DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 22:36 -0800, Aris Merchant wrote: > To be honest, I can’t think of a way to block an activation of The > Protocol after an intent has been announced. That said, the fact that > I can’t think of a way to do something doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Assuming that this is a depend

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

Would also add G as coauthor (thanks for help researching history of the rule) and use the proper handle for ais523 (will double-check with earlier email to make sure I have it right). On Mon., Feb. 18, 2019, 00:58 James Cook On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 05:08, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 2/17/2019 7:30

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 05:52, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Here are the others since then: > > > Amended(20) by R2430, 24 May 2017 > I don't know what this is - lots of rules have this comment but I can't find > the event. It's for cleaning rules. By design, I doubt the change could matter. E.g. thi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 05:08, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 2/17/2019 7:30 PM, James Cook wrote: > > I'm not familiar with the History of R2124. Do you know which proposal > > added #4, and whether there were any substantial changes to the rule > > after that? > > This was the change that added it: > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

Here are the others since then: > Amended(20) by R2430, 24 May 2017 I don't know what this is - lots of rules have this comment but I can't find the event. > Amended(21) by P8017 'RTRW Cleanups' (Alexis), 06 Mar 2018 Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by replacing "the Executor of the annou

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: This was the change that added it: Amended(19) by P7815 'Agencies' (Alexis, aranea), 28 Oct 2016 the clause that added it was straightforward: Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by adding: (4) if the action is to be performed With Notice or W

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

On 2/17/2019 7:30 PM, James Cook wrote: I'm not familiar with the History of R2124. Do you know which proposal added #4, and whether there were any substantial changes to the rule after that? This was the change that added it: > Amended(19) by P7815 'Agencies' (Alexis, aranea), 28 Oct 2016

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More Politicking

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 03:40, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 03:31 +, James Cook wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 00:31, D. Margaux > > wrote: > > > I submit and pend this proposal: > > > > What does "pend" mean? > > Agora often has a mechanism via which proposals mu

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More Politicking

On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 03:31 +, James Cook wrote: > On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 00:31, D. Margaux > wrote: > > I submit and pend this proposal: > > What does "pend" mean? Agora often has a mechanism via which proposals mustn't be distributed unless they're pending. Typically pending them, when a p

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More Politicking

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 00:31, D. Margaux wrote: > I submit and pend this proposal: What does "pend" mean?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 01:00, D Margaux wrote: > > On Feb 17, 2019, at 5:11 PM, James Cook wrote: > > Is it easy to make that a separate proposal from my amendment > > proposal? Or is that complicated to do? > > I think it would make the most sense to do it in one proposal if we could, > right?

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3712 judgement

> On Feb 17, 2019, at 9:00 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > And y'all wonder why I've been falling behind on cases. I was just being silly—I didn’t really plan to go forward with that motion :-)

Re: DIS: proto: communications redux

> Enact the following clause (possibly in R859, but there might be > a better place if we don't want to mess with R859): Did you mean 478? I don't see a rule 859. > Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing: >by stating how many assets e earns as a result of this action. > with: >by

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: Well, I'd like to make it clear that some scams might not be. For example, I'd love it if it said "Dictator scams" SHOULD only be used to earn this Relic, the scammers should expect every other profit from a dictator scam to be taken back. I like that, b

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: I think it's helpful to have such rules in the ruleset, because history has shown that when we've been missing them, players with less-than- dictatorship scams have caused widespread damage to unrelated parts of the gamestate trying to finagle

DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: 5. FORCE GAELAN AND ATMUNN TO SUPPORT GROUP-FILED RECONSIDERATION // only works if intents are not broken I intend with 2 support to move to reconsider the above-called CFJ. I cause ATMunn and Gaelan to support that intent. I move to reconsider that

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Read the Ruleset week - summary of entries

AFAICT it wasn't submitted during Read the Ruleset Week? On 2/17/2019 4:36 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Ooh, in that case can we count my assertion that Rule 2571 is guilty of violating Rule 105? :P I also kind of fe

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

> On Feb 17, 2019, at 5:11 PM, James Cook wrote: > > Is it easy to make that a separate proposal from my amendment > proposal? Or is that complicated to do? I think it would make the most sense to do it in one proposal if we could, right? I’m not sure what the right language would be. Mayb

