Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] An Ambassadorial Consideration
Assess this, declare that, dude can't take a weekend anymore Seriously though, maybe I should judge those CFJs on whether the tournament even exists first? Sorry about not getting to those, maybe tonight ( -7:00 time), definitely by tomorrow. On Sun, 15 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > G., could you declare the winners, so that I may award the appropriate > patent titles? > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 3:19 PM Aris Merchant > wrote: > > > > It probably shouldn't have been. My thinking was that tournament is only > > really supposed to last a few weeks (there's a SHOULD to that effect). If > > it goes for three months, it's way overtime, perhaps because it's broken or > > no one is interested enough to complete the goal condition. Under those > > circumstances, I wanted it to stop automatically. The reason it shouldn't > > have been included is that there still might be players enjoying the > > tournament, and they can always terminate it by proposal. It's not actually > > a bug, and we can always fix it if it ever becomes a problem. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 12:06 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Oh, I missed that rule. One question: Why was the 3-month time limit > > > included? > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 3:00 PM Aris Merchant > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > R2464, "Tournaments": "If a winner of a tournament is determined within > > > > within 3 months of its initiation, that person or persons win the game, > > > > otherwise the tournament concludes with no winner." > > > > > > > > Who do you think wrote the latest version of the tournament rules. :) > > > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:55 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > > > > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I don't think that you get a win from the Birthday Tournament under > > > > > the current rules. > > > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 2:52 PM Aris Merchant > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree about the short times as well. Sorry everyone. Now we just > > > have > > > > > to > > > > > > see who wins on points... > > > > > > > > > > > > If I would be appointed Speaker, I request that the appointment be > > > > > deferred > > > > > > until after the PM election. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 9:42 AM Kerim Aydin > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yah sorry about that, the first draft regs used original FRC > > > > > > > timing > > > > > which > > > > > > > seemed far too long - holiday tournaments have sometimes worked > > > best > > > > > > > as blitz versions but this was too short, somewhere in the middle > > > would > > > > > > > have been best. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 15 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: > > > > > > > > damn time limits!! this would have been more fun with higher > > > > > > > > participation/longer time but congrats aris. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:05 PM, Publius Scribonius > > > > > > > > Scholasticus > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yes. That is my third strike. Now, Aris is the only remaining > > > > > player, > > > > > > > > > assuming eir argument is ruled VALID and e thus wins. > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 8:59 AM Corona < > > > > > liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > [...] with which Agora would establish relations. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> You mean G.A.N. Agora? > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> ~Corona > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Publius Scribonius > > > Scholasticus < > > > > > > > > >> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > I submit the below argument on the third docket: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Your Honor, > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > I agree with My Fellow Counsellor, Aris, that the office of > > > > > > > Ambassador > > > > > > > > >> > should be brought back. However, there remain many > > > qvestion$ to > > > > > > > > >> > consider, even after making that determination. Initially, > > > it > > > > > must > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > >> > determined whether a separate Ambassador should be > > > appointed for > > > > > > > each > > > > > > > > >> > Nomic, with which Agora would establish relations. I > > > > > > > > >> > believe > > > > > that it > > > > > > > > >> > would be better to have a separate Ambassador for each > > > Nomic, so > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > >> > each Ambassador would have a better knowledge of the > > > > > > > > >> > foreign > > > > > Nomic. > > > > > > > > >> > Additionally, I would propose that there be a Minister of > > > > > Foreign > > > > > > > > >> > Affairs, who would determine general policy and serve as > > > > > > > > >> > the > > > > > > > > >> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] An Ambassadorial Consideration
G., could you declare the winners, so that I may award the appropriate patent titles? On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 3:19 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > > It probably shouldn't have been. My thinking was that tournament is only > really supposed to last a few weeks (there's a SHOULD to that effect). If > it goes for three months, it's way overtime, perhaps because it's broken or > no one is interested enough to complete the goal condition. Under those > circumstances, I wanted it to stop automatically. The reason it shouldn't > have been included is that there still might be players enjoying the > tournament, and they can always terminate it by proposal. It's not actually > a bug, and we can always fix it if it ever becomes a problem. > > -Aris > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 12:06 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Oh, I missed that rule. One question: Why was the 3-month time limit > > included? > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 3:00 PM Aris Merchant > > wrote: > > > > > > R2464, "Tournaments": "If a winner of a tournament is determined within > > > within 3 months of its initiation, that person or persons win the game, > > > otherwise the tournament concludes with no winner." > > > > > > Who do you think wrote the latest version of the tournament rules. :) > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:55 