Re: Fwd: DIS: Re: Fwd: Re: BUS: Weekly maintenance
The _coin balances_ have self-ratified. Historical transactions themselves generally don't. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 6:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Support. Has the transfer itself self-ratified? > > On 1/29/2019 10:02 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > I support > > -twg > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 6:00 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > > > I intend to enter this into moot with 3 support. > > > I don’t think it’s clear from the “IRRELEVANT” decision whether quang’ing > > > actually works or not. And people still are quang’ing quite often, so it > > > would probably be useful to get clarity on the question of whether that > > > actually is effective. > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > > > > From: "D. Margaux" dmargaux...@gmail.com > > > > Date: January 23, 2019 at 4:26:32 PM EST > > > > To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org > > > > Subject: Re: DIS: Re: Fwd: Re: BUS: Weekly maintenance > > > > I support > > > > > > > > > On Jan 23, 2019, at 1:28 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote: > > > > > PF > > > > > Forwarded Message > > > > > Subject: DIS: Re: Fwd: Re: BUS: Weekly maintenance > > > > > Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 10:24:40 -0800 > > > > > From: Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu > > > > > Reply-To: Agora Nomic discussions (DF) agora-discussion@agoranomic.org > > > > > To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org > > > > > I intend to file a motion to reconsider CFJ 3692 w/2 Support. It is > > > > > certainly relevant whether or not twg earned 5 coins. It may be > > > > > trivially > > > > > true and therefore not relevant to the future interpretation of > > > > > "quang" > > > > > (because twg cited the meaning directly in the message), but the > > > > > success of > > > > > the transfer itself is not IRRELEVANT. > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/19/2019 10:26 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > > > > JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 3692 > > > > > > This case concerns a message sent by twg on the eighth of January. > > > > > > In this message, twg defined two definitions to the word "quang" as > > > > > > an unofficial term undefined by the rules. While it is true that > > > > > > shorthand is tolerated in Agora and is somewhat of an integral part > > > > > > of our culture, what with constantly using "TTttPF" to correct our > > > > > > mistakes, it is also true that such terminology only gains its > > > > > > meaning from the acceptance of the Agoran community at large and > > > > > > not from the rules themselves. Because of this, I judge this case > > > > > > IRRELEVANT. > > > > > > Forwarded Message > > > > > > Subject: Re: BUS: Weekly maintenance > > > > > > Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 17:39:37 -0500 > > > > > > From: ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com > > > > > > Reply-To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org > > > > > > To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org > > > > > > because why not, I CFJ on the following: > > > > > > In the message quoted below, twg successfully earned 5 coins for > > > > > > publishing the Treasuror's most recent report. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/8/2019 11:38 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > > > Defining some shorthand: > > > > > > > To "quang" an office is to earn 5 coins for publishing that > > > > > > > office's most recent report. > > > > > > > To "quang" a player is to act on the player's behalf to transfer > > > > > > > all eir liquid assets to oneself. > > > > > > > I quang Treasuror. I quang Referee. I quang Tailor. I quang > > > > > > > Tenhigitsune. > > > > > > > -twg
Re: DIS: Unlasting Damage
I think this works. Punishment for violation could be to permit the aggrieved player to act on behalf of the violator to transfer to the aggrieved player a number of coins sufficient (but not more than necessary) to enable the aggrieved player to put emself in the same position with respect to armour and energy as e would have been in if the contract had been followed. (The precise language of that punishment may need to be ironed out a little.) > On Jan 29, 2019, at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Proto-contract: Unlasting Damage > (does this work? thoughts, edits?) > > When a combatant is a member of this contract, when they initiate a space > battle with another member, they can specify that the combat uses Anti- > Entropy. Members of this contract agree that, for any space battle in > which both combatants are members and this is specified, they will submit a > value in the range N-30, where N is between 0 and 20, inclusive. > > (thoughts on punishment if broken?) > > This contract is not an alliance. > >> On 1/29/2019 8:15 AM, D. Margaux wrote: >> I resolve space battle 0002 as follows: >> twg chose 10 energy. >> G. chose -10 (i.e., negative 10) energy. >> twg's spaceship: 10/10 armour*, 10/20 energy >> G.'s spaceship: 0/10 armour, 20/20 energy** >> twg is the winner. >> >> *By Rule 2591, armour is a switch with value 0 to 10, so twg's armour >> CANNOT grow to 20. >> **By Rule 2592, any energy in excess of 20 is destroyed, so G.'s >> energy CANNOT grow to 30 (or if it does, it is immediately reduced >> back to 20). >>> On 1/15/2019 6:02 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >>> - SPACE BATTLE 0002 - >>> 2019-01-15 - UNRESOLVED >>> SECTOR 07 >>> Aggressor: twg VS. Defender: G. >>> Energy: ?? Energy: ?? >>> Resolver: D. Margaux
DIS: Unlasting Damage
Proto-contract: Unlasting Damage (does this work? thoughts, edits?) When a combatant is a member of this contract, when they initiate a space battle with another member, they can specify that the combat uses Anti- Entropy. Members of this contract agree that, for any space battle in which both combatants are members and this is specified, they will submit a value in the range N-30, where N is between 0 and 20, inclusive. (thoughts on punishment if broken?) This contract is not an alliance. On 1/29/2019 8:15 AM, D. Margaux wrote: I resolve space battle 0002 as follows: twg chose 10 energy. G. chose -10 (i.e., negative 10) energy. twg's spaceship: 10/10 armour*, 10/20 energy G.'s spaceship: 0/10 armour, 20/20 energy** twg is the winner. *By Rule 2591, armour is a switch with value 0 to 10, so twg's armour CANNOT grow to 20. **By Rule 2592, any energy in excess of 20 is destroyed, so G.'s energy CANNOT grow to 30 (or if it does, it is immediately reduced back to 20). On 1/15/2019 6:02 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: - SPACE BATTLE 0002 - 2019-01-15 - UNRESOLVED SECTOR 07 Aggressor: twg VS. Defender: G. Energy: ?? Energy: ?? Resolver: D. Margaux
