade this sort of tactic). Of course that drags things out a fair amount. To

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Estate Auction Bid

I think the only real solution is that, if the top bidder doesn't pay in time, e ceases to be the winner and the next highest-bidder wins (with a fairly stiff penalty to dissuade this sort of tactic). Of course that drags things out a fair amount. To do this, you'd also have to allow bidding

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Estate Auction Bid

As I said before and will say again: Bids should be made secretly to the Surveyor, so that the right price is actually paid. And if the winner doesn't pay up, second place should be allowed to pay up (which e currently isn't) On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Cuddle Beam

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Estate Auction Bid

I knew of this move too, I just didn't think anyone would pull it lol. It's totally legal to bid amounts you don't have. On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 12:39 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > It's already ILLEGAL to not pay it, and it certainly shouldn't be made > IMPOSSIBLE to bid more than

DIS: Re: BUS: Estate Auction Bid

> On Nov 3, 2017, at 7:37 PM, ATMunn wrote: > > Oh, thanks for reminding me to disallow this in my auctions proposal! > > Quick side note: Should this be made ILLEGAL or IMPOSSIBLE? Can you prove that V.J Rada _won’t_ have 1,011 sh. by the time the auction is

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Estate Auction Bid

Maybe make it so you CAN bid whatever you want, but it doesn't do anything until you actually have that many shinies? On 11/3/2017 7:39 PM, VJ Rada wrote: It's already ILLEGAL to not pay it, and it certainly shouldn't be made IMPOSSIBLE to bid more than you have, because you could gain money

DIS: Re: BUS: Estate Auction Bid

It's already ILLEGAL to not pay it, and it certainly shouldn't be made IMPOSSIBLE to bid more than you have, because you could gain money later. On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:37 AM, ATMunn wrote: > Oh, thanks for reminding me to disallow this in my auctions proposal! > >

Re: DIS: Draft: [Proposal] Auctions v2

On Fri, 3 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote: > --- > Ohh, okay. That makes sense. I'll try to encorporate something like > that in. I still think it's probably a good idea to have a single > auction only be able to auction one type of

Re: DIS: Draft: [Proposal] Auctions v2

--- Ohh, okay. That makes sense. I'll try to encorporate something like that in. I still think it's probably a good idea to have a single auction only be able to auction one type of item. So you could say "I start an auction for

Re: DIS: Draft: [Proposal] Auctions v2

On Fri, 3 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote: > > > Once the auction has ended, the auction's announcer SHALL announce > > > the end of the auction in a timely fashion. In the same message, e > > > SHALL include the a list of all the bids on each lot, and the > > > winner of each lot. Afterwards,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I buy a Stamp, transferring 6 shinies to Agora to do so.

On Nov 3, 2017, at 6:37 PM, ATMunn wrote: > E is not a player, it seems, so I think it is. Oh, good point. -o signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I buy a Stamp, transferring 6 shinies to Agora to do so.

E is not a player, it seems, so I think it is. On 11/3/2017 6:33 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: On Nov 2, 2017, at 1:21 PM, Benjamin Schultz > wrote: On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 9:34 AM, ATMunn

DIS: Re: BUS: I buy a Stamp, transferring 6 shinies to Agora to do so.

> On Nov 2, 2017, at 1:21 PM, Benjamin Schultz > wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 9:34 AM, ATMunn > wrote: > Let's test the limits of how far subject line actions can go... > Feel free to CFJ. > >

Re: DIS: Draft: [Proposal] Auctions v2

On 11/3/2017 1:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Fri, 3 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote: The above statement notwithstanding, if a contract specifies that only its party members can bid on an auction, then players who are not parties of that contract CANNOT bid on the auction.

Re: DIS: Proto: CEO v2: Now with revamped estates

I like the overall idea. I will attempt to comment. -- Trigon On Nov 3, 2017 10:38 AM, "Nic Evans" wrote: title: Complete Economic Overhaul v2 ai: 2 author: nichdel co-authors: Alexis, PSS, ais523, o, aris [changelog: * the first draft of estates!! * s/Secretary/Treasuror *

Re: DIS: WILL we?

Yeah, I do like the idea. On 11/3/2017 1:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Fri, 3 Nov 2017, Nic Evans wrote: You need to clean up the MMI here. You have MAY without CAN, and SHALL without CAN, and CAN/SHALL without a mechanism. What do you think of the following MMI addition: 9. If a

Re: DIS: Proto: CEO v2: Now with revamped estates

On 11/03/17 12:45, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I said before I didn't have time to work on it, but the rest of your > system is clear and I like it - drastically decreases the reforms needed > to get land working so maybe I'll have a crack if you don't mind? > Go for it. signature.asc

Re: DIS: WILL we?