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > > > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I don't think that you get a win from the Birthday Tournament under > > > > the current rules. > > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 2:52 PM Aris Merchant > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I agree about the short times as well. Sorry everyone. Now we just > > have > > > > to > > > > > see who wins on points... > > > > > > > > > > If I would be appointed Speaker, I request that the appointment be > > > > deferred > > > > > until after the PM election. > > > > > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 9:42 AM Kerim Aydin > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yah sorry about that, the first draft regs used original FRC timing > > > > which > > > > > > seemed far too long - holiday tournaments have sometimes worked > > best > > > > > > as blitz versions but this was too short, somewhere in the middle > > would > > > > > > have been best. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 15 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: > > > > > > > damn time limits!! this would have been more fun with higher > > > > > > > participation/longer time but congrats aris. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes. That is my third strike. Now, Aris is the only remaining > > > > player, > > > > > > > > assuming eir argument is ruled VALID and e thus wins. > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 8:59 AM Corona < > > > > liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > [...] with which Agora would establish relations. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> You mean G.A.N. Agora? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> ~Corona > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Publius Scribonius > > Scholasticus < > > > > > > > >> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > I submit the below argument on the third docket: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Your Honor, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > I agree with My Fellow Counsellor, Aris, that the office of > > > > > > Ambassador > > > > > > > >> > should be brought back. However, there remain many > > qvestion$ to > > > > > > > >> > consider, even after making that determination. Initially, > > it > > > > must > > > > > > be > > > > > > > >> > determined whether a separate Ambassador should be > > appointed for > > > > > > each > > > > > > > >> > Nomic, with which Agora would establish relations. I believe > > > > that it > > > > > > > >> > would be better to have a separate Ambassador for each > > Nomic, so > > > > > > that > > > > > > > >> > each Ambassador would have a better knowledge of the foreign > > > > Nomic. > > > > > > > >> > Additionally, I would propose that there be a Minister of > > > > Foreign > > > > > > > >> > Affairs, who would determine general policy and serve as the > > > > > > > >> > Ambassador to G.A.N. of F.R.C., in recognition of its > > special > > > > > > historic > > > > > > > >> > status, discussed on the first docket. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > From V.J. Rada > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Election resolutions
I have some ideas that are almost ready to be released to do with the
library and archive. I should be sending those out by next Friday.
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 5:40 PM Edward Murphy wrote:
>
> I resolve the Herald election as follows:
>
> * PSS, Kenyon, Aris, Corona, 天火狐, twg, G., telnaior vote for PSS
> * Murphy votes PRESENT
> * I think quorum was 4 to 6
> * PSS is elected
>
> I resolve the Registrar election as follows:
>
> * PSS, Kenyon, Aris, Corona, 天火狐, twg vote for Corona
> * G., telnaior vote {Corona, PSS}
> * Murphy votes PRESENT
> * I think quorum was 4 to 6
> * Corona is elected
>
>
DIS: Fwd: BUS: Test, not a ruleset
-- Forwarded message - From: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus Date: Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 6:37 PM Subject: BUS: Test, not a ruleset To: Agora Business THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET Most Recent Ruleset Change Recorded: Proposal 8052 (Let's not make game assets...) took effect 15 June 2018 Highest Rule ID ever assigned: 2575 The Game of Agora Rule 101/17 (Power=4.0) The Game of Agora Agora is a game of Nomic, wherein Persons, acting in accordance with the Rules, communicate their game Actions and/or results of these actions via Fora in order to play the game. The game may be won, but the game never ends. Please treat Agora Right Good Forever. Rule 1698/5 (Power=4.0) Agora Is A Nomic Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a four-week period. If, but for this rule, the net effect of a proposal would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to exist, it cannot take effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. If any other single change or inseperable group of changes to the gamestate would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. Players Rule 869/44 (Power=3.0) How to Join and Leave Agora Any organism that is generally capable of freely originating and communicating independent thoughts and ideas is a person. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no other entities are persons. Citizenship is a person switch with values Unregistered (default) and Registered, tracked by the Registrar. Changes to citizenship are secured. A registered person is a Player. To "register" someone is to flip that person's Citizenship switch from Unregistered to Registered. An Unregistered person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e intends to become a player at that time. A player CAN deregister (cease being a player) by announcement. If e does so, e CANNOT register or be registered for 30 days. A person, by registering, agrees to abide by the Rules. The Rules CANNOT otherwise bind a person to abide by any agreement without that person's willful consent. The Rules CANNOT compel non-players to act without their express or reasonably implied consent. The rules CANNOT compel players to unduly harass non-players. A non-person CANNOT be a player, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. Rule 478/34 (Power=3.0) Fora Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora, nor shall any person create physical or technological obstacles that unduly favor some players' fora access over others. Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar. Changes to publicity are secured. The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without objection as long as: 1. e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and 2. if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all existing public fora. Each player should ensure e can receive messages via each public forum. A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent to all players and containing a clear designation of intent to be public. A rule can also designate that a part of one public message is considered a public message in its own right. A person "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public message. Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time date-stamped on that message. Actions in messages (including sub-messages)
