BlogNomic almost actually passed something like that once. We sent someone
over to caution them that such an unfortunate plan would result in an
Agoran invasion (okay, ais actually did it sua sponte, but my version
sounds better).
-Aris
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:56 PM Madeline wrote:
> Obviousl
Sounds cool but it’s not destructive enough. It should blow up ourselves
too and all avocados IRL.
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 23:52, Madeline wrote:
> "If this Rule's power exceeds 4.0, then all other rules notwithstanding,
> Agora is destroyed."
> (Would any other rule need to actually change for s
The person who will distribute the proposal has every intention of doing
so. Thank you for point it out though.
-Aris
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 5:10 PM James Cook wrote:
> > Co-authors: ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk, D. Margaux
>
> "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" refers to the same person as ais523. I
> su
Obviously, I'm just talking in hypotheticals.
On 2019-02-16 09:55, Aris Merchant wrote:
No one is doing anything that has any meaningful chance of destroying
Agora. If there’s a bug in your mechanism, the stakes go from it being
broken to the game dying permanently.
-Aris
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019
No one is doing anything that has any meaningful chance of destroying
Agora. If there’s a bug in your mechanism, the stakes go from it being
broken to the game dying permanently.
-Aris
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:52 PM Madeline wrote:
> "If this Rule's power exceeds 4.0, then all other rules notw
"If this Rule's power exceeds 4.0, then all other rules notwithstanding,
Agora is destroyed."
(Would any other rule need to actually change for such a clause to work
if an outside Power 3 rule is adjusting its power?)
On 2019-02-16 09:47, D. Margaux wrote:
Love it.
You could have a separate p
Love it.
You could have a separate power 3 rule that (1) changes the power of the Ritual
rule and (2) causes itself to be repealed when the Ritual rule is repealed.
And I’d love to see the power of the Ritual rule increase, too, if the Rule is
left unappeased... and maybe increase at a higher
Actually I've been pondering something even fancier, like every time
it's appeased it decreases in Power and the Power is linked to the
Consent required. Or something. (of course you can't increase power
in the same way).
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:08 PM D. Margaux wrote:
>
> Any chance we can h
Any chance we can have it repeal with Agoran Consent or something more than
notice? Or is that excessive? :-)
> On Feb 15, 2019, at 3:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Actually, one more time. Empty sacrifices are meaningless.
>
> I withdraw my proposal, The Ritual.
>
> I submit the following p
Are you arguing that "In order to appease this Rule, at least one player
MUST perform The Ritual in every Agoran week." is just a prerequisite
(like, "In order to get the cookies, you have to reach the shelf"?)? I
understand it as that the method of appeasement is via performing the
Ritual but that
PRAISE THE RITUAL
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 9:33 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> I hope the Ritual becomes an actual ritual, and is never repealed. It
> seems kind of awesome.
>
> > On Feb 15, 2019, at 3:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > I withdraw the proposal I recently submitted, quoted below.
> >
> >
I hope the Ritual becomes an actual ritual, and is never repealed. It seems
kind of awesome.
> On Feb 15, 2019, at 3:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I withdraw the proposal I recently submitted, quoted below.
>
> I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1:
> -
The collective violation is by design. I thought about going further
and using the passive voice ("The rules MUST be appeased weekly"). I
don't want to use "each player MUST" - I want the implied violation to
be firmly on all of us, not each of us separately.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 11:08 AM D.
I personally think it would be more fun if it had to be removed by proposal
lol. Or we give an award to whoever can remove it without a proposal and
lift the curse off Agora.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 8:07 PM D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 2019, at 2:02 PM, James Cook wrote:
> >
> > Is it c
> On Feb 15, 2019, at 2:02 PM, James Cook wrote:
>
> Is it clear that a player CAN appease the rule by performing The Ritual?
I agree that this is ambiguous. Also, I think it was unclear who has the
obligation to appease the Rule. Maybe it could say:
Any player CAN perform The Ritu
Is it clear that a player CAN appease the rule by performing The Ritual?
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 18:14, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> Lmao, I love it. It reminds me of “the button” of Lost.
>
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 16:46, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI
Lmao, I love it. It reminds me of “the button” of Lost.
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 16:46, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1:
>
>
> Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with th
On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 17:59 +, James Cook wrote:
> Thanks to the listed co-authors. (AIS523, I didn't see you in the
> directory; let me know if you're a player and I can polish your name
> in the co-author list).
I'm not currently a player, although I've been a player for fairly long
periods
Thanks to the listed co-authors. (AIS523, I didn't see you in the
directory; let me know if you're a player and I can polish your name
in the co-author list).
I edited several parts of the text to make in clear that any reference
to supporters or objectors is in terms of a particular intent. Note
> I also like this version.
>
> However, there's another problem: a dangling "it". (This is also in the
> present version of the rules, which I noticed during RTRW.) You should
> make it clear whether the objectors and supports are to the /intent/,
> or to the /action/. (Based on the way the other
> On Feb 15, 2019, at 10:04 AM, James Cook wrote:
>
> 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, there are
> at least N Objectors to that intent.
This needs an “and,” but otherwise looks good to me!
H. Arbitor D. Margaux: Third check on this missing CFJ?
On 2/13/2019 6:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
In terms of the common definition for "declare", it makes perfect sense.
In fact I called a CFJ on a similar issue (substituting "state" for
"declare") a couple weeks back, but I'm realizing it's
On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 03:02 -0500, D. Margaux wrote:
> > On Feb 14, 2019, at 11:14 PM, James Cook
> > wrote:
> >
> > Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
> > unless at least one of the following is true:
> >
> > 1. The action is to be performed Without N
> On Feb 14, 2019, at 11:14 PM, James Cook wrote:
>
> Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
> unless at least one of the following is true:
>
> 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has
> at least N objectors.
>
> 2
24 matches
Mail list logo
