Re: DIS: Contract Improvements

What if they pay for them? I agree they shouldn't get free things, but Uf they pay, it's hardly problematic. -Aris On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 6:44 PM ATMunn wrote: > > > > 4. Make contracts second class legal persons (possibly only if they have > > multiple parties and/or

Re: DIS: Contract Improvements

4. Make contracts second class legal persons (possibly only if they have multiple parties and/or other conditions are met). This is the big one. We wouldn't want them to be able to vote or support or object. What else should/shouldn't they be able to do? They probably shouldn't be able to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nabbing the stuffs

Preserved public facilities are supposed to help new and impoverished players get some starting resources even if they don't have their own facilities. Also to give all players an additional easy source of income. Unpreserved public facilites are basically no man's land where this kind of stuff is

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nabbing the stuffs

I'd be willing to just contract it to a redistribution contract or just transfer it to people or something. I agree it's pretty unfair. What was the goal of the public facilities? Maybe we need to redo them to better achieve that goal On Mar 4, 2018 6:03 PM, "Aris Merchant"

DIS: Re: BUS: Nabbing the stuffs

Sigh. We really need to do something to make the distribution of assets fair again. I mean, we can't take everything away, because there's no rule violation involved, but we could at least even it out a bit. The asset distribution is so unfair at the moment that I'm worried about the long term

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

It remains a regulation until the Notary repeals it, which e hasn't done. -Aris On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 5:46 PM Ned Strange wrote: > " > The following contracts are exempt from paying sustenance payments, > until the date specified: > > * Order of the Occult Hand,

DIS: Contract Improvements

I think it's time we made contracts more powerful. My original contracts proposal was written to be safe, even at the expense of features. Long enough has passed that I hope most of the bugs have been found. Here's a list of some proposed changes: 1. Repeal pledges. No one uses them, and they're

DIS: Re: OFF: [Regkeepor] ACORN

" The following contracts are exempt from paying sustenance payments, until the date specified: * Order of the Occult Hand, until January 31st, 2018." Firstly: sad that contract didn't work. Secondly, is this still a regulation? (Thirdly repeal all regulations) On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 11:29 AM,

Re: DIS: Grey Land and the Fountain

I derped lol. But yeah, I agree with an "other" category. On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 7:05 PM, Kenyon Prater wrote: > Agreed with Gaelan re teleporters and ornaments, unless I'm misreading what > you're saying, Cuddle Beam. > > An example of two categories would be a unique

Re: DIS: [Promotor] Non-Draft

with paper, ye On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > pp2 is pended. > > Gaelan > > > On Mar 4, 2018, at 12:28 AM, Aris Merchant gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I'm too tired to prepare a full draft right now, but I'm worried I'm > >

Re: DIS: [Promotor] Non-Draft

pp2 is pended. Gaelan > On Mar 4, 2018, at 12:28 AM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > I'm too tired to prepare a full draft right now, but I'm worried I'm > missing something in all the noise. It is my belief that the proposals > in existence are the following:

DIS: [Promotor] Non-Draft

I'm too tired to prepare a full draft right now, but I'm worried I'm missing something in all the noise. It is my belief that the proposals in existence are the following: IDAuthor(s) AI Title --- pp1 Gaelan, [1]

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proposal: Ensure fair distribution of assets

Just to be clear, this is because it was NttPF. -Aris On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 11:59 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > AFAICT, it was never submitted, and that action fails. Someone should > probably fix that. > > -Aris > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:14 AM, Corona

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: PAoaM Patch

You might even want to roll the preserved land fix into this. That's technically not a bug, but it's a big enough malfunction that I don't think it would be unreasonable to put it in the same proposal. -Aris On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Aris Merchant

Re: DIS: Fwd: About that secret project...

No ancient group that I know of has ever considered medicine to be the same thing, although to be fair many considered them closely related. -Aris On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 12:16 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Wait, medicine and religion aren't the same thing? Ha, the next thing >

Re: DIS: Fwd: About that secret project...

Wait, medicine and religion aren't the same thing? Ha, the next thing you'll tell me is that prayer doesn't heal and that the world is round! On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 8:51 AM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Could be, but now you're talking about a different theme with

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: PAoaM Patch

I also don't think you fixed the contract upkeep cost bug. -Aris On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 12:05 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: >> I create the following proposal; keeping it in the Pool in case

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: PAoaM Patch

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > I create the following proposal; keeping it in the Pool in case of final > feedback. > > Title: PAoaM Patch > AI: 3 > Authors: Gaelan, Trigon > > — > In Rule 105 “Rule Changes,” replace "If the reenacting proposal provides