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
And I would have reconsidered if the motion had gone through. -- Trigon On Tue, Jan 29, 2019, 10:47 D. Margaux > > > On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:28 PM, Reuben Staley > wrote: > > > > Interesting that I judged 3592 more recently than 83 or 84 but it's not > > recorded anywhere. > > Oops. The decision in 3692 was recorded in the Court Gazette of 20 > January, but I forgot to add it to the list of recently judged CFJs. Will > do that next time. > > BTW, G. had intended to seek reconsideration of that CFJ, which I thought > was a good idea, because IRRELEVANT probably isn’t the right decision. If > the arguments were lacking enough detail, I think DISMISS is more proper. > > It may be too late to do that though.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
> On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:28 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > Interesting that I judged 3592 more recently than 83 or 84 but it's not > recorded anywhere. Oops. The decision in 3692 was recorded in the Court Gazette of 20 January, but I forgot to add it to the list of recently judged CFJs. Will do that next time. BTW, G. had intended to seek reconsideration of that CFJ, which I thought was a good idea, because IRRELEVANT probably isn’t the right decision. If the arguments were lacking enough detail, I think DISMISS is more proper. It may be too late to do that though.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter
Oic lol. I thought you were trying to sneakily make it seem to a casual observer as though you _were_ the one with unjustly self-ratified blots, by removing the contextualising quote. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:34 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Oh fuck lmao, I was wrong, I was thinking that I had been inactive but > apparently I haven't actually deregistered (and thus been a fugitive) at any > point. > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:33 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > As I said, it's Kenyon who's the fugitive and ought to have had some of eir > > blots destroyed, not you. > > > > -twg > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:30 PM, Cuddle Beam > > wrote: > > > > > Why do you object lol > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:29 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:27 PM, Cuddle Beam > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ah, no worries. Ratification can be solved with ratification. > > > > > > > > > > I intend to ratify without objection the following document: > > > > > > > > > > The player Cuddlebeam has 1 Blot. > > > > > > > > I object, but nicely done. > > > > > > > > -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter
Oh fuck lmao, I was wrong, I was thinking that I had been inactive but apparently I haven't actually deregistered (and thus been a fugitive) at any point. On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:33 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > As I said, it's Kenyon who's the fugitive and ought to have had some of > eir blots destroyed, not you. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:30 PM, Cuddle Beam > wrote: > > > Why do you object lol > > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:29 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:27 PM, Cuddle Beam < > cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Ah, no worries. Ratification can be solved with ratification. > > > > > > > > I intend to ratify without objection the following document: > > > > > > > > The player Cuddlebeam has 1 Blot. > > > > > > I object, but nicely done. > > > > > > -twg >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter
I object to that answer, just in case. -- Trigon On Tue, Jan 29, 2019, 10:33 Timon Walshe-Grey As I said, it's Kenyon who's the fugitive and ought to have had some of > eir blots destroyed, not you. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:30 PM, Cuddle Beam > wrote: > > > Why do you object lol > > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:29 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:27 PM, Cuddle Beam < > cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Ah, no worries. Ratification can be solved with ratification. > > > > > > > > I intend to ratify without objection the following document: > > > > > > > > The player Cuddlebeam has 1 Blot. > > > > > > I object, but nicely done. > > > > > > -twg >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter
As I said, it's Kenyon who's the fugitive and ought to have had some of eir blots destroyed, not you. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:30 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Why do you object lol > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:29 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:27 PM, Cuddle Beam > > wrote: > > > > > Ah, no worries. Ratification can be solved with ratification. > > > > > > I intend to ratify without objection the following document: > > > > > > The player Cuddlebeam has 1 Blot. > > > > I object, but nicely done. > > > > -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter
I object to that question. E doesn’t need to explain emself. Object object object! > On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:30 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > Why do you object lol > > >> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:29 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:27 PM, Cuddle Beam >> wrote: >> >>> Ah, no worries. Ratification can be solved with ratification. >>> >>> I intend to ratify without objection the following document: >>> >>> The player Cuddlebeam has 1 Blot. >> >> I object, but nicely done. >> >> -twg >>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter
Why do you object lol On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:29 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:27 PM, Cuddle Beam > wrote: > > > Ah, no worries. Ratification can be solved with ratification. > > > > I intend to ratify without objection the following document: > > > > The player Cuddlebeam has 1 Blot. > > I object, but nicely done. > > -twg >
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
Interesting that I judged 3592 more recently than 83 or 84 but it's not recorded anywhere. -- Trigon On Tue, Jan 29, 2019, 10:16 D. Margaux COURT GAZETTE (Arbitor's weekly report) > > Date of last report: 20 Jan 2019 > Date of this report: 29 Jan 2019 > > Disclaimer: Informational only. No actions are contained in this report. >Information in this report is not self-ratifying. > > > Open cases (CFJs) > - > > 3695 called 15 January 2019 by twg, assigned 16 January 2019 to G.: > "Tenhigitsune has fulfilled eir obligation, detailed in the rule > entitled 'Space Battles', to 'once communicate to the resolver the > amount of Energy [e wishes] to spend" in Space Battle 0001." > > 3696 called 15 January 2019 by twg, assigned 16 January 2019 to G.: > "D. Margaux has fulfilled eir obligation, detailed in the rule > entitled 'Space Battles', to 'once communicate to the resolver the > amount of Energy [e wishes] to spend" in Space Battle 0001." > > 3697 called 20 January 2019 by D. Margaux, currently unassigned: "D. > Margaux won the game by politics in this message." > > 3698 called 22 January 2019 by D. Margaux, currently unassigned: "D. > Margaux committed at least 1,000,000,000 rule violations." > > 3699 called 29 January 2019 by Telnaior, assigned 29 January 2019 to > Trigon: "A Spaceship owned by the Lost and Found Department is in Sector > 05." > > Highest numbered case: 3699 > > Context/arguments/evidence are included at the bottom of this report. > > > Recently-delivered verdicts and implications > > > > Day Court Judge Recent > -- > D. Margaux 3685, 3686, 3690*, 3691*, 3694 > [11/2 11/2 12/25 12/25 01/20] > > G. 3679, 3680, 3688, 3691, 3695, 3696 > [11/2 11/2 11/11 12/2 01/16 01/16] > > Murphy 3682, 3678, 3687, 3689 > [11/1 11/4 11/10 11/14] > > Trigon 3683, 3684, 3699 > [11/1 11/1 01/29] > > Weekend Court Judge Recent (generally gets half as many cases) > -- > ATMunn 3690 > [12/2] > > * Indicates that the CFJ was reassigned to this judge. > > (These are informal designations. Requests to join/leave a given court > will be noted. Individual requests to be assigned a specific case will > generally be honored, even for non-court judges.) > > > Context/arguments/evidence > -- > > > * CFJ 3695 and CFJ 3696 > > ***3695 & 3696 Background message from twg: > > I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau > Energy in Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which is > a constructed language invented by me. (Other twgese words include > "quang" and "spaaace".) > > Go ahead, CFJ this. You know you want to > > ***3695 & 3696 response by ais523 > > I recommend searching the CFJ archives and/or Agoran mailing lists for > > "nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk". > (It's not a very commonly used word, after all!) > > And as a followup, the most relevant of the many nkep precedents > appears to be CFJ 2625 (which is almost exactly this situation, > attempting to act on behalf of another player using a word that has not > been publicly defined). I disagree with the outcome of that case (as > you can see from the arguments), and I'm not sure it gives us any > guidance for sorting out this situation anyway (as unlike in CFJ 2625, > there's no reason to suppose that the player in question knows the > meaning of the word, nor that they are paying enough attention to the > game to object to an attempt to use it incorrectly). > > > > ***3695 & 3696 arguement from D. Margaux: > > I have no idea how this resolves. > > One reason this might not work is that the rule requires Tenhigitsune > to “communicate” eir choice, and Rule 2466 prohibits you from acting > on behalf of em to send a “message” (or synonymously, to “publish” > something). The only thing you can do is take the underlying game > action on eir behalf—but here there seems to be no action separate > from the very act of sending a message (i.e., “communicat[ing]”). > > ***3695 & 3696 response by twg to D. Margaux: > > I see your Rule 2466/1 and raise you CFJ 3649. > > -twg > > > > > ***3695 & 3696 response by twg to ais523: > > Actually, I don't think this is the same scenario. twgese is just a > mechanism for ensuring that the value of the number Tenhigitsune has > announced is unknown to D. Margaux; the nature of the action that is > being taken is perfectly cromulent to everybody. (Unless it fails for > another reason.) > > -twg > > > > ***3695 & 3696 arguement from G. responding to twg: > > > There's a fairly established set of decisions that says public > communication > has to be intelligible to "a typical Agoran" and not
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter
You are a player and therefore not a fugitive. However, Kenyon indeed ought to have lost some blots - you're correct that I didn't see that clause in the rules. Eir blots have self-ratified into existence now but I will remember for next quarter. Thank you. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:18 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > "At the beginning of each quarter, half (rounded down) of each > fugitive's blots are destroyed." > > "4. Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, > July, and October begin." > > Why do I still have 3 Blots? > > I expunge 1 Blot from myself > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:11 PM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > > Date of this weekly report: 2019-01-29 > > Date of last weekly report: 2019-01-21 > > > > BLOT HOLDINGS > > > > == > > > > This section self-ratifies. > > Blots Person > > > > 10Corona > >7Kenyon > >5V.J. Rada > >3CuddleBeam > >3Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > >1G. > >1L. > > > > > > RECENT HISTORY > > > > === > > > > This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify. > > Key: > > f Forgivable > > S Summary Judgement > > D Loses monthly salary for relevant office > > > > Person Change fSD Date (UTC) Reason Office > > > > --- > > > > -- time of last report -- > > Murphy - 1 2019-01-13 Expunged > > Murphy - 1 2019-01-06 Expunged > > Murphy - 1 2018-12-27 Expunged > > G. + 1 2018-12-17 Self-ratification > > Murphy - 1 2018-12-02 Expunged > > Murphy - 1 2018-11-25 Expunged > > Murphy - 1 2018-11-05 Expunged > > Murphy - 1 2018-11-04 Expunged > > V.J. Rada - 1 2018-11-01 Expunged > > CuddleBeam + 1 f 2018-11-01 Faking > > twg - 1 2018-10-23 Expunged > > Murphy + 2 D 2018-10-20 Late judge removal Arbitor > > twg + 1 2018-10-20 Late CFJ judgement > > L. + 1 2018-10-20 Late CFJ judgement > > CuddleBeam + 2 2018-10-20 Late CFJ judgement > > ATMunn - 1 2018-10-11 Expunged > > Trigon - 1 2018-10-09 Expunged > > Trigon - 1 2018-10-04 Expunged > > Kenyon - 1 2018-09-28 Expunged > > Corona + 2 S 2018-09-28 Late CFJ judgement > > Aris - 1 2018-09-24 Expunged > > Aris - 1 2018-09-20 Expunged > > Kenyon - 1 2018-09-17 Expunged > > Kenyon - 1 2018-09-16 Expunged > > Corona + 1 f 2018-09-16 Late CFJ judgement > > V.J. Rada + 1 f 2018-09-16 Late CFJ judgement > > P.S.S. + 2 SD 2018-09-14 Tardiness Herald > > Murphy + 2 S 2018-09-09 Late CFJ judgement > > V.J. Rada + 2 S 2018-09-09 Late CFJ judgement > > Aris + 2 SD 2018-09-09 Tardiness Promotor > > Trigon + 2 SD 2018-09-01 Tardiness Cartographor
DIS: Re: BUS: Spaceship intents
You can't make them battle each other, as 'opponent' is determined by player so you can't be your own opponent. The transfer does go through though as the "You can transfer anything in lost and found" rule has a lower ID than the "You can't transfer fixed assets" rule. Would let you have two space battles running at once, at least once you found two opponents. Might be expensive? (Also I just realised the L Department is going to end up with a pile of energy from destroyed spaceships at this rate) On 2019-01-30 04:00, D. Margaux wrote: I intend without objection to transfer the spaceships in the lost & found department to players other than myself and my zombie. (Honestly just think this would be funny to see what happens, not trying to gain personal advantage with this one.) On Jan 29, 2019, at 11:58 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 4:42 PM, D. Margaux wrote: I intend without objection to transfer the spaceships in the lost & found department to a player of my choosing other than myself. I object to this first one. Nice try, zombie master. :P I intend without objection to destroy the spaceships in the lost & found department. But this seems sensible. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8146-8151
On 1/29/2019 8:48 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Oh, you're right. I didn't realise that second condition was a thing, I > don't think there's been a proposal with AI < 1 since I registered. I wondered if you missed that, it's pretty hidden and non-intuitive. There's really no benefit to having proposals with AI < 1, which is why you haven't seen them. There's sometimes a purpose to having Rules with Power < 1. Also, you asked before if the proposals would work? ITT they're broken in a trivially fixable way, because Rule Changes need to specify the order in which they occur - things like "All Rules are modified to X" don't work, but "All rules, in increasing numerical order, are modified to X" works - this is a fairly consistent CFJ interpretation of R105. (Because of the odd way in which the rule changes are applied here, a CFJ might have to wade through - "yes, these are rule changes as defined by R105. yes, R105 claims precedence over all rule changes so your claims of precedence need to be *above* power-3 to work - so yes, those precedents of interpreting R105 to require explicit rule change ordering apply.") -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Can we put the Orinoco River in space so I can sing Enya
Yeah, that ought to go through and then we just need to figure out where my Spaceship actually started. On 2019-01-30 03:54, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 4:51 PM, Telnaior wrote: (I'm guessing the spaceship from zombie-me was self-ratified out of existence by now regardless, which simplifies things a little) Sorry, no such luck - the previous Astronomor report did in fact include it. But D. Margaux's intent to destroy it should work regardless. Assuming nobody objects to it. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Can we put the Orinoco River in space so I can sing Enya
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 4:51 PM, Telnaior wrote: > (I'm guessing the spaceship from zombie-me was > self-ratified out of existence by now regardless, which simplifies > things a little) Sorry, no such luck - the previous Astronomor report did in fact include it. But D. Margaux's intent to destroy it should work regardless. Assuming nobody objects to it. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8146-8151
Oh, you're right. I didn't realise that second condition was a thing, I don't think there's been a proposal with AI < 1 since I registered. Revision to be published shortly - apologies for the confusion. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 4:45 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > 3 votes FOR and 12 votes... > > This satisfies the first condition for an AI majority decision (0.25 is > greater than 0.1) but not the second (0.25 is not greater than 1). > > > > Trigon > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019, 09:34 Timon Walshe-Grey > > I resolve the Agoran Decisions to adopt each of Proposals 8146-8151 as > > follows. > > -twg > > > > SUMMARY > > > > > > > > This section self-ratifies. > > > > ID Author(s) Title Result > > > > -- > > > > 8146 twg Powerless Tangeloes ADOPTED > > 8147 twg Tangeloes Taking Precedence ADOPTED > > 8148 twg Powerful Tangeloes REJECTED > > 8149 twg, G. Bad Space Captaincy Legalisation ADOPTED > > 8150 twg, Trigon Sharing the Wealth Again REJECTED > > 8151 twg, G. With apologies to Michael Suber ADOPTED > > 5 ballots were cast on Proposal 8151, so Quorum on Agoran Decisions is > > now 3 except where otherwise stated. > > > > TALLY OF VOTES > > > > === > > > > This section does not self-ratify. > > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | 8146| 8147| 8148| 8149| 8150| 8151| > > > > > > ++-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > |AI | 0.1 | 0.1 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | > > |Quorum | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | > > ++-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > |Aris | FFF | FFF | FFF | FFF | P | FFF | > > |G. 1b.