DIS: Re: Proto: Hypothetical Patch

If anyone sees any holes in this, it would be nice if they would point them out soon. I'm going to try to get some version of this into tomrorows distribution. -Aris On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 7:01 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Alright, this is a bit terrifying,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Leadership challenge

If you're circling back to the original subject with that comment, I'll maybe make a longer campaign statement around when voting starts up. On Sun, 25 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Jest aside I really am interested in knowing what he's going to do with the > position after the reforms lol >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Leadership challenge

Jest aside I really am interested in knowing what he's going to do with the position after the reforms lol On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 7:22 AM, Ned Strange wrote: > Oh yeah, you're absolutely right. I'm not all in on the "let's reform > pronouns" train. Just forgot. > > On

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8008-8015 (fwd)

Well he certain did "Break the Ice" with a new system :D On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 6:53 AM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > We congratulate you. H. Herald, I request that we come up with a patent > title for this, if there isn't one yet. It should be honorable,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Leadership challenge

Oh yeah, you're absolutely right. I'm not all in on the "let's reform pronouns" train. Just forgot. On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 5:05 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 9:57 PM Ned Strange > wrote: > >> This is a notice of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Leadership challenge

On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 9:57 PM Ned Strange wrote: > This is a notice of honour (i am indeed a player). > > +1 Aris because I feel like he's underappreciated tbh E's. Not that it was inaccurate, but I'm a reactionary conservative in Agoran matters. And thank you. :)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Leadership challenge

This is a notice of honour (i am indeed a player). +1 Aris because I feel like he's underappreciated tbh -1 CB because ya there's a time and a place for KKK jokes which is probs not here On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > This is a notice

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8008-8015 (fwd)

We congratulate you. H. Herald, I request that we come up with a patent title for this, if there isn't one yet. It should be honorable, because anyone who's messed something like this up was obviously doing important work to start with, or it wouldn't be a big problem. -Aris On Sat, Feb 24, 2018

DIS: Re: BUS: Leadership challenge

What will you do after that is done tho. Would you support turning the entire map into a single color? (It seems pretty efficient to do it so...) We should probably turn it all White (maybe call it the Kourageous Konversion Kommitment) On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 4:57 AM, Kerim Aydin

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8008-8015 (fwd)

Can we all just appreciate one thing though: this is the first time I've broken the game. El 24 feb. 2018 20:49, "Aris Merchant" escribió: > On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 7:45 PM Ned Strange > wrote: > > > Can someone catch me up on how

DIS: Re: BUS: Leadership challenge

On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 7:48 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I intend to initiate an election for Prime Minister with 2 support. > > > Presumably because e failed to "ensure Agoran affairs proceed smoothly"? I don't support. I also don't object. Let's see where this goes.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8008-8015 (fwd)

On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 7:45 PM Ned Strange wrote: > Can someone catch me up on how the game is platonically broken this time? > > On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > Make a contract duplicating gameplay, and a proposal

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8008-8015 (fwd)

Can someone catch me up on how the game is platonically broken this time? On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Make a contract duplicating gameplay, and a proposal that copies the > state over whenever it happens to pass. It could then have a few folks >

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8008-8015 (fwd)

Make a contract duplicating gameplay, and a proposal that copies the state over whenever it happens to pass. It could then have a few folks vote against it without issue. On Sun, 25 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 at 21:12 Cuddle Beam wrote: > > > >

DIS: Change of email Address

Yo guys, it's me V.J. Rada, I'm changing my email that I use to this game to this one because it's my regular email and I actually check it. Thanks.