Nice idea. This phrase shows up way too much in the ruleset. -- Trigon On Nov 3, 2017 11:27 AM, "Kerim Aydin" wrote: > > > > On Fri, 3 Nov 2017, Nic Evans wrote: > > You need to clean up the MMI here. You have MAY without CAN, and SHALL > without CAN, and CAN/SHALL

Re: DIS: Proto: CEO v2: Now with revamped estates

On Fri, 3 Nov 2017, Nic Evans wrote: > On 11/03/17 12:11, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 3 Nov 2017, Nic Evans wrote: > >> Enact a new Power 1 rule titled "Estate Types and Assets" with the > >> following text: > > So, I'm not very keen on this part. I think that these add very little >

Re: DIS: Draft: [Proposal] Auctions v2

On Fri, 3 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote: > The above statement notwithstanding, if a contract specifies that > only its party members can bid on an auction, then players who are > not parties of that contract CANNOT bid on the auction. Players may > bid multiple times. The

Re: DIS: WILL we?

I can't wait for SHALL/WILL confusion. Not a bad idea though!. On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 at 13:27 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Fri, 3 Nov 2017, Nic Evans wrote: > > You need to clean up the MMI here. You have MAY without CAN, and SHALL > without CAN, and CAN/SHALL without a

Re: DIS: Proto: CEO v2: Now with revamped estates

On 11/03/17 12:11, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Fri, 3 Nov 2017, Nic Evans wrote: >> Enact a new Power 1 rule titled "Estate Types and Assets" with the >> following text: > So, I'm not very keen on this part. I think that these add very little > to Land and don't reform it to anything reasonable

DIS: WILL we?

On Fri, 3 Nov 2017, Nic Evans wrote: > You need to clean up the MMI here. You have MAY without CAN, and SHALL > without CAN, and CAN/SHALL without a mechanism.  What do you think of the following MMI addition: 9. If a Rule states that an entity WILL do something, it is equivalent

DIS: Draft: [Proposal] Auctions v2

The second draft is done! It's now split into multiple rules, is generally a lot easier to understand, and it's wrapped. I also abolished Agoran Auctions and Contractual Auctions and made there just be 1 type of auction, and allowed rules and contracts to auction whatever they want. I also

Re: DIS: Proto: CEO v2: Now with revamped estates

On Fri, 3 Nov 2017, Nic Evans wrote: > Enact a new Power 1 rule titled "Estate Types and Assets" with the > following text: So, I'm not very keen on this part. I think that these add very little to Land and don't reform it to anything reasonable based on giving folks things to buy. I'd

Re: DIS: Proto: CEO v2: Now with revamped estates

I'm liking the idea of this overall. The next draft of my auctions proposal should be done today, so it'll be easier for you to do that stamp auction thing. On 11/3/2017 12:38 PM, Nic Evans wrote: title: Complete Economic Overhaul v2 ai: 2 author: nichdel co-authors: Alexis, PSS, ais523, o,

Re: DIS: Proto: CEO v2: Now with revamped estates

On Fri, 3 Nov 2017, Nic Evans wrote: >    Action Cost is a player switch, with possible values of triangular >    numbers, and default value of 1. At the beginning of every month, >    every player's Action Cost is set to 1. If this accumulates monthly, this really needs to be tracked by

Re: DIS: Proto: CEO v2: Now with revamped estates

(Hopefully) fixed in the next version. I really need to make a proposal editing checklist and put 'ensure MMI compliance' as every other bullet. On 11/03/17 11:42, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 at 12:38 Nic Evans > wrote: > > title:

Re: DIS: Proto: CEO v2: Now with revamped estates

On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 at 12:38 Nic Evans wrote: > title: Complete Economic Overhaul v2 > ai: 2 > author: nichdel > co-authors: Alexis, PSS, ais523, o, aris > You need to clean up the MMI here. You have MAY without CAN, and SHALL without CAN, and CAN/SHALL without a mechanism.

DIS: Proto: CEO v2: Now with revamped estates

title: Complete Economic Overhaul v2 ai: 2 author: nichdel co-authors: Alexis, PSS, ais523, o, aris [changelog: * the first draft of estates!! * s/Secretary/Treasuror * a couple typos, including inanimate their * increase monthly pay from 50 to 100 (enough for 7 actions) * Housekeeping on

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

> > > 7941* Alexis 1.0 HTML Scrubbing Alexis 1 sh. > > AGAINST; Doesn't this include attachments? > I am not sure, but attachments are used so infrequently that it seems largely like a non-issue. It may not filter parts with content disposition of attachment.

Re: DIS: Proto-proto proposal

I think the last time this was asked about, G. said they started being used somewhere between 1993/4. So they have a long pedigree haha :). On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > Also, apparently the bad formatting is my fault; the plain text of my email > looks