| AAA | AAA | AAA | FFF | P | AAA | > > |Gaelan | AAA | AAA | AAA |+ P |+ P |+ P | > > |Murphy | AAA | AAA | AAA | FFF | P | FFF | > > |Trigon | AAA | AAA | AAA | FFF | P | FFF | > > ++-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > |FOR | 3 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 9 | > > |AGAINST | 12 | 12 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 3 | > > |Ballots | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | > > |Resolved |ADOP.|ADOP.|REJE.|ADOP.|REJE.|ADOP.| > > ++-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Key: > > #b. Possesses # blots [-floor(#/3) voting strength] > > PM Prime Minister [+1 voting strength] > > Z Zombie > > > > - Extricated conditional > > x Inextricable conditional > > > > > > RIBBONS EARNED IN THIS RESOLUTION > > > > == > > > > This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify. > > Player Ribbon Proposal(s) > > > > (none) > > > > FAVOUR AWARDS > > > > == > > > > I award Favours in Parties as follows: > > Player Party No. For > > > > twg MLP 1 Adoption of Proposal 8146 > > Aris PLA 2 Voting on Proposal 8146 > > G. PLA 2 Voting on Proposal 8146 > > Gaelan PLA 2 Voting on Proposal 8146 > > Murphy PLA 2 Voting on Proposal 8146 > > Trigon PLA 2 Voting on Proposal 8146 > > twg MLP 1 Adoption of Proposal 8147 > > twg MLP 1 Adoption of Proposal 8149 > > twg MLP 1 Adoption of Proposal 8151 > > > > TEXT OF ADOPTED PROPOSALS > > > > == > > > > This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify. > > // > > ID: 8146 > > Title: Powerless Tangeloes > > Adoption index: 0.1 > > Author: twg > > Co-authors: > > Enact a new rule "The Tangelo Rule" (Power=0.1) with the following > > text: > > Tangelo. All rules begin with the word "Tangelo". This rule > > automatically repeals itself 10 days after it is enacted. > > // > > ID: 8147 > > Title: Tangeloes Taking Precedence > > Adoption index: 0.1 > > Author: twg > > Co-authors: > > If a rule named "The Tangelo Rule" exists, amend it by replacing the > > text "All rules" with "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, all > > rules". > > // > > ID: 8149 > > Title: Bad Space Captaincy Legalisation > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > Author: twg > > Co-authors: G. > > Amend the Rule entitled "Space Battles" by changing the words > > "the combatants SHALL" to "the combatants SHOULD". > > Amend the Rule entitled "Space Battles" by removing the following > > paragraph: > > Failing to do so is the Class-2 Crime of Being a Bad Space Captain. > > // > > ID: 8151 > > Title: With apologies to Michael Suber > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > Author: twg > > Co-authors: G. > > Amend Rule 2593, "Space Battles", by replacing the word > > "non-combatant" with "active non-combatant player". > > //
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8146-8151
3 votes FOR and 12 votes... This satisfies the first condition for an AI majority decision (0.25 is greater than 0.1) but not the second (0.25 is not greater than 1). -- Trigon On Tue, Jan 29, 2019, 09:34 Timon Walshe-Grey I resolve the Agoran Decisions to adopt each of Proposals 8146-8151 as > follows. > > -twg > > > SUMMARY > > This section self-ratifies. > > IDAuthor(s) Title Result > > 8146 twgPowerless TangeloesADOPTED > 8147 twgTangeloes Taking PrecedenceADOPTED > 8148 twgPowerful Tangeloes REJECTED > 8149 twg, G.Bad Space Captaincy Legalisation ADOPTED > 8150 twg, TrigonSharing the Wealth Again REJECTED > 8151 twg, G.With apologies to Michael SuberADOPTED > > 5 ballots were cast on Proposal 8151, so Quorum on Agoran Decisions is > now 3 except where otherwise stated. > > > TALLY OF VOTES > > This section does not self-ratify. > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | 8146| 8147| 8148| 8149| 8150| 8151| > ++-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |AI | 0.1 | 0.1 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | > |Quorum | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | > ++-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |Aris| FFF | FFF | FFF | FFF | P | FFF | > |G. 1b.| AAA | AAA | AAA | FFF | P | AAA | > |Gaelan | AAA | AAA | AAA |+ P |+ P |+ P | > |Murphy | AAA | AAA | AAA | FFF | P | FFF | > |Trigon | AAA | AAA | AAA | FFF | P | FFF | > ++-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |FOR | 3 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 9 | > |AGAINST | 12 | 12 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 3 | > |Ballots | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | > |Resolved|ADOP.|ADOP.|REJE.|ADOP.|REJE.|ADOP.| > ++-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Key: > #b. Possesses # blots [-floor(#/3) voting strength] > PM Prime Minister [+1 voting strength] > Z Zombie > + Extricated conditional > x Inextricable conditional > > > RIBBONS EARNED IN THIS RESOLUTION > > This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify. > >PlayerRibbonProposal(s) >------- >(none) > > > FAVOUR AWARDS > > I award Favours in Parties as follows: > >PlayerPartyNo.For >------- >twgMLP 1 Adoption of Proposal 8146 >Aris PLA 2 Voting on Proposal 8146 >G. PLA 2 Voting on Proposal 8146 >Gaelan PLA 2 Voting on Proposal 8146 >Murphy PLA 2 Voting on Proposal 8146 >Trigon PLA 2 Voting on Proposal 8146 >twgMLP 1 Adoption of Proposal 8147 >twgMLP 1 Adoption of Proposal 8149 >twgMLP 1 Adoption of Proposal 8151 > > > TEXT OF ADOPTED PROPOSALS > > This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify. > > // > ID: 8146 > Title: Powerless Tangeloes > Adoption index: 0.1 > Author: twg > Co-authors: > > > Enact a new rule "The Tangelo Rule" (Power=0.1) with the following > text: > > Tangelo. All rules begin with the word "Tangelo". This rule > automatically repeals itself 10 days after it is enacted. > > // > ID: 8147 > Title: Tangeloes Taking Precedence > Adoption index: 0.1 > Author: twg > Co-authors: > > > If a rule named "The Tangelo Rule" exists, amend it by replacing the > text "All rules" with "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, all > rules". > > // > ID: 8149 > Title: Bad Space Captaincy Legalisation > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: twg > Co-authors: G. > > > Amend the Rule entitled "Space Battles" by changing the words > "the combatants SHALL" to "the combatants SHOULD". > > Amend the Rule entitled "Space Battles" by removing the following > paragraph: > > Failing to do so is the Class-2 Crime of Being a Bad Space Captain. > > // > ID: 8151 > Title: With apologies to Michael Suber > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: twg > Co-authors: G. > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Can we put the Orinoco River in space so I can sing Enya