Re: DIS: Proto: Hypothetical Patch

Isn't papering over it precisely a way to deal with the mistakes? :P I get what you mean though. I personally don't want to deal with the loopy errors mainly because of my current limited time budget to study the rules to be able to play in the glitch-verse at all (I do find it super fun though,

Re: DIS: Proto: Hypothetical Patch

Ah, missed the definition. That's scary. I'd prefer we just play with the ruleset as is and pick up the pieces. On Sat, Feb 24, 2018, 22:13 Aris Merchant, < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 7:09 PM Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > On Sat, 24 Feb

Re: DIS: Proto: Hypothetical Patch

On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 7:09 PM Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 at 22:02 Aris Merchant < > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Set the gamestate to whatever it would now be if, in the infinitesimal > > period between the resolution of Proposal 8014 and

Re: DIS: Proto: Hypothetical Patch

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 at 22:02 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Set the gamestate to whatever it would now be if, in the infinitesimal > period between the resolution of Proposal 8014 and the resolution of > Proposal 8015, the gamestate had been set to whatever it would

DIS: Proto: Hypothetical Patch

Alright, this is a bit terrifying, but it's reasonably clean, and should catch all of the problems brought up so far, as well as any others of the same class. It involves a large amount of dark magic unfortunately, including a nested hypothetical (hence the title), but it's better than the

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8008-8015 (fwd)

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 at 21:12 Cuddle Beam wrote: > > just sweep it under the rug > > I disagree with that a lot, but we can just play as if it wasn't a deal and > then propose to have our pretending to become what shapes the gamestate + > corrections. > Personally I'll

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8008-8015 (fwd)

> just sweep it under the rug I disagree with that a lot, but we can just play as if it wasn't a deal and then propose to have our pretending to become what shapes the gamestate + corrections. On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 2:42 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: > If we need to make

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8008-8015 (fwd)

Please do. You're apparently quite good at this. -Ais On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 6:03 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Sun, 25 Feb 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > Okay, first off, I favor the CFJs that are inevitably about to start > > materializing regarding these changes. > >

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8008-8015 (fwd)

*intense stare full of disapproval directed at Ørjan* El 24 feb. 2018 19:03, "Ørjan Johansen" escribió: On Sun, 25 Feb 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: Okay, first off, I favor the CFJs that are inevitably about to start > materializing regarding these changes. > I might

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8008-8015 (fwd)

On Sun, 25 Feb 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: Okay, first off, I favor the CFJs that are inevitably about to start materializing regarding these changes. I might ominously mention that I haven't read all of the proposal. I'm not as fond of reading large amounts of technical text as I used to be.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8008-8015 (fwd)

Sorry, I set my phone's language to Spanish the other day and I never turned it back. El 24 feb. 2018 18:44, "Aris Merchant" escribió: > El...escribió? Anyway, this happens with everyone's first major proposal. > > -Aris > > On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 5:42 PM

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8008-8015 (fwd)

Okay, first off, I favor the CFJs that are inevitably about to start materializing regarding these changes. -Aris On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 5:43 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > El...escribió? Anyway, this happens with everyone's first major proposal. > > -Aris > >

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8008-8015 (fwd)

El...escribió? Anyway, this happens with everyone's first major proposal. -Aris On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 5:42 PM Reuben Staley wrote: > If we need to make a fix proposal someone else should do it because > apparently everything I write has some kind of technical flaw

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8008-8015 (fwd)

If we need to make a fix proposal someone else should do it because apparently everything I write has some kind of technical flaw that causes everything to not work and also doesn't get caught until really late. If I'm being honest, it's actually quite annoying. Here's my suggestion: just sweep it

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8008-8015 (fwd)

RWOs can’t cause rule changes, which makes this challenging. Gaelan > On Feb 24, 2018, at 5:36 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > Oh my. This is a nightmare, isn't it. Should we be RWOing something, or do > we need to urgently pass a fix proposal? > > -Aris >

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8008-8015 (fwd)

Oh, I forgot one thing I was going to say: Rule 105 has the restriction If the reenacting proposal provides new text for the rule, the rule must have materially the same purpose as did the repealed version; otherwise, the attempt to reenact the rule is

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8008-8015 (fwd)

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 at 19:52 Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Sat, 24 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Here are my preliminary interpretations as Rulekeepor: > Create a new rule "Paydays" (Power=2) and amend it so that its text > > reads, in full: > > This is written as if it were