DIS: Fwd: BUS: Test, not a ruleset
-- Forwarded message - From: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus Date: Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 6:37 PM Subject: BUS: Test, not a ruleset To: Agora Business THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET Most Recent Ruleset Change Recorded: Proposal 8052 (Let's not make game assets...) took effect 15 June 2018 Highest Rule ID ever assigned: 2575 The Game of Agora Rule 101/17 (Power=4.0) The Game of Agora Agora is a game of Nomic, wherein Persons, acting in accordance with the Rules, communicate their game Actions and/or results of these actions via Fora in order to play the game. The game may be won, but the game never ends. Please treat Agora Right Good Forever. History: Initial Immutable Rule 101 at Agora's birth, Jun 30, 1993 Mutated from MI=unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar 15, 1995 Amended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep 27, 1999 Amended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), Aug 06, 2005 Amended(3) by Proposal 4866 (G.), Aug 27, 2006 Amended(4) by Proposal 4867 (G.), Aug 27, 2006 Amended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), Jan 22, 2007 Amended(6) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), May 03, 2007 Amended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), Jul 25, 2007 Amended(8) by Proposal 5731 [disinterested] (G.), Oct 08, 2008 Retitled by Proposal 5769 (G.), Oct 17, 2008 Amended(9) by Proposal 5769 (G.), Oct 17, 2008 Amended(10) by Proposal 5773 (G.), Oct 17, 2008 Amended(11) by Proposal 6028 (Murphy), Jan 08, 2009 Amended(12) by Proposal 6158 (G.), Mar 31, 2009 Amended(13) by Proposal 6589 [disinterested] (omd), Dec 06, 2009 Amended(14) by Proposal 7183 (G.), Feb 26, 2012 Amended(15) by Proposal 7596 (omd), Sep 14, 2013 Retitled by Proposal 7614 (G.), Jan 13, 2014 Amended(16) by Proposal 7614 (G.), Jan 13, 2014 Amended(17) by Proposal 7743 (G.), May 12, 2015 Power changed from power 3.0 to 4.0 by Proposal 7889 "Agora Protection Act" (Aris), Sep 26, 2017 Annotations: CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions. CFJ 825 (called Nov 07, 1995): Players must obey the Rules even if no Rule says so. CFJ 1848 (called Dec 21, 2007): The game must operate according to the rules that prevail at the time, and not attempt to incorporate any retroactive changes made in the future. CFJ 1709 (called Jul 26, 2007): The rules are binding on all those who play the game in the broader sense, regardless of whether they have the rule-defined status of "player". CFJ 1911-1914 (called Mar 18, 2008): Physical realities supersede the Rules by default. Rule 1698/5 (Power=4.0) Agora Is A Nomic Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a four-week period. If, but for this rule, the net effect of a proposal would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to exist, it cannot take effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. If any other single change or inseperable group of changes to the gamestate would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. History: Enacted by Proposal 3465 (Steve), Apr 26, 1997 Retitled by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), Jun 07, 2008 Amended(1) by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), Jun 07, 2008 Amended(2) by Proposal 7075 (Alexis), Jun 16, 2011 Amended(3) by Proposal 7088 (omd), Jul 23, 2011 Amended(4) by Proposal 7628 (ais523), Apr 07, 2014 Amended(5) by Proposal 7889 "Agora Protection Act" (Aris), Sep 26, 2017 Power changed from power 3.0 to 4.0 by Proposal 7889 "Agora Protection Act" (Aris), Sep 26, 2017 Annotations: Players Rule 869/44 (Power=3.0) How to Join and Leave Agora Any organism that is generally capable of freely originating and communicating independent thoughts and ideas is a person. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no other entities are persons. Citizenship is a person switch with values Unregistered (default) and Registered, tracked by the Registrar. Changes to citizenship are secured. A registered person is a Player. To "register" someone is to flip that person's Citizenship switch from Unregistered to Registered. An Unregistered person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e intends to become a player at that
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] An Ambassadorial Consideration
It probably shouldn't have been. My thinking was that tournament is only really supposed to last a few weeks (there's a SHOULD to that effect). If it goes for three months, it's way overtime, perhaps because it's broken or no one is interested enough to complete the goal condition. Under those circumstances, I wanted it to stop automatically. The reason it shouldn't have been included is that there still might be players enjoying the tournament, and they can always terminate it by proposal. It's not actually a bug, and we can always fix it if it ever becomes a problem. -Aris On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 12:06 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh, I missed that rule. One question: Why was the 3-month time limit > included? > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 3:00 PM Aris Merchant > wrote: > > > > R2464, "Tournaments": "If a winner of a tournament is determined within > > within 3 months of its initiation, that person or persons win the game, > > otherwise the tournament concludes with no winner." > > > > Who do you think wrote the latest version of the tournament rules. :) > > > > -Aris > > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:55 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I don't think that you get a win from the Birthday Tournament under > > > the current rules. > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 2:52 PM Aris Merchant > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I agree about the short times as well. Sorry everyone. Now we just > have > > > to > > > > see who wins on points... > > > > > > > > If I would be appointed Speaker, I request that the appointment be > > > deferred > > > > until after the PM election. > > > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 9:42 AM Kerim Aydin > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yah sorry about that, the first draft regs used original FRC timing > > > which > > > > > seemed far too long - holiday tournaments have sometimes worked > best > > > > > as blitz versions but this was too short, somewhere in the middle > would > > > > > have been best. > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 15 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: > > > > > > damn time limits!! this would have been more fun with higher > > > > > > participation/longer time but congrats aris. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Yes. That is my third strike. Now, Aris is the only remaining > > > player, > > > > > > > assuming eir argument is ruled VALID and e thus wins. > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 8:59 AM Corona < > > > liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > [...] with which Agora would establish relations. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> You mean G.A.N. Agora? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> ~Corona > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Publius Scribonius > Scholasticus < > > > > > > >> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > I submit the below argument on the third docket: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Your Honor, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > I agree with My Fellow Counsellor, Aris, that the office of > > > > > Ambassador > > > > > > >> > should be brought back. However, there remain many > qvestion$ to > > > > > > >> > consider, even after making that determination. Initially, > it > > > must > > > > > be > > > > > > >> > determined whether a separate Ambassador should be > appointed for > > > > > each > > > > > > >> > Nomic, with which Agora would establish relations. I believe > > > that it > > > > > > >> > would be better to have a separate Ambassador for each > Nomic, so > > > > > that > > > > > > >> > each Ambassador would have a better knowledge of the foreign > > > Nomic. > > > > > > >> > Additionally, I would propose that there be a Minister of > > > Foreign > > > > > > >> > Affairs, who would determine general policy and serve as the > > > > > > >> > Ambassador to G.A.N. of F.R.C., in recognition of its > special > > > > > historic > > > > > > >> > status, discussed on the first docket. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > From V.J. Rada > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] An Ambassadorial Consideration
Oh, I missed that rule. One question: Why was the 3-month time limit included? On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 3:00 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > > R2464, "Tournaments": "If a winner of a tournament is determined within > within 3 months of its initiation, that person or persons win the game, > otherwise the tournament concludes with no winner." > > Who do you think wrote the latest version of the tournament rules. :) > > -Aris > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:55 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I don't think that you get a win from the Birthday Tournament under > > the current rules. > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 2:52 PM Aris Merchant > > wrote: > > > > > > I agree about the short times as well. Sorry everyone. Now we just have > > to > > > see who wins on points... > > > > > > If I would be appointed Speaker, I request that the appointment be > > deferred > > > until after the PM election. > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 9:42 AM Kerim Aydin > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yah sorry about that, the first draft regs used original FRC timing > > which > > > > seemed far too long - holiday tournaments have sometimes worked best > > > > as blitz versions but this was too short, somewhere in the middle would > > > > have been best. > > > > > > > > On Sun, 15 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: > > > > > damn time limits!! this would have been more fun with higher > > > > > participation/longer time but congrats aris. > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Yes. That is my third strike. Now, Aris is the only remaining > > player, > > > > > > assuming eir argument is ruled VALID and e thus wins. > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 8:59 AM Corona < > > liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > [...] with which Agora would establish relations. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> You mean G.A.N. Agora? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ~Corona > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > > > > > >> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > I submit the below argument on the third docket: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Your Honor, > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > I agree with My Fellow Counsellor, Aris, that the office of > > > > Ambassador > > > > > >> > should be brought back. However, there remain many qvestion$ to > > > > > >> > consider, even after making that determination. Initially, it > > must > > > > be > > > > > >> > determined whether a separate Ambassador should be appointed for > > > > each > > > > > >> > Nomic, with which Agora would establish relations. I believe > > that it > > > > > >> > would be better to have a separate Ambassador for each Nomic, so > > > > that > > > > > >> > each Ambassador would have a better knowledge of the foreign > > Nomic. > > > > > >> > Additionally, I would propose that there be a Minister of > > Foreign > > > > > >> > Affairs, who would determine general policy and serve as the > > > > > >> > Ambassador to G.A.N. of F.R.C., in recognition of its special > > > > historic > > > > > >> > status, discussed on the first docket. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > From V.J. Rada > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] An Ambassadorial Consideration
