Here's my weekly draft. D Margaux, you can stop worrying about
deputizing for me now...
-Aris
---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quo
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 2:58 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 2:28 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > > When a Victory Announcement ratifies, or a judgement confirming
> > > > the veracity of a victory announcement has been in effect and
> > > > unappealed for one week the person(
This is incorrectly punctuated (see the large hole in the middle?) and
doesn't mention a specific rule.
The Promotor
On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 12:38 AM Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> Closing up a loophole for winning a bajillion times via Space Battles,
> because once you win via Fame, your Fame isn't rese
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, Reuben Staley wrote:
Title: Extend "amend"
Amend Rule 105 (Power=3) 'Rule Changes' by removing items 3-6 in the
ordered list and then adding to that list:
3. reenact a rule. A repealed rule not in the ruleset identified
by its most recent rule number MUST be sp
The mistake of conflating retitlings and amendments has been made many
times recently, the most recent being by an experienced player, and one
of the earlier ones breaking a minigame completely. Also, adding
different property changes as separate rule changes is more
time-consuming for your Rul
On 2/8/19 6:56 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
On Feb 8, 2019, at 8:53 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Unfortunately, Markdown is rather limited in the types of lists it implements.
It can do 1., 2., 3., but unless you have an extended markdown, it does not
recognise parenthesized numbers or any kind of lette
> On Feb 8, 2019, at 8:47 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> Actually, the markdown-compliance has been broken for a while, for example by
> Rule 2531 as of revision 3.
Ha! That was my fault too. I introduced those formatting issues.
> On Feb 8, 2019, at 8:53 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> Unfor
Unfortunately, Markdown is rather limited in the types of lists it
implements. It can do 1., 2., 3., but unless you have an extended
markdown, it does not recognise parenthesized numbers or any kind of
letters. It does support *, -, and + for unordered lists.
We can either have different lists
Actually, the markdown-compliance has been broken for a while, for
example by Rule 2531 as of revision 3.
On 2/8/19 6:19 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Yep, that would be me. And that is still nice (agora-ruleset.gaelan.me uses
it), so I’d prefer that we keep that up. But if others think it’s fine,
I think it’s confusing also because there is a second level list that uses the
same numbering as the two top-level lists. Is that not possible to change?
Maybe we could split the rule into two rules, which would fix the issue of
having two top level lists with the same numbering system. But that
Yep, that would be me. And that is still nice (agora-ruleset.gaelan.me uses
it), so I’d prefer that we keep that up. But if others think it’s fine, it’s
not a dealbreaker for me.
Gaelan
> On Feb 8, 2019, at 4:11 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>
> I am reminded that a previous Rulekeepor (Gaelan p
I am reminded that a previous Rulekeepor (Gaelan perhaps?) made a number
of formatting changes in order to make the Ruleset valid markdown, and I
don't quite remember for sure, but that may be how this rule ended up with
the confusion of two top-level lists with the same numbering scheme. I
su
Ooh, I wonder if it would be useful to have a “referendum” mechanism for
non-binding* decisions. Maybe it’s overkill.
Gaelan
* Theresa Cannot’s opinion nonwithstanding
> On Feb 8, 2019, at 11:19 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 10:30 AM Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> Inline comment
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 10:30 AM Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Inline comments. Also, G, this is a little problematic for the contest—I’m
> required to propose a patch, but someone beat me to it.
No worries from me! I think participation in someone else's fix
proposal counts.
I'm thinking the best way
On Feb 8, 2019, at 1:38 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>>> 1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent to
>>> perform the action within the 14 days preceding the action;
>>
>> Since 2 says 4-14, we could make this apply only to support and such.
>
> That would definitely wor
> On Feb 8, 2019, at 1:29 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> Also, G, this is a little problematic for the contest—I’m required to
> propose a patch, but someone beat me to it.
>
>
Sorry! This wasn’t meant to interfere with that. I’ve been annoyed by the
formatting of this rule for a while, a
Inline comments. Also, G, this is a little problematic for the contest—I’m
required to propose a patch, but someone beat me to it.
Gaelan
> On Feb 8, 2019, at 9:45 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> Below is a protoproposal that is meant to address the bug that Gaelan
> identified. I also noticed wha
Below is a protoproposal that is meant to address the bug that Gaelan
identified. I also noticed what might be another bug--I believe,
under the current first paragraph (1), an intent might fail if the
player ever announced that same intent more than 15 days prior. So,
arguably, if Gaelan ever an
On 2/8/2019 5:11 AM, D. Margaux wrote:>> On Feb 8, 2019, at 4:52 AM, Cuddle
Beam wrote:
I agree with G. IMO it’s not a bug at all - it’s how the mechanic was
supposed to work and understandable via plain reading.
Yeah, this mechanism does make sense. Maybe there could be a reset, though,
Oh, that’s actually a very dapper idea. I like it.
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 14:11, D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 2019, at 4:52 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >
> > I agree with G. IMO it’s not a bug at all - it’s how the mechanic was
> > supposed to work and understandable via plain reading.
>
> Y
> On Feb 8, 2019, at 4:52 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> I agree with G. IMO it’s not a bug at all - it’s how the mechanic was
> supposed to work and understandable via plain reading.
Yeah, this mechanism does make sense. Maybe there could be a reset, though,
when someone wins by space.
I agree with G. IMO it’s not a bug at all - it’s how the mechanic was
supposed to work and understandable via plain reading.
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 00:21, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> When my spaceship was destroyed, I purposely avoided repairing it
> because I knew it would fail (I thought that was k
22 matches
Mail list logo