> On Jan 29, 2019, at 11:36 AM, Madeline wrote: > > Are you sure? The Spaceship I possessed as a zombie was deemed to have been > destroyed the moment it entered the L office upon my deregistration two > weeks ago. Under Rule 2576 (power=3), “Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Lost and Found Department can own assets of every type.” I think that trumps any other rule that would purport to limit ownership of spaceships to players.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Can we put the Orinoco River in space so I can sing Enya
Oh, I do remember someone (Ørjan?) suggesting that, yes. But I don't think it holds up - the rule defining the Lost and Found Department states pretty clearly that the Lost and Found Department CAN own any asset, "rules to the contrary notwithstanding". You are welcome to CFJ it. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 4:36 PM, Madeline wrote: > Are you sure? The Spaceship I possessed as a zombie was deemed to have > been destroyed the moment it entered the L office upon my > deregistration two weeks ago. > > On 2019-01-30 03:29, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > No, it's in Sector 16. The one in Sector 5 was created the first time you > > registered today, and is now property of the Lost and Found Department. > > I've also just realised that the rule doesn't specify 10 as the default for > > Armour (which it should). Annoyingly, everyone else's (except, newly, G.'s) > > has self-ratified to 10. Sorry. > > -twg > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 4:25 PM, Telnaior j...@iinet.net.au wrote: > > > > > i spend one coin to repair my spaceship to 1 armour. > > > Is my Spaceship in Sector 05 right now?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Can we put the Orinoco River in space so I can sing Enya
Are you sure? The Spaceship I possessed as a zombie was deemed to have been destroyed the moment it entered the L office upon my deregistration two weeks ago. On 2019-01-30 03:29, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: No, it's in Sector 16. The one in Sector 5 was created the _first_ time you registered today, and is now property of the Lost and Found Department. I've also just realised that the rule doesn't specify 10 as the default for Armour (which it should). Annoyingly, everyone else's (except, newly, G.'s) has self-ratified to 10. Sorry. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 4:25 PM, Telnaior wrote: i spend one coin to repair my spaceship to 1 armour. Is my Spaceship in Sector 05 right now?
DIS: Scam CFJs
Does any player favour resolving the CFJs relating to my politics scam? I’m required to assign them to someone. I’ll assign them to the first eligible player who favors it, or else choose randomly among day/weekend judges (excluding me).
DIS: Re: BUS: Can we put the Orinoco River in space so I can sing Enya
No, it's in Sector 16. The one in Sector 5 was created the _first_ time you registered today, and is now property of the Lost and Found Department. I've also just realised that the rule doesn't specify 10 as the default for Armour (which it should). Annoyingly, everyone else's (except, newly, G.'s) has self-ratified to 10. Sorry. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 4:25 PM, Telnaior wrote: > i spend one coin to repair my spaceship to 1 armour. > > Is my Spaceship in Sector 05 right now?
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: space battle result?
I'll publish it formally a bit later today I hope, but on the zombie one, my reasoning hasn't changed so I'm going to find that zombies can't send messages/communicate, so can't submit energy. On 1/29/2019 8:03 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Yes. I was planning some sort of scam where the Arbitor impeachment caused ATMunn, as Prime Minister, to become the resolver, making _you_ a Bad Space Captain on account of not sending your Energy to the right person, but honestly I couldn't be bothered. I'm also overdue to judge the Space Battle between D. Margaux and my zombie, but I don't think I can until I know which, if any, of their attempts to submit energy succeeded (the CFJs you mentioned). -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 3:54 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Speaking of overdue stuff, there was a Space Battle between twg and myself that D. Margaux was supposed to resolve? [I know I've got a couple CFJs overdue on the subject, but I was kinda hoping to see how that one played out in case it affected arguments on the whole "private communications" question - though at this point I'll deliver the judgements in the next 24 hours regardless].
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: With that dealt with,
On 1/29/2019 7:52 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Tue, 2019-01-29 at 07:49 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Several I think, but the results are mixed. ("[X] is/is not a
player" is the most common phrase in CFJ statements after all).
How does it compare to "This is a CFJ"?
(Admittedly, the numbers on that one are somewhat deflated by the fact
that many of them turned out not to be.)
No contest. I get 14 for "is/is not a CFJ" and something over 60 for the
playerhood question (half of those are for non-natural players in the
partnership era, but even with natural persons only, playerhood wins).
Because many people like to try to loophole registration and call a CFJ as
their first "move" (by way of introduction, I guess?) over time we made the
standard pretty weak so most attempts work. Used to be much stricter, when
I first joined, the standard was that the potential player had to literally
"request registration" and my own registration caused a CFJ because, when I
joined, I said (clearly) "I register" instead of "I request to be
registered" and even that was controversial by the standards of the time:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1263
I'm not sure the deflation is a huge factor in the difference - most
Arbitors seem to have left things judged not-CFJ in the archives with ID
numbers (I know I did) though they'd probably leave off ones that seemed
really trivially false.