R2464, "Tournaments": "If a winner of a tournament is determined within within 3 months of its initiation, that person or persons win the game, otherwise the tournament concludes with no winner." Who do you think wrote the latest version of the tournament rules. :) -Aris On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:55 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think that you get a win from the Birthday Tournament under > the current rules. > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 2:52 PM Aris Merchant > wrote: > > > > I agree about the short times as well. Sorry everyone. Now we just have > to > > see who wins on points... > > > > If I would be appointed Speaker, I request that the appointment be > deferred > > until after the PM election. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 9:42 AM Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Yah sorry about that, the first draft regs used original FRC timing > which > > > seemed far too long - holiday tournaments have sometimes worked best > > > as blitz versions but this was too short, somewhere in the middle would > > > have been best. > > > > > > On Sun, 15 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: > > > > damn time limits!! this would have been more fun with higher > > > > participation/longer time but congrats aris. > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > > > wrote: > > > > > Yes. That is my third strike. Now, Aris is the only remaining > player, > > > > > assuming eir argument is ruled VALID and e thus wins. > > > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 8:59 AM Corona < > liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > [...] with which Agora would establish relations. > > > > >> > > > > >> You mean G.A.N. Agora? > > > > >> > > > > >> ~Corona > > > > >> > > > > >> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > > > > >> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > I submit the below argument on the third docket: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Your Honor, > > > > >> > > > > > >> > I agree with My Fellow Counsellor, Aris, that the office of > > > Ambassador > > > > >> > should be brought back. However, there remain many qvestion$ to > > > > >> > consider, even after making that determination. Initially, it > must > > > be > > > > >> > determined whether a separate Ambassador should be appointed for > > > each > > > > >> > Nomic, with which Agora would establish relations. I believe > that it > > > > >> > would be better to have a separate Ambassador for each Nomic, so > > > that > > > > >> > each Ambassador would have a better knowledge of the foreign > Nomic. > > > > >> > Additionally, I would propose that there be a Minister of > Foreign > > > > >> > Affairs, who would determine general policy and serve as the > > > > >> > Ambassador to G.A.N. of F.R.C., in recognition of its special > > > historic > > > > >> > status, discussed on the first docket. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > From V.J. Rada > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] An Ambassadorial Consideration
I don't think that you get a win from the Birthday Tournament under the current rules. On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 2:52 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > > I agree about the short times as well. Sorry everyone. Now we just have to > see who wins on points... > > If I would be appointed Speaker, I request that the appointment be deferred > until after the PM election. > > -Aris > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 9:42 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > Yah sorry about that, the first draft regs used original FRC timing which > > seemed far too long - holiday tournaments have sometimes worked best > > as blitz versions but this was too short, somewhere in the middle would > > have been best. > > > > On Sun, 15 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: > > > damn time limits!! this would have been more fun with higher > > > participation/longer time but congrats aris. > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > > wrote: > > > > Yes. That is my third strike. Now, Aris is the only remaining player, > > > > assuming eir argument is ruled VALID and e thus wins. > > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 8:59 AM Corona > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > [...] with which Agora would establish relations. > > > >> > > > >> You mean G.A.N. Agora? > > > >> > > > >> ~Corona > > > >> > > > >> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > > > >> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > I submit the below argument on the third docket: > > > >> > > > > >> > Your Honor, > > > >> > > > > >> > I agree with My Fellow Counsellor, Aris, that the office of > > Ambassador > > > >> > should be brought back. However, there remain many qvestion$ to > > > >> > consider, even after making that determination. Initially, it must > > be > > > >> > determined whether a separate Ambassador should be appointed for > > each > > > >> > Nomic, with which Agora would establish relations. I believe that it > > > >> > would be better to have a separate Ambassador for each Nomic, so > > that > > > >> > each Ambassador would have a better knowledge of the foreign Nomic. > > > >> > Additionally, I would propose that there be a Minister of Foreign > > > >> > Affairs, who would determine general policy and serve as the > > > >> > Ambassador to G.A.N. of F.R.C., in recognition of its special > > historic > > > >> > status, discussed on the first docket. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > From V.J. Rada > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] An Ambassadorial Consideration
I agree about the short times as well. Sorry everyone. Now we just have to see who wins on points... If I would be appointed Speaker, I request that the appointment be deferred until after the PM election. -Aris On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 9:42 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Yah sorry about that, the first draft regs used original FRC timing which > seemed far too long - holiday tournaments have sometimes worked best > as blitz versions but this was too short, somewhere in the middle would > have been best. > > On Sun, 15 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: > > damn time limits!! this would have been more fun with higher > > participation/longer time but congrats aris. > > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > wrote: > > > Yes. That is my third strike. Now, Aris is the only remaining player, > > > assuming eir argument is ruled VALID and e thus wins. > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 8:59 AM Corona > wrote: > > >> > > >> > [...] with which Agora would establish relations. > > >> > > >> You mean G.A.N. Agora? > > >> > > >> ~Corona > > >> > > >> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > > >> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> > I