DIS: Re: BUS: Setting up money-printing machine
I'm not going to pretend like I'm smart enough to know what we've decided to do about the whole pay-without-a-target thing, so if someone wants to explain which of these actions happened, I would really appreciate it. If there is no solution because there's been no consensus, then someone tell me what I should even do for this week's Map. Please and thank you. On 04/29/2018 04:22 PM, Corona wrote: Just now I found out that you can upgrade only your own facilities, a bit weird when you consider that you don't even need the owner's consent to build them. I transfer the Land Unit (1,-2), the facility located there, 11 coins, 6 lumber and 7 stones to Quazie. #retry free upgrade, in case it works I act on behalf of Quazie to do all actions enclosed within the following curly braces: { Pay 5 of Quazie’s coins, 2 of Quazie’s lumber and 3 of Quazie’s stones to Corona to increase the rank of the refinery at (1,-2) to 2. Pay 6 of Quazie’s coins, 4 of Quazie’s lumber and 4 of Quazie’s stones to Corona to increase the rank of that refinery to 3. Transfer all of Quazie's assets, except the Land Unit at (1,-2) or the facility located there, to Corona. } ---Contingency Capitalism--- If the rank of the mine at (0,2) is exactly 1, I destroy 3 coins and 2 lumber to increase its rank to 2. I destroy 2 apples to set the Land Type of the Land Unit (2,1) to Black. I destroy an apple to move to (0,1). I destroy an apple to move to (1,1). I transfer all assets from the facility at (1,1) to myself. I destroy an apple to move to (2,1). I destroy 5 stones to build an orchard at (2,1). I pay 3 coins and 2 stones to Quazie to increase the rank of that orchard to 2. I pay 4 coins and 4 stones to Quazie to increase the rank of that orchard to 3. I act on behalf of Quazie to transfer all eir assets, except the Land Unit at (1,-2) or the facility located there, to me. If the rank of the orchard at (2,1) is exactly 1, I destroy 3 coins and 2 stones to increase its rank to 2. If the rank of the refinery at at (1,-2) is exactly 1, I perform all actions enclosed within the following curly braces: { I transfer 5 coins, 3 lumber and 2 stones to Quazie. I act on behalf of Quazie to destroy 5 of Quazie's coins, 3 of Quazie's lumber and 2 of Quazie's stones to increase the rank of the refinery at (1,-2) to 2. } I transfer 5 ore to Quazie. I act on behalf of Quazie to transfer 5 of Quazie's ore to the refinery at (1,-2). I act on behalf of Quazie to transfer all of Quazie's assets to myself. ~Corona On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:24 AM, Corona wrote: Hopefully this is not going to fail horribly in some unforeseen way. I destroy an apple to move to (0,1). I destroy an apple to move to (0,2). I destroy 5 lumber to build a mine at (0,2). I pay 3 coins and 2 lumber to Quazie to increase the rank of that mine to 2. I pay 4 coins and 4 lumber to Quazie to increase the rank of that mine to 3. I pay 5 coins, 4 lumber and 3 stones to Quazie to increase the rank of that mine to 4. I transfer 3 apples and 12 stones to Quazie. I act on behalf of Quazie to do all actions enclosed within the following curly braces: { Destroy one of Quazie’s apples to move Quazie to (0,-1). Destroy one of Quazie’s apples to move Quazie to (1,-1). Destroy one of Quazie’s apples to move Quazie to (1,-2). Destroy 4 of Quazie’s lumber and 8 of Quazie’s stones to build a refinery at (1,-2). Pay 5 of Quazie’s coins, 2 of Quazie’s lumber and 3 of Quazie’s stones to Corona to increase the rank of that refinery to 2. Pay 6 of Quazie’s coins, 4 of Quazie’s lumber and 4 of Quazie’s stones to Corona to increase the rank of that refinery to 3. Transfer all of Quazie's assets to Corona. } ~Corona -- Trigon
DIS: Land Unit Negligence Act
I want to get land circulating and used. Therefore, I submit the following proto: Name: Land Unit Negligence Act AI: 1 Author: Trigon Co-authors: Amend rule 2022 by prepending the following list item and adjusting the list numbering accordingly. 1. Transfer all land units that have not had any of their switches flipped, have not had a facility built on them, and/or have not had any of its facility's switches flipped since the last Land Transfiguration event to Agora. -- Trigon
DIS: Proto: Nerf Zombies
This is an attempt at a significant reduction in zombie power (so we don't need to repeal such a fun mechanic). I have attempted to keep them usable while at the same time not making them overpowered. This also creates a standard notion of which players are "active" and formalizes the sacrosanct status of omd, among other reforms. The basic idea is that pro-zombie players will favor this over repeal and anti-zombie players will prefer some regulation over none. Given this and the large number of other fairly urgent proposals currently in flight, I'm delaying this weeks distribution. -Aris --- Title: Nerf Zombies Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: G. If Rule 2532, "Zombies", does not exist, the rest of this proposal has no effect. Create a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Activity", with the following text: Activity is a positive boolean player switch tracked by the Registrar in eir weekly report. A player with true activity is considered active and one with false activity is considered inactive. Changes to activity are secured. If a player has not sent a message to a public forum (excluding messages explicitly marked as not affecting activity) in the last thirty days, any player CAN cause that player to become inactive with 7 days notice, and the Registrar SHALL attempt to do so as part of eir monthly duties. When a player becomes inactive, e is immediately expelled from every elected office that e holds. If an inactive player sends a message to a public forum (excluding messages explicitly marked as not affecting activity) Amend Rule 2139 The Registrar, by amending the paragraph beginning "In the first Eastman week" to read as follows: In the first Eastman week of every month the Registrar SHALL make a reasonable effort to deregister every inactive player by the rule-defined means most likely succeed. Amend Rule 2532, "Zombies" by doing the following (these changes are severable, but otherwise occur as a single change): { Change the text "a player CAN always flip eir own master to emself by announcement." to read "a player, acting as emself, CAN always flip eir own master from any other value to emself by announcement. Immediately after e does so, before any other actions taken in the same message, e is deregistered and then reregistered. A player CANNOT gain a zombie if e already owns one; any action that would cause em to do so is canceled and does not occur." [The deregister and reregister is a bit of a hack, but this purges assets, offices, welcome packages, and anything else I'm not thinking of all in one go.] Change the text "A zombie's master, if another player, is allowed to act on behalf of the zombie (i.e. as the zombie's agent) to