DIS: space battle result?
Speaking of overdue stuff, there was a Space Battle between twg and myself that D. Margaux was supposed to resolve? [I know I've got a couple CFJs overdue on the subject, but I was kinda hoping to see how that one played out in case it affected arguments on the whole "private communications" question - though at this point I'll deliver the judgements in the next 24 hours regardless].
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: With that dealt with,
On Tue, 2019-01-29 at 07:49 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Several I think, but the results are mixed. ("[X] is/is not a
> player" is the most common phrase in CFJ statements after all).
How does it compare to "This is a CFJ"?
(Admittedly, the numbers on that one are somewhat deflated by the fact
that many of them turned out not to be.)
--
ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: With that dealt with,
On 1/29/2019 7:43 AM, Telnaior wrote:
I register as a player, and cause myself to receive a Welcome Package.
(After all that I can't really be bothered coming up with a silly CFJ
condition - I assume there's precedent for not being able to register by
just starting to perform actions that would require you to be a player)
Several I think, but the results are mixed. ("[X] is/is not a player" is
the most common phrase in CFJ statements after all).
Re: DIS: Cantus Cygneus
On 1/29/2019 7:09 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: One of my favourite AWJ entries: THE AGORAN WEEKLY JOURNAL VOLUME 51, BACK ISSUE 3 Sunday, December 31, 2006 December 15: Goethe publishes a Cantus Cygneus. This triggers a CFJ on whether e can be deregistered for it (the Writ of FAGE procedure involves the no-longer-defined Registrar). CotC Murphy ends up getting a win by paradox out of it: * CFJ assigned to Goethe * Writ of FAGE procedure attempted * CFJ allegedly assigned to Goethe * Goethe judges FALSE, implying that e is not the judge * Sherlock judges TRUE, implying that e is not the judge Oooh I'd forgotten that one. As a postscript, I remember arguing that neither of our "CFJ judgements" could be be reconsidered, because it wasn't possible to clearly specify which one was the actual judgement when announcing intent to reconsider. -G. (formerly Goethe)
Re: DIS: Cantus Cygneus
Glad this isn't going completely to waste, generating outrage on demand is hard! Hi though, I'll probably hop back in for real once the whole FAGE thing gets sorted out. (I actually happened to go through the NetHack TAS turn-by-turn report yesterday which never ceases to be hilarious, so I guess we're even?) On 2019-01-30 02:03, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: On Wed, 2019-01-30 at 01:58 +1100, Telnaior wrote: Honestly, this makes me mad. Doubly mad because if I were to deregister by announcement, I'd have to wait around a full month before I could come back. So let's do it this way - it gets the point across and lets me skip the timer (at least as long as the current Registrar actually bothers to do their job and not flagrantly violate the rules for once) Please nobody ever close this loophole. It only gets used once every few years and the results always seem to be hilarious.
DIS: Cantus Cygneus 2
I register as a player. The following is my Cantus Cygneus, to be published by the Registrar in a timely fashion: Alright, so let's get one thing straight here. I haven't actually been playing this game in MONTHS. Yeah, sure, the whole zombie system has been keeping me alive for a little while, but did you notice my resale value is 0 now? I'm so dramatically rotted away that you can't even use me for anything! And despite that, I'm still on the Directory, registered as a player. Wait, what's that? The rules say the Registrar SHALL try to deregister me every month I haven't been active? Huh, can you believe that this hasn't been happening in direct violation of the rules, even when my resale was already 0? Can you believe the former Registrar outright resigned instead in order to shirk eir duty? Can you believe, even though literally ANYONE here could deregister me with mere notice at this point, no one actually has? Here I was hoping to come back with the obligatory "am I a player" CFJ, only to find out that I'm still a player! It's ridiculous, and it's not even funny. Honestly, this makes me mad. Doubly mad because if I were to deregister by announcement, I'd have to wait around a full month before I could come back. So let's do it this way - it gets the point across and lets me skip the timer (at least as long as the current Registrar actually bothers to do their job and not flagrantly violate the rules for once) Are we clear? Actually, no we're not. In fact, it turns out that I was deregistered two weeks ago, but the Registrar hasn't published a report since then. It turns out the current Registrar is also shirking eir duty, as the report due in the previous week has not materialised. This (even more flagrant) rules violation created the confusion that led to this being necessary in the first place, and I am not instilled with hope for the future of the Registrar's office. You're all extra lucky I didn't throw in a couple of paragraphs from the Automatic Complaint Letter Generator, this situation feels so absurd that you all probably deserve it. >:(
Re: DIS: Cantus Cygneus
One of my favourite AWJ entries: > THE AGORAN WEEKLY JOURNAL > VOLUME 51, BACK ISSUE 3 > Sunday, December 31, 2006 > December 15: Goethe publishes a Cantus Cygneus. This triggers a > CFJ on whether e can be deregistered for it (the Writ of FAGE > procedure involves the no-longer-defined Registrar). CotC Murphy > ends up getting a win by paradox out of it: > > * CFJ assigned to Goethe > * Writ of FAGE procedure attempted > * CFJ allegedly assigned to Goethe > * Goethe judges FALSE, implying that e is not the judge > * Sherlock judges TRUE, implying that e is not the judge -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 3:03 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > On Wed, 2019-01-30 at 01:58 +1100, Telnaior wrote: > > > Honestly, this makes me mad. Doubly mad because if I were to deregister > > by announcement, I'd have to wait around a full month before I could > > come back. So let's do it this way - it gets the point across and lets > > me skip the timer (at least as long as the current Registrar actually > > bothers to do their job and not flagrantly violate the rules for once) > > Please nobody ever close this loophole. It only gets used once every > few years and the results always seem to be hilarious. > > -- > > ais523