submit the below argument on the third docket: > > >> > > > >> > Your Honor, > > >> > > > >> > I agree with My Fellow Counsellor, Aris, that the office of > Ambassador > > >> > should be brought back. However, there remain many qvestion$ to > > >> > consider, even after making that determination. Initially, it must > be > > >> > determined whether a separate Ambassador should be appointed for > each > > >> > Nomic, with which Agora would establish relations. I believe that it > > >> > would be better to have a separate Ambassador for each Nomic, so > that > > >> > each Ambassador would have a better knowledge of the foreign Nomic. > > >> > Additionally, I would propose that there be a Minister of Foreign > > >> > Affairs, who would determine general policy and serve as the > > >> > Ambassador to G.A.N. of F.R.C., in recognition of its special > historic > > >> > status, discussed on the first docket. > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > From V.J. Rada > > > >
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Assessment Request (attn. H. Assessor)
Thank you. That resolves the immediate problem quite nicely. -Aris On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 8:56 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > For good measure I transfer 10 more paper to Aris. > > On Sun, 15 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I transfer 10 paper to Aris now can you stop going on about that > > > > On Sun, 15 Jul 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > > > H. Assessor, would you consider assessing at least 8061? Proposal > > > gameplay is kind of stalled waiting for it. > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Election update
I vote [Aris, Corona] in the ongoing Prime Minister election. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On July 15, 2018 5:50 PM, Edward Murphy wrote: > > > I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the Prime Minister > > election. The vote collector is the ADoP (me), the valid options are > > Aris Corona and anyone else who becomes a candidate before voting ends, > > and the voting method is instant runoff. > > IINM, quorum is still 4 to 6, based on Proposal 8057 (some attempted > > votes were ambiguously effective).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: back to basics - this time with zombies
Aris wrote: Could we bring back a small judicial salary? Say 5 points for a judgement. This could be scammed, theoretically, but it would be hard without a R2175 judicial excess violation. Or just limit to the salary to the first N cases per week.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] An Ambassadorial Consideration
Yah sorry about that, the first draft regs used original FRC timing which seemed far too long - holiday tournaments have sometimes worked best as blitz versions but this was too short, somewhere in the middle would have been best. On Sun, 15 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: > damn time limits!! this would have been more fun with higher > participation/longer time but congrats aris. > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: > > Yes. That is my third strike. Now, Aris is the only remaining player, > > assuming eir argument is ruled VALID and e thus wins. > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 8:59 AM Corona wrote: > >> > >> > [...] with which Agora would establish relations. > >> > >> You mean G.A.N. Agora? > >> > >> ~Corona > >> > >> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > >> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > I submit the below argument on the third docket: > >> > > >> > Your Honor, > >> > > >> > I agree with My Fellow Counsellor, Aris, that the office of Ambassador > >> > should be brought back. However, there remain many qvestion$ to > >> > consider, even after making that determination. Initially, it must be > >> > determined whether a separate Ambassador should be appointed for each > >> > Nomic, with which Agora would establish relations. I believe that it > >> > would be better to have a separate Ambassador for each Nomic, so that > >> > each Ambassador would have a better knowledge of the foreign Nomic. > >> > Additionally, I would propose that there be a Minister of Foreign > >> > Affairs, who would determine general policy and serve as the > >> > Ambassador to G.A.N. of F.R.C., in recognition of its special historic > >> > status, discussed on the first docket. > >> > > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] An Ambassadorial Consideration
damn time limits!! this would have been more fun with higher participation/longer time but congrats aris. On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > Yes. That is my third strike. Now, Aris is the only remaining player, > assuming eir argument is ruled VALID and e thus wins. > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 8:59 AM Corona wrote: >> >> > [...] with which Agora would establish relations. >> >> You mean G.A.N. Agora? >> >> ~Corona >> >> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < >> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > I submit the below argument on the third docket: >> > >> > Your Honor, >> > >> > I agree with My Fellow Counsellor, Aris, that the office of Ambassador >> > should be brought back. However, there remain many qvestion$ to >> > consider, even after making that determination. Initially, it must be >> > determined whether a separate Ambassador should be appointed for each >> > Nomic, with which Agora would establish relations. I believe that it >> > would be better to have a separate Ambassador for each Nomic, so that >> > each Ambassador would have a better knowledge of the foreign Nomic. >> > Additionally, I would propose that there be a Minister of Foreign >> > Affairs, who would determine general policy and serve as the >> > Ambassador to G.A.N. of F.R.C., in recognition of its special historic >> > status, discussed on the first docket. >> > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] An Ambassadorial Consideration