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Treasuror] Asset Balances

NttPF. Greetings, Ørjan. On Sat, 24 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote: Ahem. If I am Treasuror, I accept the CoE and publish the following revised report. If not, I deputize for Treasuror to publish the following report. Name| Ore | Ston | Lumb | Appl | Cotn | Corn | Coin | Papr |

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8008-8015 (fwd)

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: Create a new rule "Paydays" (Power=2) and amend it so that its text reads, in full: This is written as if it were two rule changes, but doesn't specify the original text before amendment. Re-enact rule 1996/3 (Power=1), renaming it to "The

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: First Official Cartographor Report

Okay, I sent a pull request your way to fix the default thing for the interactive version. I set the default to 0, and then changed changes.json to manually set the rank to 1. Annoying, but it works, and it describes what's actually happening too. The capitalization one is harder. If you wanted,

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: First Official Cartographor Report

It's cool, I just wanted you to know. I'll have a look at your code and see if anything occurs to me (it probably won't, I'm not an awe inspiring programmer, and I haven't used Python in ages). -Aris On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 12:55 PM Reuben Staley wrote: > Thanks,

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: First Official Cartographor Report

Thanks, reply-to! On 02/24/2018 06:54 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: This can all be explained by the logistics of the Python code I'm using. >> Minor unofficial CoE on the interactive version: the land that doesn't have >> a facility shows a rank of one. It should either not show up, be N/A, or

DIS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Treasuror] Asset Balances

Ahem. If I am Treasuror, I accept the CoE and publish the following revised report. If not, I deputize for Treasuror to publish the following report. Name| Ore | Ston | Lumb | Appl | Cotn | Corn | Coin | Papr | Fabr omd | 0 |5 |5 | 10 |0 |0 | 10 |

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: First Official Cartographor Report

Oh, and also, your capitalization is confusing. "None" is capitalized, but the each facility type isn't. I'd suggest just capitalizing everything, possibly including the land type flags (so B, W, A, instead of b, w, and a). -Aris On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 12:28 PM Aris Merchant <

DIS: Re: OFF: First Official Cartographor Report

Minor unofficial CoE on the interactive version: the land that doesn't have a facility shows a rank of one. It should either not show up, be N/A, or 0. -Aris On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 9:32 AM Reuben Staley wrote: > CARTOGRAPHOR'S WEEKLY REPORT: 2018-02-24 >

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8008-8015

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018, ATMunn wrote: > What's VI? Me showing my age. VI = Voting Index, used to be the name for the ratio of FOR/AGAINST votes in R955. Forgot it was no longer defined.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix

Auctioneer defaults to Agora (R2547). On Sat, 24 Feb 2018, ATMunn wrote: > Unless I'm missing something, doesn't an Auctioneer have to be specified? > > On 2/24/2018 12:24 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > I submit the following Proposal, Zombie Lots, AI-2, co-author Aris, and > > pend it

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8016-8022

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 at 00:42 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the >

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8008-8015

What's VI? On 2/24/2018 2:17 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I resolve the Agoran Decisions to adopt Proposals 8008-8015 as follows: 8008 (Picto-Nomic) by CuddleBeam, AI-1.0 FOR : CuddleBeam AGAINST : Trigon, Alexis, Gaelan, ATMunn, nichdel, (Murphy) PRESENT : Quorum : 3 VI : 1/5 or 1/6

DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix

Unless I'm missing something, doesn't an Auctioneer have to be specified? On 2/24/2018 12:24 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I submit the following Proposal, Zombie Lots, AI-2, co-author Aris, and pend it with shinies: -

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: Paradox Judgments

Requesting to know the status on these Judgements. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 6:31 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Sorry for all of the CFJs lol, but I'm glad that it's all put into a bundle > - they're all very similar. > > That sweet, alluring nectar of a Paradox win is teasing me

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8016-8022

> On Feb 23, 2018, at 9:41 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the