Re: DIS: Cantus Cygneus
On Wed, 2019-01-30 at 01:58 +1100, Telnaior wrote: > Honestly, this makes me mad. Doubly mad because if I were to deregister > by announcement, I'd have to wait around a full month before I could > come back. So let's do it this way - it gets the point across and lets > me skip the timer (at least as long as the current Registrar actually > bothers to do their job and not flagrantly violate the rules for once) Please nobody ever close this loophole. It only gets used once every few years and the results always seem to be hilarious. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Cantus Cygneus
:( On 2019-01-30 02:00, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Actually, the Registrar did deregister you a couple of weeks ago. There just hasn't been a report since then. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 2:58 PM, Telnaior wrote: The following is my Cantus Cygneus, to be published by the Registrar in a timely fashion: Alright, so let's get one thing straight here. I haven't actually been playing this game in MONTHS. Yeah, sure, the whole zombie system has been keeping me alive for a little while, but did you notice my resale value is 0 now? I'm so dramatically rotted away that you can't even use me for anything! And despite that, I'm still on the Directory, registered as a player. Wait, what's that? The rules say the Registrar SHALL try to deregister me every month I haven't been active? Huh, can you believe that this hasn't been happening in direct violation of the rules, even when my resale was already 0? Can you believe the former Registrar outright resigned instead in order to shirk eir duty? Can you believe, even though literally ANYONE here could deregister me with mere notice at this point, no one actually has? Here I was hoping to come back with the obligatory "am I a player" CFJ, only to find out that I'm still a player! It's ridiculous, and it's not even funny. Honestly, this makes me mad. Doubly mad because if I were to deregister by announcement, I'd have to wait around a full month before I could come back. So let's do it this way - it gets the point across and lets me skip the timer (at least as long as the current Registrar actually bothers to do their job and not flagrantly violate the rules for once) Are we clear? Good. You're lucky I didn't throw in a couple of paragraphs from the Automatic Complaint Letter Generator, this situation feels so absurd that you all probably deserve it. >:(
Re: DIS: Cantus Cygneus
Actually, the Registrar did deregister you a couple of weeks ago. There just hasn't been a report since then. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 2:58 PM, Telnaior wrote: > The following is my Cantus Cygneus, to be published by the Registrar in > a timely fashion: > > Alright, so let's get one thing straight here. I haven't actually been > playing this game in MONTHS. Yeah, sure, the whole zombie system has > been keeping me alive for a little while, but did you notice my resale > value is 0 now? I'm so dramatically rotted away that you can't even use > me for anything! And despite that, I'm still on the Directory, > registered as a player. > > Wait, what's that? The rules say the Registrar SHALL try to deregister > me every month I haven't been active? Huh, can you believe that this > hasn't been happening in direct violation of the rules, even when my > resale was already 0? Can you believe the former Registrar outright > resigned instead in order to shirk eir duty? Can you believe, even > though literally ANYONE here could deregister me with mere notice at > this point, no one actually has? Here I was hoping to come back with the > obligatory "am I a player" CFJ, only to find out that I'm still a > player! It's ridiculous, and it's not even funny. > > Honestly, this makes me mad. Doubly mad because if I were to deregister > by announcement, I'd have to wait around a full month before I could > come back. So let's do it this way - it gets the point across and lets > me skip the timer (at least as long as the current Registrar actually > bothers to do their job and not flagrantly violate the rules for once) > > Are we clear? Good. You're lucky I didn't throw in a couple of > paragraphs from the Automatic Complaint Letter Generator, this situation > feels so absurd that you all probably deserve it. >:(
DIS: Cantus Cygneus
The following is my Cantus Cygneus, to be published by the Registrar in a timely fashion: Alright, so let's get one thing straight here. I haven't actually been playing this game in MONTHS. Yeah, sure, the whole zombie system has been keeping me alive for a little while, but did you notice my resale value is 0 now? I'm so dramatically rotted away that you can't even use me for anything! And despite that, I'm still on the Directory, registered as a player. Wait, what's that? The rules say the Registrar SHALL try to deregister me every month I haven't been active? Huh, can you believe that this hasn't been happening in direct violation of the rules, even when my resale was already 0? Can you believe the former Registrar outright resigned instead in order to shirk eir duty? Can you believe, even though literally ANYONE here could deregister me with mere notice at this point, no one actually has? Here I was hoping to come back with the obligatory "am I a player" CFJ, only to find out that I'm still a player! It's ridiculous, and it's not even funny. Honestly, this makes me mad. Doubly mad because if I were to deregister by announcement, I'd have to wait around a full month before I could come back. So let's do it this way - it gets the point across and lets me skip the timer (at least as long as the current Registrar actually bothers to do their job and not flagrantly violate the rules for once) Are we clear? Good. You're lucky I didn't throw in a couple of paragraphs from the Automatic Complaint Letter Generator, this situation feels so absurd that you all probably deserve it. >:(
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: yes
Ugh why am I still a player now I can't do the obligatory "am I a player or not" CFJ On 2019-01-30 01:32, Madeline wrote: I vote: yes On 2019-01-29 23:37, Cuddle Beam wrote: I create the following proposal: ---*--- Title: yes Content: yes ---*---
DIS: Re: BUS: yes
I vote: yes On 2019-01-29 23:37, Cuddle Beam wrote: I create the following proposal: ---*--- Title: yes Content: yes ---*---