perform LEGAL actions." to read "A zombie's master, if another player, CAN act on behalf of the zombie (i.e. as the zombie's agent) to perform game actions." Change the third paragraph to read in full: If a player is inactive, then any player CAN flip that player's master to Agora by announcement. If a player has been a zombie for 60 days, any player may deregister that player by announcement. If at any point during the time when a player is a zombie e becomes active, eir owner switch is immediately set to emself. } Enact a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Zombie Restrictions", with the following text: Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a zombie who is being acted on behalf of CANNOT initiate, support, object to, or perform a dependent action. Amend Rule 869, "How to Join and Leave Agora", by changing the fifth paragraph to read: If a player is inactive, then any player CAN deregister em with 3 Agoran Consent. Amend Rule 2559, "Paydays", by changing "single player" to "single active player". Enact a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Ceremonial Offices", with the following text: A ceremonial office is one that is described as such by its defining rule. All ceremonial offices are also inherently imposed. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the holder of a ceremonial office is always registered and never a zombie; any change that would violate these invariants is canceled and does no occur. Players are ENCOURAGED to treat ceremonial offices with respect and to obey the official pronouncements of their holders concerning their duties. Amend Rule 103, "The Speaker", by replacing "imposed" with "ceremonial". Enact a new power 2.0 rule, entitled "The Distributor", with the following text: The Distributor is a ceremonial office. E is charged with distributing messages sent via the Fora to all players who have arranged to received them and otherwise maintaining the basic physical and technical infrastructure of the game. E SHALL make a reasonable effort to do so, and if e becomes unable to continue to serve, e SHALL ensure that e is replaced and that eir replacement gains access to all tec
Re: DIS: Protos on github
On one read through it's nice - good partitioning (not on a non-tiny device until tomorrow to accept the PR or have a closer edit). On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > G., any opinion on this/my GitHub PR? > > -Aris > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:46 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > >> > >> I don't know if this will turn out to be useful, but I've put a protos repo > >> on our github: > >> https://github.com/AgoraNomic/protos > >> > >> I've put in there an Assets start-of-proto. Right now, it's a copy of the > >> assets rule, where I've clipped out secondary stuff that may be better > >> housed > >> in other rules (and put it down below in the doc). Feel free to > >> contribute... > > > > I've opened a PR, splitting the assets rule more completely and making > > some things a bit neater, given the mess it's in is my fault. The > > revised assets section follows, for those who don't want to look at > > the Github (also probably a good idea to keep discussion on list): > > > > --- > > Amend Rule 2166 (Power=3.0), "Assets", to read as follows: > > > > An asset is an entity defined as such by a document that has been > > granted Mint Authority by the Rules (hereafter the asset's backing > > document), and existing solely because its backing document defines > > its existence. An asset's backing document can generally specify when > > and how that asset is created, destroyed, and transferred. > > > > The rules collectively have Mint Authority. Contracts have mint > > authority. A rule defined asset is public; one defined by a contract > > is private. > > > > The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any) > > defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document. That > > entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class and > > their owners. This portion of that entity's report is > > self-ratifying. For the purposes of this rule, the > > promulgator of a regulation is bound by it. > > > > Create a power 3.0 rule, entitled "Ownership", with the following text: > > > > Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset's backing document > > restricts its ownership to a class of entities, then that asset > > CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity outside that > > class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity outside that > > class. The restrictions in the previous sentence are subject to > > modification by its backing document. By default, ownership of an > > asset is restricted to Agora, players, and contracts. > > > > If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost > > and Found Department. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the > > Lost and Found Department can own assets of every type. Assets owned > > by the Lost and Found Department can be transferred or destroyed > > by any player without objection. > > > > > > Create a power 3.0 rule, entitled "Asset Actions", with the following text: > > > > An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement, > > subject to modification by its backing document. An indestructible > > asset is one defined as such by it backing document, and CANNOT be > > destroyed except by a proposal or rule, other than this one, > > specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible assets > > or that asset in particular; any other asset is destructible. > > > > To "lose" an asset is to have it destroyed from one's possession; > > to "revoke" an asset from an entity is to destroy it from that > > entity's possession. > > > > An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by > > announcement by its owner to another entity, subject to > > modification by its backing document. A fixed asset is one defined > > as such by its backing document, and CANNOT be transferred; any > > other asset is liquid. > > > > When a rule indicates transferring an amount that is not a natural > > number, the specified amount is rounded up to the nearest natural > > number. > > > > Create a power 3.0 rule, entitled "Currencies", with the following text: > > A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing > > document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are > > fungible. > > > > The "x balance of an entity", where x is a currency, is the number > > of x that entity possesses. Where it resolves ambiguity, the asset or > > currency being referred to is the currency designated as "Agora's > > official currency", if there is one. > > > > > > Create a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Contractual Ownership", with the > > following text: > > > > A contract's text can specify whether or not that contract is > > willing to receive
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters
No, never mind, I don't think it does. I can make it work. -Aris On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > If no one objects, I'm going to make it support, object, or resolve, > on the basis that it's a bit easier to write and has a similar effect. > > > -Aris > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> Actually, on reflection I think zombies are locked out of *all* dependent >> action steps (intent, support, or object). Even if my legal theory doesn't >> hold water, it's a good nerf in any case so I'd likely vote for that, most >> things that are really sensitive are locked behind dependent action (and >> that would also make the deregister w/3consent a genuine check on power, >> if the zombies became concentrated in too few hands). >> >> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote: >>> > > I don't think there's anything preventing the Zombie from stating the >>> > > intent and the master supporting. Which e would have had to do anyway, >>> > > since you can only appoint _another_ player to Speaker by this >>> > > mechanism. >>> >>> That depends. Intent is only defined after-the-fact (did someone announce >>> intent earlier?) which implies that it's simply a message. That matters >>> because of this (R2466): >>> > in particular, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another >>> > person to send a message, only to perform specific actions that >>> > might be taken within a message. >>> >>> Is announcing intent a message, or an action taken within a message? >>> >>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: >>> > Okay, I've had enough of this. Zombies break too much of the ruleset. >>> >>> These issues with act-on-behalf are the only thing that make the whole >>> mess of useless contract-language currently in the rules have any >>> interest - I'd appreciate being able to see how these work (issues like >>> the above) using the zombie testbed. >>> >>> > They most definitely should not be appointing people Speaker. >>> >>> Being able to appoint a Speaker w/1 support is an awfully low bar - >>> maybe that's the real problem here. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters
If no one objects, I'm going to make it support, object, or resolve, on the basis that it's a bit easier to write and has a similar effect. -Aris On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Actually, on reflection I think zombies are locked out of *all* dependent > action steps (intent, support, or object). Even if my legal theory doesn't > hold water, it's a good nerf in any case so I'd likely vote for that, most > things that are really sensitive are locked behind dependent action (and > that would also make the deregister w/3consent a genuine check on power, > if the zombies became concentrated in too few hands). > > On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote: >> > > I don't think there's anything preventing the Zombie from stating the >> > > intent and the master supporting. Which e would have had to do anyway, >> > > since you can only appoint _another_ player to Speaker by this mechanism. >> >> That depends. Intent is only defined after-the-fact (did someone announce >> intent earlier?) which implies that it's simply a message. That matters >> because of this (R2466): >> > in particular, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another >> > person to send a message, only to perform specific actions that >> > might be taken within a message. >> >> Is announcing intent a message, or an action taken within a message? >> >> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: >> > Okay, I've had enough of this. Zombies break too much of the ruleset. >> >> These issues with act-on-behalf are the only thing that make the whole >> mess of useless contract-language currently in the rules have any >> interest - I'd appreciate being able to see how these work (issues like >> the above) using the zombie testbed. >> >> > They most definitely should not be appointing people Speaker. >> >> Being able to appoint a Speaker w/1 support is an awfully low bar - >> maybe that's the real problem here. >> >> >> >> >> >>
Re: DIS: Protos on github
G., any opinion on this/my GitHub PR? -Aris On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:46 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> I don't know if this will turn out to be useful, but I've put a protos repo >> on our github: >> https://github.com/AgoraNomic/protos >> >> I've put in there an Assets start-of-proto. Right now, it's a copy of the >> assets rule, where I've clipped out secondary stuff that may be better housed >> in other rules (and put it down below in the doc). Feel free to >> contribute... > > I've opened a PR, splitting the assets rule more completely and making > some things a bit neater, given the mess it's in is my fault. The > revised assets section follows, for those who don't want to look at > the Github (also probably a good idea to keep discussion on list): > > --- > Amend Rule 2166 (Power=3.0), "Assets", to read as follows: > > An asset is an entity defined as such by a document that has been > granted Mint Authority by the Rules (hereafter the asset's backing > document), and existing solely because its backing document defines > its existence. An asset's backing document can generally specify when > and how that asset is created, destroyed, and transferred. > > The rules collectively have Mint Authority. Contracts have mint > authority. A rule defined asset is public; one defined by a contract > is private. > > The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any) > defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document. That > entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class and > their owners. This portion of that entity's report is > self-ratifying. For the purposes of this rule, the > promulgator of a regulation is bound by it. > > Create a power 3.0 rule, entitled "Ownership", with the following text: > > Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset's backing document > restricts its ownership to a class of entities, then that asset > CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity outside that > class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity outside that > class. The restrictions in the previous sentence are subject to > modification by its backing document. By default, ownership of an > asset is restricted to Agora, players, and contracts. > > If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost > and Found Department. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the > Lost and Found Department can own assets of every type. Assets owned > by the Lost and Found Department can be transferred or destroyed > by any player without objection. > > > Create a power 3.0 rule, entitled "Asset Actions", with the following text: > > An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement, > subject to modification by its backing document. An indestructible > asset is one defined as such by it backing document, and CANNOT be > destroyed except by a proposal or rule, other than this one, > specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible assets > or that asset in particular; any other asset is destructible. > > To "lose" an asset is to have it destroyed from one's possession; > to "revoke" an asset from an entity is to destroy it from that > entity's possession. > > An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by > announcement by its owner to another entity, subject to > modification by its backing document. A fixed asset is one defined > as such by its backing document, and CANNOT be transferred; any > other asset is liquid. > > When a rule indicates transferring an amount that is not a natural > number, the specified amount is rounded up to the nearest natural > number. > > Create a power 3.0 rule, entitled "Currencies", with the following text: > A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing > document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are > fungible. > > The "x balance of an entity", where x is a currency, is the number > of x that entity possesses. Where it resolves ambiguity, the asset or > currency being referred to is the currency designated as "Agora's > official currency", if there is one. > > > Create a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Contractual Ownership", with the > following text: > > A contract's text can specify whether or not that contract is > willing to receive assets or a class of assets. Generally, a > contract CANNOT be given assets it is unwilling to receive. If the > contract's opinion on the matter would otherwise be uncertain, the > procedure to determine its willingness is as follows: > > 1. If the contract appears to anticipate being given assets, > other than for sustenance (e.g. by authorizing p
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report
Yep, your message and the latest Registrar's report are the same font. On 4/29/2018 7:16 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote: Interestingly, this message is not in my normal font, but it is different from the font the report was in. The font of this message isn't even monospace for some reason. As expected from my theory (that it depends on which of the characters Ø and 天火狐 are in the message), my message had the same charset (EUC-KR) as the latest Registrar's Report, if you want to compare with that. (It's slightly different in also having a format: flowed parameter.) Greetings, Ørjan. On 4/28/2018 4:56 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote: For some reason, this report and many of your other reports show up in a weird font for me. Does this happen to other people? Not to me (my terminal window only has the one font), but I suspect it has something with the Referee report's Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-2022-JP header. That header seems to vary a *lot* between G.'s messages, presumably because eir mailer determines a "smallest fit" encoding. The last Registrar's report has Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=EUC-KR while the last Assessor's resolution has the more normal Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8 I also suspect it is related to the presence of the characters 天火狐, which isn't in the last one. The difference between the two first ones might actually be because of the Ø in _my_ name, which isn't in the Referee report but is in the two others. You might see the same weirdness with this message, since I'm also using Alpine, although the terminal version. Greetings, Ørjan. On 4/28/2018 4:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: The Police Blotter (Referee's Weekly Report) Date of last report: 22 Apr 2018 Date of this report: 28 Apr 2018 (all times UTC) BLOT HOLDINGS (asset record - self-ratifying) Person Blots - Murphy 2 V.J. Rada 2 BLOT HISTORY Person Change Date Reason -- --- V.J. Rada +1(f) 11 Apr 2018 12:01:44 Late Notary Report Murphy +1(D) 23 Apr 2018 16:38:54 Late ADoP Report Murphy +1(D) 23 Apr 2018 16:38:54 Late Arbitor Report V.J. Rada +1(f) 25 Apr 2018 18:24:14 Missed Silly Person duties (f)=forgivable by R2557 (D)=loses next monthly salary for noted office by R2559 FROM THE POLICE SCANNER (details of justice since last report) V.J. Rada Wed, 25 Apr 2018 21:09:58 +1000 I also point my finger at myself for failing to pend a Silly Proposal last week. G. Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:24:14 -0700 (PDT) Factually correct. Very low game consequences. I levy a 1-blot fine, forgivable with apology word list {only, a, little, bit, silly, in, one, leg}. V.J. Rada Wed, 25 Apr 2018 21:09:19 +1000 I point my finger at the Treasuror for failing to publish eir weekly report since Apr 2 G. Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:21:46 -0700 (PDT) Shennanigans. Due to the Treasuror not being a defined office (a bugfix for that is in last week's proposal distribution). It would have been nice for Gaelan to report informally but oh well. Corona Mon, 23 Apr 2018 18:29:15 +0200 I Point a Finger at Murphy for missing last week's ADoP Report. G. Mon, 23 Apr 2018 09:38:54 -0700 (PDT) Cold hand of justice: 1 Blot levied on Murphy for failure to produce ADoP report. As it appears no work has been done for this office for 16+ days in April, this is unforgivable (prevents May 1 salary). Corona Mon, 23 Apr 2018 18:29:15 +0200 I Point a Finger at Murphy for missing last week's Arbitor Report. G. Mon, 23 Apr 2018 09:38:54 -0700 (PDT) Cold hand of justice: 1 Blot levied on Murphy for failure to produce Arbitor report. As it appears no work has been done for this office for 16+ days in April, this is unforgivable (prevents May 1 salary). PLEDGES (self-ratifying list of assets) [ Changes since last report: - G. destroyed 3 of eir pledges without objection. - ATMunn destroyed eir one and only pledge w/o objection. ] Quazie - I pledge to give 1 Shiny to the first person who can, correctly, with e-mail citations, explain what I did wrong on Jan 20th 2009 that has since led to me being a fugitive. For the explanation to be valid for this pledge, it should be fully self contained, I should not have to go look up past rules in order to understand the explanation (So please, include all source info in the explanation). V.J Rada - I pledge not to make any thread titles completely unrelated to the email's content, nor use any agency or other mechanism to attempt to gain control of any player at the ex
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters
On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:43 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen > wrote: > > > I don't think there's anything preventing the Zombie from stating the > > > intent and the master supporting. Which e would have had to do anyway, > > > since you can only appoint _another_ player to Speaker by this > mechanism. > > That depends. Intent is only defined after-the-fact (did someone announce > intent earlier?) which implies that it's simply a message. That matters > because of this (R2466): > > in particular, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another > > person to send a message, only to perform specific actions that > > might be taken within a message. > Is announcing intent a message, or an action taken within a message? I disagree. Announcing intent is an action by definition, and a game action because the game looks at it. > > On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > Okay, I've had enough of this. Zombies break too much of the ruleset. > > These issues with act-on-behalf are the only thing that make the whole > mess of useless contract-language currently in the rules have any > interest - I'd appreciate being able to see how these work (issues like > the above) using the zombie testbed. > > > They most definitely should not be appointing people Speaker. > > Being able to appoint a Speaker w/1 support is an awfully low bar - > maybe that's the real problem here. I've been thinking about it. I kinda agree, but on the other hand there are advantages. We never would have pulled off that making Trigon Speaker before e even noticed thing with a high bar, and that's a nice thing to have. I've thought of two sensible thing to do to harden that requirement. First, we could make it with three support, which is a fairly low bar. But it is a bar, so I don't really like that. The second one, which I'd prefer, is to make it dependent on karma. Making it just the top person is too boring though. How about requiring the appointed person to be one of the top three eligible (i.e. neither PM nor Speaker). -Aris > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters
Actually, on reflection I think zombies are locked out of *all* dependent action steps (intent, support, or object). Even if my legal theory doesn't hold water, it's a good nerf in any case so I'd likely vote for that, most things that are really sensitive are locked behind dependent action (and that would also make the deregister w/3consent a genuine check on power, if the zombies became concentrated in too few hands). On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > > I don't think there's anything preventing the Zombie from stating the > > > intent and the master supporting. Which e would have had to do anyway, > > > since you can only appoint _another_ player to Speaker by this mechanism. > > That depends. Intent is only defined after-the-fact (did someone announce > intent earlier?) which implies that it's simply a message. That matters > because of this (R2466): > > in particular, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another > > person to send a message, only to perform specific actions that > > might be taken within a message. > > Is announcing intent a message, or an action taken within a message? > > On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > Okay, I've had enough of this. Zombies break too much of the ruleset. > > These issues with act-on-behalf are the only thing that make the whole > mess of useless contract-language currently in the rules have any > interest - I'd appreciate being able to see how these work (issues like > the above) using the zombie testbed. > > > They most definitely should not be appointing people Speaker. > > Being able to appoint a Speaker w/1 support is an awfully low bar - > maybe that's the real problem here. > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > I don't think there's anything preventing the Zombie from stating the > > intent and the master supporting. Which e would have had to do anyway, > > since you can only appoint _another_ player to Speaker by this mechanism. That depends. Intent is only defined after-the-fact (did someone announce intent earlier?) which implies that it's simply a message. That matters because of this (R2466): > in particular, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another > person to send a message, only to perform specific actions that > might be taken within a message. Is announcing intent a message, or an action taken within a message? On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > Okay, I've had enough of this. Zombies break too much of the ruleset. These issues with act-on-behalf are the only thing that make the whole mess of useless contract-language currently in the rules have any interest - I'd appreciate being able to see how these work (issues like the above) using the zombie testbed. > They most definitely should not be appointing people Speaker. Being able to appoint a Speaker w/1 support is an awfully low bar - maybe that's the real problem here.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters
Okay, I've had enough of this. Zombies break too much of the ruleset. They most definitely should not be appointing people Speaker. I move we repeal them. -Aris On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote: > >> N I was a second away from using my zombie to appoint myself > speaker. > > > > > > Ørjan offered a theory that zombies CANNOT support anything - while it > > I don't think there's anything preventing the Zombie from stating the > intent and the master supporting. Which e would have had to do anyway, > since you can only appoint _another_ player to Speaker by this mechanism. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters
On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote: N I was a second away from using my zombie to appoint myself speaker. Ørjan offered a theory that zombies CANNOT support anything - while it I don't think there's anything preventing the Zombie from stating the intent and the master supporting. Which e would have had to do anyway, since you can only appoint _another_ player to Speaker by this mechanism. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor
On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: Per Rule 879, failing to state quorum is illegal but does not invalidate the decision. Although failing to state quorum is not quite the same thing as stating it incorrectly, so I'm not sure Rule 879 actually _says_ that it's not invalidated. However, I didn't find anything that says it _is_ invalidated either. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote: Interestingly, this message is not in my normal font, but it is different from the font the report was in. The font of this message isn't even monospace for some reason. As expected from my theory (that it depends on which of the characters Ø and 天火狐 are in the message), my message had the same charset (EUC-KR) as the latest Registrar's Report, if you want to compare with that. (It's slightly different in also having a format: flowed parameter.) Greetings, Ørjan. On 4/28/2018 4:56 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote: For some reason, this report and many of your other reports show up in a weird font for me. Does this happen to other people? Not to me (my terminal window only has the one font), but I suspect it has something with the Referee report's Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-2022-JP header. That header seems to vary a *lot* between G.'s messages, presumably because eir mailer determines a "smallest fit" encoding. The last Registrar's report has Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=EUC-KR while the last Assessor's resolution has the more normal Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8 I also suspect it is related to the presence of the characters 天火狐, which isn't in the last one. The difference between the two first ones might actually be because of the Ø in _my_ name, which isn't in the Referee report but is in the two others. You might see the same weirdness with this message, since I'm also using Alpine, although the terminal version. Greetings, Ørjan. On 4/28/2018 4:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: The Police Blotter (Referee's Weekly Report) Date of last report: 22 Apr 2018 Date of this report: 28 Apr 2018 (all times UTC) BLOT HOLDINGS (asset record - self-ratifying) Person Blots - Murphy 2 V.J. Rada 2 BLOT HISTORY Person Change Date Reason -- --- V.J. Rada +1(f) 11 Apr 2018 12:01:44 Late Notary Report Murphy +1(D) 23 Apr 2018 16:38:54 Late ADoP Report Murphy +1(D) 23 Apr 2018 16:38:54 Late Arbitor Report V.J. Rada +1(f) 25 Apr 2018 18:24:14 Missed Silly Person duties (f)=forgivable by R2557 (D)=loses next monthly salary for noted office by R2559 FROM THE POLICE SCANNER (details of justice since last report) V.J. Rada Wed, 25 Apr 2018 21:09:58 +1000 I also point my finger at myself for failing to pend a Silly Proposal last week. G. Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:24:14 -0700 (PDT) Factually correct. Very low game consequences. I levy a 1-blot fine, forgivable with apology word list {only, a, little, bit, silly, in, one, leg}. V.J. Rada Wed, 25 Apr 2018 21:09:19 +1000 I point my finger at the Treasuror for failing to publish eir weekly report since Apr 2 G. Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:21:46 -0700 (PDT) Shennanigans. Due to the Treasuror not being a defined office (a bugfix for that is in last week's proposal distribution). It would have been nice for Gaelan to report informally but oh well. Corona Mon, 23 Apr 2018 18:29:15 +0200 I Point a Finger at Murphy for missing last week's ADoP Report. G. Mon, 23 Apr 2018 09:38:54 -0700 (PDT) Cold hand of justice: 1 Blot levied on Murphy for failure to produce ADoP report. As it appears no work has been done for this office for 16+ days in April, this is unforgivable (prevents May 1 salary). Corona Mon, 23 Apr 2018 18:29:15 +0200 I Point a Finger at Murphy for missing last week's Arbitor Report. G. Mon, 23 Apr 2018 09:38:54 -0700 (PDT) Cold hand of justice: 1 Blot levied on Murphy for failure to produce Arbitor report. As it appears no work has been done for this office for 16+ days in April, this is unforgivable (prevents May 1 salary). PLEDGES (self-ratifying list of assets) [ Changes since last report: - G. destroyed 3 of eir pledges without objection. - ATMunn destroyed eir one and only pledge w/o objection. ] Quazie - I pledge to give 1 Shiny to the first person who can, correctly, with e-mail citations, explain what I did wrong on Jan 20th 2009 that has since led to me being a fugitive. For the explanation to be valid for this pledge, it should be fully self contained, I should not have to go look up past rules in order to understand the explanation (So please, include all source info in the explanation). V.J Rada - I pledge not to make any thread titles completely unrelated to the email's content, nor use any agency or other mechanism to attempt to gain control of any player at the exclusion of all other players. Gaelan (14 Sep 2017) - I pledge to, for at least the next month, vote AGAINST any proposal that am
DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters
I would be honored to serve as the speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. *frantically looks over rules about the Speaker* On 4/29/2018 2:17 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 12:31 AM Edward Murphy wrote: Aris wrote: I object strongly, given that e is inactive. I don't think a zombie should hold an office as ceremonially important as that of Speaker. I intend, with support, to appoint each of Trigon and ATMunn as Speaker (they're tied for the highest karma of anyone not excluded). I support both. Because Trigon now has the greater karma, and with no disrespect intended towards ATMunn, I cause Trigon to become Speaker with support. Serve honorably and well. -Aris --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -- Trigon
DIS: Re: BUS: Setting up money-printing machine
You're not supposed to be able to build a facility without consent though. Just another case of me screwing up. On 4/29/2018 4:22 PM, Corona wrote: Just now I found out that you can upgrade only your own facilities, a bit weird when you consider that you don't even need the owner's consent to build them. I transfer the Land Unit (1,-2), the facility located there, 11 coins, 6 lumber and 7 stones to Quazie. #retry free upgrade, in case it works I act on behalf of Quazie to do all actions enclosed within the following curly braces: { Pay 5 of Quazie’s coins, 2 of Quazie’s lumber and 3 of Quazie’s stones to Corona to increase the rank of the refinery at (1,-2) to 2. Pay 6 of Quazie’s coins, 4 of Quazie’s lumber and 4 of Quazie’s stones to Corona to increase the rank of that refinery to 3. Transfer all of Quazie's assets, except the Land Unit at (1,-2) or the facility located there, to Corona. } ---Contingency Capitalism--- If the rank of the mine at (0,2) is exactly 1, I destroy 3 coins and 2 lumber to increase its rank to 2. I destroy 2 apples to set the Land Type of the Land Unit (2,1) to Black. I destroy an apple to move to (0,1). I destroy an apple to move to (1,1). I transfer all assets from the facility at (1,1) to myself. I destroy an apple to move to (2,1). I destroy 5 stones to build an orchard at (2,1). I pay 3 coins and 2 stones to Quazie to increase the rank of that orchard to 2. I pay 4 coins and 4 stones to Quazie to increase the rank of that orchard to 3. I act on behalf of Quazie to transfer all eir assets, except the Land Unit at (1,-2) or the facility located there, to me. If the rank of the orchard at (2,1) is exactly 1, I destroy 3 coins and 2 stones to increase its rank to 2. If the rank of the refinery at at (1,-2) is exactly 1, I perform all actions enclosed within the following curly braces: { I transfer 5 coins, 3 lumber and 2 stones to Quazie. I act on behalf of Quazie to destroy 5 of Quazie's coins, 3 of Quazie's lumber and 2 of Quazie's stones to increase the rank of the refinery at (1,-2) to 2. } I transfer 5 ore to Quazie. I act on behalf of Quazie to transfer 5 of Quazie's ore to the refinery at (1,-2). I act on behalf of Quazie to transfer all of Quazie's assets to myself. ~Corona On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:24 