DIS: Re: More Politicking

> On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:04 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > I pay 2 COS favours to gain 3 influence over Ronald Ray Gun. Oops; that was supposed to be 2:2, not 2:3... I think? Don’t know if that makes it INEFFECTIVE, or what. But wanted to point it out for H. Clork’s benefit.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

> On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:31 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > I'm not clear how your win attempt relies on it though. I understand that > you've arranged matters so that you only win* if intents are broken (because > otherwise the CFJ is eventually judged DISMISS), but not _why_ you've done >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Read the Ruleset week - summary of entries

Ooh, in that case can we count my assertion that Rule 2571 is guilty of violating Rule 105? :P I also kind of feel that scams that don't actually work (i.e. mine) should be disqualified by default. -twg ‐‐‐ Origin

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More Politicking

And given the Politics system was written by Alexis, I reckon it's almost certainly intentional, although I can't figure out how it was meant to give em an advantage. I suppose the Clork could use it to autocratically decide every election, but Alexis wasn't the Clork first time around. Hmm. -t

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

On Sunday, February 17, 2019 7:34 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > > On Feb 17, 2019, at 2:17 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > Yes you did: (1) the power to assign a judge to a CFJ in the same message > > it's initiated; and (2) the power to personally select who judges a CFJ. > > Nope

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

=== = = OFFICIAL IMPERIAL STATEMENT = = === I will not perform any actions that would unfairly benefit BlogNomic players coming from an Agoran invasion. However, if it is decided that one of us should take over BlogNomic and decl

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More Politicking

> On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:15 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Forgive me, but I can't seem to find the rule(s) where the action of "causing > to vote for for " (presumably == "setting > 's Vote for switch to ") is defined or > regulated. Lol bugged

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

On 2/17/2019 4:05 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:> I have no objection to ratifying the fact "player A judged CFJ B with> the result C", given that that fact has, in general, very little impact> on the gamestate. I also just realized that, given that Moots are Decisions, a resolution mess

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

What about making a safety clause that the caller of a CFJ cannot judge it (all else notwithstanding)? On 2019-02-18 06:17, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: On Sunday, February 17, 2019 2:28 PM, D. Margaux wrote: I purposefully didn’t use any of the powers of the Arbitor for this scam. Yes you did:

DIS: Re: BUS: More Politicking

On Monday, February 18, 2019 12:04 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > I cause each of Ronald Ray-Gun, Politician McPoliticianface, Benjamin > Surreali, Lex Luthor, Loseston Churchvalley, Genghis Khaan, Hillary > Rodham Clinton, Zeno of Citium, Eric, and Xi Kingpin to vote for Ronald > Ray-Gun for Host

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 15:56 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Ok, are we talking about self-ratifying the fact that a certain Judge > delivered a judgement of FALSE, or self-ratifying a document that > states that the CFJ statement was, in fact, FALSE going forward? (it > sounds like the above discussio

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

On 2/17/2019 3:49 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 15:43 -0800, Aris Merchant wrote: CFJ findings probably should self-ratify, although they doesn’t really do anything. Ruleset self-ratifications are incredibly dangerous (think of all the scares people would try) so we

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

This and talking about BN on that other thread has reminded me that BN has recently banned all non-Dynastic Rule scams (no Core Rule scams, etc) and it makes me really sad lol. On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 00:26, Gaelan Steele wrote: > I’m not convinced that every conceivable scam needs an outlet—gai

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 3:49 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 15:43 -0800, Aris Merchant wrote: > > CFJ findings probably should self-ratify, although they doesn’t really do > > anything. Ruleset self-ratifications are incredibly dangerous (thi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

I'm against ratifying the Patent Titles automatically. It's our historical record and there's no harm in fixing using historical records when needed, and patent titles don't have follow-on effects. That said, it's been ratified about - I dunno - every other year manually. I think Aris's draft

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 15:43 -0800, Aris Merchant wrote: > CFJ findings probably should self-ratify, although they doesn’t really do > anything. Ruleset self-ratifications are incredibly dangerous (think of all > the scares people would try) so we only do them occasionally. We’re about > due for one