Yes. That is my third strike. Now, Aris is the only remaining player, assuming eir argument is ruled VALID and e thus wins. On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 8:59 AM Corona wrote: > > > [...] with which Agora would establish relations. > > You mean G.A.N. Agora? > > ~Corona > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I submit the below argument on the third docket: > > > > Your Honor, > > > > I agree with My Fellow Counsellor, Aris, that the office of Ambassador > > should be brought back. However, there remain many qvestion$ to > > consider, even after making that determination. Initially, it must be > > determined whether a separate Ambassador should be appointed for each > > Nomic, with which Agora would establish relations. I believe that it > > would be better to have a separate Ambassador for each Nomic, so that > > each Ambassador would have a better knowledge of the foreign Nomic. > > Additionally, I would propose that there be a Minister of Foreign > > Affairs, who would determine general policy and serve as the > > Ambassador to G.A.N. of F.R.C., in recognition of its special historic > > status, discussed on the first docket. > >
DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] An Ambassadorial Consideration
> [...] with which Agora would establish relations. You mean G.A.N. Agora? ~Corona On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > I submit the below argument on the third docket: > > Your Honor, > > I agree with My Fellow Counsellor, Aris, that the office of Ambassador > should be brought back. However, there remain many qvestion$ to > consider, even after making that determination. Initially, it must be > determined whether a separate Ambassador should be appointed for each > Nomic, with which Agora would establish relations. I believe that it > would be better to have a separate Ambassador for each Nomic, so that > each Ambassador would have a better knowledge of the foreign Nomic. > Additionally, I would propose that there be a Minister of Foreign > Affairs, who would determine general policy and serve as the > Ambassador to G.A.N. of F.R.C., in recognition of its special historic > status, discussed on the first docket. >
Agora blacklisted (Re: DIS: My agora email keeps breaking)
I got a local NVG admin to look at this, and apparently the Agora list server keeps getting intermittently on the spamcop.net blacklist. (Perhaps unrelatedly, my admin also suggested it should get a reverse DNS entry.) Sadly the local fix he applied isn't quite working for me yet, as I'm still missing most Agora mail from yesterday and the day before. Greetings, Ørjan. On Wed, 11 Jul 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: My email from the list keeps intermittently bouncing, and a-d and a-b got disabled for me. Again. Looking at the archive subject lines, it seems to happen whenever there's a day with particularly active discussion. I don't know why, since I cannot see the bounce messages, so I cannot take steps to try to correct it. And comex hasn't responded, I suppose he might be on vacation or something. I have only this one ordinary email account (it's older than Agora so I'm pretty attached to it), but I've tried sending a few messages to myself from a different place (the Esolang wiki) to see if the problem is a general one on my end, and none of those messages bounced. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Summary Judgement
It's fine, I just wanted to remind you of it for the future. On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 6:32 AM Rebecca wrote: > > Oops. That's not a mandate and there's no retracting fines, but > acknowledged, and I apologize. I thought it was only Christmas. > > There is a rule that says that fines are not effective if the > punishment imposed is manifestly inappropriate but that's only for the > value of the fine, so there's no challenging these fines in court, but > to be equitable, I suppose some remedy could be found where I write > your apologies for you or something. > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 8:18 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: > > Please note Rule 1769 and the fact that it applies to all of these > > violations. > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 4:09 AM Rebecca wrote: > >> > >> There is one person recently late on reports (myself) and three people > >> very late on CFJs. One of them is Gaelan, a zombie, but the other two > >> are PSS and ATMunn, who have no excuse. Those CFJs were assigned on 24 > >> June, and therefore became late on the 2nd of July. As today is just > >> within the 14-day deadline for that time, I impose Summary Judgement > >> on them. (By the way, Murphy emself has a SHALL obligation that e has > >> missed to reassign these but I regard that as less important. > >> > >> I impose summary judgement on > >> -Myself for not lodging a Referee Weekly Report last week > >> -PSS for failing to judge the CFJ numbered 3645 > >> -ATMunn for failing to judge CFJ 3648 > >> > >> The penalties I levy are as follows > >> -I levy a 1-blot fine on myself, varying down from the Class-2 default > >> because the conduct was unintentional and there was no new information > >> to report. I designate this fine as forgivable and I designate the > >> apology word "is". > >> -I levy a 1-blot fine on PSS. I find that failing to judge a CFJ, > >> which does not have a Class attached, is generally deserving of the > >> lowest possible fine. I designate this fine as forgivable with the > >> apology word "I". > >> -I levy a 1-blot forgivable fine with the word "did" on ATMunn for the > >> same reasons as above. > >> > >> -- > >> From V.J. Rada > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Summary Judgement
Oops. That's not a mandate and there's no retracting fines, but acknowledged, and I apologize. I thought it was only Christmas. There is a rule that says that fines are not effective if the punishment imposed is manifestly inappropriate but that's only for the value of the fine, so there's no challenging these fines in court, but to be equitable, I suppose some remedy could be found where I write your apologies for you or something. On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 8:18 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > Please note Rule 1769 and the fact that it applies to all of these violations. > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 4:09 AM Rebecca wrote: >> >> There is one person recently late on reports (myself) and three people >> very late on CFJs. One of them is Gaelan, a zombie, but the other two >> are PSS and ATMunn, who have no excuse. Those CFJs were assigned on 24 >> June, and therefore became late on the 2nd of July. As today is just >> within the 14-day deadline for that time, I impose Summary Judgement >> on them. (By the way, Murphy emself has a SHALL obligation that e has >> missed to reassign these but I regard that as less important. >> >> I impose summary judgement on >> -Myself for not lodging a Referee Weekly Report last week >> -PSS for failing to judge the CFJ numbered 3645 >> -ATMunn for failing to judge CFJ 3648 >> >> The penalties I levy are as follows >> -I levy a 1-blot fine on myself, varying down from the Class-2 default >> because the conduct was unintentional and there was no new information >> to report. I designate this fine as forgivable and I designate the >> apology word "is". >> -I levy a 1-blot fine on PSS. I find that failing to judge a CFJ, >> which does not have a Class attached, is generally deserving of the >> lowest possible fine. I designate this fine as forgivable with the >> apology word "I". >> -I levy a 1-blot forgivable fine with the word "did" on ATMunn for the >> same reasons as above. >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intention to deputise without portfolio