AM, Corona wrote: Hopefully this is not going to fail horribly in some unforeseen way. I destroy an apple to move to (0,1). I destroy an apple to move to (0,2). I destroy 5 lumber to build a mine at (0,2). I pay 3 coins and 2 lumber to Quazie to increase the rank of that mine to 2. I pay 4 coins and 4 lumber to Quazie to increase the rank of that mine to 3. I pay 5 coins, 4 lumber and 3 stones to Quazie to increase the rank of that mine to 4. I transfer 3 apples and 12 stones to Quazie. I act on behalf of Quazie to do all actions enclosed within the following curly braces: { Destroy one of Quazie’s apples to move Quazie to (0,-1). Destroy one of Quazie’s apples to move Quazie to (1,-1). Destroy one of Quazie’s apples to move Quazie to (1,-2). Destroy 4 of Quazie’s lumber and 8 of Quazie’s stones to build a refinery at (1,-2). Pay 5 of Quazie’s coins, 2 of Quazie’s lumber and 3 of Quazie’s stones to Corona to increase the rank of that refinery to 2. Pay 6 of Quazie’s coins, 4 of Quazie’s lumber and 4 of Quazie’s stones to Corona to increase the rank of that refinery to 3. Transfer all of Quazie's assets to Corona. } ~Corona --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor
I thought it was something like that. It seems I did vote for it. On 4/29/2018 5:06 PM, Ned Strange wrote: If you voted for G's recent proposal you are eligible On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:45 AM, ATMunn wrote: I know, I was referring to what the proposal/scam was. On 4/29/2018 2:33 PM, Corona wrote: Nothing in particular is specified in the rule, in practice it's for scamming/passing a proposal to that effect. ~Corona On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 8:17 PM, ATMunn wrote: Alright. Am I eligible for one of those by the way? I forget what thing let people get them. On 4/29/2018 12:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I vote ATMunn for Tailor. ATMunn - you can deputize for the job. I'm about 99% sure that the only ribbons since the Feb report were this week's black ones. On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote: I vote for myself, obviously. [also I guess I better get working on that Python script I talked about...] On 4/29/2018 3:08 AM, Edward Murphy wrote: Per Rule 2154, I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the Tailor election. The vote collector is the ADoP, the valid options are ATMunn and Corona and anyone else who becomes a candidate, and the voting method is instant runoff.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor
If you voted for G's recent proposal you are eligible On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:45 AM, ATMunn wrote: > I know, I was referring to what the proposal/scam was. > > > On 4/29/2018 2:33 PM, Corona wrote: >> >> Nothing in particular is specified in the rule, in practice it's for >> scamming/passing a proposal to that effect. >> >> ~Corona >> >> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 8:17 PM, ATMunn wrote: >> >>> Alright. Am I eligible for one of those by the way? I forget what thing >>> let people get them. >>> >>> On 4/29/2018 12:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> I vote ATMunn for Tailor. ATMunn - you can deputize for the job. I'm about 99% sure that the only ribbons since the Feb report were this week's black ones. On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote: > I vote for myself, obviously. > > [also I guess I better get working on that Python script I talked > about...] > > On 4/29/2018 3:08 AM, Edward Murphy wrote: > >> Per Rule 2154, I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of >> the >> Tailor election. The vote collector is the ADoP, the valid options are >> ATMunn and Corona and anyone else who becomes a candidate, and the >> voting method is instant runoff. >> >> > > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor
I know, I was referring to what the proposal/scam was. On 4/29/2018 2:33 PM, Corona wrote: Nothing in particular is specified in the rule, in practice it's for scamming/passing a proposal to that effect. ~Corona On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 8:17 PM, ATMunn wrote: Alright. Am I eligible for one of those by the way? I forget what thing let people get them. On 4/29/2018 12:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I vote ATMunn for Tailor. ATMunn - you can deputize for the job. I'm about 99% sure that the only ribbons since the Feb report were this week's black ones. On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote: I vote for myself, obviously. [also I guess I better get working on that Python script I talked about...] On 4/29/2018 3:08 AM, Edward Murphy wrote: Per Rule 2154, I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the Tailor election. The vote collector is the ADoP, the valid options are ATMunn and Corona and anyone else who becomes a candidate, and the voting method is instant runoff.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor
On Sun, 2018-04-29 at 20:33 +0200, Corona wrote: > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 8:17 PM, ATMunn > wrote: > > Alright. Am I eligible for one of those by the way? I forget what > > thing let people get them. > > Nothing in particular is specified in the rule, in practice it's for > scamming/passing a proposal to that effect. Right, it's intended to be gotten either via scam, or via bribing people to vote for your proposal to give you one. G. somehow managed both at the same time recently. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor
Nothing in particular is specified in the rule, in practice it's for scamming/passing a proposal to that effect. ~Corona On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 8:17 PM, ATMunn wrote: > Alright. Am I eligible for one of those by the way? I forget what thing > let people get them. > > On 4/29/2018 12:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> >> >> I vote ATMunn for Tailor. >> >> ATMunn - you can deputize for the job. I'm about 99% sure that the only >> ribbons since the Feb report were this week's black ones. >> >> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote: >> >>> I vote for myself, obviously. >>> >>> [also I guess I better get working on that Python script I talked >>> about...] >>> >>> On 4/29/2018 3:08 AM, Edward Murphy wrote: >>> Per Rule 2154, I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the Tailor election. The vote collector is the ADoP, the valid options are ATMunn and Corona and anyone else who becomes a candidate, and the voting method is instant runoff. >>> >>
DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor
Alright. Am I eligible for one of those by the way? I forget what thing let people get them. On 4/29/2018 12:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I vote ATMunn for Tailor. ATMunn - you can deputize for the job. I'm about 99% sure that the only ribbons since the Feb report were this week's black ones. On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote: I vote for myself, obviously. [also I guess I better get working on that Python script I talked about...] On 4/29/2018 3:08 AM, Edward Murphy wrote: Per Rule 2154, I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the Tailor election. The vote collector is the ADoP, the valid options are ATMunn and Corona and anyone else who becomes a candidate, and the voting method is instant runoff.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters
On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote: > N I was a second away from using my zombie to appoint myself speaker. Ørjan offered a theory that zombies CANNOT support anything - while it hasn't been tested in court, I agree with it because of use of the word "consent" in R2124: > A Supporter of a dependent action is an eligible entity who has > publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") To give consent, a person must "act as emself" (R2519): > A person gives consent (syn. consents) to an action when e, acting > as emself, publicly states that e agrees to the action. It's not just a semantic trick based on an accidental double definition. I think it makes sense, in terms of persons offering willful agreement, that masters can't agree to agreement changes on behalf of zombies, but can object to them on their zombies' behalf (because objections prevent agreement-changes without consent).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor
Yeah I did that when I was ADoP. It's an easy mistake to make. On 4/29/2018 4:23 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: Per Rule 879, failing to state quorum is illegal but does not invalidate the decision. -Aris On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 1:15 AM Ned Strange wrote: Also you forgot to state the quorum, so this is no Agoran Decision at all. On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:15 PM, Ned Strange wrote: Vote ATMunn On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 5:08 PM, Edward Murphy wrote: Per Rule 2154, I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the Tailor election. The vote collector is the ADoP, the valid options are ATMunn and Corona and anyone else who becomes a candidate, and the voting method is instant runoff. -- From V.J. Rada -- From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Vote for me!
For what? And what sort of image would I use? On 4/29/2018 3:17 AM, Edward Murphy wrote: ATMunn wrote: Yeah, the problem with it working that way is that for anyone who doesn't have any sort of theme on, the background is white by default, so there would be no way to differentiate between Transparent and White. If anyone has a suggestion, then feel free to let me know what it is. Background image.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor
Sorry! I'm still traumatized by the brief period where I had to initiate Agoran Decisions. On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > Per Rule 879, failing to state quorum is illegal but does not invalidate > the decision. > > -Aris > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 1:15 AM Ned Strange > wrote: > >> Also you forgot to state the quorum, so this is no Agoran Decision at all. >> >> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:15 PM, Ned Strange >> wrote: >> > Vote ATMunn >> > >> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 5:08 PM, Edward Murphy >> wrote: >> >> Per Rule 2154, I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the >> >> Tailor election. The vote collector is the ADoP, the valid options are >> >> ATMunn and Corona and anyone else who becomes a candidate, and the >> >> voting method is instant runoff. >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > From V.J. Rada >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada >> -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: Calling a CFJ
If I did use PSS, there would have been 10 voters and the quorum would be 8. On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Ned Strange wrote: > I call a CFJ with the statement "If an Agoran Decision were now > initiated, the quorum would be 8". > > The official Assessment recently published listed 9 voters on the most > recent proposal, which would make the quorum 7. However, I contended > that I used PSS to vote FOR that proposal. The language I used was "I > also have PSS vote as I do".The question is whether that language runs > afoul of rule 2466 which institutes a "requirement that the agent > must, in the message in which the action is performed, uniquely > identify the principal and that the action is being taken on behalf of > that person. > > -- > From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor
Per Rule 879, failing to state quorum is illegal but does not invalidate the decision. -Aris On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 1:15 AM Ned Strange wrote: > Also you forgot to state the quorum, so this is no Agoran Decision at all. > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:15 PM, Ned Strange > wrote: > > Vote ATMunn > > > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 5:08 PM, Edward Murphy > wrote: > >> Per Rule 2154, I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the > >> Tailor election. The vote collector is the ADoP, the valid options are > >> ATMunn and Corona and anyone else who becomes a candidate, and the > >> voting method is instant runoff. > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > From V.J. Rada > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters
N I was a second away from using my zombie to appoint myself speaker. On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 12:31 AM Edward Murphy wrote: > >> Aris wrote: >> >> > I object strongly, given that e is inactive. I don't think a zombie >> should >> > hold an office as ceremonially important as that of Speaker. I intend, >> with >> > support, to appoint each of Trigon and ATMunn as Speaker (they're tied >> for >> > the highest karma of anyone not excluded). >> >> I support both. >> >> Because Trigon now has the greater karma, and with no disrespect intended > towards ATMunn, I cause Trigon to become Speaker with support. Serve > honorably and well. > > -Aris -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report
ATMunn wrote: For some reason, this report and many of your other reports show up in a weird font for me. Does this happen to other people? Yes. Interestingly, eir Referee and Registrar reports show up in two /different/ weird fonts, while eir Assessor messages show up in the usual fixed-width font. Something to do with the range of characters included in each, I suppose.
Re: DIS: Vote for me!
ATMunn wrote: Yeah, the problem with it working that way is that for anyone who doesn't have any sort of theme on, the background is white by default, so there would be no way to differentiate between Transparent and White. If anyone has a suggestion, then feel free to let me know what it is. Background image.