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 10:38 +1100, Madeline wrote: > What if we set up these things to self-ratify after, say, a quarter? > That way we know we don't have to dig up years of history if > something does go wrong, but we don't run the risk of getting into > trouble with something important that just

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

CFJ findings probably should self-ratify, although they doesn’t really do anything. Ruleset self-ratifications are incredibly dangerous (think of all the scares people would try) so we only do them occasionally. We’re about due for one now, as it happens. Patent titles are long term state that we t

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

What if we set up these things to self-ratify after, say, a quarter? That way we know we don't have to dig up years of history if something does go wrong, but we don't run the risk of getting into trouble with something important that just gets missed for a couple of weeks? On 2019-02-18 10:28

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

Well, I'd like to make it clear that some scams might not be. For example, I'd love it if it said "Dictator scams" SHOULD only be used to earn this Relic, the scammers should expect every other profit from a dictator scam to be taken back. I like that, because in particular if a Dictator uses

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

Oh! How could I forget in the current scam - whether Moots or Motions for CFJs worked, which might mean original judgements were still in place. On 2/17/2019 3:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 2/17/2019 2:11 PM, James Cook wrote: Also, isn't most of the game state periodically ratified by offic

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

On 2/17/2019 2:11 PM, James Cook wrote: Also, isn't most of the game state periodically ratified by official reports? I don't have a firm grasp of what exactly this messes up, and I haven't looked at the public messages much further back than than the date I registered*. The ruleset doesn't s

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

I’m not convinced that every conceivable scam needs an outlet—gaining an unfair advantage in the game by an abuse of the rules is part of what Nomic is about IMO. While scam outlets are a good tool when necessary, I believe that something like this would create a perception that any non-outlet s

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

Greed relic— taking all of the coins of an active player against eir will (e.g. through a contract scam) > On Feb 17, 2019, at 6:02 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > The same applies to Ribbons. Raising a Banner (which just gives you a win) > is harder than just winning (because it has as a prerequisi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 00:02 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote: > - Wrath Relic: When a person has an action cancelled via Rule 1698, > that person earns a Wrath Relic. > > Rule 1698 is the anti-ossification rule by the way. I wouldn't recommend this. Encouraging players to attempt to ossify Agora seems li

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

The same applies to Ribbons. Raising a Banner (which just gives you a win) is harder than just winning (because it has as a prerequisite to win in the first place lol, to get the win-dependent ribbons). Relics would be in the same spirit as Ribbons. Anyways, proto: [Ribbon-like function stuff he

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 14:12 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote: > What if both nomics passed (matching) minigames themed around “combat > with the other nomic”? We could write in rules to give the winning > nomic dictatorship over the losing one, or just do it for bragging > rights. Both BlogNomic and Ago

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

What if both nomics passed (matching) minigames themed around “combat with the other nomic”? We could write in rules to give the winning nomic dictatorship over the losing one, or just do it for bragging rights. Whatever the theme, I am very much in favor of inter-nomic interaction. Gaelan > O

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 14:08, D. Margaux wrote: > Also... if intents are truly broken, that could lead to a lot of havoc in the > gamestate. It would be potentially impossible to sort out. > > Maybe the fix legislation could say something like, “upon enactment of this > proposal, the gamestate i

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

Dependent actions are critical enough that introducing a dependency on currency seems like a bad idea—if anything, I would want this to be a CAN but SHALL NOT sort of thing. Gaelan > On Feb 17, 2019, at 12:55 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > > On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 12:37 -0800, Kerim Aydi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

Seems a little too difficult for me. Right now, generally the going rate is “1 scam = 1 win”—asking that someone finds multiple scams, all of which are fairly rare, just to get one win seems like it’s asking quite a lot. Gaelan > On Feb 17, 2019, at 1:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I hearti

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

On 2019-02-18 09:00, D. Margaux wrote: On Feb 17, 2019, at 4:54 PM, Madeline wrote: Yo, this doesn't get you a win regardless of what follows because the Win by Paradox rule only works for "a CFJ about the legality or possibility of a game action", which this is not. Arg. Well played, Ru

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

> On Feb 17, 2019, at 4:54 PM, Madeline wrote: > > Yo, this doesn't get you a win regardless of what follows because the Win by > Paradox rule only works for "a CFJ about the legality or possibility of a > game action", which this is not. Arg. Well played, Ruleset, well played.

DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

Yo, this doesn't get you a win regardless of what follows because the Win by Paradox rule only works for "a CFJ about the legality or possibility of a game action", which this is not. On 2019-02-18 00:08, D. Margaux wrote: Intents may be completely broken, and if they are, then that will elimi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

I heartily endorse this expansion. It could soak up some other common types of scams (e.g. one for a "scam of power 3" provides an outlet for escalation scams). On 2/17/2019 1:10 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 22:05 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote: Probably we could have

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 22:05 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Probably we could have something like this: > > "Relics are a Fixed Asset, limited to Persons, tracked by the Tailor. Once > a player has a Relic of all kinds, they can destroy all of their Relics and > declare victory. The following are the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

Probably we could have something like this: "Relics are a Fixed Asset, limited to Persons, tracked by the Tailor. Once a player has a Relic of all kinds, they can destroy all of their Relics and declare victory. The following are the kinds of Relics: - Apathy Relic: yadda yadda apathy mechanic her

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

I guess changing my boilerplate to "I intend to declare victory for myself" is a good approach, too. On 2/17/2019 12:52 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: I understand your concerns fellow players but I believe that a good sensible solution would be to something like something something text here. Anyways

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

We survived for a long time without that. But if you really want it, please take it out of the wins at this point. How about a new Patent Title ("A player CAN award emself the Patent Title Sneaky without objection.") It should also be for a person only - it's too damn cheap if you can basicall

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 12:37 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 2/17/2019 12:29 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > > On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 11:52 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I think this one's been driven into the ground as hard as it possibly > > > can be. Time for Agora move on. > > > > Win by

Re: DIS: Call for Judges

You can put me on the day court for all cases through Friday. I’m relatively free this week (vacation, although I do have other things to do as well). -Aris On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 12:40 PM D. Margaux wrote: > To the People of Agora: > > Your humble Arbitor beseeches you to consider signing up

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

> On Feb 17, 2019, at 3:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Gaelan had to specifically ask me to remove my > standard intent boilerplate, otherwise eir scam would have been trivially > stopped But Gaelan’s scam did identify a dangerous flaw in the intent rules. Would you have noticed it and object

DIS: Call for Judges

To the People of Agora: Your humble Arbitor beseeches you to consider signing up as a Day or Weekend judge. We’ve had a glut of CFJs recently, and I think it may be worthwhile to spread the caseload out more in hopes of getting more diversity in judicial opinions and alleviating a little bit th

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

On 2/17/2019 12:29 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 11:52 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: I think this one's been driven into the ground as hard as it possibly can be. Time for Agora move on. Win by Apathy, in addition to being something you can aim for (which I agree has

DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 11:52 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I think this one's been driven into the ground as hard as it possibly > can be. Time for Agora move on. Win by Apathy, in addition to being something you can aim for (which I agree has been run into the ground), is also there to give depende

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 11:27 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > So we did this before. I think ais523 led it, but several of us registered > and tried to drive a win, with the intent that the next dynasty be an Agoran > one. (nothing more invasive, but we called it an invasion for fun). Assuming this wa

Re: DIS: no penalty for inappropriate judgments?

No worries - if it's missing it just points to another little gap to fill. On 2/17/2019 12:12 PM, D. Margaux wrote:>> On Feb 17, 2019, at 3:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: We used to have a "the judge SHALL NOT knowingly assign an inappropriate>> judgement" (which is one reason "appropriate"

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

Ah - gotcha. That makes sense. I don't begrudge the win, but you're right, retroactive is pretty much needed here to prevent massive breakages if the whole intent thing has been broken for a while. Retroactive fixes have been used many times when things have turned out to be broken, not just

Re: DIS: no penalty for inappropriate judgments?