Yeah, the only reason I left it as vague as I did was to leave the door open for a potential scam - which didn't work out as I planned because it relied on a certain confluence of events that ended up not happening. (Not going to explain it in case I get the chance to use it again in the future.) Really, like I said, I was only going for Cartographor, and that was based on my misconception that Trigon didn't want to do it any more, which e's since cleared up. To clarify, I don't currently plan to deputise for any office in the near future. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On July 15, 2018 7:49 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > Sure, just so long as you're not planning to deputize for Promotor. :) > > More seriously: it's generally considered polite to deputize for an > > office that's vacant, or very extremely late. Mostly active or > > semi-active players don't tend to like having their offices suddenly > > taken from them, even if they were late on reports, and this has > > caused some disputes in the past, of the meta/people actually got > > upset variety. Just a friendly warning. > > -Aris > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 3:44 PM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > > No, not yet, but you would be before the 14-day time limit expired, if you > > weren't planning to continue - I assumed that was what you meant when you > > said you "weren't even going to try to keep track of this". If that was > > wrong it's no problem, naturally. > > > > -twg > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > On July 13, 2018 9:14 PM, Reuben Staley reuben.sta...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > You cannot deputize for my office yet because I'm not behind on my duties > > > > > > and I also intend to publish the next Cartographor report this Saturday. > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 14:51 Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > > > > > > For each office: I intend to deputise for that office to publish its > > > > > > > > weekly report, if it would be legal at the time for me to do so. > > > > > > > > [I specifically have my eye on Cartographor (with no intention to pass > > > > > > > > judgement on Trigon; I don't think it's unreasonable if you don't want > > > > to > > > > > > > > keep track of things any more, I just feel someone ought to), but I > > > > > > > > figure I might as well keep my options open.] > > > > > > > > -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Summary Judgement
Please note Rule 1769 and the fact that it applies to all of these violations. On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 4:09 AM Rebecca wrote: > > There is one person recently late on reports (myself) and three people > very late on CFJs. One of them is Gaelan, a zombie, but the other two > are PSS and ATMunn, who have no excuse. Those CFJs were assigned on 24 > June, and therefore became late on the 2nd of July. As today is just > within the 14-day deadline for that time, I impose Summary Judgement > on them. (By the way, Murphy emself has a SHALL obligation that e has > missed to reassign these but I regard that as less important. > > I impose summary judgement on > -Myself for not lodging a Referee Weekly Report last week > -PSS for failing to judge the CFJ numbered 3645 > -ATMunn for failing to judge CFJ 3648 > > The penalties I levy are as follows > -I levy a 1-blot fine on myself, varying down from the Class-2 default > because the conduct was unintentional and there was no new information > to report. I designate this fine as forgivable and I designate the > apology word "is". > -I levy a 1-blot fine on PSS. I find that failing to judge a CFJ, > which does not have a Class attached, is generally deserving of the > lowest possible fine. I designate this fine as forgivable with the > apology word "I". > -I levy a 1-blot forgivable fine with the word "did" on ATMunn for the > same reasons as above. > > -- > From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intention to deputise without portfolio
Sure, just so long as you're not planning to deputize for Promotor. :) More seriously: it's generally considered polite to deputize for an office that's vacant, or very extremely late. Mostly active or semi-active players don't tend to like having their offices suddenly taken from them, even if they were late on reports, and this has caused some disputes in the past, of the meta/people actually got upset variety. Just a friendly warning. -Aris On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 3:44 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > No, not yet, but you would be before the 14-day time limit expired, if you > weren't planning to continue - I assumed that was what you meant when you > said you "weren't even going to try to keep track of this". If that was wrong > it's no problem, naturally. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On July 13, 2018 9:14 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > > > > > You cannot deputize for my office yet because I'm not behind on my duties > > > > and I also intend to publish the next Cartographor report this Saturday. > > > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 14:51 Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > > > > For each office: I intend to deputise for that office to publish its > > > > > > weekly report, if it would be legal at the time for me to do so. > > > > > > [I specifically have my eye on Cartographor (with no intention to pass > > > > > > judgement on Trigon; I don't think it's unreasonable if you don't want to > > > > > > keep track of things any more, I just feel someone ought to), but I > > > > > > figure I might as well keep my options open.] > > > > > > -twg > >
DIS: Assessment Request (attn. H. Assessor)
H. Assessor, would you consider assessing at least 8061? Proposal gameplay is kind of stalled waiting for it. -Aris