> On Feb 17, 2019, at 3:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > We used to have a "the judge SHALL NOT knowingly assign an inappropriate > judgement" (which is one reason "appropriate" is in all the judgement > choices). Looks like we lost that somewhere along the line? Or am I missing > it. I didn’

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

> On Feb 17, 2019, at 2:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > >> On 2/17/2019 11:48 AM, D. Margaux wrote: >> Anyhow, I don’t really expect this PARADOXICAL win (if it becomes a win) to >> be permanent. > > Why wouldn't it be permanent? Nothing takes away the win once the judgement > has been i

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette (v1)

I'm sorry, but this week has been the busiest and most tiring I've had in quite a while. I will deliver judgements for all the cases I'm currently assigned to in a few hours. On Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 12:48 Kerim Aydin > Trigon, > > Are you actually judging stuff? I know you stepped away from a coup

DIS: no penalty for inappropriate judgments?

We used to have a "the judge SHALL NOT knowingly assign an inappropriate judgement" (which is one reason "appropriate" is in all the judgement choices). Looks like we lost that somewhere along the line? Or am I missing it. It also used to say specifically that motions and moots were to over

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

On 2/17/2019 11:48 AM, D. Margaux wrote: Anyhow, I don’t really expect this PARADOXICAL win (if it becomes a win) to be permanent. Why wouldn't it be permanent? Nothing takes away the win once the judgement has been in place for 7 days, even if the judgement is overturned or overruled later

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

I think maybe there is some confusion about how this scheme is meant to operate. Hopefully this clarifies it: The idea here isn’t to abuse the Arbitor’s power to call or assess votes in moots. The idea is to take advantage of the fact that intents might be broken, so it might be _impossible_ to

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette (v1)

Trigon, Are you actually judging stuff? I know you stepped away from a couple cases and timed-out on others, and a couple of these still on your docket are looking time-sensitive... -G. On 2/17/2019 8:24 AM, D. Margaux wrote: Work and life have both been busy this week, and I unfortunately

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

> On Feb 17, 2019, at 2:17 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Yes you did: (1) the power to assign a judge to a CFJ in the same message > it's initiated; and (2) the power to personally select who judges a CFJ. Nope. I didn’t use any Arbitor power. I used the Prime Minister’s cabinet order of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

So we did this before. I think ais523 led it, but several of us registered and tried to drive a win, with the intent that the next dynasty be an Agoran one. (nothing more invasive, but we called it an invasion for fun). It really pissed everyone off over there. They united against us and we

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

On Sunday, February 17, 2019 2:28 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > I purposefully didn’t use any of the powers of the Arbitor for this scam. Yes you did: (1) the power to assign a judge to a CFJ in the same message it's initiated; and (2) the power to personally select who judges a CFJ. Both of these se

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

OK I overlooked the “more seriously (...)” lmao. Sorry for getting so heated up. Yeah, having Ambassadors again would be cool. Aside from BN there are two active Discord nomics right now, Infinite Nomic (on the which I made a win happen after months of play on the same day I joined, I’m pretty pro

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

Trigon might want to but any late thematic changes now to their dynasty would heavily rely on the current players to pass, and I suspect that a sudden Agora takeover would be met with more snickering than we can deal with and would fail. There’s a lot more social power and percieved legitimacy in

DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

On Sunday, February 17, 2019 1:08 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > I call the following CFJ: "This CFJ is FALSE." I intend, with 2 support, to enter the judgement of this CFJ into Moot. I intend to deputise for the Arbitor to initiate the Agoran decision to determine public confidence in the judgement o

DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

Also... if intents are truly broken, that could lead to a lot of havoc in the gamestate. It would be potentially impossible to sort out. Maybe the fix legislation could say something like, “upon enactment of this proposal, the gamestate is changed to be what it would have been if the list had

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

Trigon is the current Emperor of BlogNomic, so depending on how corruptible e is we may have an in... More seriously, the office of "Ambassador" (to other nomics) that apparently used to be a thing is mildly interesting: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg06285.html

DIS: Re: BUS: last in a series (I hope!)

Just a side comment but I find it fascinating how the rules governing the rules is a tautology lol. Although I guess it’s the same as: “And the stuff this contract is governed by (the rules) is the stuff this contract ia governed by (the rules)” I dunno. It’s amusing in a way lol. On Thu, 14 Feb